Source: TW
The Homeric epic tradition presents a picture of a fragmented - but culturally homogeneous - Mycenaean world divided into numerous local kingdoms, which were ruled by local kings. However, a twofold meaning of the word king is presented. There are the kings of small political and territorial entities in the sense of a local lord with limited power, but also the important kings, who in some cases are referred to by the title of anax and have under their control the smaller local vassal kings.
In the Odyssey, Telemachus argues that in Ithaca (favoring the entire island territory of Odysseus) there are many other kings, small and great, and that whoever of the suitors takes the place of Odysseus, will have the highest status of all the other kings. In the Iliad,we find a more advanced version. Agamemnon is referred to as poiménon lāon (=shepherd of many armies) and mainly anax andrón (=king of kings), suggesting that he was the leader of the Achaean military forces and the most important among the powerful Achaean kings.
It has been argued many times that Homer’s accounts are a depiction of the EIA Ionian society with several touches of the heroic Mycenaean past. But what do the archaeological and epigraphic data indicate about the political geography of the Mycenaean world?
A first source of knowledge is the archives of Linear B tablets found mainly in four Mycenaean centers: Pylos,Knossos,Mycenae and Thebes. These accounting texts, although they provide us a limited picture of the Mycenaean world, present a common model of political organization. Each Mycenaean province was governed by a central administrative center, the palace, where the anax resided together with the members of the ruling elite, the employees of the local bureaucracy,️ the attendants and the palatial craftsmen. Each Mycenaean kingdom does not seem to have special relations with the other Mycenaean kingdoms.
The tablets of Pylos imply that Mycenaean Messenia consisted of many small communities (dāmoi), while it was divided into the Hither Province and the Further Province, which in turn were divided into 16 administrative departments with corresponding local centers (komae). However,certain elements of the Pylian archive raise reasonable questions. Military forces station beyond the borders of Pylian territory, oarsmen are sent probably to some area north of the Corinthian Gulf, while women slaves from the East Aegean work in the palatial industry.
The Pylian tablets archive dates back to the beginning of the 12th century BC, just before the widespread destruction of the Mycenaean palaces and I am convinced that at this particular period the palace of Pylos was acting independently or jointly with other Mycenaean centers in carrying out sea raids in the Aegean.
Evidence demonstrates that at the end of the 13th century BC, Mycenaean unity had broken down, civil and dynastic strife probably existed, Mycenaean mercenaries were fighting on behalf of Libyan,Egyptian and Hittite rulers, and Aegean armed groups had begun violent sea raids.
However, in the centuries of the Mycenaean palatial heyday things seem to have been different. The Hittite texts refer to a powerful country to the west of their territory and across the sea which they call Ahhiya or Ahhiyawa.
From the end of the 15th century BC this country identified with the Mycenaean Aegean has the military and diplomatic ability to pose a permanent threat to the western borders of the Hittite Empire. Such was the respect the Hittite kings had for the Ahhiyawans that they address their ruler as “My Brother” and “Great King”, placing him within a closed club of powerful leaders of the time.️ In fact there were at times personal ties between the two royal houses and a common religious-cult interaction. At the same time, there were strong dynastic ties between the Ahhiyawan aristocracy and Western Anatolian royal houses. The permanent problems of tension between the Hittites and the Ahhiyawans were the Mycenaean stronghold of Miletus and the constant Mycenaean military involvement in the East Aegean islands and Wilusa (Troy). The Ahhiyawans had the military and naval power to maintain control of Miletus for centuries, while using it as a bridgehead they reached at the point through the warlord Attarsiya to penetrate deep into Anatolia coming into direct military conflict with the Hittite army.
All of the above demonstrate the existence of a strong Mycenaean political entity, where the leading force was the Great King of Mycenae. I don’t support the direct control of the Mycenaean world by Mycenae, as there were two other powerful poles of power, Thebes-Orchomenos ️and Pylos,which were very unlikely to have been vassal kingdoms of Mycenae. Instead, I believe that there was a confederation of autonomous Mycenaean provinces,which recognized the supremacy of Atreids and at the same time strengthened their alliance through dynastic marriages.
The supremacy of Argive elites is evident in the Mycenaean conquest of Crete, where most Mycenaean warrior tombs are related to the Argolid, as well as in the abundance of Argive pottery in Miletus.️
As Homer mentions, the king of Mycenae was assuming the leadership of the Mycenaean forces in case of some overseas military activity, such as the occasion of the Trojan War. A similar situation is also observed in Egyptian sources as early as the middle of the 15th century BC, where the Mycenaean Aegean is referred to as Tanaju, having a chief king,️ who maintained diplomatic contacts with the Pharaoh and having Argolid as its center (Mycenae - Tiryns), extending over most of the Peloponnese and probably also in Boeotia.
The Mycenaeans reach the peak of its prosperity during the first half of the 13th century BC and Hittite texts mention a significant increase in Mycenaean involvement in Western Anatolia (see Piyama Radu). However, in the middle of the 13th century BC and shortly thereafter, signs of a dramatic change appear. A series of devastating earthquakes seems to hit the most important Mycenaean centers, especially the Argolis and a period of intense insecurity follows️ with the Argive elites to proceed with the construction of impressive construction fortifications and other construction projects, trying to eliminate any contestation to their primacy within an insecure and rapidly changing world. The Hittite text CTH 105 confirms the beginnings of the collapse of the Mycenaean world. The Hittite army definitively occupies Miletus, ending Mycenaean involvement in Western Anatolia, and the name of the Ahhiyawan king is erased from the list of Great Kings of the time.
Summarizing, the following conclusion emerges: During the transition to the Late Helladic period, the right conditions are created (Minoan - Egyptian influence) for dynamic local elites, who were able to accumulate wealth through the export of agricultural surpluses️ and mainly due to their participation in the international trade of the time, most of the time as intermediaries, to gain political power by showing off their wealth, which consisted of precious exotic objects of prestige. At that time, the southern mainland was scattered with local kingdoms of limited territorial extent, of which the royal house of Mycenae stood out for its great wealth and connections. The elite of Lavrion (mining) and scattered Messenian elites were also of great importance.
During the transition to the 15th century BC,the supremacy of certain local elites with a regional character is consolidated, while an initial process of political centralization is observed. The leading political role of Mycenae is consolidated throughout the Mycenaean world.
During the expansion of Mycenaean control in Crete, the Aegean islands and Miletus, the Argive elite played a leading role, but I believe that the Mycenaeans had begun to act as a single political, economic and military force within a confederation headed by Mycenae.
During the palatial period, political centralization expanded with the eventual creation of three poles of power on the mainland: Argolid - Mycenae, Messinia - Pylos and Boeotia - Thebes. If we judge from the Hittite texts, the Mycenaean supremacy may have been maintained, but it must have been particularly fragile and based on the common pursuit of greater financial benefits from international trade. It is also a given that it was based on a complex network of dynastic marriages. Suddenly this fragile balance was disturbed after the middle of the 13th century BC and the Mycenaean provinces began to act to achieve their own pursuits and purposes. ️ Many times they came into direct conflict with each other, while there ceased to be a joint diplomatic representation abroad. The Mycenaeans had followed different paths just before the collapse.