[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review]
This handsomely produced volume fulfills the promise of its title: it accompanies its intended reader, equipped with a basic knowledge of the ancient Mediterranean, into an exploration of various aspects of a topic often fraught with easy generalizations and stereotypical representations. As such, it is a highly welcome and well-prepared publication that was eagerly anticipated.
This companion volume unfolds in thirteen chapters (each with its own bibliography and separate illustration listing) divided in three thematic parts. Parts 1 and 5—introduction and epilogue respectively—are not counted here as “parts”, also following the editors’ reference to three sections in their own account of the book’s outline.
Preceded by preface and lists of illustrations and abbreviations (ix–xvii), the concise introduction by the editors, Lynne Kvapil and Kim Shelton is a general overview of the topic and the volume’s outline, followed by a chronological table (4) and three maps (19–21) accompanying all chapters. Although some information could have been even more effective at the beginning of the chapter, the text quite successfully initiates non-specialists into the basic background of Aegean prehistory.
Part 2 (“Material and Textual Evidence”) includes overviews of defensive architecture (chapter 2 by Tomáš Alušík), weaponry (chapter 3 by Ioannis Georganas and Kvapil, textual evidence (chapter 4 by Cynthia Shelmerdine) and iconographic evidence (chapter 5 by Margaretha Kramer-Hajos). All chapters are well structured and satisfactory in content.
Alušík offers a chronologically arranged survey of fortified/defensible sites summarizing most published information. Certain choices are not satisfactorily explained (e.g. of Anatolian sites, Hissarlik/ Troy is included, but not Çeşme-Bağlararası near Smyrne or Kanlıgeçıt in eastern Thrace); there is only passing reference to the question of Anatolian influence in Mycenaean fortifications (in the Argolid) (70, n. 250); references to Cretan “megalithic”/“oncolithic” structures (50–51) could have been accompanied by citing criticism regarding the date and interpretation of many examples;[1] and there are no references to the new excavations directed by Elena Kountouri at Gla (Boeotia).[2] Discussion is overall balanced, highlighting difficulties in inferring defensive strategies from fortifications, but one would wish that the diversity of such defensive systems would have been more stressed.
Georganas and Kvapil’s archaeological survey of weaponry examines different categories of offensive and defensive equipment, and is similar in content and structure to a similar handbook chapter published previously by Georganas.[3] However, their new contribution is better illustrated and moderately updated and enhanced.
Shelmerdine provides a remarkably comprehensive overview of our only accessible authentic Aegean Bronze Age texts in Linear B. This is the best synthetic treatment of this evidence available so far. Different sections treat military equipment and personnel. The decision to discuss specific groups of documents by find-spot (132–136) deserves special praise, as it highlights the significance of such information for textual interpretation. It would have been also useful to include an assessment of Kyle Mahoney’s discussion of e-pi-ko-wo[4] (a key term in understanding the so-called o-ka tablets from Pylos, referring to groups of men watching over the Messenian coast) favoring its interpretation as /epikorwoi/ ‘military helpers = allies’ (like later Greek ἐπίκουρος).
Kramer-Hajos’ survey of combat imagery is also arranged chronologically. Unsurprisingly, it focuses on the rich Late Bronze Aegean evidence, mostly on early Mycenaean imagery (from rich funerary contexts in the Peloponnese) drawing on Neopalatial Cretan prototypes (1700–1450 BCE), or on the intriguing Post-palatial (12th century) re-emergence of such themes, especially with unique iconographic ‘idioms’ (such as the pictorial pottery showing explicit naval warfare from Kynos in east Lokris, central Greece). She is successful in laying out emic evidence for the actual use of military equipment and the ideology that framed such use (explored also in chapters 8–9).
Contributions in Part 3 (“Warfare in Practice and Perception”) depart from previous surveys to discuss the practice of warfare and the significance of pertinent social roles and practices. Barry Molloy and Jesse Obert offer us a comprehensive diachronic survey of Aegean warfare in chapters 6 and 7. Although evidence presented in Part 2 is necessarily briefly reprised, the aim here is to reconstruct practice. An array of evidence is used (with plenty of cross-references to previous chapters 2–5) to present how warfare was conducted and how important it was for Aegean Bronze Age cultures. Chapters 8–9 address important aspects of the social context of warfare. Angelos Papadopoulos surveys the “warrior ethos” (as a set of ideas orbiting around the concept of violence and the status that can be generated from it) in all Bronze Age phases. Although his ‘warrior’ ethos includes hunting (268), one misses a more focused exploration of that conceptual link (nonetheless mentioned passim in this and other chapters). Stephen O’Brien focuses on the closing Late Bronze Age (c.1400–1100 BCE) phases and is the only chapter that also expands into the Early Iron Age (c.1100–700 BCE). He discusses how scalar or qualitative developments in warfare may not be directly mirrored in socio-economic changes; by questioning the correlation between political centralization and military organization, he suggests greater flexibility in how we relate seminal ‘events’ (the collapse of the Mycenaean administrations) to developments in warfare across the Bronze Age/ Iron Age ‘transition’.
All authors of chapters 2–9 broadly agree on the most significant points of diachronic change in Aegean warfare and their components: the significance of Early Bronze Age fortifications, metal weapons synchronized with the first glimpses of ‘warrior/hunter’ imagery, the rise of “specialist” warriors in the Middle Bronze Age, important political developments, indicated by the rise of palatial administrations with military interests (but compare the more critical attitude by O’Brien, 305–312), as well as Post-palatial evidence for a reinvention of the warrior “persona”. Despite the overlap, the discussion of these topics from various perspectives is valuable to the reader—specialist or not.
The three chapters comprising Part 4 (“Historical Questions”) deal with historical phenomena (eventful or not) in which warfare may have played a role: ‘Minoan Thalassocracy’ (chapter 10 by Natalie Abell), the Ahhiyawa-related Hittite texts (chapter 11 by Trevor Bryce) and the historicity of the Trojan War saga (chapter 12 by Shannon LaFayette Hogue). All three are excellent treatments of their topics, well researched and, in this reviewer’s opinion, quite representative of views current among most Aegean prehistorians—very well suited to a companion volume. Authors deserve praise for their effort to extract information related to warfare and conflict, while their discussions stand on their own as valuable contributions.
Natalie Abell offers an admirable treatment of the so-called ‘Minoan Thalassocracy’ concept highlighting the subtle qualities and the complexity of the ‘Minoanization’ phenomenon of the later Middle/ incipient Late Bronze Age: it was diverse, and overtly dynamic, as various Cretan and extra-Cretan agents were at play on various levels. Abell reviews pertinent evidence for conflict, namely weapons, fortifications and Minoanized ‘military’ imagery, therefore ending the chapter in good balance: this image we gain of intense interaction need not have excluded violence—a viewpoint in agreement with the advertisement of combat and related activities broadly observed in the Aegean at the time.
Trevor Bryce is arguably within his comfort zone (Hittite-Ahhiyawan), but structures the discussion in a way that highlights topics relevant to (potential) conflict between Hatti and Ahhiyawa (now almost unanimously identified with an Aegean Late Bronze Age—apparently palatial—power): the nature of the relations between Hatti and Ahhiyawa, the seagoing capacity of Ahhiyawa (obviously relevant to the prospect of warfare) and specific topics, especially related to some Hittite-Ahhiyawa friction around Millawanda (later Miletus). Bryce eloquently presents several earlier suggestions about specific topics (e.g. “Hiyawa-men” as Mycenaean-Anatolian mercenaries let loose after Hittites restored control of the Miletus region; or that the Ahhiyawan ‘ships’ banned from reaching Assyria were actually shiploads of Ahhiyawan mercenaries), before confronting the question of whether the Hittite documentation can provide us with any significant evidence for a historical Trojan War as known from later Greek sources—it does not (444).
Shannon LaFayette Hogue’s survey of the historicity of the Trojan saga is systematic and multifaceted, going through the literary evidence and its historically plausible aspects, potentially relevant archaeological from Late Bronze Age Troy (Hissarlik) and Hittite texts mentioning Wilusa (very likely Troy [W]ilios) and the evidence (textual and archaeological) for Ahhiyawan/Mycenaean involvement in western Anatolia, exploring also potential causes for an Ahhiyawa-Wilusa conflict. This, it must be said, all departs from the features of the mythical Trojan War, whose scale, duration and details belong to the realm of epic narrative. Hogue is well aware that the amount and areas of potential distortion remain unknown, and, therefore, even the working hypothesis of an historical kernel becomes extremely problematic. Her closing plea to abandon our “myopic focus” on the problem (479) is refreshing.
Last, but not least, in a short Epilogue, the editors wrap up the volume offering some concluding notes and suggestions of areas where further research is needed, such as the conflation of combat with other activities, martial training and the relationship between women and warfare. Already in the year since the volume has been published, some relevant topics have attracted further attention.[5]
Illustrations have been well chosen and distributed across chapters. The decision to reproduce seal images covering 1/3–1/2 of a printed page (e.g. 165, fig. 5.1, 170, fig. 5.3, 175–176, figs. 5.6–5.9) was excellent, but lack of scales can be misleading. Prospective readers, especially those intending to purchase separate chapters of the e-book format, must note that chapters can cite also figures appearing elsewhere in the volume (e.g. chapter 3 cites many figures from chapters 5–9). Use of some Creative Commons images is also understandable, although one is oddly lit (189, fig. 5.12). The choice to illustrate finds less known to non-specialists is always refreshing, but the excavation photograph of the Thebes corslet (312, fig. 9.1) does not aid comprehension; the Dendra (Argolid) example would (once more) give a better impression of what such metal armor looked like.
Typos are rare, and mostly insignificant (e.g. 127, n.54: “19779” for “1979”; 494, n. 5: “Papadapoulos” for “Papadopoulos”; 447, paragraph 1, line 4: we are not “180+” but “150+” years since Schliemann’s excavations at Troy). Certain abbreviations are italicized when listed (AhT, CMS, CTH), but not when used in the text.
Some re-arrangements might have increased the volume’s usefulness. For instance, the links (conceptual, iconographical or in terms of equipment) between warfare and hunting (as well as athletics or other agonistic events), although indeed frequently noted (especially when iconographic evidence is at the fore, e.g. in chapters 5 and 8), would be more effectively dealt with by a specific focused discussion. Such links might hint at ‘warrior’ being a variant of a broader ‘action-figure’ identity. Again, the evidence is there—only somewhat scattered.
Perhaps the only substantial complaint would be the absence, acknowledged by the editors (10, n. 38) of a survey of bioarchaeological evidence (stress and trauma in hard tissues), despite the availability of pertinent evidence and expertise. Such data, exactly because of their often complex interpretation, deserved separate (and specialist) treatment.
Neither this nor any of the aforementioned comments can obscure the quality of this volume, which will remain a standard introduction to almost all facets of the topic to a broader readership, facilitating the integration of Aegean prehistory to comparative studies and broad syntheses on warfare, ancient or diachronic.
Authors and Titles
Preface (Lynne A. Kvapil and Kim Shelton)
Part 1 “Introduction”
Introduction to Warfare in the Bronze Age Aegean (Lynne A. Kvapil and Kim Shelton)
Part 2 “Material and Textual Evidence”
Fortifications and Defensive Architecture (Tomáš Alušík)
Weaponry (Ioannis Georganas and Lynne A. Kvapil)
Mycenaean Warfare: The Evidence of the Linear B Tablets (Cynthia W. Shelmerdine)
Iconography (Margaretha Kramer-Hajos)
Part 3 “Warfare in Practice and Perception”
Warfare in the EBA to the Beginning of the LBA (Barry Molloy)
Warfare in LH IIIA–C (Jesse Obert and Barry Molloy)
An Aegean Warrior Ethos? (Angelos Papadopoulos)
Warfare and “Social Complexity” from LH III to the Early Iron Age (Stephen O’Brien)
Part 4 “Historical Questions”
The Myth of the Minoan Thalassocracy: A Review of Evidence for Maritime Interaction, Power, and Violence in the Insular and Coastal Aegean (Natalie Abell)
Ahhiyawa (Trevor Bryce)
The Trojan War, a Trojan War, or Some Trojan Wars? Considering the Historicity of the Trojan Wa (Shannon LaFayette Hogue)
Part 5 “Epilogue”
Warfare in the Bronze Age Aegean: Rules of Future Engagement (Lynne A. Kvapil and Kim Shelton)
Notes
[1] T. Kalantzopoulou, Taking the High Road: Prehistoric Habitation and Exploitation in the Mountains of East Crete: New Evidence from an Extensive Survey (Louvain-la-Neuve 2022), 4, 93–94.
[2] Reports in Praktika 2018 onwards.
[3] “Weapons and warfare”, in E. Cline (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000–1000 BC), New York-Oxford 2010, 305–314.
[4] “Mycenaean e-pi-ko-wo and alphabetic Greek ἐπίκουρος revisited” Kadmos 56 (2017), 39–88.
[5] Two articles in the latest BSA 119 (2024) examine iconographic (and other) evidence for weapon-bearing females in the Aegean (Late) Bronze Age: Nicoletta Antognelli Michel “The ‘sword bearers’: Women bearing swords? Rethinking a group of figures in Mycenaean pictorial vase painting”, 297–336; Stephen O’Brien “Sword is a ploughshare? Interpreting the ‘armed woman’ in Late Bronze Age Aegean art”, 363–385.