Cline 1991b

7/27/2019 Cline 1991b

1/19

HISTORIA

ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ALTE GESCHICHTE REVUE D'HISTOIREANCIENNE JOURNAL OF ANCIENT HISTORY RIVISTADI STORIA ANTICA

UNTER MITWIRKUNG VONT. ROBERT S. BROUGHTON / CHAPEL HILL. N. C. KARL CHRIST / MARBURGJULIETTE ERNST / PARIS HEINZ HEINEN / TRIER FRANCO SARTORI / PADOVA

HERAUSGEGEBEN VON

FRANCOIS PASCHOUD / GENEVE KURT RAAFLAUB / PROVIDENCE, R. I.HILDEGARD TEMPORINI / TUBINGEN GEROLD WALSER / BASEL

BAND XL 1991 HEFT 1

FRANZ STEINER VERLAG STUTTGART

7/27/2019 Cline 1991b

2/19

A POSSIBLE HITTITE EMBARGO AGAINST THE MYCENAEANS *

An enormous disparity exists between the numbers of Egyptian/NearEastern objects and those of Central Anatolian Hittite origin which have beenuncovered in Late Bronze Age contexts in the Aegean area. There is a similardisparity between the numbers of Egyptian/Near Eastern objects and those ofMycenaean origin which have been uncovered in Late Bronze Age contexts inCentral Anatolia. Such discrepancies are surprising, for the regions involvedhad direct and similar access to the principal maritime trade routes encirclingthe Late Bronze Age Mediterranean. This paper presents a variety of textualand artifactual evidence which suggest that an economic embargo best accountsfor the poverty of Central Anatolian Hittite artifacts in the Mycenaeanworld and for the parallel lack of Mycenaean artifacts in the Hittite homelandsof Central Anatolia.

1. The Hittites of Central Anatolia are the only major Near East/EasternMediterranean power not well-represented by objects in the Late Bronze AgeAegean.

Of the twenty-one 'Hittite' objects discovered in Late Bronze Age contextswithin the Aegean area, only six may be Central Anatolian Hittite. They are: asphinx statuette from MM III-LM I Ayia Triadha, Crete; a stag rhyton fromLH I Mycenae; a 'Smiting God' statuette from Nezero, Thessaly; a semi-bulla

from LH III Ialysos, Rhodes; a semi-bulla from LH IIIA2 Mycenae; and acylinder seal from LH IIIC Ialysos, Rhodes. These objects are scattered over

* This paper stems from research conducted for the author's dissertation. Support from theArchaeological Institute of America, the American Schools of Oriental Research,and the U.S.Educational Foundation in Greece is gratefully acknowledged, as is use of research facilities atthe American School of Classical Studies in Athens and the University of Pennsylvania. G. M.Beckman, T. R. Bryce, M. J. Cline, D. Harris, G. L. Huxley, B. B. Kling, A. B. Knapp, J. D.

Muhly, T. G. Palaima, and C. W. Shelmerdine kindly read earlier, vastly differing drafts of thisarticle. The editorial comments and suggestions made by these scholars are greatly appreciated,but they cannot be held responsible for statements and conclusions made by the author. Textscited are illustrative rather than comprehensive. A preliminary version of thispaper waspresented in January 1989 at the First Joint Archaeological Congress in Baltimore, MD (cf.AJA 93 [1989] 272).

Abbreviations used in this article are as follows: AJA American Journal of Archae

ology;AnatSt Anatolian Studies; JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies; JKFJahrbuch fur kleinasiatischeForschung; JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies; KBo Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazkoi;KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazkoi; OJA Oxford Journal of Archaeology;OpAth Opuscula Atheniensia; PAPS Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society;PCPSProceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society; PZPrahistorische Zeitschrift; ZfA

7/27/2019 Cline 1991b

3/19

Zeitschrift fur A rchaologie.Historia, Band XL/1 (1991) Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart

7/27/2019 Cline 1991b

4/19

ERIC CLINE

the Late Bronze Age Aegean both areally and temporally, from LH/LM I toLH IIIC and from Mainland Greece to Rhodes. Moreover, their origins arescattered up and down the spectrum of Hittite history, from the Old Kingdomto the end of the New Empire. Few can be even tenuously linked to theactivities of specific Hittite kings. The six objects constitute less than onepercent of the 800 Egyptian and Near Eastern objects found in the LateBronze Age Aegean. Even distant Mesopotamia is represented by more objects,approximately thirty-five, while Cyprus is represented by almost twohundred, and Egypt and Syro-Palestine close to three hundred each.1 Artisticand architectural features in the Aegean have often been attributed to CentralAnatolian Hittite influences. These include Cyclopean masonry, the direct-access gate, corbel-vaulted galleries and underground spring passages, and theuse of lions in the Lion gate of Mycenae. Such influences may have come tothe Aegean directly from Central Anatolia, but may have arrived also viaintermediary peoples and from intermediary sites in West Anatolia or Cilicia.2A parallel situation concerns certain works of Greek literature which havebeen linked by scholars to earlier Hittite compositions: for instance, Hesiod'sTheogony and the Hittite Epic of Kumarbi. Some may have been transmittedto the Aegean via the Black Sea, Cilicia, or West Anatolia. Others, such as theKumarbi myths, can be traced to an earlier common Hurrian origin.3 Theseare more likely to have reached the Aegean via the port cities of North Syria,

with or without the intervention of the Hittites.

2.The Mycenaeans are the only major Aegean/Eastern Mediterranean LateBronze Age power not well-represented by objects in Central Anatolia.A variety of objects from Cyprus, North Syria, Egypt, and Mesopotamiahave been found in Late Bronze Age contexts within Central Anatolia. Mercantileaccess to the Central Anatolian highlands was clearly possible. Sites inCentral Anatolia reporting such objects include Masat (Cypriote White Slipand North Syrian pottery), Alisar (North Syrian pottery), Alaca Hoyuk (North

1 E. Cline, "Hittite Objects in the Bronze Age Aegean," AnatSt(submitted); idem,Orientalia

in the Late Bronze Age Aegean, Ph.D . Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania (in progress).

2 N. C. Scoufopoulos, Mycenaean Citadels (Goteborg 1971) 101-106; N. K. Sandars,The SeaPeoples (London 1985) 62-68; J. G. Macqueen, The Hittites and Their Contemporaries in AsiaMinor (London 1986) 64-73; T. R. Bryce, "The Nature of Mycenaean Involvement inWesternAnatolia," Historia 38 (1989) 13.

3 R. D. Barnett, "The Epic of Kumarbi and the Theogony of Hesiod," JHS 65 (1945)100-101;

H. G. Guterbock, "The Hittite Version of the Hurrian Kumarbi Myths: Oriental Forerunners ofHesiod," AJA 52 (1948) 123-34; also V. Haas, "Medea und Jason im Lichte hethitischer Quellen,"Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 26 (1978) 241-53; W. Burkert, "Orientaland Greek Mythology: The Meeting of Parallels," in J. Bremmer, ed., Interpretations of GreekMythology (London 1987) 10-40; E. T. Vermeule, "Baby Aigisthos and the Bronze Ag

7/27/2019 Cline 1991b

5/19

e,"PCPS33 (1987) 143.

7/27/2019 Cline 1991b

6/19

A possible Hittite Embargo against the Mycenaeans

Syrian pottery), Fraktin (two Egyptian scarabs and two Old Babylonian cylinderseals) and Boghazkoy (North Syrian pottery; Cypriote White Slip andpossible Monochrome ware; Egyptian scarabs; an Egyptian red granite inscribedstele of the Nineteenth Dynasty; a plain Egyptian alabaster vase; and afragment of an obsidian vase with the name of the earlier Hyksos king Khyanin a thirteenth century B. C. context). Sites elsewhere in Anatolia reportingsuch imports include Tarsus, Mersin, Kabarsa, and Kirikkale (Cypriote WhiteSlip II, Base Ring, and Monochrome vessels; Middle Kingdom Egyptianobjects).4

Despite several decades of intensive excavation within Central Anatolia,Mycenaean artifacts have not come to light in quantity. The seven fragmentaryLH IIIA2-B vessels at Masat constitute the only substantial group of suchobjects in Central Anatolia. Only Fraktin (LH IIIC stirrup jar and a possibleAegean knife), Godelesin Hoyuk (LH IIIC sherd), Uc Hoyuk (possible Mycenaeansherd) and Boghazkoy (possible Aegean belt and sherds from a Hittitebowl with a drawing of a possible Aegean warrior) report additional objects ofAegean manufacture, and several of these are debatable. In addition, thestampseal from Boghazkoy which Laroche suggested as possibly sub-Mycenaeanis more likely Phrygian, as the original excavators thought, and thesherds found at Akalan, once considered to be Mycenaean imports, are

apparently not.5

All but one of the Mycenaean vessels at Masat come from a level dated tothe thirteenth century B. C. This is a time, according to the excavator, whenthe city had lost its former importance and was possibly in the hands of theneighboring Kashka rather than the Hittites. The finds at Fraktin similarlymay postdate the Hittite New Kingdom. Not a single Mycenaean sherd hasyet been found at Boghazkoy, capital city of the Hittites, although it has beenunder almost continuous excavation for the past eighty years. Sherratt and

4 N. Ozguc, "Finds at Firakdin," Belleten 19 (1955) 304-307, figs. 32-33, 36-37;K. Bittel,Hattusha: The Capital of the Hittites (New York 1970) 113-19, with references on

165, figs.27-28; T. Ozguc, Masat Hoyuk I: Excavations at Masat Hoyuk and Investigations inits Vicinity(Ankara 1978) 66; P. Astrom, "Cyprus and Troy," OpAth 13 (1980) 26; T. Ozguc, Masat Hoyuk

II: A Hittite Center Northeast of Bogazkoy (Ankara 1982) 102 and notes 33-35.5 E. Laroche, "Importations myceniennes a Boghaz-koy?," Minos 3 (1954) 8-9, f. 1; N. Ozguc,Belleten (1955) 303, f. 23; J. Mellaart, "Anatolian Trade with Europe and Anatolian Geographyand Culture Provinces in the Late Bronze Age," AnatSt 18 (1968) 188-89; H. Frankfort, The Art

and Architecture of the Ancient Orient (London 1970) 236-37, f. 275; R. M. Boehmer, DieKleinfunde von Bogazkoy (Berlin 1972) 70-71, 73, Taf. X (no. 179); K. Bittel, "Tonschale mitRitzzeichnung von Bogazkoy," Revue Archeologique (1976) 9-14, figs. 1-3; C. Mee,"AegeanTrade and Settlement in Anatolia in the Second Millennium B. C," AnatSt 28 (1978) 124, 128,132-33, 147, 150; T. Ozguc, Masat I 66, 127-28, pls. 83-84, Dl; Idem, Masat II 100, 102-103, pl.

7/27/2019 Cline 1991b

7/19

47:5-6; H. G. Guterbock, "Hittites and Akhaeans: A New Look", PAPS 128 (1984) 115, f. 6;

R. M. Boehmer and H. G. Guterbock, Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Bogazkoy (Berlin 1987)88-89, Taf. XXXIV (no. 277a-d); E. Bloedow, 'The Trojan War and Late Helladic IIIC," PZ 63(1988) 40-41.

7/27/2019 Cline 1991b

8/19

ERIC CLINE

Crouwel are correct in concluding that there is "a strong inverse correlationbetween the amount of Late Helladic IIIA-B pottery and (the) degree ofHittite control" in Central Anatolia.6

3. The Mycenaeans are the only major Late Bronze Age Aegean/EasternMediterranean power not well attested with regard to trade in CentralAnatolian Hittite texts.The Hittite texts found at Boghazkoy in Central Anatolia contain numerousmentions of trade and contact between Central Anatolian Hittites and otherpeoples of the Near East/Eastern Mediterranean area. These include Cypriotes(KBo I 26; KBo XII 38; KUB IV 4); Assyrians (KBo I 14; KUBXXIII 102); Babylonians (KBo 1 10; KBo XVIII 173; KUB III 71; KUBIII 72); Mitannians (KBo I 1; KBo I 3 + KUB III 17); other Syro-Palestinians(KUB XXIII 1; KUB III 14); and Egyptians (KBo II 11; KBo V 6; KUBIII 34; KUB III 63; KUB III 67; KUB III 70; KUB XIV 8; KUB XXI 38;KUB XXXIV 2; KBo I 7 + KUB III 121; KBo I 29 + KBo IX 43; KUBIII 37 + KBo I 17 + KUB III 57).

Texts found at Amarna in Egypt (EA 41, 42, 44 and the Papyrus Anastasi IVno. 17 and IV no. 20), Ras Shamra-Ugarit in North Syria (RS 17.130, RS 17.132,RS 17.137, RS 20.212 and UT 2060), and elsewhere in the Near East/Eastern

Mediterranean (e.g. Dur-Kurigalzu: IM 50966B) are also concerned withtrade and contact with the Hittites of Central Anatolia. They list specificobjects exchanged, including fabrics, furniture, grain, horses, jewels, andcopper, gold and silver. One text found at Ugarit (RS 17.59) records theexistence of a bit tupassi (house of documents) established by Ras Shamra-Ugarit at Hattusas.

For those who equate the Mycenaeans with the Ahhiyawans of Hittitetexts,7 a Hittite inventory list found at Boghazkoy (KBo 18:181 rev. 33) men

6 E. S. Sherratt and J. H. Crouwel, "Mycenaean Pottery from Cilicia in Oxford,"OJA 6

(1987) 345. A similar inverse correlation between LH IIIA-B pottery and the degree of Hittitecontrol may be noted in inland North Syria. Importation of Mycenaean pottery inthis regionapparently ceases coincident with the beginnings of Hittite military and political domination, inthe time of Suppiluliumas I. Cf. F. H. Stubbings, Mycenaean Pottery from the Levant (Cambridge1951) 104. Liverani's arguments to the contrary (M. Liverani, "La Ceramica e i Testi:Commercio Miceneo e Politica Orientale," in M. Marazzi, S. Tusa, and L. Vagnetti, eds., TrafficiMicenei nel Mediterraneo: Problemi storici e documentazione archeologica [Tarant

o 1986] 407)are not compelling.

7 On this debate, see most recently H. G. Guterbock, 'The Hittites and the Aegean World: 1.The Ahhiyawa Problem Reconsidered," AJA 87 (1983) 133-38; M. J. Mellink, 'The Hittites andthe Aegean World: 2. Archaeological Comments on Ahhiyawa-Achaians in Western Anatolia,"AJA 87 (1983) 138-43; J. Mellaart, "Hatti, Arzawa and Ahhiyawa: A Review of the

7/27/2019 Cline 1991b

9/19

PresentStalemate in Historical and Geographical Studies," in Philia Epi Eis Georgion E.Mylonan, v. A(Athens 1986), 74-84; W. Helck, "Zur Keftiu-, Alasia-, und Ahhijawa-Frage," in H.-G. Buchholz,ed., Agaische Bronzezeit (Darmstadt 1987) 218-26; T. R. Bryce, "Ahhiyawans and Mycenaeans

7/27/2019 Cline 1991b

10/19


tions a copper vessel (?) from Ahhiyawa. Second, a letter (KBo II 11 rev.11'12') sent by Hattusilis III to an unknown king (perhaps the king ofArzawa) contains an oblique reference to 'trade' with Ahhiyawa:

"Concerning the gift of the king of Ahhiyawa, about which you wrote tome, I do not know how the situation is and whether his messenger has broughtanything or not." Third, in the Tawagalawas letter (KUB XIV 3, I 53ff)Hattusilis III complains specifically that when the messenger from the King ofAhhiyawa arrived, "he brought me no [greetings] and [he brought] me nopresent."8

These are the only two references to trade between Ahhiyawans and Hittites,despite the fairly voluminous correspondence exchanged between the twopowers over a period of more than two hundred years. If the Mycenaeans arenot the Ahhiyawans, there are no Hittite texts which recognize the existence ofthe Mycenaeans, let alone mention trade.

4.The Hittites of Central Anatolia are not mentioned in the MycenaeanLinear B texts.A number of personal names in the Mycenaean Linear B tablets found at

Knossos (KN), Pylos (PY), and Mycenae (MY) have been interpreted ashaving Egyptian and Near Eastern etymologies. Examples include: mi-sa-rajo= "Egyptian" (KN F 841); a3-ku-pi-ti-jo = "Memphite" or "Egyptian"(KN Db 1105); a-ra-si-jo = "Alasian" (KN Df 1229, KN Fh 369, KN X 1463);and ku-pi-ri-jo = "Cypriote" (KN Fh 347 +, KN Ga517 +, PY Cn 131). Otherwords in the Linear B texts are Near Eastern/Semitic loanwords and reflectcontact with the Eastern Mediterranean: sa-sa-ma = "sesame" (MY Ge602,MY Ge605, MY Ge606); ku-mi-no = "caraway seed" (MY Ge602 +) ; ku-paro= "cyperus" (a spice) (KN 465, KN Ga517 + ); ku-ru-so = "gold" (KNK 872, PY Ta714, PY Ta716); and ki-to = "chiton" (KN Lc536, KN L 693).9

There are no mentions of Hittite peoples or objects, or of trade with the

An Anatolian Viewpoint," OJA 8 (1989) 297-310.

8 F. Sommer, Die Ahhijawa-Urkunden (Munich 1932) 242-44, Taf. IV 1; H. G. Guterbock,"Neue Ahhijawa-Texte," ZfA 43 (1936) 321; G. L. Huxley, Achaeans and Hittites (Oxford 1960) 3(no. 4), 10 (no. 22); S. Kosak, Hittite Inventory Texts (Heidelberg 1982) 121, 124, 276; C. Zaccagnini,"Aspects of Ceremonial Exchange in the Near East During the Late Second Millennium

B. C," in M. Rowlands, M. T. Larsen, and K. Kristiansen, eds., Centre and Periphery in the

Ancient World (Cambridge 1987) 58, 64; Bryce, OJA (1989) 300; E. Peltenburg, "Greeting Giftsand Luxury Faience: A Context for Late Mycenaean Orientalising," in Science andArchaeology:Bronze Age in the Aegean and Adjacent Areas (forthcoming).9 O. Landau, Mykenisch-Griechische Personennamen (Goteborg 1958)272; M. C. Astour,"Greek Names in the Semitic World and Semitic Names in the Greek World," JNES 23(1964) 194; Idem, Helleno-Semitica (Leiden 1967) 340-44; Idem, "Ugarit and the A

7/27/2019 Cline 1991b

11/19

egean," in

H. A. Hoffner, Jr., ed, Orient and Occident (Neukirchen 1973) 23-24; M. Ventrisand J. Chad-wick, Documents in Mycenaean Greek (Cambridge 1973) 98, 135-36, 199, 219, 223, 228, 320, 330,344, 346, 533, 537, 554, 557-58, 561, 582.

7/27/2019 Cline 1991b

12/19

ERIC CLINE

Hittites, in the Linear B texts. Names previously identified as 'Hittite' are nowassociated with sites located on the western coast of Anatolia: mi-ra-ti-ja ="Miletus" (PY Aa798 + , PY Ab573); ze-purra3 = "Halikarnassus" (PYAa 61); ki-ni-di-ja = "Knidus" (PY Aa 792, PY Ab 189, PY An 292).10 Not onerefers to an area in inland Central Anatolia. Moreover, neither Homer norlater Greek writers ever mention the Hittites.

5.The Hittites of Central Anatolia established trade embargoes during theLate Bronze Age.A text discovered at Boghazkoy (KUB XXIII 1) records a treaty betweenTudhaliyas IV and Sausgamuwa of Amurru. In the treaty, Sausgamuwa isordered by Tudhaliyas IV to implement an embargo against the Assyrians. Heis instructed in particular (IV 23) not to allow the ships of the Ahhiyawans "tosail to him"." The sanctions are directed primarily at Assyria rather thanAhhiyawa. Nevertheless, a specific directive is given to blockade Ahhiyawanships and to prevent the overland transport of Ahhiyawan goods. If theAhhiyawans are the Mycenaeans, the text is evidence of a direct embargoagainst Mycenaean goods. At the very least, the text shows that economic

embargoes existed in the Late Bronze Age and were implemented by theHittites on at least one occasion.

Hittite rulers apparently considered it their prerogative to control the activitiesof merchants operating within the Hittite political sphere of influence. Asecond example comes from a text dating to the early thirteenth century B. C.found at Ugarit (RS 17.130). The text records Hattusilis Ill's response tocomplaints registered by officials from Ugarit. In this document, Hattusilis IIIdeclares that Hittite merchants operating out of the Cilician port of Ura wouldhenceforth be subject to the following regulations: they could live and trade in

Ugarit only during part of the year and must return to their own homes in Uraduring the winter, they could not own real estate in Ugarit, and they could notlend money at excessive interest rates.12

10 Landau, Mykenisch-Griechische Personennamen 271-73; Ventris and Chadwick, Documents159, 166, 554, 561, 593; S. Hiller, "RA-MI-NI-JA: Mykenisch-Kleinasiatische Beziehungen unddie Linear B-Texte," Ziva Antika 25 (1975) 388-412, esp. 398, 404-405; J. Chadwick, 'TheWomen of Pylos," in J.-P. Olivier and T. G. Palaima, eds., Texts, Tablets and Scribes (Salamanca1988) 80, 81, 84, 91; Bryce, Historia (1989) 13-14. Ze-pu2-ra3 is identified wit

h Halikarnassus byChadwick (above, 84), who cites Strabo 14.16 (656), Steph. Byz. s. v., and otherlinks with theeastern Aegean in the Pylos texts.

11 Sommer, Die Ahhiyawa-Urkunden 320-27, Taf. VIII; Guterbock, AJA(1983) 136; C.Kuhneand H. Otten, Der Sausgamuwa Vertrag (Wiesbaden 1971) 15-17. Cf. also J. Mellaart, "SomeReflections on the History and Geography of Western Anatolia in the Late Fourtee

7/27/2019 Cline 1991b

13/19

nth andThirteenth Centuries B. C," JKF 10 (1986) 229.

12 J. Nougayrol, Le Palais Royal d'Ugarit IV (Paris 1956) 102-105.

7/27/2019 Cline 1991b

14/19

A possible Hittite Embargo against the Mycenaeans '

A Hittite Embargo Against the Mycenaeans?

The above points may be summarized as follows: 1) The Hittites of CentralAnatolia are not mentioned in the Linear B texts of the Mycenaeans. They arethe only Eastern Mediterranean peoples not well-represented by objects in theLate Bronze Age Aegean; 2) The Mycenaeans are not well attested in Hittitetexts with respect to trade. They are the only major Late Bronze Age Aegean/Eastern Mediterranean peoples not well-represented by goods in CentralAnatolia; 3) Textual evidence attests that trade embargoes and other limits onmercantile activities were established by the Hittites during the Late BronzeAge.

Why is there extensive artifactual and textual evidence for trade betweenCentral Anatolian Hittites and all other major Near East/Eastern Mediterraneanpowers during the Late Bronze Age, and yet no evidence for tradebetween Central Anatolian Hittites and Mycenaeans during this same period?Furthermore, why was the trade and contact established earlier in the secondmillennium between Minoan Crete and Central Anatolia not continued by theMycenaeans and Hittites? Previous hypotheses attempted to explain the apparentlack of Hittite-Mycenaean trade by citing geographic or demographicfactors, ignorance of existence, an accidental lack of discoveries, a trade in

perishable goods, or a simple lack of interest or need for reciprocal trade.13None of these is completely satisfactory, as can be briefly shown.

First, geographic and demographic factors clearly presented no problems toBronze Age merchants wishing to travel to or from Central Anatolia, asindicated by the artifactual and textual evidence for trade between Hittitesand Cypriotes, Syrians, Mesopotamians and Egyptians. Moreover, the Hittiteshad control of or access to routes leading to all coasts of Anatolia and to theinternational port of Ras Shamra-Ugarit in North Syria.14 Second, the Mycenaeansand the Hittites certainly knew of each other and their goods throughcontact in West Anatolia or in the ports of Cilicia and North Syria.15 Third, the

13 Cf. Mellaart, AnatSt (1968) 188-89, 192; J. D. Muhly, "Hittites and Achaeans:AhhijawaRedomitus," Historia 23 (1974) 138; Idem, 'The Hittites and the Aegean World," Expedition 16(1974) 10; R. Hope Simpson, Mycenaean Greece(Park Ridge, NJ 1981) 205. Liverani's comments(Traffici Micenei 410) on perishable Hittite goods are not directed by him towards Hittite tradewith the Aegean but are applicable.

14 J. Yakar, "Hittite Involvement in Western Anatolia," AnatSt 26 (1976) 124-27;I. Singer,

"Western Anatolia in the Thirteenth Century B. C. According to the Hittite Sources," AnatSt 33(1983) 206, 208; A. Archi, "Anatolia in the Second Millennium B. C," in A. Archi, ed., Circulationof Goods in Non-Palatial Context in the Ancient Near East (Roma 1984) 204; R. H.Beal,'The History of Kizzuwatna and the Date of the Sunassura Treaty," Orientalia 55(1986) 425-26,445; Macqueen, Hittites 37-39, 54-55 ;T. R. Bryce, 'The Boundaries of Hatti andHittite Border

7/27/2019 Cline 1991b

15/19

Policy," Tel Aviv 13 (1986-87) 97.

15 A Hittite pilgrim flask from Miletus (M. J. Mellink, "Archaeology in Asia Minor," AJA 79[1975] 207, pl. 39 f. 9) indicates an instance of possible Mycenaean-Hittite contact in WestAnatolia. Cf. Guterbock PAPS (1984) 115, figs. 1-5 for additional evidence. At Ras Shamra-Uga

7/27/2019 Cline 1991b

16/19

ERIC CLINE

lack of Hittite objects in the Aegean and the lack of Mycenaean objects inCentral Anatolia is unlikely to be accidental, considering the intensity ofexcavation in both the Aegean and Anatolia. Fourth, if perishable goods werebeing exchanged between Central Anatolia and the Late Bronze Age Aegean,there should be textual evidence of these transactions, which there is not.Fifth, it would be surprising if there were a complete lack of Aegean interest inHittite goods and raw materials, considering the relative abundance of metalresources in Hittite-controlled Anatolia and the ever-present need of theMycenaeans for such metals, in particular copper and tin. If tin were indeedavailable in sufficient quantities in southeastern Anatolia during the LateBronze Age, this should have been the primary area to supply the Mycenaeans,rather than distant Afghanistan or Cornwall.16

An economic embargo may be an argument ex silentio, but textual evidenceclearly shows that strict trade policies were implemented by the Hittite government.Harsh economic strategies were not difficult to enforce in CentralAnatolia, due to the centralized nature of the government. Economicsanctions against the Mycenaeans might be seen as a reaction to the rapidadvances made by Mycenaean traders into both the country and the economy

of West Anatolia, not to mention the rest of the Eastern Mediterranean.17 Suchsanctions would have been part of a sustained effort by the Hittites, combiningmilitary might with economic pressure, to stop or limit the activities ofthese 'upstart traders' from overseas.

The hypothesis of economic sanctions can be strengthened and expanded ifthe Mycenaeans are equated with the Ahhiyawans. Hittite records provideevidence of relations more often strained than friendly between Ahhiyawansand Hittites.18 More importantly, it was apparently a policy of Ahhiyawa toactively support prominent dissidents against Hittite authority in West Anato

rit, Hittite, Mycenaean and Minoan artifacts have all been found, and textual ev

idence indicatesthat both Aegean and Central Anatolian Hittite merchants were in residence. Cf.A. B. Knapp,"Production, Exchange, and Socio-political Complexity on Bronze Age Cyprus," 0JA5 (1986) 43with references.

16 Cf. J. D. Muhly, "Sources of Tin and the Beginnings of Bronze Metallurgy," AJA 89 (1985)275-91; K. A. Yener, 'The Archaeometry of Silver in Anatolia: the Bolkardag Mining District,"AJA 90 (1986) 472; K. A. Yener and H. Ozbal, "Tin in the Turkish Taurus Mountains: the

Bolkardag Mining District," Antiquity 61 (1987) 220-26; K. A. Yener, H. Ozbal, E. Kaptan, A. N.Pehlivan, and M. Goodway, "An Early Bronze Age Source of Tin Ore in the Taurus Mountains,Turkey," Science 244 (1989) 200-203.

17 D.H. French ("Anatolia: Bridge or Barrier?," IX Turk Tarih Kongresi I [Ankara1981][Ankara 1986] 118) has previously suggested "a deliberate, politically motivatedexclusion which

7/27/2019 Cline 1991b

17/19

had emerged in earlier millennia as a function of social and economic states." Cf. also Yakar,AnatSt (1976) 126-27.

18 Cf. the Madduwattas text (KUB XIV 1 + KBO XIX 38), the Tawagalawas letter (KUBXIV 3) and the Milawata letter (KUB XIX 55 + KUB XLVI1I 90), among others. For recentsummations see M. J. Mellink, "Postscript," in M. J. Mellink, ed., Troy and theTrojan War (BrynMawr 1986) 95-98; Bryce, OJA (1989) 297-310.

7/27/2019 Cline 1991b

18/19


lia and to encourage the anti-Hittite activities of these persons.19 A Hittiteembargo originally implemented as a reaction to simple economic advancesby Mycenaean traders might have been continuously upheld for over twohundred years as a reaction to constant political intrigues and unrest fomentedby the Mycenaeans throughout the period. Such subversive activities werethreatening to the Hittite Empire proper and could not be ignored.

In sum, the small group of 'Hittite' objects found in the Late Bronze AgeAegean, the paucity of Mycenaean artifacts found in Central Anatolia, andthe virtual lack of cross-textual references to trade appear to reflect an anomalyin the otherwise consistent pattern of trade and contacts between Mycenaeansand the Near East/Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age. Iwould suggest that socio-economic or socio-political factors are to blame. Aneconomic embargo established by the Central Anatolian Hittites against theMycenaeans best accounts for the observable situation at this time.

The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Eric Cline

19 Bryce, Historia (1989) 12; Idem, OJA (1989) 307.

7/27/2019 Cline 1991b

19/19