2007 Contacts Between Pre-Classical Gree

Titelei_Oi_Getr_Wege_korr 3 02.11.
2007 16:30 Uhr Seite 3
Herausgegeben von Robert Rollinger,

Andreas Luther und Josef Wiesehöfer
unter Mitarbeit von Birgit Gufler
Getrennte Wege?
KOMMUNIKATION, RAUM UND
WAHRNEHMUNG IN DER ALTEN WELT
VerlagAntike
Titelei_Oi_Getr_Wege_korr 3 02.11.2007 16:30 Uhr Seite 4
Die Herausgeber und der Verlag danken folgenden Institutionen für die freundliche
Förderung der Drucklegung des Bandes:
Amt der Vorarlberger Landesregierung Abteilung b, Wissenschaft und Weiterbildung,
Amt der Tiroler Landesregierung, Abteilung Kultur,
Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur in Wien,
Dekanat der Philosophischen Fakultät der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel,
Rektorat der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel,
Institut für Alte Geschichte und Orientalistik, Universität Innsbruck,
Universität Erlangen,
Vizerektorat für Forschung, Universität Innsbruck.
Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation

in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie
http://dnb.ddb.de
©  Verlag Antike e.K., Frankfurt am Main

Satz Birgit Gufler, Innsbruck
Einbandgestaltung disegno visuelle kommunikation, Wuppertal
Gedruckt auf säurefreiem und alterungsbeständigem Papier
Printed in Germany
ISBN- ----
www.verlag-antike.de
Titelei_Oi_Getr_Wege_korr 3 02.11.2007 16:30 Uhr Seite 2
Herausgegeben von
Stefan R. Hauser (Halle), Philip Huyse (Paris),
Erich Kettenhofen (Trier), Andreas Luther (Erlangen),
Joachim F. Quack (Heidelberg), Robert Rollinger
(Innsbruck) und Josef Wiesehöfer (Kiel)
Oikumene Studien zur antiken Weltgeschichte BAND 2

Contacts between pre-classical Greece and the Near East
in the context of cultural influences: An overview
Erik van Dongen
The subject of relations between pre-classical Greece and the ancient Near East
has received ample attention in recent times. Archaeologists and historians have
discussed trade, colonization, imperialism and other ways in which peoples
came into contact in the Bronze Age, the Dark Ages and the Greek Archaic
Age. At the same time, scholars have increasingly been publishing about cultu-
ral elements that the Greeks might have borrowed from the ancient Near East.1
All of this has finally rendered the old position about the isolated development
of the Greek world untenable. The origins of many elements of Greek culture
can now without a doubt be traced outside the Greek world and it can truth-
fully be said that a dimension has been added to our understanding of the
development of Greek society.
There is however an important aspect that is being overlooked. The
available archaeological and historical data is hardly ever taken into account in
research on cultural influences. Because of that, publications about these
influences often seem incomplete, since attention is paid only to the similarities
between certain elements in Greek and other cultures without considering how
the Greeks could have acquired those elements. This working method some-
times results in unlikely claims, for example when West assumes some kind of
direct connection without intermediaries (“hot-line”) between Neo-Assyrian
court literature and the Greek world in the seventh century B.C., while there is
as yet little evidence for direct Greek contacts with the Neo-Assyrian empire.
This article was written during my stay with the Melammu Database at the De-
partment of Assyriology of the University of Helsinki (http://www.aakkl.helsinki.
fi/melammu/). Regarding this stay, I would like to thank Simo Parpola and Amar
Annus for their hospitality and the Finnish Centre for International Mobility
(CIMO) for funding. For help at various stages with the writing of this article,
thanks are due to André Lardinois, Simo Parpola, Robert Rollinger and Marten Stol,
and to Robert Whiting for revising my English. Any remaining errors are, of course,
my own.
1 In this article, ‘culture’ is defined as ‘anything created, developed or conceived by
man’ (cf. Hall 2004, passim). Also: when used in this study, the terms ‘the Near East’
(here referring to Anatolia, Mesopotamia, the Levant and Egypt) and ‘Greece’
should both be understood in a purely geographical sense. As will become clear,
neither the Near East nor Greece formed a unity at any time during the period
discussed in this study. After the introduction therefore, both terms will be used
either in their general geographical meaning or it will be specified which specific area
is meant.
14 Erik van Dongen
In a similar fashion, Watkins thinks that a Hittite ideal of unity became known
to the Greeks and made it into their stories as a literary topos, although even in
the most pro-Greek theory about the history of Late Bronze Age Anatolia, the
Greeks can hardly have received this kind of detailed information about the
Hittites.2
This article is an attempt to change this situation by gathering the
archaeological and historical data that is relevant in the context of research on
Near Eastern influences on ancient Greece. Thus it can be used as an overview
or introductory article by those who study the transmission of cultural influen-
ces.3 This means that there will be no in-depth analysis of, for example, pottery
or the underlying motives of colonization. The sources of that kind of infor-
mation will be referred to in the footnotes. Here, I will only point out which
peoples in what time and under what circumstances the Greeks met or came to
know about, although, at some points, information about the transmission of
cultural elements within the Near East will be added to prevent the picture
from becoming distorted. All of this will be done in chronological order, star-
ting with the Late Bronze Age.4
The Late Bronze Age (ca. 1700-1200 B.C.)
To do justice to the diversity of the nature of contacts between different areas,

all regions involved will be dealt with separately in this section, going through
the Near East from north to south. However, there is one general remark that
2 Greeks and Neo-Assyrian court literature: West 1997, 587, 627-628 (cf. George
2003, 54-57). The Hittite ideal of unity: Watkins 1998, 204-206. More on Greeks in
Mesopotamia and Greeks and the Hittites in the sections on Mesopotamia in the
Archaic Age and Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age.
3 Please note that this means that this article does not side with either the maximalists,
who see an influence in every similarity, or the minimalists, who do the opposite.
The aim is rather to deepen the discussion between and among these groups by
providing other arguments than the usual philological ones.
4 Very little can be said about peoples and communities in Greece in the period
before the Late Bronze Age. Archaeological data shows that there must have been
trade networks within the Early and Middle Bronze Age Aegean and Greece, but
more detailed information about their scope and organization is as yet lacking. Since
there is also little known about Early and Middle Bronze Age communities and
since evidence for contacts with the Near East is simply absent, nothing firm can be
said about the way Greece may have been influenced by others and how the peoples
of these periods may have transmitted their culture to Late Bronze Age Greece.
Therefore, the period before the Late Bronze Age will not be discussed here. See
Davis 2001, passim; Rehak/Younger 2001, passim; Rutter 2001, passim.
Contacts between pre-classical Greece and the Near East 15
should be made first: the main reasons for contacts between peoples in the Late
Bronze Age were trade and diplomacy.5 All over the eastern Mediterranean,
these were initiated by the people associated with the palaces and temples, who
constituted the political and economic elite in their societies, to fulfil the needs
of their countries, institutions and themselves. Apart from some diplomatic
missions though, they did not conduct these themselves. This was done by
merchants and agents, people of less social and political importance, who were
therefore the actual ones to come into contact with other cultures. So Late
Bronze Age international contacts were fuelled by the elite, but realized by
‘normal’ people, which means that exchange of cultural elements was not an
elite affair.6
Crete and the Aegean7

In the first half of the Late Bronze Age (until ca. 1400 B.C.), the Minoans of
Crete were the dominant cultural factor in the southern Aegean, heavily
influencing the islanders.8 The Mycenaeans did not escape Minoan influence
either, which is most clearly shown by their Linear B script, which is a deri-
5 There is no evidence for any kind of colonization in the Late Bronze Age by people
from the Greek world (mainland Greece, Crete and the Aegean) or by others in the
Greek world (the case of Miletus will be dealt with in the section on Anatolia in the
Late Bronze Age). Late Bronze Age Greek mercenaries are also unheard of (Bettalli
1995, 33-40).
6 The political and economic make-up of eastern Mediterranean societies in the Late
Bronze Age: Alexiou 1987, passim; Heltzer 1988, passim; Liverani 1987, 66-70. Clients
of and reasons for trade: Faist 2001, 239-243; Knapp 1993, 338-343; Liverani 1987,
66-70; Sherratt/Sherratt 1991, 369-376; Zaccagnini 1987, passim. Trade goods: Cline
1994, 95-99; Faist 2001, 9-32; Sherratt/Sherratt 1991, 358-362. Merchants: Faist
2001, 109-138. Note that trade and diplomacy were often closely interwoven
through an elaborate system of gift exchange (Faist 2001, 9-32, 239-243; Zaccagnini
1987, 57-61).
7 Since the language of the Linear B tablets is an early form of Greek, the Mycenaean
civilization of southern mainland Greece (Boeotia, Attica and the Peloponnesus) is
considered to be ‘early Greek’. This does not apply to the inhabitants of Crete and
the Aegean: it is unknown what language was spoken on the Aegean islands, while
Linear A is certainly not Greek. Because of this, these regions cannot be described
as ‘early Greek’ and will be treated separately from the Mycenaeans in this section.
8 ‘The southern Aegean’ refers to the islands including and south of the line Attica –
Keos – Naxos – Kos – Rhodes. For Minoan influence on the southern Aegean, see
Barber 1987, 159-200; Davis 2001, 25-28; Mountjoy 1998, 33-34; Rehak/Younger
2001, 426-433; Wiener 1990, passim. It is not clear whether the Cretan thalassocracy
in the Aegean that Thucydides (1.4) mentions ever existed, since it implies a true
Minoan empire for which there is no firm evidence.
16 Erik van Dongen
vative from Minoan Linear A.9 This situation changed ca. 1400 B.C., when the
Mycenaeans came to rule Crete. The exact nature of this change is still unclear,
but no matter what happened exactly, the artefacts, architecture and Linear B
texts that point towards Mycenaean overlordship on Crete from the 14th
century on indicate that by then the Mycenaeans were present in person and
deeply involved in what was going on.10 It can therefore be postulated that in
the second half of the Late Bronze Age, the Mycenaeans had access to and
knowledge of every aspect of Minoan life and culture. As a consequence of this,
they took over the role that the Minoans previously had in the southern
Aegean. The Mycenaeans had always been influential in that region, but to a
lesser degree than the Minoans. With them out of the way, the Mycenaeans
became the only major outside influence in the southern Aegean.11
Obviously then, Crete, the Mycenaeans and the southern Aegean were
closely linked in the Late Bronze Age. This means that these regions can be
taken together while studying their contacts with the Near East; Near Eastern
cultural elements that came to one place could easily reach any other.
Therefore, during the rest of the section on the Late Bronze Age, the term
‘Greece’ will be used in reference to the whole of the Mycenaeans, Crete and
the southern Aegean. It does not involve the northern Aegean, because this
region was never culturally dominant and in the context of this study only
serves as an intermediary between Greece and Thrace, Macedonia or western
Anatolia. It could perform this role because of the trade connections that
existed between Greece and the rest of the Aegean.12 However, Thrace and
Macedonia were culturally less important in the Late Bronze Age and are not
likely to have added much, if anything, to Greece. Western Anatolia on the
other hand surely is a very interesting region, but, as will become clear in the
section on Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age, no intermediary is needed for
Greek knowledge about its peoples, since they came into contact with them
themselves. Therefore, the northern Aegean will be left out of the discussion
hereafter.
9 Davaras 1988, passim; Rehak/Younger 2001, 451; Shelmerdine 2001, 351-354.

10 See many of the papers in Driessen/Farnoux 1997. Also: Rehak/Younger 2001,
440-442, 451-454.
11 Barber 1987, 224-244; Davis 2001, 27-28; Marthari 1988, passim; Mountjoy 1998, 34-
45.
12 Davis 2001, 25-28, 42-47; Davis/Tzonou-Herbst/Wolpert 2001, 83-87; Matsas
1991, 173-175.
Anatolia
The main subject regarding Late Bronze Age contacts between Greece and
Anatolia consists of the Ahhiyawa-question.13 This concerns Ahhiyawa, a
country that is the addressee of several Hittite diplomatic letters from the
fifteenth century on, but the identity of which is unclear, due to the scarcity of
information given in the Hittite documents. This has lead scholars to make all
kinds of suggestions for the origins of the Ahhiyawans, ranging from places on
the Anatolian coast to Thrace, the Aegean and mainland Greece. The most
important clues that fuel this discussion are the observations that Ahhiyawa’s
activities in Anatolia all take place in the west and southwest; that ships are
repeatedly mentioned, which means that Ahhiyawa is seaborne; and that for
some time the Hittite king called the Ahhiyawan king a ‘great king’, implying
that he regarded him as his equal. Since the eighties, these clues have slowly
moved common opinion towards the idea that the Ahhiyawans are in fact the
Mycenaeans. This idea is based on the considerations that there is no space left
in Anatolia for a kingdom of the stature of Ahhiyawa14 and that there are no
archaeological finds in the Anatolian coastal zones, the Aegean or Thrace that
point towards such a people.15 Furthermore, if the Ahhiyawans are not the
Mycenaeans, then there is on the one side a great people that is mentioned by
the Hittites, but has left no material traces, and on the other side a people that
has left extensive traces, but is never mentioned by the Hittites. Obviously,
even though logic and common sense support it, the evidence for this
argumentation is still inconclusive. However, since there are no plausible
alternatives, this article joins the view that Hittite ‘Ahhiyawa’ refers to a place in
mainland Greece, which means that the Ahhiyawans are indeed the same
people as the Mycenaeans.16
13 It is impossible not to mention Troy in this context. However, the historicity of the
Trojan war is highly questionable (Raaflaub 1998b, passim), almost nothing is known
about the inhabitants of Hisarlõk, the archaeological site commonly recognized as
ancient Troy, and the only evidence for contacts between that city and Greece
consists of small amounts of Minoan and Mycenaean wares (Mountjoy 1997, passim),
which could have arrived there without direct contact with the Greeks as well.
Because of this, Troy does not play a role in the present discussion. For the
difficulties concerning the equivalence Hisarlõk-Troy, as well as the equation of
Hittite Wiluša and Taruiša with Homeric Ilios and Troy, see Heinhold-Kramer 2004,
passim.
14 For Hittite geography, see Gurney 1992, 217-221; Hawkins 1998, 21-31.
15 Otherwise, placing Ahhiyawa in the south-eastern Aegean with e.g. Rhodes as its
main island would have been a very attractive theory (cf. Mountjoy 1998, 47-52).
Without any finds that point into this direction (Davis 2001, 68-72; Davis/Tzonou-
Herbst/Wolpert 2001, 91-94), this remains unlikely.
16 Niemeier 1998, 19-45 contains an overview of the discussion and the texts involved,
18 Erik van Dongen
Nonetheless, this does not mean that the Mycenaeans knew the Hittites. In
fact, almost no Hittite objects have been found in Greece and the same goes
for Greek objects in the Hittite heartland.17 It might be argued that there was
only trade in perishable goods, but since their transport vessels have not been
found and since there is no other way of proving this view, it cannot be used
here. Getting closer to the coast, the situation changes. Plenty of western
Anatolian objects have been found in Greece and vice versa and Miletus even
had an extensive Minoan and, later, Mycenaean presence within its walls.18 To
this two more controversial matters can be added. Firstly, there are the Anatolian
as well as a summary of the view that is supported here. Contra: Ünal 1991, passim.
Attempts have been made to connect ‘Ahhiyawa’ to ‘Achaea’ or to ‘Aegean’
linguistically (Finkelberg 1988, passim; Carruba 1995, passim), but this has not lead to
satisfying results; apart from that, it is questionable whether phonetic laws apply to
the taking over of foreign names (Güterbock 1983, 138). The Minoans do not play a
role in this discussion, because at he time of the Hittite documents that concern this,
Crete was already Mycenaean. Finally, it should be noted that there was never only
one Mycenaean kingdom. This means that Ahhiyawa cannot refer to all of mainland
Greece. However, which Mycenaean kingdom is meant exactly is of no importance
here (Niemeier 1998, 43-45 argues for Mycenae), because of the close links that
existed within the Greek Bronze Age world, as was shown in the section on Crete
and the Aegean in the Late Bronze Age (cf. Mountjoy 1998, 49-50).
17 Cline (1994, 68-77) lists twelve central Anatolian objects in Greece, but expresses
doubts about the origins of all of them. They may also have reached Greece through
western Anatolian intermediaries, who may be responsible for the few Greek objects
that have been found in the Hittite heartland as well. The possibly Mycenaean sword
that was found at the Hittite capital Hattuša does not change this (Taracha 2003,
passim). According to its inscription, it was taken from Aššuwa in western Anatolia
as booty. Considering the contacts that the Mycenaeans had with this region (see
directly below), it would not be surprising if a truly Mycenaean sword was found
there.
18 For western Anatolian objects in Greece and vice versa, see Cline 1994, 68-77; Mee
1978, passim. Since all metallic minerals used in the Late Bronze Age (copper, gold,
silver and lead) except for tin were available in Greece during this period, it is likely
that tin was imported from nearby regions with tin mines, i.e., the Balkans and
Anatolia (McGeehan Liritzis 1996, 114-127). Some of the other metals may have
been imported as well, since Anatolia is much richer in minerals than Greece (Bryce
2003, 85). However, because this argumentation is based on logic rather than proof,
it will not be used in the present discussion. For Miletus as well as other possible,
but less likely, Mycenaean settlements in western Anatolia, see Mee 1978, 133-136,
148-150; Niemeier/Niemeier 1997, 241-248, Niemeier 1998, 27-41. The discussion
about the exact nature of the Minoan and Mycenaean presence at Miletus (i.e.,
whether Miletus had become some kind of colony or not) does not affect the point
made here. Furthermore, the equation of Miletus with Hittite ‘Millawanda’ is
considered to be well enough proven by now to be commonly accepted (Gurney
1992, 220-221; Hawkins 1998, 26-31; Niemeier/Niemeier 1997, 246-248).
women of the Pylos tablets. On several tablets, female slaves are mentioned
with their places of origin, among which are mi-ra-ti-ja (‘milatiai’, ‘women from
Miletus’), ze-pu2-ra2 (‘dzephurai’, ‘women from Halicarnassus’), ki-ni-di-ja
(‘knidiai’, ‘women from Knidos’) and a-*64-ja (‘aswiai’, ‘women from Asia’). It
has also been argued that these names refer to places on Crete, but the
grouping together of these names and several others from the eastern Aegean
favours a western Anatolian location.19 Then there is the communication of the
Hittite king with Ahhiyawa. So far, only copies of letters written in Hittite by
the Hittites have been found. It is unknown whether these were the versions
that were actually sent or whether they were translated first, whether the
Ahhiyawan king ever answered and what language he used in his answers.
Working from the hypothesis that the Ahhiyawans were Mycenaeans, it should
first be stated that it is unlikely that they could write, read or speak Hittite,
because the two peoples hardly ever met. This means that the Hittite letters
must have been translated at some point. It is possible that this was done by
Luwian scribes who knew both Hittite and Greek. That would be very
interesting, since in that case, the Mycenaeans would have come into contact
with people who were familiar with Hittite literary customs and traditions, for it
was largely through reading and copying texts that a script was taught.
However, apart from the lack of definite proof for the identity of the
Ahhiyawans, the paucity of relevant information about western Anatolia means
that it is also uncertain whether the dominance there of Luwian, a language
closely related to Hittite, reflects the ethnicity of the population of the region.
Luwian may just as well have been the language of a ruling minority, which
would leave the problem of the language of the letters and its translators simply
unanswered. So restraint is in order, for even though the employment of Luwian
scribes, or western Anatolian scribes in general, by the Ahhiyawans is an
interesting hypothesis, it is as yet surrounded by question marks.20
19 See Chadwick 1988, 79 (a-*64-ja), 80 (ki-ni-di-ja), 81 (mi-ra-ti-ja), 84 (ze-pu2-ra2), 91-93

(discussion). Because of remarks by Strabo (14.2.16) and Stephanus Byzantius (sub
voce), it is argued that ‘dzephurai’ refers to Halicarnassus, while the name ‘Asia’ is
thought to be connected to Hittite ‘Aššuwa’, located in western Anatolia (cf. n. 17).
Contra: Ünal 1991, 21.
20 The Luwians: Bryce 2003, 54-55, 124-126. Whether they met the Ahhiyawans or not
and no matter what language they spoke, western Anatolian scribes did exist, for the
western Anatolian kingdom of Arzawa corresponded with the Egyptian pharaoh
(EA 31 and 32, in Moran 1992, 101-103). Apparently, contrary to scribes elsewhere
in the Near East, these did not learn Akkadian, the lingua franca of the Late Bronze
Age (cf. n. 27), since the correspondence was in Hittite. As a matter of fact, in EA
32 the Arzawan scribe even has added a note, asking his Egyptian counterpart to
answer in Hittite (EA 32:24-25, in Moran 1992, 103). On the possibility of western
20 Erik van Dongen
To sum up: the Greeks had extensive trade with western Anatolia, were
present in person and brought Anatolian slaves to their homes. They may also
have employed western Anatolian scribes. The conclusion that they had access
to every aspect of western Anatolian culture is no longer far-fetched. But what
kind of culture did they find there? And what about the Hittites? Despite
everything, there is still no proof that any Hittite ever met the Mycenaeans in
person. For them, the Hittites may have represented no more than some force
from far away that was to be reckoned with when dealing with western
Anatolia. Moreover, little is known about the Late Bronze Age culture of
western Anatolia. So one has to resort to looking for cultural elements among
the Hittites that were likely to be common in Anatolia and therefore known in
the west as well. Hattian, Hurrian and Mesopotamian themes and ideas that the
Hittites absorbed should not be counted among them too easily; it cannot be
assumed without a specific reason that those reached western Anatolia as well.
The Levant and Cyprus

An abundance of evidence proves the existence of trade between the Greek
world and the entire Levant and Cyprus.21 In this case, the question is not
whether the Greeks and Cypriots and Levantines met, but how: did the Greeks
reach the Levant and Cyprus themselves? There is no reason to believe that this
was not the case. They sailed through all of the Aegean and to western
Anatolia. Why would they not go further to the east as well?22 Furthermore, the
peoples from Greece, Cyprus and the Levant could also meet in the central
Mediterranean, where there is evidence for trade activities by all of them,
especially in southern Italy, Sicily and Sardinia.23 Finally, there is a reference to a
Cretan merchant and the Cretan merchant’s guild in Ugarit in a text from Mari,
dated in the 18th century B.C.24 This is quite early, but it shows that Crete
Anatolian scribes and the scribal education of the Hittites, see Bryce 1999, 257-262;
2002, 56-71.
21 Buchholz 1999, 214-282, 294-463; Cline 1994, 48-67; Gilmour 1992, passim. What
this trade consisted of exactly and how it differed per region in the Levant or on
Cyprus does not affect the current argumentation.
22 The Ulu Burun and Cape Gelidonya shipwrecks could have been useful in this
regard, but it has proven impossible to determine the origins of those ships
(Buchholz 1999, 56-70; Cline 1994, 100-105).
23 See Buchholz 1999, 78-85; Vagnetti 1996, passim.
24 Actually, several allusions to Crete (kaptaru) have been found in the archives of the
palace of king Zimri-Lim from Mari (18th century B.C.; Cline 1994, 27, 126-128;
Heltzer 1989, 10-15), including this one to Cretans in Ugarit. The others concern
Cretan products that must have reached Mari through Levantine or Cypriot
middlemen, although ‘Cretan’ might also refer to a Cretan style instead of actual
already reached the Levant by then, again making it hard to believe that Greeks
were unable or unwilling to do the same later on in the Late Bronze Age.
Therefore, it can be concluded that they were active participants in the trade
contacts, thereby greatly increasing the number of cultural influences that could
have been transferred, although this may primarily have consisted of bringing
the Greeks into contact with themes and ideas from Mesopotamian and
Egyptian culture (see the sections on Mesopotamia and Egypt in the Late
Bronze Age). For apart from Ugarit, the limited available sources display the
Levant and Cyprus as areas of little cultural importance.
Mesopotamia
Mesopotamia and the Greek world did not know each other directly in the Late
Bronze Age. Some Mesopotamian objects reached Greece, but they must have
done so through middlemen from the Levant and Cyprus. Nothing definitely
Greek has been found in Mesopotamia and there is no reference to each other
in any of the known sources, except for the references to Crete in the palace
archives from Mari that were mentioned in the section on the Levant in the
Late Bronze Age.25
This does not mean that there was no way for the Greeks to get to know
Mesopotamian culture in the Late Bronze Age. The existence of several strong,
larger empires in the so-called ‘Amarna Period’ (14th-13th century B.C.)
ensured that, despite their frequent quarrels, the region they controlled (central
and eastern Anatolia, northern and central Mesopotamia, the Levant and
Egypt) was relatively peaceful, thus creating the opportunity for extensive
political, commercial and cultural interaction.26 Regarding the spread of Meso-
potamian themes and ideas, the most important stimulus of this period, apart
from trade, was the status of Akkadian as the lingua franca of international
correspondence. Therefore, in every major centre there were scribes who had
learned the Akkadian language and script. Their education consisted mainly of
reading and copying Akkadian texts, ranging from sale contracts to canonical
Mesopotamian literary texts. As a result of this, there was widespread know-
ledge about Mesopotamian culture.27 A quick look at the contents of Ugaritica 5
imports from Crete (Guichard 1993, 44-45), since no Cretan objects have been
found in Mari.
25 Cline 1994, 24-30 (includes some objects found in Mesopotamia that are possibly,
but not certainly, Greek); Faist 2001, 30-32, 201, 222-223; Knapp 1992, 123-124.
For the texts from Mari, see n. 24.
26 Ragionieri 2000, 45-53.
27 For the widespread use of Akkadian in the Amarna Period, see Gianto 1999, passim;
Moran 1992, xviii-xxii, 1-370 (out of the 382 letters in the Amarna archives, only EA
22 Erik van Dongen
(1968) for example shows that the Ugaritic archives contained numerous texts
in Sumerian and Akkadian, including multilingual word lists.28 Among these
texts, the Message from Lu-dingir-ra to his mother is especially interesting. The tablet
from Ugarit has four columns, with versions in Sumerian, syllabically-written
Sumerian, Akkadian and Hittite. It has been shown to have been imported
from the Hittite capital Hattuša, where another copy of this poem was found
containing three columns (Sumerian, Akkadian and Hittite). However, this
originally Sumerian composition must have been composed in central Meso-
potamia in ca. 1700 B.C.29 The Gilgameš-epic presents a similar case. The first
Sumerian stories about Gilgameš were composed in the third millennium B.C.,
but a wide variety of Late Bronze Age versions have been found all over
Mesopotamia, as well as at Megiddo, Ugarit and Hattuša. Among these is also a
version in Hittite that has been reworked substantially to make it more
interesting for the Hittite audience.30
Nonetheless, some caution is necessary. The assumption that Meso-
potamian cultural elements were known in regions to which the Greeks came,
like the Levant, does not imply that this concerned every Mesopotamian cultural
element. Mesopotamian artistic concepts spread only through trade, and the
school curriculum consisted of a limited corpus of texts; the accompanying
canonization processes must be taken into account.31 Furthermore, the Greek
world itself was not part of the Amarna region. What did the trade contacts
they had with parts of this region bring them? This question cannot be
answered. There is no way to know how long merchants stayed at one place
and how well they mingled with the local inhabitants. The presence of Cretans
at Ugarit was mentioned above, but that reference concerned the 18th century;
there is no telling whether this practise was continued later and whether it in-
volved only Cretans or others from the Greek world as well. Bilingualism can
be expected, but it might have been restricted to the trading vocabulary and the
24, 31 and 32 are not written in Akkadian); Pedersén 1998, 13-125, 247-252; Röllig
1987-1990, 49-50. For the scribal education, see Krispijn 1992, passim; Pearce 1995,
2270-2272.
28 Ugaritica 5 (1968), 230-251 (ed. J. Nougayrol), 448-462 (ed. E. Laroche). Word lists
were very common in the ancient Near East; see Civil 1995, passim.
29 Ugarit: Ugaritica 5 (1968), 310-319 (ed. J. Nougayrol), 773-779 (ed. E. Laroche);
Hattuša: Civil 1964, passim.
30 For the evolution and spread of the Gilgameš-epic see George 2003, 3-39; Tigay 1982,
passim (but especially 23-129).
31 For canonization in the Near East in general, see Hallo 1991, passim; Rochberg-
Halton 1984, passim; Röllig 1987-1990, 48-50. For the Ugaritic school curriculum see
Krecher 1969, passim. For the school curriculum in Canaan, see Demsky 1990, 157-
165.
Greeks probably did not understand Akkadian since there was no need for
them to do so. In the end then, there is not only need to be careful regarding
what was known about Mesopotamia in the areas to which Greeks came, but
also regarding what the Greeks may have come to know about it. This might
not have exceeded some general knowledge about the most important Mesopo-
tamian themes and ideas.
Egypt
Contacts between the Greek world and Egypt were very usual in the Late
Bronze Age. There are several kinds of evidence to demonstrate this. Firstly,
there is the large number of Egyptian imports in the Greek world and vice
versa.32 Furthermore, inscriptions on statues of Amenhotep III’s funerary
temple feature two references to the Greeks, one of them being the mentioning
of Iunia A’a (‘Great-Ionia’) and Tina (the country of the Danaoi) in a list of
countries from the north, the other one being a list of Greek and Cretan place
names. In connection with objects inscribed with the cartouche of Amenhotep
III or his wife queen Tiyi that have been found at various sites in the Greek
world, this latter list has been said to represent the itinerary of an Egyptian
diplomatic voyage through the Greek world. This may seem far-fetched, but no
matter what their meaning was, both lists show that the Egyptians had detailed
information about the Greek world.33 Thirdly, at Tell el-Dab’a (ancient Avaris)
wall paintings from the 16th century B.C. have been found that look distinctly
Minoan in character. This does not necessarily mean that Minoans lived there:
Minoan artists may just as well have been employed only for this one job or it
was done by Egyptians who copied the Minoan style. Nonetheless, casual trade
between Egypt and the Greek world does not explain the presence of these
paintings.34 Finally, depictions of Mycenaean and Minoan figures have been
identified in Egyptian wall paintings and on a painted papyrus.35 Obviously
then, contacts between both areas must have been rather intensive at times.
Despite all this, there is still no evidence of a permanent presence of people
from the Greek world in Egypt or vice versa. This means that, although the
trade contacts may have enabled the Greeks to become well acquainted with
Egyptian art, it is unlikely that they had detailed information about other
32 Cline 1994, 31-47; Haider 1989, 1-21; Warren 1995, passim.

33 List of countries: Sourouzian/Stadelman 2005, 82-83. List of place names: Cline
1987, passim. The mentioning of ‘Ionia’ is striking, because this name was thus far
only known from sources from the Archaic Age on. However, conclusions about
this have to be postponed until a full excavation report is available.
34 Bietak 1995, 20-26.
35 Cline 1994, 108; Schofield/Parkinson 1994, 159-170.
24 Erik van Dongen
aspects of Egyptian culture. Regarding literary themes and ideas, canonization

processes and school curricula again play an important role.36
The Dark Ages (ca. 1200-800 B.C.)
The Late Bronze Age came to an abrupt ending. Whatever the cause, whether
earthquake, internal strife, foreign attack or, most likely, a combination of
these, shortly after 1200 B.C., all the palatial centres of the Mycenaeans, Crete
and the southern Aegean were destroyed, never to rise again.37 Subsequently,
Greece entered a period which, because of the sudden shortage of data, is now
known as the Dark Ages. As more objects and information have come to light
in recent times, the Dark Ages have lightened up considerably, but still no-
where near as much is known about this period as about the preceding and
following ones. For example, archaeological evidence shows that people left the
old centres after the destruction of the palaces and formed larger communities.
But why did they do this and what happened to the old social institutions? And
why is there a sudden decline in these communities and in the occupation of
Greece in general after ca. 1060 B.C.? Did the new cities collapse or was there
an outside cause?38 Furthermore, it is logical that with the disappearance of the
palace and temple institutions foreign trade came to an abrupt halt, but how,
why and by whom was this resurrected later on in the Dark Ages? With the
present state of knowledge, these kinds of questions are impossible to answer.
There is also no point in going through every area of the entire region separate-
ly, as there is little evidence for contacts between the Greeks and the outside
world during this age.39 Instead, four subjects that are relevant in this context
36 See Assmann 1996, 72-82; Baines 1996, 157-171; Helck 1984, passim; Quirke 1996,
passim.
37 See Deger-Jalkotzy 1991, 130-145; Shelmerdine 2001, 372-376; Rehak/Younger
2001, 458-463. This destruction of the palatial centres ca. 1200 B.C. is the reason
why this year is chosen as the end of the Late Bronze Age in this context. The
Mycenaean civilization did continue during the post-palatial LH IIIC (ca. 1200-
1060), but since the social make-up is different in this period and since there is no
trace left of the foreign contacts of the Mycenaeans, it is more logical to consider
LH IIIC part of the Dark Ages.
38 For the developments in LH IIIC, see Deger-Jalkotzy 1991, 145-151; Rutter 1992,
passim.
39 Boardman 2001, 35: “[W]e have been used to speaking about a Dark Age in which
everyone kept to his own lands, blighted by invaders or disease or climate changes
or all three. This is a very unlikely picture. Sailors do not give up easily. I have little
doubt that the shores of the Mediterranean were still being visited by Greeks and
easterners, without break.” This view may sound logical, but as long as there is no
will be examined: the possible Mycenaean roots of the Philistines, Greek and
Phoenician settlement on Cyprus, eastern Mediterranean trade, and the
transmission of cultural elements during the Dark Ages.40
The debate about Mycenaeans among the Sea Peoples and their possible
settlement on the Palestine coast has been going on for decades.41 It is caused
by sizeable finds of many Mycenaean LH IIIC elements in Palestine that have
been interpreted to imply either local manufacturing in a Mycenaeanizing style,
large numbers of imports or a Mycenaean presence, which is currently the most
supported view.42 However, the Aegean element largely disappeared from Phi-
listine culture after the eleventh century B.C.43 Because of this, the Philistines
cannot be considered to be a special kind of intermediary between Greece and
the Near East. They must be treated like any other Near Eastern people.
On Cyprus, the situation is different. It is certain that Greeks as well as
Phoenicians settled there during the Dark Ages. In the Archaic Age, the island
was mainly occupied by these two peoples, leaving little trace of its Late Bronze
Age inhabitants, the Eteocypriots.44 Archaeological research affirms these changes
evidence to support it, it cannot be used.

40 There are two reasons to question the validity of the term ‘Phoenician’. Firstly, the
people that we call ‘Phoenician’ do not seem to have recognized a common cultural
identity themselves, which is shown best by the lack of an equivalent for our word
‘Phoenician’ in any of the languages of the Levant. Secondly, almost all Greek
contacts with ‘Phoenicians’ took place with Tyre or colonies founded directly or
indirectly by Tyre. Perhaps then, all ‘Phoenician’ cities should be treated separately,
which in the context of contacts with Greece might result in replacing ‘Phoenician’
with ‘Tyrian’. However, while additional research in this field is lacking, as well as to
avoid confusion, this article will preserve the traditional term ‘Phoenician’.
41 Approximately simultaneously with the end of the Mycenaean palatial culture, there
were attacks on southern, central and eastern Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt,
resulting in the destruction of the Hittite empire and most of the Levantine cities.
Only Egypt managed to drive back the invaders. The so-called ‘Sea Peoples’ have
long been held responsible for most of this, although it is slowly becoming clear that
the situation was much more complicated, involving more peoples and factors. For
a general overview of the events of this period, see Drews 1993, 8-93; Niemeier
1998, 45-49.
42 For this latter view, see Dothan 1998, passim; Gitin 2004, 60, 72-74; Stager 1995,
334-345. Contra: Vanschoonwinkel 1999, passim (but cf. Niemeier 2001, 12).
43 Gitin 2004, 60-76, shows that the Philistines retained more of their early culture
than is generally believed in modern scholarship (cf. e.g. Niemeier 2001, 12).
Nevertheless, this was not enough to make the Greeks and Philistines recognize
their common background when they met in the Greek Archaic Age. Herodotus,
for example, did not know of anything Greek in Palestine and calls the region a part
of Syria (cc. 1.105, 2.104, 3.5, 4.39, 7.89).
44 A Neo-Assyrian palace inscription from the reign of Esarhaddon dated to 673 B.C.
mentions ten Cypriot kings, the majority bearing Greek names, the others Semitic
26 Erik van Dongen
in settlement, but it remains difficult to date the migrations exactly. Roughly

speaking, the Early Dark Ages (1200-1000) saw the relocation of the
Eteocypriots and the immigration of Mycenaeans whose exact origins are
unknown, while the Phoenicians probably did not settle on Cyprus before the
ninth century.45 Thus, in the Archaic Age, Cyprus had become a melting pot of
cultures, making it very interesting in the context of this study.
After the disruptions at the end of the Late Bronze Age, eastern Medi-
terranean trade activities were suspended until the late tenth century. From ca.
950 B.C. on, there is proof of Euboean ware reaching Levantine cities like Tyre
and Ras el-Bassit and Phoenician ware reaching Euboea, with the number and
sites of the finds gradually expanding throughout the rest of the Late Dark
Ages.46 The nationality of the carriers of these objects is a controversial matter.
Until recently, it was believed that the presence of both Greek ware at a non-
Greek site and non-Greek ware at a Greek site implied Greek trading activities.
Obviously, this hellenocentric position cannot be maintained.47 Currently, the
other extreme is gaining strength, and it is being claimed that eastern Medi-
terranean trade in the Late Dark Ages was mainly conducted by Phoenicians. In
the end however, the conclusion might be that it is impossible to determine
beyond any doubt who was responsible for what in this period.48 Apart from
that, it should be noted that this trade did not add up to very much. It was not
before the late ninth century that there was a large increase of Greek (by now
including people from Euboea, Attica and the Aegean) and Phoenician active-
ties abroad.49 With this development things become more interesting again in
the context of this study, but since it also signifies the beginning of a new age
for Greece, this will be dealt with in the section on the Archaic Age.
Finally, the survival of Late Bronze Age cultural elements in the Dark Ages:
ones (see Lipi ski 1991, 58-62; Mayer 1996, 478-480).

45 See the papers by Yon (9-17), Aupert (19-25), Buitron-Oliver (27-36), Childs (37-48)
and Hadjicosti (49-63) in the proceedings of the colloquium on “The city kingdoms
of Early Iron Age Cyprus in their eastern Mediterranean context”, in BASOR 308
(1997), as well as Vanschoonwinkel 1994, passim.
46 Tyre: Coldstream/Bikai 1988, passim. Ras el-Bassit: Courbin 1993, 95-104. Euboea:
Popham 1994, 13-22. For the growth of trade by the Greeks and the Phoenicians in
the Late Dark Ages, see Bouzek 1997, 160-178; Haider 1996, 60-69; Niemeyer 1999,
158-165; Sherratt/Sherratt 1993, 364-369.
47 Papadopoulos 1997, 191-197, 205-207.
48 Niemeyer 1999, 158-162; Sherratt/Sherratt 1993, 364-366; cf. Coldstream 1989, 91-
92. Also: Papadopoulos 1997, 193-195.
49 Haider 1996, 60-69; Niemeier 2001, 12-16; Sherratt/Sherratt 1993, 366-369.
Whether this increase was accompanied by the settlement of Greek colonies and/or
emporia in the Levant will be dealt with in the section on the Levant in the Archaic
Age.
what did the Greeks preserve? Not much, if a clue is to be taken from the
Homeric epics. The Iliad and the Odyssey are situated near the end of the Late
Bronze Age, but elements from that period have been mixed up with elements
from later periods, creating a distorted picture that hardly corresponds to the
Late Bronze Age as modern scholarship knows it; in fact, the Homeric society
ends up closely resembling the Greek world of the eighth century B.C.50 It is
true that some Homeric names have also been found in the Mycenaean
archives, but they may still have been common in the Dark Ages or may have
been used in that time to connect some faint memory of a royal family with the
impressive ruins of the Mycenaean palaces that were visible throughout main-
land Greece.51 Tracing the development of other elements of the Greek world
through the Dark Ages provides us with a similar picture.52 It can be concluded
then, that the Dark Ages did not treat the Greek Late Bronze Age culture
mildly. A striking detail, a general theme or idea, the broad outline of a story, a
stylistic aspect that was part of the Mycenaean canon: not much more than this
is likely to have survived. Since this applies to the Late Bronze Age in general, it
is obvious that extreme caution is needed with claims about Near Eastern
elements in Archaic Age Greece that should have arrived there in the Late
Bronze Age.
The Archaic Age (ca. 800-500 B.C.)53
With the resumption of sizeable Greek activities abroad in the late ninth
century, the Archaic Age of Greek history began. Perhaps the most striking
difference between this period and the Late Bronze Age is the size of the Greek
world. At the beginning of the Archaic Age, Greeks had already settled in the
Aegean, Crete, western Anatolia and Cyprus, while continuously founding new
50 Bennet 1997, 511-513, 523-533; Raaflaub 1998a, 171-186.

51 See also Raaflaub 1998a, 175-176.
52 Bouzek 1997, 24-33, 36-38; Morris 1997, 539-545; Raaflaub 1998a, 172-173.
53 A date of 800 B.C. is chosen as the start of the Archaic Age, because it is around
this time that Greek expeditions to, trade with and settlement on foreign coasts
really sets off again (see directly above), while there were also substantial changes in
Greece itself (Morris 1998, 68-74). Similarly, 500 B.C. is commonly used as the start
of the Greek Classical Age. This means a more self-conscious cultural self-image
among the Greeks and the dominance of the Persian empire in the Near East,
resulting in a completely new situation in this region and considerable changes in the
Greek contacts with and attitude towards it. Because of this, 500 B.C. is a suitable
end point for this study (cf. for example West 1997, vii).
28 Erik van Dongen
colonies all over the Mediterranean.54 Despite this spread of the Greeks, a cul-
tural unity cannot easily be postulated for this period. The large number of
Greek poleis and the lack of a dominant power and a centralized administration
make the subject of both a common Greek identity and internal Greek relations
and contacts a complex one, that goes beyond the scope of this study.55 It will
therefore not be dealt with here. Instead, in each particular case of representa-
tives from the Greek world coming into contact with people from the Near
East, the Greek region of origin will be specified, leaving open the question of
what happened to Near Eastern cultural elements once one Greek region came
to know about them.56
Before embarking on another voyage from north to south, some general
subjects concerning the Archaic Age should be touched upon briefly first. The
nature of trade changed considerably. The palace and temple trade of the Late
Bronze Age gave way to individual merchants working from city-states. Cen-
trally organized trade survived in some states, for example Egypt (see the
section on Egypt in the Archaic Age), but the new model certainly did apply to
the Greek world and the Phoenicians, who were the main participants in
Archaic Age trade.57 Several examples show that multilingualism must have
been a common feature in this world. In a text from Carchemish, the author
54 See Boardman 1999b, passim, for an overview (cf. n. 1). The possible Greek
settlements in the Levant and Egyptian Naukratis will be dealt with separately in the
sections on the Levant and Egypt in the Archaic Age respectively.
55 Even though the origins and initial development of the concept of pan-Hellenism,
i.e., the feeling of a common Greek culture, especially expressed and promoted
through pan-Hellenistic sanctuaries, must be sought in the tenth and ninth century
B.C., it did not really start to function until the late seventh century B.C., while the
Greeks themselves recognized its existence only centuries later (Morgan 1993,
passim; Sourvinou-Inwood 1990, 295-301). In the Archaic Age therefore, pan-
Hellenism could not yet serve as stimulus for the growth of the feeling of a
common cultural identity among the Greeks. Neither could wandering priests,
craftsmen and singers within the Greek world (Burkert 1983, 115; Neesen 1989, 30-
112), who may have facilitated the spread of cultural themes and ideas, but not to a
degree that is necessary to be able to postulate that any cultural element could go
anywhere in the Archaic Age.
56 Morris (1998, 10-74) divides Archaic Greece into four separate cultural regions.
Even though his argumentation about the diversity of Greek Archaic culture is
followed here, his division will not be used, since, for the current study, this would
be an unnecessary simplification, while he himself already admits that there are
problems of definition with his choice of regions (Morris 1998, 10-13). It may be
observed however, that all Greeks who will be found to have come into contact
with Near Eastern peoples in the Archaic Age, came from the region that Morris
calls ‘Central Greece’ (cf. Rollinger 2001, 248-249).
57 Liverani 1987, 71-73; Möller 2000, 54-60; Sherratt/Sherratt 1993, 361-362, 365-375.
boasts that he knows four scripts and twelve languages. Then there is the Neo-
Assyrian record of the first Lydian embassy to Ashurbanipal, in which it is said
that all the languages of the world were understood at the court, except for the
Lydian of the messenger. Finally, there is simply the existence of Aramaic as the
lingua franca of the Near East in this period.58 New in the Archaic Age is the
rapidly growing role of mercenaries, but these will be dealt with separately in
the following sections because their importance differs by region.
Anatolia59
During the Dark Ages, the western Anatolian coast was dotted with Greek
settlements, which together became known as ‘Ionia’. These Ionians got to
know the most important peoples that inhabited Anatolia, although this did not
affect the former greatly. The Lycians and Carians were never known for their
cultural achievements, so when they met the Ionians, they immediately entered
into a process of Hellenization.60 Contacts between Lydia and Ionia were
frequent; the former even came to rule over most of western Anatolia, in-
cluding Ionian cities. The Lydians were famous for their invention of coinage
and their music, and their wealth and sophistication were proverbial.61 How-
ever, most aspects of Lydian culture ended up being heavily influenced by
Ionia, not the other way around, while Near Eastern influences on Lydia were
minimal.62 The situation with the Phrygians, finally, was pretty much the same.
58 Carchemish: Starke 1997a, passim. The Lydian embassy: Greenfield 1991, 179.
Aramaic as a lingua franca: Dion 1995, 1292-1293. For multilingualism in the Near
East in general, see Greenfield 1991, passim; Rollinger 2003, 340-344.
59 Recently, it has been claimed that Near Eastern influences, including Hittite ones,
reached Archaic Age Greek predominantly through an Anatolian route, therewith
considerably diminishing the role of the Phoenicians and placing Homer in a
strongly Anatolian (i.e. Luwian) context (Högemann 2000, passim; Starke 1997b, 456-
466). However, since it has already been shown convincingly in the meantime that
this theory does not stand up (Blum 2002, passim; Rollinger 2004, passim), it will not
be discussed here.
60 Lycia: Bryce 1995, passim. Caria: Ray 1995, passim.
61 Lydian rule over western Anatolia: Boardman 1999b, 95-97; Haider 1988, 174;
Niemeier 2001, 17. For the intensity of the contacts between Ionia and Lydia,
Lydian influences on Ionia and Lydian wealth and sophistication, see Greenewalt
1995, 1176, 1180-1181; Hanfmann 1983, 76-83, 87-90. The general Greek attitude
towards Lydia can easily be inferred from passages on Lydia by early Greek writers;
see Alcaeus fr. 69 (PLF); Alcman frr. 1, 16 (PMG); Archilochus fr. 19 (IEG);
Herodotus cc. 1.6-94; Sappho frr. 16, 39, 96, 98a, 132 (PLF).
62 Ionian influences on Lydia: Greenewalt 1995, 1176-1180; Hanfmann 1983, 87-90,
96-99. The Lydian alphabet was a result of both Phrygian and Ionian influences
(Gusmani 1975, 135-137). For the lack of Near Eastern influences on Lydia, see
Greenewalt 1995, 1176-1177; Hanfmann 1983, 89, 98. Despite this, the possibility
30 Erik van Dongen
They and the Ionians knew each other well, but this resulted predominantly in
an adoption by the Phrygians of Ionian cultural elements, including the alpha-
bet. Because Phrygia was situated in the old Hittite heartland and had comer-
cial and diplomatic relations with the Neo-Hittites of northern Syria, in a way
the successors of the Bronze Age Hittites, they may have been in contact with
parts of Hittite culture that survived throughout the centuries. However, these
probably did not involve much, since there are no traces of this in Phrygian
culture. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Ionians learned anything about Hittite
culture by means of this route; direct contact with the Neo-Hittites is far more
promising in this respect.63
The Levant
The most hotly debated subjected regarding the Levant is whether or not there
were Greek settlements at, from north to south, Al Mina, Ras el-Bassit, Ras Ibn
Hani, Tell Sukas, Tabbat al-Hamman, Tel Kabri and Mezad Hashavyahu.64
Recent reinterpretations of the finds at these sites have decidedly pushed the
discussion away from a permanent Greek presence there. None of these places
was founded by Greeks, though smaller groups of, probably, merchants, are
likely to have lived alongside the original inhabitants from time to time in Al
Mina, Ras el-Bassit and Tell Sukas, while the presence of Greek mercenaries is
suspected for Tel Kabri and Mezad Hashavyahu. The finds at Ras Ibn Hani and
Tabbat al-Hammam do not qualify as evidence of Greeks having lived there.
Judging on the origins of the finds, the Greeks who were involved in the
Levant came mainly from Euboea and Cyprus, but later in the Archaic Age,
wares from Ionia and the rest of the Aegean also appear in some quantities.65
that the Lydians served as intermediaries for the transmission of Mesopotamian

cultural elements to Ionia should not be ruled out, but for this, see the section on
Mesopotamia in the Archaic Age.
63 Ionians and Phrygia: DeVries 1990, 390-391, 398-399; Sams 1995, 1155-1156. Neo-
Hittites and Phrygia: DeVries 1990, 390-391. For the Neo-Hittites, see the section
on the Levant in the Archaic Age.
64 Pro (for more references, see Niemeier 2001, 12-13): Al Mina: Boardman 1999a,
passim; Haider 1996, 66-67; Riis 1982, 239-251. Ras el-Bassit: Riis 1982, 252; Haider
1996, 62-63. Ras Ibn Hani: Riis 1982, 251-252; Haider 1996, 66. Tell Sukas: Riis
1982, 239-251; Haider 1996, 63-65. Tabbat al-Hammam: Riis 1982, 251; Haider
1996, 69. Tel Kabri: Haider 1996, 69-71; Niemeier 1995, 304-305; 2001, 22-24.
Mezad Hashavyahu: Riis 1982, 251; Haider 1996, 75; Niemeier 2001, 22-24;
Waldbaum 1994, 61. For the alternative view, see directly below.
65 For a theoretical perspective, see Waldbaum 1997, passim. For specific sites, see
Niemeier 2001, 13-16; Perrault 1991, passim; Waldbaum 1994, 53-54, 59-61. Kearsley
(1999, 110-130) postulates the presence of Greek mercenaries at Al Mina in the
ninth and eight century B.C., but cf. Niemeier 2001, 14; Rollinger 2001, 249-250.
The initial optimism about Greek presence in the Levant is considerably

tempered by this view, but it nevertheless supposes that Greeks from all over
the Greek world were living at various places in the Levant throughout the
Archaic Age. The next subject to be examined then, is what cultures they met
there at what point in time.66
In Syria, and also in Cilicia, this involved the Neo-Hittites. After the de-
struction of the Hittite empire, the Hittites vassal states of Syria and Cilicia
became the heirs of the Hittite culture and this was still reflected in the societies
of the Neo-Hittite states of the first millennium B.C. This did not last very long
in the Archaic Age: Neo-Assyrian pressure from the late ninth century on
resulted in the subjugation of all Neo-Hittite states before 700 B.C., and
although it seems unlikely that their culture vanished immediately, the
archaeological evidence points in the direction of at least a very rapid decline of
it.67 This means that the Neo-Hittites did not get the chance to influence the
Greeks much, since the latter did not have permanent settlements of their own
in this area and only started arriving there in larger numbers from the late
eighth century on.68 Nonetheless, this situation may have presented the Greeks
involved in it with another opportunity to get to know about the basic themes
and ideas of Hittite culture.
The Aramaeans settled in Syria during the Dark Ages. Originally, their
culture was closely connected with Canaanite traditions, but it went through
Neo-Hittite influences after their new settlement. They too were conquered by
the Neo-Assyrians in the eighth century, but despite the similar rapid loss of
their own identity, they managed to escape oblivion: their language became the
lingua franca of the Levant and Mesopotamia, as was mentioned in the intro-
Corinthian ware has also been found at various places, but because of the
widespread popularity of Corinthian ware in the Archaic Age and its resulting value
as a trade item, no conclusions about Corinthian presence can be drawn from this.
The same goes for the growing number of finds from Attica during the sixth
century B.C.
66 It is a likely and interesting possibility that intermarriage took place between Greeks
and local inhabitants. Unfortunately however, a lack of evidence for the con-
sequences, proportions and even existence of this phenomenon in the Levant causes
it to be as yet unusable (Coldstream 1993, passim).
67 Bryce 2003, 93-107; Hawkins 1982, 388-441; 1995, passim. As Hawkins (1995, 1306)
points out, our impression of the rapid disappearance of Neo-Hittite culture should
be ascribed to the Neo-Assyrian conquests as well as to a strong Aramaean
influence, but also to the shortage of archaeological evidence for the period after
700 in this area. Future finds may still prove the break to have been less marked.
68 For the arrival of the Greeks in Syria, see directly above. For the Greeks in Cilicia,
see the section on Mesopotamia in the Archaic Age.
32 Erik van Dongen
ductory section on the Archaic Age.69 This meant that the Greeks who came to
Syria will have been able to get to know Aramaic culture quite well, despite the
limited nature of their presence in that area.
It is not without reason that the Phoenicians have always been considered
to be the most important source for knowledge about Near Eastern culture
among the Greeks. Graeco-Phoenician trade commenced in the tenth century
B.C. with the Euboeans and continued to increase in size and the Greek areas it
involved throughout the centuries, providing both regions with all kinds of
examples of each other’s material arts.70 Phoenicians and Greeks also met each
other outside their mainland: both were active in trade and the foundation of
colonies throughout the entire Mediterranean and from the ninth century on,
they lived next to each other on Cyprus, which in turn was reached by people
from the Aegean and Ionia.71 Furthermore, Ionians probably served as merce-
naries for the Phoenicians in Tel Kabri.72 There may also have been a limited
Phoenician presence at some places in Greece: a Phoenician shrine, dated to
the ninth to eighth century, has been found on Crete and finds of Phoenician-
shaped unguent bottles at Rhodes, Crete and Kos and jewellery in Attica have
suggested local production by Phoenician immigrant craftsmen. It should be
noted though, that, apart from the shrine, the evidence for Phoenicians in
Greece is not univocal.73 Despite that, it can safely be said that Graeco-Phoenician
69 See Dion 1995, passim; Hawkins 1982, 388-441; Tadmor 1982, passim.
70 Guralnick 1989, 154-176; Markoe 2000, 170-174; Sherratt/Sherratt 1993, passim.
71 Even though the Euboeans were the first to sail the Mediterranean in the Iron Age,
eventually every major centre of the Greek world, but especially the people from the
Aegean, Attica and Ionia, was involved in colonization and trade throughout the
Mediterranean to some extent. See Boardman 1999b, 160-224; Crielaard 1996,
passim; the essays in Gehrig/Niemeyer 1990. Cyprus: see the section on the Dark
Ages.
72 Greek mercenaries in Tel Kabri: see n. 64. Greeks may also have served as mercena-
ries for Tyre, but there is only circumstantial evidence for this (Haider 1996, 71-72;
Niemeier 2001, 18-19).
73 Phoenicians in Greece in general: Coldstream 1993, 99-100. The Phoenician shrine
on Crete: Shaw 1998, passim. Unguent bottles: Jones 1993, passim. Jewellery: Higgins
1969, 144-149. Apart from, possibly, these Phoenicians, there is still no direct proof
for Greeks travelling to the Near East or vice versa, although there is plenty of
evidence for wandering priests, craftsmen and poets within Greece and within
connected areas of the Near East. Various attempts have been made to prove
otherwise (for example Burkert 1983, passim; Rollinger 1996, 202-210), but the
available evidence is still only circumstantial. As Rollinger himself says (1996, 204):
“Aus dem griechischen Raum selbst ist uns kein einziger direkter Hinweis für eine
derartige Präsenz [sc. Near Eastern wandering priests] erhalten, was sicherlich auch
mit der Spärlichkeit des überlieferten schriftlichen Quellenmaterials zusammen-
hängen mag. Auch mögliche indirekte Hinweise sind mehr als kärglich bzw. äußerst
contacts in the Archaic Age were very intensive. Unfortunately however, not
much is known about Phoenician culture except for its material arts, making it
hard to trace Phoenician influences on any other aspect of Greek culture. This
does not change, of course, the fact that the Phoenicians were in an excellent
position to serve as intermediaries for Mesopotamian influences on the relevant
regions of Archaic Age Greece, as will become clear in the section on Meso-
potamia in the Archaic Age.
In southern Canaan, the situation is different. Few Greek imports predating
the seventh century B.C. have been found and what there is may have arrived
through the Phoenicians. After ca. 700 B.C., the number of finds from all over
the region increases considerably, implying the establishment of regular trading
contacts with Euboea and Ionia by that time.74 Again, the trade was accom-
panied by the advent of Greek mercenaries. Excavations at Mezad Hashavyahu
have provided proof for their presence there and the same has been claimed for
Arad, although as yet with less convincing evidence.75 Some Greek knowledge
of southern Canaanite themes and ideas can therefore be postulated. Apart
from that, the Biblical area is also interesting because it was part of the general
Canaanite culture, through which connection it may provide information about
the still relatively poorly understood Phoenician culture.
Mesopotamia
Direct contacts between Greece and Mesopotamia were about as sparse in the
Archaic Age as they were in the Late Bronze Age, but there are some important
differences. Not regarding trade though: in Mesopotamia, there is only one
sherd from Nineveh that has been identified as being Greek, while the other
way round, some Mesopotamian imports have been found in Archaic Age
Greece, but they are usually found in the context of offerings and must have
come there through Phoenician intermediaries.76 This means that regular trade
contacts between both regions can safely be discarded. There is also no
evidence of the presence of Mesopotamians in Greece. Two Greeks, Addi-
kritušu (probably originally ‘Antikritos’) and Alcaeus’ brother Antimenidas, can
be identified in connection with Mesopotamia, but nothing is known about
Addikritušu, except for that he was being sent to the Neo-Assyrian king at the
time of the letter that mentions him, while Antimenidas from Lesbos only
fought as a mercenary for the Neo-Babylonians in the Levant and may there-
vieldeutig.”
74 Haider 1996, 72-75; Waldbaum 1994, passim; Wenning 2004, 30-31.
75 Mezad Hashavyahu: see n. 64. Arad: Haider 1996, 76; Niemeier 2001, 18.
76 The Greek sherd at Nineveh: Boardman 1997, passim. Mesopotamian imports in
Greece: Guralnick 1992, 330-339; Herrmann 1972-1975, 304, 306.
34 Erik van Dongen
fore not have gotten to know anything about Mesopotamian culture during this
campaign.77 Finally, the Akkadian word for ‘Ionian’ and its derivatives occur
several times in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian texts.78 However, from
these sources the impression arises that the Neo-Assyrians and the Neo-
Babylonians did not have the same definition of ‘Ionian’ as we have, since every
reference to ‘Ionia’ or ‘Ionian’ is problematic in a way. In the Neo-Babylonian
texts, several of the ‘Ionians’ bear non-Hellenic, Anatolian names.79 The person
from Ašdod called ‘Iamani’ who revolted against the Neo-Assyrians is currently
considered not to have been a Greek, and neither are the ‘Ionians’ who are
mentioned in Neo-Assyrian texts that do not refer to the Levant.80 The rest of
the Neo-Assyrian texts refer to ‘Ionian’ seafarers who are raiding the Levantine
coasts.81 However, it is difficult to identify the origins of raiders by their actions
or in a sea battle. This could be learned by interrogating prisoners, but their
information would be meaningless to the Neo-Assyrians, both geographically,
since Greece meant no more to them than ‘somewhere overseas in the west’,
and linguistically, since the Neo-Assyrians are unlikely to have been able to
distinguish between the languages of the regions involved, i.e., southern and
western Anatolia, the Aegean and Greece.82 In this Levantine context therefore,
77 Addikritušu: Rollinger/Korenjak 1997, passim. Antimenidas: Alcaeus frr. 48, 350

(PLF); Niemeier 2001, 18; cf. Haider 1996, 93-94; West 1997, 617-618. Evidence for
other Greek mercenaries fighting for the Neo-Assyrians or the Neo-Babylonians is
only circumstantial and therefore not included here (cf. Bettalli 1995, 43-52; Haider
1996, 91-93; Rollinger 2001, 252-253).
78 For a linguistic discussion, see Brinkman 1989, 53-67 (additions in Rollinger 1997,
passim), Zadok 1985, 186-188. Discussion of the Neo-Assyrian sources: Lanfranchi
2000, 13-17; Mayer 1996, 470-473; Niemeier 2001, 16-17; Parker 2000, passim;
Rollinger 2001, 235-249. Discussion of the Neo-Babylonian sources: Weidner 1939,
932-933. The inscription from Nineveh that mentions ‘Ionian’ captives manning
Neo-Assyrian fluvial ships to fight Babylonia (Lanfranchi 2000, 28; Rollinger 2001,
242-243) has not been taken into consideration here, because the reading of
‘Ionians’ is still not completely certain and would not invalidate the hypothesis
formulated below anyway, since nothing is said about the backgrounds of these
‘Ionians’.
79 Weidner 1939, 932-933; Zadok 1985, 188; but cf. Haider 1996, 94.
80 Iamani: Lanfranchi 2000, 13; Niemeier 2001, 17; Rollinger 2001, 245-248. Iamani is
interesting, because his name is usually interpreted as meaning ‘the Ionian’. How-
ever, this etymology now seems questionable (Rollinger 2001, 247-248). ‘Ionians’
not connected to the Levant: Rollinger 2001, 244-245; but cf. Mayer 1996, 472-473.
81 Mayer 1996, 470-471; Parker 2000, passim; Rollinger 2001, 237-243.
82 Cf. the ‘Ionians’ in the Neo-Babylonian texts with their non-Hellenic names. Cf.
also the ignorance of the Neo-Assyrians of the language of the Lydian messenger at
the court of Ashurbanipal (above). This also raises the question of why the Neo-
Assyrians would know the language of a people who were politically and commer-
‘Ionians’ may have been used by the Neo-Assyrians as a synonym for ‘pirates
from the west’, since they were the most active seafarers from the regions
described above, just as the many Carian mercenaries caused ‘Carian’ to
become a synonym for ‘mercenary’ in Greek.83 This theory coincides with
Rollinger’s view, that the Neo-Assyrian kings often used ‘Ionia’ in the meaning
of ‘some country, far away to the west’, just to show the enormous extent of
their power.84 Still, the possibility remains that the Neo-Assyrians got their
information about the raiders and Greece from the Phoenicians, who sailed the
Anatolian and Aegean coasts, were the victims of the raids and were probably
the ones who actually conducted the sea battles, since the Neo-Assyrians had
no naval strength themselves. This way, the Neo-Assyrian knowledge about
these pirates and the regions involved would have been considerably more
accurate, but it is questionable whether this would have been reflected in the
relevant written sources. Considering all this, it seems that ‘Ionia’ and ‘Ionian’
in the Mesopotamian sources were geographical rather than ethnic terms,
referring to people from southern and western Anatolia, the Aegean and
Greece, i.e., the regions where Mesopotamians would go by sailing northwest
from the Levant.85
Nonetheless, even if this hypothesis would be proven wrong, then the
situation remains that the available information about personal contacts
between Greeks with Mesopotamians is limited and presents us with a con-
fusing and incomplete picture. Regarding Mesopotamian influences on Archaic
Age Greece however, there are some alternative routes. Firstly, there is the
continuation of the Mesopotamian scribal and literary traditions, which had not
changed much since the Late Bronze Age.86 The development of Aramaic as
the lingua franca of the Near East from the eighth century on lessened the need
for people with knowledge of Akkadian, but since it only became the second
official language of the Neo-Assyrian empire and did not replace Neo-Assyrian,
there must still have been a need for scribes who knew Akkadian in the con-
cially of no importance to them, i.e., the Greeks, if they did not know Lydian (but
cf. West 1997, 606-609).
83 See e.g. Archilochus fr. 216 (IEG). In general, see LSJ, sub voce ‘ !"’.
84 Rollinger 2001, 240, 243.
85 For a similar view on this subject, see Rollinger 2003, 336-340. Compare the
position of the Medes in the Neo-Assyrian sources. They too are presented as one
people, but the Median names that are mentioned are sometimes Indo-European,
sometimes Kassite, sometimes Neo-Assyrian and sometimes unidentifiable (Radner
2003, 63-64). Similarly to ‘Ionians’ then, ‘Medes’ in the Neo-Assyrian sources is pro-
bably a geographical rather than an ethnic denominator.
86 Röllig 1987-1990, 49-50.
36 Erik van Dongen
quered territories.87 This means that knowledge of the most important

Mesopotamian literary themes may have continued to be known throughout
the Neo-Assyrian empire because of the texts that were part of the school
curriculum.88 The Neo-Assyrian indoctrination of foreign aristocracies is also
interesting. Expatriate aristocrats and the elites of captured countries were all
taken to the capitals of the Neo-Assyrians to be thoroughly trained in their
politics, religion and literature. In this way, they would get to know the Neo-
Assyrian way of life and, hopefully, adopt it and remain loyal to the Neo-
Assyrian rulers, or at least accept it more easily.89 This indoctrination also
involved areas where the Greeks came, i.e., the conquered Levantine states and
Lydia, which thereby became sources about Mesopotamian political thought,
religion and, again, literature for the Greeks it involved.90 Thirdly, Greeks may
have come into a distant form of contact with the Neo-Assyrian empire in
Cilicia. People from Cyprus, Ionia and the Aegean were present there already in
the eighth century B.C., but only as traders who sometimes might have stayed
in one of the Cilician cities for a short while.91 A local revolt, which was quelled
by Sennacherib in 696 B.C., changed this situation.92 Afterwards, Cypriot,
Ionian and Aegean presence in Cilicia increased considerably, probably caused
by the great number of casualties and deportations during and after the re-
bellion, which, with quiet approval from the Neo-Assyrians, left room for the
Greeks to found colonies.93 So from the seventh century on, Greeks were living
in a country that was subjugated to the Neo-Assyrians. Nonetheless, Cilicia was
on the periphery of the Neo-Assyrian empire and Greeks are not mentioned
more often in its sources from this period on. This means that the Cilician
87 Dion 1995, 1292-1293; Tadmor 1982, 51-55.

88 Because of the continuation of the scribal and literary traditions mentioned above,
the information in n. 27 (on the scribal education) and n. 31 (on school curricula) is
still valid in this period.
89 Parpola 1972, 33-34; 2003, 101-102; Parpola/Watanabe 1988, xx-xxi.
90 Gitin 1997, 77-85; Hanfmann 1983, 98; Parpola 1998, 328, n. 57; Postgate 1989, 7-9;
Tadmor 1982, 449-451. Because of the close ties between the Lydians and the
Greeks (see the section on Anatolia in the Archaic Age), Lydia is especially
interesting in this context.
91 Haider 1996, 82-85, 94; Jasink 1989, 120-121; Lanfranchi 2000, 29-30.
92 Greek historians from much later times mention a battle between the Greeks and
the Neo-Assyrians. Unfortunately, these sources contradict each other in some
points and can only be made to coincide with the modern reconstruction of what
happened after some serious revisions. This involves making not the Greeks the
main opponents of the Neo-Assyrians, but the original inhabitants of Cilicia, while
the Greeks supplied only minor aid to the latter (Jasink 1989, 123-127; Haider 1996,
85-88; Lanfranchi 2000, 22-30).
93 Haider 1996, 83-85, 95; Lanfranchi 2000, 30-33.
Greeks were not involved very much in the goings on of the empire, but this
situation could still have enabled them to at least get an impression of its make-
up and policies. The same goes for Cyprus, which became Neo-Assyrian during
the reign of Sargon II (721-705 B.C), but always remained a remote part of the
empire, visited by Neo-Assyrian troops only during the conquest of the
island.94 However, despite these four scenarios, it is hard to imagine how the
Greeks could have learned about features of the Mesopotamian material arts,
except for those that were adopted by Levantine and Lydian craftsmen and the
few imports that reached them through the Phoenicians.
Egypt
The contacts between Greece and Egypt were resumed at a late date. No Greek
Iron Age pottery has been found in Egypt that predates the seventh century
B.C. and the few Egyptian objects that reached Greece before that time are
likely to have been brought there by Phoenicians.95 This situation was turned
upside down in the seventh century, when the first recruitment of Ionian and
Carian mercenaries by pharaoh Psammetichus I within decades resulted in
them being stationed at various places in Egypt and subsequently the foun-
dation of Naukratis.96 Naukratis is extremely interesting. In ca. 620, Psamme-
tichus I allowed the Greek merchants who visited Egypt the foundation of this
single port-of-trade, thus enabling himself to regulate the import from and
export to Greece as well as the whereabouts of Greek visitors to Egypt.97 This
was necessary because of the rapid increase in trade activities. Milesians, Chians
and Samians were the main conductors of these and it was them who first
settled in Naukratis, but others from Ionia and the Aegean were soon to
follow.98 So from the late seventh century on, the presence in Egypt of large
groups of different social backgrounds from all over Ionia and the Aegean
ensured intensive contacts between Egypt and these regions of Greece.
94 See Na’aman 1998, passim. For the Greek presence on Cyprus, see the section on the
Dark Ages.
95 Haider 1988, 207-210; Möller 2000, 32.
96 Apart from Naukratis, traces of possible Greek presence have been found in Tell
Defenneh, Rhakotis, Kom Firin, Sais, Mendes, Migdol, Heliopolis, Memphis and
Thebes (Bettalli 1995, 53-73; Haider 1996, 95-101; Möller 2000, 32-38; Sullivan
1996, 185-186). The exact chronology of these developments (for which see Haider
1988, 153-184) makes no difference here. The Milesian Wall, some kind of earlier
Greek settlement mentioned by Strabo (17.1.18), is not included in this list, because
Strabo is the only available evidence of its existence and his account is unreliable
(Möller 2000, 186-187; but cf. Haider 1996, 96).
97 Möller 2000, 203-215; Sullivan 1996, 186-191.
98 Möller 2000, 75-88, 166-181; Sullivan 1996, 189-190.
38 Erik van Dongen
Again, the optimism should be tempered somewhat, for the presence of the
Greeks met with some restrictions. Mercenaries usually operated in their own
groups and did not mingle much with Egyptians. Furthermore, Naukratis was
not meant to be a colony, but, as was mentioned above, a port-of-trade. This
means that it was a trading outpost, isolated from the surrounding area and
specifically designed for the facilitation of trade, not for the permanent settle-
ment of Greeks in Egypt. In fact, there were several restrictions prohibiting the
Greeks from sailing the Nile or offloading their trade elsewhere in Egypt, so
this arrangement obviously served explicitly to restrict Greek influence on
Egypt.99 However, this negativism does not improve the picture much either
and some objections and additions are in order. It is not to be expected that
mercenaries who were stationed near Egyptian cities never got to visit them.
They will also have depended on Egyptian merchants for food, clothing and
other necessities. Apart from that, there is evidence of Greeks adapting them-
selves to the Egyptian culture and making a career in the pharaoh’s army.100 It
is also unlikely that the people who lived and traded at Naukratis, situated in
the middle of the Nile delta, never got to know anything about the Egyptian
culture that surrounded them on every side. Therefore, there is every reason to
believe that the Ionian and Aegean Greeks who were present in Egypt were in a
good position to get an image of the material arts of the Egyptians, the
ostensible elements of their religion and the highlights of their literary
tradition.101
In conclusion
Articles like these are usually concluded by a summary that gives a general over-
view of the subjects that have been discussed. This will not be done here, since
it would do injustice to the present subject. In fact, it is characterizing for the
Greek contacts with the Near East that they differed by region, by period and
by subsection of each region and period, both in Greece and in the Near East.
If there is anything in general that this article has to offer, then that would be
the idea that it is important to appreciate these differences, instead of dimi-
nishing them by painting a picture in broad strokes.
99 Möller 2000, 184-215.

100 Grallert 2001, passim; Haider 1996, 104-112; 2004, 447-452; Möller 2000, 205-207.
101 For the continuity in the Egyptian literary traditions, see Jasnow 1999, passim. See
also n. 36.
Bibliography
Alexiou, S. 1987, “Auswärtige Beziehungen der ägäischen Kultur seit der Mitte
des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr.: Das Wesen des minoischen Handels”, Ägäische
Bronzezeit, ed. Buchholz, H.-G., Darmstadt, 149-158.
Assmann, J. 1996, “Kulturelle und literarische Texte”, Ancient Egyptian literature:
History and forms, ed. Loprieno, A., Leiden, 59-82.
Baines, J. 1996, “Classicism and modernism in the literature of the New King-
dom”, Ancient Egyptian literature: History and forms, ed. Loprieno, A., Leiden,
157-174.
Barber, R.L.N. 1987, The Cyclades in the Bronze Age, London.
Bennet, J. 1997, “Homer and the Bronze Age”, A new companion to Homer, ed.
Morris, I./Powell, B., Leiden, 511-534.
Bettalli, M. 1995, I mercenari nel mondo greco I: Dalle origini alla fine del V sec. a.C.,
Pisa.
Bietak, M. 1995, “Connections between Egypt and the Minoan world: New
results from Tell el-Dab’a/Avaris”, Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant:
Interconnections in the second millennium BC, ed. Davies, W.V./Schofield, L.,
London, 19-28.
Blum, H. 2002, “Anatolien, die Ilias und die sogenannte ‘Kontinuitätsthese’”,
Klio 84, 275-318.
Boardman, J. 1997, “The early Greek sherd at Nineveh”, OJA 16, 375.
––– 1999a, “The excavated history of Al Mina”, Ancient Greeks west and east, ed.
Tsetskhladze, G.R., Leiden, 135-161.
––– 19994b, The Greeks overseas: Their early colonies and trade, London.
––– 2001, “Aspects of ‘colonization’”, BASOR 322, 33-42.
Bouzek, J. 1997, Greece, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural interrelations during the Early
Iron Age, Jonsered.
Brinkman, J.A. 1989, “The Akkadian words for “Ionia” and “Ionian””, Daida-
likon: Studies in memory of Raymond V. Schoder, S.J., ed. Sutton Jr., R.F.,
Wauconda, 53-71.
Bryce, T.R. 1995, “The Lycian kingdom in southwest Anatolia”, Civilizations of
the ancient Near East (4 vols.), ed. Sasson, J.M., New York, 1161-1172.
––– 1999, “Anatolian scribes in Mycenaean Greece”, Historia 48, 257-264.
––– 2002, Life and society in the Hittite world, Oxford.
––– 2003, “History”, The Luwians, ed. Melchert, H.C., Leiden, 27-127.
Buchholz, H.-G. 1999, Ugarit, Zypern und Ägäis: Kulturbeziehungen im zweiten
Jahrtausend v. Chr., Münster.
40 Erik van Dongen
Burkert, W. 1983, “Itinerant diviners and magicians: A neglected element in

cultural contacts”, The Greek renaissance of the eight century B.C.: Tradition and
innovation, ed. Hägg, R., Stockholm, 115-119.
Carruba, O. 1995, “Ahhiya e Ahhiyaw!, la Grecia e l’Egeo”, Studio historiae
ardens: Ancient Near Eastern studies presented to Philo H.J. Houwink ten Cate on the
occasion of his 65th birthday, ed. van Hout, Th.P.J./de Roos J., Istanbul, 7-21.
Chadwick, J. 1988, “The women of Pylos”, Texts, tablets and scribes: Studies in
Mycenaean epigraphy and economy offered to Emmett L. Bennett Jr., ed. Olivier, J.-
P./Palaima, Th.G., Salamanca, 43-95.
Civil, M. 1964, “The ‘Message of Lú-dingir-ra to his mother’ and a group of
Akkado-Hittite ‘proverbs’”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 23, 1-11.
––– 1995, “Ancient Mesopotamian lexicography”, Civilizations of the ancient Near
East (4 vols.), ed. Sasson, J.M., New York, 2305-2314.
Cline, E.H. 1987, “Amenhotep III and the Aegean: A reassessment of Egypto-
Aegean relations in the 14th century B.C.”, Or NS 56, 1-36.
––– 1994, Sailing the wine-dark sea: International trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean,
Oxford.
Coldstream, J.N. 1989, “Early Greek visitors to Cyprus and the eastern Medi-
terranean”, Cyprus and the East Mediterranean in the Iron Age, ed. Tatton-
Brown, V., London, 90-95.
––– 1993, “Mixed marriages at the frontiers of the early Greek world”, OJA 12,
89-107.
Coldstream, J.N./Bikai, P.M. 1988, “Early Greek pottery in Tyre and Cyprus:
Some preliminary comparisons”, RDAC 1988.2, 35-44.
Courbin, P. 1993, “Fragments d’amphores protogéométriques grecques à Bassit
(Syrie)”, Hesperia 62, 95-113.
Crielaard, J.P. 1996, “How the west was won: Euboeans vs. Phoenicians”, Die
Akten des internationalen Kolloquiums “Interactions in the Iron Age: Phoenicians,
Greeks and the indigenous peoples of the western Mediterranean” in Amsterdam am 26.
und 27. März 1992, Mainz, 235-249.
Davaras, C. 1988, “Mycenaean Greece and Crete”, The Mycenaean world: Five
centuries of early Greek culture, 1600-1100 B.C., ed. Demakopoulou, K., Athens,
58-59.
Davis, J.L. 2001, “The islands of the Aegean”, Aegean prehistory: A review, ed.
Cullen, T., Boston, 19-76.
Davis, J.L./Tzonou-Herbst, I./Wolpert, A.D. 2001, “The islands of the
Aegean: Addendum: 1992-1999”, Aegean prehistory: A review, ed. Cullen, T.,
Boston, 77-94.
Deger-Jalkotzy, S. 1991, “Die Erforschung des Zusammenbruchs der soge-

nannten mykenischen Kultur und der sogenannten dunklen Jahrhunderte”,
Zweihundert Jahre Homer-Forschung: Rückblick und Ausblick, ed. Latacz, J., Stutt-
gart, 127-154.
Demsky, A. 1990, “The education of Canaanite scribes in the Mesopotamian
cuneiform tradition”, Bar-Ilan studies in assyriology, dedicated to Pinhas Artzi, ed.
Klein, J./Skaist, A., Ramat Gan, 157-170.
DeVries, K. 1990, “The Gordion excavation seasons of 1969-1973 and sub-
sequent research”, AJA 94, 371-406.
Dion, P.E. 1995, “Aramaean tribes and nations of first-millennium western
Asia”, Civilizations of the ancient Near East (4 vols.), ed. Sasson, J.M., New
York, 1281-1294.
Dothan, T. 1998, “Initial Philistine settlement from migration to coexistence”,
Mediterranean peoples in transition: Thirteenth to early tenth centuries BCE, ed. Gitin,
S./Mazar, A./Stern, E., Jerusalem, 148-161.
Drews, R. 1993, The end of the Bronze Age: Changes in warfare and the catastrophe ca.
1200 B.C., Princeton.
Driessen, J./Farnoux, A. (ed.) 1997, La Crète mycénienne, Athens.
Faist, B.I. 2001, Der Fernhandel des assyrischen Reiches zwischen dem 14. und 11. Jh. v.
Chr., Münster.
Finkelberg, M. 1988, “From Ahhiyawa to ’#$%&'(”, Glotta 66, 121-134.
Gehrig, U./Niemeyer, H.G. (ed.), Die Phönizier im Zeitalter Homers, Mainz.
George, A.R. 2003, The Babylonian Gilgamesh epic: Introduction, critical edition and
cuneiform texts (2 vols.), Oxford.
Gianto, A. 1999, “Amarna Akkadian as a contact language”, Languages and
cultures in contact: At the crossroads of civilizations in the Syro-Mesopotamian realm,
ed. van Lerberghe, K./Voet, G., Leuven, 123-132.
Gilmour, G. 1992, “Mycenaean IIIA and IIIB pottery in the Levant and
Cyprus”, RDAC 1992, 113-128.
Gitin, S. 1997, “The Neo-Assyrian empire and its western periphery: The
Levant, with a focus on Philistine Ekron”, Assyria 1995, ed. Parpola, S./
Whiting, R.M., Helsinki, 77-103.
––– 2004, “The Philistines: Neighbors of the Canaanites, Phoenicians and
Israelites”, 100 years of American archaeology in the Middle East, ed. Clark
D.R./Matthews, V.H., Boston, 57-85.
Grallert, S. 2001, “Akkulturation im ägyptischen Sepulkralwesen: Der Fall eines
Griechen in Ägypten zur Zeit der 26. Dynastie”, Naukratis: Die Beziehungen
zu Ostgriechenland, Ägypten und Zypern in archaischer Zeit, ed. Höckmann,
U./Kreikenbom, D., Möhnsee, 183-195.
42 Erik van Dongen
Greenewalt Jr., C.H. 1995, “Croesus of Sardis and the Lydian kingdom of
Anatolia”, Civilizations of the ancient Near East (4 vols.), ed. Sasson, J.M., New
York, 1173-1183.
Greenfield, J.C. 1991, “Of scribes, scripts and languages”, Phoinikeia grammata:
Lire et écrire en Méditerrannée, ed. Baurain, C./Bonnet, C./Krings, V., Namur,
173-185.
Guichard, M. 1993, “Flotte crétoise sur l’Euphrate?”, Nouvelles Assyriologiques
Brèves et Utilitaires 53, 44-45.
Guralnick, E. 1989, “Greece and the Near East: Art and archaeology”,
Daidalikon: Studies in memory of Raymond V. Schoder, S.J., ed. Sutton Jr., R.F.,
Wauconda, 151-176.
––– 1992, “East to west: Near Eastern artifacts from Greek sites”, La circulation
des biens, des personnes et des idées dans le Proche-Orient ancien: Actes de la
XXXVIIIe rencontre assyriologique internationale, ed. Charpin, D./Joannès, F.,
Paris, 327-340.
Gurney, O.R. 1992, “Hittite geography: Thrirty years on”, Hittite and other
Anatolian and Near Eastern studies in honour of Sedat Alp, ed. Otten, H./Ertem,
H./Akurgal, E./Süel, A., Ankara, 213-221.
Gusmani, R. 1975, “Die lydische Sprache”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
1975, 134-142.
Güterbock, H.G. 1983, “The Hittites and the Aegean world, part 1: The
Ahhiyawa problem reconsidered”, AJA 87, 133-138.
Haider, P.W. 1988, Griechenland – Nordafrika, Darmstadt.
––– 1989, “Zu den ägyptisch-ägäischen Handelsbeziehungen zwischen ca. 1370
und 1200 v. Chr.: II. Handelsgüter und Handelswege”, Münstersche Beiträge
zur Antiken Handelsgeschichte 8, 1-28.
––– 1996, “Griechen im Vorderen Orient und in Ägypten bis ca. 590 v. Chr.”,
Wege zur Genese griechischer Identität: Die Bedeutung der früharchaischen Zeit, ed.
Ulf, Chr., Berlin, 59-115.
––– 2004, “Kontakte zwischen Griechen und Ägyptern und ihre Auswirkungen
auf die archaisch-griechische Welt”, Griechische Archaik: Interne Entwicklungen
– Externe Impulse, ed. Rollinger, R./Ulf, Chr., Berlin, 447-491.
Hall, J.M. 2004, “Culture, cultures and acculturation”, Griechische Archaik: Interne
Entwicklungen – Externe Impulse, ed. Rollinger, R./Ulf, Chr., Berlin, 35-50.
Hallo, W.W. 1991, “The concept of canonicity in cuneiform and Biblical litera-
ture: A comperative appraisal”, Scripture in context, vol. 4: The Biblical canon in
comperative perspective, ed. Younger Jr., K.L./Hallo, W.W./Batto, B.F.,
Lewiston, 1-19.
Hanfmann, G.M.A. 1983, “Lydian society and culture”, in Sardis from prehistoric
to Roman times: Results of the archaeological exploration of Sardis 1958-1975, ed.
Hanfmann, G.M.A., Cambridge MA, 67-99.
Hawkins, J.D. 19822, “The Neo-Hittite states in Syria and Anatolia”, The
Cambridge ancient history, vol. 3, pt. 1: The prehistory of the Balkans; and the Middle
East and the Aegean world, tenth to eight centuries B.C., ed. Boardman, J./
Edwards, I.E.S./Hammond, N.G.L./Sollberger, E., Cambridge, 372-441.
––– 1995, “Karkamish and Karatepe: Neo-Hittite city-states in North Syria”,
Civilizations of the ancient Near East (4 vols.), ed. Sasson, J.M., New York,
1295-1307.
––– 1998, “Tarkasnawa king of Mira: ‘Tarkondemos’, Bo"azköy sealings and
Karabel”, AnSt 48, 1-31.
Heinhold-Krahmer, S. 2004, “Ist die Identität von Ilios mit Wiluša endgültig
erwiesen?”, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 46, 29-47.
Helck, W. 1984, “Schule”, Lexikon der Ägyptologie 5, 742-743.
Heltzer, M. 1988, “The Late Bronze Age service system and its decline”, Society
and economy in the eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500-1000 B.C.), ed. Heltzer,
M./Lipi ski, E., Leuven, 7-18.
––– 1989, “The trade of Crete and Cyprus with Syria and Mesopotamia and
their eastern tin-sources in the XVIII-XVII century B.C.”, Minos 24, 7-27.
Herrmann, H.-V. 1972-1975, “Hellas”, RlA 4, 303-311.
Higgins, R.A. 1969, “Early Greek jewellery”, ABSA 64, 143-153.
Högemann, P. 2000, “Der Iliasdichter, Anatolien und der griechische Adel”,
Klio 82, 7-39.
Jasink, A.M. 1989, “I Greci in Cilicia nel periodo neo-assiro”, Mesopotamia 24,
117-128.
Jasnow, R. 1999, “Remarks on continuity in Egyptian literary tradition”, Gold of
praise: Studies on ancient Egypt in honor of Edward F. Wente, ed. Teeter,
E./Larson, J.A., Chicago, 193-210.
Jones, D.W. 1993, “Phoenician unguent factories in Dark Age Greece: Social
approaches to evaluating the archaeological evidence”, OJA 12, 293-303.
Kearsley, R.A. 1999, “Greeks overseas in the 8th century B.C.: Euboeans, Al
Mina and Assyrian imperialism”, Ancient Greeks west and east, ed. Tsetskhlad-
ze, G.R., Leiden, 109-134.
Knapp, A.B. 1992, “Bronze Age Mediterranean island cultures and the ancient
Near East, part 2”, Biblical Archaeologist 55, 112-128.
––– 1993, “Thalassocracies in Bronze Age eastern Mediterranean trade: Making
and breaking a myth”, WA 24.3, 332-347.
Krecher, J. 1969, “Schreiberschulung in Ugarit: Die Tradition von Listen und
sumerischen Texten”, UF 1, 131-158.
44 Erik van Dongen
Krispijn, Th.J.H. 1992, “Naar school in het oude Mesopotamië”, Phoenix 38, 21-
33.
Lanfranchi, G.B. 2000, “The ideological and political impact of the Assyrian
imperial expansion on the Greek world in the 8th and 7th centuries BC”,
The heirs of Assyria, ed. Aro, S./Whiting, R.M., Helsinki, 7-34.
Lipi ski, E. 1991, “The Cypriot vassals of Esarhaddon”, Ah Assyria...: Studies in
Assyrian history and ancient Near Eastern historiography presented to Hayim Tadmor,
ed. Cogan, M./Eph‘al, I., Jerusalem, 58-64.
Liverani, M. 1987, “The collapse of the Near Eastern regional system at the end
of the Bronze Age: The case of Syria”, Centre and periphery in the ancient world,
ed. Rowlands, M./Larsen, M./Kristiansen, K., Cambridge, 66-73.
Markoe, G. 2000, Phoenicians, London.
Marthari, M. 1988, “The Mycenaean expansion in the Cyclades”, The Mycenaean
world: Five centuries of early Greek culture, 1600-1100 B.C., ed. Demakopoulou,
K., Athens, 56-57.
Matsas, D. 1991, “Samothrace and the northeastern Aegean: The Minoan
connection”, ST 1, 159-179.
Mayer, W. 1996, “Zypern und Ägäis aus der Sicht der Staaten Vorderasiens in
der 1. Hälfte des 1. Jahrtausends”, UF 28, 463-484.
McGeehan Liritzis, V. 1996, The role and development of metallurgy in the Late
Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Greece, Jonsered.
Mee, Chr. 1978, “Aegean trade and settlement in Anatolia in the second
millennium B.C.”, AnSt 28, 121-155.
Möller, A. 2000, Naukratis: Trade in Archaic Greece. Oxford.
Moran, W.L. 1992, The Amarna letters. Baltimore.
Morgan, C. 1993, “The origins of pan-Hellenism”, Greek sanctuaries: New
approaches, ed. Marinatos, N./Hägg, R., London, 18-44.
Morris, I. 1997, “Homer and the Iron Age”, A new companion to Homer, ed.
Morris, I./Powell, B., Leiden, 535-559.
––– 1998, “Archaeology and Archaic Greek history”, Archaic Greece: New
approaches and new evidence, ed. Fisher, N./van Wees, H., London, 1-91.
Mountjoy, P.A. 1997, “Troia phase VIf and phase VIg: The Mycenaean
pottery”, ST 7, 275-294.
––– 1998, “The East Aegean-West Anatolian interface in the Late Bronze Age:
Mycenaeans and the kingdom of Ahhiyawa”, AnSt 48, 33-67.
Na’aman, N. 1998, “Sargon II and the rebellion of the Cypriote kings against
Shilta of Tyre”, Or NS 67, 239-247.
Neesen, L., 1989, Demiurgoi und Artifices: Studien zur Stellung freier Handwerker in
antiken Städten. Frankfurt am Main.
Niemeier, B./Niemeier, W.-D. 1997, “Milet 1994-1995: Projekt ‘Minoisch-

mykenisches bis protogeometrisches Milet’: Zielsetzung und Grabungen auf
dem Stadionhügel und am Athenatempel”, Archäologischer Anzeiger 1997,
189-248.
Niemeier, W.-D. 1995, “Greek mercenaries in Phoenicia: New evidence from
Tel Kabri”, AJA 99, 304-305 (abstract).
––– 1998, “The Mycenaeans in western Anatolia and the problem of the origins
of the Sea Peoples”, Mediterranean peoples in transition: Thirteenth to early tenth
centuries BCE, ed. Gitin, S./Mazar, A./Stern, E., Jerusalem, 17-65.
––– 2001, “Archaic Greeks in the Orient: Textual and archaeological evidence”,
BASOR 322, 11-32.
Niemeyer, H.G. 1999, “Die frühe phönizische Expansion im Mittelmeer: Neue
Beiträge zu ihrer Beschreibung und ihren Ursachen”, Saeculum 50, 153-175.
Papadopoulos, J.K. 1997, “Phantom Euboians”, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeo-
logy 10, 191-219.
Parker, B.J. 2000, “The earliest known reference to the Ionians in the cunei-
form sources”, Ancient History Bulletin 14, 69-77.
Parpola, S. 1972, “A letter from Šamaš-šumu-uk#n to Esarhaddon”, Iraq 34, 21-
34.
––– 1998, “The esoteric meaning of the name of Gilgamesh”, Intellectual life of the
ancient Near East, ed. Prosecký, J., Prague, 315-329.
––– 2003, “Assyria’s expansion in the 8th and 7th centuries and its long-term
repercussions in the west”, Symbiosis, symbolism, and the power of the past:
Canaan, ancient Israel, and their neighbours from the Late Bronze Age through Roman
Palaestina, ed. Dever, W.G./Gitin, S., Winona Lake, 99-111.
Parpola, S./Watanabe, K. 1988, Neo-Assyrian treaties and loyalty oaths, Helsinki.
Pearce, L.E. 1995, “The scribes and scholars of ancient Mesopotamia”,
2265-2278.
Pedersén, O. 1998, Archives and libraries in the ancient Near East, 1500-300 B.C.,
Bethesda.
Perreault, J.Y. 1991, “Les emporia grecs du Levant: Mythe ou réalité?”,
L’emporion, ed. Besson, A./Rouillard, P., Paris, 59-83.
Popham, M. 1994, “Precolonization: Early Greek contact with the east”, The
archaeology of Greek colonisation: Essays dedicated to Sir John Boardman, ed.
Tsetskhladze, G.R./de Angelis, F., Oxford, 11-34.
Postgate, J.N. 1989, “Ancient Assyria – A multi-racial state”, Aram 1, 1-10.
Quirke, S.G. 1996, “Archive”, Ancient Egyptian literature: History and forms, ed.
Loprieno, A., Leiden, 379-401.
46 Erik van Dongen
Raaflaub, K.A. 1998a, “A historian’s headache: How to read ‘Homeric

society’?”, Archaic Greece: New approaches and new evidence, ed. Fisher, N./van
Wees, H., London, 169-193.
––– 1998b, “Homer, the Trojan war, and history”, Classical World 91, 387-403.
Radner, K. 2003, “An Assyrian view on the Medes”, Continuity of empire (?):
Assyria, Media, Persia, ed. Lanfranchi, G.B./Roaf, M./Rollinger, R., Padova,
37-64.
Ragionieri, R. 2000, “The Amarna Age: An international society in the making”,
Amarna diplomacy: The beginnings of international relations, ed. Cohen, R./West-
brook, R., Baltimore, 42-53.
Ray, J.D. 1995, “Soldiers to Pharaoh: The Carians of southwest Anatolia”,
1185-1194.
Rehak, P./Younger, J.G. 2001, “Neopalatial, final palatial, and postpalatial
Crete”, Aegean prehistory: A review, ed. Cullen, T., Boston, 383-465.
Riis, P.J. 1982, “Griechen in Phönizien”, Phönizier im Westen, ed. Niemeyer,
H.G., Mainz, 237-255.
Rochberg-Halton, F. 1984, “Canonicity in cuneiform texts”, Journal of Cuneiform
Studies 36, 129-144.
Röllig, W. 1987-1990, “Literatur”, RlA 7, 35-66.
Rollinger, R. 1997, “Zur Bezeichnung von “Griechen” in Keilschrifttexten”,
Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 91, 167-172.
––– 2001, “The ancient Greeks and the impact of the ancient Near East:
Textual evidence and historical perspective (ca. 750-650 BC)”, Mythology and
mythologies: Methodological approaches to intercultural influences, ed. Whiting, R.M.,
Helsinki, 233-264.
––– 2003, “Homer, Anatolien und die Levante: Die Frage der Beziehungen zu
den östlichen Nachbarkulturen im Spiegel der schriftlichen Quellen”, Der
neue Streit um Troia: Eine Bilanz, ed. Ulf, Chr., München, 330-348.
––– 2004, “Hethiter, Homer und Anatolien: Erwägungen zu Il. 3,300f. und
KUB XIII Nr. 3, III 1f.”, Historia 53, 1-21.
Rollinger, R./Korenjak, M. 2001, “Addikritušu: Ein namentlich genannter
Grieche aus der Zeit Asarhaddons (680-669 v.Chr.): Überlegungen zu ABL
140”, Altorientalische Forschungen 28, 325-337.
Rutter, J.B. 1992, “Cultural novelties in the post-palatial Aegean world: Indices
of vitality or decline?”, The crisis years: The 12th century B.C.: From beyond the
Danube to the Tigris, ed. Ward, W.A./Joukowsky, M.S., Dubuque, 61-78.
––– 2001, “The prepalatial Bronze Age of the southern and central Greek
mainland”, Aegean prehistory: A review, ed. Cullen, T., Boston, 95-147.
Sams, G.K. 1995, “Midas of Gordion and the Anatolian kingdom of Phrygia”,
1147-1159.
Schofield, L./Parkinson, R.B. 1994, “Of helmets and heretics: A possible
Egyptian representation of Mycenaean warriors on a papyrus from el-
Amarna”, ABSA 89, 157-170.
Shaw, J.W. 1998, “Der phönizische Schrein in Kommos auf Kreta (ca. 800
v.Chr.)”, Archäologische Studien in Kontaktzonen der antiken Welt, ed. Rolle,
R./Schmidt, K., Göttingen, 93-105.
Shelmerdine, C.W. 2001, “The palatial Bronze Age of the southern and central
Greek mainland”, Aegean prehistory: A review, ed. Cullen, T., Boston, 329-377.
Sherratt, S./Sherratt, A. 1991, “From luxuries to commodities: The nature of
Mediterranean Bronze Age trading systems”, Bronze Age trade in the
Mediterranean, ed. Gale, N.H., Jonsered, 351-386.
––– 1993, “The growth of the Mediterranean economy in the early first
millennium BC”, WA 24.3, 361-378.
Sourouzian, H./Stadelman, R. 2005, “Die ältesten Erwähnungen von Ioniern
und Danaern: Neueste Grabungen im Totentempel Amenophis’ III. in
Theben enthüllen Statuen und Sockel mit Darstellungen fremder Völker”,
Antike Welt 36.6, 79-83.
Sourvinou-Inwood, Chr. 1990, “What is polis religion?”, The Greek city: From
Homer to Alexander, ed. Murray, O./Price, S., Oxford, 295-322.
Stager, L.E. 1995, “The impact of the Sea Peoples in Canaan (1185-1050
BCE)”, The archaeology of society in the Holy Land, ed. Levy, T.E., London, 332-
348.
Starke, F. 1997a, “Sprachen und Schriften in Karkamis”, Ana šadî Labn ni l!
allik: Beiträge zu altorientalischen und mittelmeerischen Kulturen: Festschrift Wolfgang
Röllig, ed. Pongratz-Leisten, B./Kühne, H./Xella, P., Kevelaer, 381-395.
––– 1997b, “Troia im Kontext des historisch-politischen und sprachlichen
Umfelds Kleinasiens im 2. Jahrtausend”, ST 7, 447-487.
Sullivan, R.D. 1996, “Psammetichus I and the foundation of Naukratis”,
Ancient Naukratis, vol. 2, part 1: The survey at Naukratis, ed. Coulson, W.D.E.,
Oxford, 177-195.
Tadmor, H. 1982, “The aramaization of Assyria: Aspects of western impact”,
Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn: Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im
alten Vorderasien vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr., ed. Nissen, H.-J./Renger, J.,
Berlin, 449-460.
Taracha, P. 2003, “Is Tut¦aliya’s sword really Aegean?”, Hittite studies in honor of
Harry A. Hoffner Jr. on the occasion of his 65th birthday, ed. Beckman, G./Beal,
R./MacMahon, G., Winona Lake, 367-376.
48 Erik van Dongen
Tigay, J.H. 1982, The evolution of the Gilgamesh epic, Philadelphia.

Ünal, A. 1991, “Two peoples on both sides of the Aegean sea: Did the
Achaeans and the Hittites know each other”, Essays on ancient Anatolian and
Syrian studies in the 2nd and 1st millennium B.C., ed. Mikasa, T., Wiesbaden, 16-
44.
Vagnetti, L. 1996, “Primi contatti fra il mondo minoico-miceneo e il Medi-
terraneo occidentale”, I Greci in Occidente, ed. Pugliese-Carratelli, G., Milan,
109-116.
Vanschoonwinkel, J. 1994, “La présence grecque à Chypre au XIe siècle av. J.-
C.”, Proceedings of the international symposium ‘Cyprus in the 11th century B.C.’ , ed.
Karageorghis, V., Nicosia, 109-131.
––– 1999, “Between the Aegean and the Levant: The Philistines”, Ancient Greeks
west and east, ed. Tsetskhladze, G.R., Leiden, 85-107.
Waldbaum, J.C. 1994, “Early Greek contacts with the southern Levant, ca.
1000-600 B.C.: The eastern perspective”, BASOR 293, 53-66.
––– 1997, “Greeks in the east or Greeks and the east? Problems in the definition
and recognition of presence”, BASOR 305, 1-17.
Warren, P. 1995, “Minoan Crete and pharaonic Egypt”, Egypt, the Aegean and the
Levant: Interconnections in the second millennium BC, ed. Davies, W.V./Schofield,
L., London, 1-18.
Watkins, C. 1998, “Homer and Hittite revisited”, Style and tradition: Studies in
honour of Wendell Clausen, ed. Knox, P./Foss, C., Stuttgart, 201-211.
Weidner, E.F. 1939, “Jojachin, König von Juda, in babylonischen Keilschrift-
texte”, Mélanges syriens offerts à monsieur René Dussaud par ses amis et ses élèves,
Paris, 923-935.
Wenning, R. 2004, “Griechischer Einfluss auf Palästina in vorhellenistischer
Zeit?”, Die Griechen und das antike Israel: Interdisziplinäre Studien zur Religions-
und Kulturgeschichte des Heiligen Landes, ed. Alkier, S./Witte, M., Freiburg, 29-
60.
West, M.L. 1997, The east face of Helicon: West Asiatic elements in Greek poetry and
myth, Oxford.
Wiener, M.H. 1990, “The isles of Crete? The Minoan thalassocracy revisited”,
Thera and the Aegean world III, vol. 1: Archaeology, ed. Hardy, D.A., London,
128-160.
Zaccagnini, C. 1987, “Aspects of ceremonial exchange in the Near East during
the late second millennium BC”, Centre and periphery in the ancient world, ed.
Rowlands, M./Larsen, M./Kristiansen, K., Cambridge, 57-65.
Zadok, R. 1985, Geographical names according to New- and Late-Babylonian texts,
Wiesbaden.
Abbreviations
ABSA The Annual of the British School at Athens.

AJA American Journal of Archaeology.
AnSt Anatolian Studies.
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.
IEG West, M.L. 1989-1992, Iambi et elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati (2
vols.), Oxford.
LSJ Lidell, H.G./Scott, R./Jones, H.S./McKenzie, R. 19409/19962, A
Greek-English lexicon: With a revised supplement, Oxford.
OJA Oxford Journal of Archaeology.
Or NS Orientalia Nova Series.
PLF Lobel, E./Page, D. 1955, Poetarum Lesbiorum fragmenta, Oxford.
PMG Page, D.L. 1962, Poetae melici Graeci, Oxford.
RDAC Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.
RlA Reallexikon der Assyriologie.
ST Studia Troica.
UF Ugarit-Forschungen.
WA World Archaeology.

2007 Contacts Between Pre-Classical Gree

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2007 Contacts Between Pre-Classical Gree

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Titelei_Oi_Getr_Wege_korr 3 02.11.

2007 16:30 Uhr Seite 3

Herausgegeben von Robert Rollinger,

Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation

©  Verlag Antike e.K., Frankfurt am Main

Oikumene Studien zur antiken Weltgeschichte BAND 2

Erik van Dongen

The Late Bronze Age (ca. 1700-1200 B.C.)

To do justice to the diversity of the nature of contacts between different areas,

Crete and the Aegean7

9 Davaras 1988, passim; Rehak/Younger 2001, 451; Shelmerdine 2001, 351-354.

19 See Chadwick 1988, 79 (a-*64-ja), 80 (ki-ni-di-ja), 81 (mi-ra-ti-ja), 84 (ze-pu2-ra2), 91-93

The Levant and Cyprus

32 Cline 1994, 31-47; Haider 1989, 1-21; Warren 1995, passim.

aspects of Egyptian culture. Regarding literary themes and ideas, canonization

The Dark Ages (ca. 1200-800 B.C.)

evidence to support it, it cannot be used.

in settlement, but it remains difficult to date the migrations exactly. Roughly

ones (see Lipi ski 1991, 58-62; Mayer 1996, 478-480).

The Archaic Age (ca. 800-500 B.C.)53

50 Bennet 1997, 511-513, 523-533; Raaflaub 1998a, 171-186.

that the Lydians served as intermediaries for the transmission of Mesopotamian

The initial optimism about Greek presence in the Levant is considerably

77 Addikritušu: Rollinger/Korenjak 1997, passim. Antimenidas: Alcaeus frr. 48, 350

quered territories.87 This means that knowledge of the most important

87 Dion 1995, 1292-1293; Tadmor 1982, 51-55.

99 Möller 2000, 184-215.

Burkert, W. 1983, “Itinerant diviners and magicians: A neglected element in

Deger-Jalkotzy, S. 1991, “Die Erforschung des Zusammenbruchs der soge-

Niemeier, B./Niemeier, W.-D. 1997, “Milet 1994-1995: Projekt ‘Minoisch-

Raaflaub, K.A. 1998a, “A historian’s headache: How to read ‘Homeric

Tigay, J.H. 1982, The evolution of the Gilgamesh epic, Philadelphia.

ABSA The Annual of the British School at Athens.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen