VOTE OF THANKS TO JAMES D. MUHLY

Ladies and Gentlemen,Those familiar with the writings of Jim Muhly and myself will know that over the last 25

years we have done our best to avoid unnecessary agreement. This makes me eminently wellqualified to propose the vote of thanks and pay my own personal tribute to him. Despite ourwell publicised differences of opinion, there are some who seem to get us mixed up. Inpreparation for attending this conference, I felt it necessary to read Bernal’s Black Athena. Ibought a copy of the first volume in French from a bouquiniste in Paris and read it on theplane to Bangkok. The Greek passenger sitting beside me was not amused by the title. I wentthrough the second volume in the library of the American School of Classical Studies inAthens.

When I first open an archaeological work that I have not read before, I go first to thepreface to see whether my assistance, advice or inspiration has been acknowledged. I thencheck the bibliography to see how many of my own publications have been cited, and thenlook at the index to find out whether I have been praised or maligned. Volume 2 of BlackAthena yielded two unexpected dividends in this regard. The first was a reference to the“Australian diplomat and specialist in Cypriot archaeology Robert Merrillees” and the otherto the “Mediterranean archaeologist James Merrillees.” While my grandfather and nephewhave this name, neither was or is an archaeologist, and there is one and only oneMediterranean archaeologist with the given name of James and a family name beginningwith M.

When I received the initial invitation to attend this conference, it was to have been heldin Philadelphia. Its subsequent transfer to Cincinnati did not, I am gratified to say, changeone of its main purposes, to honour Jim Muhly on his retirement, and I vowed to do everythingpossible to take part. The organisers of the meeting are to be congratulated on keeping to thespirit of its original intentions. But I was puzzled by the request that I talk on the relationsbetween Aegean and Egypt when there are others much better qualified to-day than me.Besides which, I did not see how I could with this subject render homage to Jim Muhly.

Careful ref lection appeared to reveal the true reasons. It was obvious that I would notbe considered to speak on Cyprus as that might involve me in uttering the dreaded A-wordwhose location is still in dispute. Certainly the topic proposed would not give me theopportunity to deal with the ancient Levantine trade in narcotics, which is still not acceptedby everyone. In the end I concluded that because I was Australian Ambassador to Greece, Icould be counted on to be diplomatic. No-one has ever accused me of that before.

In fact Jim Muhly and I see eye-to-eye literally as well as metaphorically over three basicprinciples of archaeological research. The first is the absolute right and freedom of academicexpression. All our writings, papers and communications are a kind of informed debate whichis designed to help us get closer the truth of what actually happened in the past. This is notthe same as what we think should have happened. In this debate all techniques, all arguments,all points of view are valid so long as they serve this end. Both Helene Kantor and Jim Muhlyhave been major contributors to this ongoing debate, which will never end.

The second principle, which f lows from the first, is the importance of a comprehensiveapproach to the subject, especially bibliographical. Have you noticed how wide ranging andall embracing are the written sources quoted in Kantor’s and Muhly’s publications? Theirworks show that neither language, place of publication nor accessibility should be barriers toconsultation, and that only the best researched arguments and conclusions command thegreatest respect and authority.

And finally both Kantor and Muhly subscribe to the belief that archaeological activity isnot an end in itself but the means to an historical objective. If the study of antiquity does nothelp us understand the past and the present, if not necessarily the future, then it is only beingdone for the benefit of those who undertake the chosen research. Kantor’s 1947 monographwas a major historical synthesis which we as students at Sydney University in the 1950’s treatedwith reverence. And though it was not specified in the Conference program, Jim Muhly isretiring from the position of Chairman of the Ancient History program at the University ofPennsylvania.

But Jim Muhly has given a whole new meaning to the term retirement by taking upanother full-time job in Greece as Director of the American School of Classical Studies. Somehave already enquired whether Athens is big enough for us both but at leastAustralian/American relations promise to enter an unusually lively phase, and I greatly lookforward to his advent. Jim Muhly has given us one of his typically erudite, thoughtful andenlightening lectures, and we should all be duly grateful for the privilege of hearing him speakagain this evening.

Robert S. MERRILLEES

216 Robert S. MERRILLEES