In 1876, Heinrich Schliemann began a legal excavation of the Bronze Age citadel of Mycenae. He had started earlier in 1874 on an illegal expedition that found itself quickly shut down by the proper Greek authorities. While Schliemann’s methods were destructive and his rationale for digging fanciful in comparison to the scientific methodology utilized by archaeologists today, Schliemann’s dig provided a wealth of information from his discovery of 5 shaft graves in Circle A outside of the citadel. Contents of the graves included the usual human remains, pottery, weapons, and golden objects. Objects of note included decorative luxury goods from Egypt, which lead the prolific British archaeologist Sir Arthur Evans to assert that the Mycenaeans gained their wealth as payment for fighting as mercenaries on behalf of the native Egyptian population against the Hyksos pharaohs. Scholarly conjecture pertaining to the Egyptian use of Mycenaeans as mercenaries against the Hyksos is not a sufficient reason for why Egyptian goods appear in Mycenaean tombs and should be abandoned in favor of an explanation centered around princely trade between both civilizations.
Evan’s explanation for the presence of Egyptian luxury materials in grave goods is both asserted and simultaneously dismissed by scholars without much consideration. Evan’s argument has the benefit of being romantic, with the idea of the Mycenaeans acting as mercenaries on behalf of the native Egyptian population against the Hyksos. However, Evan’s hypothesis lacks any evidence whatsoever to back up his claims. There is no archaeologic evidence for any Mycenaean participation in Egypt’s attempts to regain the Nile River Valley, nor are there any written records from the Egyptians detailing their hiring of the Mycenaeans as mercenaries except in later periods far after the Hyksos expulsion. Evan’s hypothesis is based off of nothing other than conjecture.
If traditionally accepted arguments for the presence of Egyptian-made luxury goods in Mycenaean contexts is implausible, then a more realistic argument is necessary in order to better understand Aegean connections in the Bronze Age. Contact between Mycenae and Egypt was common in the New Kingdom period, specifically during the later portions of the 18th Dynasty. Trade between the two civilizations was virtually unheard of during the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, sporadic during the 16th century, and significantly increased after 1400 BC. The earliest trade between Egypt and Mycenae possibly occurred due to facilitation by Minoan middle-men. Egyptians were clearly known to Mycenaeans, and Aegean pottery has been excavated from the Akhetaten site at modern Tell el-Amarna, which was the capital of the 18th dynasty heretic pharaoh Akhenaten. Some scholars assert that this increase of goods found later in the period was due to direct trade between Mycenae and Egypt caused by the decline of the Minoan civilization.
One of the primary sites where Egyptian origin objects are found at Mycenae are the graves of Circle A excavated by Schliemann in the late 19th century. The shaft graves at Mycenae are contained in two areas, termed Circle A and Circle B. The burials in Circle B are older than those in Circle A and date to the Middle Helladic Period with some graves dating to the Late Helladic Period (abbreviated LH, and subdivided into three additional periods, LH I, LH II, and LH III). The graves of Circle A date to approximately LH I and LH II. LH is contemporaneous to Egypt’s 18th, 19th, and 20th Dynasties. The burials in Circle A and Circle B do not comprise all of the Bronze Age burials at the Mycenae citadel, but rather the elaborate burials of the Mycenaean elite. Some scholars have conjectured that the two grave circles contain the burials of two separate ruling families (much like the two royal houses of later Sparta) but this remains unproven and generally unaccepted.
The graves in Circle A are relatively newer than those in Circle B. Both have inhumations dating to approximately LH I. Both sites fell out of usage by the 14th century BC. Arguably, the oldest graves in the circles date to Middle Helladic (MH) III. Starting in LH III the graves were surrounded by walls and monument as city planners attempted to update the citadel in its entirety. The additions of walls, monuments, and other burials make it difficult to accurately date each burial, which is probably why most scholars provide a range. Additionally, in Circle B, each of the shaft graves were expensive and work-intensive to construct and therefore intended for reuse, presumably by members of the same families. The continued addition of grave goods for different burials presumably also hinders specifically dating each one in any certain manner.
29 items in total of Egyptian origin have been found in Mycenae in contexts ranging in date from LH I to LH III. A number of these items are found in funerary contexts outside the citadel’s walls. The types of Egyptian items found in the graves of Circle A at Mycenae are predominantly luxury goods, and therefore seem to point away from trade focused on “functional” items. Unlike other foreign goods found at Mycenae, Egyptian objects are not meant for a particular purpose, like tiles or weights. Egyptian origin luxury items are found outside of burials elsewhere at Mycenae but the oldest are predominantly located in funerary contexts. Most tombs possessed a handful of Egyptian items, with the wealthiest burials containing around four items. The majority of burials contained one item.
The majority of Egyptian items contained in Circle A were luxury items made out of faience. Faience is a man-made substance that combines quartz with other materials for a smooth, lustrous finish on ceramic ware. Most faience objects found are scarabs and seals, which have no practical, functional use and existed in a decorative context. Another item, a ladle shaped like two cupped hands, found in Circle A is possibly of Egyptian inspiration, although this is uncertain, because other vessels of its shape are known in other portions of the Mediterranean. Some scholars conjecture that the presence of seals and scarabs functioned as kingly gifts that expressed goodwill from one ruler to another.
The cartouches found on a handful of Egyptian objects assists tremendously in dating them to specific periods. Most faience pieces are inscribed with the royal names of Amenhotep II and Amenhotep III, which dates them to the 18th Dynasty. Amenhotep II was the 7th pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty, and Amenhotep III was the 9th. Both ruled in the 13th century BC. Amenhotep III was succeeded by Amenhotep IV, better known as Akhenaten, the vaguely monotheistic heretic king who established his capital at Amarna. Items that can be dated to these Pharaohs are typically found in areas other than the graves, which makes sense based on Circle A falling out of use starting in the 14th century.
One particularly important 13th century item is a statuette of a blue monkey made out of blue faience (or possibly glass, based on analysis in the Journal of Glass Studies) found in Mycenae in an unrecorded location. The monkey was inscribed with the cartouche of Pharaoh Amenhotep II, which provides it with its 13th century date. This object points to important diplomatic trade between Egypt and Mycenae, and not trade focused on functional items because the monkey is decorative and serves no functional purpose. The monkey was likely colored with cobalt and, if glass, was constructed in a foundry near Thebes known to be in operation at the time of Amenhotep II. The authors of the article assert that the monkey was a highly valuable statue in the Aegean and was associated with magical and religious powers, and therefore conjecture that the monkey was probably originally found at the house of the “House of the High Priest.” Such an item would have made a valuable princely gift.
Additional items from the 13th century include fragments comprising at least six, and possibly nine in total, faience plaques with the cartouche of Amenhotep III. These items were discovered in the cult center of Mycenae. Analysis of the plaques determined, based on the idiosyncrasies of the various shapes of the hieroglyphs, that they were made by two different craftsmen. Similar faience plaques found in Egypt are found in foundation deposits that indicate the pharaoh who commissioned the building’s construction, making these faience plaques government documents that can be used to date the structure.
What, then, does the presence of Egyptian official building documents mean in the context of Mycenae? Scholars are uncertain. Some have suggested that these plaques served the same purpose that they fulfilled in Egypt and were placed in the foundation of the buildings, which is unlikely because the plaques were not found in the cult center’s foundation. Another, more plausible, suggestion is that the faience plaques were imported from Egypt to Mycenae in a larger collection of princely gifts presented by Amenhotep III to the King of Tanaju (the Egyptian term for the greater Aegean region). Cline suggests this as a possibility specifically because the faience plaques were accompanied by engraved scarabs and possibly by other items that have not survived in the archaeological record due to their organic composition. Amenhotep III and his successor, Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV), are known to have sent gifts like these to other diplomatic connections. Such a combination of materials, and their connection to other princely gifts, seems far too coincidental to be anything other than a deliberate attempt at a diplomatic connection.
Trade between Egypt and Mycenae was not one sided, however, and articles of Mycenaean origin have been found in Egyptian tombs and cities from the 18-20th Dynasties. The majority of goods found in Egyptian tombs of Mycenean origin are dated to the Ramesside period, and therefore LH IIIB, which is when trade between the two civilizations was at its height. Imports from Mycenae were typical starting in LH IIIA and increased over time. Pharaohs known to have participated in princely trade with Mycenae included Amenhotep III (whose cartouche has been found on Egyptian goods in Mycenae) and Ramesses II.
A compelling piece of evidence for early Mycenaean princely trade with Egypt appears in a painting in the tomb of Senenmut, the favorite of Hatshepsut (Pharaoh Ma’atkare). The painting depicts Cretan diplomats holding jars produced in Mycenae that would have probably held oil or some other liquid. The simple presence of Mycenaean goods depicted in grave paintings is not sufficient, however, to conclusively show that Egypt and Mycenae engaged in a diplomatic relationship. What makes the tomb painting so incredibly compelling is its date from the early 18th Dynasty, which matches closely to the suggested date for the graves in Circle A in Mycenae. Hatshepsut, who took the regnal name Ma’atkare upon assuming the throne by acting as regent for her husband/brother’s son, Thutmosis III, ruled from 1473 BC to 1458 BC. At this point in the 14th century BC, the Egyptians and Mycenaeans at least knew of each other’s existence and had encountered material goods made by the other civilization. Egyptian artistic depiction of Aegean-origin diplomats could possibly hint at a burgeoning relationship based off trade possibly facilitated by the Minoans.
A more convincing piece of evidence for a direct diplomatic connection between the Egyptians and Mycenaeans in the 18th Dynasty is the depiction of Mycenean diplomats in paintings from the reign of Thutmosis III, Hatshepsut’s successor. The painting depicts Grecian-looking males whose Minoan loincloths were hastily painted over with kilts—kilts that at first glance appear Mycenaean. Some scholars believe that this painting shows that Mycenaeans had taken over Crete’s role in trade after the decline of Knossos. If this is what the painting displays, the Egyptians viewed the Mycenaeans as the Minoans’ new Aegean replacement. Such a relationship is entirely plausible because of Egypt’s relationship with Minoans that involved trade in materials from the Greek mainland. Further evidence for a Mycenaean connection to Egypt during the early 18th Dynasty is the record of Thutmosis III receiving gifts of precious metal vessels during his reign from a location the Egyptians termed Tanaju. These vessels most likely played a part in a larger princely gift exchange, as is fitting for a burgeoning diplomatic relationship.
The location of Tanaju is poorly recorded during the reign of Thutmosis III. Apart from the record of the metal vessels, there is little more than the most sporadic presence of the name in Egyptian documents. By the reign of Amenhotep III (1390-1352 BC), further records included the names of geographic locations that comprised Tanaju, one of which was Mycenae. Tanaju most likely was the Egyptians’ term for the Mycenean world in the Aegean, which they viewed as a single, monolithically governed entity. The description of Tanaju as governed by a single king is not compatible with the historical record of Mycenaean city states, however. Were the Egyptians incorrect in their assumption that Tanaju had a single ruler, or does the term refer to a different location entirely? Or, is it possible that the Egyptians viewed Mycenae, arguably the most powerful of the Mycenaean citadels, as the representative for the Greek-speaking world? Amenhotep III’s records of giving and receiving gifts from a single, powerful ruler seem to point to the last explanation. Items with Amenhotep III’s cartouche found in Mycenae contain items known to have been included in other diplomatic gifts, which seems to support Mycenae as the citadel that the Egyptians recognized as the king of Tanaju.
The Egyptians’ increased awareness of the Aegean world coincidentally corresponds to a demonstrated increase in trade between the two regions. The presence of Mycenaean pottery shards present at Akhetaten points to additional non-princely trade between the two civilizations. However, the presence of a few pottery shards inside the city itself leads Kelder to argue that the presence of pottery points to the importance of Mycenaean pottery to Akhenaten’s regime. Other Mycenaean pottery found in numerous locations along the Nile River is stirrup-shaped and held large quantities of olive oil produced in the Mycenaean world. Olive oil was a common good traded from Mycenae to Egypt in LH IIIB. Egyptian exports to Mycenae also consisted of liquid goods, probably wine, as indicated by the discovery of stoneware in Mycenae.
Olives played a substantial part in the cult of the Aten, the quasi-monotheistic sun-god cult embraced by Akhenaten. Olive fruit also became important to the Egyptian upper classes for non-religious uses in the Amarna period. Because olives are not a native crop in Egypt due to Egypt’s dry desert climate, Akhenaten would have been forced to import oil and branches like the ones depicted in tomb and religious art. The Mycenean world is not the only place where olive-related imports could have originated, however, but the sudden prevalence of Mycenaean pottery used for transporting scented oil seems to point to Mycenae as the most likely exporter. Once again, an increase in goods imported from the Aegean world continues to mirror an increasing diplomatic relationship between the two civilizations.
Because of the compelling evidence for an earlier beginning for Mycenae and Egypt’s diplomatic trade, the Egyptian items in Circle A have either one of two explanations as to their origin. The first explanation is that the items were traded to Mycenae by way of Crete, and Mycenae’s subsequent strong trade relationship is thanks to Mycenae’s increased regional influence after the decline of Knossos in the Bronze Age. The second explanation is that Mycenae engaged in princely trade alongside the Minoans, and then took the Minoans’ place in diplomatic trade with Egypt. The slow increase of goods and Egypt’s increased awareness of Mycenae and the Mycenean world seem to point more to the second because of their matching timelines. The correspondence of Egyptian royal gifts in Mycenae to Amenhotep III’s account of Tanaju as ruled by a single king appears to point to an Egyptian view of Mycenae as the figure-head for the early Greek-speaking world, and also assists in determining Egypt’s earlier opinion of Mycenae as taking the place of Crete in Aegean trade.
Egypt engaged in sophisticated diplomatic and trade relationships with Mycenae in Late Helladic III, so it is not implausible that the grave goods from Late Helladic I display the initial origins of this trade relationship. Trade between the two civilizations was most prolific during the LH IIIB period, and so items found in LH I and LH II contexts are plausibly close enough to be examples of early princely trade. While scholars’ explanation of Egyptian items found in LH I contexts as originating from Minoan middlemen should not be immediately abandoned, an additional explanation of a diplomatic relationship in its infancy should help supplant Evans’ romantic, unsupported claims for the origin of Egyptian items in Circle A.