MEDITERRANEAN

CROSSROADS
Edited by
Sophia Antoniadou
and
Anthony Pace

Athens
Pierides Foundation

 Copyright Pierides Foundation and the authors 2007

ISBN 978-9963-9071-6-8

Front cover image:

work by Lia Lapithi.
Part of the series 330o nM, The Ionian Sea.

This book is distributed by Oxbow Books, 10 Hythe Bridge Street,

Oxford OX1 2EW
(Phone: 01865-241249; Fax: 01865-794449)
and
The David Brown Book Company
PO Box 511, Oakville, CT 06779, USA
(Phone:860-945-9329; Fax: 860-945-9468)
and
via the website
www.oxbowbooks.com

Printed in Greece by Scriptsoft, Athens

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission
from the publisher.

The proceedings of the conference Mediterranean Crossroads is published within

the framework of the project Crossings: Movements of People and Movement of
Cultures: Changes in the Mediterranean from Ancient to Modern Times, which is
supported by the European Union framework programme, Culture 2000.
Leader: Pierides Foundation Cyprus
Co-organisers: Foundation of the Hellenic World Greece, Superintendence of
Cultural Heritage Malta, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche taly, Centre de
Recherches en Arts, Images et Formes, Universit de Picardie Jules Verne France

A%%IYAWA AND %ATTI: PALATIAL PERSPECTIVES

291

13. A##iyawa and %atti: palatial perspectives

Ulrich Thaler
Abstract
In contrast to the Mycenaean Linear B-archives, which remain mute on
such matters, Hittite sources such as the MEEDI-text, the instruction of
the royal bodyguard, offer a wealth of information on different aspects
of the social use of palatial architecture. These include, for example,
differential rights of access and the importance of the act of building
itself. In the archaeological record, various architectural parallels exist between the Hittite and Mycenaean spheres, ranging from the use of
certain tools to concepts of spatial organisation. These, again, provide a
basis to draw on Hittite textual sources to further our understanding of
the archaeologically documented Mycenaean palaces as both outcome
and precondition of a particular social order. Appeals to contacts and
exchanges between both cultures and to analogical arguments constitute
alternative, and to some extent complementary, strategies to substantiate
such a comparative approach.
Introduction
While the contributions to this volume as a whole aim at understanding
and explaining cultural contacts, a slightly different approach is chosen
in this paper in primarily seeking to further our understanding of one
particular culture by comparison with a neighbouring culture we may
assume it to have been in contact with. This is certainly and for good reasons not the most popular style of argument in current archaeology, but it
is one that seems highly appropriate and productive for the cultural phenomenon I am interested in. I want to consider the Mycenaean palaces of

292

ULRICH THALER

the 13th century BC as both documents and framing structures of social

order, with reference to Hittite palatial architecture. To try to do so, I will
discuss three areas of evidence: firstly, the question whether Mycenaean
Greece can or should be equated with the land A##iyawa mentioned in
Hittite textual sources; secondly, the archaeological evidence of parallels
in building techniques and spatial organisation of royal residences on
either side of the Aegean; and thirdly, what information on the function
and use of palatial architecture can be gleaned from Hittite texts.
If readers suspect a hint of diffusionism in the way the evidence is set
out, they are not entirely mistaken. In my opinion, we should seriously
consider the possibility that an eastern inspiration may be detected in the
spatial organisation of Mycenaean palaces. But I hasten to add two qualifications: firstly, I by no means want to picture the Mycenaean Greeks
as mere recipients much less passive recipients of what (light) came
from the east; and, secondly, the comparative case I set out need not depend on assumptions of diffusion, acculturation or interaction. I conclude
this study with an outline of how the evidence presented may be read,
and further developed, in terms of an analogy and I deliberately leave
open the question of whether we should, in the end, speak of acculturation or analogy. The question is certainly an interesting and important
one, but, for the purposes of the present study, appeals to interaction and
to organisational similarities can be seen as alternative or even complementary strategies in establishing Hittite textual documents as sources
which can further our understanding of the uses of the archaeologically
documented Mycenaean palatial architecture.
A##iyawa
With regard to the long-debated A##iyawa-question (e.g. Heinhold-Krahmer 2003; Niemeier 1998; Steiner 1990; nal 1991), I want to confine
myself to just a few brief statements. Firstly, I am personally convinced
that in the past few years the growing evidence (Otten 1988; Hawkins
1998) has made it very difficult to argue for anything but identification
with part of Mycenaean Greece and indeed mainland Greece. Secondly,
I am also convinced that there is at present no good and reliable evidence to support a conclusive identification with any specific Mycenaean
centre if Mycenae (e.g. Hope Simpson 2003: 233-34; Niemeier 1998:

A%%IYAWA AND %ATTI: PALATIAL PERSPECTIVES

293

43-44) or Thebes (e.g. Niemeier 2002: 295) dominate the discussion,

then this is little more than a testimony to their size and archaeologically
established importance. Some of the evidence presented here might actually be used to argue for Mycenae or more generally for the Argolid, but
I am not sure whether this illustrates anything apart from the paucity of
the architectural evidence from Thebes. Thirdly, I do not think that the
argument I want to present, although it is probably more likely to appeal
to supporters of the identification of A##iyawa with part of Mycenaean
Greece, depends upon acceptance of this identification in principle. But
the equation of A##iyawa with a Mycenaean state offers a background
which is illuminating both in general terms and possibly even more so
in some of its specific details. Here, I am referring mainly to the Tawagalawa-letter (KUB 14.3), in which we learn that the brother of the
A##iyawan king had before the time of writing the letter made the
acquaintance of and rode on a chariot with the Hittite Great Kings charioteer, who in turn was a member of the Hittite queens family. The letter
is now commonly ascribed to %attuili III and dated to around the middle
of the 13th century (Gterbock 1983: 135; Singer 1983: 209-10). Thus,
we have evidence of what would appear to be a high-level A##iyawan
visitor in %atti at about the time when a major new building program
started by %attuili and continued by his son Tut#aliya IV was under way
at the Hittite royal residence of Bykkale (Neve 1982: 136). Of course,
this is the same time at which major rebuilding, including the Lion Gate,
is undertaken at Mycenae and also the time when what has been called a
Musterzitadelle (Maran 2004: 283) or a Mycenaean Versailles (Lauter
1987: 225) is constructed at nearby Tiryns (Figure 1).
Architecture
With this in mind, I will turn to the architectural evidence uncovered
by archaeology, where first of all I want to note two possibly quite
telling contradictions. Despite the recent identification of a few Mycenaean sherds in Boazky and Kuakl (Genz 2004), the archaeological
evidence of Hittite-Mycenaean contacts is surprisingly scarce in general
terms, and especially in those groups of material, such as Mycenaean pottery, where archaeologists usually would look for evidence of exchange
(Re 1994). Indeed, the scarcity of the data is so pronounced that it led Eric

294

ULRICH THALER

Figure 1. Building states in late 13th century BC: Left, plan of acropolis, Tiryns (courtesy of Tiryns-Projekt). Right, partially reconstructed plan of Bykkale,
Boazky (adapted from Seeher 2002a: 104 fig. 109).

Cline (1991) to suggest a long-lasting Hittite embargo against A##iyawa.

In clear contrast, the architectural evidence provides an equally surprising high number of possible and likely parallels. And while the ceramic
evidence for exchange remains strongest in coastal areas and particularly
western Asia Minor, the best architectural parallels are often found in
the central Anatolian Hittite core area with conspicuous lacunae in western Asia Minor (cf. Maran 2004: 271, 291) so that in the modernist
idiom, we would have to speak of a directional exchange (Renfrew 1972:
470-71), if, indeed, we want to talk about an exchange of architectural
knowledge. This fits well with the general picture of Hittite contacts to
the west as recently summarised by Jrgen Seeher, who speaks of elite
contacts without economic interests (Seeher 2005: 40: elitre Verbindungen ohne wirtschaftliche Interessen; cf. Genz 2004: 82).
The evidence for architectural exchanges between the Hittite and
Mycenaean spheres, which I want to review now, is quite varied and also,
doubtless, of quite varied quality. But it is quite encouraging to see that

A%%IYAWA AND %ATTI: PALATIAL PERSPECTIVES

295

often it is the most distinctive and conspicuous features which offer the
clearest evidence of contact and exchange, when we turn to look at tools,
techniques and forms, and, finally, concepts of spatial organisation.
Tools
Both stone hammers and metal picks, the use of which has been inferred
from tool-marks at Mycenaean sites, have been found in and around
the Hittite capital of Boazky-%attua. The use of neither, however,
would be likely to set apart Anatolian and Aegean builders from their
Late Bronze Age eastern Mediterranean contemporaries. This is more
likely in the case of bronze saws. A saw found in Boazky in a later 13th
century context shows a particular form of equilaterally triangular teeth
known previously only from Aegean bronze saws, the teeth of which as
in the Hittite example, too had been punched rather than cut, as indicated by distinctive thickening of the metal on the edges of the teeth (Neve
1989: 402-5). These Aegean parallels, however, are exclusively Cretan
in origin and, at least in their majority, Minoan Neopalatial in date.
Absent from Crete, but well documented both at the Hittite capital
and at Mycenaean palatial sites, in particular Tiryns, but also Mycenae
and possibly Gla, is another type of saw: the pendulum stone saw evidenced by and indeed reconstructable from its typical curved cut marks
(Kpper 1996: 16-25; Neve 1995-96: 56; Schwandner 1991) (Figure 2).
While Michael Kpper (1996: 16) has refuted the older claim that cut
marks from Tiryns and Boazky actually showed equal radii (Schwandner 1991: 222), his detailed considerations of the preserved traces have
confirmed the impression that with pendulum lengths of up to 7.5m,
the need of a substantial framework for the saw and not least due to its
time-consuming nature the use of the pendulum saw must have been a
most conspicuous if not a spectacular form of display. It should also be
noted that this highly specialised technique would form a link not simply
between the Hittite and Mycenaean regions in general, but specifically
between %attua and the centres of the Argolid, if one followed Joseph
Shaw (1973: 68) rather than Kpper (1996: 23) in discounting the evidence from Gla as indicative of a straight saw blade.
Another specialised technique may have been associated in some way
with the use of the pendulum saw, and this is the hollow tubular drill

296

ULRICH THALER

Figure 2. Pendulum stone saw: Above, reconstruction drawing by M. Kpper (Kpper 1996: 286 pl. 12.2). Below, cut marks on anta base, Tiryns (Schwandner
1991: 218 fig. 4).

A%%IYAWA AND %ATTI: PALATIAL PERSPECTIVES

297

(Kpper 1996: 14, 118; Neve 1989: 406; 1995-96: 57). As with the pendulum saw, no specimen of the tool itself has been preserved, but its use
in the drilling of dowel-holes is amply documented, again particularly in
Tiryns and Boazky. Apart from the drill-holes, numerous stone cores,
the waste products of the drilling, have been noted at the latter site. For
%attua, specialised work-crews using the pendulum saw and the tubular
drill have been suggested (Neve 1995-96: 58). The tubular drill, however, was also known to the Minoans (Shaw 1973: 70); and the Cretan
evidence would have to be considered in more detail before the transmission of a technical package of pendulum saw and tubular drill from the
Hittites to the Mycenaean Greeks or vice versa could be postulated.
Techniques and forms of building
The first major technological issue, of course, is the question whether
Cyclopean masonry, which appears comparatively suddenly in the Mycenaean citadels, should be explained with reference to Anatolian influence. This long-accepted position, though still decidedly upheld by some
scholars (e.g. Niemeier 1998: 43), has recently been subjected to sometimes quite detailed criticisms (Kpper 1996: 119; Loader 1998: 146,
152, 159-60). I would like to suggest that it still makes sense if seen
contextually, and that, in fact, contextual considerations might be more
important than the relative proportions of interstice stones in stretches
of wall on either side of the Aegean. Here, I am referring to the fact that
at the sites of its most conspicuous occurrences, Cyclopean masonry is
closely linked to another technique: the corbelled vaulting of passages,
to which I return after first looking at two more techniques of wall building adduced in the literature as evidence for or against trans-Aegean contacts.
The fortification wall of the Unterburg at Tiryns is sometimes cited as
an example of the Anatolian Kastenmauer, or compartment type of wall
(e.g. Niemeier 1998: 43). This claim is referenced back to an article by
Peter Grossmann (1967), who, however, only compares the Unterburgwall to some Anatolian fortifications of Kastenmauer-type with respect
to a construction in segments resulting in offsets where segments join
(Grossmann 1967: 100). But transverse walls rather than offsets, which
do occur in some places and are absent in others, are the defining feature

298

ULRICH THALER

of compartment walls, and these are not mentioned by Grossmann. Klaus

Kilian (1988: 139) does indicate the possibility that in an early phase of
the Unterburg-fortification, the then mud brick-superstructure may have
contained chambers, but the evidence remains as vague as the proposed
parallel to Anatolia: neither do the chambers seem traceable in the foundations, nor does Kilian give any indication whether he thought of the
chambers as rooms or filled-in structural features. The late so-called
tower of the Tirynthian Sdburg provides a better example of a compartmented construction technique reminiscent of Hittite towers, but the
assumption of a direct link would remain speculative.
On the other hand, Kppers (1996: 119) argument that Mycenaean
pseudo-ashlar masonry should not be compared to proper Hittite work
in ashlar seems as problematic to me as does the Kastenmauer-hypothesis. I would like to suggest that it is precisely those wall sections where
the Mycenaean ashlars have not been set in proper courses, i.e. those
passages which if any may justify the term pseudo-ashlar, which
show quite suggestive parallels with the way worked stones were made
to fit on the spot in %attua. The northern dromos wall of the treasury of
Atreus offers perhaps the best, but not the only, Mycenaean example of
such elaborate fitting of well-dressed blocks, although the detail of chamfering seems to be present in Hittite examples only (Figure 3). Another
incidence is provided by the Lion Gate of Mycenae, the sculptural elaboration of which provides a further parallel with %attua. The contextual
association of these two traits strengthens the comparison (Figure 4).
But as with tools and the pendulum saw, it is the most distinctive and
perhaps most conspicuous technique which offers the most encouraging
evidence for a possible transfer of knowledge: the use of the corbelled
vault in the building of passages in, through or below walls (Maran 2004:
266-70) (Figure 5). I have referred to the arguments of Kpper as one of
those scholars who take a rather critical stance towards alleged parallels,
but even he does not hesitate to state the absolutely identical mode of
construction (Kpper 1996: 119: absolut identische Konstruktionsweise) of corbelled vaults on either side of the Aegean. Most recently,
Joseph Maran (2004: 270) has strengthened the parallel even further by
pointing out that within the Hittite sequence of postern development, the
best comparisons for the vaulted passages of Tiryns and Mycenae are
their direct contemporaries. As indicated before, the close association of

A%%IYAWA AND %ATTI: PALATIAL PERSPECTIVES

299

Figure 3. Fitting of worked stone on the spot: above, dromos wall of Treasury of Atreus,
Mycenae (photo by Nora Brggemann). Below, temple wall, Boazky (Seeher 2002a: 70 fig. 73).

300

ULRICH THALER

Figure 4. The Lion gate(s): above, in the acropolis fortification, Mycenae (Wace 1949:
pl. 72a). Below, in the city wall, Boazky, computer reconstruction by H.
Schriever (Seeher 2002a: 38 fig. 37).

A%%IYAWA AND %ATTI: PALATIAL PERSPECTIVES

301

Figure 5. Corbelled vaulting: Left, eastern gallery, Tiryns (Papadimitriou 2001: 33 fig.
27). Right, postern of Yerkap, Boazky (Seeher 2002b: 162 fig. 9).

corbelled vaults and Cyclopean masonry at these sites also lends some
strength to comparisons of the latter to Anatolian building techniques.
And, possibly, this contextual comparison might also be extended to
consider the Mycenaean and Hittite use of half-timbering (pace Kpper
1996: 118-19).
Concepts of spatial organization
With respect to similarities in spatial organisation (Figure 1), little needs
to be added to what Kurt Bittel had to say about Hittite palaces, and
Bykkale in particular, some thirty years ago. After commenting on
the comparability of landscape settings and the dissimilarity to, amongst
others, Minoan palaces, he states: The similarity to mainland Greek
palaces just think of Tiryns can hardly be overlooked, not in the
function of the individual element, but quite clearly in the importance
inherent to the courts as elements of ordering and as connective links

302

ULRICH THALER

of the individual parts (Bittel 1976: 524: Die hnlichkeit mit festlandgriechischen Palsten, nicht in der Funktion des einzelnen, wohl aber in
der Bedeutung, die hier wie dort den Hfen als Element der Zuordnung
und als Verbindungsglieder der einzelnen Teile man denke etwa an
Tiryns zukommt, ist kaum zu bersehen.). My only real disagreement with Bittels position is with the qualification he added, namely,
that one distinctive difference from Mycenaean palaces was that individual buildings rather than continuous tracts surrounded the courts at
Bykkale. In pointing to this, he failed, I think, to consider the perspective of the user of the architecture; from the visitors or inhabitants point
of view, the long porticoes would have effectively bound together the
structurally separated buildings into a single building complex. Indeed,
the known smaller Hittite palaces, at Maathyk (zg 1978: plans
1-4) and Alacahyk (Koay and Akok 1966: pls. 1, 78-79), were built
as coherent structures, so that what we see in Bykkale does not seem
to differ in the underlying spatial concept but merely in the technicalities
of putting the concept into place on a large scale. The only thing which
I think needs to be stressed in addition to Bittels remarks is that both
in Bykkale and Tiryns the principal courts are clearly arranged in a
topologically linear fashion, one behind the other.
And while such an arrangement is not immediately obvious at the
well-preserved palace of Pylos, a comparison of reconstructions of the
buildings state in around 1300 and then around 1200 BC (Thaler 2005;
2006) allows two important points to be made. Firstly, that while open
areas around the main building certainly formed part of the palace and
were defined to some extent in the earlier state, they become much more
clearly defined, architecturally elaborated and distinct from one another
as courts in the course of the 13th century. And secondly, a space syntactical analysis of the building shows among other things that in
the later states, though folded into a compact structure topographically,
the courts topological position is modulated to create an outer, an inner and possibly an innermost court. Analyses of inventories, as vividly
demonstrated by Lisa Bendalls (2004: 112-24) insightful study of the
differences in the qualities of assemblages of drinking vessels, can confirm the point in more clarity and detail. And if we further consider the
non-mobile furnishings of rooms, such as frescoes and floors of different
qualities, and in extension the changes of sensory perception associated

A%%IYAWA AND %ATTI: PALATIAL PERSPECTIVES

303

with the transition from one room or spatial unit to another, then I think
it can be shown that it is those spaces connecting the courts, notably such
architectural units as propyla, which stand out in particular.
Textual sources
Unfortunately, such analyses seem impossible at Bykkale, where
most of what is preserved belongs to the level of foundations. But if the
archaeological data is more favourable to detailed interpretation for the
Mycenaean palaces in comparison to the Hittite ones, and to Bykkale
in particular, it is only in the Hittite empire that the textual evidence
holds some promise as to an understanding of the use of palatial architecture. The most important source in this respect is the MEEDI-text (IBoT
I 36), the instruction for the royal bodyguard (Gterbock and van den
Hout 1991; Jakob-Rost 1965). Dating no later than the mid-14th century
(Gterbock 1974: 311), it has proven fairly resistant to any attempts to
directly link the buildings mentioned to the buildings of the extensively
excavated 13th century palace on Bykkale, although several scholars
have tried (e.g. Neve 1982: 137). I think it will prove much more profitable to try to find more general characteristics of the use of palatial
architecture in this text and others, rather than concrete identifications of
individual buildings. That there is some hope in this is indicated not least
by the MEEDI-text itself, which in several passages (IBoT I 36 12a,
48; paragraphs quoted according to Gterbock and van den Hout 1991)
gives alternative instructions for instances of palaces outside the capital
whose architectural layout did not allow the standard procedure to be
followed. Still, even at this more general level of analysis, a number of
philological difficulties cannot be avoided, as the translation of some
central terms is still and seems likely to remain under debate. In my
review of textual sources, I will follow the traditional translation of hilammar as gate-building (discussion summarized in Naumann 1979:
227-28) and to some extent at least also the more controversial identification of arkiu as passageway of the gate (Singer 1983: 106-11). That
is, I accept as I think do critics of the latter translation (Gterbock and
van den Hout 1991: 62) that any activity associated with an arkiu can
be seen as an activity associated with a gate.

304

ULRICH THALER

Rights of access
The simple fact that the MEEDI-text mentions a court of the bodyguard (IBoT I 36 2) gives us a first indication that access to some
areas was restricted to particular groups. Later in the text we learn that
the people of the town of %a##a, apparently a group of singers greeting
the king on his return to the palace, shall not come up to the gate of the
palace. If there are two gatehouses, they may come up to the lower gate
but they shall not come up to the upper gate (IBoT I 36 48). Similarly,
and in the same context, a group of chanters and a reciter seem to follow the king through the main gate, but then have to leave by way of a
lutani (IBoT I 36 46), apparently a side entrance (Jakob-Rost 1965:
171, 204, 221; Singer 1975: 85). Even the MEEDI, the members of the
royal bodyguard, shall not go down through the main gate; they shall go
down through the lutani, unless on an official errand: One guard who
brings a arkanti [probably a defendant in a case to be judged, but possibly some kind of dignitary (Gterbock and van den Hout 1991: 48; Jakob-Rost 1965: 209)] or one whom the chief-of-messengers dispatches,
that one shall go down through the main gate (IBoT I 36 11). Some
higher-ranking officials seem to have had the generalised privilege of
using that gate (IBoT I 36 11), although in the description of the kings
return to the palace we hear that, stepping through the main gate from
the context we may assume this to be the main gate of the inner palace
after the king, one of the MEEDI, one of the Gold-Spear-Men, another
group of guards, and the gate-keeper immediately throw the bolt (IBoT
I 36 50); this leaves us to wonder whether the inner palace was indeed
shut off or whether a lutani would have remained open. The importance
attached to the opening and closing of doors, and thus the control of entry, is also vividly illustrated in another document, the instruction of the
%AZANNU of %attua, an official often considered a kind of mayor. In
this document, we learn that the gates of the capital were sealed at night
and the seals opened every morning in the presence of high-ranking witnesses (Otten 1964: 92-94).
What we see clearly in all of this is that rights of access and, indeed,
with respect to particular gates rights of passage were clearly differentiated with respect not only to rank, but also to the particular occasion.
This, of course, offers an intriguing parallel to what has been argued on

A%%IYAWA AND %ATTI: PALATIAL PERSPECTIVES

305

archaeological grounds for the palace of Pylos (cf. Thaler 2006), with
respect to distributions of vessels of different qualities (Bendall 2004:
112-24) and space-syntactical analysis (Thaler 2005). But the comparison with Hittite texts might also encourage us to consider the inegalitarian regulation of rights of access a more everyday feature of Mycenaean
palaces than its discussion in the context of feasting has hitherto led us
to expect.
Gate buildings as locales
The Hittite textual sources also show us further aspects of the use of
palatial architecture which we hardly find, and should hardly expect to
find, in Mycenaean archaeology today. But we may expect such aspects
to have formed part of the past Mycenaean reality. The first of these is
the functioning of the gate building as not just the interface between
inside and outside, but as a locale of activity in its own right. This is,
mostly, ceremonial activity associated with its primary function. The
gate-building and its immediate surroundings are the setting of the
elaborate preparations for what Hans Gterbock has termed la sortie
du roie (Gterbock and van den Hout 1991: 1), which include amongst
other things the ritual cleaning of the door by the kings barber (IBoT I
36 12). This can be compared to the daily sweeping of the palace-court
before the doors are opened in the morning, which is also described in
the MEEDI-text (IBoT I 36 1). It can also be compared to activities
in temples described elsewhere (KBo 13.164): And in which houses
the God is, they celebrate him in the gate-house. They sprinkle it with
sea-water; further they sweep it (Singer 1975: 83). The cleansing of the
temple gate-buildings can be linked to the fact that sacrifices were made
in these gate-buildings themselves (Singer 1975: 83-85; 1983: 110). One
might at least speculate, therefore, whether the same might have held
true for the gate-houses of the king as supreme priest, although the cleaning there attested can just as well be explained by reference to various
other regulations pertaining to the preservation of the kings purity.
According to Rudolf Naumann (1979: 230), more direct evidence can
be found in tablets of laws indicating that the king held court seated in
the gate-building. Given the absence of large rooms in the archaeologically preserved gate-buildings, one might actually think of him seated

306

ULRICH THALER

as it were on the threshold, although Itamar Singer (1983: 112, 116,

124) suggests that in the katapuzna we have a possible textual reference
to a tribune-like structure as part of the gate-building. These considerations notwithstanding, it has to be noted that Naumanns suggestion represents only one possible reading of relevant passages in the Hittite laws
(Schuler 1982: 121 187-88, 123 198-99, cf. 109 71B) and the
Edict of Telipinu (Hoffmann 1984: 55 50), which merely state explicitly that the perpetrators of certain offences were to be brought before the
gate of the king or the palace gate.
An architecture of bodies
There are two further aspects of the social functioning of palatial architecture of which we find evidence in the texts. The first of these is
what may be called the continuation of architecture by other means, i.e.
the positioning of human agents with reference to the architecture: The
guards take their place in the guards court. At the wall which is on the
inner side toward the palace, twelve MEEDI stand and hold spears. []
But at the wall which is on the outside, gold-spear-men are standing. One
MEEDI stands near the door on one side, namely on the side of the wall
of the MEEDI, but near the door on the other side, namely on the side
of the wall of the gold-spear-men, one gold-spear-man stands (IBoT I
36 2-3). Although one may try (Jakob-Rost 1965: 176), it is not easy
to picture the positioning as presented in the MEEDI-text, particularly
because other passages may or may not refer to and further describe the
situation. But in the way the positioning is referenced to the architectural setting, we can see that, firstly, as the architectural theorist Amos
Rapoport (1982: 57) phrased it, it is the social situation that influences
peoples behaviour, but it is the physical environment that provides the
cues and that, secondly, the Hittites were quite aware of this. We also
see how an architecture of bodies is employed to enhance the impressive
effect of the built architecture. A dozen guards ranged along a wall of a
court is certainly as much about a demonstration of power as it is about
considerations of security. The same may be said of another passage in
the text which describes how a consignment of MEEDI takes position at
the palace gate in preparation for the sortie du roie (IBoT I 36 12a).
In Mycenaean archaeology, we can witness an equally effective and

A%%IYAWA AND %ATTI: PALATIAL PERSPECTIVES

307

even more subtle interplay of architecture and the human body, if the
reconstruction of antithetic heraldic animals flanking the throne in the
palace of Pylos can be upheld. There, one might be justified in suggesting a compositional scheme of the frescoes which was only completed
once the ruler was seated on the throne, but the evidence remains equivocal (cf. Thaler 2006). The so-called sentry-stands in the same palace
offer perhaps less stimulating, but certainly more reliable, evidence for
the enhancement of architectural effect by bodily positioning and also
some indications of the other aspects of social uses of architecture discussed above: they clearly bear witness to the first point discussed with
reference to Hittite text, a grading of rights of access. Speculatively, one
might even point to the close similarity in size between the sentry-stands
and the lost base of the throne (Blegen and Rawson 1966: 57, 68, 74,
88, 253). The stand in the propylon would provide a good parallel, and
its counterparts in the megarons porch and in porch-like room 64 are
plausible parallels to the Hittite textual evidence of activity in gate-buildings. The megarons vestibule, however, seems a less likely locale for
state ritual in the palace of Pylos. In Dimini, an altar has been identified
in the vestibule of Megaron B (- 1999-2001: 90-92);
the fact that vestibule and main room do not seem to have had a direct
connection, however, argues against comparisons with other palatial vestibules.
The act of building
The last aspect of the social functioning of architecture I wish to touch
upon with reference to the Hittite texts is the act of building itself and, in
particular, the rituals associated with it. As is the case with the passages
on the positioning of people, the texts describing building rituals remind
Aegeanists, first of all, of what we are most likely missing in the archaeological record. But there is more to be found: in an instruction for rituals
to be held on the occasion of the building or renewal of a palace (KUB
29.1), which was reconstructed from older sources during the reign of
Tut#aliya IV, reference is made not only to particular rituals to be undertaken during the course of construction, but also to the special symbolic
and quite possibly magical importance attributed to the act of plastering
the wall (Schwartz 1947: 24-25 2, 34-35 39-40; cf. Haas 1994: 250,

308

ULRICH THALER

724, 727; Srenhagen 2001: 404). I cannot help being reminded of the
successive layers of stucco that have been found not only on the walls
but, in particular, on the hearths in Mycenaean palaces (Blegen and Rawson 1966: 82, 85-86, 199; Wace et al. 1921-23: 241-43), which seem to
indicate a concern with renewal that went beyond the functionally necessary. The Hittite ritual text in its turn also emphasises the importance
of the building of the hearth (Schwartz 1947: 36-37 42-48; cf. Haas
1994: 250, 727-28). It will be interesting to see whether future scientific
analysis will confirm first indications that the fragments of wall paintings
found in Boazky were executed in the fresco technique commonly associated with the Aegean (Ann Brysbaert, personal communication, 12
May 2005).
Discussion
Cultural contact and influence
As I stated at the outset, my primary intention has been to shed light on
possible and likely uses of Mycenaean palatial architecture by reference
to and comparison with contemporary Hittite archaeological and textual
sources. In terms of this objective, the above review of evidence can,
in my opinion, largely speak for itself. But with regard to the circumstances and means of transmission of architectural form and associated
knowledge from one culture to the other and thus perhaps with more
direct relevance to the general topic of this volume several points deserve further comment, if we accept the similarities outlined above and
in particular the similarities in spatial organisation, in which sequences
of courts play a central role, as the result of interaction between the Hittite and Mycenaean cultural spheres.
Firstly, who can be seen as the agents of the transfer of knowledge? I
have already pointed to the probable directional character of corresponding exchanges; this would fit with the exchange of specialists, which was
common practice among the royal courts in the Late Bronze Age Eastern
Mediterranean (Imparati 1999: 385-86; Zaccagnini 1983: 249-56). The
occurrence of stone-masons in the corresponding texts is uncertain, and
A##iyawans do not appear, but in the Hittite archaeological evidence,
there is apart from the tools with possible or probable Aegean asso-

A%%IYAWA AND %ATTI: PALATIAL PERSPECTIVES

309

ciations mentioned above the suggestive find of a Syro-Egyptian adze

from Boazky (Neve 1995-96: 57). And while medical staff feature
prominently among the specialists sent from one court to another, one
Hittite text (KUB 5.6) mentions a deity of A##iyawa brought before the
ailing Hittite king (Gterbock 1983: 134; nal 1991: 32). But if we are
right in assuming a transfer not merely of techniques, but also of architectural programs of spatial organisation, an even more important role
than that of specialists is likely to have been played by the respective
elites within either culture, as indicated by the Tawagalawa-anecdote.
Which leads to a second point: what reason is there to believe that if
an architectural form was adopted, then the functions associated with it
in its culture of origin would also be adopted? In the present case, that
reason would lie, I think, in the fact that what is found in both cultures
is not a form which can easily be given a semiotic meaning, and thus
cannot easily be given a new semiotic meaning. What we see in the sequences of courts, associated porticoes and gate-buildings or propyla,
has little iconic value, but represents a mode of spatial organization a
complex, but aniconic artefact. Thus, we may assume a rather firm and
direct link between form and function.
Lastly and most importantly, I am convinced that we have to be careful not to construct the transfer of architectural knowledge as either a
one-way process, nor as a case of wholesale adoption of a pre-existing
concept. For the moment, it is still mainly the dearth of evidence of directionality that cautions against the first assumption. While it has been
claimed, for example, that the Hittites had developed, in the course of
a long autochthonous building tradition, the corbelled into a true vault
by the late 13th century (Neve 1991), none of the examples cited seems
to meet the criteria of a true vault; assertions of Anatolian precedence
based on this alleged technical superiority will have to be considered
with some caution (cf. Kpper 1996: 119). In the future, analysis of the
wall paintings from Boazky might, as mentioned above, provide more
positive evidence that the Hittite empire in its turn received something
from the west.
As to the notion that adoption of architectural forms may and I
think must have been selective rather than whole-sale, it is important
to remember that we find the sequences of courts combined with what

310

ULRICH THALER

has long been identified as a strongly traditional element of Mycenaean

architecture: the megaron (e.g. Barber 1992; Hiller 1986; Werner 1993).
In Pylos, as indicated before, a sequential structure of courts around the
main building with the megaron develops only in the course of the 13th
century. And if we see Tiryns as subject to the rule of Mycenae, then the
limits Mycenaes topography posed on the creation of large courts may
well explain why the exemplary Mycenaean residence of the later 13th
century was erected on the Tirynthian acropolis even the small courtyard fronting the Mycenaean megaron necessitated very substantial terracing. But for all the apparent attraction of an architecture of courts and
the associated and potentially new and attractive forms of representation,
at the very core we find the megaron as the archetypically Mycenaean
building form. There is an element of conscious signification to this, I
would like to suggest, an architecturally stated claim to Mycenaean-ness,
but also something more subtle: I think that in important ways, the megaron was not simply about stating ones Mycenaean-ness, but about being
able to act like a Mycenaean and be Mycenaean. Architectural forms
provide important cues as to what behaviour is socially acceptable, and
forms of architecture one is familiar with help to maintain what Anthony
Giddens (1984: 50, 375) has termed ontological security. By elaborating the traditional form of domestic architecture into the representative
core of their residences while preserving core elements like the central
hearth, the Mycenaean rulers must have been able to draw on a whole
set of culturally-embedded forms of behaviour (cf. Thaler 2006; Wright
1994: esp. 54-60). A discussion of these would in all probability have
to start from the notion of oikos. This, however, is a discussion I do not
want to and cannot enter into now. Rather, I want to emphasise that it
is the juxtaposition of elements from indigenous tradition and probable
foreign inspiration that is, the evidence for selective adoption and
adaptation of outside elements which could usefully be reproduced in an
indigenous context which, in my view, accounts for much of the attraction and persuasiveness of the assumption of cultural influence.
Analogical afterthoughts
On the other hand, we need not necessarily assume any such influence
in order to profit from the above comparison in terms of our understand-

A%%IYAWA AND %ATTI: PALATIAL PERSPECTIVES

311

ing of the Mycenaean palaces. This is because, although I have largely

avoided the term so far, what I have presented can be understood as
an analogical argument; and, to conclude this paper, I want to discuss
briefly how this analogy could be developed further and why it is, in
my opinion, a strong one already. The least reason for the latter lies in
the fact that it fulfils the criterion of spatial and temporal proximity of
source- and subject-context often cited as an indicator of strength in an
archaeological analogy (e.g. Hodder 1982: 18). While this criterion does
strengthen comparative conclusions, it leads away from actual analogical argument. Whether in the direct historical approach or in similar
forms, the persuasiveness of the argument derives from implied cultural
links, which means that we return to the notion of influences in an argument based on homology rather than analogy proper. In this respect,
the term synchronous regional comparison suggested by Dirk Kraue
(1999: 350-51: synchroner Regionalvergleich) with reference to ethnological terminology (Schweizer 1998) offers the best description of what
has been presented here, because it encompasses both homological and
analogical argument.
The main reason why the evidence discussed here constitutes a strong
archaeological analogy sensu stricto, however, is the strongly relational
character of the analogy (Hodder 1982: 16, 19-20; Wylie 1985: 94-95,
99-105; cf. Copi 1968: 314). Whether we follow the assumption that
form follows function or subscribe to the notion of the duality of structure, there can be no doubt that causal relations link the physical reality
of palace architecture and the social acts played out within it. To give
a concrete example, the architectural elaboration of Hittite gate buildings is linked to the sacrificial, purificatory and juridical acts the textual
sources associate them with. The considerable number of similarities that
could be identified provides further support for an analogical reading of
the evidence (Hodder 1982: 16; cf. Copi 1968: 311), although some of
the comparisons, such as the use of similar tools, are much less relevant
in this context than in terms of possible interactions it will be difficult
to suggest a causal link between the way an architecture is used socially
and the tools it was built with. Still, other, non-architectural, points of
comparison could be introduced at this point, which pertain more directly to social organisation, such as a comparison of forms of land tenure provided that sufficient clarity and consent has been attained in

312

ULRICH THALER

the discussion of the corresponding sources for both cultures and that
the respective reconstructions do not themselves depend too heavily on
claims of analogy (cf. e.g. Deger-Jalkotzy 1988). While a common level
of social complexity is no longer considered an indicator of reliability
in an analogical argument per se (Wylie 1985: 99-100), such structural
similarities may still add to its strength.
In more general terms, the present analogical argument could further
benefit from: firstly, an appraisal of the dissimilarities of source- and
subject-context; secondly, a consideration of the strength of conclusions
relative to premises; and thirdly, the introduction of additional sourcecontexts (cf. Copi 1968: 310-13). To address the first of these points is,
however, beyond the scope of this paper, which I hope will open up new
lines of enquiry rather than probe their limits. Any assessment of the
second point remains largely a matter or personal judgement, which can
be illustrated by the following example: as I mentioned above, it is held
by a number of authors that the different courts at Pylos were open to
different groups during acts of palatial feasting, the distinctive feature of
which is seen in neither its existence nor its scale, but rather its cultural
elaboration and highly inegalitarian social context (Halstead and Isaakidou 2004: 150). If this proposition is accepted, then the textual evidence
for social discrimination through rights of access provides a further point
of similarity in the Hittite context, thus a premise for the construction of
an analogy. In contrast, someone initially doubtful about the idea might
still accept as a conclusion of analogical reasoning that the Hittite architectural parallels lend some strength to the proposition of an inegalitarian
character of Mycenaean palatial feasts and spatial organisation. As to the
third point, the inclusion of additional source-contexts may strengthen
the analogy developed here. At the same time, it may weaken to some extent assumptions of interaction, if, for example, a sequencing of courts is
found to be associated with similar social practices of exclusion in other
contemporary cultural contexts prima vista not an entirely unlikely assumption. Yet, comparisons with the Levant, Egypt or Mesopotamia will
prove far more interesting if they can shed light on other aspects of the social functioning of Mycenaean palatial architecture, ones not illuminated
by comparisons with the Hittite sphere. Through this style of analogical
argument, advocated by Alison Wylie (1985: 105-107) and termed com-

A%%IYAWA AND %ATTI: PALATIAL PERSPECTIVES

313

plex analogy by Reinhard Bernbeck (1997: 102: komplexe Analogie),

we may hope to reconstruct the unknown from known parts.
Still, there is a final reason why I am convinced that the evidence presented here already constitutes an analogy both sound and informative.
What forms the source-material for most analogical arguments in archaeology and is conventionally termed the ethnographic present drifts ever
further into the past. Therefore, and despite all the difficulties inherent
in the translation of the Hittite texts, it is instructive to see how these
measure up against standard criteria adduced for the appraisal of ethnographic texts (Wood 1990: 89), which Ann Brower Stahl (1993: 247) has
rightly suggested should be taken into account as elements of source-side
criticism in the construction of analogies: Is the account contemporary
or is there a time-lapse between the social phenomenon described and its
documentation in writing? How competent was the witness? What was
the purpose of the document and what was its intended audience? An account such as the MEEDI-text is clearly contemporary with its subject.
It is written by a highly competent author and its purpose is the reproduction of the very practices described and indeed prescribed. It is, thus,
an active element in the recursive constitution of society a quality quite
unlikely to be found in an etic ethnographic account.

314

ULRICH THALER

Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to the organisers and sponsors of the Mediterranean
Crossroads Conference both for inviting me and for covering my travel
expenses. To Dr. Despina Catapoti, I extend my thanks for providing
shelter during the conference and the initial encouragement to submit
a proposal before it. I also would like to express my gratitude to the
Altertumswissenschaftliches Kolleg Heidelberg, of which I was a junior
research associate while undertaking the study presented here. My sincere thanks for both criticism and encouragement go to those who read
and commented on earlier versions of this paper: a considerate anonymous reviewer as well as Dr. Stefan Jakob, Prof. Joseph Maran, Prof.
Peter A. Miglus, Prof. Asl zyar, Prof. Diamantis Panagiotopoulos, Dr.
Jrgen Seeher and in particular Dr. Rita Strau, whose advice on Hittite
texts was exceptionally helpful. Naturally, these scholars cannot be held
accountable for my views and all mistakes remain my own. Finally, I
would like to thank Nora Brggemann M.A. and Dr. Federica Gonzato,
who provided photographs of the Treasury of Atreus.

A%%IYAWA AND %ATTI: PALATIAL PERSPECTIVES

315

References
-, .
1999-2001 . 3234: 71-100.
Barber, R.L.N.
1992 The origins of the Mycenaean palace. In J.M. Sanders (ed.), Philolakon: Lakonian Studies in Honour of Hector Catling, 11-23.
London: British School at Athens.
Bendall, L.M.
2004 Fit for a king? Hierarchy, exclusion, aspiration and desire in the
social structure of Mycenaean banqueting. In P. Halstead and J.C. Barrett (eds.), Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece. Sheffield
Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5: 105-35. Oxford: Oxbow.
Bernbeck, R.
1997 Theorien in der Archologie. Tbingen: Francke.
Bittel, K.
1976 Das zweite vorchristliche Jahrtausend im stlichen Mittelmeer
und im Vorderen Orient: Anatolien und Aegaeis. Gymnasium 83:
513-33.
Blegen, C.W., and M. Rawson
1966 The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia. Vol. I: The
Buildings and Their Contents. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Cline, E.
1991 A possible Hittite embargo against the Mycenaeans. Historia 40:
1-9.
Copi, I.M.
1968 Introduction to Logic. 3rd edition. New York: Macmillan.

316

ULRICH THALER

Deger-Jalkotzy, S.
1988 Landbesitz und Sozialstruktur im mykenischen Staat von Pylos.
In M. Heltzer and E. Lipiski (eds.), Society and Economy in the
Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500-1000 B.C.): Proceedings of the
International Symposium Held at the University of Haifa from
the 28th of April to the 2nd of May 1985. Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 23: 31-52. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters.
Genz, H.
2004 Eine mykenische Scherbe aus Boazky. Archologischer Anzeiger: 77-84.
Giddens, A.
1984 The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Grossmann, P.
1967 Zur Unterburgmauer von Tiryns. Jahrbuch des Deutschen
Archologischen Instituts 82: 92-101.
Gterbock, H.G.
1974 The Hittite palace. In P. Garelli (ed.), Le palais et la royaut
(Archologie et civilisation): XIXe Rencentre Assyriologique
Internationale, 305-14. Paris: Geuthner.
1983 The Hittites and the Aegean world. Part 1: the Ahhiyawa problem
reconsidered. American Journal of Archaeology 87: 133-38.
Gterbock, H.G., and T.P.J. van den Hout
1991 The Hittite Instruction for the Royal Bodyguard. Assyriological
Studies 24. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago.
Haas, V.
1994 Geschichte der hethitischen Religion. Handbuch der Orientalistik,
Erste Abteilung: Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 15. Leiden: Brill.
Halstead, P., and V. Isaakidou
2004 Faunal evidence for feasting: burnt offerings from the Palace
of Nestor at Pylos. In P. Halstead and J.C. Barrett (eds.), Food,

A%%IYAWA AND %ATTI: PALATIAL PERSPECTIVES

317

Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece. Sheffield Studies in

Aegean Archaeology 5: 136-54. Oxford: Oxbow.
Hawkins, J.D.
1998 Tarkasnawa King of Mira: Tarkondemos, Boazky sealings
and Karabel. Anatolian Studies 48: 1-31.
Heinhold-Krahmer, S.
2003 A##iyawa Land der homerischen Acher im Krieg mit Wilua.
In C. Ulf (ed.), Der neue Streit um Troia: Eine Bilanz, 193-214.
Munich: C.H. Beck.
Hiller, S.
1986 Early and Late Helladic megara: questions of architectural continuity in Bronze Age Greece. In R. Hgg and D. Konsola (eds.),
Early Helladic Architecture and Urbanization: Proceedings of a
Seminar Held at the Swedish Institute in Athens, June 8, 1985, 8589. Gteborg: Paul strms Frlag.
Hodder, I.
1982 The Present Past: An Introduction to Anthropology for Archaeologists. New York: Pica Press.
Hoffmann, I.
1984 Der Erla Telipinus. Texte der Hethiter 11. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Hope Simpson, R.
2003 The Dodecanese and the Ahhiyawa question. Annual of the British School at Athens 98: 203-37.
Imparati, F.
1999 Die Organisation des hethitischen Staates. In H. Klengel, Geschichte
des hethitischen Reiches. Handbuch der Orientalistik, Erste
Abteilung: Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 34: 320-87. Leiden: Brill.
Jakob-Rost, L.
1965 Beitrge zum hethitischen Hofzeremoniell (IBoT I 36).
Mitteilungen des Instituts fr Orientforschung 11: 165-225.

318

ULRICH THALER

Kilian. K.
1988 Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1982/83. Archologischer Anzeiger:
105-51.
Koay, H.Z., and M. Akok
1966 Ausgrabungen von Alaca Hyk: Vorbericht ber die Forschungen
und Entdeckungen von 1940-1948. Trk Tarih Kurumu Yaynlar
V.6. Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu Basmevi.
Kraue, D.
1999 Der Keltenfrst von Hochdorf: Dorfltester oder Sakralknig?
Anspruch und Wirklichkeit der sog. kulturanthropologischen
Hallstatt-Archologie. Archologisches Korrespondenzblatt 29:
339-58.
Kpper, M.
1996 Mykenische Architektur: Material, Bearbeitungstechnik, Konstru
ktion und Erscheinungsbild. Espelkamp: Leidorf.
Lauter, H.
1987 Nouveaux aspects du palais de Mycnes au HR IIIB. In E. Lvy
(ed.), Le systme palatial en Orient, en Grce et Rome: Actes
du Colloque de Strasbourg, 19-22 juin 1985. Travaux du centre
de recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grce antiques: 219-225.
Leiden: Brill.
Loader, N.C.
1998 Building in Cyclopean Masonry: With Special Reference to the
Mycenaean Fortifications on Mainland Greece. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology Pocket-Book 148. Jonsered: Paul strms
Frlag.
Maran, J.
2004 Architektonische Innovation im sptmykenischen Tiryns Lokale
Bauprogramme und fremde Kultureinflsse. In Althellenische
Technologie und Technik von der prhistorischen bis zur
hellenistischen Zeit mit Schwerpunkt auf der prhistorischen
Epoche, 261-93. Weilheim: Verein zur Frderung der Aufarbeitung
der Hellenischen Geschichte.

A%%IYAWA AND %ATTI: PALATIAL PERSPECTIVES

319

Naumann, R.
1979 Das hethitische #ilammar. In VIII. Trk Tarih Kongresi: Ankara,
11-15 Ekim 1976, 227-32. Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu Basimeva.
Neve, P.
1982 Bykkale Die Bauwerke: Grabungen 1954-1966. Boazky%attua 12. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.
1989 Eine hethitische Bronzesge aus Hattusa-Boazky. Istanbuler
Mitteilungen 39: 399-406.
1991 Hethitischer Gewlbebau. In A. Hoffmann, E.-L. Schwandner,
W. Hoepfner, and G. Brands (eds.), Bautechnik der Antike: Internationales Kolliquium in Berlin vom 15.-17. Februar 1990. Diskussionen zur Archologischen Bauforschung: 161-65. Mainz:
Zabern.
1995-96 Der groe Tempel (Tempel 1) in Boazky-%attua. Nrnberger
Bltter zur Archologie 12: 41-62.
Niemeier, W.-D.
1998 The Mycenaeans in western Anatolia and the problem of the origins of the Sea Peoples. In S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern (eds.),
Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth
Centuries BCE. In Honor of Professor Trude Dothan. 17-64. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
2002 %attusa und A##ijawa im Konflikt um Millawanda/Milet: Die
politische und kulturelle Rolle des mykenischen Griechenland in
Westkleinasien. In Die Hethiter und ihr Reich: Das Volk der 1000
Gtter, 294-99. Stuttgart: Theiss.
Otten, H.
1964 Aufgaben eines Brgermeisters in %attua. Baghdader
Mitteilungen 3: 91-95.
1988 Die Bronzetafel aus Boazky: Ein Staatsvertrag Tut#alijas
IV. Studien zu den Boazky-Texten, Beihefte 1. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
zg, T.
1978 Excavations at Maat Hyk and investigations in its vicinity.

320

ULRICH THALER

Trk Tarih Kurumu Yaynlar V.38. Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu

Basmevi.
Papadimitriou, A.
2001 Tiryns: Historischer und archologischer Fhrer. Athens: Esperos.
Rapoport, A.
1982 The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Re, L.
1994 Le importazioni micenee in Anatolia. In M. Marazzi (ed.) La
societ micenea, 444-57. Rome: Bagatto Libri.
Renfrew, C.
1972 The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in
the Third Millennium B.C. London: Methuen.
Schuler, E. von
1982 Hethitische Rechtsbcher. In Rechts- und Wirtschaftsurkunden
Historisch-chronologische Texte. Texte aus der Umwelt des
Alten Testaments 1.1: 96-123. Gtersloh: Gerd Mohn.
Schwandner, E.-L.
1991 Der Schnitt im Stein: Beobachtungen zum Gebrauch der Steinsge
in der Antike. In A. Hoffmann, E.-L. Schwandner, W. Hoepfner
and G. Brands (eds.), Bautechnik der Antike: Internationales
Kolliquium in Berlin vom 15.-17. Februar 1990. Diskussionen zur
Archologischen Bauforschung: 216-23. Mainz: Zabern.
Schwartz, B.
1947 A Hittite ritual text. Orientalia 16: 23-55.
Schweizer, T.
1998 Interkulturelle Vergleichsverfahren. In H. Fischer (ed.),
Ethnologie: Einfhrung und berblick, 379-97. Berlin: Dietrich
Reimer Verlag.

A%%IYAWA AND %ATTI: PALATIAL PERSPECTIVES

321

Seeher, J.
2002a Hattuscha-Fhrer: Ein Tag in der hethitischen Hauptstadt. Alte
anatolische Stdte 2. Istanbul: Ege Yaynlar.
2002b %attusa-Boazky Hauptstadt des Reiches: Die Entwicklung
der Stadtanlage und ihr Ausbau zur Groreichsmetropole. In
Die Hethiter und ihr Reich: Das Volk der 1000 Gtter, 156-63.
Stuttgart: Theiss.
2005 berlegungen zur Beziehung zwischen dem hethitischen
Kernreich und der Westkste Anatoliens im 2. Jahrtausend
v. Chr. In B. Horejs, R. Jung, E. Kaiser and B. Teran (eds.),
Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit: Bernhard Hnsel von seinen
Schlern gewidmet. Universittsforschungen zur prhistorischen
Archologie: 33-44. Bonn: Habelt.
Shaw, J.W.
1973 Minoan Architecture: Materials and Techniques. Annuario della
Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente
49. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato.
Singer, I.
1975 Hittite #ilammar and Hieroglyphic Luwian *#ilana. Zeitschrift fr
Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archologie 65: 69-103.
1983 The Hittite KI.LAM Festival. Pt. 1. Studien zu den BoazkyTexten 27. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Stahl, A.B.
1993 Concepts of time and approaches to analogical reasoning in historical perspective. American Antiquity 58: 235-60.
Steiner, G.
1990 Neue berlegungen zur A##ijawa-Frage. In X. Trk Tarih
Kongresi: Ankara, 22-26 Eyll 1986, 523-30. Ankara: Trk Tarih
Kurumu Basmevi.
Srenhagen, D.
2001 Dimensionen sakralen Knigtums im hethitischen Staat: Einige
Bemerkungen zum Forschungsstand. In R.M. Boehmer and J.
Maran (eds.), Lux Orientis: Archologie zwischen Asien und

322

ULRICH THALER

Europa. Festschrift fr Harald Hauptmann zum 65. Geburtstag,

403-10. Rahden: Leidorf.
Thaler, U.
2005 Narrative and syntax: new perspectives on the Late Bronze Age
palace of Pylos, Greece. In A. van Nes (ed.), Space Syntax: 5th
International Symposium, 323-39. Amsterdam: Techne Press.
2006 Constructing and reconstructing power: the palace of Pylos. In J.
Maran, C. Juwig, H. Schwengel and U. Thaler (eds.), Constructing Power: Architecture, Ideology and Social Practice. Geschichte: Forschung und Wissenschaft 19: 93-116. Mnster: LIT.
nal, A.
1991 Two peoples on both sides of the Aegean sea: did the Achaeans
and the Hittites know each other? In T. Mikasa (ed.), Essays on
Ancient Anatolian and Syrian Studies in the 2nd and 1st Millennium B.C. Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan
4: 16-44. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz.
Wace, A.J.B.
1949 Mycenae: An Archaeological History and Guide. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wace, A.J.B., C.A. Boethius, W.A. Heurtley, L.B. Holland and W. Lamb
1921-23 Excavations at Mycenae. Annual of the British School at Athens
25: 1-434.
Werner, K.
1993 The Megaron during the Aegean and Anatolian Bronze Age: A
Study of Occurrence, Shape, Architectural Adaptation, and Function. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 108. Jonsered: Paul
strms Frlag.
Wright, J.C.
1994 The spatial configuration of belief: the archaeology of Mycenaean
religion. In S.E. Alcock and R. Osborne (eds.), Placing the Gods:
Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece, 37-78. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.

A%%IYAWA AND %ATTI: PALATIAL PERSPECTIVES

323

Wood, W.R.
1990 Ethnohistory and historical method. Archaeological Method and
Theory 2: 81-110.
Wylie, A.
1985 The reaction against analogy. Advances in Archaeological Method
and Theory 8: 63-111.
Zaccagnini, C.
1983 Patterns of mobility among Near Eastern craftsmen. Journal of
Near Eastern Studies 42: 245-64.

CONTENTS
Addresses. .............................................................................................
Acknowledgements..........................................................................
List of Contributors.......................................................................
Introduction
1. Mediterranean crossroads
Sophia Antoniadou and Anthony Pace.................................................

13
17
19

23

Part 1
2. Insularity and island identity in the prehistoric Mediterranean
A. Bernard Knapp.................................................................................

37

3. What future in the Mediterranean past?

Eleni Mantzourani and Despina Catapoti............................................

63

4. Mediterranean archaeologies: a comment on the structure of archaeological communities in the Mediterranean region
Demetra Papaconstantinou..................................................................

85

5. A bridge too far: essentialist concepts in Greek archaeology

Kostas Kotsakis..................................................................................... 109
6. The beginning of the Neolithic in Greece probing the limits of a
grand narrative
Nikos Efstratiou.................................................................................... 123

10

CONTENTS

Part 2
7. East Mediterranean interactions in the 3rd millennium BC
Edgar Peltenburg.................................................................................. 141
8. Cultural interaction in 3rd millennium BC Cyprus: evidence of ceramics
Diane Bolger......................................................................................... 163
9. Identifying population movements by everyday practice: the case of
3rd millennium Cyprus
Jennifer Webb and David Frankel........................................................ 189
10. External influences and local tradition in pottery repertoire of Boeotia
at the end of EHII
Kyriaki Psaraki..................................................................................... 217
11. Cultural contacts and mobility between the South Central Mediterranean and the Aegean during the second half of the 3rd millennium BC
Alberto Cazzella, Anthony Pace and Giulia Recchia........................... 243

Part 3
12. Palatial style architecture and power in Bronze Age Crete
Giorgos Vavouranakis........................................................................... 263
13. A##iyawa and %atti: palatial perspectives
Ulrich Thaler........................................................................................ 291
14. Cross-craft and cross-cultural interactions during the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Late Bronze Age
Ann Brysbaert....................................................................................... 325
15. Artists exchanging vocabularies: the dot-rosette motif on ceramics and
textiles of the 2nd millennium BC in Egypt and the Aegean
Margarita Nicolakaki-Kentrou............................................................. 361
16. Aegean Bronze Age seascapes a case study in maritime movement,
contact and interaction
Ina Berg................................................................................................ 387

CONTENTS

11

Part 4
17. Beyond cultures and ethnicity: a new look at material culture distribution and inter-regional interaction in the Early Bronze Age Southern
Aegean
Yiannis Papadatos................................................................................. 419
18. Sharing material culture? Mycenaeans in the Mediterranean
Gert Jan van Wijngaarden.................................................................... 453
19. Common materials, different meanings: changes in Late Cypriot society
Sophia Antoniadou................................................................................ 483
20. Beyond emulation and hierarchy: diverse expressions of social
identity in Late Cypriot mortuary ritual
Priscilla Schuster Keswani................................................................... 509
21. Colonial encounters and the negotiation of identities in south-east
Iberia
Jaime Vives-Ferrndiz Snchez............................................................ 537
22. Locating identities in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Late
Bronze geEarly Iron Age: the case of hellenised Cyprus
Anastasia Leriou................................................................................... 563
23. The Thracian image in Herodotus and the rhetoric of otherness
Ioannis Xydopoulos............................................................................... 593

Part 5
24. Timber supply of Muslim states in the medieval Mediterranean: an approach focusing on environmental history and technology transfer
Constantin Canavas.............................................................................. 607
25. Commercial activity in the Aegean of the 13th16th century: the
ceramic evidence from Andros
Nikos D. Kontogiannis and Smaragdi Arvaniti.................................... 623

26. Technology, geography and culture the changing face of Hospitaller military architecture
Stephen C. Spiteri................................................................................. 643

12

CONTENTS

Part 6
27. Mediterranean between history and heritage
David Lowenthal................................................................................... 661
28. Italian prehistory collections as Mediterranean cultural heritage
Robin Skeates........................................................................................ 691
29. In search of identities: some thoughts on the place of heritage, prehistoric megaliths and policy in contemporary Maltese society
Anthony Pace........................................................................................ 715
30. The oldest heritage: Mediterranean Classical, in a view from the north,
and the heritage model it has led to
Christopher Chippindale...................................................................... 741

Index. .......................................................................................................

769