INCUNABULA GRAECA

VOL. CVI

Direttori

Marco Bettelli · Maurizio Del Freo

Comitato scientifico
John Bennet (Sheffield) · Elisabetta Borgna (Udine)
Andrea Cardarelli (Roma) · Anna Lucia D’Agata (Roma)
Pia De Fidio (Napoli) · Jan Driessen (Louvain-la-Neuve)
Birgitta Eder (Wien) · Artemis Karnava (Berlin)
John T. Killen (Cambridge) · Joseph Maran (Heidelberg)
Pietro Militello (Catania) · Massimo Perna (Napoli)
Françoise Rougemont (Paris) · Jeremy B. Rutter (Dartmouth)
Gert Jan van Wijngaarden (Amsterdam) · Carlos Varias García (Barcelona)
Jörg Weilhartner (Salzburg) · Julien Zurbach (Paris)

PUBBLICAZIONI DELL’ISTITUTO DI STUDI SUL MEDITERRANEO ANTICO

DEL CONSIGLIO NAZIONALE DELLE RICERCHE

DIRETTORE DELL’ISTITUTO: ANNA LUCIA D’AGATA

 MEDITERRANEA ITINERA

Studies in Honour of Lucia Vagnetti

 MEDITERRANEA ITINERA
Studies in Honour of Lucia Vagnetti

edited by

Marco Bettelli
Maurizio Del Freo
Gert Jan van Wijngaarden

CNR ‒ ISTITUTO DI STUDI SUL MEDITERRANEO ANTICO

ROMA 2018
 Undertaken and published with the assistance of the
Institute of Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP)

The rights of translation, electronic storage, reproduction and total or partial adaptation by
any means (including microfilm and photostatic copies) are reserved for all countries. No
part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed or transmitted in any form without
the written permission of the Publisher, with the exception of short citations incorporated
into reviews or other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law

Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche

Istituto di Studi sul Mediterraneo Antico
© Cnr Edizioni, 2018
Piazzale Aldo Moro, 7 - 00185 Roma
www.edizioni.cnr.it - bookshop@cnr.it - 06 49932287

ISSN 11267348
ISBN 978 88 8080 340 9 (print version)
ISBN 978 88 8080 341 6 (on line version)

Front cover image: from A. Karetsou and A. Spiliotopoulou in this volume

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword ....................................................................................................................................... IX

Italy and the Aegean World

Malcolm H. Wiener, The Significance of Recent Developments in Egyptian Chronology

for the Absolute Chronology of Late Helladic I-III and the Middle, Recent, and
Final Bronze Age Chronology of Italy ................................................................................. 3
Alberto Cazzella and Giulia Recchia, Local Networks and Aegean-Mycenaean
Connectivity in the Tyrrhenian and Adriatic Seas ................................................................ 11
Pietro M. Militello, Incorporating Architecture: LBA Sicily and the Aegean .................................. 33
Fulvia Lo Schiavo and Mauro Perra, From the Aegean to Nuragic Sardinia. History and
Development of a Misused Instrument: the Chronological Table ............................................ 51
Elizabeth French and Stephanie Aulsebrook, Italy & Mycenae .................................................. 67
Effie Photos-Jones and Richard Jones, Mycenaean ‘Alum’: Implications for the Exchange
of Astringent Minerals in the Bronze Age ............................................................................. 77

Aegean

Mario Benzi, Early Metallurgy in the Dodecanese: EBA III Metal Objects from the
Dhaskalio Cave, Kalymnos ................................................................................................. 93
Nicola Cucuzza, Kykladika from Kannia near Mitropolis (Crete) .................................................. 105
Metaxia Tsipopoulou, Kavousi, Evraika: A Middle Minoan Burial Rock Shelter
in Eastern Crete ................................................................................................................. 113
Lucia Alberti, An Ugly Small Vase Survives the ‘Pots are not People’ Era ......................................... 135
Filippo M. Carinci, Il complesso sotto il Vano 70/Vano XLIV-38: un corrispondente
della “Sala del Trono” cnossia a Festòs? Studio preliminare .................................................... 147
Alexandra Karetsou and Alexia Spiliotopoulou, Clay Boat Models from the MMIII
Peak Sanctuary of Kophinas................................................................................................ 165
Clarissa Belardelli, Ceramica mesoelladica dipinta e contesti stratigrafici a Tirinto ........................ 181
Peter Warren, More Birds at Late Minoan Knossos ........................................................................ 223
Birgitta P. Hallager, On Boar-Hunting, Hunters, Dogs and Long Robes ........................................ 233
Elisabetta Borgna, Old Symbols and New Cults. A Piece of Female Attire from the
Trapeza Sanctuary Near Aigion .......................................................................................... 245
Stefano de Martino, An Episode of Conflict in Relations between Ḫatti and Aḫḫiyawa .................. 255
Massimiliano Marazzi, Corsairs, Pirates, Traders, or Nomads of the Sea? Socioeconomic
Changes in the Mediterranean at the End of the Thirteenth Century BC ............................... 261
Franco Crevatin, Questioni minori di lingua e cultura egiziana ..................................................... 279

Cyprus

John Ll. W. Williams, A Petrographic Investigation of Cypriot and East Mediterranean

White Slip Pottery: a Contribution to Provenance and Production ........................................ 285
Vassos Karageorghis, The ‘Pastoral Style’ of Cypriote Pottery Again ............................................... 311
Penelope A. Mountjoy, Aegean-Style Pottery from Two 12th Century Wells at Enkomi ................... 319
Massimo Perna e Raimondo Zucca, Uno spillone in bronzo iscritto da Antas
(Fluminimaggiore) e la più antica iscrizione in Cipriota “Classico”(?) .................................. 329
Silvana Di Paolo, Artefacts in Time and Place. Archive Data Concerning the Italian
Archaeological Activity in Cyprus (1869-1871) ................................................................... 343

Italy

Sara T. Levi, Archaeology as Archaeometry ...................................................................................... 357

Maria Clara Martinelli, The Tale of the Sea. The Bronze Age Cup of Filicudi (Aeolian Islands) ...... 369
Paola Càssola Guida, Tergeste preromana tra il Carso, l’Istria e l’Italia antica ................................ 381
Gianfranco Maddoli, L’auxesis della prima Hellàs tra polemiche di ghene..................................... 391

Colour plates ................................................................................................................................. 399

 Foreword

This volume is a collection of contributions dedicated to Lucia Vagnetti, a scholar whose innovative re-
search work has significantly enhanced our knowledge of Mediterranean protohistory over the last decades.
These contributions are offered to her as an homage from scholars who she encountered since the initial
stages of her career. With many of them she gave birth to important collaborations and built long-lasting
friendships.
The choice for authors and research topics — which has been our responsibility as editors of this volume
— has necessarily caused a selection of contributions based on Lucia’s scientific interests as well as on the
people who in various ways have shared her scientific path. Our intention with this choice was to represent
the different subjects and the specific geographical areas of the Mediterranean protohistory in which Lucia
concentrated her research work.
Even if Lucia Vagnetti is a renowned scholar for her studies on the Aegean world, it must be recalled that
she moved her first steps as an Etruscologist. In fact, she took her degree in Archaeology with M. Pallottino
with a thesis on the materials from the votive deposit of Campetti at Veio, which was then quickly published
(Vagnetti 1971).
After this initial phase of scholarly formation, Lucia specialised at the Italian Archaeological School in
Athens, directed at the time by D. Levi. During her stay in Athens, Levi entrusted her with the study of
the Neolithic levels of the site of Phaistos, a scientific endeavour which put her for the first time in direct
contact with the prehistory and the protohistory of the Aegean. Lucia completed that job so admirably that
its publication continues to represent a reference point for all the specialists in the field (Vagnetti 1972-73).
In the same years she was involved in Rome in the activities of the Centre of Mycenaean and Aegean-
Anatolian Studies directed by G. Pugliese Carratelli. This Centre, which soon became an Institute of the
Italian National Research Council, was created in the 1960’s on the wave of the recent discoveries in the field
of the Mycenaean philology and archaeology. The aim of the Centre was to combine those pioneering stud-
ies with other more consolidated fields in the study of the Antiquity, so as to fill the large gaps still existing
in the history of the pre-classic stages of the Mediterranean civilisations (Trentennale).
One of the first initiatives carried out by Lucia during this period was the organisation with S. Tinè of the
first exhibition of the Mycenaean archaeological findings in the Central Mediterranean (Tinè, Vagnetti 1967).
Her involvement in this initiative gave a new imprint to her scientific interests, since from here originated
one of the most prolific branches of her research work: that about the Bronze Age relationships between the
Aegean World and the ancient communities of the Central Mediterranean (Vagnetti 1968a, 1970).
Meanwhile, the Institute for the Mycenaean and Aegean-Anatolian studies, directed by C. Gallavotti,
had started numerous field activities in Crete, Cyprus and Anatolia. Lucia took part in some of them, de-
veloping a keen interest for many aspects of Cretan and Cypriot archaeology (Vagnetti 1974a, 1975, 1980,
1984a, 1984b, 1989, 1991; Vagnetti, Belli 1978; Vagnetti et al. 1989). Over the years, the ancient history
and archaeology of Crete in particular was to capture her attention, as is shown e.g. by the fact that, until a
mature phase of her career, Lucia, together with her husband Paolo Belli, continued to devote a large part of
her scientific work to specific aspects of the Late Minoan funerary rituals, thanks also to the collaboration
with M. Tsipopoulou (Tsipopoulou, Vagnetti 1995, Tsipopoulou, Vagnetti 1997; Tsipopoulou et al. 2003;
Tsipopoulou, Vagnetti 2006).
In Italy, between the 1970’s and early 1980’s, many discoveries made through the numerous field activities
in the various regions of the peninsula as well as in the islands, revealed an important Mycenaean presence
in the West. In particular, the discoveries at Vivara, Broglio di Trebisacce, Termitito and Coppa Nevigata in
southern Italy, and Antigori in Sardinia contributed to expand our knowledge in this field. The experience
gained by Lucia in the study of the Aegean world as well as her deep knowledge of the relationships between
that area and the Central Mediterranean in the second millennium B.C. made her the scholar of reference
for a field which was at the time nearly unexplored (Vagnetti 1979; Lo Schiavo, Vagnetti 1980). She was
X Marco Bettelli, Maurizio Del Freo, Gert Jan van Wijngaarden

thus involved in the preparation of both the conference and the exhibition “Magna Grecia e mondo mice-
neo” (Vagnetti 1982a), where the participants tried to make an initial assessment of the recent discoveries.
Some years later, then, she promoted and organised an important conference in Palermo, where the forms
of the Mycenaean trade with the Central and Eastern Mediterranean were analysed (Marazzi et al. 1986).
These two relevant scientific initiatives shed light on the new findings and paved the way to new meth-
odological and interpretative perspectives. In particular, during the study of the Mycenaean-like pottery
from Broglio di Trebisacce, which was entrusted to her by R. Peroni, Lucia realised that part of that ce-
ramic production, due to some of its characteristics, was likely not imported from the Aegean (Vagnetti
1982b, 1982c, 1984c, 1984d ). Following this idea, she promoted not only an archaeological study of
the sherds, but also a campaign of chemical analysis of the clays. This endeavour was accomplished in an
international collaboration with R. Jones, who, besides being an expert in this kind of investigations and
having a large database of clay samples from the Aegean and Cyprus, was at the time the Director of the
Fitch Laboratory of the British School at Athens (Vagnetti, Jones 1988, Jones, Vagnetti 1991, Vagnetti,
Panichelli 1994, Vagnetti 2001a ). This long-lasting campaign has included materials from a multitude of
sites in the Central Mediterranean.
The results, which were immediately encouraging and were quickly published in a wide range of Italian
and international journals and conference proceedings, confirmed Lucia’s brilliant ideas about the local
manufacture of Mycenaean-type pottery in Italy and changed forever the way we look at the relationships
between the Aegean world and the communities of the Central Mediterranean.
Subsequently, the project promoted by Lucia and Richard constantly developed through the expansion
of the geographical variety of findings (up to the Po valley), their chronology and the constant refinement
of both the analytical techniques and the statistical elaboration of the data. The results of the more than
thirty-year-long development of the different sampling and analysis campaigns have been recently found
their place in the volume Italo-Mycenaean Pottery (Jones et al. 2014), which represents the tangible result of
Lucia’s commitment to this line of research.
With the same tenacity and curiosity she also studied other aspects in this field, bringing to light the exis-
tence of specific relationships between Italy, Crete and Cyprus. In particular, she identified and commented
from a historical perspective specific categories of objects, ceramic classes and pottery styles from sites of the
Central Mediterranean that can be traced back to the two islands (Vagnetti 1968b, Vagnetti 1974b, Vagnetti
1985a, Vagnetti 1985b, Lo Schiavo et al. 1985, Vagnetti 1986, Ferrarese Ceruti et al. 1987, Vagnetti, Lo
Schiavo 1989, Vagnetti 2001b, Vagnetti 2001c, Vagnetti 2003).
The different sections of this volume (Italy, Italy and the Aegean World, Aegean and Cyprus) reflect
Lucia’s scientific path, a Mediterranean itinerary through fields of History and Archaeology which were
nearly unexplored at the beginning of her career. If today our knowledge about the history of Italy and the
Aegean during the second millennium B.C. has greatly improved and many aspects are now clearer than
before, this is to a large extent due to Lucia’s seminal work on the relationships between the two areas.
One could perhaps think that, not having been a professor, Lucia has not had students. However, her pi-
oneering academic work, her generosity and her open-mindedness attracted many collaborators and young
scholars, with whom she interacted in various ways, by passing down her experiences, by giving them her
advices or simply by encouraging them with humanity and discretion. From this point of view, each of
the editors of this volume considers himself as a student or a “disciple” of Lucia and has many reasons for
being grateful to her.
Great scholars not only transmit knowledge, but also pass on a certain attitude in research and life in
general. Lucia, generously, has inspired, helped and coached many younger scholars, in a way “sowing” in
a new field and “cultivating” what was growing. This is why we consider her, not only a great scholar but
also a great teacher.

M.B., M.D.F., G.J.v.W.

 Foreword XI

Bibliographical references

Ferrarese Ceruti, M.L., Vagnetti, L., Lo Schiavo, F. 1987, “Minoici, Micenei e Ciprioti in Sardegna alla
luce delle più recenti scoperte”, in M. Balmuth (ed.), Nuragic Sardinia and the Mycenaean World,
(Studies in Sardinian Archaeology III ), Oxford, pp. 7-38.
Jones, R., Vagnetti, L. 1991, “Traders and Craftsmen in the Central Mediterranean: Archaeological
Evidence and Archaeometric Research”, in N.H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean,
(Conference held at Rewley House, Oxford, December 1989), SIMA XC, Jonsered, pp.127-147.
Jones, R., Levi, S.T., Bettelli, M., Vagnetti, L. 2014, Italo-Mycenaean Pottery: the Archaeological and
Archaeometric Dimensions, Incunabula Graeca CIII, Roma.
Lo Schiavo, F., Vagnetti, L. 1980, “Micenei in Sardegna ?”, RendLinc 35, pp. 371-393.
Lo Schiavo, F., Macnamara, E, Vagnetti, L. 1985, “Late Cypriot Imports to Italy and their Influence on
Local Bronzework”, PBSR 53, pp. 1-71.
Marazzi, M., Tusa, S., Vagnetti, L. (eds.) 1986, Traffici micenei nel Mediterraneo: problemi storici e
documentazione archeologica, Atti del Convegno di Palermo (11-12 maggio e 3-6 dicembre 1984),
Taranto.
Tinè, S., Vagnetti, L. 1967, I Micenei in Italia, Catalogo della mostra organizzata presso il Museo di
Taranto in occasione del I Congresso Internazionale di Miceneologia, Fasano.
Trentennale: Un trentennio di ricerche storiche nei paesi del Mediterraneo e del Vicino Oriente. (Relazione
sulle attività dell’ISMEA-CNR 1968-1998), Roma novembre 1998.
Tsipopoulou, M., Vagnetti, L. 1995, Achladia. Scavi e ricerche della Missione Greco-Italiana in Creta
Orientale, Incunabula Graeca XCVII, Roma.
Tsipopoulou, M., Vagnetti, L. 1997, “Workshop Attributions for Some Late Minoan III East Cretan
Larnakes”, in R. Laffineur, P.P. Betancourt (eds.), TECHNE. Craftsmen, Craftswomen and
Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 6th Int. Aegean Conference (Philadelphia,
aprile 1966) Aegaeum 16, pp. 473-479.
Tsipopoulou, M., Vagnetti, L. 2006,“Late Minoan III evidence from Kritsa, Mirabello”, in E. Ταμπακάκη,
Α. Καλουτσάκης (eds.), Πεπραγμένα Θ’ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, A1: Προϊστορική
Περίοδος, Ανασκαφικά Δεδομένα, Ηράκλειο, pp. 201-210.
Tsipopoulou, M., Vagnetti, L., Liston, M. 2003, “New Evidence for the Dark Ages in Eastern Crete: An
Unplundered Tholos Tomb at Vasiliki”, SMEA 45, 1, pp. 85-124.
Vagnetti, L. 1968a, “Un vaso miceneo da Pantalica”, SMEA 5, pp. 132-135.
Vagnetti, L. 1968b, “I bacili di bronzo di Caldare sono ciprioti ?”, SMEA 7, pp.129-138.
Vagnetti, L. 1970, “I Micenei in Italia: la documentazione archeologica”, PP 134, pp. 359-380.
Vagnetti, L. 1971, Il deposito votivo di Campetti a Veio: materiale degli scavi 1937–1938, Studi e Materiali
di Etruscologia e Antichità Italiche IX, Firenze. 
Vagnetti, L. 1972-73, “L’insediamento neolitico di Festòs”, ASAtene 50-51, pp. 7-138.
Vagnetti, L. 1974a, “Preliminary Remarks on Cypriote Chalcolithic Figurines”, RDAC 1974, pp. 24-33.
Vagnetti, L. 1974b, “Appunti sui bronzi Egei e Ciprioti del ripostiglio di Contigliano (Rieti)”, MEFRA
86, pp. 657-671.
Vagnetti, L. 1975, “Some Unpublished Chalcolithic Figurines”, RDAC 1975, pp. 1-4.
Vagnetti, L. 1979, “Il Bronzo Finale in Puglia nei suoi rapporti con il Mediteraneo Orientale”, in Il Bronzo
finale in Italia, Atti della XXI Riunione Scientifica dell’ Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria,
Firenze, pp. 537-549.
XII Marco Bettelli, Maurizio Del Freo, Gert Jan van Wijngaarden

Vagnetti, L. 1980, “Figurines and Minor Objects from a Chalcolithic Cemetery at Souskiou-Vathyrkakas
(Cyprus)”, SMEA 21, pp. 18-72.
Vagnetti, L. 1982a, Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo. Nuovi documenti, Taranto.
Vagnetti, L. 1982b, “I frammenti micenei”, in G. Bergonzi, A. Cardarelli, P.G. Guzzo, R. Peroni, L.
Vagnetti, Ricerche sulla Protostoria della Sibaritide 1, Cahiers du Centre Jean Berard VII, Napoli,
pp. 119-128.
Vagnetti, L. 1982c, “Ceramica micenea e ceramica dipinta dell’età del bronzo”, in G. Bergonzi, V. Buffa,
A. Cardarelli, C. Giardino, R. Peroni, L. Vagnetti, Ricerche sulla Protostoria della Sibaritide 2, Cahiers
du Centre Jean Berard VIII, Napoli , Roma, pp. 99-113.
Vagnetti, L. 1984a,“Spunti per lo studio della regione di Kissamos nell’età del bronzo”, SMEA 25,
pp. 65-87.
Vagnetti, L. 1984b, “Testimonianze di metallurgia minoica dalla zona di Nerokourou (Kydonias)”, SMEA
25, pp. 155-171.
Vagnetti, L. 1984c, “Ceramica micenea e ceramica dipinta dell’eta del bronzo”, in R. Peroni (ed.), Ricerche
sulla Protostoria della Sibaritide 3, Roma, pp. 164-184.
Vagnetti,L. 1984d, “Ceramica di importazione egea e ceramica dipinta dell’età del bronzo”, in R. Peroni
(ed.), Nuove ricerche sulla protostoria della Sibaritide, Roma, pp. 169-196.
Vagnetti, L. 1985a, “Ceramiche del Tardo Minoico III rinvenute in Italia”, in M. Liverani, A. Palmieri, R.
Peroni (ed.), Studi di paletnologia in onore di S. M. Puglisi, Roma , pp. 825-831.
Vagnetti, L. 1985b, “Late Minoan III Crete and Italy: Another View”, PP 220, pp. 29- 33.
Vagnetti, L. 1986, “Cypriot Elements beyond the Aegean in the Bronze Age”, in Cyprus between the Orient
and the Occident, Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium (Nicosia 8-14 September
1985), Nicosia, pp. 201-214.
Vagnetti, L. 1989, “Gli oggetti metallici”, in Scavi a Nerokourou (Kydonias), fasc. I, Roma 1989, pp. 285-289.
Vagnetti, L. 1991, “Stone sculpture in Chalcolithic Cyprus”, in Calcolithic Cyprus, Proceedings of the
Symposium held at the Getty Museum, February 1990, BASOR 282/283, pp. 139-151.
Vagnetti, L. 2001a, “Le ceramiche egeo-micenee”, in F. Trucco, L. Vagnetti (eds.), Torre Mordillo 1987-
1990. Le relazioni egee di una comunita protostorica della Sibaritide, Incunabula Graeca CI, Roma,
pp. 299-327.
Vagnetti, L. 2001b,“How far did White Slip Pottery Travel? Some Evidence from Italy and from the Libyan
Coast”, in V. Karageorghis (ed.), The White Slip Ware of the Late Bronze Age Cyprus, Proceedings
of the International Conference of the A.G. Leventis Foundation in Honour of Malcolm Wiener
(Nicosia 1998), Wien, pp. 101-105.
Vagnetti, L. 2001c, “Some Observations on Late Cypriot Pottery from the Central Mediterranean”, in
L. Bonfante , V. Karageorghis (eds.), Italy and Cyprus in Antiquity 1500-450 BC, Conference held
at the Italian Academy for Advanced Studies in America (Columbia University, November 2000),
Nicosia, pp. 77-96.
Vagnetti, L. 2003, “The Role of Crete in the Exchanges between the Aegean and the Central Mediterranean
in the Second Millennium BC”, in V. Karagheorghis , N. Stampolides (eds.), Ploes….Sea Routes…
Interconnections in the Mediterranean 16th-6th c. BC, Proceedings of the Conference held in
Rhethymnon (October 2002), Athens, pp. 53-61.
Vagnetti, L., Belli, P. 1978, “Characters and Problems of the Final Neolithic in Crete”, SMEA 19,
pp. 125-163.
 Foreword XIII

Vagnetti, L., Jones, R. 1988, “Towards the Identification of Local Mycenaean Pottery in Italy”, in
E.B. French, K.A. Wardle (eds.), Problems in Greek Prehistory, Papers presented at the Centenary
Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens (Manchester, April 1986), Bristol,
pp. 335-348.
Vagnetti, L., Lo Schiavo, F. 1989, “Late Bronze Age Long Distance Trade in the Mediterranean. The Role
of the Cypriots”, in E. Peltenburg (ed.), Early Society in Cyprus, Proceedings of the Colloquium
Early Society in Cyprus, (Edinburgh, April 1988), Edinburgh, pp. 217-243.
Vagnetti, L., Panichelli, S. 1994, “Ceramica egea importata e di produzione locale”, R. Peroni, F. Trucco
(eds.), Enotri e Micenei nella Sibaritide. I. Broglio di Trebisacce, Taranto, pp. 373-413.
Vagnetti, L., Christopoulou, A., Tzedakis, Y 1989, “Saggi negli strati neolitici”, in Y. Tzedakis, A. Sacconi
(eds.), Scavi a Nerokourou (Kydonias), fasc. I, Roma, pp. 11-97.
 Corsairs, Pirates, Traders, or Nomads of the Sea? Socioeconomic Changes
in the Mediterranean at the End of the 13th Cent. B.C.E.

Massimiliano Marazzi *

Summary: The decades between the 13th and 12th centuries mark the collapse of the “administered” commercial relationships,
mainly due to the loss of control of this network of maritime interconnections. This phenomenon, variously defined as the
emergence of “freelance mariners”, “nomads of the sea” or “sea peoples” is concomitant to a series of social and technological
changes. In this paper we intend to analyze some aspects of this socio-political change, especially in light of the contemporary
cuneiform epigraphic sources.

Key words: Sea Peoples, Nomads of the Sea, New Free Lance Mariners in the Second Millennium B.C.E.

The historical climate

In the final decades of the 13th cent., the kings of Alashiya, Ugarit, and Carchemish engaged in a
frantic epistolary exchange.1 The king of Carchemish wrote to the king of Ugarit (Ugaritica V, n. 23:
RSL 1, ll. 8ff.):

As for what you have written to me: “Ships of the enemy have been seen at sea!” Even if this is true,
you must remain firm. Indeed, where are your troops and your chariots stationed? Are they not near you?
Behind the enemy, who press upon you? Surround your towns with ramparts. Have your troops and char-
iots enter there, await the enemy and stand firm!
*
University of Naples “Suor Orsola Benincasa”.
I am grateful to my colleagues S. S. Tilia and B. J. Collins for the revision of the English text.
1
Regarding the correspondence between Alashiya and Ugarit during the last years of the reign of Hammurapi, see primarily
Ugaritica V, in particular in nos. 21-24, and Lackenbacher 2002, 192ff.; see further the dossier (bibliographically updated
up to the end of the 1990s) in Singer 1999, in particular 720f. and 728. As rightly noted by Singer in 2006, the stationing
of Ugaritic military land contingents in Hittite territory and boats in the Lukka region are reflected in the Hittite-Ugaritic
correspondence RS 94.2530 and 94.2523, which I include below in the discussion of Hiyawa/Ahhiyawa along the coasts of
Lycia and Cilicia. Also connected with the situation represented by these two documents are two other letters; the first, RS
20.162 (Ugaritica V, n. 37, see also Singer 1999, 721), this time sent to the king of Ugarit from a certain Parsu (perhaps an
attaché of the king of Ugarit) from the neighboring kingdom of Amurru, reads (ll. 6ff.):
My lord, has not the king of Amurru said in your presence “when you have heard of enemies, let the news come to my country”?
Now, since you have learned things about the enemy, why, my lord, did you not inform us?... If you have had news of enemies, my
lord, that my lord let me know. Here, my lord, from me (what) I send you: the boats that are available to [us], I put them under
[your] con[trol]. That you may know it!
The second, sent to the king of Ugarit by a certain Ešuwara, senior governor of Alashiya, informs (Ugaritica V, n. 22 = RS
20.18, see also Singer 1999, 721):
As for the matter concerning those enemies: (it was) the people from your country (and) your own ships (who) did this! And (it was)
the people from your country (who) have accomplished this attack. So do not be angry with me! But now, (the) twenty enemy ships
that the enemy, in a mountainous region, has not yet pulled aside, have not stayed around but have quickly moved on, and where
they are we do not know.
Regarding other letters from the Ugarit archives relating to the situation of extreme discomfort caused by enemy raids and
incursions, always refer to the position taken by Singer 1999, 723ff. Interesting in this regard are the (very damaged) letters
RS 94.2169 (perhaps from the king of Ugarit to the king of Carchemish) and RS 94.2375 (addressed to the king of Ugarit),
newly published by Lackenbacker, Malbran Labat 2016, respectively nn. 12 and 95.
262 Massimiliano Marazzi

So the king of Ugarit warned the king of Alashiya (Ugaritica V, n. 24: RS 20.238, ll. 5ff.):

My father, the enemy’s ships have now come: (the enemy) has burned my cities and has done evil things
in my country. Does not my father know that all my troops and chariots(?) are stationed in the Land of
Hatti, and all my ships are in the Land of Lukka? Up until now, they have not yet returned, leaving the
country abandoned to itself. My father knows. At the moment, seven enemy ships have come up against
me and have caused damage. Now, if there should be other enemy vessels, give me the news somehow so
I can know.

At the same time, a number of other documents, originating mainly from the Hittite capital Hattusa,
reveal that the coasts of Anatolia (both western and southern) and of the Levant were experiencing polit-
ical-territorial imbalances sufficient to endanger the stability achieved after the division of the spheres of
influence sanctioned by the peace treaty concluded between the Hittite (Hattusili III) and the pharaonic
(Ramesses II) states. These documents inform us about:2
• the secession of the kingdom of Tarhuntassa, where a branch of the royal family, represented by
Kurunta, son of Muwatalli, appears to have assumed the title of “Great King”;
• the growing importance of the land of Mira, with its dynasts, which already in the reign of Tuthalija
IV seems to have gained control of the geopolitical situation in west-central Anatolia, to the point
of earning, in the eyes of the court of Hattusa, a degree of consideration comparable to that due
to a “great king”;
• an increasingly uncontrollable situation within the vassal states of the West, where groups of “sea
peoples,” such as the Lukka and Ahhiyawans, partially settled along the western and southern
coasts of Anatolia and conspired with the small local dynasts located there.

To all this, we must add the constant recurrence of famine, which required repeated requests for food
aid from the granary of the time, namely, Egypt.3
Through the monumental commemorative hieroglyphic inscriptions (preserved in sacred complexes
placed both at the edges of the kingdom, such as Yalburt, and in the capital in the areas of the Südburg
and Nişantaş, as confirmed also by a cuneiform text that probably recalls their creation) of the last dy-
nasts of Hattusa, Suppiluliuma II and his predecessor Tuthaliya (IV), we learn about military and even
naval battles in campaigns in the western regions and in the sea along the Levantine coast.4 And it is

2
On the crisis in Hatti during the reigns of the last dynasts and the documentation about this, see in general Hoffner 1992;
Giorgieri, Mora 1996 and 2010; Singer 2000; Bolatti Guzzo, Marazzi 2004; de Martino 2008, 248ff.; for more on the
events regarding Tarhuntassa in particular, see Sürenhagen 1996; Singer 1996 and 2001 (with a divergent interpretation);
see also the summary offered in Bryce 2003a, in particular 214ff. Regarding the western Anatolian geopolitical framework,
especially in light of recent epigraphic discoveries, the framework offered in Hawkins 1998 remains fundamental; and,
successively, 2002, 2009a and 2015b; see also Pavúk 2015 and Becks 2015. Concerning the geolinguistic framework, I
fully agree with the scenario offered by Yakubovich 2010. On the ups and downs of relationships with the Lukka, see the
most recent summary framework offered by Bryce 2003b and the summary in Gander 2010 and 2016; regarding Ahhijawa/
Hijawa and political relations with the territorial formations of western Anatolia and along the southern coast, refer to the
details expressed below.
3
On the ports of Cilicia and on grain shipments from Egypt see Klengel 1973, 1979 and 2007; Singer 1999, 715ff.; for a
comparison between the two Ugaritic texts RS 94.2530 and 20.2012 (both referring to grain/food supplies shipments to
Anatolia by Ugaritic ships), see now Lackenbacker, Malbran, Labat 2016, 28.
4
Concerning the hieroglyphic inscriptions, see, first of all, the editions of Poetto 1993 and Hawkins 1995 (with additions
in Melchert 2002) for Yalburt and the Südburg respectively. On the text KBo 12.38, in which they remember the fighting
at sea in relation to Alashiya and the celebration of the war effort through inscriptions in monuments in the capital,
refer to the critical edition of Bolatti Guzzo, Marazzi 2004, where earlier interpretations are discussed in detail; about the
long inscription of Nişantaş, pending its edition by J.D. Hawkins (see Hawkins forthcoming), refer to the position taken
by Marazzi, Bolatti Guzzo, Repola 2017, Bolatti Guzzo et al. 2017, and Bolatti Guzzo, Marazzi in press (here the new
identification of both the toponym VITIS(URBS) and the toponym / ethnonym SUPER(=ser)-tá-ní (REGIO) ); finally,
 Corsairs, Pirates, Traders, or Nomads of the Sea? 263

precisely to this naval contingent, likely made available to the Hittite military forces in the West, that
the king of Ugarit’s laments and concerns are directed in the aforementioned correspondence with the
king of Alashiya.
Within the citadels that controlled the—however limited—Mycenaean territorial states, things seem
to have gone no better. Even if the Linear B documents tell us little or nothing directly concerning their
state of economic and political health, some more or less clear indications suggest an apparently uncom-
fortable situation:
• The documents of the archives of Pylos, which concern the time immediately prior to the destruc-
tion of the local palace, indicate, for example, worker conscriptions in support of the shipping
activities along the coastal centers.5
• Pedantic and meticulous records of remittances (or lack of them) concerning natural resources may
betray an accentuation of pressure and control over productive forces within their own territory, an
indirect sign of a worsening of shortages in the regular inflow of the remittances themselves from
the periphery toward the center.6

Furthermore, we must not forget both a series of destructions and expansions or improvements of de-
fensive structures related to the citadels, home of the hegemonic elites, during the course of the 13th cent.,
accompanied by archaeo-botanical data that would seem to indicate a decline in the quality of agricultural
production in general and grain in particular.7

Ancient propaganda and modern myths

Modern theories as to the reasons for the series of final collapses that occurred around the decades of
transition between the 13th and 12th cent. B.C.E. mostly center around the “mother of all battles” cliché
promoted by the propaganda of Pharaoh Ramses III, which paints a picture of an unstoppable horde of
Sea Peoples that comes down by land and by sea from the north —following a predetermined plan—
along the eastern coast of the Aegean, then the Levant, raiding and destroying until, in the mother of all
battles, it is halted by pharaonic forces.
This episode, defined as the “invasion of the Sea Peoples,” marks, in traditional modern historiography,
the end of an era of balance and intense international relations throughout the Mediterranean basin, and
with it, the collapse of the Mycenaean citadels, the disintegration of the Hittite kingdom, the end of large
port cities such as Ugarit, and the general destruction of many other coastal and subcoastal sites distrib-
uted between the Aegean and the Levantine sea coast.8

more generally, on monumental hieroglyphic inscriptions of the Hittite kingdom’s final period, see Hawkins 2006 and
2009b; to the monumental inscriptions of the capital see Marazzi in press.
5
On the naval texts of Pylos, refer to the recent summary by Marazzi 2014a.
6
On the control mechanisms for recording on tablets among the Mycenaean elites, see now the overview in Marazzi 2013, in
particular 153ff.; 2015, 111ff. See also the summary offered recently in Palaima 2015.
7
On the failure of crops in Mycenaean Greece, see the overview in Marazzi, Pepe 2002; on possible economic and political
tensions and the collapse processes in complex societies under the control of the so-called Mycenaean “citadels” by the elites,
also refer to Marazzi 2016 and Marazzi, Pecoraro 2016; an overall framework is finally offered by Sherratt 2001.
8
The bibliography on the so-called “Sea Peoples” is boundless; a summary in this regard, with rich bibliographic information,
up until the mid-1980s, is offered in the classic essay by Sandars 1985 (more so closely tied to an “invasionistic” vision
by northern peoples); a critical revision process can be traced in the collected works published over time by Gitin, Mazar,
Stern 1998, Oren 2000 and, most recently, Killebrew, Lehmann 2013, which presents a useful appendix on the citation of
the various ethnic components contained in the epigraphic sources (645ff.: The “Sea Peoples” in Primary Sources). A very
different interpretation of the phenomenon, especially in relation to the testimony of the Egyptian sources, is represented
by Cifola 1988, 1991 and 1994. An intermediate position between “migrationist” and “anti-migrationist” interpretations is
assumed by Singer 2012 (with whose thesis I only partially agree). To the matter of the political climate of the era, see the
contributions in Yon, Sznycer, Bordreuil 1995; on the same matter Liverani has also recently returned 2003, chs. 1-2 (with
a rich accompanying bibliography). Finally, a useful continuously updated bibliography is now available at https://www.
academia.edu/Documents/in/Sea_Peoples.
264 Massimiliano Marazzi

In short, the invasive and devastating fury of these “Sea Peoples,” stopped only in extremis by pharaonic
power, is seen as sweeping in suddenly, wiping away in its north-to-south path the entire “administered”
world of the time.
How much—and what kind of—value should be assigned to such a representation has been ques-
tioned by some scholars, as had Sanders already in her excellent essay published in the late 1970s (Sanders
1985). All these groups of the sea were already present, although sometimes with different labels, from
the time of Hattusili III and Ramses II, who, in the indecisive battle of Qadesh, seem to have practically
competed to obtain their services as mercenaries. In this regard, suffice it to recall the letter that the king
of Alashiya sent to Pharaoh Amenhotep IV (thus already during the second half of the 14th cent.) in de-
fense against accusations that he was supporting maritime raiding activities, in which he points out that
he himself has been the victim of incursions by the Lukka (EA 38, Moran 1992, p. 111, ll. 7ff.):

Why, my brother, do you say such a thing to me, “Does my brother not know this?” As far as I am
concerned, I have done nothing of the sort. Indeed men of Lukki, year by year, seize villages in my own
country. My brother, you say to me, “Men from your country were with them.” My brother, I myself do
not know that they were with them. If men from my country were (with them), send (them back) and I
will act as I see fit.

Thus, it is not new to conclude (indeed historians and archaeologists such as M. Liverani, M. Artzi and
S. Sherratt have long since acutely highlighted this)9 that during the centuries with the highest degree of
development in inter- and transstate connectivity (that is the 14th and 13th cent. B.C.E.), these groups in
fact acquired an increasingly salient function—and, therefore, status—despite being somewhat “margin-
alized” in both Egyptian hieroglyphic and cuneiform written sources. These groups were:
• principle actors in the long-haul businesses “administered” by the elites of the city and terri-
torial states;
• independent entrepreneurs in the parallel port-to-port trade so well represented by the cargo con-
tent of the Uluburun shipwreck of the late 14th cent.;10
• paid providers of services—that is, mercenaries and elite guards—but at the same time the authors
of raids (whether acts of piracy or commissioned raids, i.e., corsairs?);11
• regulars at increasingly vital commercial ports for the movement of raw materials and luxury
goods, perhaps at the ready to support the aspirations of local overlords for autonomy, as happened
with the Ahhiyawa of the Hittite sources in the cases of Madduwatta and Piyamaradu to the det-
riment of the centralized control of the Hittite authority.12

Ahhiya(wa): searching for a lost “homeland”

I would like to digress briefly on the controversial issue of an Ahhiya(wa) homeland. The multiplica-
tion in recent years of the bibliography on this question has been stimulated by important epigraphic and

9
See for example Sherratt 1998; Artzy 1997; 1998; Liverani 1987; in partial contrast, Singer 2012.
10
For which reference should be made to the miscellany volume by Yalçin, Pulak, Slotta 2005.
11
We are not able to distinguish from the Egyptian and cuneiform sources of the time, whether in some cases the often-cited
acts of raiding occurred under the pressure of the interests of the political entities (and therefore might constitute real
corsairs [privateering]) or represented an endemic factor connected with the existence of maritime groups not always directly
under the control of state structures. The mutual complaints and accusations, often intervening in the struggle between
dynasties, as in the case of the letter EA 30 mentioned above, might lead one to think that actually, in many cases, behind
the apparently “independent” raids carried out by these maritime groups, were the more or less hidden interests of political
agents. The issues have recently been discussed in Hitchcock, Maiwe 2014; Samaras 2015 (with reference to the Aegean
between the 12th and 11th cent.); Gilan in 2013 (with a selection of written cuneiform sources and an ample bibliography).
On the concept of “corsairs” (privateers, as opposed to “pirates”) in the Mediterranean, see the 2006 essay by Lenci.
12
On the ports of the time, see Marazzi 2014b, Marazzi, Pecoraro 2016, and Marazzi in press (2).
 Corsairs, Pirates, Traders, or Nomads of the Sea? 265

archaeological findings like the hieroglyphic inscriptions of Karabel, Beşparmak, Çineköy, and Arsuz; the
recent archaeological discoveries at Bronze Age Miletus and Ephesos; the contemporary re-release and
consequent reinterpretation of the Hittite cuneiform sources; and, not least, the reconsideration of the
political and geolinguistic landscape of the “peripheral” Anatolian regions compared to the traditionally
Hittite language area. In contrast to this proliferation, some assumptions that must be placed at the fore-
front of the matter have received less consideration.13
As early as 1973, the Dutch Hittitologist Ph. Houwink ten Cate, with much acumen, placed in
evidence (beyond the specific linguistic [Ahhiya(wa) = Akhaiwoi?] and geopolitical [where to place the
“state” of Ahhija(wa)?] discussions) the “socio-anthropological” value of the term Ahhiya(wa) and the
“geopolitical relativity” that its use in the Hittite cuneiform sources had been assigned (Houwink ten
Cate 1973, pp. 146ff.):14

I believe that one should seriously reckon with the possibility that the term Ahhiya(wa) widened
considerably in its application during the 14th and 13th centuries and that it does not refer to one
and the same geographical entity at the three times just indicated. It is precisely the fact that the
equation Ahhiya(wa)-‘Achaeans’ is reasonably consistent with the hypothesis that a term originally
of restricted application acquired extended significance that makes the identiflcation attractive, in
my opinion, from a general historical point of view. There is no evidence for a considerable degree
of political unity in the Mycenaean world and certainly not in the Greek world of the Bronze Age
as a whole.… This is exactly what happened to the name of Ionia and the Ionians in the first millen-
nium BC, and much later again to the name of the Franks in Arabic sources. It is an idle hope that
we will ever be able to deduce exactly what lies behind the use of the term in every passage where
we meer it, because we can be fairly sure that the Hittites themselves were not completely familiar
with the background of the contemporary people or peoples to whom they referred.

The same concept is clearly expressed (even if not developed further) in the recent work of I. Yakubovich
on the sociolinguistics of the Luwian language (Yakubovich 2010, p. 79, n. 2):

A detailed discussion of the “Ahhiyawa problem” is obviously beyond the scope of the present
work, which is devoted to the languages of Anatolia. For our purposes it is enough to say that the
comparison with Gk. Ἀχαιοί “Achaeans” implies that Ahhiyawa could be perceived as an ethnic
rather than purely geographic term and consequently transferred to different areas where Greek
population groups were socially dominant.

To the inadequacy of the sociopolitical evaluation of the term Ahhiya(wa) should be added the recur-
ring error that Hittitologists and orientalists make in assessing the impact of the Aegean with respect to
the East, which is to see the Greek world of the second half of the second millennium B.C.E. as a homo-
geneous unit consisting of a set of structured territorial states built according to the Near Eastern model.
This view has dangerous consequences for a correct evaluation of the socioeconomic processes triggered

13
The bibliography regarding the so-called “Ahhija(wa) Question” is endless. For an updated overview of the debate
on this issue, one can refer to the documentary collection by Fischer in 2010, with additions in 2011, to which the
informative reviews by Heinhold, Krahmer 2014 and Yakubovich 2013 must be however added. The complete critical
up-to-date edition of the fontes, is now easily accessible thanks to the work of Beckman, Bryce, Cline 2011. Regarding the
developments related to recent editions of the hieroglyphic inscriptions of Çineköy and Arsuz, refer to the discussion in
Dinçol et al. 2015; Hawkins 2015a; Yakubovich 2015a; 2015b; Hajnal 2011; Oettinger 2008; Jasink, Marino 2007; Dillo
2016 (with a new interpretation of the Arsuz inscription, §§ 11-14). For the geopolitical picture of western Anatolia see
n. 2 above.
14
To the contribution of 1973, that of 1983-84 must also be added. For a comparison in strictly linguistic and formal terms,
see the discussion (with bibliography) in Hajnal 2003, 35ff.; 2011.
266 Massimiliano Marazzi

not only in areas such as Cyprus and the Levant, but increasingly along the Anatolian coast, which was
subject to “Aegeanization” during the 14th and 13th cent. B.C.E.15
Rather, the Greek-Aegean sea peoples, like other maritime groups moving between the coast of
Anatolia, the Levant, Cyprus, and the Nile Delta in these centuries of great connectivity, had a so-called
“freelance” approach that was quite alien compared to the normal rules of “administered” international
relations. This situation was already demonstrated clearly by M. Liverani (well before the coining of the
term “nomads of the sea” by M. Artzy) during a conference held in Palermo on the topic in 1984 (see
Liverani 1986, 41; the English translation presented here is mine):

A “managed” business (whether by the state, or palace), all interwoven with administrative, cere-
monial political and diplomatic aspects of the late Bronze Age Near Eastern world, even if invisible
to us in its material aspects, can however be documented in its organizational premises and in its
procedures. A palatine commercial expedition (say: to buy copper ingots paying them in silver)
can remain without a material trace, but if preceded and carried out through exchanges of letters
and the drafting of written contracts, will leave behind precisely those letters and contracts. On the
other hand, if a ship belonging to private merchants docks at a port and performs that very same
transaction (sells copper ingots in exchange for silver) without any diplomatic premise, adminis-
trative registration or legal guarantee, no trace of it will be left. If this is true, it should be possible
to come to the conclusion that Mycenaean trade practice, unlike its distinctly inter-palatine and
strongly-under-state-control Near Eastern counterpart, is a looser, probably more private, less legal
and maybe even less ceremonial form of commercial activity: it is a de facto relationship. The lack
of a political and legal framework does not affect the quantitative data: Mycenaean trade may well
have been very intense. But the consequences are elsewhere: epistolary and diplomatic relations are
lacking, legal agreements to protect merchants and goods are lacking and the ability to politically
influence the other party is lacking, in short, missing are all the strictly political aspects where some-
times one gets the impression that they are the ultimate goal of inter-palatine commercial exchang-
es. We must not forget that the Mycenaean world does not write in Akkadian, does not stipulate
international treaties, it basically remains at the political margins of that Near Eastern world where
it so conspicuously enters but strictly on a commercial level.

Liverani’s ideas were picked up and enhanced, at the beginning of this century, by one of the main
specialists in archaeology and history of the Aegean, S. Sherratt, in a contribution often completely ig-
nored by both Hittitologists and Aegeanists.16 The insights offered by this scholar regarding the Greek
geopolitical order during the Mycenaean age harmonizes well, in fact, with the idea of a Greek-Aegean
element that, involved as it was in the maritime interconnections of the time, does not seem to be dis-
tinguishable from the other seafaring groups discussed above, who often recur in the epigraphic sources.
If the seemingly insurmountable Ahhiya ~ Akhaiwoi correspondence itself is abandoned, as so acute-
ly indicated by I. Yakubovich recently on the basis of sociolinguistic considerations,17 then it does not

15
This methodological tendency to identify a Mycenaean “state” that was partner and interlocutor of the Hittites characterizes
all Anatolian contributions on the Ahhija(wa) problem. The theories in this regard range from the tout court identification
of a specific continental center (such as Thebes or Mycenae) to the idea of a confederation of Mycenaean states on the lines
of the confederate expedition under the guidance of Agamemnon of Homeric memory. A different perspective is seen in
the recent contribution of Heinhold, Krahmer 2007, and, in some respects, in Singer 2011, 459ff. (the references to this
paper as published in the proceedings of the Workshop “Mycenaeans and Anatolians in the Late Bronze Age: The Ahhiyawa
Question,” Montreal 2006, ed. A. Teffeteller [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012], is unfortunately misleading, since
the acts in question have not yet been published as of today). On the whole issue we can also refer to the contributions by
Marazzi 1986, 1992 (reissued with a number of additions in Marazzi 1994, 323ff.) and 2005.
16
See Sherratt 2001.
17
Yakubovich 2013, 191f.: “I am personally prepared to believe that the Hittites (or perhaps originally the Luwians) could
 Corsairs, Pirates, Traders, or Nomads of the Sea? 267

seem so odd to suggest that this “label” could actually have identified different “Mycenaean” realities
at different times—realities based on geographic provenance, geopolitical characteristics, and social
structure. This is particularly convincing when we consider that the “man” of Ahhiya, which already
appears in the 14th cent. in the famous text of Madduwatta, followed by the individuals linked various
ways with Ahhiyawa in the well-known incidents in the Hittite texts, are characterized by a designation
that in the Anatolian world seems to have acquired a strong ethnopolitical connotation.18 In the eyes
of a Hittite political class, which operated far from Greek-Aegean geopolitical reality—and also in part
far from the complex Anatolian coastal configuration—these distinct realities were subsumable under
the same name.19
It is with this perspective that the famous letter from a Hittite king, perhaps Tuthalija (IV) or, more
likely, Suppiluliuma (II), to the prefect of Ugarit during the reign of Hammurabi must probably be
reread. Although it refers to the group of the Shikila sea people, it shows us how little known, and there-
fore how little understood, these groups of sailors were to the Near Eastern bureaucracies (RS 34.129 ed.
by F. Malbran-Labat in Bordreuil 1991, n. 12):20

Thus speaks the Great King, His Majesty: say to the governor: now the king, your lord, is young and
does not know anything. However, I, His Majesty, have already sent him the request regarding Ibnadushu
who was captured by the Shikila people who live on ships. In this regard, I sent you the kartappu Nirgaili:
therefore hand over Ibnadushu, which the Shikila had kidnapped. I will ask him about these Shikila,
and he can then go back to Ugarit.

During the reigns of Muwatalli II and Hattusili III in the first half of the 13th cent., probably at a
specific moment of contact and conflict followed by intensive relations between the Hittite court and an
Ahhiyawa-element (an entity whose sociopolitical order and geopolitical position we are not able to define
objectively), as documented by the so-called “Tawagalawa Letter,” as well as the letter (CTH 191) men-
tioning the ṢARIPŪTU-men, and the supposed letter from the king of Ahhiyawa to the Hittite king,21
we observe the attempt by the Hittite chancellery to establish communication with—according to the
practice of the time—an analogous “institutionalized” channel on the other side. This effort, however,
can certainly not be taken as an argument in support of the existence of an alleged “Ahhiyawa court.” It
must not surprise us, that, as indicated by the tone of the Tawagalawa Letter, the Ahhiyawa counterpart
does not live up to (or perhaps I should say, is not willing to participate in) a relationship according to a
standard and accepted protocol for diplomatic exchanges between states of the time.22

coin the term *axx-iya as a short designation of the land whose inhabitants called themselves *akhaiwoi (and whose endonym
was possibly *akhaiwis). For a parallel stem-truncation accompained by an addition of the (-i)ya suffix, one can mention
the Hittite adaptation of Hurrian personal names, e.g. fŠaruya- ←fSarum-alla etc. or mTalmiya- ←mTalmi-Tešub etc. … We
have no idea where the name of the Achaeans ultimately came from … But even if the toponym Ahhiya(wa) was borrowed
from the Greeks, the scenario of an unknown intermediary in western Asia Minor, which can be blamed for all the phonetic
irregularities in its transmission, is by no means impossible”. On the traces of the presence of a nominal theme */Akhaiw-iā/
in the Greece of the II millennium see Hajnal 2011, 250, and forthcoming.
18
I prefer to interpret the expansion with -wa suffix, as described in Hajnal 2011, 250f. as an Anatolian ethnonymic
characterization, even though there is the possibility, as proposed in Yakubovich 2013, 191, that it may be a later adaptation
for a better rendering of the ethnonym *Akhaiwoi.
19
In this respect, the proposal by Girella in 2011 may be interesting, to identify in the presence on the Anatolian coast of
Cretan Achaean groups (in continuity with a Minoan presence), the origin of the reception of this ethnonym.
20
See also in this respect the contributions by Dietrich, Loretz 1978; Lehmann 1979; Singer 1999, 722 and 729.
21
For the whole discussion about the different Ahhiya(wa) texts, refer to Beckman, Bryce, Cline 2011; on the issue of
ṢARIPŪTU, refer also to Singer’s 2008 contribution.
22
On the anomalous behavior of Ahhiyawa as seen through Hittite sources, refer to the already mentioned contributions by
Marazzi 1992; Singer 2011, 459ff.; Heinhold, Krahmer 2007.
268 Massimiliano Marazzi

As was cogently argued by H.A. Hoffner,23 the alleged letter sent by the king of Ahhiyawa to the
Hittite king, recently “rediscovered” by F. Starke and which has greatly influenced the judgment of some
Aegean historians regarding a “rehabilitation” into “statist” entities of the political entitites of Mycenaean
Greece,24 is in fact:

Probably a translation into Hittite of a communication exchanged between trusted bilingual emissar-
ies at the common border between Aḫḫiyawan and Hittite territory. It is not a translation into Hittite
made by a scribe at the court of the Aḫḫiyawan king, but one made by the Hittite emissary and conveyed
by him to the court of Ḫattuša and delivered together with his oral recollections of the communication
from the Aḫḫiyawan emissary.

This interpretation fits a scenario in which meetings, exchanges, and trading had to be done on a prac-
tical level through oral communication. In this specific case, then, the “common border” can be placed
in any one of Anatolia’s coastal centers (such as Miletus or Ephesus) where, in the climate of the time, a
maritime component referrable to in sociopolitical terms as Ahhiyawa found itself communicating with
(but then how directly?) the political entitites within the geographical sphere of Hittite control.
Further, Ahhiyawa sea people, this time identified with the designation Hiyawa, are once again ref-
erenced in two letters sent by Suppiluliuma II’s court in Hattusa to the king of Ugarit.25 In this case
the term characterizes merchants/mercenaries in the Hittite king’s service stationed on the Lycian coast.
Given the phenomenon of settlement and territorial occupation that characterizes these maritime groups
in the aftermath of the events narrated in the Egyptian sources, which seems primarily to affect southern
Anatolia, the Syrian and Levantine coasts, and the island of Cyprus, it is no wonder that we find in the
hieroglyphic sources of the first millennium the term (ah)hijawa with the geopolitical characterization of
a kingdom, located in the plain of Adana, which celebrates Muksas/Mόψος as their founder.26 Among
other things, the very same Cilicia and its adjacent coastal areas, with its harbor tradition during the
whole Hittite period (the famous port of Ura) has, in recent years, attracted the attention of scholars as a
possible “encounter” area, during the second half of the second millennium, between the Aegean people
and the Luwian-Hittite world,27 a contact not characterized by political tensions (in contrast to the one
already established for the western coastal area) and thus, we would add, following Liverani’s logic, was
undetectable directly from cuneiform sources of the era. Of course, it should be noted that the presence
of Aegean “pottery” is so far insignificant in Cilicia during the 14th and 13th centuries, which, however, in
no way precludes the existence of possible and continued activities of “middlemen” carried out by agents
characterized as “Achaeans.”

23
Hoffner 2009, 290ff.; but see also Melchert forthcoming; the text is published in Beckman, Bryce, Cline, 2011, 134ff.
Unfortunately the proceedings of the congress Mycenaeans and Anatolians in the Late Bronze Age: the Ahhijawa Question,
held in Montreal in 2006, within which what proposed by F. Starke was specifically discussed, has not yet been published.
24
A paradigmatic example is represented by Kelder’s 2012 contribution, and, differently, by Bryce 1999.
25
These are the two letters RS 94.2530 and 94.2523, discussed primarily by Lackenbacher, Malbran Labat 2005, then by Singer
2006, and reedited in Beckman, Bryce, Cline 2011, 253ff.; the aeditio princeps (with references to the past interpretations) is
now offered by Lackenbacker, Malbran Labat 2016, nn. 8-9. The denial that the reference to LÚ.MEŠ Hi-a-ú-° can actually
refer to the Ahhijawa in Gander 2012, does not seem probative in light of the information already provided in Yakubovich
2010, 152, n. 93; furthermore, then, if we accept the reading of the hieroglyphic sign * 429 as (AH)HIYAWA, see then the
further discussions in Yakubovich 2015a; 2015b. For the new (Ah)hijawa documents, see in general the contribution of
Bryce 2016.
26
On this topic, refer to n. 13 above, about the inscriptions of Çineköy and Arsuz.
27
See in this regard already Yakubovich 2010, 149 ff., and 2015. The same trend is found in Hajnal 2011 and forthcoming
(although in part with different argumentation). For a recent archaeological summary of Cilicia in the LBA, see Momigliano,
Aksoy 2015, Nóvak 2010, Nóvak, Rutishauser, 2017, Nóvak et al. 2017.
 Corsairs, Pirates, Traders, or Nomads of the Sea? 269

Sea interconnectivity as a “corrupting” element28

The phrase “living on boats,” used in the letter of the Hittite king to the prefect of Ugarit, somehow
evokes a nomadic flavor (living in tents, having no fixed abode, operating outside of stable political struc-
tures, etc.) that also characterizes the Hapiru groups emerging from Levantine settled societies at whose
edges these tribes located themselves.29 And in this historical frame it is not a coincidence that the con-
vergence of seminomadic groups in Egypt’s western desert and groups of Aegean-Levantine sea peoples is
often cited as a dangerous coalition that the Twentieth Dynasty rulers had to cope with. We can imagine
rendezvous points in those coastal areas between Egypt and Libya, for which the sites of Marsa Matruh
and Zawijet Umm el-Rakham represent examples.30
In short, if the intense connectivity by sea, through a network of ports and the use of ship operators
both in long-haul exchange and as a source of mercenary troops, appears to accelerate and intensify the
managed flow of goods to the elites that control territorial states and city-state ports, it is also the impetus
for a slow socioeconomic change. This change is the result of a series of phenomena triggered during the
14th cent. (if not already at the end of the 15th), that underwent a drastic acceleration in the 13th, leading to
an unstoppable “domino” effect. I have already had the occasion to describe these phenomena elsewhere.
I will attempt here only to represent schematically some essential points.31

Expansion of markets

• By the turn of the 14th cent., the borderline that marked the interface with the western Mediterranean
had moved steadily westward, beyond the Strait of Sicily and the Low Tyrrhenian Sea; to the north,
the interface encompassed the entire Adriatic basin.
• The more or less “administered” port centers of the central and eastern Mediterranean—such
as Pylos, Tiryns, Khania, Kommos, Troy, Miletus, Ugarit, the ports along the Lebanese and
Palestinian littoral, in the Nile Delta, and along the Cypriot coast—became in fact trans-Medi-
terranean centers.
• Towards the west, strategic areas or interchange sites were created that were in part beyond the
control of hierarchical territorial structures, such as the examples of Marsa Matruh and Zawijet
Umm el-Rakham mentioned above.
• The western ports underwent what I have elsewhere defined as a process of “levantinization”: the
examples of Scoglio del Tonno and Rocha Vecchia in Apulia, Thapsos and Cannatello in Sicily (and in
the course of time the port centers that begin to be defined in the Gulf of Cagliari), testify to their
being more than simple terminals for the drainage of raw materials in the context of a one-way
East > West entrepreneurship. Rather, they become perfectly placed hubs in a network that spans
the entire Mediterranean basin—essential interfaces to new frontiers, such as the northern Adriatic
region, Sardinia, and Spain, like their Levantine-Aegean counterparts in the subcoastal regions
of Anatolia and Syria-Palestine. They are not simply points of arrival, but also dynamic points of
departure in a game of relationships across the board.

28
We use here the expression “corrupting” in the sense that it is given in the work of Horden, Purcell 2000 and explicated in
Marazzi 2014b.
29
The topic was revisited lately by Liverani 2003, especially in chaps. 1-2, together with extensive bibliographic information.
30
In this regard see White 2002, Snape 2003; 2013.
31
See the detailed discussion in Marazzi 2014b (on the concept of “corrupting sea” referring to the Mediterranean of the
XIII-XII cent. B.C.E.); 2014a (about innovations in the boats); 2016 (on the collapse of the leading centers of Mycenaean
Greece); Marazzi, Pecoraro 2016, Marazzi in press (2) (on the port system and technological innovations related to
navigation); Marazzi 1997 (on the so-called. “levantinization” of ports phenomenon in the western Mediterranean). An
equally interesting and updated picture is then offered in Broodbank 2013, ch. 9. On the factors of the new ports and
the new productions connected with these, also see Artzy 1998, Sherratt 1998 and, particularly, 2013; on scenarios in the
western Mediterranean see Vagnetti 1998 and 2000 and, most recently the summary of Jones et al. 2014.
270 Massimiliano Marazzi

New and old ports

In this scenario, the ports come to play a central role and begin to configure themselves, according to
their sociopolitical nature, as areas difficult or impossible to control. They become points of linguistic and
cultural admixture in which a class of sea operators (defined by Artzy as “nomads of the sea”) emerges,
strongly independent of the administrative and diplomatic networks that au fond had enabled their for-
mation. A process comparable to that seen in the Mediterranean of the 16th and 17th cent. AD, which we
could summarize as “from corsairs to independent piracy,” must certainly have played an essential role, as
already pointed out by Sherratt, not only in the major port centers that were created along the Cypriot
coast, but also, and precisely, in those western seaports that had de facto never operated within politically
administered structures. If the elites of the Mycenaean towns were the direct cause of the birth of such
maritime enterprises, beginning in the West and subsequently in the Aegean and the Levant, we can imag-
ine that even internally, in such leading port areas as Tiryns, Pylos, and Kommos, a more autonomous
class had developed in the 13th cent. that was ever more crucial in maintaining the flow of goods, whether
manufactured or not, to and from overseas.32 In addition, it must be supposed that the same processes
took place in the bridgeheads of Anatolia (such as Troy and Miletus) or in the Cypriot and Levantine
ports where the encounter with local political interests (simultaneously commercial and military) must
have more than enhanced the status and autonomy of these sea operators.

Innovating factors

A number of key innovations in maritime activity I believe are to be connected to these socioeconomic
developments. Here I will only mention first, the emergence of new types of ships that were more suitable
in armed conflicts, as well identified by both Wachsmann (2013) and Wedde (2000 and 2005), and sec-
ond, the appearance of the earliest examples of purposely built ports (as seems to be indicated at Kommos
and Pylos).

Traces of dispersion

The “mixing” of sea people groups led to the development of a new social component that was si-
multaneously commercial and military in nature, and that was increasingly free from the control of the
territorial administrations that were, however, often dependent on it. This phenomenon is reflected, in
my opinion, in the complex scenario represented by the production of pottery. As has been pointed out
by Sherratt (2013), the fragmentation and relocation of Aegean-type factories, which occurs through-
out the whole Mediterranean basin starting from the 12th cent. (paradigmatic is the case of the so-called
Mycenaean type IIIC: 1b pottery), already manifests itself earlier, during the course of the 13th cent., when
we see on one hand a blossoming of Mycenaean or Aegean-type factories in the East and the West, espe-
cially in ports and areas connected with them, and on the other, the circulation, in many ports of central
and eastern Mediterranean, of all those vascular products, whether turned or not, variously defined as
“barbarian ware,” “sardinian ware”, “gray pseudominian ware”. This phenomenon, which should lead us
to reflect critically on the repeated attempts at an ethnic attribution of pottery classes in widespread use
between the 13th and 12th cent., seems instead to me to be interpretable precisely as tangible evidence not
only of the interconnectivity that characterizes such maritime groups, but also of the consequent accul-
turation and partial settlement that lead to a process of veritable territorial occupation in the course of
the 12th and 11th cent.
From this, not only is an all-new mode of commercial interconnection probably activated, but also
a new mode of production, whose archaeological trace is detectable in the ceramic and metal industry

32
A phenomenon that was insightfully connected by Wedde 2005 to new forms of vessels that occur right between the late
13th and early 12th cent. B.C.E.
 Corsairs, Pirates, Traders, or Nomads of the Sea? 271

(as repeatedly stated both by M. Artzy and S. Sherratt), that was not simply aimed at meeting the needs
induced by administered trade, but was most likely open to new and different social classes that were
gaining strength in all “freelance” areas of the Mediterranean. The argument could be expanded also to the
new forms of building and funerary rituals that began to appear sporadically in the late 13th cent. B.C.E.
and developed fully during the 12th and 11th.

In conclusion, the “peoples of the sea,” “maritime nomadism,” the “mother of all battles,” the sup-
posed “invasion,” and the alleged ethnic changes based on ceramic and metal indicators, do not appear
to be anything other than the outcome of a social phenomenon triggered, over the course of the 14th
and 13th cent. B.C.E., by both the increase and intensification of administered trade, and by the crucial
management of the military needs of the elites who represent the various territorial states. The increasing
detachment that occurred between those who operated at sea and those who were the original contractors
of such operations, as well as the development throughout the whole Mediterranean of port facilities
that were increasingly independent of territorial-state control, followed by the rapid development of new
coastal territoriality, in which new social groupings came into being, and consequently, new and different
forms of production and circulation of goods, led first to destabilization and then to the collapse of the
traditional elites, who had been linked to and dependent on the flow of goods (raw materials and prestige
productions) and military performance.
In the eyes of local Hittite or Egyptian authorities, the aggregations called variously Ahhiyawa, Lukka,
Shikila, or Peleset, were difficult to comprehend not only in their mobility and maritime multilocality,
but also in their relative uncontrollability; a phenomenon that, in the long history of the Mediterranean,
occurs cyclically, and that, in some ways, is even returning today, though in disguised forms and with
ethnoreligious connotations.

Bibliographical references

Arzty, M. 1997, “Nomads of the Sea”, in S. Swiny, R.L Hohfelder, H.W Swiny (eds.), Res Maritimae:
Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean From Prehistory to Late Antiquity, Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. “Cities
of the Sea”, Nicosia 1994, Atlanta, pp. 1-16.
Artzy, M. 1998, “Routes, Boats and Nomads of the Sea”, in S. Gitin, A. Mazar, E. Stern (eds.), Mediterranean
Peoples in Transition, Jerusalem, pp. 439-448.
Beckman, G., Bryce, T., Cline, E. 2011, The Ahhiyawa Texts, Atlanta.
Becks, R. 2015, “Settlement Patterns and Socio-Political Landscape of Western Anatolia in the Middle
and Late Bronze Age: A Geoarchaeological View”, in N.Ch. Stampolidis, Ç. Maner, K. Kopanias
(eds.), Nostoi. Indigenous Culture, Migration + Integration in the Aegean Islands + Western Anatolia
During the Late Bronze + Early Iron Ages, Istanbul, pp. 115-130.
Bolatti Guzzo, N., Marazzi, M. 2004, “Storiografia hittita e geroglifico anatolico: per una revisione di
KBo 12.38”, in D. Groddek, S. Rößle (eds.), Šarnikzel: Hethitologische Studien zum Gedenken an
Emil Orgetorix Forrer, Dresden, pp. 155-185.
Bolatti Guzzo, N., Marazzi, M. (in press), “Die Arbeit an der Nişantaş-Inschrift”, in A. Schachner, “Die
Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy-Hattuša 2015”, AA 2018.
Bolatti Guzzo, N., Marazzi, M., Schachner, A., Repola L., Tilia, S. 2017, “The ‘Hattusa Project’. A
German-Italian Cooperation for the Three-Dimensional Documentation and Representation of an
UNESCO Archaeological Site”, News from the Lands of the Hittites 1, pp. 17-48.
272 Massimiliano Marazzi

Bordreuil, P. (ed.) 1991, Une bibliothèque au sud de la ville. Ras Shamra-Ougarit VII, Paris.
Boodbank, C. 2013, The Making of the Middle Sea: A History of the Mediterranean from the Beginning to
the Emergence of the Classical World, Oxford.
Bryce, T. 1999, “Anatolian Scribes in Mycenaean Greece”, HISTORIA. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 48,
pp. 257-264.
Bryce, T. 2003a, Letters off the Great Kings of the Ancient Near East, London.
Bryce, T. 2003b, “History”, in H.C. Melchert (ed.), The Luwians (= HdO I/68), Leiden-Boston,
pp. 27-127.
Bryce, T. 2016, “The Land of Hiyawa (Que) Revisited”, AnSt 66, pp. 67-79.
Cifola, B. 1988, “Rames III and the Sea Peoples: A Structural Analysis of the Medinet Habu Inscriptions”,
Orientalia 57, pp. 275-306.
Cifola, B. 1991, “The Terminology of Ramses III’s Historical Records. With a Formal Analysis of the War
Scenes”, Orientalia 60, pp. 9-57.
Cifola, B. 1994, “The Role of the Sea Peoples at the End of the Late Bronze Age: A Reassessment of
Textual and Archaeological Evidence”, in Orientis Antiqui Miscellanea I, Roma, pp. 1-23.
de Martino, S. 2008, “Relations between Hatti and Alašiya according to Textual and Archaeological
Evidence”, in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Hattuša-Boğazköy. Das Hethiterreich im SPannungsfeld des Alten
Orients (CDOG 6), Würzburg 2006, Wiesbaden, pp. 247-263.
Dietrich, M., Loretz, O. 1978, “Der ‘Seefahrende Volk’ von Sikila (RS 3 4.129)”, UF 10, pp. 53-56.
Dillo, M. 2016, “The Location and Erection of the Storm-God Stelae from Arsuz: Deciphering the
Unreadable Luwian City Name in Cilicia as the Port of URASSA/I”, BiOr 73, pp. 40-61.
Dinçol, B, Dinçol, A., Hawkins, J.D., Peker, H., Öztan, A. 2015, “Two New Inscribed Storm-god Stelae
from Arsuz (Iskenderum): ARSUZ 1 and 2”, AnSt 65, pp. 59-77.
Fischer, R. 2010, Die Ahhijawa-Frage. Mit einer kommentierten Bibliographie (DBH 26), Wiesbaden.
Fischer, R. 2011, “Nachträge zur Ahhiyawa-Frage”, in R. Fischer, D. Groddek, H. Marquardt (eds.),
Hethitologie in Dresden. Textbearbeitungen, Arbeiten zur Forschungs- und Schriftgeschichte, Wiesbaden,
pp. 1-3.
Gander, M. 2010, Die geographischen Beziehungen der Lukka-Länder, Heidelberg.
Gander, M. 2012, “Ahhiyawa-Hiyawa-Que: Gibt es Evidenz für die Anwesenheit von Griechen in Kilikien
am Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit?”, SMEA 54, pp. 281-309.
Gander, M. 2016, “Lukka, Lycians, Trmmili in the Ancient Near Eastern Sources”, in H. Işkan, E. Dündar
(eds.), From Lukka to Lycia – The Land of Sarpedon and St. Nicholas, Istanbul, pp. 80-99.
Gilan, A. 2013, “Pirates in the Mediterranean – A View from the Bronze Age”, in N. Jaspert, S. Kolditz
(eds.), Seeraub im Mittelmeerraum. Piraterie, Korsarentum und maritime Gewalt von der Antike bis
zur Neuzeit, Padeborn, pp. 49-66.
Giorgieri, M., Mora, C. 1996, Aspetti della regalità ittita nel XIII secolo a.C., Como.
Giorgieri, M., Mora, C. 2010, “Kingship in Ḫatti during the 13th Century: Forms of Rule and Struggles
for Power before the Fall of the Empire”, in Y. Cohen, A. Gilan, J.L. Miller (eds.), Pax Hethitica.
Studies on the Hittites and their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer, Wiesbaden, pp. 136-157.
Girella, L. 2011, “Alcune riflessioni su Ahhiyawa a Creta”, in F. Carinci, N. Cucuzza, P. Militello, O. Palio
(eds.), Studi in onore di Vincenzo La Rosa (Studi di Archeologia Cretese X), Padova, pp. 405-418.
Gitin, S., Mazar, A., Stern, E. (eds.) 1998, Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, Jerusalem.
Hajnal, I. 2003, Troia aus sprachwissenschaftlicher Sicht. Die Struktur einer Argumentation, Innsbruck.
 Corsairs, Pirates, Traders, or Nomads of the Sea? 273

Hajnal, I. 2011, “Namen und ihre Etymologien – Als Beweisstücke nur bedingt tauglich?”, in C. Ulf, R.
Rollinger (eds.), Lag Troia in Kilikien? Der aktuelle Streit um Homers Ilias, Darmstadt, pp. 241-263.
Hajnal, I. (forthcoming), “Graeco-Anatolian Contacts in the Mycenaean Period”, in M.A. Fritz, B.D.
Joseph, J.S.Klein (eds.), Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An International Handbook of
Language Comparison and the Reconstruction of Indo-European, Berlin.
Hawkins, J.D. 1995, The Hieroglyphic Inscription of the Sacred Pool Complex at Hattusa (SÜDBURG).
With an archaeological Introduction by Peter Neve, Wiesbaden.
Hawkins, J.D. 1998, “Targasnawa King of Mira”, AnSt 48, pp. 1-31.
Hawkins, J.D. 2002, “Troy in Recent Perspective. The Historical Geography of Western Anatolia in the
Hittite Texts”, AnSt 52, pp. 94-101.
Hawkins, J.D. 2006, “Tudhaliya the Hunter”, in Th.P.J. van den Hout, C.H. van Zoest (eds.), The Life
and Times of Hattušili III and Tuthaliya IV, Leiden, pp. 49-76.
Hawkins, J.D. 2009a, “The Arzawa Letters in Recent Perspective”, British Museum Studies in Ancient
Egypt and Sudan 14, pp. 73-83.
Hawkins, J.D. 2009b, “Cilicia, The Amuq and Aleppo. New Light in a Dark Age”, Near Eastern Archaeology
72, pp. 164-173.
Hawkins, J.D. 2015a, “Addendum to ‘Phoenician and Luwian in Early Iron Age Cilicia’ by Ilya
Yakubovich”, AnSt 65, pp. 54-55.
Hawkins, J.D. 2015b, “The Political Geography of Arzawa (Western Anatolia)”, in N.Ch. Stampolidis,
Ç. Maner, K. Kopanias (eds.), Nostoi. Indigenous Culture, Migration + Integration in the Aegean
Islands + Western Anatolia During the Late Bronze + Early Iron Ages, Istanbul, pp. 15-36.
Hawkins, J.D. (forthcoming), “NİŞANTAŞ (BOĞAZKÖY 5). Rock Inscription”, in J. Seeher (ed.),
Nişantepe, Berlin.
Heinhold Krahmer, S. 2007, “Zu diplomatischen Kontakten zwischen dem Hethiterreich und dem
Land Ahhiyawa”, in E. Alram Stern, G. Nightingale (eds.), Keimelion. Elitenbildung und elitärer
Konsum von der mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur homerischen Epoche, Akten Kongr. Salzburg 2005,
Wien, pp. 191-207.
Heinhold-Krahmer, S. 2014, “Review of R. Fischer, Die Ahhijawa-Frage. Mit einer kommentierten
Bibliographie, Wiesbaden 2010”, ZA 104, pp. 119-134.
Hitchcock, L.A., Maeir, A.M. 2014, “Yo-ho, yo-ho, a Seren’s Life for Me!”, World Archaeology 46,
pp. 624-640.
Hoffner, H.A. 1992, “The Last Days of Khattusha”, in W.A. Ward, M. Sharp Joukowsky (eds.), The Crisis
Years: The 12th Century B.C. from Beyond the Danube to the Tigris, Dubuque, IA, pp. 46-52.
Hoffner, H.A. 2009, Letters from the Hittite Kingdom, edited by G. M. Beckman, Atlanta.
Horden, P., Purcell, N. 2000, The Corrupting Sea. A Study of Mediterranean History, Malden M.
Houwink ten Cate, Ph. 1973, “Contacts between the Aegean Region and Anatolia in the Second
Millenium B.C. Anatolian Evidence for Relations with the West in the Late Bronze Age”, in Bronze
Age Migrations in the Aegean: Archaeological and Linguistic Problems in Greek Prehistory, Procc. 1st
International Colloquium on Aegean Prehistory, London, pp. 141-158.
Houwink ten Cate, Ph. 1983-84, “Sidelights on the Ahhiyawa Question from Hittite Vassal and Royal
Correspondence”, JEOL 28, pp. 33-79.
Jasink, A.M., Marino, M. 2007, “The West-Anatolian Origins of the Que Kingdom Dynasty”, in A.
Archi, R. Francia (eds.), VI Congresso Internazionale di Ittitologia, Roma 2005, SMEA 49, Roma,
pp. 407-421.
274 Massimiliano Marazzi

Jones, R., Levi, S., Bettelli, M., Vagnetti, L., Italo-Mycenaean Pottery: The Archaeological and Archaeometric
Dimensions, Roma.
Kelder, J. 2012, “Ahhiyawa and the World of the Great Kings: A Re-evaluation of Mycenaean political
Structures”, Talanta 44, pp. 41-52.
Killebrew, A. E., Lehmann, G. (eds.) 2013. The Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples” in Text and
Archaeology, Atlanta.
Klengel, H. 1973, “Hungerjahre in Ḫatti”, AoF 1, pp. 165-174.
Klengel, H. 1979, “Handel und Kaufleute im hethitischen Reich”, in AoF 6, pp. 69-80.
Klengel, H. 2007, “Ura, Ugarit und der hethitische Mittelmeerhandel”, in  M. Alparslan, M. Doğan
Alparslan, H. Peker (eds.), VITA – Festschrift in Honor of Belkıs Dinçol and Ali Dinçol, Istanbul,
pp. 383-388.
Lackenbacher, S. 2002, Textes akkadiens d’Ugarit, Paris.
Lackenbacher, S., Malbran Labat, F. 2005, “Ugarit e les Hittites dans les archives de la ‘Maison d’Urtenu”,
SMEA 47, pp. 227-240.
Lackenbacher, S., Malbran Labat, F. 2016, Lettres en akkadien de la “maison d’Urtēnu”. Fouilles de 1994, Paris.
Lehmann, G. A. 1979, “Die Šikalājū: ein neues Zeugnis zu den ‘Seevölker’. Heerfahrten im späten 13. Jh.
v.Chr. (RS 34.129)”, UF 11, pp. 481-494.
Lenci, M. 2006, Corsari. Guerra, schiavi, rinnegati nel Mediterraneo, Roma.
Liverani, M. 1986, “La ceramica e i testi: commercio miceneo e politica orientale”, in M. Marazzi, S.
Tusa, L. Vagnetti (eds.), Traffici Micenei nel Mediterraneo, Atti Cong. Palermo 1984, Taranto,
pp. 405-412. [reprinted with a number of additions in Marazzi 1994, pp. 313ff.]
Liverani, M. 1987, “The Collapse of the Near Eastern Regional System at the End of the Bronze Age:
the Case of Syria”, in M. RowIands, M.T. Larsen, K. Kristiansen (eds.), Centre and Periphery in the
Ancient World, Cambridge, pp. 66-73.
Liverani, M. 2003, Oltre la bibbia. Oltre la storia antica di Israele, Bari.
Marazzi, M. 1986, “Gli ‘Achei’ in Anatolia: un problema di metodologia”, in M. Marazzi, S. Tusa, L.
Vagnetti (eds.), Traffici Micenei nel Mediterraneo, Atti Cong. Palermo 1984, Taranto, pp. 391-404.
Marazzi, M. 1992, “Das ‘geheimnisvolle’ Land Ahhijawa”, in H. Otten, H. Ertem, E. Akurgal, A. Süel
(eds.), Hittite and Other Anatolian Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp, Ankara, pp. 365-377.
Marazzi, M. 1994, La società micenea, Roma.
Marazzi, M. 1997, “I contatti transmarini nella preistoria siciliana”, in S. Tusa (ed.), Prima Sicilia. Alle
origini della società siciliana, Palermo, pp. 365-374.
Marazzi, M. 2005, “Riflessi di economie palaziali fra mondo egeo e Anatolia occidentale”, in L’economia
palaziale e la nascita della moneta: dalla Mesopotamia all’Egeo, Atti del Congresso Internazionale,
Roma 2002, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Centro Linceo Interdisciplinare “Beniamino Segre”,
Roma, pp. 201-219.
Marazzi, M. 2013, Scrittura, epigrafia e grammatica greco-micenea, Roma.
Marazzi, M. 2014a, “Il mare e i Micenei: dal segno e viceversa”, in C.C. Lamberg Karlovsky, B. Genito,
B. Cerasetti (eds.), “My life is like the Sommer Rose”. Maurizio Tosi e l’archeologia come modo di vivere
(= BAR I.S. 2690), Oxford, pp. 491-504.
Marazzi, M. 2014b, “Prima dei Fenici: i Micenei nel Mediterraneo fra espansione e collasso”, in A.
Accardi (ed.), Ricordando Braudel. Mediterraneo, un mare condiviso, Palermo, pp. 65-86.
Marazzi, M. 2015, La scrittura dei Micenei, Roma.
 Corsairs, Pirates, Traders, or Nomads of the Sea? 275

Marazzi, M. 2016, “Dalle ‘marinerie’ minoiche alle ‘marinerie’ levanto-micenee. Processi di interconnettività
e ‘globalizzazione’ del Mediterraneo nel corso del II millennio a.C.”, in S. Tusa (ed.), Mirabilia
Maris, Catalogo della Mostra, Palermo, pp. 53-63.
Marazzi, M. (in press), “Schriftlichkeit und königliche Zelebration in Hattusa gegen Ende des 13.
Jht. v. Chr.: Über die sogenannten „langen“ Hieroglypheninschriften”, in N. Bolatti Guzzo,
P. Taracha (eds.), And I Knew 12 Languages. A Tribute to Massimo Poetto for His 70th Birthday,
Warsaw.
Marazzi, M. (in press 2), “The ‘Administered’ System of Trans-Mediterranean Maritime Relations at the
End of the 2nd Millennium BC: Apogee and Collapse”, SMEA 2018.
Marazzi, M., Bolatti Guzzo, N., Repola, L. 2017, “3D-Scanning in Hattuša”, in A. Schachner, Die
Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy-Hattuša 2015 (AA 2016), pp. 24-42.
Marazzi, M., Pecoraro, G. 2016, “Il Mediterraneo durante il II millennio a.C.: riflessioni su alcuni
indicatori marittimi di un nuovo sistema di interconnettività”, in M. Marazzi, G. Pecoraro, S. Tusa
(eds.), MARIA, LACUS ET FLUMINA. Studî di storia, archeologia e antropologia “in acqua” dedicati
a Claudio Mocchegiani Carpano, Roma, pp. 307-328.
Marazzi, M., Pepe, C. 2002, “La domesticazione delle piante e l’agricoltura: mondo egeo”, in S. Moscati
(ed.), Il Mondo dell’archeologia, Roma, pp. 651-656 [now accessed at http://www.treccani.
it/enciclopedia/la-domesticazione-delle-piante-e-l-agricoltura-mondo-egeo_%28Il-Mondo-
dell%27Archeologia%29/ ].
Melchert, C. 2002, “Tarbuntassa in the SÜDBURG Hieroglyphic Inscription”, in K. Aslihan Yener, H.
A. Hoffner (eds.), Recent Developments in Hittite Archaeology and History, Papers in Memory of Hans
G. Güterbock, Winona Lake, IN, pp. 137-143.
Melchert, C. (forthcoming), “Mycenaean and Hittite Diplomatic Correspondence: Fact and Fiction”,
in A.Teffeteller (ed.), Mycenaeans and Anatolians in the Late Bronze Age: The Ahhijawa Question,
Montreal 2006 [accessed at http://linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/montrealtext.pdf ].
Momigliano, N., Aksoi, B. 2015, “Lycia Before Lycians”, in N.Ch. Stampolidis, Ç. Maner, K. Kopanias
(eds.), Nostoi. Indigenous Culture, Migration + Integration in the Aegean Islands + Western Anatolia
During the Late Bronze + Early Iron Ages, Istanbul, pp. 539-555.
Moran, W. -L., 1992, The Amarna Letters, London.
Nóvak, M. 2010, “Kizzuwatna - Hiyawa - Quwe. Ein Abriss der Kulturgeschichte des Ebenen Kilikien”,
in J. Becker, R. Hempelmann, E. Rehm (eds.), Kulturlandschaft Syrien – Zentrum und Peripherie.
Festschrift für Jan-Waalke Meyer, Münster, pp. 397-425.
Nóvak, M., Rutishauser, S. 2017, “Kizzuwatna: Archaeology”, in M. Weeden, L.Z. Ullmann (eds.),
Hittite Landscape and Geography, Leiden/Boston, pp. 134-145.
Nóvak, M. et al. 2017, “A Comparative Stratigraphy of Ciclicia”, AoF 44, pp. 150-186.
Oettinger, N. 2008, “The Seer Mopsos as a Historical Figure”, in B.J. Collins, M.R. Bacharova, I.C.
Rutherford (eds.), Anatolian Interfaces. Hittites, Greeks and Their Neighbours, London, pp. 63-66.
Oren, E. (ed.) 2000, The Sea Peoples and Their World : A Reassessment, Philadelphia.
Palaima, T.G. 2015, “The Mycenaean Mobilization of Labor in Agriculture and Building Projects:
lnstitutions, lndividuals, Compensation and Status in the Linear B Tablets”, in P. Steinkeller, M.
Hudson (eds.), Labor in the Ancient World, Dresden, pp. 617-648.
Pavúk, P. 2015, “Between the Aegeans and the Hittites: Western Anatolia in the 2nd Millennium
BC”, in N.Ch. Stampolidis, Ç. Maner, K. Kopanias (eds.), Nostoi. Indigenous Culture, Migration
+ Integration in the Aegean Islands + Western Anatolia During the Late Bronze + Early Iron Ages,
Istanbul, pp. 81-114.
276 Massimiliano Marazzi

Poetto, M. 1993, L’iscrizione luvio-geroglifica di Yalburt. Nuove acquisizioni relative alla geografia dell’Anatolia
sud-occidentale (StudMed 8), Pavia.
Samaras, V., 2015, “Piracy in the Aegean during the Postpalatial Period and the Early Iron Age”, in A.
Babbi, F. Bubenheimer, E.B. Marín Aguilera, S. Mühl (eds.), The Mediterranean Mirror. Cultural
Contacts in the Mediterranean Sea between 1200 and 750 B.C., Mainz, pp. 189-204.
Sandars, N.K. 1985, The Sea Peoples. Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean, 2nd edition, London.
Sherratt, S. 1998, “‘Sea Peoples’ and the Economic Structure of the Late Second Millennium in the
Eastern Mediterranean”, in S. Gitin, A. Mazar, E. Stern (eds.), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition,
Jerusalem, pp. 292-313.
Sherratt, S. 2001, “Potemkin Palaces and Route-Based Economies”, in S. Voutsaki, J. Killen (eds.),
Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States (Cambridge Philological Society, Suppl. Vol.
27), Cambridge, pp. 214-238.
Sherratt, S. 2013, “The Ceramic Phenomenon of the ‘Sea Peoples’: An Overview”, in A.E. Killebrew, G.
Lehmann (eds.), The Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples” in Text and Archaeology, Atlanta, pp. 619-644.
Singer, I. 1996, “Great Kings of Tarhuntašša”, SMEA 38, pp. 63-71.
Singer, I. 1999, “A Political History of Ugarit”, in W.G.E. Watson, N. Wyatt (eds.), Handbook of Ugaritic
Studies, Leiden, pp. 603-733.
Singer, I. 2000, “New Evidence on the End of the Hittite Empire”, in E. Oren (ed.), The Sea Peoples and
Their World: A Reassessment, Philadelphia, pp. 21-33.
Singer, I. 2001, “The Fate of Hattusa during the Period of Tarhuntassa’s Supremacy”, in Th. Richter, D.
Prechel, J. Klinger (eds.), Kulturgeschichte. Altorientalische Studien für V. Haas zum 65. Geburtstag,
Saarbrücken, pp. 395-403.
Singer, I. 2006, “Ships Bound for Lukka: A New Interpretation of the Companion Letters RS 94.2530
and RS 94.2523”, AoF 33, pp. 242-262.
Singer, I. 2008, “Purple-Dyers in Lapza”, in B.J. Collins, M. Bachvarova, I. Rutherford (eds.), Anatolian
Interfaces: Hittites, Greeks and their Neighbors: Procc. Int.lConference on Cross-Cultural Interaction,
Atlanta 2004, Oxford, pp. 21-44.
Singer, I. 2011, The Calm Before the Storm. Selected Writings of Itamar Singer on the Late Bronze Age in
Anatolia and the Levant, edited by B.J. Collins, Atlanta.
Singer, I., 2012, “The Philistines in the North and the Kingdom of Taita”, in G. Galil, A. Gilboa, A.M.
Maeir, D.’el Kahn (eds.), The Ancient Near East in the 12th-10th Centuries BCE. Culture and History,
Procc. Int. Conf. Haifa 2010, Münster (= AOAT 392), pp. 451-471.
Snape, S. 2003, “Zawiyet Umm el-Rakham and Egyptian Foreign Trade in the 13th Century BC”, in
N.C. Stampolidis, V. Karageorghis (eds.), Sea Routes... Interconnections in the Mediterranean 16th–
6th c. BC, Athens, pp. 63-82.
Snape, S. 2013, “A stroll Along the Corniche? Coastal Routes between the Nile Delta and Cyrenaica in
the Late Bronze Age”, in F. Förster, H. Riemerpp (eds.), Desert Road Archaeology in Ancient Egypt
and Beyond, Köln, pp. 439-454.
Sürenhagen, D. 1996, “Politischer Niedergang und kulturelles Nachleben des hethitischen Großreiches
im Lichte neuerer Forschung”, in U. Magen, M. Rashad (eds.), Vom Halys zum Euphrat, Thomas
Beran zu Ehren, Münster, pp. 283-293.
Ugaritica V. Textes accadiens, hourrites et ogaritiques des archives et bibliothèques privées d’Ugarit, edited by
J. Nougayrol, E. Laroche, Ch. Virolleaud, C.F.A. Schaeffer, Paris 1968.
 Corsairs, Pirates, Traders, or Nomads of the Sea? 277

Vagnetti, L. 1998, “Variety and Function of the Aegean Derivative Pottery in the Central Mediterranean
in the Late Bronze Age”, in S. Gitin, A. Mazar, E. Stern (eds.), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition,
Jerusalem, pp. 66-77.
Vagnetti, L. 2000, “Western Mediterranean Overview: Peninsular Italy, Sicily and Sardinia at the Time
of the Sea Peoples”, in E. Oren (ed.), The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment, Philadelphia,
pp. 305-326.
Wachsman, S. 2013, The Gurob Ship-Cart Model and ist Mediterranean Context (Rachal Foundation
nautical archaeology series), College Station.
Wedde, M. 2000, Towards a Hermeneutics of Aegean Bronze Age Ship Imagery, Mannheim.
Wedde, M. 2005, “The Mycenaean Galley in Context: From Fact to Idée Fixe”, in R. Laffineur, E.
Greco (eds.), Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean, Proceedings of the 10th
International Aegean Conference, Athens 2004 (Aegeum 25), Liège, pp. 29-37.
White, D. 2002, Marsa Matruh I: The Excavation, II: The Objects, Philadelphia.
Yalçin, Ü., Pulak, C., Slotta, R. 2005, Das Schiff von Uluburun. Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren, Bochum.
Yakubovich, I. 2010, The Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language, Leiden-Boston.
Yakubovich, I. 2013, “Review of R. Fischer, Die Ahhijawa-Frage. Mit einer kommentierten Bibliographie,
Wiesbaden 2010”, Kratylos 58, pp. 185-192.
Yakubovich, I. 2015a, “Phoenician and Luwian in Early Iron Age Cilicia”, AnSt 65, pp. 35-53.
Yakubovich, I. 2015b, “Adanawa or Ahhiyawa? Reply to the addendum by J.D. Hawkins”, AnSt 65,
pp. 56-58.
Yon, M., Sznycer, M., Bordreuil, P. (eds.) 1995, Le pays d’Ougarit autour de 1200 av. J.-C. (Ras Shamra-
Ougarit, XI), Paris.