Poking in at the current state of Late-Helladic scholarship, I found some articles published over the last twelve months or so. Here is a long ramble teeing off on (possible) Linear B in Bavaria. And here's an essay on "Kings and Great Kings in the Aegean and beyond" (pdf).
The latter argues that our default model of Ahhiyawa political organisation should be the contemporary closest: Anatolia. Hattusas' imperium was a loose hegemony and not always centred at Hattusas itself. Mycenae would serve this purpose across the water, for the Greeks. At the same time, the Hittites continually suffered revolts from their subjects. If Ahhiyawa was an empire, this model allows (say) Tiryns arming up and attempting a similar revolt. The scholars're mostly looking at Thebes / "Thegwas" for the Greek Tarhuntassa. So: as the local autonomy and resistance across Late Bronze Anatolia does not cause scholars to deny the Hittites' imperium; so the autonomy of LHIII megara shouldn't commend dismissal of a Mycenaean analogue. (How direct was Aztec rule over Mesoamerica? or British over India ... ?)
The former study looks at Pylos: which had recently brought Iklaina under its sway, held weak control over Tinwanthos likely Arcadia, and resorted to Metzanian (>Messenian) mercs to guard the coast. This implies that Mycenae wasn't shoring up the defence, at the end when those records were burned; the locals had to do it. That would imply a contradiction between these studies.
Much depends on when and where various events happened. Perhaps Mycenae had fallen already and other states - Tiryns, Thebes, etc - were left scrambling. Perhaps the reason Pylos felt a need to carve out its own mini-empire was precisely because it was (now) every polis for itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment