What happened to the Mycenaean Greek style settlements in Italy at the end of the Bronze Age?

[Roma_Victrix]

I've read about how Mycenaean-style settlements weren't just found in Greece and the Aegean islands, but also Western Anatolia, Cyprus, and even the Levant. I've also read that they existed in the Italian peninsula, which is a fun concept considering Iron Age Archaic period Greeks colonized it again a few centuries later (i.e. Megale Hellas/Magna Graecia).

There are articles and books written on the subject, but I do not have access to them. Does anyone know what ultimately happened to the Mycenaean Greek style settlements and Mycenaean influenced towns in Bronze Age Italy? Did they get sacked violently like most of the palatial Greek cities in Mycenaean Greece during the Late Bronze Age collapse? Did they ever utilize Linear B writing and written records like mainland Mycenaean Greeks? Did they just slowly decline instead of being conquered or annihilated by hostile foreigners?

Whatever the case, by the end of the Bronze Age the proto-Villanovan culture seems to have spread across the entire peninsula and even to Sicily, while Sardinia was still dominated by the stone-tower-building Nuragic civilization. The early Iron Age Villanovan culture became even more refined in terms of social stratification, but they seem totally divorced from Mycenaean forms of civilization, sophisticated lifestyles and material culture. Whatever Mycenaean cultural impact there was in Italy seems to have been crushed by the Greek Dark Age. It seems as though the rise and advancements of early urban dwellings of the Etruscans and various Indo-European Italic peoples in Italy during the 8th century BC were the product of continual contact and trade with Archaic Greek and Phoenician colonists and enterprising merchants. The Phoenicians of Tyre founded the colonial city of Gadir in southern Spain (at modern Cadiz) as far back as 1104 BC, so they stimulated trade in the Western Mediterranean not long after the Mycenaean presence vanished there circa 1150 BC.

[sumskilz]

Although it's widely used, "Mycenaean" might be a bit of a misnomer in this context, because a lot of the material culture that has been associated with the Mycenaeans was derived from pre-Mycenaean forms that were already present around the Eastern Mediterranean before there were Mycenaeans.

My previous comments about Philistine material culture are relevant:

Until recently, the most important evidence potentially connecting the Philistines to the Aegean is the Mycenaean IIIC:1 pottery. It first appears in coastal Cilicia, Syria, and Philistia in the Twelfth Century. Arguably, not before 1125 in Philistia. It was being manufactured locally in Philistia and Cyprus. Otherwise, most of the Philistine material culture shows continuity with pre-existing Canaanite traditions. Philistia is defined archaeologically as the coastal region from Wadi Gaza in the south to the Yarkon River (Tel Aviv) in the north. It encompasses the five major urban centers Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, and Gath, portrayed in the Hebrew Bible as independent city-states ruled by the five “lords of the Philistines”.

Mycenaean IIIC:1 was also locally manufactured in Cyprus. Most likely earlier than in Philistia. North of Philistia at Akko (Acre), there was a somewhat different form of Mycenaean IIIC:1 pottery being manufactured. Other Mycenaean IIIC:1 finds along the coast of modern Syria and Lebanon were also likely locally manufactured, but most of these finds are not yet published, and in these cases the assumption of local manufacture is based on the finds’ proximity to kilns rather than the more solid petrographic analysis we have from Philistia and Cyprus. Finds of this type of pottery are almost completely absent from inland Anatolia and Syria. Imported Mycenaean IIIC:1 pottery of Aegean manufacture is also found at coastal Eastern Mediterranean sites.

The locally manufactured Mycenaean IIIC:1 finds are exact enough that local imitation of imports can probably be ruled out. Although local manufacture doesn’t necessitate an assumption of invasion, since it could as easily be the result of the migration of skilled craftsmen. Furthermore, many of the Mycenaean IIIC:1 forms found in the Aegean are completely absent among Eastern Mediterranean assemblages. In fact, those assemblages argued to be associated with the Sea Peoples have the most in common with Cypriot assemblages. For this reason, Late Helladic IIIC.1 has become the preferred term, so that the Cypriot, Cilician, and Levantine finds can be argued to be a distinct Eastern Mediterranean branch of the Late Helladic IIIC.1 tradition parallel to a regionally specific Mycenaean IIIC:1 tradition.

That said, it would be useful to clarify what we're talking about here.

This should help (LH = Late Helladic):

Italo-Mycenaean (IM) pottery is the name given to the class of decorated Mycenaean pottery found and made in Italy. This pottery of Aegean type is distinguished from the contemporary pottery found in Italy but which was imported from the Aegean, that is, from the Mycenaean Mainland, Crete and the Islands. Whereas the presence of imports has long been recognised in Italy, it is only more recently that as a result of systematic and interdisciplinary study of the pottery finds bearing the stylistic and technical hallmarks associated with Mycenaean pottery that the class of IM pottery has come to be fully understood and interpreted as a specific and flourishing ware made in Italy. More specifically, Lucia Vagnetti’s observations on the Mycenaean-type pottery recovered from one of the sites considered in this paper, Broglio di Trebisacce in Calabria (Vagnetti 1984, 169–196), that some of their fabrics were different from those canonically associated with the Aegean that stimulated the integration of an archaeometric component to the study.

Whether imported or locally made, this pottery stands out macroscopically, being wheel-made, decorated with paint and kiln fired in contrast to the handmade indigenous pottery. Joining the decorated IM are other specialised wares whose production in Italy was also Aegean-influenced: dolia, Grey (GR), South Italian Protogeometric (PG) and Geometric (GE), the latter dating to the Iron Age.

The salient features of the phenomenon of Aegean influence in Italy during the second half of the second millennium BC, which have been explored by the present authors (Jones et al. 2014), are as follows: Aegean (and Cypriot)-type pottery has been recovered at more than a hundred sites throughout many parts of Italy, mainly in the south, as well as the associated islands (Fig. 1). IM first appears in late MBA 3 in the Italian chronology (LH IIIA Aegean chronology (c. 1420–1330 BC)), peaking in frequency in the Recent Bronze Age-Early Final Bronze Age (LH IIIB-C (c. 1330–1100 BC)), as shown in Fig. 2 together with the comparative figures for imported Mycenaean/Aegean.

The shapes of IM follow closely those of the repertoire of decorated fine wares of the Late Bronze Age in the Aegean that are associated principally with drinking, storage/pouring and pouring (bowls, cups, kylikes, basins, craters, jars, alabastra, stirrup jars) with a very small proportion connected with storage/transport (large jars and amphorae) (Jones et al. 2014, Figs. 6.12–15) (Fig. 3). Within this general framework, there are many local innovative solutions in terms of pottery shapes, presenting major differences from the standard Aegean types (Jones et al. 2014, 426–434, 442–444, Figs. 6.12–15). Decorative motifs on IM are also based on the Aegean models but with significant departure from them as discussed below (Jones et al. 2014, 435–437, 442–444, Figs. 6.16–20) (here Fig. 4). The manner in which the three functions—drinking, storage/pouring and pouring—continue in much the same proportions throughout LH IIIB to IIIC suggests the existence of a strong, definable tradition of specific standardised shapes inspired by Aegean models but with several local characteristics; this feature is well represented in the Plain of Sybaris (Jones et al. 2014, 415–416).

In view of the long duration of this phenomenon, almost five centuries, its chronological dimension must be introduced. The local production of Mycenaean pottery starts quite early, apparently from LH IIIA, and develops considerably in LH IIIB and IIIC both in peninsular Italy, including the Po Valley, and in Sardinia (Jones et al. 2014, 407–408; Bettelli and Levi in press). The incidence of IM productions increases progressively by some 20% from LH IIIA to LH IIIC when it becomes the essentially prevalent situation (Jones et al. 2014, Fig. 6.1b). This gradual growth seems to be linked more to an increasing demand for this type of prestige item by local communities, rather than as a consequence of the crisis of the palatial economies at the end of LH IIIB (Jones et al. 2014, 445–460). However, this general trend does not always reflect specific situations, such as, for example, those in the Plain of Sybaris and Rocavecchia or Scoglio del Tonno in Apulia. In the first case, there are very few imports and local production is in a constant majority, while at Rocavecchia and Scoglio del Tonno, imports always maintain a considerable presence, as also occurs at other sites, such as Antigori in Sardinia (Jones et al. 2014, 411–413). This phenomenon is certainly linked to the role played by the different settlements in the field of maritime-based networks. In southern Italy, wheel-thrown (and/or wheel-formed) pottery continues with no discernible gap into the Early Iron Age (EIA), with South Italian Protogeometric (PG) and Geometric (GE) wares. The maintenance of local productive networks of specialised potters using the technological package of Aegean legacy is probably to be linked to the local historical scenario. Differently from other Italian regions, south-eastern Italy, it is characterised by long-lasting settlement continuity, probably associated with a greater stability of the socio-economic and sociopolitical structures of those communities (Bettelli in press-a).

The archaeological implications of the extent of IM production are considerable. They include the popularity of this pottery as a mark of status among the emerging elites in Italian society at this time. They indicate the presence of potters in Italy who were proficient in the manufacture of this high quality pottery. In the early phase, such potters had most likely arrived as travellers from the Greek mainland/Aegean, many of them perhaps looking for new markets outside the Mycenaean world and responding to the demands of local (Italian) elites. In any case, they brought their potting skills with them and crucially were able to establish themselves at one or more locations in Italy, finding the appropriate clays and other materials, as well as setting up a workshop. Over the course of time, there must presumably have been interaction with local potters which led to the technology being transferred to them. But on this presumption, the Italian potter, although now trained in working on the wheel and firing in a kiln, was not bound to, or did not have the deep experience of, the canon of Mycenaean shapes and decorative motifs. The potter was free to adapt and experiment. This is important because stylistic analysis of IM points to some degree of idiosyncrasy in style and furthermore to notable regional variation, as mentioned above. At the same time, the phenomenon of technological transfer was far from comprehensive across Italy and its islands; the evidence for IM on Sicily, for example, is exceedingly sparse, as it also seems to be at a coastal mainly LH IIIC site, Punta di Zambrone, in southern Calabria (Fig. 1: 40), almost overlooking Sicily.

So the view here is that we aren't really talking Mycenaean-style settlements, but the popularity and local emulation of a pottery style.

The following then, is the suggested answer to your question:

The weakening and subsequent interruption of the links with the Aegean towards the end of the second millennium BC, whose causes are mainly sought in the historical processes and phenomena that took place in Greece, did not promote further circulation of formal and decorative styles prevalent in the Aegean. Instead, it favoured the development of a ceramic style—PG—which had already been formed in general terms (see, for instance, Ausonian I (Recent Bronze Age) at Lipari (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1980)), characterised by the presence, both in form and decoration, of various types of native element (Yntema 2000, 320; Peroni 1994: 857–860; Vanzetti 2000; Bettelli 2008; Bettelli et al. 2018). The consumers of this tableware, probably members of the elite, no longer emphasised their social distinction with the use of ‘exotic’ ceramics, as was the case with IM. Instead, the shape and decoration of PG vessels aligned themselves to a local visual repertory, which additionally and above all included impasto ware (Yntema 2000, 320; Peroni 1994, 857–860).

EDIT: Consistent with the current zeitgeist, these authors and those they cite are coming down pretty far on the pots side of the "pots vs people" debate, but it's justified to note that there doesn't seem to be any sort of full package of material culture that would suggest that these settlements were Mycenaean colonies. In my opinion, that doesn't rule out the possibility of people of Aegean origin establishing themselves as a ruling class having played some role. In which case, their disappearance would have been the result of assimilation into the culture they ruled over, which is essentially what occurred with the Philistines, who we know from historical texts retained their identity to some degree for quite some time after having disappeared as a distinct culture in the archaeological record.

[Roma_Victrix]

As usual, thanks Sumskilz and +1 rep for your enlightening post. Yes, that makes sense that they weren't full-fledged colonies like Archaic period Greek ones in Iron Age Italy. It certainly makes more sense that skilled Mycenaean potters simply migrated to various places outside Greece due to maritime commercial demand by local elites in other nearby regions. It would also make sense that these Mycenaean potters would then train or simply be imitated by local potters who learned the techniques of their trade and adopted similar kiln and wheel technologies for production. I was a bit careful in my OP to say "Mycenaean-influenced", because I wasn't entirely sure about the full extent of their presence or influence in these settlements. I guess we'll never know that, but we do have pottery to examine at least, which says something about the spread of Mycenaean cultural tentacles across a rather wide geographic area. Strange, though, that Sicily wasn't terribly affected by this trade; I'm assuming Mycenaean pottery finds in Iberia and Gaul are similarly sparse.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]