The Meaning of ‘Mycenaean’
Naoíse Mac Sweeney
Faculty of Classics, University of Cambridge, UK.
The term ‘Mycenaean’ originates from Schliemann’s
discovery of a Late Bronze Age society at Mycenae
in the Argolid in 1876, and is used to refer to the
societies of central and southern Greece, which
appear to share a set of increasingly similar cultural
traits in the Late Bronze period. The term is also used
more broadly of the Aegean in LB III (c1600-1200
BCE), including Crete, the Aegean islands, and the
Anatolian coast, as enough similarities are apparent
for us to talk of a cultural koine in the Aegean – a
Mycenaean koine (Fig 1). The social implications of
this geographically extensive cultural koine have been
debated widely, with models ranging from mainland
imperialism to indigenous strategies of emulation. In
this paper, I would like to reassess the use of the term
‘Mycenaean’ for this LB III period, looking at the
artistic styles that comprise the koine, and the
geographic bias that the term implies. I would also
like to highlight the way in which ethnicity has been
read into the term, and consider how valid the
concept of a ‘Mycenaean’ identity might be. This
paper owes…
The Mycenaean cultural koine
So what do we mean by ‘the Mycenaean koine’? First
and foremost, it is a useful shorthand description for
broad similarities in several spheres of elite activity
across the LB III southern Aegean, including public
architecture (Kilian 1988), artistic styles and
technologies (Andrikou 1997; Laffineur 1984),
political, economic and administrative structures
(Palmer 1992; Voutsaki and Killen 2001: 13), cult
paraphernalia (Hägg 1997: 164), and mortuary
practices (Mee and Cavanagh 1984: 49). However,
the existence of a Mycenaean koine does not imply
undifferentiated cultural uniformity, as regional
variations proliferate in both material styles and
social practices.
For example, the Greek mainland and Crete can be
shown to have different stylistic preferences
(Marinatos 1997; French 1997). Similarly, the
examinations of Linear B data by Hooker (1987),
Cherry and Davis (1999), and Killen (1984) suggest
variation in political and administrative structures.
Different palaces appear to emphasize slightly
different commodities, and although similar official
titles are mentioned in both the Pylian and Knossian
archives, their relative status appears to be somewhat
different (although variations in Linear B evidence
may well be temporal as well as spatial – Hooker
1987: 315). So, rather than describing absolute
homogeneity, the Mycenaean koine refers to broad
cultural similarities in specific spheres across the
southern Aegean.
The cultural similarities of the koine relate, in the
most part, to elite and palatial spheres. While this
may be partly due to early excavation biases, recent
studies of non-elite material seem to show less interregional similarity than their elite counterparts.
Domestic ceramics and coarse wares, for example,
show much greater regional variation than finewares
associated with the palaces (Mountjoy 1993: 122124). While wealthy tholos burials are characteristic
the Mycenaean koine, burials which do not emphasize
elite status are more likely to differ regionally, with
chamber tombs in the Argolid (Voutsaki 1995: 59),
small tholoi in Messenia (Voutsaki 1998: 52), and
rock cut tombs in the Cyclades (Schallin 1993: 168).
The use of writing also seems to have been largely
restricted to the palaces, dealing usually only with the
administrative concerns of the palatial elites (Palaima
1987: 501; inscribed stirrup jars are a post-palatial
exception). While the religious elements of the koine
do not appear restricted to elite use (Hägg 1995: 389.
cf. the non-elite sanctuaries at Apollo Maleatas,
Berbati, Tsoungiza), they may have been under
palatial influence (Wright 1994: 79ff). The
Mycenaean koine, therefore, appears to be a
phenomenon linked to social elites, most usually
those associated with the palaces.
The simplest meaning of ‘Mycenaean’, then, denotes
a loose set of cultural similarities which allow for
regional variation within a recognisable framework,
relating almost exclusively to palatial spheres and
elite status differentiation. But ‘Mycenaean’ is likely
also to have a social as well as cultural meaning, as
participation in the koine seems to have been
deliberate. It has been pointed out that despite some
temporal and spatial variations, the koine is
characterised by remarkable standardisation and
conservatism (Voutsaki and Killen 2001: 13-14). This
unusual homogeneity, preserved for up to two
hundred years, is evident most clearly in writing
traditions (Postgate 2001: 13), and the palatial
frescoes (Sherratt 2001: 215). Such continuity and
standardisation suggest that the Mycenaean koine was
the outcome of conscious policies of self-inclusion,
rather than automatic cultural processes as originally
proposed by Renfrew (1977: 11). This conscious and
deliberate use of style in the Mycenaean koine seems
to be what Wiessner (1988) would describe as
‘emblemic’ - deliberately communicative of social
identity. As the Mycenaean koine seems to apply to
elite groups rather than whole communities, it seems
fair to assume that the hypothetical identity
communicated by the koine styles is an elite identity.
But why did elite groups from different parts of the
Aegean decide to use similar expressions of status in
LB III? And what were the social mechanisms by
which the cultural similarities of the Mycenaean
koine were created and maintained?
From elite culture to elite identity?
The similar expressions of elite status and common
elite culture described above do not automatically
equate with a shared elite identity. While the
emblemic use of style suggests a conscious choice by
the Aegean elites of LB III to align themselves with a
certain identity, it does not constitute the explicit selfdefinition which is considered the essential criterion
of identity (Jones 1997: 58). The Mycenaean koine
instead represents the indicia of identity. The indicia
are the detectable expressions and communications of
identity; cultural traits which distinguish the social
group from others around it, such as distinctive
material culture styles, cult practices and ritual, forms
of social organisation, and language. More explicit
self-identification of the Aegean elites as a conceptual
unity is needed to demonstrate an identity, and this
may be implied by a limited amount of iconographic
and written evidence.
by their characteristic greaves and boar’s tusk
helmets. Bennet and Davis suggest that the fresco is
evidence for Mycenaean self-definition ‘not only by
the material culture they shared, but also in terms of
cultural features that non-Mycenaeans did not share’
(Bennet and Davis 1999: 115). If this is the case, this
is strong evidence for a Mycenaean elite identity.
Bennet and Davis’ interpretation is supported by
contemporary representations of Mycenaean warriors,
which may suggest that the Pylian image was a local
rendering of a wider convention. The Pylos
Mycenaeans are similar to warriors painted on a
papyrus from Amarna (Schofield and Parkinson
1999), incised on a bowl at Hattuşa (Vermuele 1987:
143-4), the silver siege rhyton from Mycenae
(Sákellariou 1974), and carved on a marble slab from
Keos (Caskey 1966: 375). These images, despite
varying in details of dress, appear to conform to a
broad of artistic convention for depicting Mycenaean
warriors, emphasizing Mycenaean weapons and
armour. Determining exactly how these images can
be related, both to each other and a possible
Mycenaean identity, however, would require a close
and critical examination on a scale yet to be
performed.
Killen (1979) has advanced the idea that the
‘collectors’ of the Linear B tablets may constitute a
mobile, pan-Aegean elite using a shared pool of elite
names, perhaps with kinship links between elites in
different locations. Building on this work, Olivier
(2001) has shown the striking correlation between
names of ‘collectors’ at the different palaces.
However sceptical we may be of such onomastic
equivalences, the numbers are significant. This shared
pool of names seems unlikely to be due purely to
chance, as suggested by Rougemont (2001), and may
reflect deliberate policies of mutual association
similar to those evident from the material styles.
The conceptual unity of the Mycenaean elites may
also be suggested by the references made in Hittite
texts to a vague political entity known as Ahhiyawa.
Although the archaeological identification of
Ahhiyawa forms a separate debate which cannot be
rehearsed here due to space constraints, there are
good arguments for linking it to the Mycenaean
Aegean (Bryce 1989; Bennet 1999, Hawkins 1997). If
we do accept the connection between Ahhiyawa and
the Mycenaean Aegean, it seems that a generalised
Mycenaean unity, operating on an elite and
diplomatic level, was recognised by a neighbouring
state. It is unclear from the texts, however, exactly
what kind of entity this unity described, as Ahhiyawa
appears as a broad geographic term, an ethnic, and as
a political entity under an unnamed king (Hawkins
1997: 232). However, the exact type of identity that
the Hittites used the term to represent is less
important than the fact that they did use it - thereby
recognising a nearby social unity likely to represent
the Mycenaean Aegean.
An elite Aegean identity may also be evident on a
fresco from the Southwestern building at Pylos,
which seems to show the opposition of Mycenaean
identity against a non-Mycenaean ‘other’ (Bennet and
Davis 1999). The fresco shows a martial scene where
a standardised series of armoured figures battle with
an equally standardised series of figures dressed in
animal skins. This seems to hint at artistic
conventions for representing the hostile outsiders in
opposition to elite Mycenaean warriors, identifiable
Overall, the evidence presented here is consistent
with the conscious engagement of Aegean elites with
a broad concept of a ‘Mycenaean’ elite identity.
While incontrovertible evidence may never be
available, a pan-Aegean elite identity does seem
likely to have been expressed through the Mycenaean
koine. This is the conclusion reached by Bennet
(1999) in the paper mentioned in the introduction to
this essay. However, the level of pan-Aegean
integration implied in this elite identity, and the
reasons behind its wide geographic spread are still
unclear. If ‘Mycenaean’ can mean cultural similarities
linked to an elite identity, what did this elite identity
itself mean?
create it. Unity of style, then, does not automatically
imply unity of population at a political or ethnic level.
The first theories – Mycenaean domination
These theoretical criticisms have highlighted another
possible explanation of cultural similarity: emulative
strategies. A population may have their own motives
for actively adopting certain outside cultural traits,
without having them imposed by outsiders.
Expressions of elite status are particularly likely to be
adopted as they allow emergent elites to associate
themselves with established symbols of power, which
the cultural traits of the Mycenaean koine are likely to
have been. They would have formed a convenient
pre-existing cultural vocabulary through which
indigenous elites could create and articulate their
social status. Such emulative strategies could account
for the spread of cultural elements to any part of the
Aegean with potential for developing an elite class.
Early Aegean archaeologists of the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries proposed that
similarities in elite culture signified political unity
under a ‘Mycenaean’ elite from the mainland. This,
however, is ruled out by the Linear B texts, which
suggest a patchwork of regional authorities with no
obligations to a higher intra-regional power (Cherry
and Davis 1999: 93). In the tablets, the Mycenaean
palaces appear as independent and discrete political
entities, following their own specific economic
policies. Furthermore, the level of economic and
political control the palaces had over their immediate
hinterlands was neither absolute nor regular, as
illustrated by the territorial differences in
adiminstration between Pylos (Shelmerdine 2001;
Bennet 1995) and the Argolid (Voutsaki 1995), the
independent production of ceramics at Pylos
(Knappett 2001; Whitelaw 2001), and the selective
interest in textile production at Knossos (Driessen
2001). Considering this evidence against political
unity between palaces or even within a single palatial
‘territory’, it would be unfounded to postulate that the
Mycenaean koine might have been due to a panAegean political unity. Such ideas have now been
‘tacitly superceded by the model of autonomous peer
polities’ (Voutsaki and Killen 2001: 13).
Barber (1999) has suggested a modified form of
Mycenaean imperialism, where particular mainland
polities may have controlled specific locations
outside their immediate hinterlands. The example he
cites for this is Phylakopi, which exhibits much more
participation in the Mycenaean koine than most other
Cycladic sites. He explains similarities in culture
between Phylakopi and the Mycenaean palaces as due
to their both being controlled by similar politicalethnic groups. Barber’s theory, though not strictly
refutable, seems unlikely considering the uncertainty
concerning palatial control over immediate
hinterlands mentioned above.
These models are also all open to serious theoretical
criticism. In their suggestions that cultural similarity
is due to domination, a link between archaeological
cultures and ethno-political groups is assumed. In the
wake of Barth’s work on identity in the 1960s and
post-processualism in archaeology, this assumption
that the one can automatically be ‘mapped onto’ the
other in untenable (Jones 1997: 106). Style can be
actively manipulated in the construction and
negotiation of social identities and so, while it may be
used to express an identity, it can equally be used to
More recent theories - indigenous emulation
This has been shown to be a plausible explanation for
the appearance of Mycenaean-influenced tholos
tombs in northern Crete by Preston (1999). The tombs
are similar to mainland styles in architecture and
grave goods, but seem to have been locally adapted to
suit the varying needs and tastes of the burying elites
in ‘an innovative requisitioning of high-status
symbolism’ (Preston 1999: 141). The appearance of
Mycenaean styles of burial, then, does not necessarily
entail the presence of migrant mainlanders on Crete.
Migration is not the only way to explain the
geographic range of the Greek script of Linear B
either. Although the non-Greek script of Linear A
was used in Crete and certain locations in the
Cyclades and coastal Anatolia (Dickinson 1994: 194),
the later dominance of Linear B as the main
administrative script does not necessarily imply that
Greek supplanted the language of Linear A in verbal
communication. The potential separation between
written and spoken forms of language are widely
acknowledged (Pejros 1997: 56; Stoddart and
Whitley 1988), and the continuity of non-Greek
languages in Crete is demonstrated by the appearance
of non-Greek words and names in the Linear B
archive at Knossos (Renfrew 1998). The fact that
Linear B appears only to be used in administration
may indicate it was adopted as a symbolic part of
elite culture, rather than an integrated cultural
practice. Overall, indigenous strategies of emulation,
then, are a plausible way in which the cultural traits
of the Mycenaean koine may have spread from the
mainland to other parts of the Aegean.
Whoa, there! Back up a sec….
Of course, the fundamental assumption in both of the
above explanations is that the cultural similarities of
the LB III Mycenaean koine originated on mainland
Greece and spread later to other Aegean regions. This
may not be the most helpful way of viewing the
Mycenaean koine, however. Dickinson, during a
discussion of a paper given by Barber (1999: 139),
has pointed out that Mycenaean traits in the Cyclades
need not be explained by either the imposition or
emulation of mainland practices, but may have
formed a part of indigenous Cycladic culture in itself.
The assumption that the koine primarily represents
mainland culture is largely due to the vagueness of
the term ‘Mycenaean’, and its unspecific use to
describe the mainland societies of Late Helladic I-II
as well as a wider Aegean koine in Late Bronze III.
To avoid confusion, this paper will refer to the
Helladic mainland traditions active throughout the
Late Bronze Age, and the wider Mycenaean koine,
which refers to pan-Aegean similarities in elite
cultural traits in LB III only.
It is generally assumed that the visual styles of the
koine developed mostly from these earlier mainland
styles. There are, of course, many examples of
mainland influenced elements of the Mycenaean
koine, such as the militaristic themes in iconographic
art (Dickinson 1994: 167) and the popularisation of
terracotta figurines in cult practice (Wright 1994: 75).
While these the stylistic relationships between the
Helladic and Mycenaean traditions cannot be denied,
it should be remembered that the Helladic traditions
themselves owe much themselves to contemporary
styles from Crete, and, to a lesser extent, other nonmainland areas (Rutter 2001: 143). So if Late
Helladic culture is generally recognised as not
originating exclusively on the Greek mainland, then
why should we assume that the later Aegean-wide
Mycenaean koine did?
Many elements of the Mycenaean koine have
precedents from the Aegean beyond the Greek
mainland. Both Mycenaean artistic styles and
techniques, and social practices can be shown not to
be mainland innovations. The development of the
Aegean true fresco technique of ‘al secco’, for
example, is attributed to the Minoan protopalatial
period (Immerwahr 1990: 11), and the independent
fresco tradition of the Cyclades is evident from the
LB I levels at Ayia Irini, Phylakopi, and Akrotiri
(Morgan 1990). The motifs, themes, and techniques
of the frescos of the later Mycenaean koine seem to
grow out of both these earlier traditions (Immerwahr
1990: 105-9). In pottery also, the styles known as
Mycenaean do not derive solely from the mainland,
with Cretan influence is visible in both shapes and
decoration (Mountjoy 1993: 71-4). The importance of
Miletus as a centre for pottery production indicates
that the Anatolian coast was also a significant
contributor to the Mycenaean ceramic repertoire
(Neimeier 1997).
The social practices of the koine seem to have an
even more mixed set of influences. Crucially, the
basic economic and administrative structures of the
Aegean palaces are likely to have been inspired by
Levantine models (Watrous 1987). The use of
sealings is likely to have been a Near Eastern
influence, first appearing in the Aegean in EB II at
Lerna, but being used in a continuous tradition only
on Crete (Dickinson 1994: 189). In addition, the signs
of the Linear B script clearly derive from the Cretan
Linear A, and the early date of the Knossos archive
(LB IIIA) may suggest that Linear B itself developed
on Crete also (Dickinson 1994: 194).
Beyond the administrative structures, the mixed
nature of the Mycenaean koine has been recognised
by Hägg in his studies of religious syncretism (1984;
1997) in the Late Bronze Age. He points out that
although religious beliefs and practices were not
uniform in LB III, the variants incorporate
components both from Crete and the mainland. Burial
practices we think of as characteristically Mycenaean
also appear to belong to an Aegean, rather than a
strictly Helladic, cultural milieu. The tholos tomb is
often treated as significant of mainland-linked status
negotiation, even in analyses which postulate creative
indigenous use of tholoi (Preston 1999; Schallin
1993: 170). However, Kanta (1997) reminds us that
the tholos as an architectural type is not necessarily
indicative of mainland influence, but did first appear
in the Mesara region of Crete. Although tholoi did not
necessarily spread from Crete to the mainland, there
is no reason to assume they travelled in the other
direction either.
Therefore, the artistic and behavioural styles of the
Mycenaean koine do not derive solely from mainland
traditions, but incorporate diverse influences from
most areas of the Aegean. It is significant also, that
the mainland styles of LH I-II were themselves
influenced to a large extent by those of palatial Crete.
The character of the Mycenaean koine, then, cannot
be said to be predominantly Helladic, and there is no
reason to assume that the koine culture spread from
the mainland to elsewhere in the Aegean.
The meaning of ‘Mycenaean’ in LB III
This acknowledgement of the composite nature of the
Mycenaean koine changes the terms in which its
development must be expressed. The use of the term
‘Mycenaean’ when applied to the koine of LB III is
fundamentally misleading, as it suggest the social and
cultural primacy of the Greek mainland. In addition,
the term used in a LH I-II context does not have the
same meaning as the term when used in a LB III
context. Considerations of the LB III koine should no
longer revolve around the mechanisms by which
mainland cultural traits appear in other parts of the
Aegean, or how mainlanders came to ‘take over’ from
Neopalatial Crete. Instead, we should seek to
understand how multi-directional interaction and
mutual patterns of influence between the Aegean
elites produced cultural similarities close enough to
warrant being considered a coherent koine.
Does this bring us any closer to understanding what
‘Mycenaean’ means? We now have some idea of
what being Mycenaean isn’t. Most importantly, it is
not linked to some kind of ethnic phenomenon,
spreading from the Greek mainland to other areas of
the Aegean. More specifically, it is not ethnic
mainlanders imposing their culture on indigenous
peoples. Neither is it indigenous elites adopting
ethnically Helladic traits for their own purposes. We
should take the ideas of Preston, Dickinson and others
to their logical conclusion – if cultural traits can be
adopted and adapted, the process can occur in many
directions at the same time. This paper argues that the
Mycenaean koine should be seen, not as the result of
the cultural traits of any one area being transferred to
others, but as the elite culture of the Aegean as a
whole; constantly changing, constantly being adapted
and modified, and constantly being open to a wide
variety of cultural influences.
‘Mycenaean’, then, means a pan-Aegean elite
network, sharing not only cultural traits, but also a
self-awareness of their participation in the same elite
identity. This identity did not have Helladic ethnic
implications and did not depend on the primacy of
mainland Greece. It was, however, an identity which
the Aegean elites actively chose to associate
themselves with. As shown in the Pylos fresco, their
self-identification as ‘Mycenaeans’ defined them in
opposition to a conceptual ‘other’. Perhaps during a
period where palaces demanded substantial amounts
of resources from their hinterlands, the Mycenaean
koine reflects an ideological differentiation between
elite and non-elite classes. Or perhaps, in the time of
the Amarna letters and close networks of diplomacy
in the Near East, the Aegean elites reacted to the
international political situation by closing their ranks.
And perhaps there were differences in what being a
Mycenaean meant to different people – a
‘Mycenaean’ in Messenia may have conceived of
their identity differently to a ‘Mycenaean’ on Rhodes,
while the non-Mycenaean ‘others’ may have had a
different perspective of ‘Mycenaean-ness’ again. And
as for who these ‘others’ may have been – real or
imagined, elite or non-elite, Aegean or non-Aegean we may simply never know.
Abbreviations:
KBo
KUB
Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi
Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi
References:
Andrikou, E. (1997) ‘Thoughts and Considerations on
the Mycenaeanisation of Crete, motivated by pottery
from Archanes’, IN Driessen, J. and Fouroux, A.
(eds) La Crète Mycénienne. Ecole Française
d’Athènes, 9-22.
Barber, R.L.N. (1999) ‘Hostile Mycenaeans in the
Cyclades?’ IN Laffineur, R. (ed) Polemos. Aegaeum
19. Liege. 133-9.
Bennet, J. (1995) ‘Space through time: diachronic
perspectives n the spatial organisation of the Pylian
state’ IN Laffineur, K. (ed) Politeia. Aegaeum 12.
Liège, Université de Liège , 587-601.
Bennet, J. (1999) ‘The Meaning of “Mycenaean”:
Speculations on Ethnicity in the Late Bronze Age’.
Mycenaean Seminar Abstract. Bulletin of the Institute
of Classical Studies 43. 224.
Bennet, J. and J.L. Davis, (1999) ‘Making
Mycenaeans: Warfare, Territorial Expansion, and
Representation of the other in the Pylian Kingdom’
IN Laffineur, R. (ed) Polemos: el contexte guerrier
en Égée à l’age du bronze. Aegaeum 19. Liège,
Université de Liège, 105-20.
Bryce, T.R. (1989) ‘The Nature of Mycenaean
involvement in Western Anatolia’. Historia 38. 1-21.
Cherry, J.F. and J.L. Davis, (1999) ‘An
Archaeological Homily’ IN Galaty, M.L. and W.A.
Parkinson (eds) Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces. New
Interpretations on an Old Ideal. Los Angeles,
University of California.
Dickinson, O. (1994) The Aegean Bronze Age.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Driessen, J. (2001) ‘Centre and Periphery: some
observations on the administration of the kingdom of
Knossos’ IN Voutsaki, S. and J. Killen (eds),
Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace
States. Cambridge, Cambridge Philological Society,
96-112.
French, E.B. (1997) ‘Ephyrean Goblets at Knossos:
the chicken and the egg’ IN Driessen, J. and A.
Fournoux (eds) Le Crète Mycénienne. Ecole
Française d’Athènes, 149-52.
Hägg, R. (1984) ‘Mycenaean religion: the Helladic
and the Minoan Components’. IN Davies, A.M. and
Y. Duhoux (eds) Linear B: a 1984 survey. Cabay,
Louvain-la-Neuve, 203-225.
Hägg, R. (1997) ‘Religious Syncretism at Knossos
and in Post-Palatial Crete?’ IN Driessen, J. and A.
Fournoux (eds) La Crète Mycénienne. Ecole
Française d’Athènes, 163-9.
Hawkins, D. (1997) ‘Hittites on the Aegean Coast’.
Mycenaean Seminar Abstract. Bulletin of the Institute
of Classical Studies 42. 231-2.
Hooker, J.T. (1987) ‘Minoan and Mycenaean
Administration: A Comparison of the Knossos and
Pylos Archives’ IN Hägg, R. and N. Marinatos (eds)
The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Stockholm,
311-6.
Immerwahr, S.A. (1990) Aegean Painting in the
Bronze Age. University of Pennsylvania.
Kanta, A. (1997) ‘Late Bronze Age Tholos Tombs:
Origins and Evolution, the Missing Links’. IN
Driessen, J. and A. Fournoux (ed) La Crète
Mycénienne. Ecole Française d’Athènes, 229-47.
Kilian, K. (1988) ‘The emergence of wanax ideology
in the Mycenaean palaces’. Oxford Journal of
Archaeology 7. 291-302.
Killen, J. T. (1979) ‘The Knossos Ld(1) tablets’
Chaumont Colloquium. 151-81
Knappett, C. (2001) ‘Overseen or overlooked?
Ceramic production in a Mycenaean palatial system’
IN Voutsaki, S. and J. Killen (eds), Economy and
Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States. Cambridge,
Cambridge Philological Society, 80-95.
Jones, S. (1997) The Archaeology of Ethnicity.
Constructing Identities in the Past and Present.
Routledge, London.
Laffineur, K. (1984) ‘Mycenaean Artistic Koine: the
example of jewellery’. Temple University Aegean
Symposium 9. 1-13.
Marinatos, N. (1997) ‘Minoan and Mycenaean
Larnakes: A Comparison’ IN Driessen, J. and A.
Fournoux (eds) La Crète Mycénienne. Ecole
Française d’Athènes, 281-92.
Mee, C.B and C.U.G. Cavanagh, (1984) ‘Mycenaean
tombs as evidence for social and political
organisation’. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 3.3. 4565.
Morgan, L. (1990) ‘Island Iconography: Thera, Kea,
Melos’ IN Hardy, D.A. et al (ed) Thera and the
Aegean World III. London, 252-266.
Mountjoy, P.A. (1993) Mycenaean Pottery. An
Introduction. Oxford, Oxbow Books.
Niemeier, W-D. (1997) ’The Mycenaean Potter’s
Quarter at Miletus.’ IN Laffineur, R. and P.P.
Betancourt (eds) TEΧΝΗ. Craftsmen, Craftswomen
and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Liège,
Université de Liège, 347-51.
Olivier, J-P. (2001) ‘Les “collecteurs”: leur
distribution spatiele at temporelle’. IN Voutsaki, S.
and J. Killen (eds), Economy and Politics in the
Mycenaean Palace States. Cambridge, Cambridge
Philological Society, 139-60.
Palaima, T.G. (1987) ‘Comments of Mycenaean
Literacy’. Minos 20-22. 499-510.
Palmer, R. (1992) ‘Wheat and Barley in Mycenaean
Society’ IN Olivier, J-P. (ed) Mykenäika. Paris, 47597.
Pejros, I. (1997) ‘Are correlations between the
archaeological
and
linguistic
reconstructions
possible?’ IN Blench, R. and M. Spriggs (eds)
Archaeology and Language I: Theoretical and
Methodological Orientations. Routledge, London,
149-157.
Preston, L. (1999) ‘Mortuary Practices and the
Negotiation of Social Identities at LM II Knossos’.
Annual of the British School at Athens. 131-43
Renfrew, C. (1977) ‘Retrospect and Prospect’ IN
Renfrew, C. and J.F. Cherry, (1986) Peer Polity
Interaction and Socio-Political Change. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Bintliff, J. (ed) Mycenaean Geography. Cambridge,
British Association for Mycenaean Studies, 108-19.
Renfrew, C. (1998) ‘Word of Minos: the Minoan
Contribution to Mycenaean Greek and the Linguistic
Geography of the Bronze Age Aegean’. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 8:2. 239-64.
Rougemont, F. (2001) ‘Some thoughts on the
identification of the “collectors” in the Linear B
tablets’. IN Voutsaki, S. and J. Killen (eds), Economy
and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States.
Cambridge, Cambridge Philological Society, 129-28.
Rutter, J.B. (2001) ‘The Prepalatial Bronze Age of
the Southern and Central Greek Mainland’ IN Cullen,
T. (ed) Aegean Prehistory. A Review. Boston,
Archaeological Institute of America, 95-156.
Sákellariou, (1974) Antike Kunst, 3-20.
Schallin, A.L. (1993) Islands Under Influence. The
Cyclades in the Late Bronze Age and the Nature of
Mycenaean Presence. Paul Aströms Verlag.
Schofield, L. and
R.B. Parkinson, (1994) ‘Of
Helmets and Heretics: a possible Egyptian
representation of Mycenaean warriors on a papyrus
from el-Amarna’. Annual of the British School at
Athens 84. 157-70.
Shelmerdine, C.W, (2001) ‘The evolution of
administration at Pylos’. IN Voutsaki, S. and J. Killen
(eds), Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace
States. Cambridge, Cambridge Philological Society,
113-28.
Sherratt, S. (2001) ‘Potemkin palaces and route-based
economics’. IN Voutsaki, S. and J. Killen (eds),
Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace
States. Cambridge, Cambridge Philological Society,
214-38.
Stoddart, S. and J. Whitley, (1988) ‘The social
context of literacy in Archaic Greece and Etruria’.
Antiquity 62. 761-72.
Vermuele, E. (1987) ‘Baby Aigisthos and the Bronze
Age’. The Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological
Society 12.
Voutsaki, S. (1995) ‘Social and political practices in
the Mycenaean Argolid: the evidence from mortuary
practices’. IN Laffineur, R. (ed) Politeia. Aegaeum
12. Liège, Université de Liège, 55-6.
Voutsaki, S. (1998) ‘Mortuary evidence, symbolic
meanings and social change: a comparison between
Messenia and the Argolid in the Mycenaean period’
IN Branigan, K. (ed) Cemetery and Society in the
Aegean Bronze Age. Sheffield, Sheffield Academic
Press, 41-58.
Voutsaki, S. and J. Killen, (2001) Economy and
Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States. Cambridge,
Cambridge Philological Society.
Whitelaw, T. (2001) ‘Reading between the tablets:
assessing Mycenaean palatial involvement in ceramic
production and consumption’. IN Voutsaki, S. and J.
Killen (eds), Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean
Palace States. Cambridge, Cambridge Philological
Society, 51-79.
Watrous, V. (1987) ‘The role of the Near East in the
rise of the Cretan palaces’. IN Hägg, R. and N.
Marinatos (eds) The Function of the Minoan Palaces.
Stockholm, 65-70.
Wiessner, P. (1988) ‘Style and changing relations
between the individual and society’ IN Hodder, I.
(ed) The Meaning of Things: Material Culture and
Symbolic Expression. London, 56-62.
Wright, J.C. (1994) ‘The spatial configuration of
belief: the archaeology of Mycenaean religion’ IN
Alcock, S.E. and R. Osborne (eds) Placing the Gods:
Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece.
Oxford, Clarendon Press, 37-78.
Illustrations:
Fig 1. General area covered by the Mycenaean koine
of LB III (drawing: Naoíse Mac Sweeney)