HISTORIA ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ALTE GESCHICHTE REVUE D'HISTOIRE ANCIENNE JOURNAL OF ANCIENT HISTORY RIVISTA DI STORIA ANTICA UNTER

MITWIRKUNG VON T. ROBERT S. BROUGHTON / CHAPEL HILL. N. C. KARL CHRIST / MARBURG JULIETTE ERNST / PARIS HEINZ HEINEN / TRIER FRANCO SARTORI / PADOVA HERAUSGEGEBEN VON FRANCOIS PASCHOUD / GENEVE KURT RAAFLAUB / PROVIDENCE, R. I. HILDEGARD TEMPORINI / TUBINGEN GEROLD WALSER / BASEL BAND XL 1991 HEFT 1

FRANZ STEINER VERLAG STUTTGART

A POSSIBLE HITTITE EMBARGO AGAINST THE MYCENAEANS * An enormous disparity exists between the numbers of Egyptian/Near Eastern objects and those of Central Anatolian Hittite origin which have been uncovered in Late Bronze Age contexts in the Aegean area. There is a similar disparity between the numbers of Egyptian/Near Eastern objects and those of Mycenaean origin which have been uncovered in Late Bronze Age contexts in Central Anatolia. Such discrepancies are surprising, for the regions involved had direct and similar access to the principal maritime trade routes encircling the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean. This paper presents a variety of textual and artifactual evidence which suggest that an economic embargo best accounts for the poverty of Central Anatolian Hittite artifacts in the Mycenaean world and for the parallel lack of Mycenaean artifacts in the Hittite homelands of Central Anatolia. 1. The Hittites of Central Anatolia are the only major Near East/Eastern Mediterranean power not well-represented by objects in the Late Bronze Age Aegean. Of the twenty-one 'Hittite' objects discovered in Late Bronze Age contexts within the Aegean area, only six may be Central Anatolian Hittite. They are: a sphinx statuette from MM III-LM I Ayia Triadha, Crete; a stag rhyton from LH I Mycenae; a 'Smiting God' statuette from Nezero, Thessaly; a semi-bulla from LH III Ialysos, Rhodes; a semi-bulla from LH IIIA2 Mycenae; and a cylinder seal from LH IIIC Ialysos, Rhodes. These objects are scattered over * This paper stems from research conducted for the author's dissertation. Suppor t from the Archaeological Institute of America, the American Schools of Oriental Research, and the U.S. Educational Foundation in Greece is gratefully acknowledged, as is use of resear ch facilities at the American School of Classical Studies in Athens and the University of Pennsyl vania. G. M. Beckman, T. R. Bryce, M. J. Cline, D. Harris, G. L. Huxley, B. B. Kling, A. B. K napp, J. D. Muhly, T. G. Palaima, and C. W. Shelmerdine kindly read earlier, vastly differin g drafts of this article. The editorial comments and suggestions made by these scholars are great ly appreciated, but they cannot be held responsible for statements and conclusions made by the a uthor. Texts cited are illustrative rather than comprehensive. A preliminary version of this paper was presented in January 1989 at the First Joint Archaeological Congress in Baltimor e, MD (cf. AJA 93 [1989] 272). Abbreviations used in this article are as follows: AJA American Journal of Archae ology; AnatSt Anatolian Studies; JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies; JKF Jahrbuch fur kleina siatische Forschung; JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies; KBo Keilschrifttexte aus Boghaz koi; KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazkoi; OJA Oxford Journal of Archaeology; OpAth Opuscula Atheniensia; PAPS Proceedings of the American Philosophical Socie ty; PCPS Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society; PZ Prahistorische Zeitschrif t; ZfA

Zeitschrift fur A rchaologie. Historia, Band XL/1 (1991) Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart

ERIC CLINE the Late Bronze Age Aegean both areally and temporally, from LH/LM I to LH IIIC and from Mainland Greece to Rhodes. Moreover, their origins are scattered up and down the spectrum of Hittite history, from the Old Kingdom to the end of the New Empire. Few can be even tenuously linked to the activities of specific Hittite kings. The six objects constitute less than one percent of the 800 Egyptian and Near Eastern objects found in the Late Bronze Age Aegean. Even distant Mesopotamia is represented by more objects, approximately thirty-five, while Cyprus is represented by almost two hundred, and Egypt and Syro-Palestine close to three hundred each.1 Artistic and architectural features in the Aegean have often been attributed to Central Anatolian Hittite influences. These include Cyclopean masonry, the directaccess gate, corbel-vaulted galleries and underground spring passages, and the use of lions in the Lion gate of Mycenae. Such influences may have come to the Aegean directly from Central Anatolia, but may have arrived also via intermediary peoples and from intermediary sites in West Anatolia or Cilicia.2 A parallel situation concerns certain works of Greek literature which have been linked by scholars to earlier Hittite compositions: for instance, Hesiod's Theogony and the Hittite Epic of Kumarbi. Some may have been transmitted to the Aegean via the Black Sea, Cilicia, or West Anatolia. Others, such as the Kumarbi myths, can be traced to an earlier common Hurrian origin.3 These are more likely to have reached the Aegean via the port cities of North Syria, with or without the intervention of the Hittites. 2. The Mycenaeans are the only major Aegean/Eastern Mediterranean Late Bronze Age power not well-represented by objects in Central Anatolia. A variety of objects from Cyprus, North Syria, Egypt, and Mesopotamia have been found in Late Bronze Age contexts within Central Anatolia. Mercantile access to the Central Anatolian highlands was clearly possible. Sites in Central Anatolia reporting such objects include Masat (Cypriote White Slip and North Syrian pottery), Alisar (North Syrian pottery), Alaca Hoyuk (North 1 E. Cline, "Hittite Objects in the Bronze Age Aegean," AnatSt(submitted); idem, Orientalia in the Late Bronze Age Aegean, Ph.D . Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania ( in progress). 2 N. C. Scoufopoulos, Mycenaean Citadels (Goteborg 1971) 101-106; N. K. Sandars, The Sea Peoples (London 1985) 62-68; J. G. Macqueen, The Hittites and Their Contemporari es in Asia Minor (London 1986) 64-73; T. R. Bryce, "The Nature of Mycenaean Involvement in Western Anatolia," Historia 38 (1989) 13. 3 R. D. Barnett, "The Epic of Kumarbi and the Theogony of Hesiod," JHS 65 (1945) 100-101; H. G. Guterbock, "The Hittite Version of the Hurrian Kumarbi Myths: Oriental For erunners of Hesiod," AJA 52 (1948) 123-34; also V. Haas, "Medea und Jason im Lichte hethitis cher Quellen," Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 26 (1978) 241-53; W. Burkert, "Ori ental and Greek Mythology: The Meeting of Parallels," in J. Bremmer, ed., Interpretati ons of Greek Mythology (London 1987) 10-40; E. T. Vermeule, "Baby Aigisthos and the Bronze Ag

e," PCPS33 (1987) 143.

A possible Hittite Embargo against the Mycenaeans Syrian pottery), Fraktin (two Egyptian scarabs and two Old Babylonian cylinder seals) and Boghazkoy (North Syrian pottery; Cypriote White Slip and possible Monochrome ware; Egyptian scarabs; an Egyptian red granite inscribed stele of the Nineteenth Dynasty; a plain Egyptian alabaster vase; and a fragment of an obsidian vase with the name of the earlier Hyksos king Khyan in a thirteenth century B. C. context). Sites elsewhere in Anatolia reporting such imports include Tarsus, Mersin, Kabarsa, and Kirikkale (Cypriote White Slip II, Base Ring, and Monochrome vessels; Middle Kingdom Egyptian objects).4 Despite several decades of intensive excavation within Central Anatolia, Mycenaean artifacts have not come to light in quantity. The seven fragmentary LH IIIA2-B vessels at Masat constitute the only substantial group of such objects in Central Anatolia. Only Fraktin (LH IIIC stirrup jar and a possible Aegean knife), Godelesin Hoyuk (LH IIIC sherd), Uc Hoyuk (possible Mycenaean sherd) and Boghazkoy (possible Aegean belt and sherds from a Hittite bowl with a drawing of a possible Aegean warrior) report additional objects of Aegean manufacture, and several of these are debatable. In addition, the stampseal from Boghazkoy which Laroche suggested as possibly sub-Mycenaean is more likely Phrygian, as the original excavators thought, and the sherds found at Akalan, once considered to be Mycenaean imports, are apparently not.5 All but one of the Mycenaean vessels at Masat come from a level dated to the thirteenth century B. C. This is a time, according to the excavator, when the city had lost its former importance and was possibly in the hands of the neighboring Kashka rather than the Hittites. The finds at Fraktin similarly may postdate the Hittite New Kingdom. Not a single Mycenaean sherd has yet been found at Boghazkoy, capital city of the Hittites, although it has been under almost continuous excavation for the past eighty years. Sherratt and 4 N. Ozguc, "Finds at Firakdin," Belleten 19 (1955) 304-307, figs. 32-33, 36-37; K. Bittel, Hattusha: The Capital of the Hittites (New York 1970) 113-19, with references on 165, figs. 27-28; T. Ozguc, Masat Hoyuk I: Excavations at Masat Hoyuk and Investigations in its Vicinity (Ankara 1978) 66; P. Astrom, "Cyprus and Troy," OpAth 13 (1980) 26; T. Ozguc, Ma sat Hoyuk II: A Hittite Center Northeast of Bogazkoy (Ankara 1982) 102 and notes 33-35. 5 E. Laroche, "Importations myceniennes a Boghaz-koy?," Minos 3 (1954) 8-9, f. 1 ; N. Ozguc, Belleten (1955) 303, f. 23; J. Mellaart, "Anatolian Trade with Europe and Anatol ian Geography and Culture Provinces in the Late Bronze Age," AnatSt 18 (1968) 188-89; H. Frank fort, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient (London 1970) 236-37, f. 275; R. M. Boehm er, Die Kleinfunde von Bogazkoy (Berlin 1972) 70-71, 73, Taf. X (no. 179); K. Bittel, "T onschale mit Ritzzeichnung von Bogazkoy," Revue Archeologique (1976) 9-14, figs. 1-3; C. Mee, "Aegean Trade and Settlement in Anatolia in the Second Millennium B. C," AnatSt 28 (1978 ) 124, 128, 132-33, 147, 150; T. Ozguc, Masat I 66, 127-28, pls. 83-84, Dl; Idem, Masat II 1 00, 102-103, pl.

47:5-6; H. G. Guterbock, "Hittites and Akhaeans: A New Look", PAPS 128 (1984) 11 5, f. 6; R. M. Boehmer and H. G. Guterbock, Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Bogazkoy (Ber lin 1987) 88-89, Taf. XXXIV (no. 277a-d); E. Bloedow, 'The Trojan War and Late Helladic II IC," PZ 63 (1988) 40-41.

ERIC CLINE Crouwel are correct in concluding that there is "a strong inverse correlation between the amount of Late Helladic IIIA-B pottery and (the) degree of Hittite control" in Central Anatolia.6 3. The Mycenaeans are the only major Late Bronze Age Aegean/Eastern Mediterranean power not well attested with regard to trade in Central Anatolian Hittite texts. The Hittite texts found at Boghazkoy in Central Anatolia contain numerous mentions of trade and contact between Central Anatolian Hittites and other peoples of the Near East/Eastern Mediterranean area. These include Cypriotes (KBo I 26; KBo XII 38; KUB IV 4); Assyrians (KBo I 14; KUB XXIII 102); Babylonians (KBo 1 10; KBo XVIII 173; KUB III 71; KUB III 72); Mitannians (KBo I 1; KBo I 3 + KUB III 17); other Syro-Palestinians (KUB XXIII 1; KUB III 14); and Egyptians (KBo II 11; KBo V 6; KUB III 34; KUB III 63; KUB III 67; KUB III 70; KUB XIV 8; KUB XXI 38; KUB XXXIV 2; KBo I 7 + KUB III 121; KBo I 29 + KBo IX 43; KUB III 37 + KBo I 17 + KUB III 57). Texts found at Amarna in Egypt (EA 41, 42, 44 and the Papyrus Anastasi IV no. 17 and IV no. 20), Ras Shamra-Ugarit in North Syria (RS 17.130, RS 17.132, RS 17.137, RS 20.212 and UT 2060), and elsewhere in the Near East/Eastern Mediterranean (e.g. Dur-Kurigalzu: IM 50966B) are also concerned with trade and contact with the Hittites of Central Anatolia. They list specific objects exchanged, including fabrics, furniture, grain, horses, jewels, and copper, gold and silver. One text found at Ugarit (RS 17.59) records the existence of a bit tupassi (house of documents) established by Ras ShamraUgarit at Hattusas. For those who equate the Mycenaeans with the Ahhiyawans of Hittite texts,7 a Hittite inventory list found at Boghazkoy (KBo 18:181 rev. 33) men 6 E. S. Sherratt and J. H. Crouwel, "Mycenaean Pottery from Cilicia in Oxford," OJA 6 (1987) 345. A similar inverse correlation between LH IIIA-B pottery and the degr ee of Hittite control may be noted in inland North Syria. Importation of Mycenaean pottery in this region apparently ceases coincident with the beginnings of Hittite military and politic al domination, in the time of Suppiluliumas I. Cf. F. H. Stubbings, Mycenaean Pottery from the Lev ant (Cambridge 1951) 104. Liverani's arguments to the contrary (M. Liverani, "La Ceramica e i T esti: Commercio Miceneo e Politica Orientale," in M. Marazzi, S. Tusa, and L. Vagnetti , eds., Traffici Micenei nel Mediterraneo: Problemi storici e documentazione archeologica [Tarant o 1986] 407) are not compelling. 7 On this debate, see most recently H. G. Guterbock, 'The Hittites and the Aegea n World: 1. The Ahhiyawa Problem Reconsidered," AJA 87 (1983) 133-38; M. J. Mellink, 'The Hi ttites and the Aegean World: 2. Archaeological Comments on Ahhiyawa-Achaians in Western Ana tolia," AJA 87 (1983) 138-43; J. Mellaart, "Hatti, Arzawa and Ahhiyawa: A Review of the

Present Stalemate in Historical and Geographical Studies," in Philia Epi Eis Georgion E. Mylonan, v. A (Athens 1986), 74-84; W. Helck, "Zur Keftiu-, Alasia-, und Ahhijawa-Frage," in H .-G. Buchholz, ed., Agaische Bronzezeit (Darmstadt 1987) 218-26; T. R. Bryce, "Ahhiyawans and M ycenaeans

A possible Hittite Embargo against the Mycenaeans tions a copper vessel (?) from Ahhiyawa. Second, a letter (KBo II 11 rev. 11' 12') sent by Hattusilis III to an unknown king (perhaps the king of Arzawa) contains an oblique reference to 'trade' with Ahhiyawa: "Concerning the gift of the king of Ahhiyawa, about which you wrote to me, I do not know how the situation is and whether his messenger has brought anything or not." Third, in the Tawagalawas letter (KUB XIV 3, I 53ff) Hattusilis III complains specifically that when the messenger from the King of Ahhiyawa arrived, "he brought me no [greetings] and [he brought] me no present."8 These are the only two references to trade between Ahhiyawans and Hittites, despite the fairly voluminous correspondence exchanged between the two powers over a period of more than two hundred years. If the Mycenaeans are not the Ahhiyawans, there are no Hittite texts which recognize the existence of the Mycenaeans, let alone mention trade. 4. The Hittites of Central Anatolia are not mentioned in the Mycenaean Linear B texts. A number of personal names in the Mycenaean Linear B tablets found at Knossos (KN), Pylos (PY), and Mycenae (MY) have been interpreted as having Egyptian and Near Eastern etymologies. Examples include: mi-sa-rajo = "Egyptian" (KN F 841); a3-ku-pi-ti-jo = "Memphite" or "Egyptian" (KN Db 1105); a-ra-si-jo = "Alasian" (KN Df 1229, KN Fh 369, KN X 1463); and ku-pi-ri-jo = "Cypriote" (KN Fh 347 +, KN Ga517 +, PY Cn 131). Other words in the Linear B texts are Near Eastern/Semitic loanwords and reflect contact with the Eastern Mediterranean: sa-sa-ma = "sesame" (MY Ge602, MY Ge605, MY Ge606); ku-mi-no = "caraway seed" (MY Ge602 +) ; ku-paro = "cyperus" (a spice) (KN 465, KN Ga517 + ); ku-ru-so = "gold" (KN K 872, PY Ta714, PY Ta716); and ki-to = "chiton" (KN Lc536, KN L 693).9 There are no mentions of Hittite peoples or objects, or of trade with the An Anatolian Viewpoint," OJA 8 (1989) 297-310. 8 F. Sommer, Die Ahhijawa-Urkunden (Munich 1932) 242-44, Taf. IV 1; H. G. Guterb ock, "Neue Ahhijawa-Texte," ZfA 43 (1936) 321; G. L. Huxley, Achaeans and Hittites (O xford 1960) 3 (no. 4), 10 (no. 22); S. Kosak, Hittite Inventory Texts (Heidelberg 1982) 121, 1 24, 276; C. Zaccagnini, "Aspects of Ceremonial Exchange in the Near East During the Late Second Millenni um B. C," in M. Rowlands, M. T. Larsen, and K. Kristiansen, eds., Centre and Periph ery in the Ancient World (Cambridge 1987) 58, 64; Bryce, OJA (1989) 300; E. Peltenburg, "Gr eeting Gifts and Luxury Faience: A Context for Late Mycenaean Orientalising," in Science and Archaeology: Bronze Age in the Aegean and Adjacent Areas (forthcoming). 9 O. Landau, Mykenisch-Griechische Personennamen (Goteborg 1958)272; M. C. Astou r, "Greek Names in the Semitic World and Semitic Names in the Greek World," JNES 23 (1964) 194; Idem, Helleno-Semitica (Leiden 1967) 340-44; Idem, "Ugarit and the A

egean," in H. A. Hoffner, Jr., ed, Orient and Occident (Neukirchen 1973) 23-24; M. Ventris and J. Chadwick, Documents in Mycenaean Greek (Cambridge 1973) 98, 135-36, 199, 219, 223, 2 28, 320, 330, 344, 346, 533, 537, 554, 557-58, 561, 582.

ERIC CLINE Hittites, in the Linear B texts. Names previously identified as 'Hittite' are no w associated with sites located on the western coast of Anatolia: mi-ra-ti-ja = "Miletus" (PY Aa798 + , PY Ab573); ze-purra3 = "Halikarnassus" (PY Aa 61); ki-ni-di-ja = "Knidus" (PY Aa 792, PY Ab 189, PY An 292).10 Not one refers to an area in inland Central Anatolia. Moreover, neither Homer nor later Greek writers ever mention the Hittites. 5. The Hittites of Central Anatolia established trade embargoes during the Late Bronze Age. A text discovered at Boghazkoy (KUB XXIII 1) records a treaty between Tudhaliyas IV and Sausgamuwa of Amurru. In the treaty, Sausgamuwa is ordered by Tudhaliyas IV to implement an embargo against the Assyrians. He is instructed in particular (IV 23) not to allow the ships of the Ahhiyawans "to sail to him"." The sanctions are directed primarily at Assyria rather than Ahhiyawa. Nevertheless, a specific directive is given to blockade Ahhiyawan ships and to prevent the overland transport of Ahhiyawan goods. If the Ahhiyawans are the Mycenaeans, the text is evidence of a direct embargo against Mycenaean goods. At the very least, the text shows that economic embargoes existed in the Late Bronze Age and were implemented by the Hittites on at least one occasion. Hittite rulers apparently considered it their prerogative to control the activit ies of merchants operating within the Hittite political sphere of influence. A second example comes from a text dating to the early thirteenth century B. C. found at Ugarit (RS 17.130). The text records Hattusilis Ill's response to complaints registered by officials from Ugarit. In this document, Hattusilis III declares that Hittite merchants operating out of the Cilician port of Ura would henceforth be subject to the following regulations: they could live and trade in Ugarit only during part of the year and must return to their own homes in Ura during the winter, they could not own real estate in Ugarit, and they could not lend money at excessive interest rates.12 10 Landau, Mykenisch-Griechische Personennamen 271-73; Ventris and Chadwick, Doc uments 159, 166, 554, 561, 593; S. Hiller, "RA-MI-NI-JA: Mykenisch-Kleinasiatische Bezi ehungen und die Linear B-Texte," Ziva Antika 25 (1975) 388-412, esp. 398, 404-405; J. Chadwi ck, 'The Women of Pylos," in J.-P. Olivier and T. G. Palaima, eds., Texts, Tablets and Sc ribes (Salamanca 1988) 80, 81, 84, 91; Bryce, Historia (1989) 13-14. Ze-pu2-ra3 is identified wit h Halikarnassus by Chadwick (above, 84), who cites Strabo 14.16 (656), Steph. Byz. s. v., and other links with the eastern Aegean in the Pylos texts. 11 Sommer, Die Ahhiyawa-Urkunden 320-27, Taf. VIII; Guterbock, AJA(1983) 136; C. Kuhne and H. Otten, Der Sausgamuwa Vertrag (Wiesbaden 1971) 15-17. Cf. also J. Mellaar t, "Some Reflections on the History and Geography of Western Anatolia in the Late Fourtee

nth and Thirteenth Centuries B. C," JKF 10 (1986) 229. 12 J. Nougayrol, Le Palais Royal d'Ugarit IV (Paris 1956) 102-105.

A possible Hittite Embargo against the Mycenaeans ' A Hittite Embargo Against the Mycenaeans? The above points may be summarized as follows: 1) The Hittites of Central Anatolia are not mentioned in the Linear B texts of the Mycenaeans. They are the only Eastern Mediterranean peoples not well-represented by objects in the Late Bronze Age Aegean; 2) The Mycenaeans are not well attested in Hittite texts with respect to trade. They are the only major Late Bronze Age Aegean/ Eastern Mediterranean peoples not well-represented by goods in Central Anatolia; 3) Textual evidence attests that trade embargoes and other limits on mercantile activities were established by the Hittites during the Late Bronze Age. Why is there extensive artifactual and textual evidence for trade between Central Anatolian Hittites and all other major Near East/Eastern Mediterranean powers during the Late Bronze Age, and yet no evidence for trade between Central Anatolian Hittites and Mycenaeans during this same period? Furthermore, why was the trade and contact established earlier in the second millennium between Minoan Crete and Central Anatolia not continued by the Mycenaeans and Hittites? Previous hypotheses attempted to explain the apparent lack of Hittite-Mycenaean trade by citing geographic or demographic factors, ignorance of existence, an accidental lack of discoveries, a trade in perishable goods, or a simple lack of interest or need for reciprocal trade.13 None of these is completely satisfactory, as can be briefly shown. First, geographic and demographic factors clearly presented no problems to Bronze Age merchants wishing to travel to or from Central Anatolia, as indicated by the artifactual and textual evidence for trade between Hittites and Cypriotes, Syrians, Mesopotamians and Egyptians. Moreover, the Hittites had control of or access to routes leading to all coasts of Anatolia and to the international port of Ras Shamra-Ugarit in North Syria.14 Second, the Mycenaeans and the Hittites certainly knew of each other and their goods through contact in West Anatolia or in the ports of Cilicia and North Syria.15 Third, th e 13 Cf. Mellaart, AnatSt (1968) 188-89, 192; J. D. Muhly, "Hittites and Ahhijawa Redomitus," Historia 23 (1974) 138; Idem, 'The Hittites and the Aegean xpedition 16 (1974) 10; R. Hope Simpson, Mycenaean Greece(Park Ridge, NJ 1981) 205. s comments (Traffici Micenei 410) on perishable Hittite goods are not directed by ds Hittite trade with the Aegean but are applicable. Achaeans: World," E Liverani' him towar

14 J. Yakar, "Hittite Involvement in Western Anatolia," AnatSt 26 (1976) 124-27; I. Singer, "Western Anatolia in the Thirteenth Century B. C. According to the Hittite Sourc es," AnatSt 33 (1983) 206, 208; A. Archi, "Anatolia in the Second Millennium B. C," in A. Archi , ed., Circulation of Goods in Non-Palatial Context in the Ancient Near East (Roma 1984) 204; R. H. Beal, 'The History of Kizzuwatna and the Date of the Sunassura Treaty," Orientalia 55 (1986) 425-26, 445; Macqueen, Hittites 37-39, 54-55 ;T. R. Bryce, 'The Boundaries of Hatti and Hittite Border

Policy," Tel Aviv 13 (1986-87) 97. 15 A Hittite pilgrim flask from Miletus (M. J. Mellink, "Archaeology in Asia Min or," AJA 79 [1975] 207, pl. 39 f. 9) indicates an instance of possible Mycenaean-Hittite con tact in West Anatolia. Cf. Guterbock PAPS (1984) 115, figs. 1-5 for additional evidence. At R as Shamra-Uga

ERIC CLINE lack of Hittite objects in the Aegean and the lack of Mycenaean objects in Central Anatolia is unlikely to be accidental, considering the intensity of excavation in both the Aegean and Anatolia. Fourth, if perishable goods were being exchanged between Central Anatolia and the Late Bronze Age Aegean, there should be textual evidence of these transactions, which there is not. Fifth, it would be surprising if there were a complete lack of Aegean interest i n Hittite goods and raw materials, considering the relative abundance of metal resources in Hittite-controlled Anatolia and the ever-present need of the Mycenaeans for such metals, in particular copper and tin. If tin were indeed available in sufficient quantities in southeastern Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age, this should have been the primary area to supply the Mycenaeans, rather than distant Afghanistan or Cornwall.16 An economic embargo may be an argument ex silentio, but textual evidence clearly shows that strict trade policies were implemented by the Hittite governm ent. Harsh economic strategies were not difficult to enforce in Central Anatolia, due to the centralized nature of the government. Economic sanctions against the Mycenaeans might be seen as a reaction to the rapid advances made by Mycenaean traders into both the country and the economy of West Anatolia, not to mention the rest of the Eastern Mediterranean.17 Such sanctions would have been part of a sustained effort by the Hittites, combining military might with economic pressure, to stop or limit the activities of these 'upstart traders' from overseas. The hypothesis of economic sanctions can be strengthened and expanded if the Mycenaeans are equated with the Ahhiyawans. Hittite records provide evidence of relations more often strained than friendly between Ahhiyawans and Hittites.18 More importantly, it was apparently a policy of Ahhiyawa to actively support prominent dissidents against Hittite authority in West Anato rit, Hittite, Mycenaean and Minoan artifacts have all been found, and textual ev idence indicates that both Aegean and Central Anatolian Hittite merchants were in residence. Cf. A. B. Knapp, "Production, Exchange, and Socio-political Complexity on Bronze Age Cyprus," 0JA 5 (1986) 43 with references. 16 Cf. J. D. Muhly, "Sources of Tin and the Beginnings of Bronze Metallurgy," AJ A 89 (1985) 275-91; K. A. Yener, 'The Archaeometry of Silver in Anatolia: the Bolkardag Mini ng District," AJA 90 (1986) 472; K. A. Yener and H. Ozbal, "Tin in the Turkish Taurus Mountain s: the Bolkardag Mining District," Antiquity 61 (1987) 220-26; K. A. Yener, H. Ozbal, E . Kaptan, A. N. Pehlivan, and M. Goodway, "An Early Bronze Age Source of Tin Ore in the Taurus M ountains, Turkey," Science 244 (1989) 200-203. 17 D.H. French ("Anatolia: Bridge or Barrier?," IX Turk Tarih Kongresi I [Ankara 1981] [Ankara 1986] 118) has previously suggested "a deliberate, politically motivated exclusion which

had emerged in earlier millennia as a function of social and economic states." C f. also Yakar, AnatSt (1976) 126-27. 18 Cf. the B XIV 3) and ecent summations Trojan War Mawr 1986) Madduwattas text (KUB XIV 1 + KBO XIX 38), the Tawagalawas letter (KU the Milawata letter (KUB XIX 55 + KUB XLVI1I 90), among others. For r see M. J. Mellink, "Postscript," in M. J. Mellink, ed., Troy and the (Bryn 95-98; Bryce, OJA (1989) 297-310.

A possible Hittite Embargo against the Mycenaeans lia and to encourage the anti-Hittite activities of these persons.19 A Hittite embargo originally implemented as a reaction to simple economic advances by Mycenaean traders might have been continuously upheld for over two hundred years as a reaction to constant political intrigues and unrest fomented by the Mycenaeans throughout the period. Such subversive activities were threatening to the Hittite Empire proper and could not be ignored. In sum, the small group of 'Hittite' objects found in the Late Bronze Age Aegean, the paucity of Mycenaean artifacts found in Central Anatolia, and the virtual lack of cross-textual references to trade appear to reflect an anoma ly in the otherwise consistent pattern of trade and contacts between Mycenaeans and the Near East/Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age. I would suggest that socio-economic or socio-political factors are to blame. An economic embargo established by the Central Anatolian Hittites against the Mycenaeans best accounts for the observable situation at this time. The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Eric Cline 19 Bryce, Historia (1989) 12; Idem, OJA (1989) 307.