The Kingdom of Mycenae: A Great Kingdom in the Late Bronze Aegean

by Jorrit M. Kelder

Analysis of the written and archaeological evidence for the existence of a kingdom centered in Mycenae in the late bronze Age. Detail analysis of the documentary and archaeological evidence from Greece, Anatolia, Egypt, and the Near East.

Genres: History

186 pages, Hardcover

First published June 1, 2010

Reviews

[Marc Lamot]

This is not a comprehensive history of the Mycenaean period (ca 1600-1200 BCE), nor a synthesis. It is an exploration of the question of whether Mycenae was a unitary state or not. Kelder works thoroughly and examines in detail the written material and the archaeological finds, both in the Mycenaean cultural area and and even more so in the surrounding regions (Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt). So this is a quite specialized study. The lack of clear sources is constantly discussed, as is the uncertainty about the interpretation of what has been left behind. Towards the end you have the impression that Kelder has to leave his central question unanswered. That makes it all the more surprising that in the final paragraph he suddenly states that Mycenae indeed was a kingdom with Mycenae as its capital. Quite a surprise. Yet this book contains some interesting passages, which I explore in my History account on Goodreads, see https://www.goodreads.com/review/show.... Rating 2.5 stars.

[Sense of History]

The Dutch archaeologist Jorrit M. Kelder (°1980) has quickly become a real expert in Mycenaean history, with a list of publications that you can admire. In this book he defends the position that Mycenae was a unitary state, with the city of Mycenae as its capital. With that he’s going against the tide: most other experts are less certain, or even insist that Mycenae simply was a collection of city-states with a shared culture (a bit like in Classical Hellas).

What is interesting about this book is that Kelder elaborates on the concept of what exactly such a unitary kingdom is. Because this shows that his position should not be taken so absolutely. Kelder starts from the classic definition of an empire: a clear hierarchical structure, “with a Great King governing vassal states through a complex bureaucracy, with one state clearly at the head of the others”, like most empires from the Ancient Near East. But according to him the concept of empire can also express a much looser connection: "a conglomerate of peer Polities, bound together by economic or military needs. The cohesion of such an empire is limited to the degree of cooperation between peer Polities, with one of the member states achieving temporal hegemony over the others.” He specifically mentions Sumer and classical Hellas as examples.

He then examines how that degree of integration can be determined archaeologically. He mentions 7 criteria: intrusive architecture, Uniformity of administrative tools, Imperial language, Intrusive uniformity in material culture, Religious uniformity, Large-scale infrastructure projects and Large-scale agricultural/economic projects. And he adds: “The features listed above share one characteristic: the suppression of local identity and the promotion of a state ideology.” Very interesting, surely.

But Kelder then examines to what extent the Mycenaean example meets those criteria, and for him the architecture (palaces), administration (same system for weights and numbering) and material culture (uniform style of pottery) certainly stand out. With only 3 of 7 criteria met, it is surprising that his conclusion is that Mycenae was a unified empire with the city of Mycenae as capital. Even when you take the loose conglomerate definition as a norm, it still is doubtful that the ‘empire’-these is tenable.

Personally, I think Kelder should have expanded his scale of what an empire is (limited to the choice between a loose connection and a strong hierarchical structure), and should also have included other forms of political connections and forms of state formation. That would provide a much more nuanced picture, all the more justified because the source material for the Bronze Age Greece is very limited, as the author concedes. In other words: Kelder's approach is certainly interesting, but his conclusion is absolutely unconvincing. (Rating 2.5)

[Emre]

Research for my Masters thesis, just adding this here because it's technically a book I read so it can count towards my goal for this year.

So the first 50 or so pages give a very good overview of the current knowledge base on the Mycanaean world. A good mix between basics such as the different types of source available, sites that yielded evidence, literary representation, etc.

After that we get to the core of this book - arguments for the existence of a Mycanaean empire unified under a centralized ruler in the supposed capital city of Mycenae as opposed to a world of independent, autonomous kingdoms only loosely connected through language and religon.

The chapters on the Hittite and Egyptian sources were especially interesting for me. By considering those we get a picture of the Mycenaeans (or Ahhijawa, as they are called in the Hittite language) that is not available in the Mycenaeans own Linear B sources.

[Dominic Muresan]

Archeologist Jorrit Kelder stops short of proving the inverse of what has come as the classical stance on the Mycenean kingdom. Using mainly external textual sources and then, by constructing the archaeological portrait of a late bronze age empire and then showing, almost conclusively, how a mycenean empire would fit that exact mold. Obviously, the data is too scarce to actually draw a conclusion, yet it has the capacity to make one reconsider.