Search

Ethnic or cultural designations of past societies have often been employed uncritically and even casually. This general situation applies specifically to Mycenaean civilization. This article therefore considers a set of interrelated questions: What or who was a Mycenaean? How did the people termed "Mycenaeans" come into existence? What did it mean to be Mycenaean? Could one choose to be, or not to be, Mycenaean? Was there a difference between being Mycenaean and becoming Mycenaean? And finally, how is Mycenaean identity related to culture, class, and social organization? After providing theoretical, methodological, anthropological, and archaeological contexts for these questions, this paper offers some suggestions about how or whether they can be answered, examining issues of ethnicity, cultural identity, and spatial organization. It concludes by considering these areas as they apply to the Aegean Bronze Age.* [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nakassis et al., in their contribution to this Forum, argue that the term "redistribution" has been used with a range of meanings in the context of the Aegean Bronze Age and so obscures rather than illuminates the emergence and functioning of political economies. They call for detailed empirical investigation rather than reliance on ambiguous idealized types. Lupack and Schon concur, arguing respectively that the palace shared control of the Mycenaean economy with sanctuaries and local communities and that centralized production of craft goods (an,d thus elite strategies of wealth finance) developed late at the palace of Pylos. Pullen finds little archaeological support for Renfrew's extrapolation of centralized redistribution to the Early Bronze Age, while Christakis uses evidence of storage to argue the same for Prepalatial Crete and to play down the scale and importance of elite redistribution in the Minoan palaces. The calls for circumspect use of the term "redistribution" and for detailed empirical investigation are applauded, although these five papers arguably do not all attack the same form of redistribution. This response argues that redistribution sensu Polanyi, Finley, and Killen (i.e., centrally administered movements of goods and services without equivalence of value) retains considerable heuristic value in investigation of both textual and archaeological evidence for Bronze Age political economies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contact between Egypt and the Aegean during the Late Bronze Age, especially the relationship between Minoan Crete and New Kingdom Egypt, has been the subject of much study. The relationship between the Greek (Mycenaean) mainland and Egypt is generally regarded as a more elusive topic, and most scholars seem to consider interaction between the two a matter of irregular exchange via middlemen (e.g., on Cyprus, in the Levant), rather than direct contact. This paper seeks to stimulate new thinking on this subject by positing the possibility that exchange between the two was more than a haphazard phenomenon, arguing that it was, instead, a highly organized system that involved the active engagement of the ruling elite at Mycenae as well as the pharaonic court. Using both archaeological and paleobotanical data and focusing my examination on the import into Egypt of Mycenean pottery, particularly stirrup jars, which are known generally as containers for olive oil, I demonstrate that olives and/or olive oil were a crucial part of this Late Bronze Age interstate connection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]