Where did the Mycenaeans come from?

The Mycenaeans first came to be known to the modern day world through Heinrich Schliemann, who had excavated the site of Troy at Hissarlik in Anatolia and Mycenae, where he found large amounts of gold. By proving the existence of Troy and so the existence of Homer’s Greeks, Schliemann was able to bring the world’s attention to the civilisation of Mycenae. This new find inspired people such as Sir Arthur Evans and Carl Blegen to search for more evidence for both proving the existence and the might of these people, as well as providing strong evidence to that of the legitimacy of Homer’s Iliad. The crucial and most important evidence that Schliemann needed, was that of proving that these Mycenaeans were in fact Greek, and so proving that they were the legendary Achaeans about which Homer had written. With the decline of the Minoans after the eruption of Thera which seemingly destroyed much of the Minoan civilisation, to such an extent that the Mycenaeans were able to conquer the previously Minoan strong hold of Greece. The eruption of Thera is often attributed to causing the destruction of Atlantis and thus a mythological people, who then disappeared from the known world. These Atlanteans are often described or portrayed as masters of shipping.  As a result their exploits have been written down and recorded by writers such as Plato, who compared them to Gods due to their significant technological advances in comparison to the other civilisations which dominated the ancient world. This race however was destroyed by the eruption of Thera, and so they ceased to be the dominant civilisation in the ancient world. The result of this cataclysmic eruption, meant that we know see the rise of the Mycenaeans as a formidable force to be reckoned with in the ancient world. By 1600 BC when the Mycenaeans had risen in status to become the most powerful of ancient civilisations, they did so among many of the great empires of the ancient world. To the south were the Egyptians, who had already dominated much of the ancient world up to this point to the east were the Hittites who had carved an impressive empire out of much of Asia.

Mycenae or Mykainos in Greek is situated on the Peloponnese, a peninsular which is situated east of modern day Athens. Mycenae is located in the north-east of the peninsular not far from the Argive plain. The situation of the city is on a valley floor surrounded by hills, which provide an excellent form of natural defence for the city. The soil is relatively fertile in comparison to that of the rest of Greece, which is often unfertile, and so it is hard to grow important and staple crops for eating.

Nothing about the particular area in which Mycenae is located, gives the Mycenaeans any particular advantage over neighbouring tribes and other civilisations. Despite this, the Mycenaeans often have filled their graves with spectacular goods, as well as seemingly having the security to build impressive structures such as the beehive tomb (Tholos) of Atreus and Clytaemnestra. As a result, we have to study many different characteristics of the people, these different characteristics and mannerisms help us to locate the origin of these people.

The main arguments for the origins of the Mycenaeans can be split up into two separate categories. There are those who argue that the Mycenaeans, did not originate from anywhere but where in fact just Neolithic inhabitants who wandered around Greece, but then decided to settle down in Greece so that they could build settlements and live peaceful lives. The other argument is that they came from the east, as part of a tide of people who had been removed due to a natural disaster from their original homeland. Both these arguments have significant pros and cons which suggest that although there is no possible distinct answer, however my aim is to prove that there is actually a possible answer which clearly defines where the Mycenaeans did come from. The evidence for all the arguments comes from pottery, writing and buildings, as well as other artefacts which have been left behind by the Mycenaeans.

The Mycenaean period, can be divided into three separate periods, they can be spereated by specific periods of buildings, as well as a significant change in the strata of the surrounding area.

 The early period dates from the most significant event which heralds the arrival of the Mycenaeans, as a settled people, it dates from around 2000 BC to 1600 BC. The next period is often referred to as the palatial period, which dates from 1600 BC to 1200 BC, at this stage the major palaces of the Mycenaeans began to be built, up until their later destruction in 1200 BC. The final period lasts from 1200 BC to 1100 BC, after the invasion of the sea peoples, and the destruction of the palaces, some groups of people still lived together, but these people began to dissipate and the dark age of Greece began to occur. The period, which we must focus on is that of the early Mycenaeans, as this is the period, which holds the answers to the questions that are being asked, such as where did the Mycenaeans come from, and why did they settle in Greece?

As previously mentioned, there are two main arguments which suggest that either the Mycenaeans were Neolithic inhabitants or travelling migrants who have been disturbed by a natural disaster or something of similar proportions which had caused these people to flee from their homeland. In answering this question, one must consider the different characteristics of the Mycenaeans, in relation to these different theories. These different characteristics, their warrior like behaviour, the role of women in society, the use of buildings, as well as questions their foreign contacts. All this  amongst other important parts of what will help to determine who the Mycenaeans were and where they came from.

Some archaeologists[1] argue that the Mycenaeans were indeed Homer’s Greeks, and were in fact Neolithic settlers who had already been ‘living in Greece. This view however was not shared by everyone, as many believed that the coming of the Greeks occurred with the arrival of the Dorians much later on in 600 BC. The evidence which was needed by archaeologists, such as Schliemann, was that the Mycenaeans spoke the Greek language, or at least a form of Greek. This was proven later by Michael Ventris and the translation of the Linear B tablets.

The translation of Linear B was an important breakthrough for archaeologists, as it enabled them to understand more of the civilisation about which many had dedicated their lives to studying. At Knossos, while Sir Arthur Evans was excavating, he came across baked clay tablets which had inscriptions on them. These were called the Linear A tablets, yet when they were studied closely, a difference was noted between some tablets, with two separate differences between them. As a result, the second type of tablets was called Linear B. As no tablets had yet been found on the Greek mainland, they were attributed to the Minoans, who, as is discussed later on were not Greek, but were in fact Phoenician. Carl Blegen a prominent American archaeologist, however, on his first day excavating at Pylos, discovered many more of these partially baked tablets with the same inscriptions on them as the second set of tablets found at Knossos, the Linear B tablets. For many years, these tablets remained a mystery, until Michael Ventris along with John Chadwick published a paper which suggested that in fact this Linear B was a form of early Greek. Ventris was able to establish that the Linear B writing, and so the Mycenaeans were Greek, by the provision of tablet P641, which was being studied at the time by Carl Blegen. In a letter to Ventris and Chadwick, Blegen wrote, that when using Ventris’ system which suggested that the Mycenaeans used Greek when writing down their transcripts. This however had not been proven, until this letter which Blegen sent to Ventris, “Enclosed for your information is a copy of P641, which you may find interesting. It evidently deals with pots, some on three legs, and others without handles. The first word using your system seems to be ‘ti-ri-po-de’ and it occurs twice as ‘ti-ri-po’ (singular?). The four-handled pot is preceded by ‘qe-to-ro-we’, the three-handled by’ti-ri-o-we’ or ‘ti-ri-jo-we’, the handless pot by ‘a-no-we’. All this seems too good to be true. Is coincidence excluded?”  This letter, suggests that although there was no evidence yet of the Linear B tablets being Greek, the theory which had been suggested by Ventris, does have some validity. The theory which was presented, suggested that the Mycenaeans spoke Greek. This theory was achieved, by using a form of cryptology and cypher breaking. This was achieved, due to risks taken by Ventris, on items such as the tripods, due to the pictogram, once this was done the same could be done with other objects such as animals and people, as well as armour. By doing this, Ventris was able to provide a clearer picture of what each of the tablets meant, thus suggesting that the tablets were written in a form of Greek. As time went by, Ventris published more and more evidence which sufficiently proved that the Mycenaeans did in fact speak or at least write in Greek. This discovery was a gold mine for many, as it proved that the Mycenaeans were possibly the first Greeks, unlike the Dorians, to whom the ‘coming of the Greeks’ is often attributed due to the large amount of evidence given by historians such as by Strabo. This however does not prove that the Mycenaeans were Neolithic inhabitants, but it does prove that they were what we would call now Greek. The interesting evidence which suggests that the Mycenaeans were in fact Neolithic inhabitants is the closeness of Linear A to the Linear B script. The Minoans, to whom the Linear A script is attributed, were inhabitants of Crete, up until 1600BC when they were invaded by the Mycenaeans. It is possible therefore that both these civilisations must have come into contact with each other. This has been proven through (the find of) graves with weapons burial similar to those found on the mainland.

A theory can therefore be developed from this statement, as it can be argued that the Mycenaeans may have previously been part of the Minoans, but had split off due to differing beliefs or an argument between the ruling classes. This would help to explain a myriad of problems, such as how the Mycenaeans learned to sail, as well as having the fore knowledge of other civilisations with whom they could trade and fight. This can be linked in with a theory which argues that the Minoans are in fact Phoenician’s who had been driven from their homeland which was close to both Egypt and Anatolia, thus giving the Mycenaeans, the fore knowledge of the existence of other civilisations. In support of this theory, are bits   of circumstantial evidence from shipwrecks such as the Kas shipwreck and the Gelidonya shipwreck? Although these ships have not been proven to have belonged to the Mycenaeans, the artefacts which have been found on them are very similar to those which may have been found on mainland Greece, in the same time period of the Mycenaeans. This has lead archaeologists to believe that the Mycenaeans had the ability to sail. It however does not answer the question over how they managed to learn to sail. Therefore this theory would explain and answer this question, as well as providing to an extent the basis and therefore the truth over many of the Greek myths. It is well known, and also well documented that the Phoenicians were excellent navigators of the sea, which allowed them to successfully build a large trading empire, as well as  to an extent afford them the protection, due to the assets they held for other empires, by the largest civilisations at the time, namely the Hittites and the Egyptians. Around 2000 BC, there is a layer of destruction which has been found in these Phoenician ports. This correlated with the fact that the Minoans suddenly appeared on the scene, suggests that these peoples may actually have been one and the same. This would therefore definitely explain the lack of Minoan fortifications on Crete, as they would have had a sufficiently strong navy to repel any attempted invasions. Therefore if one was to agree with the suggestion that the Mycenaeans, were in actual fact a splinter group of Minoans, who had had a disagreement  of some kind with the other Minoans and thus had left, then this would sufficiently explain how the Mycenaeans were able to sail, due to the fact that the Minoans most probably had the best navy in the ancient world at that time.

The other part of this argument, which suggests that the Mycenaeans were Neolithic inhabitants, is the fact that they chose to settle in Greece in the first place. As has been previously mentioned, Greece is not a particularly fertile land. Especially if you want to grow loimportant food crops such as wheat and other cereal crops, which would have formed a vital part of the staple diet of a Mycenaean. This suggests that it would take much skill and patience, as well as a thorough understanding of the land, which could only be achieved if these people already had lived off a same sort of land, or this land itself. Therefore, when charred grain and other charred foodstuffs were found at Assiros, this raised several questions which needed answering, such as how, as Greece is such an unfertile country, did the Mycenaeans grow their staple crops? Assiros was excavated by the Wardles, and at the excavation site, they found the remains of several large python jars, which would have held grain, this was proven by the charred grain which was found in the excavation. This lead the team of archaeologists to believe that what they were excavating was a store house which may have been part of a palace system, much like that which is referred to in the Linear B tablets. This did not explain much, apart from the fact that it did prove that as these crops were so valuable, they had to be stored, and were possibly put under an armed guard during lean years when the harvest had failed. Yet he  (the)amount of grain which must have been stored at this time, was far too much to have just supported the local inhabitants, and also far too much for the local inhabitants to have grown or eaten. This suggests that this grain must have been imported by the Mycenaeans. This then raises another question over from whom did they get this grain? If we are to go with the theory that the Mycenaeans already knew of the Egyptians, due to the fact that they were Minoans who already knew of the Egyptians and other civilisations such as the Hittites and the Phoenicians, who may have helped the Mycenaeans with trade, and thus this was how they were able to get surplus grain. This  proves that they Mycenaeans must have had at least some contact or must have been partly Minoan, as in this way they are able to make contact with all these civilisations.

There however is very little solid evidence that this actually was the case, apart from references by the Egyptians to the Minoans at the tomb of Rehkmire, and the destruction of the Phoenician cities to give a possible link between them. Although there is evidence of Mycenaeans contact with the Minoans, this is too late, as many of the Mycenaean type burials are dated to around 1600 BC, this 400 years too late for the proposed era of when the Minoans split up to form two different civilisations. Another problem with this theory is that on mainland Greece, there is very little evidence which suggests that the Mycenaeans were  Minoans, or even if they were simply wandering tribes, who suddenly united to form these big cities. This is mainly because of the lack of burials (places) which have been found due to the fact that poor people often did not bury their loved ones with as much glamour as that of the nobility even during the height of the Mycenaean power in the ancient world. As a result, it is hard to draw any conclusions from this, apart from the fact that as hardly any lower class graves have been found, it is therefore suggestive that the Mycenaeans are used to living rough due to their ways of living before they settled down to build their communities.

The second theory puts forward the argument that the Mycenaeans were in fact travelling migrants who had been moved due to a natural disaster from their previous homeland.  There is a  lot of  evidence to support this, however their original destination and the route they took to Greece is unclear, as a result I aim to show where the Mycenaeans came from and how they got to Greece, by providing sufficient evidence as well as sufficient and well supported theories which help to show  answer.

The earliest form of building which is linked with the Mycenaeans is the Menelaion. This is the earliest known palace type building which has been scientifically linked with the early Mycenaeans. Although this is the only such structure to have been found, it tells us a lot about the early Mycenaeans, and also possibly what they were used to. During 2300BC, all across Greece trails of destruction have been found, this occurred at Lerna in the Argolid, which was a fortified town with an imposing structure called the House of Tiles. This was the same story across much of Greece, Tiryns, Asine and Zygouries all suffered the same fate. What is important about all this is that soon after these destructions a new type of building style begins to show, thus suggesting that some sort of violent takeover had occurred. Was this the coming of the Mycenaeans? Some theorists argue that the Mycenaeans came from as far as India, but many agree that they did come from the east. This is because it has been proven that Greek is an Indo-European language, which therefore proves that the Mycenaeans must have originated from somewhere in the East. This then raises the question, why did they want to move? This can’t be answered with any factual evidence, due to the fact that we still are unsure of where they might have come from specifically, but we are certain that they must have come from somewhere to the East. The soundest theory, suggests that the Mycenaeans were made to move because of a natural disaster which caused them to get up and move away from their homeland to another country which they perceived to be safe. Going back to the destruction of 2300 BC, archaeologists have discovered that the same type of destruction has occurred in many of the inhabited areas of the world such as India, Egypt and Anatolia. This therefore disproves the theory that the destruction is caused by the arrival of the Mycenaeans, due to the brevity of the destruction which occurred all over the world at possibly the same time. The significance of this is enormous, as it provides further evidence that the Mycenaeans must have moved from their original homeland due to a natural disaster. The disaster which occurred at this time was one of unprecedented scale which caused such widespread damage all over the ancient world.  The result of this catastrophe means that archaeologists have a solid base of evidence to build their theory onto.

The Mycenaean religion, despite very little being known about it, is very similar to the religion of the Homeric Achaeans who believed in Zeus and the other Olympian Gods. This has been derived from evidence from the Linear B tablets, which mention names such as Dionysus and Zeus. Shocking moments in the Iliad, such as the sacrifice of Iphigenia, may have been very common in those days, if a dire sacrifice was needed. This was proven when archaeologists uncovered evidence of a human sacrifice which had been interrupted by an earthquake causing the building to fall down. The possibility of these events actually occurring is very important, as it suggests that the Mycenaeans were a very unstable civilisation which may explain why they fell so suddenly as well as their sudden rise to power.

There are two ways by which the Mycenaeans could have been influenced by the Hittites. The first way, is through the fact that they must have passed the Hittites on their way to Greece, after they had left their previous home during their migration, they also could have been influenced by the Hittites through trade and contact, as well as the fact that there is some suggestion that they Mycenaeans may have invaded Anatolia, at Miletus or Millawanda. This suggestion of an invasion by the Mycenaeans comes from both writings done by the Mycenaeans on Linear B tablets, as well as from a Hittite writing tablet, which is now known as the Millawanda letter. In the Mycenaean tablet, women slaves are referred to as by the country of origin from which they may have been captured by an invading army. In the Millawanda letter, the Hittite King is warning a client King of the surrounding area of where his loyalties lie, due to the fact that the Hittite King had already disposed of the client King’s father in favour of the current King. Millawanda is an accepted name for Miletus, which is where the women who are mentioned in the Linear B tablets came from. Another piece of evidence, which suggests Mycenaean contact with the Hittites, is a sword which was found in Hattusa. Following the interpretation of experts, it has been concluded that this sword, is most definitely Mycenaean, and so must have been won in a battle between the Mycenaeans and the Hittites, as it was a Hittite custom for the King to be sent a memento of his victory against his enemies, such as a sword. Another theory could be that the Mycenaeans, may have been a split off group from the Hittites, but had left due to being discontent with the current ruling classes. Although You don’t need although) Unproven, this theory remains far-fetched, due to the lack of evidence, as well as the fact that this is highly unlikely, as it would be incredibly hard for the Hittites to learn a new language, as well as an entirely new of writing.

0already begun to dominate Anatolia by 2000 BC which is four hundred years before the Mycenaeans began to dominate much of Greece and the Mediterranean. As a result, it must be concluded that the Mycenaeans must have copied the Hittites when building their fortifications, and even copying their prized emblem of a lion for their gates. This suggests two things, firstly that the Mycenaeans must have been influenced by the Hittites in one way or another, and also it suggests that the Mycenaeans adopted a very aggressive nature, as they must have believed

The Lion Gate at Mycenae is one of the well-known artefacts of the Mycenaeans. The gate’s headstone is carved from conglomerate stone. This is a sedimentary rock, which means that it is easier to carve than limestone, this is especially important, as the Mycenaeans only had access to bronze tools, due to the secret of iron working being held closely by the Hittites. The important aspect of the Lion Gate is its similarity to the main gate of Hattusa the Hittite capital. There seems to be no answer to this coincidence, yet the closeness of these two remarkable civilisations is astounding. As is shown by the two plans of the citadels of both Hattusa and Mycenae, they are both remarkably similar. Both citadels are surrounded by large cyclopean walls, with at least two entrances, a sally port as well as on main gate. These early signs of similarity, suggests that one civilisation must have copied the other. This must have been the Mycenaeans copying the Hittites, due to the fact that the latter were had

them. 

that what they do to others, will ultimately be done to

The main problems with the theory that the Mycenaeans were migrants who were fleeing a natural disaster which had severely disrupted their homeland, are that there is very little evidence which points to the direction of where the Mycenaeans came from as well as the reasons why this may have happened, although there is a strong suggestion that they did arrive in around 2300 BC, which is shown by the evidence of new building structures especially at Lerna in Greece, where this is very obvious. Another problem with this theory is that many of the dates, are very obscure, due to the difficulty in getting accurate dates in dating procedures, thus this may disprove the theory, as it relies on the specific dates of certain events to be accurate, as this helps on the timeline of the arrival of the Mycenaeans.

Overall, there is very little to decide, as despite the fact that both these theories have flaws, the theory which suggests that the Mycenaeans were foreigner, is more likely, not least because there is a greater amount of circumstantial evidence which does suggest this while, on the other theory there is very little to support it, while with the theory that they were migrants, does have some primary evidence, such as the destructions in 2300 BC, as well as the new building types which occur after these destructions, suggesting a new people had arrived, this however is not circumstantial evidence, as there is no definitive proof that the Mycenaeans did arrive from another country such as India.

---

[1] Sir Arthur Evans Minoa Scripta