Something Old, Something New and Something Borrowed – Appropriating Foreign Material Culture in the Late Bronze Age Aegean
Abstract
7
Full text
Something Old, Something New and Something Borrowed– Appropriating Foreign Material Culture in the Late Bronze Age Aegean Filip Franković ABSTRACT Objects of foreign origin found within acertain ‘local’ archaeological context have often been interpreted as objects of high social value (due to their exotic character and origin). However, such interpretations have often dealt with the unusual character of these objects rather than examined the dynamic process through which they have been received into anew cultural context. This paper aims to examine specific objects and their dynamic biographies, while at the same time analysing the oversimplified concept of foreignness. It deals with two specific objects of foreign origin which have been appropriated into new cultural contexts. Rather than being treated as passively received objects of great value, they are interpreted as active creators of their own biographies within the context of the Late Bronze Age Aegean. The first example addressed in this paper is aMycenaean ‑style krater found in the grave on the Ayasoluk hill near Selçuk (Ephesos). The krater was used as an urn for the deposition of cremated remains. As such aburial practice is not known from the Greek mainland at the time, its appearance in the context of West Anatolia directly questions its ‘Mycenaean’ character and shows amore dynamic relationship to the object itself. The second example is awell ‑known Egyptian stone vase found in the Neopalatial context at Kato Zakro. In this paper, its complex biography is presented and used to argue for amore dynamic character of personal biographies, which could have significantly influenced their perception in past societies. The paper aims to question the concepts of foreignness, ethnicity and hybridity in the Late Bronze Age Aegean using the aforementioned examples. With its concluding remarks the paper aims to challenge some of the grand narratives of the Aegean prehistory, which are often hard to avoid in the newly proposed in‑ terpretations. KEYWORDS Late Bronze Age; Aegean; Anatolia; Egypt; appropriation; hybridity; entanglement. INTRODUCTION During the 2nd millennium BCE, the area of the Eastern Mediterranean witnessed arise of intercultural contacts which reached its peak during the Late Bronze Age. Intercultural con‑ tacts spread through exchange networks, based primarily on maritime routes (e.g. Brood‑ bank 2013; Emanuel 2016; Knapp– Demesticha eds. 2017). Although placed almost on the margin of the network and away from the most important geo ‑political events of the time, in comparison with the politically more important powers like Egypt or the Hittite Empire, the area of the Aegean served as an important link in the chain of exchange. As witnessed in the archaeological record, the material culture of Aegean provenance has been found all over the Eastern Mediterranean and vice versa. STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/1, 7–30
8STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/1 Contacts of the Aegean with Egypt,1 perhaps the most important political power of the time, ranged from diplomatic visits2 to the exchange of goods3 or even artisans4 (e.g. Wachsmann 1987; Panagiotopoulos 2001; 2006; Bietaketal. 2007; Hitchcock 2008; Phillips 2008a; 2008b). These contacts often seem to be related to powerful elites and their taste for exotic objects (Panagiotopoulos 2013, 57).5 The interconnections between Anatolia and the Aegean in the Late Bronze Age have been widely discussed. These connections can be noted in aseries of different relations ranging from diplomatic correspondence (e.g. Beckman– Bryce– Cline 2011) and movement of people (e.g. Mokrišová 2016) to connections in the religious sphere (e.g. Morris 2001), and are predominantly related to the ‘Mycenaean’ Greek mainland, although earlier connections with ‘Minoan’ Crete should not be neglected. 6 However, the key to examining the relationship between Anatolia and the Aegean during the Late Bronze Age lies in the material culture present in the archaeological contexts of both areas. Nevertheless, the archaeological data outline arather unbalanced picture. Objects which unambiguously originate from Central Anatolia are rather rare on the Greek mainland, Crete and the islands of the West Aegean (Cline 1991). The opposite is the case with objects originating from Greece and discovered in Anatolia. Although there are few Aegean‑ ‑type finds in Central Anatolia (Mee 1998, 141), the circumstances are quite different in West Anatolia and on the islands of the East Aegean, where alarge quantity of objects originating both from the Greek mainland and Crete has been found both in the contexts of settlements and cemeteries (Mee 1978). It seems that the 14th and 13th centuries, or the LH IIIA and LH IIIB phases, witnessed asignificant increase in the number of objects brought from the Aegean 1 For an interpretation of regional (Crete– Greek mainland) and chronological differences in the consumption of Egyptian objects in the Aegean Sea anew and significant study by MichaelL. Galaty (2018). 2 Even though Egyptian objects have been found in different archaeological contexts all over the Ae‑ gean, the mentioned diplomatic contacts are more prominent in relation to Crete than they are in relation to other Aegean islands or the Greek mainland. Our knowledge of definite Aegean diplomatic visits to Egypt is mostly related to Crete and possibly some of the Aegean islands (e.g. Vercoutter 1956; Wachsmann 1987; Laboury 1990; Matthäus 1995; Rehak 1996; 1998; Panagiotopoulos 2001; Duhoux 2003; Panagiotopoulos 2006; Matić 2012; 2014; 2015; Matić– Franković 2017). 3 Although often out of our reach, one should not neglect the possible trade in perishable or hardly traceble goods between the Aegean and the rest of the Eastern Mediterranean. One should men‑ tion trade in food such as Spanish vetchling (e.g. Kislev– Artzy– Marcus 1993), wood (Redford 2003, 78–80) or spices, as possibly shown by the semitic loan words for spices in Linear B sources (Ventris– Chadwick 1973, 91). In this context, recent studies (Ben ‑Schlomo– Nodarou– Rutter 2011; Dayetal. 2011) dealing with transport vessels of mostly Cretan origin, some of which have been found in the Late Bronze Age contexts in the Levant, are especially important. 4 The influence of Aegean art on Egypt is most clearly seen in the examples of Minoan style frescoes from Tell el ‑Dab’ain Egypt (e.g. Bietak 1996; Bietaketal. 2007; Younger 2009; Bietak 2013). The influence can be seen on Crete as well. On Crete, not only were objects of Egyptian provenance imported (e.g. Crete– Egypt 2001; Phillips 2008a; 2008b; Galaty 2018), but the iconography was also significantly influenced by the Egyptian sources. This does not refer only to the well ‑known example of the adoption of the color canon, but also to some other famous examples such as the do‑ mestication of the Egyptian goddess Taweret into the Minoan Genius (e.g. Evans 1935, 431–467; Gill 1964; Weingarten 1991; Hallager– Weingarten 1993; Panagiotopoulos 2012b, 54; Blakolmer 2015) which probably influenced the religious sphere as well. 5 For the topic of the relationship between diplomatic exchange and luxury goods see also Feldman 2006. 6 For ageneral overview see later in the text.
9FILIP FRANKOVIĆ or, to be more precise, of Mycenaean origin.7 The Aegean influence is also recognized in the appearance of different forms of material culture, such as domestic and funerary architecture, which is sometimes interpreted as asign of the spreading of Mycenaean culture in general (Mee 1988). Consequently, the East Aegean ‑West Anatolia stands out as arepresentative region for examining intercultural contacts in the 2nd millennium BCE Eastern Mediterranean. As the character and the intensity of contacts between both sides of the Aegean differ signifi‑ cantly from those between Egypt and the Aegean, the paper focuses more on explaining the complexity of relations between the West Aegean and the East Aegean ‑West Anatolia. EARLIER INTERPRETATIONS AND APPROACHES TO INTERCULTURAL CONTACTS BETWEEN THE WEST AEGEAN AND THE EAST AEGEAN ‑WEST ANATOLIA From the earliest research conducted in this area, West Anatolia has been perceived as abuff‑ er zone between the West Aegean and Central Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age. Most of the early studies of the Late Bronze Age material culture in this area tried to distinguish between objects of local origin and those brought from the archaeologically better researched area of the West Aegean. As archaeologists improved their knowledge of the Late Bronze Age both on the Greek mainland and Crete, the influence of the Minoan and Mycenaean cultural spheres in West Anatolia and the islands of the East Aegean became widely recognized. The material culture was often separated into two big groups: the one of Mycenaean (or Minoan) origin and the other of local origin. Alarge quantity of Mycenaean ‑type material culture, mainly pottery, started to appear in the area during the 14th and 13th centuries BCE and has been interpreted as aproof of the Mycenaean cultural influence.8 Several theoretical models explaining the question of Mycenaean involvement in the East Aegean ‑West Anatolia arose during many years of research in the area. The existence of high quantities of Mycenaean material culture in the region was often explained as aconsequence of the colonization process originating from the Greek mainland. The idea of colonization, supported by asignificant number of scholars, such as Christopher Mee, Wolf ‑Dietrich Niemeier and Mario Benzi (e.g. Mee 1978; 1988; Benzi 1992; Mee 1998; Niemeier 1998a), saw the population of the East Aegean ‑West Anatolia as comprised of both people of Mycenaean origin and those of local descent. The main goal was to distinguish be‑ tween the archaeological material of local origin and that brought from or influenced by the Minoan9 Crete and the Mycenaean Greek mainland. Such an approach resulted in the creation of terms such as ‘Mycenaeanization’, which suggests that local people were colonized and that they accepted Mycenaean material culture through the process of acculturation. The most applied model in explaining such processes was developed by Wolf ‑Dietrich Niemeier. 7 The question of Ahhiyawa and the relationship of the term to the geopolitical situation in the Late Bronze Age Greek mainland and the Aegean islands will not be discussed in this paper. However, there is avast amount of bibliography on the topic. For ageneral overview see e.g. Mountjoy 1998, 47–51; Kelder 2010; Beckman– Bryce– Cline 2011. 8 The appearance of Aegean cultural traits in the earlier phases of the Late Bronze Age has been in‑ terpreted as aMinoan influence in the area, while the later material, mostly that of the 14th and 13th centuries BCE, has been interpreted as an influence of the Mycenaean cultural sphere. 9 For the interpretation of Minoan influence in the East Aegean ‑West Anatolia see e.g. Niemeier 1996; 1998a; 1998b; 2005; 2007; 2009; Niemeier– Niemeier 1997; 1999; Guzowska 2002; Girella– Pavúk 2015; 2016.
10 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/1 He expanded the colonization model by trying to determine the degree of Minoanization at the site of Miletus (Niemeier 1998a, 29–36). Niemeier composed alist of typically Minoan cultural characteristics and tried to determine which of them were present on the site. This approach significantly influenced later research and was also used to explain how substantial the process of Mycenaeanization was on certain archaeological sites. Due to the large quantity of Mycenaean material appearing in Mycenaean ‑type tombs in the East Aegean ‑West Anatolia, burial practices have been one of the most important factors in examining the level of Mycenaeanization. Research in this realm can mostly be associated with Christopher Mee. In aseries of his studies, he dealt with Mycenaean ‑type tombs in the East Aegean ‑West Anatolia and the material originating from the Aegean (Mee 1978; 1988; 1998). Mee abundantly demonstrated the differences and similarities in burial practices between the East Aegean ‑West Anatolia on one side, and the West Aegean and the Greek mainland on the other. Mee saw the similarities in the material culture and burial practices as aresult of migration and acculturation, but stressed that the main problem in interpretation was the lack of insight about the indigenous inhabitants of the area (Mee 1988, 303). While he proposed migration as apossible explanation, he expressed some doubts about it being alarge ‑scale event. 10 He considered trade to be the most probable reason for the appearance of Mycenaean material culture (Mee 1998, 140–141). Conquest and invasion have also been offered as possible reasons, as supported by the existence of LH IIB–LH IIIA1 warrior graves on Rhodes, which are considered to be the graves of Mycenaean conquerors (Driessen– MacDonald 1984, 58–59). Adifferent approach to explaining the appearance of Mycenaean decorated pottery in the East Aegean ‑West Anatolia was developed by Penelope Mountjoy. Mountjoy separated the area into two parts, the Upper and Lower Interfaces, with the border between the two set around Ephesos. The Upper and Lower Interfaces demonstrate different quantities of Mycenaean pottery, with the Upper characterized by alarger quantity of local wares and the Lower by alarger quantity of Mycenaean pottery (Mountjoy 1998, 34–45). Mountjoy sees Mycenaean culture in the Southeast Aegean as aseparate entity with ahybrid character. She was the first to introduce the term ‘hybrid’ into the discussion about the Southeast Aegean, juxtaposing the process of acculturation to the process of colonization (Mountjoy 1998, 34–37), which is not always the case with the explanatory models used on the East Aegean ‑West Anatolian examples. Mountjoy proposes that the differences in the degree of Mycenaeanization in the entire area of the East Aegean ‑West Anatolia reflect the intensity of contacts (Mountjoy 1998, 33–37). In her view, the acceptance of Mycenaean material culture shows socio ‑cultural connectivity as opposed to political unity (Mountjoy 1998, 50). Relying on burial practices, Mountjoy claims that the East Aegean became part of the Mycenaean cultural sphere in this way and dismisses the migration hypothesis (Mountjoy 1998, 37). Although some of the earlier approaches have not been completely abandoned (e.g. Gu‑ zowska 2002), several new ones have been proposed and tested in recent years (Mac Sweeney 2008; Eerbeek 2014; Girella– Pavúk 2015; Pavúk 2015; Vitale 2016). For example, Naoise Mac Sweeney casts doubt on the presence of the Mycenaeans in the Southeast Aegean. She proposes that many elements usually considered typical of the Mycenaean culture had already existed outside the Greek mainland. She sees the Mycenaean culture as acomposite culture which resulted from communication and influences between different elite groups in the Aegean, rather than spreading from its center on the Greek mainland. Consequently, Mac Sweeney does not see the ‘Mycenaeans’ in the Southeast Aegean as agroup of people originating from the Greek mainland, but as alocal elite embracing some Mycenaean cultural elements as part 10 For amore recent view on mobility in the East Aegean ‑West Anatolia see Mokrišová 2016.
11FILIP FRANKOVIĆ of their participation in the pan ‑Aegean elite network (Mac Sweeney 2008, 108–109). Peter Pavúk (2015) proposes adifferent perspective on the region. He observes the East Aegean ‑West Anatolia as aseparate entity, rather than as merely azone of different cultural influences. APPROACHING INTERCULTURAL CONTACTS Most of the early approaches dealing with the appearance of Mycenaean material culture in the East Aegean ‑West Anatolia have been influenced by the old culture ‑historical premise of an ethnic interpretation of certain traits of material culture. The presence of Mycenaean ‑type material culture has been interpreted as asign of the presence of Mycenaean inhabitants, col‑ onists or conquerors (e.g. Mee 1978; Driessen– MacDonald 1984; Mee 1988; Benzi 1992; Mee 1998; Niemeier 1998a). Penelope Mountjoy (1998), with her concept of the hybrid interface, represents the first attempt to abandon the earlier views and represent the East Aegean ‑West Anatolia in adifferent light. Although quite distanced from the earlier approaches, and thus certainly important, Mountjoy’sapproach never completely succeeded in abandoning some of the earlier concepts deeply embedded into the discipline. For example, although West Anatolian material culture has been defined as hybrid in character, it was still perceived as an amalgam of local and Mycenaean cultural traits. In other words, some of the older culture ‑historical concepts still served as the basis for this approach. Although anew category was created, its fundamental parts still wore labels with strong ethnic connotations, such as Anatolian or Mycenaean. This does not mean that technical terms such as Mycenaean pottery should be abandoned, but rather that they should be treated as taxonomic categories from an epistemological point of view instead of serving as an expression of ethnic identity. Asimilar point of view has been proposed by Philipp Stockhammer recently (Stockhammer 2013, 13). Stockhammer’swork can be used to question the concept of hybridity in explaining intercultural connections in the East Aegean ‑West Anatolia. The trending of the term ‘hybridity’ 11 in the studies focusing on cultural interactions in the Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age has already been discussed by Stockhammer (2013, 11). In the case of the East Aegean ‑West Anatolian interface, the term has been used to describe objects which cannot be put into one of the predefined taxonomic categories, but rather lie somewhere in between them (Stockhammer 2012, 11–12). Stockhammer (2013, 11) separates this concept of hybridity from the concept of hybridity by Homi Bhabha (2007, 112–114) who sees it as astrategy of the subaltern in the framework of the colonial context. These two con‑ cepts are not to be interchanged, as their meanings are quite different. Although it proposes adifferent approach from the typical dichotomy between the local and the Mycenaean, when applied to the East Aegean ‑West Anatolia, the concept of hybridity still focuses on the description of the specific character of the hybrid, rather than examining the dynamic and creative process of its creation (Stockhammer 2013, 14). The category of the hybrid has been artificially created alongside the Mycenaean and Anatolian, without ex‑ plaining the interaction between the two, and proposed as anew taxonomic category which does not reveal much about the dynamic interactions that preceded it. In other words, it does not define how and why foreign influences were received in the local context or, in the case of the East Aegean ‑West Anatolia, how and why the ‘foreign’ Mycenaean ‑type material culture was used for the construction of local identities. 11 For amore recent view on hybridity and the processes of Minoanization and Mycenaeanization in the East Aegean ‑West Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age see Girella– Pavúk 2016. For the discussion on hybridity in archaeology see Knapp 2008.
12 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/1 Considering the fact that intercultural contacts seem to be ahighly dynamic and transform‑ ative process, the local community has to be treated as an active, rather than apassive recipient of foreign material culture.12 In this case, the concept of appropriation, with its recent rise in popularity, might prove important for abetter understanding of how and why foreign material culture was used during the 14th and 13th centuries in the East Aegean ‑West Anatolia. Hans Peter Hahn separates the process of appropriation into four aspects: material appropriation, objectification, incorporation and transformation (Hahn 2004, 220–222). Material appropri‑ ation takes place when an object becomes apersonal possession of an individual and when acertain personal value is attached to it. As aresult, the object can be subjected to changes in form, e.g. additionally decorated (Hahn 2004, 220). The object is then classified into acertain predefined category of the receiving society through the aspect of objectification (Hahn 2004, 220–221). Through incorporation, human subjects learn how to use the object in aproper way, again, of course, from the local perspective. Incorporation seems to be abodily experience that can influence one’sown perception of the body, which is then used as atool for handling this new type of object (Hahn 2004, 221–222). During transformation, the object is attributed with local meanings and reinvented in the receiving society, where it can be used to create new traditions (Hahn 2004, 222–223; Hahn 2005, 107). Some authors have stressed that the first two aspects are much easier to reach, as they remain on the level of materiality, while the remaining two deal with social practices and as such are much harder to trace (Girella– Pavúk 2015, 393). Nevertheless, other studies (Stockhammer 2012, 17–31) have shown that the incorporation into anew context and transformation can be reached. The process of appropriation from an archaeological perspective was recently studied by Philipp Stockhammer and successfully applied to Aegean ‑type pottery appearing in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age contexts in the South Levant (Stockhammer 2012, 14–32). As an addition to the appropriation process, Stockhammer introduces the concepts of relational and material entanglement (Stockhammer 2013, 15–17). The appropriation of aforeign object into anew cultural context, with its materiality unchanged, is seen as arelational entanglement first reached through the process of appropriation. Similarly to appropriation, the process of entanglement is acontinuous process, which can cause the emergence of new relational en‑ tanglements, but also induce adifferent type of entanglement, which Stockhammer refers to as material entanglement. This process brings to light the creative power of entanglement, as previously separate categories of objects combine and merge into anew material form, which does not clearly exhibit its origins (Stockhammer 2012, 16–17). Since appropriation is acontin‑ uous process that needs to be reaffirmed (Hahn 2004, 224), its creative character comes to light. Parallel to the concept of material entanglement put forward by Stockhammer, which shows the true creative capacity of the process of appropriation, aslightly different approach, directly connected to the issue of hybridity, has been suggested by Luca Girella and Peter Pavúk (2015; 2016). In their re ‑examination of Minoan pottery in the Northeast Aegean, Girella and Pavúk proved that the appropriation of foreign objects can, over time, lead to the development of completely new forms of material culture (Girella– Pavúk 2015, 394–395). The approaches of Stockhammer, Girella and Pavúk have several points in common. Girella and Pavúk’sapproach is based more on achronological analysis distinguishing among the different phases of contact which change through time. They define pre ‑contact, contact and hybrid phases in their analysis of the Minoan influence on Samotrace (Girella– Pavúk 2015, 394–395). Their hybrid phase is closely related to what Philipp Stockhammer calls material entanglement, during which new material forms are created as aresult of intercultural con‑ 12 For more on the subject also see Maran 2011 and Maran– Stockhammer eds. 2012.
13FILIP FRANKOVIĆ tacts and the process of appropriation. However, although amuch higher degree of relational entanglement is exhibited in the contact phase, some traces of material entanglement can nevertheless be noted. Stockhammer’sapproach (2012; 2013) offers an opportunity to distin‑ guish among the stages of entanglement within every phase and even focus on aparticular object (or aclass of objects), thus providing amore detailed insight into the object’scontext of consumption. On the other hand, Girella and Pavúk’sapproach (2015) is more focused on the assemblages within acertain archaeological context. Because of the complex relationship between the object and the cultural context in which it is found, Stockhammer claims that the study should not end with aconclusion about acertain state of entanglement,13 but rather examine the practices associated with the object itself (Stockhammer 2013, 17). SOMETHING BORROWED Burial practices, supposedly hybrid themselves, have been used to define the hybrid charac‑ ter of the East Aegean ‑West Anatolian interface. More precisely, the diversity of tomb types (Mycenaean and Anatolian), different burial rites (inhumation, cremation) and the use of objects of different origins as grave goods have been interpreted as expressions of the hybrid burial practice (Mountjoy 1998, 37). The Ayasoluk hill near Selçuk (Ephesos) is acase in point. According to all the criteria mentioned above, this specific case could be treated as an example of ahybrid burial practice. However, amore dynamic relation between the material culture and its users is proposed for this site. On the Ayasoluk hill in 1963, aso ‑called ‘Mycenaean’ tomb was discovered (Gltekin– Baran 1964, 125). It is mentioned in the report that the tomb was dug into the soft sandy soil and that it contained some stones (Gltekin– Baran 1964, 125). However, although the archi‑ tecture of the tomb was not presented in detail, the plan available in the original report seems to indicate that the remains of the excavated tomb were circular in shape and that its diameter must have been alittle less than 4 m (Gltekin– Baran 1964, 128). Taking into consideration all of the available information and the parallels in West Anatolia, it is possible that the tomb may have been either acircular chamber tomb dug into the soil, similar to tombs noted on other sites in West Anatolia, such as Değirmentepe and Müskebi, or acircular stone ‑built subterranean chamber tomb, sometimes referred to as the tholos tomb. However, the amount of stones discovered inside the tomb is insufficient for the latter to be true. The existence of adromos and astomion, which appear as standard architectural segments of both tholoi and Mycenaean ‑type chamber tombs, such as the ones from Müskebi, was also not reported. Barbara Horejs and Fabian Kanz (2008, 12) believe it to be agrave with stone edging, but from the report (Gltekin– Baran 1964, 125), which generally lacks information about the spatial distribution of the finds within the tomb, it is not clear whether only the discovered objects or the entire tomb was surrounded by stones. If stones were found only around the finds and not as the edging of the entire tomb, they might belong to the blocking of the stomion, which might not have been recorded in the process of excavation or the stomion had been severely damaged prior to the excavation.14 13 For the entanglement in the Southeast Aegean see e.g. Vitale 2016. 14 The discussion about the architecture of the tomb is important in this case as it directly influences the interpetation of this tomb as Mycenaean in type. From the available evidence, it is not possible to convincingly argue that the tomb from Ayasoluk should be considered as of aMycenaean type, although this might have been the case and such apossibility should not be discarded.
14 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/1 Atotal of six complete ceramic vessels were found inside of the tomb. The tomb contained alarge piriform jar, aconical rhyton, aflask, aflask with apierced base, an undecorated juglet and astemmed krater. In addition, some fragments possibly belonging to asecond krater were found (Gltekin– Baran 1964, 125–127). The pottery was dated to the LH IIIA2 period by multiple authors (Gltekin– Baran 1964, 127; Mountjoy 1998, 36).15 Penelope Mountjoy explains the pottery finds through her concept of the hybrid interface, although she sees one of the flasks and the rhyton as typically Mycenaean. In her opinion, other vessels exhibit Mi‑ noan or East Aegean traits and should be described as local imitations (Mountjoy 1998, 36). The most important object for this study is the stemmed krater (Fig. 1) decorated with argonauts and triangular motifs (Gltekin– Baran 1964, 129; Özgnel 1983, pls. 14–18). What is even more important is the fact that human remains were found inside of the krater (Gltekin– Baran 1964, 126). It has to be noted that these were the only human bones report‑ ed from this tomb. Unfortunately, the excavators did not provide any additional information about the bones, so the number of individuals, their gender and age remain unknown. Even more problematic is the fact that the report did not reveal whether the bones were cremated and put into the krater as an urn or collected as part of the secondary treatment after the original inhumation. However, the size of the vessel might point to cremation, as it would be almost impossible to fit bigger and complete bones inside of it, as also suggested by other authors (Horejs– Kanz 2008, 120). The argument that the human remains found inside the krater might point to cremation can also be supported by comparison to other sites in West Anatolia.16 Although quite adistanced 15 Christopher Mee proposes the LH IIIA1 date for some of the objects (Mee 1978, 127). 16 This specific case has also been mentioned by Mokrišová (2016, 50). However, this is not the only example of this or similar practices in the East Aegean ‑West Anatolia, as similar cases have been noted on sites such as Bakla Tepe (Erkanal– Özkan 1998, 403; Erkanal– Özkan 1999, 111; Erkanal 2008, 166; Erkanal– Şahoğlu 2012, 96; Aykurt– Erkanal 2017) and Müskebi (Bass 1963, 355; Boysal 1964, 82; Çiner 1964, 57; Boysal 1967, 79). Fig. 1: Reconstructed drawing of the Mycenaean‑style decorated stemmed krater from the Ayaso‑ luk hill in Selçuk (Ephesos). The profile drawing is only approximate, scale ca. 1:4 (redrawn by Věra Doležálková after Gultekin – Baran 1964 and Özgünel 1983).
15FILIP FRANKOVIĆ from the site of the Ayasoluk hill, the best parallels can be found in the Troad. Asignificant number of similar practices have been recorded at two cemeteries, namely the Cemetery of Cinerary Urns at Troy (Blegen– Caskey– Rawson 1953, 371–391) and Beşik Tepe (Basedow 2000). At the Cemetery of Cinerary Urns, excavated by Carl Blegen in the 1930s, atotal of 19 complete urns were found (Blegen– Caskey– Rawson 1953, 371). However, additional urn pieces collected throughout the area, four burial pithoi (Blegen– Caskey– Rawson 1953, 375) and two additional urns excavated by Dörpfeld (1894, 124) in the late 19th century point to at least 182 burials in this cemetery. Although the total number of burials at this cemetery is not relevant for this discussion, the type of the prevailing vessels used as urns certainly is. Kraters produced in avariety of fabrics (local Gray, Tan and Coarse Ware) make up the majority of the vessels used as urns at these cemeteries (Blegen– Caskey– Rawson 1953, 375–376). Although not as numerous as in the Cemetery of Cinerary Urns, asimilar example comes from the cemetery of Beşik Tepe where akrater was also used as an urn for cremated human remains (Basedow 2000, 46; Basedow 2002, 469). Both cemeteries can be dated to the 14 th and 13th centuries BCE. If the dates of the Mycenaean pottery found within the burial contexts are considered, the examples from both cemeteries belong to the LH IIIA2 phase (Mounjoy 1999, 284; Eerbeek 2014, 168–170), which corresponds to the date of the Ayasoluk burial. The use of the Mycenaean ‑style krater (Fig. 1) as an urn for the deposition of cremated (or any other kind of) remains of the deceased is clearly an important example for the study of intercultural connections. As cremation is uncommon for the Greek mainland and the West Aegean in the 14 th and 13 th centuries BCE, using some Mycenaean ‑type vessels as urns in the East Aegean ‑West Anatolia obviously distances the vessels from their original purpose. Therefore, adynamic character of the process through which such avessel was appropriated into anew cultural context should be explored. However, due to the complexity of historical relations in the area, afew additional problems arise with the application of the theoretical model. In an idealized case, the use of the Mycenaean ‑type vessel as an urn in this burial context could easily be described in the framework of the process of appropriation. The first two aspects of the process of appropriation, namely material appropriation and objectification, can be easily ascertained in this case. Through the aspect of material appropriation, the krater would become apersonal possession with personal value attached to it by those who obtained the object. It can be argued that the personal value of the object could be even higher due to the fact that it was used as afinal resting place for some of the deceased family members. Through the aspect of objectification, anew krater would be placed into the existing category of local kraters which could also be used as urns, as shown by the local examples from other cemeteries in the area. One has to keep in mind that other aspects of the appropriation process will sometimes not be clear from the archaeological record. However, if the differences between the use of objects in anew context and in the place of their origin can be traced, as proven in this case, incorporation and transformation might also be possible to reach. Through the aspect of incorporation, the Mycenaean ‑type krater would have to be used in aproper way, from the local perspective, in order to be included into the local burial practice, or even used during the funeral. The transfor‑ mation aspect would allow the krater to be completely integrated into the local society, although it could still be considered as foreign from the local point of view (Hahn 2004, 222). At the same time, as local ‑style kraters are usually not decorated, different features of the Mycenaean ‑type krater, such as the lively painted marine motifs, could trigger the creation of new traditions connected to the burial practices and the relationship to the deceased. Although very applicable, the abovementioned approach is asimplified example of how appropriation could work in this particular case. However, the object’sown biography and afar more complex cultural context of the East Aegean ‑West Anatolia call for amore detailed insight.
22 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/1 2012, 13). Therefore, only one part of the object’sbiography can be fully understood. However, in this case, the meanings and functions of the object are dependent on time and space, as we are dealing with an old object that was introduced into adifferent cultural context. In other words, we act like prisoners of our own knowledge. We are aware that the object was much older than the context in which it was found, as well as that it was brought from Egypt to the Aegean, but we cannot understand how the object was perceived within the cultural context just before it was altered. Consequently, our own knowledge about the object’spast has shaped our opinion of the object’sperception, which can differ from that of the human actor(s) who changed the form of the object in the past.32 As stressed by different authors (e.g. Preston 2000, 25–29; Panagiotopoulos 2013, 52), there is no ‘proper function’ of an object, but only the ‘system function’ dependent on time, space and cultural context of the user. Therefore, amore dynamic biography of objects through time and even their multiple re ‑evaluation within the same cultural context can be expected. In this particular case, this would open up the stone vessel in question to multiple interpre‑ tations during its usage on Crete before it was finally buried into the ground. For example, if it was imported during the Prepalatial period, it might have been seen as aforeign object of great value. Over the years, its foreignness may have been forgotten and it may have been per‑ ceived as aprecious object of local origin, but older in date. Finally, the object may have been appropriated into the new Neopalatial context, where its materiality was changed in order to better fit the newly proposed needs. This points to two conclusions. First, appropriation is not only reserved for foreign objects, but it might also be cautiously applied to the objects related to the past in some cases. These old objects might have seemed equally foreign to the consumers as the contemporary ones coming from distanced regions. This does not mean that these objects were attributed with aforeign character, but rather that they might have been equally distanced from contemporary social practices. Second, although the materiality was changed to fit new needs, the material most closely resembling the original one was used. This again stresses the importance of the material, not as superimposed to the design, but rather in aclose correlation to it. The design was adapted to the needs of the local cultural context, but the coherency of the material proved important for the process. As shown by Diamantis Pana‑ giotopoulos, the predominance of design over material is amodern concept deeply imbedded into archaeological thought (Panagiotopoulos 2013, 51–52) and it is quite possible that the material played an important role in the eyes of the consumers in the Bronze Age Aegean and was preferred over the object’sdesign (Panagiotopoulos 2013, 65). The re ‑contextualization of the object within anew cultural context can be considered as one of the most important points of every object’sbiography. However, in that process, the design and material could be differently evaluated (Panagiotopoulos 2013, 52). In the case of the stone vessel from Kato Zakro (Fig. 2), although the foreign design of the object was of no importance to local consumers, it can be argued that design did play quite an important role as the object was altered to fit local preferences. Accordingly, it can be argued that the material was preferred over the foreign design, but that it was in aclose relationship to the local one. 32 Asimilar view has recently been expressed by Joseph Maran (2015, 244). He argues that in the previ‑ ous research aforeign or local character of the material culture has often been too easily attributed to certain objects. Maran states that such an approach essentializes the foreignness and neglects complicated biographies of objects. According to Maran, the knowledge of local consumers about the object’sorigin or past is often too easily assumed, while the transformation of the object within the local culture is often neglected.
23FILIP FRANKOVIĆ Bevan claims that Cretan consumers were more interested in obtaining original antiquities than raw materials (Bevan 2007, 124), as these old objects might have had important social value for the Cretan elite, different from the one attributed to the contemporary Egyptian stone vessels (Bevan 2007, 125). However, additional reshaping might point to amore complex relationship to this particular object. In the Neopalatial period, both antique and contempo‑ rary Egyptian vessels were reshaped to better suit local preferences (Bevan 2007, 125; also see Warren 1996; Bevan 2003, 69; Phillips 2008a, 80–88). This would point to ageneral trend of adjusting stone vessels despite their complex biographies, foreign33 and exotic design, or antique character. The idea that they were of important social value to the Cretan elite cannot be sustained, as we do not know if that same elite fully understood the objects’ origins. 34 What is more important, the treatment of these antique objects and contemporary Egyptian stone vessels does not seem to show any differentiation based on the age of the objects. Brought together to Crete from Egypt or collected from different sources around Crete, many of the stone vessels in question seem to have been treated as raw material for the production of local types of stone vessels.35 This could mean that, at the end of the complex biography of the Kato Zakro example, its material was of the greatest value to those using it, while the antique and foreign character of its design might have been forgotten or neglected. This can be further supported by arecent claim by MichaelL. Galaty (2018, 84) who argues that most of the im‑ ported stone vessels from Crete were adopted into elite households as part of their utilitarian repertoire, meaning that the original meanings of these Egyptian objects were of no or little importance for the Neopalatial elite.36 Amore detailed study of the meaning of these vessels exceeds the scope of this paper. CONCLUSION The aim of the two case studies presented in this paper was not to nihilistically deconstruct all of the earlier interpretations or applicable theoretical models, but rather to show how different personal biographies of certain objects could influence the final interpretation. The complex life of objects shaped not only the perspectives of people from the past, but also those of archaeologists dealing with these objects. Although the final result might seem the same, it is acomplex relationship between humans and objects which shaped the meanings of these objects in the past. If we are to examine the subtler differences between possible options, we should consider all possible factors that may have influenced the objects’ perception within the communities of the past. 33 It is also possible that some of these objects were produced in Syro ‑Palestinian or Levantine work‑ shops and not the Egyptian ones (Lilyquist 1996, 225–226). This would suggest that the exact origin of the object was possibly unknown to Cretan consumers. 34 Asimilar argument has recently been convincingly put forward by Bryan E. Burns (2010, 29–36) for the luxury imports on the Greek mainland. According to Burns, the original symbolic meaning and the exact origin of imported objects might have been completely unknown or unimportant to the local consumers. 35 It has been argued that Minoan artisans could have easily acquired raw materials from Egypt instead of already finished vessels (Phillips 2008a, 85). However, the reasons why this particular strategy was employed have awide variety of possible interpretations, ranging from saving work hours to the promotion of personal skills through the ability to adjust the already completed vessels. Whatever the interpretations, they do not seem to be related to the origin or age of the vessels themselves. 36 Galaty (2018, 77–85) convincingly argues for different consumption patterns on the Greek mainland.
24 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/1 This paper demonstrates how highly applicable the process of appropriation is to un‑ derstanding intercultural contacts in the past. However, at the same time it shows that this model should not be applied always and without criticism. This does not suggest that there is something wrong with the model itself, but rather that our own preconceptions can influence our choice of amodel and consequently the final interpretation. Our pre‑ and misconcep‑ tions about certain cultural contexts under examination can influence our understanding of the foreign. Even if we use valuable models such as appropriation, we should first examine whether the objects of our study can truly be considered foreign and therefore subjected to this kind of research. If the idea of foreignness is not critically evaluated at the beginning of archaeological research, theoretical models serve as tools to prove, rather than examine the foreign character of the material culture. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My sincere gratitude goes to the Gerda Henkel Foundation for financing my Ph.D. research at the University of Heidelberg. Also, Iwould like to express my gratitude to Uroš Matić for reading the draft of the paper and providing useful comments and helpful hints, to two anonymous reviewers and Peter Pavúk whose advice improved the paper significantly. Iam especially grateful to Ana Popović for proof ‑reading the English. Finally, aspecial thanks go to my Ph.D. supervisor prof.Dr.Joseph Maran whose guidance helped me finalize this paper. BIBLIOGRAPHY Anthony, D.W. 1990: Migration in Archaeology: The Baby and the Bathwater. American Anthropologist 92, 895–914. Anthony, D.W. 1997: Prehistoric Migrations as aSocial Process. In: J. Chapman– H. Hamerow (eds.): Migrations and Invasions in Archaeological Explanation. BAR International Series 664. Oxford, 21–32. Anthony, D.W. 2000: Comment to S. Burmeister. In: Burmeister, S. Archaeology and Migration: Approaches to an Archaeological Proof of Migration. Current Anthropology 41/4, 554–555. Aykurt, A.– Erkanal, H. 2017: Late Bronze Age Graves of Bakla Tepe. Ankara. Basedow,M.A. 2000: Beşik -Tepe. Das spätbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld. Studia Troica Monographien 1. Mainz am Rhein. Basedow,M.A. 2002: Cemetery and Ideology in the West Anatolian Coastal Region. In: R. Aslan– S. Blum– G. Kastl– F. Schweizer– D. Thumm (eds.): Mauerschau. Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann. Remshal‑ den – Grunbach, 469–474. Bass, G.F. 1963: Mycenaean and Protogeometric Tombs in the Halicarnassus Peninsula. American Journal of Archaeology 67/4, 353–361. Beckman, G.M.– Bryce, T.R.– Cline, E.H. 2011: The Ahhiyawa Texts. Writings from the Ancient World 28. Atlanta. Bennet, J. 2011: The Geography of the Mycenaean Kingdoms. In: Y. Duhoux– A. Morpurgo Davies (eds.): ACompanion to Linear B. Mycenaean Greek Texts and their World 2. Bibliothèque des Cahiers de Linguistique de Louvain 127. Louvain ‑la ‑Neuve, 137–168. Ben ‑Shlomo, D.– Nodarou, E.– Rutter, J.B. 2011: Transport Stirrup Jars from the Southern Levant: New Light on Commodity Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean. American Journal of Archaeology 115/3, 329–353. Benzi, M. 1992: Rodi e la Civiltà Micenea. Roma.
25FILIP FRANKOVIĆ Benzi, M. 1996: Problems of the Mycenaean Expansion in the South ‑Eastern Aegean. In: E. De Miro– L. Godart– A. Sacconi (eds.): Atti e memorie del secondo Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia: Roma– Napoli, 14–20 ottobre 1991. Roma, 947–978. Bevan, A. 2003: Reconstructing the Role of Egyptian Culture in the Value Regimes of the Bronze Age Aegean: Stone Vessels and Their Social Contexts. In: R. Matthews– C. Roemer (eds.): Ancient Perspectives on Egypt. London, 57–73. Bevan, A. 2004: Emerging Civilized Values? The Consumption and Imitation of Egyptian Stone Vessels in EM II–MM ICrete and Its Wider Eastern Mediterranean Context. In: J.C. Barrett– P.Halstead (eds.): The Emergence of Civilisation Revisited. Oxford, 107–126. Bevan, A. 2007: Stone Vessels and Values in the Bronze Age Mediterranean. Cambridge. Bhabha, H. 2007: The Location of Culture. London. Bietak, M. 1996: Avaris, Capital of the Hyksos: Recent Excavations at Tell el -Dab’a. London. Bietak, M. 2013: The Impact of Minoan Art on Egypt and the Levant: aglimpse of palatial art from naval base of Peru ‑nefer at Avaris. In: J. Aruz– S.B. Graff– Y. Rakic (eds.): Cultures in contact: from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the second Millennium. New York, 188–199. Bietaketal. 2007 = Bietak, M.– Marinatos, N.– Palyvou, C.– Brysbaert, A. eds.: Taureador Scenes in Tell El -Dab’aand Knossos. Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen In‑ stitutes 27. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 43. Wien. Blakolmer, F. 2002: Afrikaner in der minoischen Ikonographie? Zum Fremdenbild in der bronzezeitlichen Ägäis. Ägypten und Levante 12, 71–94. Blakolmer, F. 2012: The Missing “Barbarians”. Some Thoughts on Ethnicity and Identity in Aegean Bronze Age Iconography. In: A. Papadopoulos (ed.): Recent research and perspectives on the Late Bronze Age eastern Mediterranean. Talanta 44. Amsterdam, 53–77. Blakolmer, F. 2015: The “Minoan Genius” and his iconographical prototype Taweret. On the character of Near Eastern religious motifs in Neopalatial Crete. In: J. Mynářová– P.Onderka– P.Pavúk (eds.): There and Back Again– the CrossroadsII. Proceedings of an International Conference, Prague, September 15–18, 2014. Praha, 197–219. Blegen, C.W.– Caskey, J.L.– Rawson, M. 1953: TroyIII. The Sixth Settlement. Excavations Conducted by the University of Cincinnati 1932–1938. Princeton. Boysal, Y. 1964: Milli eğitim bakanlığı Müsgebi kazısı 1963 yılı kısa raporu. Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 13/2, 81–85. Boysal, Y. 1967: Müskebi kazısı 1963 kısa raporu [Vorläufiger Bericht über die Grabungen 1963 in Müskebi]. Belleten 31, 67–83. Broodbank, C. 2013: The Making of the Middle Sea. AHistory of the Mediterranean from the Beginning to the Emergence of the Classical World. London. Buchholz, H.‑G. 1974: Ägäiche Funde in Randgebieten des Mittelmeeres. Archäologischer Anzeiger 1974, 325–462. Burmeister, S. 2000: Archaeology and Migration: Approaches to an Archaeological Proof of Migration. Current Anthropology 41/4, 539–567. Burns, B.E. 1999: Import Consumption in the Bronze Age Argolid (Greece). Effects of Mediterranean Trade on Mycenaean Society. Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan. Burns, B.E. 2010: Mycenaean Greece, Mediterranean Commerce, and the Formation of Identity. Cambridge. Çiner, R.1964: Bodrum ‑Müskebi kazısı iskelet kalıntılarının tetkiki. Antropoloji 2, 56–79. Cline, E.H. 1991: Hittite Objects in the Bronze Age Aegean. Anatolian Studies 41, 133–143. Cline, E.H. 1994: Sailing the Wine -Dark Sea: International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean. Oxford. Cline, E.H. 1999: Coals to Newcastle, Wallbrackets to Tiryns: Irrationality, Gift Exchange, and Distance Value. In: P.P.Betancourt– V. Karageorghis– R. Laffineur– W.‑D. Niemeier (eds.): Meletemata. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year. Aegaeum 20. Liège, 119–123.
26 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/1 Crete– Egypt 2001 = Crete– Egypt. Three Thousand Years of Cultural Links. Catalogue from the Exhibition in Heraklion Archaeological Museum, 21 November 1999–21 September 2000. Herakleion – Cairo. Dayetal. 2011 = Day, P.M.– Quinn, P.S.– Rutter, J.B.– Kilikoglou, V.: AWorld of Goods. Transport Jars and Commodity Exchange at the Late Bronze Age Harbor of Kommos, Crete. Hesperia 80/4, 511–558. Dörpfeld, W. 1894: Troja 1893. Bericht über die im Jahre 1893 in Troja veranstalteten Ausgrabungen. Leipzig. Driessen, J.– MacDonald, C. 1984: Some military aspects of the Aegean in the late fifteenth and early fourteenth centuries BC.The Annual of the British School at Athens 79, 49–74. Duhoux, Y. 2003: Des Minoens en Égypte? «Keftiu» et «les îles au milieu du Grand Vert». Leuven. Eerbeek, J. 2014: The “Mycenaeans” in the South -Eastern Aegean Revisited. Ph.D. diss., University of Amsterdam. Emanuel, J. 2016: Maritime Worlds Collide. Agents of Transference and the Metastasis of Seaborne Threats at the End of the Bronze Age. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 148/4, 265–280. Erkanal, H. 2008: Die neuen Forschungen in Bakla Tepe bei İzmir. In: H. Erkanal– H. Hauptmann– V. Şa‑ hoğlu– R. Tuncel (eds.): Proceedings of the International Symposium: The Aegean in the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age. Ankara, 165–177. Erkanal, H.– Özkan, T. 1998: 1996 Bakla Tepe Kazıları. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 19/1, 399–425. Erkanal, H.– Özkan, T. 1999: Excavations at Bakla Tepe. In: T. Özkan– H. Erkanal (eds.): Tahtalı Barajı kurtarma kazısı projesi. Izmir, 108–109. Erkanal, H.– Şahoğlu, V. 2012: Bakla Tepe. In: O. Bingöl– A. Öztan– H. Taskıran (eds.): DTCF Arkeoloji bölümü: Tarihçesi ve Kazıları (1936–2011). Ankara, 91–98. Evans, A.J. 1928: The Palace of Minos 2:1. Fresh lights on origins and external relations. London. Evans, A.J. 1935: The Palace of Minos 4:1. Emergence of outer western enceinte, with new illustrations, artistic and religious, of the Middle Minoan Phase; Chryselephantine “Lady of Sports”, “Snake Room” and full story of the cult Late Minoan ceramic evolution and “Palace Style”. London. Feldman, M.H. 2006: Diplomacy by Design: Luxury Arts and an “International Style” in the Ancient Near East, 1400–1200 BCE. Chicago. Galaty, M.L. 2018: Prestige ‑Goods Economies. The Prehistoric Aegean and Modern Northern Highland Albania Compared. In: A.R. Knodell– T.P.Leppard (eds.): Regional Approaches to Society and Complexity. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 15. Sheffield– Bristol. Gill,M.A.V. 1964: The Minoan Genius. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 79, 1–21. Girella, L.– Pavúk, P.2015: Minoanisation, Acculturation, Hybridization. The Evidence of the Minoan Presence in the North East Aegean between the Middle and Late Bronze Age. In: Stampolidis– Maner– Kopanias (eds.) 2015, 387–420. Girella, L.– Pavúk, P.2016: The Nature of Minoan and Mycenaean Involvement in the Northeastern Aegean. In: Gorogianni– Pavúk– Girella eds. 2016, 15–42. Gorogianni, E.– Cutler, J.– Fitzsimons, R.D. 2015: Something old, something new. Non ‑local brides as cat‑ alysts for cultural exchange at Ayia Irini, Kea? In: Stampolidis– Maner– Kopanias (eds.) 2015, 891–924. Gorogianni, E.– Pavúk, P.– Girella, L. eds. 2016: Beyond Thalassocracies. Understanding Processes of Minoanisation and Mycenaeanisation in the Aegean. Oxford– Philadephia. Gltekin, H.– Baran, M. 1964: The Mycenaean Grave Found at the Hill of Ayasuluk. Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 13/2, 125–133. Gterbock, H.G. 1984: Hittites and Achaeans– ANew Look. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 128, 114–122. Guzowska, M. 2002: Traces of Minoan Behavioural Patterns in the north ‑east Aegean. In: R. Aslan– S. Blum– G. Kastl– F. Schweizer– D. Thumm (eds.): Mauerschau. Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann. Rem‑ shalden– Grunbach, 585–594.
27FILIP FRANKOVIĆ Hahn, H.P.2004: Global Goods and the Process of Appropriation. In: P.Probst– G. Spittler (eds.): Between Resistance and Expansion. Explorations of Local Vitality in Africa. Beiträge zur Afrikaforschung 18. Münster, 211–229. Hahn, H.P.2005: Materielle Kultur. Eine Einführung. Berlin. Hallager, E.– Weingarten, J. 1993: The Five Roundels from Malia, with aNote on Two New Minoan Genii. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 117, 1–18. Hitchcock, L.A. 2008: ‘Do you see aman skillful in his work? He will stand before kings’. Interpreting Ar‑ chitectural Influences in the Bronze Age Mediterranean. Ancient West and East 7, 17–48. Hitchcock, L.A. 2011: “Transculturalism” as amodel for examining migration to Cyprus and Philistia at the end of the Bronze Age. Ancient West and East 10, 267–280. Hitchcock, L.A.– Maeir, A.M. 2016a: Pulp Fiction. The Sea Peoples and the Study of “Mycenaean” Archaeolo‑ gy in Philistia. In: J. Driessen (ed.): RA -PI -NE -U. Studies on the Mycenaean World Offered to Robert Laffineur for his 70th Birthday. Aegis 10. Louvain ‑la ‑Neuve, 145–155. Hitchcock, L.A.– Maeir, A.M. 2016b: APirate’sLife for me. The Maritime Culture of the Sea Peoples. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 148/4, 245–264. Horejs, B.– Kanz, F. 2008: Eine spätbronzezeitliche Bestattung von Halkapınar bei Ephesos. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 77, 107–129. Jones, R.E.– Mee, C. 1978: Spectrographic Analyses of Mycenaean Pottery from Ialysos on Rhodes. Results and Implications. Journal of Field Archaeology 5/4, 461–470. Karantzali, E.– Ponting, M.J. 2000: ICP ‑AES Analysis of Some Mycenaean Vases from the Cemetery at Pylona, Rhodes. The Annual of the British School at Athens 95, 219–238. Kelder, J.M. 2010: The Kingdom of Mycenae. AGreat Kingdom in the Late Bronze Age Aegean. Maryland. Killen, J.T. 2008: Mycenaean economy. In: Y. Duhoux– A. Morpurgo Davies (eds.): ACompanion to Linear B. Mycenaean Greek Texts and their World 1. Bibliothèque des Cahiers de Linguistique de Louvain 120. Louvain ‑la ‑Neuve, 159–200. Kislev, M.E.– Artzy, M.– Marcus, E. 1993: Import of an Aegean Food Plant to aMiddle Bronze IIA Coastal Site in Israel. Levant. The Journal of the Council for British Research in the Levant 25/1, 145–154. Knapp, B. 2008: Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus. Identity, Insularity, and Connectivity. Oxford. Knapp, B.– Demesticha, S. eds. 2017: Mediterranean Connections. Maritime Transport Containers and Seaborne Trade in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages. New York. Laboury, D. 1990: Réflexions sur les vases métalliques des tributaires Keftiou. In: R. Laffineur (ed.): Aegaeum 6. Liège, 93–115. Lilyquist, C. 1996: Comments of Peter Warren’sPaper. In: R. Laffineur– P.P.Betancourt (eds.): Techne. Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Aegaeum 16. Liège, 225–227. Mac Sweeney, N. 2008: The Meaning of “Mycenaean”. In: O. Menozzi– M.L. di Marzio– D. Fossataro (eds.): SOMA 2005. Proceedings of the IX Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Chieti (Italy), 24–26 Feb‑ ruary 2005. BAR International Series 1739. Oxford, 105–110. Mac Sweeney, N. 2009: Beyond Ethnicity. The Overlooked Diversity of Group Identities. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 22, 101–126. Maeir, A.M.– Hitchcock, L.A. 2017: The Appearance, Formation and Transformation of Philistine Culture. New Perspectives and New Finds. In: P.M. Fischer– T. Bürge (eds.): “Sea Peoples” Up -to -Date. New Research on Transformation in the Eastern Mediterranean in 13th–11th Centuries BCE. Wien, 149–162. Maeiretal. 2015 = Maeir, A.M.– Davis, B.– Kolska Horwitz, L.– Asscher, Y. – Hitchcock, L.A.: An ivory bowl from Early Iron Age Tell es ‑Safi/Gath (Israel): manufacture, meaning and memory. World Archaeology 47/3, 414–438. Maran, J. 2011: Lost in Translation. The Emergence of Mycenaean Culture as aPhenomenon of Glocalization. In: T.C. Wilkinson– S. Sherratt– J. Bennet (eds.): Interweaving Worlds. Systematic Interactions in Eurasia,
28 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/1 7th to the 1st Millennia BC.Papers from aConference in Memory of Professor Andrew Sherratt, Sheffield, 1st–4th April 2008. Oxford, 282–294. Maran, J. 2015: Near Eastern Semicircular Axes in the Late Bronze Age Aegean as Entangled Objects. In: D. Panagiotopoulos– I. Kaiser– O. Kouka (eds.): Ein Minoer im Exil. Festschrift für Wolf ‑Dietrich Niemeier. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 270. Bonn, 243–270. Maran, J.– Stockhammer, P.W. eds. 2012: Materiality and Social Practice. Transformative Capacities of Intercultural Encounters. Papers of the Conference, Heidelberg, 25th–27th March 2010. Oxford. Massa, M. 2014: Early Bronze Age Burial Customs on the Central Anatolian Plateau: aView from Demircihöyük‑ ‑Sariket. Anatolian Studies 64, 73–93. Matić, U. 2012: Out of the word and out of the picture? Keftiu and materializations of “Minoans”. In: I.‑M. Back Danielsson– F. Fahlander– Y. Sjöstrand (eds.): Encountering Imagery: Materialities, Perceptions, Relations. Stockholm, 235–253. Matić, U. 2014: “Minoans”, kftjw and the “Islands in the Middle of w3d wr”. Beyond Ethnicity. Ägypten und Levante 24, 277–294. Matić, U. 2015: Aegean emissaries in the tomb of Senenmut and their gift to the Egyptian king. Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 7/4, 38–52. Matić, U.– Franković, F. 2017: Out of Date, Out of Fashion– The Changing of Dress of Aegean Figures in Egyptian 18th Dynasty Theban Tombs. Studi Micenei ed Egeo -Anatolici, Nuova Serie 3, 105–130. Matthäus, H. 1995: Representations of Keftiu in Egyptian Tombs and the Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze Age. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London 40, 177–194. Mee, C. 1978: Aegean Trade and Settlement in Anatolia in the Second Millennium BC.Anatolian Studies 28, 121–156. Mee, C. 1988: AMycenaean Thalassocracy in the Eastern Aegean? In: J.H. Betts (ed.): Problems in Greek Prehistory. Bristol, 301–306. Mee, C. 1998: Anatolia and the Aegean in the Late Bronze Age. In: E.H. Cline– D. Harris ‑Cline (eds.): The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium. Aegaeum 18. Liège– Austin, 137–148. Mokrišová, J. 2016: Minoanisation, Mycenaeanisation, and Mobility. AView from Southwest Anatolia. In: Gorogianni– Pavúk– Girella eds. 2016, 43–57. Morris, S. 2001: Potnia Aswiya: Anatolian Contributions to Greek Religion. In: R. Laffineur– R. Hägg (eds.): POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. Aegaeum 22. Liège– Austin, 423–434. Mountjoy, P.A. 1995: Mycenaean Pottery from South Rhodes. In: I.S. Dietz (ed.): Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens. Athens, 21–35. Mountjoy, P.A. 1998: The East Aegean ‑West Anatolian Interface in the Late Bronze Age: Mycenaeans and the Kingdom of Ahhiyawa. Anatolian Studies 48, 33–67. Mountjoy, P.A. 1999: The Destruction of Troia VIth. Studia Troica 9, 253–293. Niemeier, B.– Niemeier, W.‑D. 1997: Projekt ‘Minoisch ‑mykenisches bis protogeometrisches Milet’. Ziel‑ setzung und Grabungen auf dem Stadionhügel und am Athenatempel. Archäologischer Anzeiger 1997/2, 189–248. Niemeier, B.– Niemeier, W.‑D. 1999: The Minoans of Miletus. In: P.P.Betancourt– V. Karageorghis– R. Laffineur– W.‑D. Niemeier (eds.): MELETEMATA. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year. Aegaeum 20. Liège– Austin, 543–554. Niemeier, W.‑D. 1996: ALinear AInscription from Miletus (MIL Zb1). Kadmos 35, 87–99. Niemeier, W.‑D. 1998a: The Minoans in the South−eastern Aegean and in Cyprus. In: V. Karageorghis– N. Stampolidis (eds.): Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus– Dodecanese– Crete 16th–6th century BC.Athens, 29–47. Niemeier, W.‑D. 1998b: The Mycenaeans in Western Anatolia and the Problem of the Origins of the Sea Peoples. In: S. Gitin– A. Mazar– E. Stern (eds.): Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. In Honor of Professor Trude Dothan. Jerusalem, 17–65.
29FILIP FRANKOVIĆ Niemeier, W.‑D. 2005: The Minoans and Mycenaeans in Western Asia Minor: Settlement, Emporia, or Ac‑ culturation. In: R. Laffineur– E. Greco (eds.): EMPORIA. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Aegaeum 25. Liège– Austin, 199–204. Niemeier, W.‑D. 2007: Westkleinasien und die Ägäis von den Anfängen bis zur ionischen Wanderung. Topog‑ raphie, Geschichte und Beziehungen nach dem archäologischen Befund und den hethitischen Quellen. In: J. Cobet– V. von Graeve– W.‑D. Niemeier– K. Zimmermann (eds.): Frühes Ionien. Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Mainz, 3–20. Niemeier, W.‑D. 2009: MiletusIV. The Settlement and the Minoan Sanctuary of the Late Bronze Age. Abstract and Bibliography. In: C.F. Macdonald– E. Hallager– W.‑D. Niemeier (eds.): The Minoans in the Central, Eastern and Northern Aegean– New Evidence. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 8. Athens, 157. Özgnel, C. 1983: Batı Anadolu ve içerlerinde miken etkinlikleri. Belleten 47, 697–743. Panagiotopoulos, D. 2001: Keftiu in Context. Theban Tomb ‑paintings as aHistorical Source. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 20, 263–283. Panagiotopoulos, D. 2006: Foreigners in Egypt in the time of Hatshepsut and ThutmoseIII. In: E.H. Cline– D. O’Connor (eds.): ThutmoseIII. ANew Biography. Ann Arbor, 370–412. Panagiotopoulos, D. 2012a: Encountering the foreign. (De‑)constructing alterity in the archaeologies of the Bronze Age Mediterranean. In: J. Maran– P. W. Stockhammer (eds.): Materiality and Social Practice. Transformative Capacities of Intercultural Encounters. Oxford, 51–60. Panagiotopoulos, D. 2012b: Encountering the foreign. (De‑)constructing alterity in the archaeologies of the Bronze Age Mediterranean. In: J. Maran– P. W. Stockhammer (eds.): Materiality and Social Practice. Transformative Capacities of Intercultural Encounters. Oxford, 51–60. Panagiotopoulos, D. 2013: Material versus Design. ATranscultural Approach to the Two Contrasting Properties of Things. Transcultural Studies 2013/1, 47–79. Pavúk, P.2015: Between the Aegeans and the Hittites. Western Anatolia in the 2nd Millennium BC.In: Stam‑ polidis– Maner– Kopanias eds. 2015, 81–114. Phillips, J. 1992: Tomb ‑robbers and Their Booty in Ancient Egypt. In: S.E. Orel (ed.): Death and Taxes in the Ancient Near East. Lampeter, 157–192. Phillips, J. 2008a: Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in Their Chronological Context. ACritical ReviewI. Contri‑ butions to the Chronology of the Eastern MediterraneanXVIII. Wien. Phillips, J. 2008b: Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in Their Chronological Context: ACritical ReviewII. Contri‑ butions to the Chronology of the Eastern MediterraneanXVIII. Wien. Platōn, N. 1974: Zakros. To neon Minoikon anaktoron. Archaioi topoi kai museia tēs Hellados 5. Athina. Pomerance, L. 1980: The Possible Role of Tomb Robbers and Viziers of the 18th Dynasty in Confusing Minoan Chronology. Acts of the Fourth International Cretological Congress 1, 447–453. Preston, B. 2000: The Function of Things: APhilosophical Perspective on Material Culture. In: P. M. Graves‑ ‑Brown (ed.): Matter, Materiality and Modern Culture. London– New York, 22–49. Raymondetal. 2016 = Raymond, A.– Kaiser, I.– Rizzotto, L.‑C.– Zurbach, J.: Discerning Acculturation at Miletus. Minoanisation and Mycenaeanisation. In: Gorogianni– Pavúk– Girella eds. 2016, 58–74. Redford, D.B. 2003: The Wars in Syria and Palestine of ThutmoseIII. Culture & History of the Ancient Near East 16. Leiden– Boston. Rehak, P.1996: Aegean Breechcloths, Kilts, and the Keftiu Paintings. American Journal of Archaeology 100/1: 35–51. Rehak, P.1998: Aegean Natives in the Theban Tomb Paintings– the Keftiu Revisited. In: E.H. Cline– D. Harris ‑Cline (eds.): The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium. Aegaeum 18. Liège– Austin, 39–50. Stampolidis, N.– Maner, Ç.– Kopanias, K. eds. 2015: Nostoi. Indigenous Culture, Migration, and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. Istanbul. Stockhammer, P. W. 2012: Performing the Practice Turn in Archaeology. Transcultural studies 2012/1, 7–42.
30 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/1 Stockhammer, P. W. 2013: From Hybridity to Entanglement, from Essentialism to Practice. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 28/1, 11–28. Vitale, S. 2016: Cultural Entanglements on Kos during the Late Bronze Age: AComparative Analysis of ‘Minoanisation’ and ‘Mycenaeanisation’ at the ‘Serraglio’, Eleona, and Langada. In: Gorogianni– Pavúk– Girella eds. 2016, 75–93. Ventris, M.– Chadwick, J. 1973: Mycenaean Greek Texts. Cambridge. Vercoutter, J. 1956: L’Égypte et le monde égéen préhellénique. Paris. Vermeule, E.– Karageorghis, V. 1982: Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting. London. Wachsmann, S. 1987: Aegeans in the Theban Tombs. Leuven. Warren, P.1969: Minoan Stone Vases. Cambridge. Warren, P.1996: The Lapidary Art. Minoan Adaptations of Egyptian Stone Vessels. In: R. Laffineur– P. P.Betan‑ court (eds.): Techne. Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Aegaeum 16. Liège, 209–223. Weickert, C. 1959: Neue Ausgrabungen in Milet. In: E. Boehringer (ed.): Neue Deutsche Ausgrabungen im Mittelmeergebiet und im Vorderen Orient. Berlin, 181–196. Weingarten, J. 1991: The transformation of Egyptian Taweret into the Minoan genius. Astudy in cultural transmission in the Middle Bronze Age. Studies in the Mediterranean archaeology 88. Partille. Yasur ‑Landau, A. 2010: The Philistines and Aegean Migration at the End of the Late Bronze Age. Cambridge. Younger, J.G. 2009: Review article– The Bull ‑Leaping Scenes from Tell el ‑Dab’a. Taureador Scenes in Tell el ‑Dab’a(Avaris) and Knossos by Manfred Bietak; Nanno Marinatos; Clairy Palivou; Ann Brysbaert. American Journal of Archaeology 113/3, 479–480. Filip Franković Institut für Ur‑ und Frühgeschichte und Vorderasiatische Archäologie Philosophische Fakultät, Universität Heidelberg Sandgasse 7, D‑69117 Heidelberg [email protected]