² The bibliography in Dodecanese I–III has been supplemented by Mee in RBA and by Davis 1992. More recent references are given in AR, annually for Greece (up to 1989 by H. W. Catling, and subsequently by E. French, followed by R. A. Tomlinson and, from 1996, by D. J. Blackman). Reports on Asia Minor are given by Mitchell, S. in AR 31 (1984–1985), 70–105 Google Scholar, 36 (1989–90), 83–131 and 45 (1998–9), 125–91. For Anatolia in general, there are annual reports in AJA (up to 1993 by M.J. Mellink and subsequently by M.-H. Gates). In addition to the publications listed (and abbreviated) in n. 1 above, the following are also significant: Beckman, G., Hittite Diplomatic Texts (Atlanta, 1996)Google Scholar; Bryce, T. R., ‘The nature of Mycenaean involvement in western Anatolia’, Historia, 38 (1989), 1–21 Google Scholar; Dietz, S., Excavations and Surveys in Southern Rhodes: The Mycenaean Period. Lindos, iv/i (Copenhagen, 1984)Google Scholar; Furumark, A., ‘The settlement at Ialysos and Aegean history 1550–1400 B.C.’, Op. Arch. 6 (1950), 150–271 Google Scholar; Jacopi, G., ‘Nuovi scavi nella necropoli micenea di Jaliso’, ASA 13–14 (1930–1931), 243–345 Google Scholar; Karantzali, E. and Ponting, M. J., ‘ICP-AES Analysis of some Mycenaean vases from the cemetery at Pylona, Rhodes’, BSA 95 (2000), 219–38Google Scholar; Maiuri, A., ‘Jaliso—Scavi della Missione Archaeologica Italiana a Rodi (Parte I e II)’, ASA 6–7 (1923–1924), 83–341 Google Scholar; Mee, C. B., ‘Aegean Trade and Settlement in Anatolia in the Second Millennium B.C.’, Anat. Stud. 28 (1978), 121–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Milojčić, V., Samos I: Die prähistorische Siedlung unter dem Heraion (Bonn, 1961)Google Scholar; Monaco, G., ‘Scavi nella zona micenea di Jaliso’, Clara Rhodos, 10 (1941), 41–185 Google Scholar; Morricone, L., ‘Eleona e Langada: Sepolcreti della Tarda Eta del Bronzo a Coo’, ASA 43–4 (1965–1966)Google Scholar, 5–311; id., ‘Coo: scavi e scoperte nel “Serraglio” e in località minori (1935–1943)’, ASA 50–1 (1972–3), 139–396; Stubbings, F. H., Mycenaean Pottery from the Levant (Cambridge, 1951)Google Scholar.

³ Hawkins 1998.

⁴ Mountjoy 1998.

⁵ Hawkins 1998, 1–13, 18–24 and passim, cf. Niemeier, FsDothan 19–20, Polemos, 141–4, with refs. Prior to Hawkins's discovery, the political geography of western Anatolia had already been clarified by two inscriptions of the reign of Tudhaliya IV, the bronze tablet in Hittite cuneiform found near the Sphinx Gate at Hattusa, and the Luwian hieroglyphic inscription of the Hittite pool at Yalburt near Konya. Cf. H. Otten, Die Bronzetafel aus Boğazköy: ein Staatsvertrag Tuthalijas IV (StBoT Supp. 1; 1998); P. H. J. Houwink ten Cate, ‘The bronze tablet of Tudhaliya and its geographical and historical relations’, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete, 82 (1992), 233–70; F. C. Woudhuizen, ‘The Late Hittite Empire in the light of the recently discovered Luwian hieroglyphic texts’, Journal of Indoeuropean Studies, 22 (1994), 53–81. From the evidence of these inscriptions, the Late Bronze Age kingdom of Tarhuntassa is located in the later Rough Cilicia and western Pamphylia. By inference, the kingdom of Arzawa must lie to north of these. It had long been recognized that the position of the reliefs and inscriptions at the Karabel Pass mark this as a border, e.g. by H. G. Güterbock, ‘Das dritte Monument am Karabel’, Ist. Mitt. 17 (1967), 70. Hawkins's new readings of the Luwian hieroglyphic inscription of rock relief A at Karabel now confirm this as the northern border of Mira, and by inference also confirm the identification of Ephesos as Apasa, capital of Arwawa, later replaced by Mira.

⁶ Hawkins 1998,2, 17 n. 79, 26–31, cf. Niemeier, Polemos, 144

⁷ Hawkins 1998, 1, 10, 14, 22–5.

⁸ Niemeier, FsDothan, 20–5, lists and illustrates (ibid., figs. 2–5) the locations previously suggested and their various advocates, cf. Niemeier, Polemos, 143–4.

⁹ Hawkins 1998, 1–2, 30–1; Mountjoy 1998, 49 n. 126.

¹⁰ Hawkins 1998, 2.

¹¹ Bryce, KH pp. xiii f., 408–15 (Appendix I: Chronology); Mountjoy 1998, 46–7 and table I, cf. O. R. Gurney, The Hittites (New York, 1990), table on p. 181. A time span of c. 1400 to c. 1360 for the reigns of Tudhaliya I/II and Arnuwanda I combined seems an appropriate compromise.

¹² Shelmerdine 1997, 539–41 with refs.

¹³ Mountjoy 1998, 47. E. H. Cline, ‘Aššuwa and the Achaeans: the “Mycenaean” sword at Hattušas and its possible implications’, BSA 91 (1996), 137–51, esp. 141 n. 28, adopted an earlier date, i.e. c. 1450–1420, for Tudhaliya II; but this was prior to the ‘deletion’ of Tudhaliya I and Hattusili II. Cline, ibid., 137 n. 3, lists the primary publications of the sword.

¹⁴ P. I. Kuniholm et al., ‘Anatolian tree rings and the absolute chronology of the eastern Mediterranean, 2220–718 B.C.’, Nature, 381 (27 June 1996), 780–3, cf. Shelmerdine 1997, 539–41; C. Pulak, ‘The Uluburun shipwreck’, in S. Swiny et al. (eds), Res Maritimae: Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity (Nicosia, 1997), 233–62 esp. 250 with refs., 257 (correcting the date of c. 1316 BC formerly given); cf. Niemeier, Polemos, 150 with refs., and G. F. Bass, ‘Sailing between the Aegean and the Orient in the second millennium B.C.’ in Aegean and Orient, 183–92, esp. 184 nn. 5, 7. Reports of the 1984, 1985 and 1986 campaigns at Ulu Burun are given by G. F. Bass, in AJA 90 (1986), 269–96, by C. Pulak, in AJA 92 (1988), 1–32 and by G. F. Bass et al., in AJA 93 (1989), 1–29. [see now, however, the discussion of LHIIIA2 by M. H. Wiener (this volume).]

¹⁵ Bryce, KH 59–63, discusses a wide and catholic range of possibilities for the interpretation of Ahhiyawa. But the choice indicated is a dominant kingdom with an enduring power base, cf. Mee 1998, 142–3 esp. n. 90.

¹⁶ E. Forrer, ‘Vorhomerische Griechen in der Keilschrifttexten von Boghazköi’, Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesdkchaft 63 (1924), 1–22; id., ‘Die Griechen in den Boghazhöi-Texten’, Orientalische Literaturzeitung, 27 (1924), 113–18. He argued that there had been an archaic form of Achaia, namely ‘Achaiwia’, and that this was written as ‘Ahhiyawa’ in Hittite. Although the Homeric name for the land of the Achaians was Achaiis, the root of the word appears to be the same, or at least sufficiently similar to be recognizable, even in the medium of a foreign tongue. Nevertheless, this question continues to be the subject of philological discussion, e.g. Finkelberg, M., ‘From Ahhiyawa to Achaioi’, Glotta, 66 (1988), 127–34Google Scholar; cf. Bryce, KH 59–60.

¹⁷ Niemeier, FsDothan, 20–1 and fig. 3, lists the proponents of this hypothesis. The earliest was Hrozný, B., ‘Hethiter und Griechen’, Archiv orientální, 1 (1929), 323–43Google Scholar. His arguments were rather weak (as Page remarks); but the case for Rhodes was made more forcefully by Laurenzi, V., ‘Rodi e l'Asia degliittiti’, Nuova Antologia, 75 (1940), 327–80Google Scholar. The arguments were presented more fully by Völkl, K., ‘Achijawa’, La Nouvelle Clio, 4 (1952), 329–59Google Scholar, and most cogently by Page, D. L., History and the Homeric Iliad (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1959), 1–40 Google Scholar (although new readings and interpretations of the Hittite texts have rendered obsolete some of his discussion).

¹⁸ Mountjoy 1998, esp. 33–45.

¹⁹ Ibid., 50, ‘Iolkos, which new excavation has now suggested was Dimini, with harbours at Volos and Pefkakia on the Gulf of Pagasae, should not be disregarded.’ But the tholos tombs at Dimini (GAC 275, H3) are not very imposing (D. 8.3 m, 8.5 m), and the tholos tomb at Volos: Kastro (Ibid., 273, H1), although large (D. 10 m), is not especially well built. The successive large buildings at die Volos site, although they have been characterized as palaces, are not impressive. The new work at Dimini is summarized by Adrimi-Sismani, A., ‘Μυκηναϊκός οικισμός στο Δίμενι’, in Conference on Ancient Thessaly in Memory of D. Theochares (Athens, 1992), 227–78Google Scholar. The recent excavations at Pefkakia are discussed by A. Efstathiou, ‘Νεώτερες Ανασκαφικές ´Ερευνές στην ευρυτέρη περιόχη της Μάγουλας ‘‘Πευκάκια’’’, Ibid., 279–85, cf. GAC 274, H2. The Dimini site is now known to have been extensive, including a road flanked by remains of five Mycenaean houses. It may be compared with the Mycenaean settlement at Nichoria in Messenia, W. A. McDonald and N. Wilkie (eds), Excavations at Nichoria II: The Bronze Age Occupation (Minneapolis, 1992), esp. 231–769, cf. Shelmerdine 1997, 549–50.

²⁰ Mountjoy 1998, 51, ‘pottery is not a political indicator’, and Niemeier, FsDothan, 26, ‘Mycenaean pots do not necessarily translate into Mycenaean people’; cf. C. Gates, ‘The Mycenaeans and their Anatolian frontier’, in Politeia, 259–98. esp. 290, 293.

²¹ Mountjoy 1998, 35–8, 43–5; Mee 1998, 138–41. Mee, Ibid., 138, cites various Mycenaean finds from western Anatolia ‘which may be the result of occasional or indirect trade contacts’, at Mylasa, Kusądasi, Tire-Ahmetler, Çerkes Sultaniye, Akbük, Erythrae, and Old Smyrna, cf. Niemeier, FsDothan, 26.

²² Niemeier, Polemos, 142 and n. 14. The 1996 excavations by S. Erdemgil and M. Büyükkolanci, Müze Kurtarma Kazilari Semineri, 8 (Ankara, 1998), 69–83, are summarized by Mitchell, S., AR 45 (1998–1999), 150–1Google Scholar.

²³ Mountjoy 1998, 36. Gültekin, H. and Baran, M., ‘Selçuk tepesinde bulunan Miken mezari/The Mycenaean grave found at the hill of Ayasuluk’, Türk. Ark. Derg. 13/2 (1964), 122–33Google Scholar; Mellink, M. J., ‘Archaeology in Asia Minor’, AJA 68 (1964), 157–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mee (1998), 139–40. The Artemision finds have inspired belief that the Sanctuary of the Ephesian Artemis may have had a Bronze Age precursor, cf. Bammer, A., ‘Geschichte—neu geschrieben: Mykene im Artemision von Ephesos’, ÖJh 63 (1994), Beiblatt, 28–39 Google Scholar; and U. Muss, Das Artemision von Ephesos supp. 10 to Antike Welt, 27 (1996), 25–8Google Scholar; Bammer, A., Anat. Stud. 40 (1990), 141–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar and pl. 5 a, c—d; Niemeier, Polemos, 142.

²⁴ Mee 1998, 140. Mountjoy 1998, 35–6, discusses the tomb group acquired by Manisa Museum from an antiquities dealer, and published by Ersoy, Y. E., ‘Finds from Menemen-Panaztepe in the Manisa Museum’, BSA 83 (1988), 55–82 Google Scholar. Annual preliminary reports of the excavations here are given by A. Erkanal, and notices are given in AJA by M. Mellink and (after 1993) by M.-H. Gates, as listed by Mee 1998, 140 n. 46 and by Mountjoy 1998, 35 n. 42.

²³ Bridges, R., ‘The Mycenaean tholos tomb at Kolophon’ Hesperia 43 (1974), 264–6 and pl. 52Google Scholar; Mee 1998, 140.

²⁶ Ersoy, Y., Klazomenai Myken Keramiği (Ankara, 1983)Google Scholar; Mee (n. 2), 125; Gates, M.-H., ‘Archaeology in Turkey’, AJA 99 (1995), 222 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mee 1998, 140; Mountjoy 1998, 35.

²⁷ Mountjoy 1998, 50, cf. Hawkins 1998 passim. As Mountjoy points out, this rules out the former suggestion of C. Gates (n. 20), 296, that Ahhiyawa may have included these places, together with all settlements with Mycenaean-type pottery in this Aegean coastal zone, from Mennemen down to Müsgebi.

²⁸ Mountjoy 1998, esp. 34–45; GAC 364–7; Dodecanese I–III, passim. Kalymnos: M. Benzi, ‘The Late Bronze Age pottery from the Vathy Cave, Kalymnos’, in Wace and Blegen, 275–88, esp. 281–3 (Minoan pottery replaced by Mycenaean in LH III A2–B). Astypalaia: the chamber tombs at Armenochori: Patelles (GAC 364) are described by Zervoudakis, I., A. Delt. 26 (1971), Chr. 549–51Google Scholar, cf. Konstantinopoulos, G., AAA 6 (1973), 120 Google Scholar, 124 and Dodecanese III, 159–62. The numerous LH III A2–C vases are not yet fully published, but unpublished notes by C. B. Mee are mentioned by MacDonald, C., ‘Problems of the twelfth century B.C. in the Dodecanese’, BSA 81 (1986), 125–51 espGoogle Scholar. 148, cf. RBA 89 n. 145, commenting on the ‘impressive’ LH III B pottery here; and some of the vases are described by Mountjoy, Ibid. More recently, two Mycenaean chamber tombs with LH III A2–B pottery were discovered at Synkairos, between Steno and Trito Marmari, on the north coast of Astypalaia, C. Doumas, ‘Αστυπάλαια’, A. Delt. 30 (1975), Chr. 372, cf. AR 30 (1983–1984), 70 Google Scholar, fig. 135, Davis 1992, 752 n. 252 and Mountjoy 1998, 39.

²⁹ Mountjoy 1998, 37–9; cf. Melas 1985, 176–81.

³⁰ GAC 358. But Melas 1985, 43–4, 78–9 figs. 42 and 107–8 (nos. 1268, 1270, 1271), regards even these as Minoan. Melas classifies die two kylikes (BMC A 974 and A 975 = his nos. 1270 and 1271) as LM III A2/III B rather than LH III A2, although he admits, Ibid., 43–4, that a Rhodian origin is possible, and classifies the sword (BMC Bronzes no. 46 = his no. 1273) as LH III A2–B1. He assigns the bull's head rhyton (BMC A 971 = his no. 1268) to LM III A2, without further argument, despite the Rhodian parallel adduced in GAC Ibid.

³¹ Makeli: Charitonides, S., ‘Θαλαμοειδὴς τάφος Καρπάθου’, A. Delt. 17 (1961/1962)Google Scholar, Mel. 32–76; Melas 1985, 28, 52–4 (A6 Anemomiloi-Makeli) and figs. 64–70, 113–40. Vonies: Zachariadou, O., ‘Θαλαμοειδὴς τάφος στὴν Αρκάσα Καρπάθου’, A. Delt. 33 (1978), Mel. 249–95Google Scholar; Melas 1985, 39–40, 70–5 (E 40 Vonies) and figs. 91–103; cf. Sampson, A., ‘᾿Αρκάσα Καρπάθου’, A. Delt. 34 (1979), Chr. 459–60Google Scholar.

³² Melas 1985, 28, 176–81 with table 1, estimates the relative proportions of Minoan and Mycenaean pottery found on Karpathos and Kasos from LM II/III A1 to LH III C. Melas agrees with Mee (RBA esp. 12–13, 16, 82, 86) that Mycenaean imports, and Mycenaean immigrants, probably came to Karpathos from the Argolid via Rhodes. Twenty Mycenaean sherds from Pigadia on Karpathos, analysed (by OES) by R. Jones of die Fitch Laboratory in the British School of Athens, were said to be ‘of Argolic composition.’ Further, and more secure evidence is provided by two Mycenaean vases from Makeli included in the analysis (by ICP-AES) of vases from the cemetery at Pylona on Rhodes, in Karantzali and Ponting (n. 2), discussed below (n. 147). It was deduced that the Karpathos vases also were ‘imported from Mainland/Argolid.’ These vases from Makeli are: (1) the LH III A1 ‘Bucranium jug’, BSA 95 (2000), pl. 43 d (BE 423) = Melas 1985, fig. 119 (C22); (2) the LH III A/B krater sherd (s), BSA 95 (2000)Google Scholar, pl. 44 a (BE 419) = Melas 1985, fig. 135 (C82); cf. Karantzali and Ponting (n. 2), 229–30, 237 and S. Charitonides (n. 31), 45,62, pl. 16 a, pl. 25 e. In addition to the LH III A and LH III B surface sherds from the Xenona site at Pigadia (Dodecanese I, 160–1 and Dodecanese II, 68–9), excavations are now reported at the nearby Tsekou-Trebela plot. The remains include ‘a room with heaped utilitarian pottery and imported LH III A2–III B pottery’, AR 47 (2000–2001), 122 Google Scholar, citing, ́Εργον YΠΠΟ 3 (1999), 155–6Google Scholar; cf. Melas 1985, esp. 27–30, figs. 7–8 for the Pigadia area. Kasos: Mycenaean surface sherds from Poli are classified as LH III B or LH III C, Melas 1985, 49–50, 83, cf. Dodecanese II, 69–70. The Ephorate of Caves has now provided proof of MM and Mycenaean use of die Ellinokamara cave, Sakellarakis, I., Σπήλαιο Ελληνοκαμάρας’, A. Delt. 37 (1982), Chr. 417 Google Scholar, and A. Delt. 42 (1987), Chr. 692–4Google Scholar; cf. Dodecanese II, 71–3, Melas 1985, 48, 82, 165, and AR 4 (1993–1994), 69–70 Google Scholar (the blocking wall at the entrance is assigned to the 3rd or 2nd c. BC).

³³ Mountjoy 1998, 37–45 and passim.

³⁴ Ibid., 51.

³⁵ Ibid., 50.

³⁶ KBo III. 4 ii 22–32 (Ten Year Annalis of Mursili II), discussed below (with nn. 72–4) in the section on ‘The Islands’ in the Hittite texts.

³⁷ Mountjoy 1998, 47, 50.

³⁸ Hawkins 1998, 30 n. 202; Niemeier, Polemos, 151 n. 103.

³⁹ KUB xxvi, 91, lines 5′–7′ (obverse), discussed below (with nn. 69–71) in the section on ‘The Islands’ in the Hittite texts.

⁴⁰ GAC 368–9. Both the built tomb at the Heraion site and the Myloi chamber tomb contained Mycenaean pottery, LH III A at Myloi, and probably LH III A in the Heraion tomb; Miljčić, V., Samos I (Bonn, 1961), 25–6Google Scholar, 70, pl. 25; Zapheiropoulos, N., ‘Σάμος’, A. Delt. 16 (1960), Chr. 249 Google Scholar. The Myloi tomb, although small, is of canonical Mycenaean type.

⁴¹ e.g. Mountjoy 1998, 35–6; Mee 1998, 137; Niemeier, FsDothan, 27–30.

⁴² W. Voigtländer, ‘Umrisse eines vor- und früh- geschichtlichen Zentrum an der karisch-ionischen Küste’, AA (1986), 613–67, esp. 623–4, 650, 653, fig. 25; id., ‘Akbük-Teichiussa: zweiter Vorbericht-Survey 1985/86’, AA (1988), 567–625 esp. 205.

⁴³ See nn. 173–4 below.

⁴⁴ Bass, G. F., AJA 67 (1963), 352–7Google Scholar; Boysal, Y., Türk Ark. Derg. 13 (1964), 81–5Google Scholar and 14 (1965), 123–4; id.,, Belleten, 31 (1967), 81–5; id., Anadolu, 11 (1967), 1–9, 31–9, 45–56, and 15 (1971), 63; Boysal, Y., Katalog der Vasen im Museum von Bodrum; i: Mykenisch-Protogeometrisch (Ankara, 1969), 1–28 Google Scholar, pls. 1–33; MG 207; Mee (n. 2), 137–42; Mountjoy 1998, 35–6 and passim; Mee 1998, 138–9 and 147–8 (comments by G. F. Bass).

⁴⁵ Mountjoy 1998, 36–7; Niemeier, FsDothan, 31–6 and passim; Mee 1998, 138–41.

⁴⁶ M. Benzi, ‘I Micenei a Iasos’, in Studi su Iasos di Caria, B. d. A. supp. to 31–2 (1985), 29–34; Mee (n. 2), 129–31; Mee 1998, 139; Mountjoy 1998, 35–6. A brief summary and a map of the site were provided by Cook, J. M. and Blackman, D. J., ‘Archaeology in Western Asia Minor 1965–70’, AR 17 (1970–1971), 46–7Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ MG 207, cf. Mee 1998, 139.

⁴⁸ Mee, Ibid.,

⁴⁹ Mountjoy 1998, 36 n. 62, citing Benzi (n. 46); cf. Mee 1998, 139, also citing Benzi for ‘the presence of kraters, kylikes, and deep bowls in the micaceous fabric which is so common in western Anatolia.’

⁵⁰ B. and W.-D. Niemeier, ‘Milet 1994–1995. Projekt “Minoisch-mykenisches bis protogeometrisches Milet”: Zielseteung und Ausgrabungen auf dem Stadionhügel und am Athenatempel’, AA (1997), 189–284, summarized by Mitchell, S., in AR 45 (1998–1999), 151–3Google Scholar, cf. Mountjoy 1998, 33–7.

⁵¹ Mee 1998, 139; Mountjoy 1998, 35–45; Niemeier, FsDothan, 40; cf. Stubbings, F., Mycenaean Pottery from the Levant (Cambridge, 1951), 23 Google Scholar and Furumark (n. 2), 202.

⁵² MG 207–8. The new evidence from the 1994–5 excavations for Minoan and Mycenaean Miletos is discussed in Niemeier, FsDothan, 27–40. The plan, Ibid., fig. 11, shows the excavated portion of the LH III B circuit wall in the area of the later Temple of Athena.

⁵³ Mee 1998, 139 n. 35, citing W. Voigtländer, ‘Zur Topographie Milets: ein neues Modell zur antiken Stadt’, AA (1985), 82, 87, fig. 10.

⁵⁴ Hawkins 1998, 17. It has, of course, been surmised (by several scholars) that the local inhabitants were Carians, cf. e.g. E. Melas, ‘The Dodecanese and W. Anatolia in prehistory: interrelationships, ethnicity and political geography’, Anat. Stud. 38 (1988), 114 with refs; cf. C. Gates (n. 20), 293.

⁵⁵ Niemeier, FsDothan, 38 with refs., cf. Mee 1998, 139. References prior to 1978 are given in the important discussion by Mee (n. 2), 135–6. A. Mallwitz, ‘Zur mykenischen Befestigung von Milet’, Ist. Mitt. 9–10 (1959–60), 67–76 esp. 74–5, cited supposed Hittite prototypes. Voigtländer, W., ‘Die mykenische Stadtmauer von Milet und einzelne wehranlagen der späten Bronzezeit’, Ist. Mitt. 25 (1975) 17–34 esp. 30–1Google Scholar. suggested the Kastenmauer system.

⁵⁶ Schiering, W., ‘Milet: Eine Erweiterung der Grabung östlich des Athena-Tempels’, Ist. Mitt. 29 (1979), 77–108 esp. 80–2Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Philippaki, B., ‘Η ἀκρόπολις τοῡ ῾Αγίου ᾿Ανδρέου Σίφνου’, AAA 6 (1973), 93–103 Google Scholar; ead., ‘᾿Ανασκαφὴ άκροπόλεως ῾Αγ.̍Ανδρέου Σίφνου’, PAE (1978), 192–4; and reports by her in Ergon from 1975 to 1980, cited in AR from 1975–6 to 1981–2. The main walls are of the LH III B period, and feature eight towers, each up to 3 m wide, at irregular intervals, projecting c. 2 m from the curtain wall.

⁵⁸ The small inner enceinte at Ktouri (GAG 290–1, no. H 51), with its five small turrets or buttresses, is also of LH III B date (cf. MG 169), as established in trial excavations by Y. Béquignon, BCH 56 (1932), 122–37, esp. sketch plan, 127 fig. 24.

⁵⁹ Mountjoy 1998, 47; contra Niemeier, Polemos, 153, but, as he says, ‘The dead […] continued to be buried in the Degirmentepe cemetery in Mycenaean chamber tombs with mostly Mycenaean grave goods’, cf. id., FsDothan, 36, figs. 10–11.

⁶⁰ Niemeier, FsDothan, 39, with refs. and photos 15–6.

⁶¹ Niemeier, Polemos, 153–4 with refs. and pl. xv c, cf. Niemeier, FsDothan, 39–40.

⁶² Hawkins 1998, 28.

⁶³ Cf. the list of texts, assembled in Cline, SWDS 121–5, C2–C36, in which Ahhiyawa is mentioned.

⁶⁴ Mountjoy 1998, 48; Singer, I., ‘Western Anatolia in the thirteenth century BC according to the Hittite sources’, Anat. Stud. 33 (1983), 205–17 esp. 209–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁵ Mountjoy 1998, 47. This text is commonly referred to as the Indictment of Madduwatta, published as KUB XIV. 1 + KB XIX. 38 (CTH 147), and edited by A. Goetze, Muddawattas, MVAG 32. 1 (Leipzig, 1927, reprinted Darmstadt, 1967). The reassignment of this text (and others) to Tudhaliya I/II and Arnuwanda I is discussed by Bryce, KH 141 and Appendix I.

⁶⁶ Bryce, KH 141–9; Hawkins 1998, 25, 30; Niemeier, Polemos, 146–9.

⁶⁷ Bryce, KH 144.

⁶⁸ Hawkins 1998, 30, cf. 22, 25.

⁶⁹ KUB XXVI. 91, ed. Sommer, F., Die Ahhiyava-Urkunden (Munich, 1932), 268–71Google Scholar; Cline, SWDS 121; Cline, E. H., ‘Aššuwa and the Achaeans: the “Mycenaean” sword at Hattušas and its possible implications’, BSA 91 (1996), 137–51 esp. 145–6Google Scholar; Niemeier, Polemos, 144–7.

⁷⁰ Cline (n. 69); Niemeier, loc. cit.

⁷¹ KUB XXVl. 91, obverse lines 5′–7′.

⁷² The Annals of Mursili II are catalogued as CTH 61, ed. Goetze, A., Die Annalen des Mursilis, MVAG 38 (Leipzig, 1933 Google Scholar, reprinted Darmstadt, 1967) cf. Bryce, KH 206–40, Niemeier, Polemos, 150–1.

⁷³ Hawkins 1998, 22; The text is from the Ten-Year Annals, KBo III. 4 ii 22–32 = Goetze (n. 72), 50–1. Hawkins, Ibid., 14 n. 44, comments, ‘The historically very important recognition of gursauwananza as “islands” (dat. plur.) is relatively recent’; cf. Bryce, KH 211 n. 13. The interpretation is due to Starke, F., ‘Die keilschriftluwischen Wörter für Insel und Lampe’, Zeitschrifi für vergleichende Sprachforschung, 95 (1981), 142–52Google Scholar; cf. Niemeier, Polemos, 151 n. 103.

⁷⁴ Hawkins 1998, 30 n. 202; Niemeier, loc. cit.; Bryce, KH 209–14.

⁷⁵ Mountjoy 1998, 50–1, cf. 46–8. Cf. the section ‘Chronology’ here above (with nn. 12–14).

⁷⁶ KUB XIV. 15 I 23–6 = Goetze (n. 72), 36–9; Hawkins 1998, 10 n. 25, 14–16, 28; Mountjoy 1998, 45–8; Niemeier, Polemos, 150–1; Bryce, KH 209–10. The third year of Mursili's reign, either 1319/18 or 1315/14 BC, would be at or near the end of the LH III A2 period.

⁷⁷ Hawkins 1998, 14.

⁷⁸ Mountjoy 1998, 47 (inter alia).

⁷⁹ Güterbock 1983, 134–5; Goetze (n. 72), 36–9. The various interpretations are discussed by Heinhold-Krahmer, C., Arzawa, Untersuchungen zu seiner Geschichte nach den hethitischen Quellen (Heidelburg, 1977), 97–100 Google Scholar. She also prefers Goetze's interpretation, which is assumed by Niemeier, ibid, and by Bryce, Ibid. Bryce, however, here categorizes Millawanda as at this time ‘a Hittite subject state on the Aegean coast’, although he follows Goetze's reading of the text: ‘But when it was spring, because Uh[haziti joined the side of the king of the Land of Ahhiyawa], and the Land of Millawanda [had gone over] to the king of the Land of Ahhi[yawa…I sent] forth Gulla and Malaziti and troops [and chariots]; and they destroyed [the Land of Millawanda].’ (version given by Bryce, KH 210, but with his restorations bracketed, as in Cline, SWDS 122. The translation ‘smote’ instead of ‘destroyed’ is recommended by the anonymous reader).

⁸⁰ Hawkins 1998, 10, 14–16, 22–5, and passim; Bryce, KH 210–14, cf. Heinhold-Krahmer (n. 79), 136–47, 211–19.

⁸¹ Mountjoy 1998, 36, 47; Hawkins 1998, 28 n. 174; Niemeier, Polemos, 150–1, FsDothan, 30–40; B. and W.-D. Niemeier (n. 50), 201–5, 246–8.

⁸² Bryce, KH 244–5, recognizes that Milawata (Millawanda) was no longer under Hittite control at the time of the Tawagalawa Letter. But he also assumes that it ‘had previously belonged to Hatti, and that in the third year of Mursili II's reign Hittite control had been re-established over it when it had attempted to form an alliance with Ahhiyawa’. Bryce attempts to resolve the difficulty (occasioned in part by his own assumption, KH 209, that Millawanda had been previously under Hittite dominion) by assigning a supposed role here to Muwatalli, Mursili's son and successor: ‘But subsequently, perhaps during Muwatalli's reign, Milawata had become subject to Ahhiyawa. It is possible that Muwatalli had agreed to relinquish the vassal kingdom, which had by now assumed a predominandy Mycenaean character, in the hope that this would satisfy Ahhiyawan territorial ambitions on the Anatolian mainland, and in return, perhaps, for a guarantee from the Ahhiyawan king of co-operation in maintaining a general stability within the region.’ Bryce here also introduces a fragmentary text, KUB XXXI. 29 (CTH 214.16), ed. Sommer (n. 69) 328 (cf. Cline, SMWS 123, no. C10), which has been attributed conjecturally to Muwatalli's reign. The surviving portion of die text refers to Tarhuntassa, Mira, and Ahhiyawa. But there is no proof either of the date of this text or that it ‘indicates boundaries’, still less that it ‘probably defined the limits of Ahhiyawan-controlled territory in Anatolia.’

⁸³ Mountjoy 1998, 51 cf. 47 n. 110; Hawkins 1998, 21, 26 and passim.

⁸⁴ KUB XIV. 3 (CTH 181), ed. (with translation into German) Sommer, F., Die Ahhiyavā-Urkunden (Munich, 1932), 2–194 Google Scholar, partly translated into English by Garstang and Gurney 1959, 111–14. The walls of Miletos are discussed here above, with nn. 55–9.

⁸⁵ Güterbock 1983, 135; Heinhold-Krahmer, S., ‘Untersuchungen zu Piyamaradu (Teil I)’, Orientalia, 52 (1983), 81–97 Google Scholar; Bryce, KH 321–4; Hawkins 1998, 17, 25–8.

⁸⁶ Cf. Mountjoy 1998, 46.

⁸⁷ Mountjoy 1998, 47 and discussion above, with nn. 55–61.

⁸⁸ Hawkins 1998, 17; Bryce, KH 321–4; Niemeier, Polemos, 151–2; Gurney, O. R., ‘The Annals of Hattusili III’, Anat. Stud. 47 (1997), 127–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁹ Hawkins 1988, 28 n. 176, reading ‘before the frontier.’

⁹⁰ Bryce, KH 322, ‘he entered Millawanda’; Niemeier, Polemos, 152 ‘when Hattusili arrived in Millawanda’ is noncommittal.

⁹¹ Bryce, loc. cit., cf. Hawkins, loc. cit., ‘he seems to have accepted that it lay under the authority of the king of Ahhiyawa’.

⁹² Mountjoy 1998, 48.

⁹³ Garstang and Gurney 1959, 112 (I. 53–74); Niemeier, Polemos, 151–2.

⁹⁴ Hawkins 1998, 26, 30, n. 202.

⁹⁵ Ibid., 30 n. 205.

⁹⁶ Mountjoy 1998, 51.

⁹⁷ Ibid., 46.

⁹⁸ KUB XIX. 55 (CTH 182), translated by Garstang and Gurney 1959, 114–5, and joined with KUB XLVIII. 90 by H. A. Hoffner, ‘The Milawata Letter augmented and reinterpreted’, in Procedings of the 28th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Vienna 1981 (AfO supp. 19; 1982), 130–7; Bryce, T. R., ‘A reinterpretation of the Milawata Letter in the light of the new join-piece’, Anat. Stud. 35 (1985), 13–23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁹ Hawkins 1998, 1–13, 18–19, 28 and passim. But the text does not provide any evidence that Millawata (Millawanda) was here ‘the object of raids by the Hittite king and the addressee’, as inferred by Mountjoy 1998, 48, citing Singer (n. 64), 207. As Hawkins says, Ibid., 19 n. 89, the verb describing the action (written DU-u-en, i.e. ‘we DU-ed’) can not be interpreted with certainty.

¹⁰⁰ Hawkins 1998, 19.

¹⁰¹ Ibid., 19 n. 92.

¹⁰² As suggested by Bryce (n. 98) and Bryce, KH 339–42, cf. Mee 1998, 143.

¹⁰³ Bryce's former theory (n. 98), that the Hittites had now regained possession of Millawanda, is thus undermined by Hawkins's discoveries, cf. Mountjoy 1998, 48. These have now also partly superseded the discussions in Mee 1998, 143 and Niemeier, Polemos, 153–4. The archaeological indications adduced, for a Hittite presence in Miletos at this time, are extremely tenuous, as is demonstrated above, with nn. 55–61.

¹⁰⁴ Pace Mountjoy 1998, 48.

¹⁰⁵ Ibid., 45, 50.

¹⁰⁶ Ibid., 48, 51, cf. Bryce, KH 322, ‘its local ruler Atpa’.

¹⁰⁷ Mee 1998, 143, ‘Atpas, the Ahhiyawan vassal ruler of Millawanda.’

¹⁰⁸ Bryce, KH 323, 331, cf. Mee 1998, 143 n. 89.

¹⁰⁹ Bryce, KH 61, 140–9 (Madduwatta), 213–14 and passim.

¹¹⁰ Hawkins 1998, esp. 1–2, 15–19, 28–9.

¹¹¹ C. B. Mee, ‘A Mycenaean thalassocracy in the eastern Aegean?’, in French and Wardle, 301–4.

¹¹² Mountjoy 1998, 47; Niemeier, Polemos, 146–7. Presumably the ‘100 chariots’ should be regarded as a round figure rather than as a precise count.

¹¹³ Mee 1998, 142.

¹¹⁴ Cf. Niemeier, Polemos, 147, ‘an effective seagoing capacity’.

¹¹⁵ Bryce, KH 146–7.

¹¹⁶ Hawkins 1998, 25–8.

¹¹⁷ Mountjoy 1998, 51, cf. 48; Niemeier, Polemos, 152, citing Singer (n. 64), 213 and Bryce, T. R., ‘Ahhiyawans and Mycenaeans—an Anatolian viewpoint’, OJA 8 (1989), 297–310 esp. 301Google Scholar.

¹¹⁸ Garstang and Gurney 1959, 111 (I. 1–15); Mountjoy 1998, 48; Hawkins 1998, 25–6; Bryce, KH 321–2. Bryce surmises that ‘loyalties amongst the Lukka people seem to have been divided’, and he suggests that a large group of Lukka rebels had ‘sought asylum with Tawagalawa.’ If so, their movement also would have been subject to the same difficulties of land travel in this region. But in any case, there is no direct support for Bryce's conjecture. The text (I. 1–15) clearly indicates that both Tawagalawa and the Hittite king came to the Lukka lands, and in response to calls for aid, i.e. for protection against Pijamaradu's raids. Although Tawagalawa and the Hittite king acted separately, and obviously travelled by different routes (Tawagalawas probably mainly by sea), in this episode at least they appear to have been ‘on the same side’, whatever Tawagalawa's or Ahhiyawan, motives may have been, Bryce KH 323–4, cf. 61–2, 336–9.

¹¹⁹ KUB XXII. 13 (CTH 22.4), now securely dated to the reign of Tudhaliya IV, on the basis of evidence from the bronze tablet (n. 5 above) concerning the duration of the reign of Masturi, the previous vassal king of the Seha River Land; Bryce, KH 336–9; Niemeier, Polemos, 152–3; Hawkins 1998, 20, 30 n. 206. The passage concerned is interpreted by H. G. Güterbock, ‘A new look at one Ahhiyawa text’, FsAlp, 235–43, esp. 242, to read, ‘…[Tarhunaradu] made war, and relied on the king of Ahhiyawa…’. This interpretation now supersedes the tentative reading offered previously by F. Sommer (n. 84), 315, Vs 5, 317, which would give ‘… [Tarhunaradu] made war, (and) the king of Ahhiyawa retreated…’, cf. Garstang and Gurney, 1959, 120–1 ‘…And the King of Ahhiyawa withdrew…’. Sommer's version would imply that the king himself was physically present at the scene, i.e. actually in western Asia Minor. This indeed seems unlikely; and, if this had actually been the case, surely a matter of such importance, i.e. the presence of a king, would have been recorded.

¹²⁰ KUB XXIII (+) (CTH 105), edited, with German translation, by Kühne, C. and Otten, H., Der Sausgamuwa-Vertrag, StBoT 16 (1971)Google Scholar; English translation by Beckman, G., Hittite Diplomatic Texts (Atlanta, 1996), 98–102 Google Scholar; Bryce, KH 342–4; Niemeier, Polemos, 153.

¹²¹ Güterbock 1983, 136, 138; Mountjoy 1998, 48–9; Mee 1998, 143; cf. Bryce, KH 343 n. 63 (noting as unlikely the alternative restoration and interpretation of this passage [i.e. reading ‘warship’ instead of ‘ship of Ahhiyawa’] by Steiner, G., Ugarit-Forschungen 21 [1989] 393–411 Google Scholar); Cline, SWDS 71–4; Cline, E. H., ‘A Possible Hittite Embargo against the Mycenaeans’, Historia 40/1 (1991), 1–9 Google Scholar. Cline suggests that the Hittites may have placed a more general trade embargo on goods carried by the Mycenaeans. If this were so, a specific embargo in the Sausgamuwa Treaty would be merely a reminder or reinforcement. But, as Mee points out, political conditions, especially in western Asia Minor, would have made overland trade unattractive, in any case (in addition to the physical difficulties of the terrain).

¹²² Bryce, NH 343, inter alia.

¹²³ Güterbock 1983, 138; Mountjoy 1998, 48–9; Bryce, KH 343–4. Bryce maintains that Tudhaliya IV did indeed regard Ahhiyawa as no longer important. This hypothesis at least partly depends on the assumption that Ahhiyawa had by now lost control of Millawanda (Miletos). But, as is shown above (with nn. 98–103), this assumption is now invalidated by the implications of Hawkins' discoveries at Karabel.

¹²⁴ Güterbock 1983, 135–6.

¹²⁵ Garstang and Gurney 1959, 113.

¹²⁶ Hawkins (pers. comm).

¹²⁷ Page (n. 17), 10–15, graphically illustrates the ability of Pijamaradu to act with impunity, from his base in Ahhiyawa, beyond Hittite reach; cf. Mountjoy 1998, 48, 51. Bryce, KH 322–4, cf. 61–2, presents a more sinister view of Ahhiyawan involvement in western Asia Minor, cf. Niemeier, Polemos, 154 and Mee 1998, 143. Mee remarks that Mycenaean activities here ‘were clearly disruptive and apparently motivated by political rather than economic expediency.’ (Mee is of course, here assuming a Mycenaean = Ahhiyawa equation, as are Mountjoy and Cline at least, if not also Bryce.)

¹²⁸ This can be deduced from the context itself, and from the obvious frustration experienced by the Hittite Great King, ‘bleating in cuneiform across the wine-dark sea’, Page (n. 17), 15, cf. Dodecanese III, 174, 5.

¹²⁹ Cf. n. 17 above.

¹³⁰ Rhodes: Mycenaean cemeteries were listed by Mee in RBA. Additional data are provided by S. Dietz (n. 2), and cf. M. Benzi, ‘Mycenaean Rhodes: A Summary’ in Dietz and Papachristodoulou, 59–62 and Benzi, Rodi passim. More recent finds are discussed below, with nn. 147–50. Kos: Mycenaean cemeteries were listed in Dodecanese I, 169–72 and Dodecanese II, 55–6, 60, 62. Subsequent finds are discussed below, with nn. 167–71.

¹³¹ Dodecanese III, 133–7, 140–3, 145, 147–8.

¹³² AR 41 (1994–5), 60.

¹³³ Melas 1985 passim, cf. AR 28 (1981–2), 62.

¹³⁴ Melas, E., ‘Explorations in the Dodecanese. New prehistoric and Mycenaean finds’, BSA 83 (1988), 283–311 Google Scholar, esp. 309–11 (comments on the advantages enjoyed by ‘the individual field walker’).

¹³⁵ Dodecanese I–III passim.

¹³⁶ Dodecanese I, 169–72; Dodecanese II, 55–63.

¹³⁷ Sailing in the Late Bronze Age is discussed by H. S. Georgiou in Thalassa, 61–72; cf. G. F. Bass, ‘Sailing between the Aegean and the Orient in the second millennium B.C.’, in Aegean and Orient, 183–92 for the nature of the commerce and those involved.

¹³⁸ Cf. J. Crouwel, ‘Fighting on land and sea in Late Mycenaean times’, in Polemos, 455–64 and M. Wedde, ‘War at sea: the Mycenaean and Early Iron Age oared galley’, in Polemos, 465–78. There is also a brief discussion by Mountjoy, , in Mountjoy, P. A. and Ponting, M. J., ‘The Minoan Thalassocracy reconsidered: provenance studies of LH II A/LM I B pottery from Phylakopi, Ay. Irini and Athens’, BSA 95 (2000), 141–84Google Scholar, esp. 178–80. The notes on rowing here are apposite, but any inferences from the Thera ship frescoes must be regarded with caution. The times of modern kayak paddling, although interesting, are not sufficiently relevant. And ‘hearsay’ evidence can be unreliable. It is difficult to believe that the same time, 10 hours, would be needed for rowing from Kythera to Antikythera as from Antikythera to Chania, since the latter distance is almost twice the former. And, even if, as Georgiou (n. 137) maintains, Late Bronze Age ships were designed to sail windwards, sailing against a strong head wind would obviously be slower, or even impossible, without the aid of oars.

¹³⁹ Mountjoy 1998, 50–1.

¹⁴⁰ Ibid.

¹⁴¹ Ibid., cf. RBA 85, ‘the narrow Marmaris channel.’

¹⁴² Cf. Crouwel (n. 137) and Wedde (n. 137).

¹⁴³ Mountjoy 1998, 50–1, cf. RBA 84.

¹⁴⁴ Mountjoy loc. cit.

¹⁴⁵ Zangger, E. et al. , ‘The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project, Part II: landscape evoloution and site preservation’, Hesp. 66 (1997), 549–641 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 613–23.

¹⁴⁶ Dodecanese III, 151, cf. RBA 84.

¹⁴⁷ Karantzali and Ponting (n. 2); E. Karantzali, ‘New Mycenaean finds from Rhodes’, in FsWiener, 403–8; ead., The Mycenaean Cemetery at Pylona on Rhodes (BAR, forthcoming), cf. A. Delt. 48 (1993)Google Scholar, Chr. 542–3, 49 (1994), Chr. 782, 50 (1995), Chr. 801, AR 45 (1998–1999), 111–12Google Scholar, 46 (1999–2000), 126–7, 47 (2000–1), 124–5.

¹⁴⁸ Karantzali, in FsWiener, 407. For Ambelia cf. Dodecanese III, 151 n. 145.

¹⁴⁹ Dietz (n. 2). Several tomb groups from southern Rhodes, whose finds are divided between Turkish and Danish museums, have been here reconstituted in print. Further finds, from the Mycenaean cemetery of Trapezies near Apollakia, of LH III A2 (early) to LH III C sherds, include part of a large alabastron of late LH III A2, A. Delt. 48 (1993)Google Scholar, Chr. 443 and pl. 162 d, cf. AR 45 (1998–9), 111.

¹⁵⁰ Mountjoy, P. A., ‘Mycenaean pottery from south Rhodes’, PDIA 1 (1995), 21–35 Google Scholar.

¹⁵¹ Dodecanese III, 143, 155; RBA 3.

¹⁵² Dodecanese III, 135–7 with refs. to the excavations by Sir Alfred Biliotti, A. Maiuri (n. 2), and G. Jacopi (n. 2); GAC 348–9; RBA esp. 21, 27; Mountjoy 1998, 35, 45, 51 and passim. The cemeteries were in use from LH HI B to LH III C. The LH III A2 and LH III B gold was mainly in the form of rosettes and beads, and mainly from four tombs.

¹⁵³ The main excavations by G. Monaco (n. 2) were reinterpreted by A. Furumark (n. 2); cf. M. Benzi, ‘Mycenaean pottery later than LH III A1 from the Italian excavations at Trianda on Rhodes’, in Dietz and Papachristodoulou, 39–55; Davis 1992, 751 n. 247; Dodecanese III, 135 nn. 41–2; RBA 4–7 and passim.

¹⁵⁴ A. Delt. 43 (1988)Google Scholar, Chr. 614–15, cf. AR 41 (1994–1995), 59–60 Google Scholar. Further finds of Mycenaean pottery at Trianda, and at Kremasti nearby, are reported in A. Delt. 48 (1993), Chr. 529–30, 533–6, cf. AR 45 (1998–1999), 110–11Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁵ Benzi (n. 153), 53–4.

¹⁵⁶ Dodecanese III, 130, 136, with sketch map, fig. 2. On the acropolis itself there is no definite evidence of Late Bronze Age habitation. But MM settlement here is attested, Ibid., with refs., and cf. now M. Benzi, ‘Evidence for a Middle Minoan settlement on the acropolis of Ialysos (Mt. Philerimos)’, in Minoan Thalassocracy, 94–104.

¹⁵⁷ Some surface finds, including ‘traces of rough walls’, appear to indicate Mycenaean habitation on and around the knoll of Moschou Vounara, Dodecanese III, 137, cf. also Ibid., 130 for the ancient traditions concerning a former (lost) city Άχαία ‘in the territory of Ialysos.’ Cf. also T. Marketou, ‘New evidence on the topography and site history of prehistoric Ialysos’, in Dietz and Papachristodoulou, 27–33.

¹⁵⁸ L. Morricone, ‘Coo’ (n. 2), 388–96; RBA 86–8; Mountjoy 1998, 33–5.

¹⁵⁹ Mountjoy 1998, 51.

¹⁶⁰ Morricone (n. 158), 389.

¹⁶¹ Mountjoy 1998, 51, paraphrasing RBA 87. The Seraglio has been described as ‘a major port’ in I.M I A, cf. e.g. Mountjoy and Ponting (n. 138), 179.

¹⁶² Dodecanese III, 155 n. 168.

¹⁶³ Davis 1992, 750 and n. 236, summarizes the reports of rescue excavations by Papachristodoulou, I. Ch., in A. Delt. 34 (1979)Google Scholar, Chr. 452–4, 456–7, 35 (1980), Chr. 552–3, 36 (1981), Chr. 409, 38 (1983), Chr. 396 and by Kantzia, H. in A. Delt. 39 (1984)Google Scholar, Chr. 329–30. Subsequent finds include Mycenaean and Minoan levels below the Sanctuary of Demeter, A. Delt. 42 (1987)Google Scholar, Chr. 70, and buildings of these periods and four prehistoric levels, A. Delt. 45 (1990)Google Scholar, Chr. and 46 (1991), Chr. 486–9. Brief notices of these and other Mycenaean finds in the Seraglio area and vicinity are given in AR 40 (1993–1994), 70 Google Scholar, 42 (1995–6), 38, 43 (1996–7), 99, and 46 (1999–2000), 123. Macdonald (n. 28), 142 n. 86 points out that there is a LH III B floor deposit at the Seraglio site, citing Mee (RBA 88) and Morricone (n. 158), 277–9.

¹⁶⁴ A. Delt. 35 (1980)Google Scholar, Chr. 553.

¹⁶⁵ Ibid., cf. Davis 1992, 750 n. 236 and AR 35 (1988–1989), 110 Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁶ Dodecanese I, 169–72; Dodecanese II, 55–63.

¹⁶⁷ G. Aleura et al., ‘᾿Ανασκαφὴ στην Καρδαμαίνα (Αρχαία Αλάσαρνα) της Κώ’, Arch. Eph. (1985), Chr. 1–18, esp. 18. During the excavation of the Apollo shrine at ancient Halasarna, a sequence of deposits was found, said to run continuously from LH III A1 to Greek and Roman times, cf. A. Delt. 37 (1982)Google Scholar, Chr. 396, AR 37 (1990–1991), 65 Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁸ Papazoglou, L., ‘Μυκηναϊκός θαλαμωτός τάφος στο Κάστελλο Κω’, AAA 14 (1981), 62–75 Google Scholar and Papachristodoulou, I. Ch., ‘Καστέλλες’, A. Delt. 34 (1979)Google Scholar, Chr. 458–9; cf. Mountjoy 1998, 43 n. 92.

¹⁶⁹ ‘Erakles’ is the district near Cape Psalidi (4 km east of Kos town) where an Archaic and Classical sanctuary is being excavated, ᾿Εργον YΠΠΟ 1 (1997), 121 Google Scholar, 2 (1998), 139, 3 (1999), 155. A Mycenaean tomb here with LH III A2–B pottery had been destroyed previously during road construction, A. Delt. 48 (1993)Google Scholar, Chr. 553. Mycenaean pottery has now been found in lower levels at the sanctuary, associated with building remains, cf. AR 45 (1998–1999), 107 Google Scholar, 47 (2000–1), 123.

¹⁷⁰ Papachristodoulou, I. Ch., ‘Μεσαριά’, A. Delt. 34 (1979)Google Scholar, Chr. 457–8, cf. Papazoglou (n. 168), 65–6 and n. 9. The vases were said to date the grave to the LH III B/C transitional period, but the illustration suggests a LH III B1 date, cf. AR 34 (1987–1988), 78 Google Scholar fig. 116.

¹⁷¹ L. Morricone, ‘Eleona e Langada’ (n. 2).

¹⁷² Mountjoy 1998, 35, cf. RBA 87–9. An apparent increase in numbers on Kos is in contrast with an apparent decrease at lalysos.

¹⁷³ Mellink, M. J., ‘Archaeology in Asia Minor’, AJA 82 (1978), 321, 324 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷⁴ Ead., ‘Archaeology in Asia Minor’, AJA 73 (1969), 241 Google Scholar; Cook, J. M. and Blackman, D. J., ‘Archaeology in western Asia Minor’, AR 17 (1970–1971), 53 Google Scholar, cf. Anat. Stud. 19 (1969), 18 Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁵ Kalymnos: Dodecanese I, 172–3; Benzi (n. 28); RBA 89; Mountjoy 1998, 34, 37–43 and passim; AR 30 (1983–1984), 70 Google Scholar (four LH tombs with pottery, according to the Greek press) Astypalaia: Dodecanese III, 159–68. The Armenochori and Synkairos chamber tombs are discussed above, with nn. 28, 33.

¹⁷⁶ Patmos: Dodecanese II, 48–51. Leros: Ibid., 52–4.

¹⁷⁷ Lipsoi: Ibid., 51–2. Nisyros: Dodecanese I, 169; Melas (n. 134), 284, 286–92. In the area of Mandraki, the centre of modern Nisyros, on its north coast, Melas found surface sherds which are probably Mycenaean at four separate locations.

¹⁷⁸ Mountjoy 1998, 36.

¹⁷⁹ Dodecanese III, 178, cf. Mee 1998, 140–7 and Mountjoy, Ibid.; cf. also the discussion above, with nn. 44–5.

¹⁸⁰ Dodecanese II, 63–4, cf. Dodecanese I, 168–9.

¹⁸¹ Melas (n. 134), 295 (Panormitis I), 298 (Panormitis VI).

¹⁸² Sampson, A., ‘Μινωικά από την Τήλο’, AAA 13 (1980), 68–73 Google Scholar. A group of MM III/LM I pottery (mainly conical cups) was discovered accidentally during the opening of a farm track at Garipa, c. 1 km north of Eristos bay, on the south coast and south of Megalochorio. Melas (n. 134), 293–4 also believes that the Kastro at Megalochorio ‘was not neglected in prehistoric times’, cf. Dodecanese II, 63, 65–8, with figs. 9–10.

¹⁸³ Melas (n. 134), 307. The site is near the chapel of Agioi Anargyroi, to the north-east of Pontamo bay, cf. Dodecanese III, 156–7, with fig. 6.

¹⁸⁴ For the date cf. nn. 14 and 76 above.

¹⁸⁵ Discussed above in the section on ‘The Islands’ in the Hittite texts, with nn. 69–74.

¹⁸⁶ Cf. n. 20 above.

¹⁸⁷ Mountjoy, in Mountjoy and Ponting (n. 138), esp. 184, summarizes the controversy concerning the (supposed) ‘Minoan Thalassocracy’, and concludes that, ‘if a Minoan thalassocracy existed in LM I A, it did not survive into LM I B’.

¹⁸⁸ Mountjoy, Ibid., and Mountjoy 1998, 33–4, 51; Mee 1998, 137–8; Niemeier, FsDothan, 27–30.

¹⁸⁹ Mountjoy and Ponting (n. 138), 183–4.

¹⁹⁰ Mountjoy 1998, 34, 37–9; cf. discussion above, with nn. 29–32.

¹⁹¹ Benzi (n. 28), cf. Mee 1998, 138 and Mountjoy 1998, 34–5.

¹⁹² Mountjoy, Ibid., cf. RBA 83–6.

¹⁹³ Cf. nn. 29–32 above.

¹⁹⁴ RBA 84; Mee (n. 111), 302–3 (noting Mycenaean burial practices adopted in the eastern Aegean); Mee 1998, 140–1; Niemeier, FsDothan, 41 (noting the undecorated Mycenaean domestic pottery on Rhodes and Kos); Niemeier, Polemos, 148–9, esp. nn. 79–80; contra Mountjoy 1998, 36–7.

¹⁹⁵ Jones, R. E. and Mee, C., ‘Spectrographic analysis of Mycenaean pottery from Ialysos: results and implications’, JFA 5 (1978), 461–70Google Scholar.

¹⁹⁶ Karantzali and Ponting (n. 2).

¹⁹⁷ Ibid., esp. 224–35.

¹⁹⁸ Ibid., 235; cf. RBA 86 (LH III A1 and LH III A2 pottery on Rhodes thought to be mainly imported from the Peloponnese).

¹⁹⁹ Guterbock 1983, 136; Singer (n. 64), 210, 213; Güterbock, H. G., ‘Wer war Tawagalawa?’, Orientalia, 59 (1990), 157–65Google Scholar; Niemeier, Polemos, 152 with refs.; Mountjoy 1998, 48; Hawkins 1998, 17, 26.

²⁰⁰ Garstang and Gurney 1959, 112–3 (II. 58–III. 6). The charioteer, Dabalatarhunda, had married into the family of the Hittite queen; and, as is argued by Hawkins 1998, 17 n. 71, this queen is presumably Puduhepa (for Puduhepa cf. Bryce, KH 292–325, esp. 319–20, 325).

²⁰¹ Arguments against the identification of Ahhiyawa with Rhodes were presented independently (and simultaneously) by Iakovides, S., ‘Rhodes and Ahhiyava’, in Karageorghis, V. (ed.), Acts of the International Symposium ‘The Mycenaeans in the Eastern Mediterranean’, (Nicosia, 1973), 189–92Google Scholar and by R. Hope Simpson and J. F. Lazenby in Dodecanese III, 174–9.

²⁰² As argued by Iakovides, loc cit., cf. Niemeier, , FsDothan 44. Mee 1998, 143 Google Scholar, also dismisses, on similar grounds, Gates's proposal (n. 20), that Ahhiyawa consisted of ‘the Mycenaean settlements in the eastern Aegean and western Anatolia’, cf. n. 27 above for a different reason given.

²⁰³ Mountjoy 1998, 37.

²⁰⁴ Ibid., 51, ‘The language spoken would presumably have been Luvian’ (as suggested by J. G. McQueen). But the inhabitants of the Dodecanese at least probably spoke Greek, even if for some it was a ‘second language’. And a native Carian dialect of some kind would seem more likely for those on the coast of Asia Minor opposite, cf. n. 54 above.

²⁰⁵ GAC passim, esp. 278–9, and for the recent evidence Shelmerdine 1997, esp. 550–4, with refs.

²⁰⁶ Shelmerdine 1997, 541–50, 571–3.

²⁰⁷ Ibid., 550–4, with refs. The 1999 investigations by the Swedish Institute at the Mastos hill Berbati provide a graphic example of this increase in the LH III period, as reported by Wells, B., in AR 46 (1999–2000), 34–5Google Scholar.

²⁰⁸ Shelmerdine 1997, 553.

²⁰⁹ Ibid., 557–62; Dickinson, ABA 77–86; J. C. Wright, ‘From Chief to King in Mycenaean Greece’, in Role of the Ruler, 63–80; Niemeier, FsDothan, 44; Niemeier, Polemos, 148–9; J. Bennet, ‘Space through time: diachronic perspectives on the spatial organization of the Pylian state’, in Politeia, 63–75.

²¹⁰ Iakovides, S., Γλάς I (Athens, 1989 Google Scholar) and Γλάς II (Athens, 1998), esp. 199–204, 275–8Google Scholar.

²¹¹ Sheimerdine 1997, 543 with refs., esp. Iakovides, S., ‘Das Werk Klaus Kilians’, AM 108 (1993), 9–27 Google Scholar.

²¹² Shelmerdine 1997, 543–5, 564–5 with refs. For the most recent excavations cf. AR 43 (1996–1997), 27–9Google Scholar, 44 (1997–8), 31–2, 45 (1998–9), 28, 47 (2000–1), 28–9.

²¹³ Dickinson, , ABA 154, 157 Google Scholar; Shelmerdine 1997, 542, 559–60, 580–4.

²¹⁴ Shelmerdine 1997, 543–5.

²¹⁵ Ibid., 559–62, citing in particular Driessen, J., An Early Destruction in the Mycenaean Palace at Knossos: A New Interpretation of the Excavation Field Notes of the South-East Area of the West Wing (Acta Arch Lou. Monograph 2; Leuven, 1990 Google Scholar). Shelmerdine here comments also on Mycenaean artefacts and practices in Crete at this time, especially in the Cretan ‘Warrior Graves.’

²¹⁶ Ibid.; Cline, SWDS esp. 9–11, 16 table 6; Dickinson, ABA 250–6; Gale, N. H. (ed.) Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean (SIMA 90; Jonsered, 1991 Google Scholar).

²¹⁷ Cline, E. H., ‘Amenhotep III and the Aegean: a reassessment of Egypto-Aegean relations in the 14th century B.C.’, Orientalia, 56 (1987), 1–36 Google Scholar; id., ‘An unpublished Amenhotep III faience plaque from Mycenae’, JAOS 110 (1990), 200–12; id., ‘My Brother, My Son: rulership and trade between the Late Bronze Age Aegean, Egypt and the Near East’, in Role of the Ruler, 143–50. Other related publications by Cline are listed in Shelmerdine 1997, 562 n. 152 and in Cline, SWDS 284–5. Cline, Ibid., 38–9, also discusses the list of place names on a statue base from Kom-el-Hetan, which also relate to contacts of Amenhotep III with the Aegean.

²¹⁸ Shelmerdine 1997, 562.

²¹⁹ Schofield, L. and Parkinson, R., ‘Of helmets and heretics: a possible Egyptian representation of Mycenaean warriors on a papyrus from El-Amarna’, BSA 89 (1994), 157–70Google Scholar.

²²⁰ Shelmerdine (1997), 561–2, esp. n. 151; Cline, SWDS 10–11; Cadogan, G., ‘Patterns in the distribution of Mycenaean pottery in the east Mediterranean’, in Karageorghis, V. (ed.), Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium ‘The Mycenaeans in the Eastern Mediterranean’ (Nicosia, 1973), 166–74, esp. 172 Google Scholar, ‘with LH/LM III A2 the Minoans seem to have virtually dropped out of the Aegean trade with the Eastern Mediterranean’; cf. Leonard, A. Jr., An Index to the Late Bronze Age Aegean Pottery from Syria-Palestine (SIMA 114; Jonsered, 1994 Google Scholar).

²²¹ Cline, SWDS 10; cf. Jones, R. F., ‘Greek and Cypriot Pottery’, FLOP 1 (1986), 542–71Google Scholar; Mommsen, H. et al. , ‘Provenance determination of Mycenaean sherds found in Tell el Amarna by Neutron Activation Analysis’, JAS 19 (1992), 295–302 Google Scholar. Cf. now also Mountjoy, P. A. and Mommsen, H., ‘Mycenaean pottery from Quanur-Piramesse, Egypt’, BSA 96 (2001), 123–55Google Scholar (also using NNA).

²²² Cline, , SWDS 10, 16 table 6Google Scholar.

²²³ Ibid., 10, 25–6; Shelmerdine 1997, 562.

²²⁴ The alternatives are discussed in Cline, SWDS 25–6, cf. Shelmerdine 1997, 562 n. 154. Cline notes ‘the abraded nature of the surface on many of the cylinder seals, suggesting either previous or imminent reuse.’ An interesting, although perhaps bizarre, explanation was proposed by Porada, E., ‘The cylinder seals found at Thebes in Boeotia’, AfO 28 (1980), 1–70, 70, esp. 68–70Google Scholar. The suggestion here is that Tukulti-Ninurta I of Assyria, when his country was under a trade embargo imposed by the Hittites during the 13th c. BC, sent a gift of one mina of lapis lazuli, in the form of carved and blank cylinder seals, to the Mycenaean king at Thebes, in the hope of procuring an ally during this difficult time.

²²⁵ Mee 1998, 142–3, ‘Could Ahhiyawa also have been a maritime confederacy which was led by one of the mainland Mycenaean states, such as Mycenae?’ But Mee, Ibid., n. 90, also suggests that the location of Ahhiyawa itself did not fluctuate, cf. n. 15 here above.

²²⁶ Shelmerdine 1997, 542, 567–70, recent Linear B discoveries and studies.

²²⁷ Ibid., 550–4 for evidence from the recent intensive surveys (cf. n. 207 above). At Korakou two walls of LH III B–C date, forming an angle (i.e. part of a house), were found c. 700 m distant from Blegen's, excavations, A. Delt. 37 (1982), Chr. 101Google Scholar, cf. AR 37 (1990–1991), 17 Google Scholar. This suggests an even greater extent for Mycenaean Korakou (MG 33 no. A51; the mound itself is c. 260 by 115 m). Other large Mycenaean settlements in the Corinthia are Blegen's Gonia (MG 34 no. A57, occupying much of an extensive plateau) and ‘Perdikaria’ (MG 34 no. A59). Blegen's ‘Perdikaria’ is in fact the ‘Rachi Boska’ plateau recendy re-explored by the Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey, under Gregory, Timothy and Hemans, Fritz, AR 46 (1999–2000), 25–6Google Scholar, who have obviously rediscovered Blegen's stretch of Cyclopean wall, on a north terrace here.

²²⁸ Mylonas, G. E., Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton, 1966), 86–8Google Scholar; MG 11, 15–17, 27, 34; R. Hope Simpson, ‘The Mycenaean highways’, EMC/CV 42 = n.s. 17 (1998), 239–60, esp. 260 n. 89, referring to fieldwork by J. Lavery in progress. Cf. also Niemeier, FsDothan, 44.

²²⁹ MG 26 no. A25 (= GAC no. A21).

²³⁰ MG 26 no. A33 (= GAC no. A30).

²³¹ e.g. O. Dickinson, ‘The Catalogue of Ships and all that’, in FsWiener, 207–10.

²³² Shelmerdine 1997, 553–4. cf. 551, where a provisional figure is given of 19 ‘new’ LH sites in southern Boeotia discovered by the Cambridge/Bradford Boeotia Expedition. Many of these sites would surely have been within the Theban kingdom. Other Mycenaean settlements which may be supposed to have been under Theban control are GAC nos. F57, F59–67, G23–30, G32–45. For Thebes itself the account in GAC 244–6 (no. G23) is supplemented by Shelmerdine 1997, 548, 553, 558–64, 569, 580. More recently, reports of the 1993–5 excavations have appeared in A. Delt. 48 (1993), Chr. 170–3Google Scholar, 49 (1994), Chr. 271–8, 50 (1995), Chr. 275–94, cf. AR 45 (1998–1999), 57–8Google Scholar, 46 (1999–2000), 58–9, 47 (2000–1), 59–61. The most significant finds are the ‘some 250’ Linear B tablets (or parts) from Pelopidou Street, cf. Shelmerdine 1997, 563–4. Further references and a summary discussion are now provided by Dakouri-Hild, A., ‘The House of Kadmos in Mycenaean Thebes reconsidered: architecture, chronology, and context’, BSA 96 (2001), 81–122 esp. 105–7Google Scholar and fig. 11 (preliminary plan of central Kadmeia).

²³³ GAC 246–7 no. G25; MG 70–2 no. C24; Mountjoy, P. A., Orchomenos V: Mycenaean Pottery from Orchomenos, Eutresis, and other Boeotian Sites (Munich, 1983), 103–8Google Scholar. The area of Mycenaean setdement (as shown in MG 71 fig. 8) may have been c. 40,000 m².

²³⁴ Shelmerdine 1997, 553–4 esp. n. 94. The Mycenaean site at Thespiai: Magoula (GAC 249 no. G34, MG 74–5 no. C40) would surely have been in Theban territory, but the same can hardly be claimed for the island of Aegina. The Cambridge/Bradford Boeotian Expedition have demonstrated that Ancient Thespiae was a large town, but the Magoula site itself may have been more important in the Neolithic and EH periods than in LH, AR 32 (1985–1986), 40–1Google Scholar, 33 (1986–7), 23.

²³⁵ Shelmerdine 1997, 553; Niemeier, Polemos, 144. But this is not sufficient to suggest that Thebes ‘controlled the southern half of Euboea’ (Shelmerdine), or that Thebes ‘was the centre of a large kingdom comprising Euboea’ (Niemeier).

²³⁶ Shelmerdine 1997, 563–4, cf. Dickinson, ABA 209.

²³⁷ Amarynthos: Palaiochoria (GAC 229–30 no. F85, MG 55–6, 71 no. B70). The area of Mycenaean settlement here was estimated as c. 200 m by 160 m (as shown on MG fig. 8).

²³⁸ Keller, D. R. and Wallace, M. B., ‘The Canadian Karystia Project’, in EMC/CV 30 = n.s. 5 (1986), 155–9Google Scholar and 31 = n. s. 6 (1987), 225–7, cf. AR 34 (1987–1988), 18–19 Google Scholar.

²³⁹ GAC 223 no. F64; MG 53 no. B51, Blegen, C. W., ‘Hyria’, Hesp. supp. 8 (1949), 39–42 Google Scholar; Mountjoy (n. 233), 10,58–61,105.

²⁴⁰ Blegen (n. 239), cf. MG 53.

²⁴¹ GAC 223 no. F67; MG 53 no. B55; Sapouna-Sakellaraki, E., ‘Γλύφα η Βλύχα Βοιωτίας: Η Μυκηναϊκή Αυλίδα?’, AAA 20 (1987), 191–210 Google Scholar, cf. Shelmerdine 197, 550.

²⁴² Sapouna-Sakellaraki (n. 241), 209–10, citing French, E., ‘Pottery from Late Helladic III B1 destruction contexts at Mycenae’, BSA 62 (1967), 149–93Google Scholar.

²⁴³ GAC 236–7 no. G1 with refs.; MG 61 no. C1; Mountjoy, P. A., Orchomenos V (Munich, 1983), esp. 9–46 Google Scholar.

²⁴⁴ de Ridder, A., ‘Fouilles d'Orchomène’, BCH 19 (1895), 137–224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁴⁵ Spyropoulos, T., ‘Το ᾿Ανάκτορο τοῦ Μινύου εἰς τὸν Βοιωτικὸν ᾿Ορχομενόν’, AAA 7 (1974), 313–25Google Scholar; Shelmerdine 1997, 553–4 n. 94.

²⁴⁶ S. Iakovides, Γλάς II (n. 210), 197–9, 275–6.

²⁴⁷ The most likely date for the construction of the Treasury of Atreus appears to be LH III A2, cf. GAC 35–6 with refs.

²¹⁸ MG 59–69 with refs.; Knauss, J., ‘Die Wasserbau-Kultur der Minyer in der Kopais (ein Rekonstruktionversuch)’, in Beister, H. and Buckler, J. (eds), Boiotika. Vorträge vom 5. Internationalen Böotien-Kolloquium zu Ehren von Professor Dr. Siegfried Lauffer (Munich, 1989), 269–74Google Scholar. Fuller details of the work of the Munich team are given in the three Kopais volumes published by the Institut für Wasserbau der Technischen Universität München, Knauss, J., Heinrich, B. and Kalcyk, H., Die Wasserbauten der Minyer in der Kopais—die älteste Flußregulierung Europas (Kopais 1), Bericht Nr. 57 (Munich, 1984 Google Scholar), Knauss, J., Die Melioration des Kopiasbeckens durch die Minyer im 2. Jt. v. Chr.—Wasserbau und Siedlungsbedingungen im Altertum (Kopais 2), Bericht Nr. 57 (Munich, 1987 Google Scholar), and Knauss, J., Wasserbau und Geschichte; Minysche Epoque—Bayerische Zeit (Kopais 3), Bericht Nr. 63 (Munich, 1991 Google Scholar).

²⁴⁹ Iakovides (n. 246), 204, 278.

²⁵⁰ Shelmerdine 1997, 564, 581 n. 276, cf. Dakouri-Hild (n. 232), 106–7 with refs. Two groups of Linear B tablets were found together with LH III B2 pottery. The reports on the Pelopidou Street excavations (n. 232 above) confirm that the tablets found there (some 200 in 1994 alone) belong to a destruction layer associated with significant buildings. The evidence points to the very end of LH III B2 or the transitioned LH III B2–C period as the time of the destruction, cf. now E. Andrikou, ‘The pottery from the destruction layer of the Linear B archive in Pelopidou Street, Thebes’, appendix in Aravantinos, V., ‘Mycenaean texts and contexts at Thebes: the discovery of the new Linear B archives of the Kadmeia’, in Deger-Jalkotsky, S., Hiller, S., and Panagl, O. (eds), Floreant Studia Mycenaea, i (Vienna, 1999), 45–102 Google Scholar. There are also other indications of destructions in the transitional LH III B2–C period, at the Soteriou-Dougekou building and in the Lianga—Christodoulou complex, cf. Dakouri-Hild Ibid.

²⁵¹ The destruction of the ivory workshop, on the Loukou plot, opposite the so-called Arsenal, has been provisionally placed at the end of LH III B1, cf. Sampson, A., ‘Οδός Πελοπίδου (οικόπεδο Μ.Λούκου)’, A. Delt. 35 (1980), Chr. 217–20, pls. 97Google Scholar α–β, 98 α–б; id., ‘La destruction d'un atelier palatial Mycénien à Thèbes’, BCH 109 (1985), 21–9, cf. Shelmerdine 1997, 548 nn. 49–50. The older phase in the Lianga—Christodoulou complex was apparently destroyed at the end of LH III B1, and there is evidence for similar disruptions at this time at the Kordatzi and Koropouli plots, cf. Dakouri-Hild, Ibid.