Epilogue: Kings and Great Kings in the Aegean and beyond

Kelder and Waal's epilogue reviews the volume's arguments about political organisation in Mycenaean Greece, taking archaeological, iconographic and textual evidence together with the debate over Cyprus. It covers archaeological evidence (cultural uniformity, Argive pottery, architecture, the supposed capital of Ahhiyawa), iconographic evidence, textual evidence (the Linear B tablets and the Hittite texts), the case of Cyprus and concluding remarks. The evidence runs from Mycenaean pottery distributions, figurines, palace and tomb architecture and roads to Linear B administrative records and Hittite and Egyptian texts, including diplomatic titles, treaties, correspondence and references to copper and kingship in Alaśiya.

Cultural uniformity, shared palace architecture and administrative practices are consistent with supra-regional rule, Kelder and Waal argue, although none proves political unity by itself. They favour a Mycenaean kingdom under one Great King in the 14th and most of the 13th centuries BCE, with Mycenae the likeliest capital and other centres potentially holding vassal or allied status, and they conclude that the Hittite comparison helps frame the evidence. The precise relations between palatial centres, they acknowledge, remain conjectural (pp. 157–159).

On Cyprus the authors separate the island's political history from that of Ahhiyawa. Alaśiya had regional differences in its archaeological record, was not treated as a Great Power in Egyptian correspondence, and was at least briefly subordinate to the Hittite kingdom. Hittite control occurred at least once, probably briefly, and later 13th-century BCE conditions are associated with political fragmentation on Cyprus (pp. 155–157). Knapp argues that Cyprus was one polity, while Mantzourani, Kopanias and Voskos argue for a decentralised Cyprus.