Georgakopoulos 2012 'Minoan-Anatolian relations and the Ahhiyawa Question: a re-assessment of the evidence.' In: Talanta XLIV. Recent Research and Perspectives on the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean (Special Research Issue), edited by A. Papadopoulos, 137-156. (original) (raw)
Related papers
Neglected or Negligible? Dealing with the Minoan and Mycenaean Presence in the Northeast Aegean
A Mycenaean presence in the Northeast (NE)Aegean, especially at Troy, has been the topic of a number of scholarlypapers for many years. A Minoan presence, in contrast,especially on the littoral islands, has been acknowledged only recently and sheds new light on the whole region. Whereas even a permanent physical presence of Mycenaeans istaken almost for granted, the emerging picture of the degree and nature of Minoan involvement in the NE Aegean, as well as recent developments in the field of post-colonial studies, urges us to take a fresh look not only at how we deal with “Minoans” abroad, but also with “Mycenaeans” abroad, especially in consideration of the differing core-regions from which these groups began.Thispaper considers the interaction of the NE Aegean with Crete and the Greek Mainland as a process comprising several stages that reflect different degrees of involvement in Aegean networks. By commenting on the composite material culture assemblages, we approach the question of cultural dynamics fromseveral perspectives: from the consideration ofdirect interaction bya given community to a central-core area of the Aegean (and the consequent adoption and limitation of certain aspects of the foreign material culture), to the exploration of active selection, adoption, and adaptation of innovations. The incorporation of such innovations into the local landscape is evaluated along two lines: 1) to what extent thisis a “simple” adoption (emulation), and 2) to what extent it generates new (hybrid) material and social constructs with its own coherence (transculturation).
marru 16, 2023
The uploaded file is an excerpt from my book with the introductory and concluding chapters. Western Anatolia and the islands of the north-east Aegean were the meeting point of different civilizations and peoples during the LBA. The Hittite sources inform us on the historical and political developments in the region, which, as they report, was subjugated to them. On the coastal sites of the region, we find the material remains of another LBA civilization, the Mycenaeans (Aḫḫiyawa), who according to the Hittites, challenged their western Anatolia control not only by cooperating with the local kingdoms but also by attacking them. This LBA picture led the academic world to treat western Anatolia and the islands of the north-east Aegean as a region in-between, a peripheral cultural and political world to the Hittites and the Mycenaeans. The academic focus on the ‘old foes’, however, follows to a large degree the nationalistic discourses of the early 20th century and at the same time does not sufficiently acknowledge the capability of the local kingdoms and their inhabitants to actively participate in the cultural interplay of the LBA eastern Mediterranean. This study demonstrates that, rather than passive receivers of foreign materials and customs, the peoples of western Anatolia can better be understood as actors in their own right; with their own particular material cultures, socio-political structures and identity. Rather than merely being the subject of ‘foreign’ influence, the people of western Anatolia largely plotted their own course through history, building their own societies and states -some of which, as evidenced by contemporary texts (supported by archaeological data) were not only influenced by, but instead had a profound impact on other, better known (great) states, such as the kingdom of the Hittites. The region’s identity (and the shaping thereof), in short, is far more complex than previously thought, shaped by autochthonous developments as much as mobility among the eastern Aegean/western Anatolian communities (micro-regional mobility) and by contacts with more distant regions (macro-regional). The intense and diverse mobility rates of this era contributed to a fluid and everchanging sense of identity in eastern Aegean/western Anatolia during the LBA. In this framework, the locals actively chose which objects and identities to adopt, adjust, portray and reject. The presence and the activity of these mobility networks, however, should not be perceived as constant, monolithic and unaltered. On the contrary, this study argues that, on many occasions, On the contrary, this study argues that, on many occasions, mobile networks followed the historical regional developments, described by the Hittite sources, which meant that some of them seized or paused their activities, some of them adjusted to the new historical reality and some of them continued unaffected. These complex processes can only be traced if the local material and peoples are brought to the foreground. By adopting a holistic archaeological and textual approach this study highlights not only that the complex cultural mosaic of western Anatolia was subject to local choices, but also that the two most prominent western Anatolian kingdoms, Seha River Land and Arzawa/Mira, had a significant role in the cultural and political interplay of the entire region. Rather than an ‘interface’ between other, supposedly ‘greater’, cultural zones, this study proposes to study western Anatolia in its own right – as a region with remarkably vibrant cultures, some of which have largely (though unfairly) been forgotten but during the LBA were home to a number of formidable states that had a profound influence on the history of the eastern Mediterranean.