Interaction amidst Diversity An Introduction to the Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age

The Mediterranean region is notoriously difficult to define, so much so that some have suggested that its only defining characteristic might wellbe its diversity (Horden and Purcell 2000; King, Proudfoot, and Smith1997). And yet there is unity there too. Ties that bind. Connections amidstthe (seeming) chaos. What is more, the Mediterranean was a diverse yetconnected sea in the past as well, certainly as early as the Bronze Age if notthe Neolithic or earlier (Blake and Knapp 2005; Broodbank 2006). Onegoal of this book is to investigate interaction in the Bronze Age EasternMediterranean, specifically between the Aegean region and its surround-ing territories. What ties bound the diverse peoples of the EasternMediterranean, and why were these forged?

In the first chapter of this book, Parkinson and Galaty outline a gen-eral anthropological approach for exploring interaction that integratesdiverse theoretical perspectives, operates at multiple social and geographicscales, and employs a wide variety of archaeological information. In thischapter, we demonstrate how such an approach can be used for modelingthe nature of social interaction during the Bronze Age in the EasternMediterranean. The approach is deliberately broad-brushed and intended

2Interaction amidst Diversity

An Introduction to the Eastern

Mediterranean Bronze Age

Michael L. Galaty, William A. Parkinson,John F. Cherry, Eric Cline, P. Nick Kardulias,Robert Schon, Susan Sherratt, Helena Tomas, and David Wengrow

29

ACI 02:Copan 01 10/26/09 3:11 PM Page 29

to set the stage for the more focused studies presented in subsequent chap-ters. First, we define the geographical and chronological scope of thisbook. Next, we chart the various social and geographic scales of analysisdiscussed in the first chapter, specifically as they relate to the EasternMediterranean. Finally, we describe and discuss various key historical andbehavioral “trends” or “cycles” that occurred in the region. The origins andeffects of these trends and cycles are explored with more precision and ingreater detail in the succeeding chapters.

D E F I N I T I O N O F S C O P EThe approach outlined in chapter 1 is intended to operate at multiple

scales, so, consequently, this book is characterized by its wide geographical,chronological, and social-scalar scope. Certainly, we seek to draw generaldiachronic conclusions about human behavior, but we also examinewhether macro-regional trends and cycles, operating along different tra-jectories of change, hold when local particular archaeological contexts areconsidered. As a result, our approach is a nested, integrated one.

GeographyWe define the Eastern Mediterranean as extending from Italy and the

Adriatic in the west to the Levantine coast in the east (figure 2.1). Thismacro region, as well as the coastal zones surrounding it, formed the nexusof an interactive network during the later Bronze Age that linked togetherdiverse societies varying dramatically in demographic scale and political,economic, and ideological organization.

Within that macro region, the pan–Aegean Sea encompasses threesmaller regional units: Crete, the mainland of Greece, and the islands.These subregions are based on fairly obvious geographical characteristics.Additionally, each is further defined by a distinct cultural tradition: theMinoan, Helladic (in later periods, referred to as Mycenaean), andCycladic. Each subregion can be further partitioned based on geographyor cultural tradition, or both. Crete, for example, can be rather neatlysplit—west, central, and east, and north to south (D. Wilson 2008)—intosubregional units, each associated with separate but similar socio-politicalcenters (in later periods, palaces) and economic systems, sometimesreferred to as “peer polities” (figure 2.2; Cherry, chapter 5, this volume;Renfrew and Cherry 1986). Each peer polity interacted with different partsof the wider Eastern Mediterranean at different times.

Mainland Greece may be roughly split into north and south, each ofwhich experienced quite different climatic and environmental regimes

Michael L. Galaty et.al

30

ACI 02:Copan 01 10/26/09 3:11 PM Page 30

(Halstead 1994). Some archaeologists argue that northern Greece (that is,north of a line from Thessaly in the east to the Ionian islands in the west)was outside the bounds of the Helladic (and later the Mycenaean) world,but this issue is open to debate (see Tomas, chapter 8, this volume; Adrimi-Sismani 2007; see Feuer 1999). Important additional distinctions often aredrawn between the Peloponnese and the rest of mainland southernGreece, and some have argued that the Peloponnese, including theArgolid and Messenia, was the “heartland” of the Helladic (Mycenaean)world (Rutter 1993; Shelmerdine 1997). The various physiographic units ofmainland southern Greece were controlled in Mycenaean times (from

Interaction amidst Diversity

31

Figure 2.1

Map of the Eastern Mediterranean showing main regions and major sites discussed in chapter 2.

Jill Seagard, The Field Museum.

ACI 02:Copan 01 10/26/09 3:11 PM 1

approximately 1700–1100 bc) by competitive networked states dominatedby palaces (see Schon, chapter 9, this volume; Galaty and Parkinson 2007;Parkinson and Galaty 2007).

Finally, the islands of the Aegean are many and widespread. Those at thecenter of the Aegean Sea proper are the Cyclades (minus the Sporades andthe Dodecanese; see below) and include the important islands of Thera,Melos, and Kea (the so-called Western String connecting Crete to the main-land), each of which hosted a key regional center and port of trade during theBronze Age (Broodbank 2000). Other important islands and island groupsring the Cyclades and act as stepping-stones to other key regions. Aegina, forexample, lies in the middle of the Saronic Gulf, which links central Greece(especially Attica), the northeast Peloponnese, and the Corinthian isthmusand Corinthian Gulf with the islands to the south and east. The island ofKythera connected Crete to the mainland of Greece, probably as a resultof Minoan colonization (Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007). The island ofThasos, in the far north of the Aegean, acted as a gateway to Thessaly,Macedonia, and the Balkan interior. The Ionian islands, such as Corfu,were jumping-off points for Epirus, Italy, and the northern Adriatic.


32

Figure 2.2

Map of the pan-Aegean showing major sites and inferred polity boundaries. Jill Seagard, The

Field Museum.

ACI 02:Copan 01 10/26/09 3:11 PM Page 32

To the north of the Aegean is the bulk of the Balkan peninsula, andbeyond it, continental central Europe. This region may have existed out-side the social and political ambit of the Aegean polities; nevertheless, itsvarious cultures and peoples interacted with those of the Aegean through-out prehistory (see Tomas, chapter 8, this volume). The same holds truefor the circum-Adriatic regions and peninsular Italy to the west, includingthe important, and large, islands of Sicily and Sardinia. Various parts of thepan-Adriatic region, such as Apulia, were in relatively close contact with theAegean from early times, possibly culminating in colonization during theMycenaean period (Ridgway 2006; Vagnetti 1998, 1999a).

To the immediate south of the Aegean is North Africa, along the coastof which were positioned several key port towns (for example, MarsahMatruh). Coastal North Africa may have been connected to Crete via theisland of Gavdos, the southernmost inhabited point of land in Europe, pro-viding an alternative, indirect route to and from Egypt. To the immediateeast of the Aegean proper are the islands of the eastern Sporades and theDodecanese—the so-called Southeast Aegean—which skirt the western andsouthern coasts of Asia Minor. The Southeast Aegean appears to have beenconnected during the Bronze Age to Crete, the Cyclades, and, in early andlater Mycenaean times, the mainland via the Eastern String of islands, butit retained distinct cultural traditions (Georgiadis 2003). Large settlementswere established on Rhodes and were likely connected to the importanttown of Miletus on the southern coast of Turkey. The northeastern Aegeanand the Dardanelles likely were controlled by Troy, of Homeric fame.Excavations there have revealed a bustling Bronze Age town with connec-tions south to the Aegean, as well as north and east to the Balkans andAnatolia (Wiener 2007).

Even farther to the south and east lie the regions of Anatolia, Cyprus,Syria-Palestine, Mesopotamia, and Egypt, all of which interacted with theAegean to some degree (in particular, see chapters 4, 6, and 7 in this vol-ume, by Sherratt, Wengrow, and Cline, respectively). The latter two were,of course, home to two of the world’s earliest primary state civilizationsand, in world-systems terms, were competitive primary cores, thought tohave projected power, authority, and economic and military might (see dis-cussion in Kardulias, chapter 3, this volume; Kardulias 1999a). Syria-Palestine, Anatolia, and Cyprus were, it seems, semiperipheral coresadjunct to the older, larger central core states. Each of these regions pro-duced independent port towns, cities, and city-states, and only one,Anatolia, was subject to indigenous imperial rule in the Bronze Age, underthe Hittites. In some periods, the core states extended direct control over


33

ACI 02:Copan 01 10/26/09 3:11 PM Page 33

the semiperipheral cores, for instance, when Egypt or Mesopotamia con-quered or otherwise made subject the city-states of Syria-Palestine. As dis-cussed at length in this book, just how the Aegean fit into the largerEastern Mediterranean world-system is as yet unclear, but the Minoan statesfirst and the Mycenaean states later may have aspired to semiperipheralcore status. They sought to mediate trade between the eastern core andsemiperipheral core states and those regions that were truly marginal, suchas northern Greece, the Balkans, the Adriatic, Italy, and points farther west.As we discuss below, the Aegean peoples of Crete, mainland Greece, andthe islands entered into the Eastern Mediterranean world-system at differ-ent times, for different reasons, and with different degrees of intentional-ity and intensity.

ChronologyThe absolute and relative chronologies of the Eastern Mediterranean

have been constructed and cross-checked with reference to archaeology(including detailed artifact seriations) and historical texts and are there-fore quite complex. In this book, we generally restrict discussion to theBronze Age, which began first in the Near East and everywhere in theEastern Mediterranean, with the exception of the Balkans (see Tomas,chapter 8, this volume), by about 3000 bc (table 2.1). By 3000 bc the firststates had appeared in Mesopotamia and Egypt, as had the beginnings ofwriting (cuneiform and hieroglyphic, respectively). It was nearly a millen-nium later that secondary states, with writing, arose elsewhere in theMediterranean, first in Syria-Palestine and shortly thereafter in Crete, theso-called Minoan states. Writing systems (Minoan “hieroglyphic” and LinearA) appeared in Crete by about 2000 bc, joined later by Linear B. Minoanhieroglyphic and Linear A writing are not yet deciphered but perhapsrecorded an Anatolian or Semitic language, presumably the indigenous lan-guage of the peoples of Crete. Linear B writing developed sometime after1500 bc, is deciphered, and recorded an early form of Greek. Linear B wasprobably adapted on Crete from Linear A by visiting or conqueringMycenaeans, as discussed below (see also Driessen and Langohr 2007).

Although all the regions described above used bronze and thereforeexperienced the Bronze Age, not all produced states; many, such as Italy,were illiterate through the start of the Iron Age. Some kind of “collapse”brought the Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age to an end. The cause ofthis collapse is unknown, but it appears to have been staggered (beginningcirca 1200 bc and ending by about 1000 bc) and affected each of the regionsof the Eastern Mediterranean, including the pan-Aegean. As discussed atlength in this book, however, one region’s collapse was another’s moment


34

ACI 02:Copan 01 10/26/09 3:11 PM Page 34


35

Table 2.1

Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean and Southeastern Europe––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Crete1 Mainland Greece1

Minoan HelladicLate Bronze III 1390–1070 bce (Mycenaean) 1390–1070 bce (developed

palaces)Late Bronze I–II 1600–1390 bce (Neopalatial) 1600–1390 bceMiddle 2100–1600 bce (Protopalatial) 2000–1600 bceEarly 3100–2100 bce (Prepalatial) 3100–2000 bceNeolithic ca. 6800–3100 bce ca. 7000–3100 bce

Lower Mesopotamia2

Babylonian 1900 bce–ce 500Isin Larsa 2100–1900 bceUr III 2300–2100 bce (apogee)Akkadian 2500–2300 bce (imperial consolidation

under Sargon the Great, 2334 bce)Early Dynastic 2900–2500 bce (city-state competition)Jemdet Nasr 3100–2900 bce (transitional)Uruk Period 4100–3100 bce (developed, expansionary city-states)Ubaid Period ca. 5800–4100 bce (formative)

Upper Mesopotamia2

Middle Bronze Age–Assyrian 2100 bce–ce 700 (expansion and consolidation)Early Bronze Age 3100–2100 bce (city-state competition)Uruk 3400–3100 bce (incorporation)Late Chalcolithic 4100–3400 bce (formative)Ubaid 5400–4100 bce (formative)Neolithic (incl. Hassuna, Halaf)ca. 7000–5600 bce

Egypt3

Late Kingdom 1600–1100 bceMiddle Kingdom 2000–1600 bceOld Kingdom 2300–2000 bceArchaic 2800–2300 bceHierakonpolis ca. 3000 bce (expansion and consolidation)Predynastic 3300–3000 bce (formative)Neolithic ca. 5000–3300 bce

Anatolia4

Hittite Empire ca. 1400/1350–1180 bce (expansion and consolidation)Old Kingdom ca. 1650/1600–1400/1350 bce (incorporation)Hattian Occupation ca. 2000–1700 bce (formative, Assyrian trading colonies)Early Bronze Age ca. 3000–2000 bceChalcolithic ca. 5200–3000 bceNeolithic ca. 7000–5200 bce

Syro-Palestine5

Late Bronze Age ca. 1400-1200 bce (incorporation)Middle Bronze Age ca. 2000–1400 bce (formative, Assyrian trading colonies)Early Bronze Age ca. 3000–2000 bceChalcolithic ca. 4200–3400 bceNeolithic ca. 7000–4200 bce

Eastern Adriatic and Western Balkans6

Late Bronze Age ca. 1300–700 bceMiddle Bronze Age ca. 1600–1300 bceEarly Bronze Age ca. 2400/2200–1600 bceChalcolithic ca. 3500–2400/2200 bce––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––1. Tartaron 2008. 2. Wilkinson 2000. 3. Savage 2001. 4. Bryce 2005; Wilkinson 2003. 5. Wilkinson 2003.6. Dimitrijevic, Težak-Gregl, and Majnaric-Pandžic 1998

ACI 02:Copan 01 10/26/09 3:11 PM Page 35

of opportunity. Some regions, in particular those without states, scarcelyfelt the “end” of the Bronze Age, and others flourished.

Economic and Political VariabilityThis book, in addition to its geographical and chronological scope,

covers societies that exhibited a wide array of political and economic types.As argued in chapter 1, this is part of the appeal of analyzing in diachronicfashion the entire Eastern Mediterranean. A vast number of diverse, inter-connected, and sometimes competing cultural systems existed in theBronze Age, running the gamut from well-established, large, hierarchicalstate civilizations to small, remote, local village societies. As alluded toabove, there was a time lag between the appearance of states in the NearEast (at the start of the Bronze Age) and their appearance in the Aegean(by the Middle–Late Bronze ages). This lag trended east to west and maybe linked to the similar earlier lag east to west in the introduction of agri-culture and farming, which happened first in the Near East and later in theBalkans, including the Aegean. This does not explain, though, why statesdid not appear sooner, or at all, in places such as Europe west and north ofthe Aegean. Nor does it explain the lack of unified territorial states inplaces such as Cyprus and Crete, where we might have expected these toappear. Other socio-cultural factors must have been at work, and this bookseeks to identify these factors.

The Early Bronze Age (EBA) Aegean was characterized by small, vil-lage-based, middle-range, or tribal societies. This was true of areas to the westand north of the Aegean as well. The EBA is often described as “outward-looking,” especially as compared with the subsequent Middle Bronze Age(MBA). Settlements typically were located near the shore, and there is evi-dence for the beginnings of more sustained, long-distance travel and trade,in particular as compared with the Neolithic. For example, the Aegean bor-rowed various ceramic traits from Anatolia during Early Helladic IIB (circa2400–2200 bc), producing the so-called Kastri Group (Pullen 2008a:25).Some EBA villages in the Aegean grew quite large. On the mainland, inparticular, there is good evidence for increased social complexity in theform of so-called corridor houses, such as the House of the Tiles at Lerna,with evidence for large-scale storage of foodstuffs and use of seal systems,presumably for tracking the movement of goods (Pullen 1985, 1994,2008b). On the mainland and in the islands, these EBA settlements fal-tered at the end of the period (between circa 2200–2000 bc), but on Cretethe trajectory towards increasing social complexity gathered steam, culmi-nating in the first palaces, at Knossos, Mallia, and Phaistos, and their asso-


36

ACI 02:Copan 01 10/26/09 3:11 PM Page 36

ciated state systems (see Cherry, chapter 5, this volume). Why the trendtowards social complexity was truncated on the mainland but continued onCrete is unclear, but one of the main lessons of this book is that the natureof interaction between Crete and the Eastern Mediterranean versus themainland and the Eastern Mediterranean must have differed. Additionally,local intraregional systems of exchange differed throughout the pan-Aegean region, thus making some subregions amenable to state formationwhile inhibiting others. These factors are explored in more detail below, aswell as in subsequent chapters.

In contrast to the “international” spirit of EBA, mainland MBA is typi-cally considered “inward looking” and “impoverished,” at least before theMiddle Helladic III phase (MHIII) (see Touchais et al. in press). Some set-tlements moved inland and to higher altitudes and were often fortified anddefensible. The MBA was a period of “chiefdom cycling” (see Anderson1990), during which small competitive chiefdoms jockeyed for position.The mainland MBA can be contrasted further to the situation on Crete,where corporate peer polities were transformed during this period intocorporate states (sensu Blanton et al. 1996 and Renfrew and Cherry 1986;see Parkinson and Galaty 2007).

The processes whereby states formed on Crete were tied intimately totrade and exchange with the mainland (where proto-“Mycenaeans” emu-lated Minoan elite styles) and the Cyclades (as mentioned above, there isgood evidence for Minoan colonization), but also with the states of thewider Eastern Mediterranean, Egypt in particular (see chapters 4, 5, 6, and7 in this volume, by Sherratt, Cherry, Wengrow, and Cline, respectively).Likewise, the competitive MBA chiefdoms of the mainland eventuallyentered into exchange relationships with the wider Aegean and EasternMediterranean, but trade during this period appears to have been chan-neled through Crete. The bulk of late MBA and early Mycenaean long-dis-tance trade goods went to Mycenae and ended up in the shaft graves (Cline2007b; Parkinson in press). This situation most probably encouraged thecompetitive nature of mainland chiefdoms (a classic case of world-systemic“underdevelopment”), so when states eventually did form on the mainland,they were small, networked, and belligerent (sensu Blanton et al. 1996; seeGalaty and Parkinson 2007; Parkinson and Galaty 2007; Schon, chapter 9,this volume). During the MBA, the societies to the north and west of theAegean stayed relatively small and less complex. Developments in theAegean and farther east appear to have had little effect on them, thoughtrade goods that must have come from or via these regions—for example,amber—appear in the shaft graves.


37

ACI 02:Copan 01 10/26/09 3:11 PM Page 37

Processes of state formation and peer polity interaction in the Aegeancame to a head during the Late Bronze Age (LBA). The older (second-gen-eration, “New Palace” period) Minoan states came into conflict with theyounger (first-generation, secondary) Mycenaean states. The nature and tim-ing of this conflict are unclear, but palaces throughout Crete were destroyedand Mycenaeans occupied Knossos (Driessen and Langhor 2007).

It seems highly likely that control of Mediterranean trade was at issuein the conflict between the Minoans and Mycenaeans. During the LateHelladic, the Mycenaean “palatial” period, Mycenaean pottery stylesreplaced Minoan styles throughout the Eastern Mediterranean. Thisoccurred in the Southeast Aegean and Cyprus and as far away as Syria-Palestine and Egypt. In addition, the Mycenaeans solidified trade connec-tions with people to the west and north in places such as Epirus, Albania,and Italy, where Mycenaean weapons and pottery are found. From a world-systems perspective, the Mycenaeans appear to have usurped Crete’s posi-tion as the Aegean’s semiperipheral core, thereby dealing directly with thecore states of the east. During this period, Near Eastern texts and lettersrecord contact with Ahhiyawa, that is, a Mycenaean state, or states (seeCline, chapter 7, this volume). Later in this introduction and in subse-quent chapters, we explore in more detail how the Mycenaeans effectedthis geopolitical shift and why (see, in particular, Schon, chapter 9, this vol-ume).

With the collapse at the end of the Bronze Age, the state systems of theAegean disappeared. Writing went with them, as did most symbols of elitepower. Major demographic shifts occurred as much of the Peloponnese,Messenia in particular, was depopulated. Significant Mycenaean popula-tions may have gone to Cyprus, which, unlike Greece, remained literatethroughout the Late Bronze and Early Iron ages (Iacovou 2006, 2008;Knapp 2008; Voskos and Knapp 2008). The smaller, less complex, possiblymore mobile social systems of the “Dark Age” replaced states (Dickinson2006). These societies were led, it seems, by warrior chiefs, such as the indi-vidual buried in the primary tomb at Lefkandi. Intriguingly, and perhapstellingly, trade and exchange with the east and the west did not cease.Rather, it shifted north, so in the sub-Mycenaean period, areas that previ-ously had been marginalized became major players.

T E M P O R A L A N D R E G I O N A L T R A J E C T O R I E SWhen the approach outlined in chapter 1 is applied to the Aegean

specifically and to the Eastern Mediterranean writ large and when theresults of its application are considered at multiple scales, as suggested


38

ACI 02:Copan 01 10/26/09 3:11 PM Page 38

above, different trajectories of socio-cultural change can be identified anddescribed. When the issue of interaction is approached in this manner, dif-ferent theoretical frameworks can be applied to help explain the originsand pace of socio-cultural change along each of these crosscutting trajec-tories. Furthermore, each of these trajectories of change affected localmicro-regional systems very differently. This book aims, therefore, to con-sider local patterns of behavior, as reflected in micro-regional archaeologi-cal records, within the context of broad international macro-regionalinteraction and exchange.

The Macro ScaleMuch ink has been spilled debating the utility and efficacy of world-sys-

tems theory as applied to prehistoric societies (see chapters 1, 3, and 4 inthis volume, by Parkinson and Galaty, Kardulias, and Sherratt, respec-tively). Our analysis of the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean indicatesthat world-systems theory works best when it attempts to explain socio-cul-tural change over long periods of time—over hundreds or thousands ofyears—and on the macro scale—throughout the whole of the EasternMediterranean. The case studies presented in this book indicate that, whenapplied to shorter periods of time or to micro regions, the model’sexplanatory utility disintegrates (but see Kardulias, chapter 3, this volume,for a contrasting viewpoint).

In large part, world-systems theory’s limitations are methodological.Because Aegean artifact chronologies rarely allow resolution better than50–100-year increments (which is actually pretty good; see Parkinson andGalaty, chapter 1, this volume), it is difficult to address short-term shifts andminor regional fluctuations in world-systems integration. Access to writtenpersonal, historical, and economic records, such as letters, travel itiner-aries, and transaction receipts, which are readily available in some parts ofthe Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean (see, for example, Cline, chapter 7,this volume), may help solve this problem but, of course, suffer equallythorny problems of synchronicity. They are typically one-off documents,too idiosyncratic to allow diachronic trajectories of change to be addressed.

World-systems theory also presents theoretical limitations. As many ofthe following chapters demonstrate, in many periods several local micro-regional systems were, it seems, scarcely touched by long-term macro-scaletrajectories of world-systemic change. In some areas, such as the Balkansand North Africa, local systems may simply have been out of the loop. Evenalong the distant edges of the Eastern Mediterranean world-system, it isequally likely that individuals and groups actively “negotiated” the terms


39

ACI 02:Copan 01 10/26/09 3:11 PM Page 39

and intensity of their participation (Kardulias 2007). This is not purely aresult of proximity to or distance from core centers, as the distance paritymodel predicts (see chapter 1). Rather, semiperipheral, peripheral, andeven marginal consumers, in places such as Cyprus, Crete, and Albania, forinstance, appear to have had specific, sometimes very different, goals inmind when they accessed nonlocal trade networks. The very different kindsof exotic products found in different regions at different times are not arti-facts of preservation, nor are they necessarily indicative of differentialaccess to various goods, with producers or middlemen providing someobjects while withholding others. For example, foreign-made weapons arefrequently found in Albania, but very little foreign pottery has been iden-tified in the same period (Galaty 2007). These distributional patternsreflect different, culturally specific patterns of consumer choice operatingin different micro regions.

The evidence from the Aegean, for instance, is telling. The first foreignitems found on Crete are, of all things, Egyptian scarabs (see Wengrow,chapter 6, this volume). Later, when the Mycenaeans entered the EasternMediterranean world-system, they did so not as purely peripheral, largelyexploited (and exploitable) rubes, but as active agents able to manipulateand profit from core–periphery relationships they created (with Italy, forexample), reversed (with Crete), or adopted (along the Western andEastern strings). As Schon (chapter 9, this volume) concludes, “whileMycenaean states became somewhat dependent on imports to function,this dependency was not determined by any external political actor.”

The Medium ScaleSome trajectories of change in the Eastern Mediterranean operated at

scales and over lengths of time that fall in the middle range, affecting inter-acting regions or subregions over the course of generations instead of cen-turies or millennia. Identifying and explaining such historical trajectories,versus the long-term macro-scale ones described above, require applicationof other theoretical models. For example, the first states on Minoan Creteformed in response to both indigenous and off-island pressures andprocesses of change (see Cherry, chapter 5, this volume). State centers, thefirst Minoan palaces, appeared rather rapidly at the beginning of theMiddle Minoan IB phase (MMIB) (sometime circa 1900 bc) after morethan a millennium of relative stability and marked insularity.

The intra-island competition amongst similarly sized and organizedsocio-political units that produced the palace states of the Middle and LateBronze ages on Crete is best described in systemic terms as “peer polity


40

ACI 02:Copan 01 10/26/09 3:11 PM Page 40

interaction” (Cherry 1986b), an explanatory model that we suggest worksbest at intermediate scales of analysis. Peer polity interaction, a necessarybut not fully sufficient causal factor, cannot alone explain what in the endsparked the explosive rise of the palaces. One trigger may have beenrenewed, intense contact with the rest of the pan-Aegean region and withthe Near East and Egypt. As Cherry (chapter 5, this volume) deftlydescribes, “overall, the evidence indicates a dramatic increase in off-islandinteraction and trade in MMIA. By the end of the period, we can see manyof the markers…usually considered as signaling the appearance of the firstarchaic states on Crete, in MMIB.”

A traditional world-systems framework does not work very well forexplaining either the reasons for or the nature of MMIA contacts betweenCrete and the rest of the Eastern Mediterranean during a period that lastedonly 100 years. There was not, it seems, a straightforward core–peripheryrelationship between the first Minoan palaces and their much older andlarger eastern counterparts. In fact, it has long been argued that the incep-tion of such asymmetrical relationships between societies of very differentscales and forms of organization is based upon an initial contact phase,characterized by the feeding of specific goods (often in very small quanti-ties) from larger into smaller systems. For the emergence of world-sys-tems–type relationships, the importance of such “prestige goods”—as firstdiscussed for Iron Age Europe by Frankenstein and Rowlands (1978) andwidely applied since to the Bronze Age—cannot be overstated. Thoughsmall in quantity, they target emergent systems of hierarchy in local socialnetworks, direct the reproduction of those systems to the acquisition of fur-ther exotic imports, and set in motion a process that eventually alters theeconomic base of the recipient society in favor of commodity productionfor export (Sherratt and Sherratt 1991).

In Wengrow’s contribution to this volume (chapter 6), he adds a newdimension to these debates by questioning the role of prestige as a categoryof social value in motivating and sustaining such initial contacts. He arguesthat the arrival of Egyptian imports (via the Levantine coast) on Crete, at atime of political fragmentation within Egypt, represents cultural transmis-sion of another kind, in which prestige display is unlikely to have played adominant role in either the host or recipient society. Rather, he argues, weare talking about a much more loosely integrated series of transmissionsthat originate in provincial (not royal, nor even necessarily elite) Egyptiancommunities and are centered initially upon specific bodily practices concerned with purity and perhaps also fertility, with a particular focusupon the bodies of women. In spite of its loose integration, this complex of


41

ACI 02:Copan 01 10/26/09 3:11 PM Page 41

material and bodily practices (articulated through the use of objects suchas amulets and cosmetic articles) had its own dynamic of expansion, dis-tinct from (and, to some extent, feeding off) that of palatial trading sys-tems. Wengrow argues that the specific (gendered and ritual) associationsof these objects are important in understanding their transmission fromEgypt to Byblos, as well as further transformations of their meaning associ-ated with their transfer to Crete, where they obtained new significance andperhaps also new gender associations, in collective mortuary rituals.

Wengrow makes the broader point that the cultural contexts of trans-mission vary across time and space and that this variability matters forarchaeological interpretation. Prestige is not an adequate catchall term forthe movement of exotic goods but implies specific modes of consumption,transmission, and display that may not be universally applicable. Similarly,as Wengrow discusses, based on ethnographic parallels, ritual networks(for example, possession cults and cargo cults) have their own modes ofexpansion. These modes may have very different moral, emotional, psy-chological, and social mainsprings (including institutional modes of resis-tance to dominant power structures), which, in turn, leave distinctarchaeological traces over potentially very large geographical areas.Wengrow points to cargo cults as a particularly useful analogy in under-standing the subsequent development of Cretan attitudes to Egyptian tradegoods (for example, stone vessels or sculpture) in the later Bronze Age.These were items whose arrival could not be predicted, being mediated byforces beyond local control, but which nevertheless had powerful localconnotations relating to the legitimation of power based on ancestry andlineage. Their presence in Cretan society, he suggests, might thereforehave been ritually managed through local religious and aesthetic activities(for example, the creation of cultural landscapes—recognized as Nilotic bymodern archaeologists—on the surfaces of important structures of con-tainment such as shrines and palaces but also on vessels and sarcophagi).

The broader point for world-systems theory is not simply one of scale(the breaking down of large-scale systems into a mosaic of smaller, interac-tion systems), but of recognizing that (a) processes of transmission may bediverse in character; (b) the form and motive of transmission will directlyinfluence the patterning of material culture in the archaeological record;and (c) the integration of specific cultural elements within widely distrib-uted systems may be of a loose and fluid kind, not closely tied in to the for-mation of political units with settled boundaries (for example, chiefdoms,palaces, and city-states).


42

ACI 02:Copan 01 10/26/09 3:11 PM Page 42

The case of early Egyptian cultural transfers to Crete therefore

suggests the existence in Bronze Age societies of a type of cul-

tural transmission that is quite widely documented.… Such

modes of interaction are strongly associated with complex soci-

eties and extensive cross-cultural trade networks but exist in par-

tial tension with them, working at the hidden margins rather

than at the visible center of social interaction. (Wengrow, chap-

ter 6, this volume)

The Local Scale and the Short TermFinally, some trajectories of change in the Eastern Mediterranean oper-

ated over very short spans of time—years—and at local scales—within statesand at the village and household levels. In The Corrupting Sea, Horden andPurcell (2000, first on page 47 and then repeatedly throughout the book)argue that truly local cultural systems did not exist in the Mediterranean;despite extreme diversity, all peoples and all places, no matter how small,were somehow tied to wider systems of interaction and exchange. Althoughwe appreciate this sentiment—that local short-term patterns of culturalchange must be considered alongside pan-Mediterranean long-term pat-terns of change (see Braudel 1972[1966], 1973[1966])—we think that it iseasily abused, in particular when world-systems theory forms the founda-tion for analysis. Rather than conflate local, regional, and “global” culturalsystems, we prefer to use the archaeological record to throw them intosharp contrast. In this way, we can better see and explain points of overlapand better distinguish interaction from more complex forms of integrationand articulation. Such an approach requires a strong command of region-ally specific chronologies and the application of cultural-historical models,as demonstrated by the case studies in this book.

Local systems and sites can act as “barometers” of interaction andexchange. A good example is the remarkable port town of Kommos on thesouth coast of Crete (J. Shaw 1998). Kommos was founded in MMIB, justafter a period of explosive off-island trade and about the same time the firstpalaces were established (see above). The town quickly became a bustlingport, perhaps serving the palatial center of Phaistos, and probably a rival tothe north coast port of Katsamba, which served Knossos. Trade goods fromthe east (in particular, pottery from Cyprus, Egypt, and the Near East)arrived in surprisingly large numbers but during the MM were confined toa large warehouse, the so-called Northwest Building (J. Shaw 1998:3).


43

ACI 02:Copan 01 10/26/09 3:11 PM Page 43

During the Late Minoan, foreign pottery was deposited not only in theNorthwest Building and elite houses but also across the whole site (J. Shaw1998:4). During the Late Minoan IIIB phase (LMIIIB), eastern pottery wasalmost completely replaced by pottery from Italy/Sardinia, which probablyarrived via Chania in northwest Crete (J. Shaw 1998:4). These pots werefound in houses that lacked Near Eastern material, such as Canaaniteamphorae (J. Shaw 1998:4), suggesting different patterns of consumptionfor the ceramics and their contents.

In order to explain these patterns of artifact distribution, it is necessaryto contrast the local, short-term socio-political and economic trajectoriesoperating at Kommos to currents of medium-term regional (that is, pan-Cretan) and long-term wide-scale (that is, pan–Eastern Mediterranean)change. Doing so permits several key causal factors to be identified.

First, the rise of Kommos in MMIB—a local short-term event—can bereadily explained with reference to island-wide, medium-scale trajectoriesof change. As described above, various peer polities throughout Creteactively interacted and competed with one another throughout theprepalatial period. One result of interaction and peer polity competitiveemulation was that during MMIB, after a century of unregulated trade dur-ing MMIA, each palace center sponsored the foundation of a port town inorder to attract foreign traders and thereby control foreign trade. A simi-lar process occurred later when the Mycenaean palaces were built and theMycenaeans entered the Eastern Mediterranean world-system.

Second, the first foreign goods at the port of Kommos were handledby officials headquartered at the Northwest Building, who eventually (inMMIIB) constructed a palace-like monumental building, called BuildingAA (J. Shaw 1998:3). It is likely that, during this period, foreign goodsarrived as a result of official trade agreements between palace elites atPhaistos/Kommos and their eastern counterparts, thereby replacing theunstructured, unofficial trade that operated during earlier periods, espe-cially during MMIA (see above).

Third, during the LM, many more members of the Kommos commu-nity gained access to foreign goods. We suggest that this happened as aresult of the decentralization of international trade that occurred through-out the whole of the Eastern Mediterranean towards the end of the LateBronze Age (see below). Officials and elites in eastern core states, such asEgypt and those along the Levantine coast, lost their monopoly over for-eign trade, so officials and elites in semiperipheral core states, such asCrete, also lost their monopoly. As Schon argues (chapter 9, this volume),LBA decentralization of trade also may have served rising Mycenaean elites


44

ACI 02:Copan 01 10/26/09 3:11 PM Page 44

in the short term as they sought to expand and solidify social hierarchies intheir young expansionistic states.

Fourth, and finally, when postpalatial Knossos collapsed, trade routesshifted dramatically. At Kommos, this is indicated by the appearance ofItalian/Sardinian wares, the importation of which was perhaps effected by asingle individual or group of individuals who had ties with Chania and livedin the so-called Hilltop Houses at the edge of the site (J. Shaw 1998:4).During LMIIIB, foreign trade was controlled not by palatial officials—thepalace at Phaistos was long gone by this time—but by free merchants (per-haps operating from the nearby site of Haghia Triada; Knapp and Cherry1994:141) who dealt directly with independent “tramp” traders.

In the Eastern Mediterranean as a whole, the era of large-scale royaltrade ended sometime after 1300 bc, when the Uluburun ship founderedand sank in the seas off southern Anatolia. At Kommos, foreign trade con-nections were cut during the terminal Bronze Age and then reestablishedduring the Iron Age (circa 1000 bc). Trade with the east boomed onceagain, this time without palatial intervention. So important were thesetrade links that a Phoenician shrine was eventually built at Kommos, pre-sumably to cater to the religious needs and wants of the eastern sailors whopassed through the port in very large numbers (J. Shaw 1998).

T R E N D S A N D C Y C L E SAs the preceding examples indicate, an approach that attempts to

model interaction at different spatial and temporal scales helps to identifytrends or cycles in the nature of interaction over time across the EasternMediterranean. These various trends and cycles affected different peopleand groups differently, depending on their position within local and inter-national social hierarchies. Many of these are described in great detail andwith more precision in the following chapters. Here we identify and discusswhat we perceive to have been critical trends and cycles that operated atmultiple temporal and spatial scales. These trends and cycles were inter-connected and, often, causal. That is, they caused or encouraged certainresponses on the part of individuals and groups that performed on local,regional, and international stages, often simultaneously.

Public versus Private TradeThe first of these key causal factors—control of trade—was cyclical in

nature, shifting through time and across space. At times, foreign trade wasa tightly controlled and highly centralized public affair sponsored by politi-cal elites. At other times, foreign trade was conducted by private individuals,


45

ACI 02:Copan 01 10/26/09 3:11 PM Page 45

and anyone with a boat could get into the game. The degree to whichEastern Mediterranean trade was public or private in any given period orplace strongly affected other temporal and spatial trajectories of change at different scales across the length and breadth of the EasternMediterranean.

For example, the pan-Aegean region was affected in multiple, some-times unpredictable, ways by shifts in the nature and control of trade in thewider Eastern Mediterranean. As described above, the first foreign goodsto arrive on Crete during MMIA probably came via irregular, informal con-tacts between interacting, competing Minoan corporate groups (nascentpeer polities) and eastern traders. Minoan contact with Egypt during theBronze Age is a good example.

Initial MMIA contacts between Crete and Egypt can be best explainedwith reference to the political situation during the First Intermediateperiod in Egypt, a chaotic phase during which there was no unifiedEgyptian state under centralized royal control. This decentralization wouldhave encouraged independent, private Egyptian traders to seek out newmarkets abroad and thereby acquire various scarce raw materials, such as metal ores. In the end, what the Minoans had to offer is unclear, but by MMIB they may have supplied fine painted pottery, silver, or perhapscloth (see Sherratt, chapter 4, this volume). In return, Minoan individ-uals acquired exotic Egyptian objects and employed these in innovativepractices—new ways of preparing and wearing cosmetics, new ways to worship, new magical and healing rites, and new death rituals—related tosocial signaling, as we might expect from interacting, competing peers (seeWengrow, chapter 6, this volume). These behaviors and their associatedobjects were introduced to Crete as a package representing EasternMediterranean, specifically Egyptian, “high culture,” providing certain indi-viduals with the means to project affiliation with off-island elites, howeversuperficial (Baines and Yoffee 1998; Schoep in press). Thus, the nature ofpeer polity interaction on Crete during this period resulted in a sort oflocal, emergent high culture (see chapter 1).

During the First Intermediate period, Egyptian foreign trade was notsponsored and controlled by a king, so it is difficult, or impossible, to seewhat happened initially between Crete and Egypt as part of a traditionalworld-systemic, core-driven, royal strategy. Instead, we suggest that some-time around 2000 bc relatively localized or regionalized elite needs andwants in Crete meaningfully intersected with the needs and wants ofEgyptian and/or Byblite traders (see Wengrow, chapter 6, this volume), tothe presumed benefit of all concerned. Only later, during MMIB, with the


46

ACI 02:Copan 01 10/26/09 3:11 PM Page 46

foundation of the palaces and the reestablishment in Egypt of royal, cen-tralized control at the start of the Middle Kingdom, did these relationshipsbecome more formalized and official—core to semiperipheral core, kingto king, “brother to brother” (see Cline, chapter 7, this volume)—andtherefore world-systemic, with the potential for long-term macro-scaleeffects. But even during this period, the frequency and nature of interac-tion between the Aegean and its neighbors to the east remained consider-ably different from the types of interaction that occurred between Egypt,Anatolia, and the Levantine coast.

At the same time, Minoan elites also interacted with other NearEastern elites, presumably for similar reasons and with similar effects.There also is some evidence during the Middle Minoan period for sporadictridirectional trade between Crete, Cyprus, and (probably southern)Anatolia. Minoans seem to have been most concerned, however, with secur-ing trade relationships with budding elites in the Cycladic islands and onthe mainland, thereby filling a semiperipheral intermediate role in thelarger Eastern Mediterranean trade system. Several elements of Minoanemergent “high culture,” which, as it emerged, had been strongly influ-enced by Egyptian and Near Eastern forms of “high culture,” were trans-ferred to the islands, at places such as Akrotiri and the Greek mainland,spurring political and economic competition in places such as the Argolidand Messenia (an example of Wiener’s [1982] “Versailles effect”).

In 1782 bc the Egyptian Middle Kingdom fell, and a 200-year period ofchaos ensued, the Second Intermediate period. Trade was again decentral-ized and deregulated. Decentralization worked well for the Mycenaeans. Bythe end of the period (circa 1600 bc), at the beginning of the Late BronzeAge (the start of the Neopalatial/Second Palace period on Crete), theemerging Mycenaean states had begun to infiltrate pan-Aegean trade net-works, perhaps by piggybacking on southeast Aegean or Cypriot trade thatbypassed Crete. By the middle of the Late Bronze Age, the Minoan palacesystems had collapsed and Mycenaeans had occupied Knossos. Mycenaeanstates replaced Minoan states as local Aegean semiperipheral cores, andtheir ascendancy coincides with the rise of the powerful New KingdomEgyptian pharaohs.

Shifting Trade RoutesAnother key factor this approach elucidates is the shifting nature of

Eastern Mediterranean trade routes, as well as their impact on historicaltrajectories in the pan-Aegean region throughout the Bronze Age.Although we cannot know with certainty where specific trade routes ran in


47

ACI 02:Copan 01 10/26/09 3:11 PM Page 47

prehistoric times, it is possible to infer—based on historic and contempo-rary trade routes, weather patterns (such as the strength and direction ofseasonal winds), climate, currents, and coastal geography—where BronzeAge trade routes were most likely situated, just how a Bronze Age tradermay have moved from point to point, and how long it took. Furthermore,changing patterns of artifact distribution (of pottery, in particular) allow usto reconstruct through time which places were connected to which, how(directly or indirectly), and with what kind of intensity. Finally, some traderoutes and relationships were stable over long periods of time, whereas oth-ers appeared briefly, in response to short-term, localized developments. Amultiscalar diachronic approach to trade facilitates such an analysis (seeKnapp and Cherry 1994:127).

Bronze Age sea trade almost certainly hugged the coasts, so a shipdeparting Egypt or the Levant probably traveled north and west via Cyprusalong the Anatolian coast, then to Crete via the Eastern String. Routes thattraversed the open sea also were possible, such as from Crete to Egyptdirectly or via North Africa, as described above. Several Bronze Age wreckshave been discovered and excavated, and they generally point to two typesof Mediterranean sea-borne trade: large-scale, perhaps “royal,” trade mis-sions in large ships that were more able to brave open water, such as theUluburun ship (Pulak 1997; see Cline and Yasur-Landau 2007), andsmaller ventures perhaps undertaken by private individuals in small ships,such as the Point Iria ship (Phelps, Lolos, and Vichos 1999; the evidencefrom the Cape Gelidonya wreck is variously interpreted [see Knapp andCherry 1994:142–143], but it, too, may represent LBA private entrepre-neurial trade). These so-called tramp traders almost certainly stuck to thecoast and island-hopped, but nevertheless they managed to cover great dis-tances (or at least attract quite diverse cargos). The Iria ship, for instance,carried a variety of pottery types from Cyprus, Crete, the island of Aegina,and mainland Greece (Day 1999). This small vessel may, therefore, havesailed in from Cyprus, headed to the mainland via the Argolic Gulf, withstops in Crete and the islands, and sunk at approximately 1200 bc.

To reinforce the importance of shifting trade routes and relationships,the Mycenaean palaces serve as examples. Different palaces appear to havedeveloped preferential relationships with different Eastern Mediterraneanpartners, perhaps based on personal connections between individuals orfamilies, whether royal or otherwise. Late Helladic IIIB phase (LHIIIB)Mycenae and Tiryns, for example, favored Egypt and Cyprus, respectively,whereas Thebes had strong connections with Mesopotamia (Cline2007b:191). Pylos appears to have been somewhat out of the loop (Cline


48

ACI 02:Copan 01 10/26/09 3:11 PM Page 48

2007b:191). The wide range of foreign goods recovered at Mycenae wouldseem to suggest that official, perhaps royal, trade agreements existedbetween elites at Mycenae and their counterparts in Egypt and that similaragreements existed between Thebes and Mesopotamia. Pulak (1997; seealso Bachhuber 2006) has gone so far as to suggest that Mycenaean emis-saries were on board the Uluburun ship when it sank. The trade comingout of Cyprus, however, must have differed from these so-called “royal”trade missions; during this period (Late Cypriot II), there was not a singlecentralized state on Cyprus (Steel 2004:181–183). Cypriot traders may,therefore, have been primarily small-scale, informal, and private, as repre-sented by the Port Iria wreck. Whereas Tiryns, which served Mycenae as aport, tapped into decentralized “entrepreneurial” trade networks, Mycenaeand Thebes relied on centralized “nodal” systems of trade (Knapp andCherry 1994:128).

We suggest that these differing trade relationships were not accidentaland indicate that the different Mycenaean palaces played very differentroles in the Mediterranean world-system. Mycenae and Thebes had, itseems, attained semiperipheral local core status and emphasized the polit-ical nature of international exchange (see Knapp and Cherry 1994:126, fol-lowing Brumfiel and Earle 1987), whereas Pylos was, in LHIII, locked outof this system (and locked into “adaptationist” systems of exchange [Knappand Cherry 1994:126; see Schon, chapter 9, this volume]). Pylos may havedepended on exchange with the east via semiperipheral local core states onCrete, and when these local cores collapsed (or were co-opted by otherMycenaean elites), Pylos lost access. Tiryns, like Kommos, filled a primarilycommercial role (Knapp and Cherry 1994:126), perhaps because of its sta-tus as a port.

“Collapse”At the end of the Bronze Age, beginning approximately 1200 bc, the

Eastern Mediterranean region suffered what is most often described as acollapse. Recent research, though, has done much to clarify the nature ofthis “collapse,” primarily by refining terminal LBA ceramic chronologies,such as that of the Greek mainland’s Late Helladic IIIC phase (LHIIIC)(see, for example, Deger-Jalkotzy and Zavadil 2003). Restudy of terminalLBA deposits at Mycenaean palace sites, such as Midea (Demakopoulou2003), Pylos (Mountjoy 1997), and Tiryns (Maran 2001b), for instance,indicates that (a) palace destructions happened at different times in dif-ferent places throughout late LHIIIB and LHIIIC; (b) several sites, such asTiryns, were destroyed and rebuilt multiple times; and (c) many sites,


49

ACI 02:Copan 01 10/26/09 3:11 PM Page 49

including some formerly palatial sites, survived into LHIIIC and beyond,into the Early Iron Age. The data indicate, therefore, that the “collapse”affected various pan-Aegean and, on a wider scale, Eastern Mediterraneanregions very differently and that the differential effects of “collapse” are, infact, patterned. The patterned nature of Mycenaean/EasternMediterranean “collapse” is best explained when viewed as the outcome ofthe trends and cycles already described, namely, shifts in trade routes andthe nature and control of trade.

One striking pattern that emerges from the study of the Mycenaeancollapse is the almost complete depopulation of Messenia, as comparedwith other parts of mainland Greece. Whereas there is some evidence forDark Age resettlement at the Palace of Nestor (Griebel and Nelson 2008)and the Further Province settlement of Nichoria (Harrison and Spencer2008), by and large the vast majority of Mycenaean settlements in Messeniawere abandoned and never reoccupied. It is perhaps no accident that of allthe Mycenaean palaces Pylos is the one seemingly most removed from LBAinternational trade circuits (Parkinson in press). Palaces with more robusttrade connections appear to have fared better. Some of them suffereddestructions, but the destructions were not as complete and the palatialtowns, at least, were typically resettled. Of these, palaces that were stronglydependent on “royal” trade with eastern partners such as Mycenae weredestroyed and then faded away, never to regain their former glory. To somedegree, their (once-dependent) port towns supplanted them; LHIIICTiryns, for example, replaced LHIIIB Mycenae as the Argive Plain’spolitico-economic center. As described above, Tiryns, like most Aegeanand Eastern Mediterranean emporia, was dependent on commercial tradewith partners such as Cyprus, which, itself, survived the “collapse.”Mycenae traded with Egypt and paid the price when Egypt, once again, fellinto chaos (sometime after 1200 bc).

When this “collapse” is considered in terms of the interactive trends,trajectories, and cycles outlined above, the LBA destructions in the Aegeancan be linked to more widespread political crises, driven by the failure ofstate (that is, centralized, palatial) systems throughout the EasternMediterranean world-system. Young, unstable Mycenaean states, such asPylos, that were (and always had been, at least since early Mycenaeantimes) poorly positioned yet needful of exotic prestige goods (see Schon,chapter 9, this volume) fell fast and hard. States that had gained semipe-ripheral core status, such as Mycenae, fell when the Eastern Mediterraneancore states fell. Settlements in peripheral, or marginal, zones thrived aftertrade restrictions were removed. Parkinson (in press) has collected data to


50

ACI 02:Copan 01 10/26/09 3:11 PM Page 50

demonstrate conclusively what most Aegean archaeologists know intu-itively: foreign trade actually increased in frequency during the Dark Age, inparticular along newly established or newly significant trade routes. One ofthese routes accessed booming port towns, such as Lefkandi and Mitrou,via the Euboean Gulf, thence overland to the northern shore of theCorinthian Gulf, where a string of thriving sub-Mycenaean coastal sites hasbeen identified, and onwards to the Ionian islands and the Adriatic.Another, more established route accessed the Ionian islands and theAdriatic via Crete by skirting the west coast of the Peloponnese (pointedlyskipping Pylos). In both cases, the Mycenaean “heartland” was avoided.

It is quite likely that Cypriots were the primary agents of twelfth-cen-tury bc Mediterranean trade. On Cyprus, LCIII material culture “demon-strates a syncretism of influences that reflect the cosmopolitan nature ofthe LC cultural identity” (Steel 2004:187; see also Voskos and Knapp 2008),the result not of “collapse” per se, but rather of a world-systemic realign-ment that punished inflexibility and promoted freedom and diversity.

C O N C L U S I O NIn this second introductory chapter, we apply to the Eastern

Mediterranean our multiscalar approach to interaction studies. Its applica-tion elucidates the position of the pan-Aegean region within the context ofthis larger geographical and, we would argue, socio-economic (perhapsworld-systemic) entity. The following chapters analyze in much greaterdetail the trajectories of change that we have sketched here only in outline.What is most apparent in each of the following chapters is the degree towhich our multiscalar diachronic approach serves to relate, and mutuallyenlighten, local and “global” cycles and trends. Just as the proverbial but-terfly might flap its wings and start a storm, a scarab passed from Egyptianto Minoan hands at the dawn of European civilization set into motion achain of events the effects of which we still feel today. Indeed, the lessonsof the Bronze Age Mediterranean have yet to be learned. We hope that thisbook marks a step in the right direction.


51

ACI 02:Copan 01 10/26/09 3:11 PM Page 51


52

ACI 02:Copan 01 10/26/09 3:11 PM Page 52

Interaction amidst Diversity An Introduction to the Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age

Documents

Transcript of Interaction amidst Diversity An Introduction to the Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age