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