Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey (

c) E

urop

ean

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

rcha

eolo

gist

sReviews 499

fake pastrsquo ( Judt 2005773) the hallmark of twenty-first century populism Hard graft is the midwife of the transformation from fieldnotes to stellar illumination of as wide a public as can possibly be imagined As print evolves to multiple media so the successful execution of that task will empower literate societies to evolve from populist ignorance to the relative maturity offered by a more democratic and lsquoknowledge-basedrsquo regime Perhaps Connah has provided the vade mecum to enable archaeologists to become citizens of the Republic of Letters

RefeRences

Connelly M H 2007 Article review Con-nelly on Cullather American Historical Re-view 11(2)337ndash364

Hobsbawn E 2003 Introduction inventing traditions In E Hobsbawn and T Rang-er (eds) The Invention of Tradition 1ndash14 Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Judt T 2005 Postwar A History of Europe since 1945 New York and London Penguin

Alicia ColsonLong Point Island Publications Ltd

Ontario Canada

This book is based on the proceedings of a seminar held at the School for Advanced Research Santa Fe New Mexico March 11‒15 2007 entitled lsquoPutting Aegean States in Context Interaction in the Eastern Mediterranean and Southeastern Europe during the Bronze Agersquo The longer title gives a better idea of the focus of the book for the seminarrsquos papers concentrated on the Aegean giving relatively little cov-erage to regions of interaction outside the Aegean (including south-eastern Europe)

The first chapter by the editors pro-vides their justification for organising the seminar They felt that focus in archaeo-logical research had shifted away from how states interacted to how they developed and that study of interaction had anyway become bedevilled by a divide between those who accepted approaches based on world systems (WS) theory and those who opposed it Their stated purpose was to find a middle ground on WS theory ndash thus the contributors include both enthusiasts and

sceptics ndash and to develop anthropologi-cal models for understanding interaction between societies They express concern at the failure to develop general models in discussing the emergence of Aegean states noting that a lack of such models has been lamented by some Aegean specialists for the last 30 years They also justify their choice of the Aegean as their basis for study and summarise the contents of the volume

It has to be said the contents though all interesting are a rather mixed bag The second chapter entitled lsquoInteraction amid Diversity An Introduction to the Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Agersquo was written by the editors after the seminar with scope for the participantsrsquo intervention and is the nearest thing to a summary of the results Although defining the Eastern Mediter-ranean and discussing its chronology and historical development again it largely focuses on the Aegean and acts as a show-case for the editorsrsquo own preferred lsquomulti-scalarrsquo approach bringing in references

William A Parkinson and Michael L Galaty eds Archaic State Interaction The Eastern Mediterranean in the Bronze Age (School for Advanced Research Advanced Seminar Series Santa Fe New Mexico School for Advanced Research Press 2010 330 pp illustr pbk ISBN 978-1-934691-20-5)

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey (

c) E

urop

ean

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

rcha

eolo

gist

sEuropean Journal of Archaeology 14 (3) 2011500

to the special contributions of individual chapters There then follow chapters by the two enthusiasts Kardulias promotes the concept of WS analysis the adaptation of the original theory to the study of ancient societies and puts forward his lsquonegotiated peripheralityrsquo concept in which groups on the periphery actively involve themselves in the system In contrast Sherratt after discussing general reasons why WS theory has often encountered a frosty reception gives an account of Aegean development in something like classic WS terms that sees decisions made by agents from the Eastern Mediterranean lsquocorersquo as the prime mover Next Cherry focuses on the dating and nature of the first significant contacts between Crete and the Eastern Mediter-ranean specifically Egypt His approach is basically sceptical and his trenchant criti-cisms of the lsquomaximalistrsquo interpretation of the scanty evidence make salutary reading This is followed by Wengroversquos distinc-tive interpretation of early Cretan contacts with Egypt which suggests a link with women-centred rituals a useful reminder that not all evidence of external contacts with a more advanced society needs to be interpreted in the context of local elitesrsquo enhancement of their authority through the manipulation of prestige items Then Cline gives consideration to documentary as well as archaeological material in discussing relations between the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean in the later Bronze Age and argues his belief that the relative short-age of both sources should not inhibit the drawing of large conclusions Tomas gives an account of the Bronze Age archaeology of the eastern Adriatic region (not covering the whole Balkans as mistakenly stated on p 27) and a critical discussion of the claims for Aegean particularly Mycenaean con-nections which demonstrates that there is practically nothing reliable Finally Schon argues that the Mycenaean elites inten-tionally engaged with the Eastern Medi-

terranean world system ndash an example of lsquonegotiated peripheralityrsquo then

An obvious gap in the coverage is a dis-cussion of the relationship between the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean in the period when the Minoan civilisation was at its height and Crete had become the Aegeanrsquos lsquocorersquo although Chapter 2 and Sherrattrsquos Chapter 4 do make references But neither is there much on Aegean par-ticularly Mycenaean links with western Anatolia (despite the strong likelihood that Ahhiyawa a kingdom in diplomatic contact with the Hittites was somewhere in the Mycenaean world) or Cyprus or the central Mediterranean although there is a strengthening case for arguing that this was a significant lsquoperipheryrsquo of the Mycenaean civilisation more important than any involvement with continental Europe It could be objected that this last would be going beyond the theme of the seminar but when it is argued as by Sher-ratt that the Aegean societies prospered particularly as middlemen in long-dis-tance trade routes some consideration of further stages of these routes might seem appropriate

One thing that seems to emerge clearly as emphasised by the editors is that the WS approach works best when covering long distances and broad periods although even here it may be undermined by the obstinate refusal of well-documented local histories to fit into a hypothesised pattern (p 23) In this connection the extremely detailed and diverse history of the Eastern Mediterranean and its hinterland particu-larly Mesopotamia which had more influ-ence overall on development in the region than Egypt makes it very difficult to see it as a single coherent lsquocorersquo So too the very rich archaeology of the Aegean makes framing acceptable generalisations difficult Yet it is upon such generalisations that any analysis must rest and the non-specialist who wishes to use them must feel confi-

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey (

c) E

urop

ean

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

rcha

eolo

gist

sReviews 501

dence that they are reliable Here I have to say that as an Aegean specialist with a par-ticular interest in Middle Helladic (MH) and Mycenaean matters I frequently felt reservations The margins of my copy are sprinkled with queries references to omis-sions and contrary indications etc most of which there is no space to discuss here Overall the generalisations range from the acceptable through the contentious and speculative to the occasionally simply incor-rect (eg p 37 lsquofar from MH sites frequently being fortified no mainland fortifications are reliably datable to this periodrsquo) I would like to draw attention to some statements on important issues that have a particular potential to mislead and warn in general that there are patent conflicts between the account of Aegean development summa-rised in Chapter 2 and what is said in par-ticular chapters which is bound to perplex non-specialists who are they to believe

More is said about the genesis of the Mycenaean elites than their Minoan pred-ecessors It is surprising to see the MH period characterised as one in which lsquochief-doms jockeyed for positionrsquo when there is precious little evidence for lsquochiefsrsquo (cf Dickinson 201122‒25 on MH society citing Voutsaki and Wright) In speaking of the early Mycenaean development as resulting in the establishment of complex chiefdoms (p 215) Schon is closer to the mark but I doubt that this is the result of a lsquolong process of political consolidationrsquo rather in a relatively short period the com-petition between lsquofactionsrsquo centring on tem-porary leaders (hypothesised by Wright to be endemic to MH society) became much more intense leading to the establishment of a much more hierarchical form of society with a clearly marked elite New Minoan interest in the mainland may well have sparked this process off but Minoan influ-ence is not conspicuous everywhere that evidence of the new elite is found A point of note here is that Minoan influence was

nowhere felt as strongly on the mainland as in some Aegean islands lsquoMinoanisationrsquo in fact took distinctly different forms in dif-ferent places

It is startling to be told a paragraph later that the older Minoan states came into conflict with the younger Mycenaean states over the lsquocontrol of Mediterranean tradersquo resulting in the destruction of palaces throughout Crete and the occupa-tion of Knossos by Mycenaeans (pp 38 47) This is a traditional but I would have thought now totally discredited notion ndash any concept of lsquocontrolrsquo of trade presum-ably by sea power is surely anachronistic at this period ndash which runs directly counter to the much more subtle account by Sher-ratt The idea of a lsquoMycenaean conquestrsquo of Knossos and Crete in general at the end of the New Palace period is still accepted by some but has been strongly contested (there is some negative scientific evidence Nafplioti 2008) and is certainly not pro-moted in Driessen and Langohr 2007 which is cited in support their analysis itself contentious in places is much more complex This generalisation also reflects a regrettable tendency to treat Mycenaeans and Minoans as if they formed something like unified political blocs which is most unlikely to be true

But what caused me real dismay was Karduliasrsquos apparently unquestioning acceptance (p 63 and again in Hall Kar-dulias and Chase-Dunn 2011 247) of Kristiansenrsquos vastly overstated account of Mycenaean activity and influence in central Europe and the Black Sea region (1998) and use of a peculiar map taken from Kris-tiansen (fig 32 why no stippling on most of Mycenaean Greece) While I can cer-tainly believe that European commodities like metals could have been channelled through Mycenaean centres to the Eastern Mediterranean I also believe that Harding fatally undermined the arguments for sig-nificant Mycenaean influence in central

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey (

c) E

urop

ean

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

rcha

eolo

gist

sEuropean Journal of Archaeology 14 (3) 2011502

Europe long ago (1984) Further I know of no convincing evidence for Mycenaean activity in the Black Sea the distribution pattern of identifiably Mycenaean and Mycenaean-related material in Bulgaria nowhere approaches the Black Sea coast and probably reflects overland contacts from Macedonia (as demonstrated by the maps in an article sent to me by Dr Diana Doncheva for which I am very grateful)

It is a relief to turn to Sherrattrsquos well-presented theory that relates the whole history of development in the Bronze Age Aegean to its increasingly intimate involve-ment in Eastern Mediterranean trade net-works and explains shifts in the importance of sites and regions as reflecting changes made in trade routes The theory is clearly and straightforwardly presented and good points are made but after a while queries begin to accumulate Most significantly was the Aegean only ever acted upon as passive in trade relations as the Near East was imagined to be in the days when lsquothe Mycenaeansrsquo were supposed to be the great traders of the Mediterranean Karduliasrsquos lsquonegotiated peripheralityrsquo idea is surely relevant here Should Mycenaean civilisa-tion really be regarded as merely a super-ficial veneer adopted in emulation of the Minoan when the scribal and administra-tive systems associated with Linear B show a marked improvement over those associ-ated with Minoan Linear A (and those of mainland Linear B scribes over those of Knossos so it has been argued) If Myc-enaean centres depended for their wealth on their position as nodes in long-distance trade routes how do we explain the great centres in Boeotia and central Laconia (where a Linear B-using polity can now be identified) Why should a later bypassing of these nodes have had such apparently catastrophic effects in many parts of the Mycenaean world Such a shift could well undermine the elitesrsquo position yes but how far would it affect the majority of the popu-

lation who were not it is now recognised tied into a farming regime of narrow local specialisation run by the palaces but were largely self-sufficient and would hardly need imported materials except occasion-ally bronze Why concurrently with the mainland lsquocollapsersquo did a large part of the Cretan population abandon coastal regions to establish themselves successfully in a series of substantial villages in the hills I have no time for the modern myth of the all-conquering lsquoSea Peoplesrsquo but I think something more serious than a shift in trade-routes was going on In this con-nection I cannot resist commenting that the linking of Mycenae specifically with Egypt and Tiryns with Cyprus (p 50) is a totally unnecessary complication when in all probability both were part of the same polity until the lsquocollapsersquo

Much of this might seem to reflect a spe-cialistrsquos obsession with details but I think it important for European archaeologists to know that matters are by no means so cut and dried as the often extremely con-fident tone of various pronouncements in this book might suggest Sherratt is of course right to say that it is impossible to divorce the prehistory of the Aegean and the areas to its north and west from their eastern context and it is certainly right to emphasise the potential for external influ-ence on local development as WS theory does But the degree to which influences from the Eastern Mediterranean controlled the course of development in the Aegean remains very much open to debate and one may continue to share Clinersquos doubts of the need for WS theory in this context (p 173) In sum there is much to think about but also much to question in this book In this connection it is worth noting Bevanrsquos expression of disenchantment with WS analysis as now practised (200728) I would recommend his Chapter 3 as an excellently balanced and up-to-date survey of Bronze Age trading activity over the whole area

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey (

c) E

urop

ean

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

rcha

eolo

gist

sReviews 503

One final comment when in the tenth century BC evidence for a significant involvement with the Eastern Mediterra-nean begins to accumulate at some centres some of the impetus was surely from the Aegean side as it most certainly was when the real Greek expansion began in the eighth century

RefeReNces

Bevan A 2007 Stone Vessels and Values in the Bronze Age Mediterranean Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Dickinson O 2011 The lsquoThird Worldrsquo of the Aegean Middle Helladic Greece revisited In A-P Touchais G Touchais S Vout-saki and J Wright (eds) Mesohelladika The Greek Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age 15ndash27 Athens Ecole Franccedilaise drsquoAthegravenes (Bulletin de Correspondance Helleacutenique Sup-plement 52)

Driessen J and C Langohr 2007 Rallying round a lsquoMinoanrsquo past the legitimation of power at Knossos during the Late Bronze Age In ML Galaty and WA Parkin-son (eds) Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II 178ndash189 Los Angeles UCLA Costen Institute of Archaeology Press

Hall TD N Kardulias and C Chase-Dunn 2011 World systems analysis and archaeology continuing the dialogue Journal of Archaeological Research 19233ndash279

Harding A 1984 The Mycenaeans and Europe London and Orlando Academic Press

Kristiansen K 1998 Europe before History Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Nafplioti A 2008 lsquoMycenaeanrsquo political domination of Knossos following the Late Minoan IB destructions on Crete nega-tive evidence from strontium isotope ratio analysis (87Sr86Sr) Journal of Archaeologi-cal Science 352307‒2317

Oliver DickinsonDurham University United Kingdom

This book deals with the rock art of Bohus-laumln a region in southwestern Sweden in which Johan Ling demonstrates that rock art was closely linked to the sea geograph-ically and iconographically during the Bronze Age This connection apparently found throughout Scandinavia (p 44) has been acknowledged at some points during the history of research and neglected most of the time by what Ling calls the terres-trial paradigm (see the clever Chapter 4 where he explains every twist and turn of the perceptions of rock art in relation to land and sea) Now Ling with his PhD dissertation has simply solved the ques-tion But he also puts forward really rel-evant matters in archaeological research I will therefore briefly deal with formal

questions in order to move on to those important matters

The book is more than perfectly edited in English with an abstract a clearly structured text an exhaustive summary beautiful pictures and well-worked illus-trations Some minor problems such as typos (more than the errata list acknowl-edges but nothing really bothering) a somewhat difficult to read figure (p 64 figure 74 ndash no red dots are visible) and minor English slips do not blur this perfection More of a problem is what I will take as a formal fault with my best good will the use of lsquomanrsquo (p 29 p 231 ndash twice) instead of lsquohumanrsquo the author actually seems to assume that lsquosea-going menrsquo (p 255) are the main actors in his

Johan Ling Elevated Rock Art Towards a Maritime Understanding of Rock Art in Northern Bohuslaumln Sweden (GOTARC Serie B Gothenburg Archaeological Thesis 49 2008 271 pp illustrations 3 appendices CD ISBN 978-91-85245-34-8)

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey (

c) E

urop

ean

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

rcha

eolo

gist

sEuropean Journal of Archaeology 14 (3) 2011500

to the special contributions of individual chapters There then follow chapters by the two enthusiasts Kardulias promotes the concept of WS analysis the adaptation of the original theory to the study of ancient societies and puts forward his lsquonegotiated peripheralityrsquo concept in which groups on the periphery actively involve themselves in the system In contrast Sherratt after discussing general reasons why WS theory has often encountered a frosty reception gives an account of Aegean development in something like classic WS terms that sees decisions made by agents from the Eastern Mediterranean lsquocorersquo as the prime mover Next Cherry focuses on the dating and nature of the first significant contacts between Crete and the Eastern Mediter-ranean specifically Egypt His approach is basically sceptical and his trenchant criti-cisms of the lsquomaximalistrsquo interpretation of the scanty evidence make salutary reading This is followed by Wengroversquos distinc-tive interpretation of early Cretan contacts with Egypt which suggests a link with women-centred rituals a useful reminder that not all evidence of external contacts with a more advanced society needs to be interpreted in the context of local elitesrsquo enhancement of their authority through the manipulation of prestige items Then Cline gives consideration to documentary as well as archaeological material in discussing relations between the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean in the later Bronze Age and argues his belief that the relative short-age of both sources should not inhibit the drawing of large conclusions Tomas gives an account of the Bronze Age archaeology of the eastern Adriatic region (not covering the whole Balkans as mistakenly stated on p 27) and a critical discussion of the claims for Aegean particularly Mycenaean con-nections which demonstrates that there is practically nothing reliable Finally Schon argues that the Mycenaean elites inten-tionally engaged with the Eastern Medi-

terranean world system ndash an example of lsquonegotiated peripheralityrsquo then

An obvious gap in the coverage is a dis-cussion of the relationship between the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean in the period when the Minoan civilisation was at its height and Crete had become the Aegeanrsquos lsquocorersquo although Chapter 2 and Sherrattrsquos Chapter 4 do make references But neither is there much on Aegean par-ticularly Mycenaean links with western Anatolia (despite the strong likelihood that Ahhiyawa a kingdom in diplomatic contact with the Hittites was somewhere in the Mycenaean world) or Cyprus or the central Mediterranean although there is a strengthening case for arguing that this was a significant lsquoperipheryrsquo of the Mycenaean civilisation more important than any involvement with continental Europe It could be objected that this last would be going beyond the theme of the seminar but when it is argued as by Sher-ratt that the Aegean societies prospered particularly as middlemen in long-dis-tance trade routes some consideration of further stages of these routes might seem appropriate

One thing that seems to emerge clearly as emphasised by the editors is that the WS approach works best when covering long distances and broad periods although even here it may be undermined by the obstinate refusal of well-documented local histories to fit into a hypothesised pattern (p 23) In this connection the extremely detailed and diverse history of the Eastern Mediterranean and its hinterland particu-larly Mesopotamia which had more influ-ence overall on development in the region than Egypt makes it very difficult to see it as a single coherent lsquocorersquo So too the very rich archaeology of the Aegean makes framing acceptable generalisations difficult Yet it is upon such generalisations that any analysis must rest and the non-specialist who wishes to use them must feel confi-

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey (

c) E

urop

ean

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

rcha

eolo

gist

sReviews 501

dence that they are reliable Here I have to say that as an Aegean specialist with a par-ticular interest in Middle Helladic (MH) and Mycenaean matters I frequently felt reservations The margins of my copy are sprinkled with queries references to omis-sions and contrary indications etc most of which there is no space to discuss here Overall the generalisations range from the acceptable through the contentious and speculative to the occasionally simply incor-rect (eg p 37 lsquofar from MH sites frequently being fortified no mainland fortifications are reliably datable to this periodrsquo) I would like to draw attention to some statements on important issues that have a particular potential to mislead and warn in general that there are patent conflicts between the account of Aegean development summa-rised in Chapter 2 and what is said in par-ticular chapters which is bound to perplex non-specialists who are they to believe

More is said about the genesis of the Mycenaean elites than their Minoan pred-ecessors It is surprising to see the MH period characterised as one in which lsquochief-doms jockeyed for positionrsquo when there is precious little evidence for lsquochiefsrsquo (cf Dickinson 201122‒25 on MH society citing Voutsaki and Wright) In speaking of the early Mycenaean development as resulting in the establishment of complex chiefdoms (p 215) Schon is closer to the mark but I doubt that this is the result of a lsquolong process of political consolidationrsquo rather in a relatively short period the com-petition between lsquofactionsrsquo centring on tem-porary leaders (hypothesised by Wright to be endemic to MH society) became much more intense leading to the establishment of a much more hierarchical form of society with a clearly marked elite New Minoan interest in the mainland may well have sparked this process off but Minoan influ-ence is not conspicuous everywhere that evidence of the new elite is found A point of note here is that Minoan influence was

nowhere felt as strongly on the mainland as in some Aegean islands lsquoMinoanisationrsquo in fact took distinctly different forms in dif-ferent places

It is startling to be told a paragraph later that the older Minoan states came into conflict with the younger Mycenaean states over the lsquocontrol of Mediterranean tradersquo resulting in the destruction of palaces throughout Crete and the occupa-tion of Knossos by Mycenaeans (pp 38 47) This is a traditional but I would have thought now totally discredited notion ndash any concept of lsquocontrolrsquo of trade presum-ably by sea power is surely anachronistic at this period ndash which runs directly counter to the much more subtle account by Sher-ratt The idea of a lsquoMycenaean conquestrsquo of Knossos and Crete in general at the end of the New Palace period is still accepted by some but has been strongly contested (there is some negative scientific evidence Nafplioti 2008) and is certainly not pro-moted in Driessen and Langohr 2007 which is cited in support their analysis itself contentious in places is much more complex This generalisation also reflects a regrettable tendency to treat Mycenaeans and Minoans as if they formed something like unified political blocs which is most unlikely to be true

But what caused me real dismay was Karduliasrsquos apparently unquestioning acceptance (p 63 and again in Hall Kar-dulias and Chase-Dunn 2011 247) of Kristiansenrsquos vastly overstated account of Mycenaean activity and influence in central Europe and the Black Sea region (1998) and use of a peculiar map taken from Kris-tiansen (fig 32 why no stippling on most of Mycenaean Greece) While I can cer-tainly believe that European commodities like metals could have been channelled through Mycenaean centres to the Eastern Mediterranean I also believe that Harding fatally undermined the arguments for sig-nificant Mycenaean influence in central

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey (

c) E

urop

ean

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

rcha

eolo

gist

sEuropean Journal of Archaeology 14 (3) 2011502

Europe long ago (1984) Further I know of no convincing evidence for Mycenaean activity in the Black Sea the distribution pattern of identifiably Mycenaean and Mycenaean-related material in Bulgaria nowhere approaches the Black Sea coast and probably reflects overland contacts from Macedonia (as demonstrated by the maps in an article sent to me by Dr Diana Doncheva for which I am very grateful)

It is a relief to turn to Sherrattrsquos well-presented theory that relates the whole history of development in the Bronze Age Aegean to its increasingly intimate involve-ment in Eastern Mediterranean trade net-works and explains shifts in the importance of sites and regions as reflecting changes made in trade routes The theory is clearly and straightforwardly presented and good points are made but after a while queries begin to accumulate Most significantly was the Aegean only ever acted upon as passive in trade relations as the Near East was imagined to be in the days when lsquothe Mycenaeansrsquo were supposed to be the great traders of the Mediterranean Karduliasrsquos lsquonegotiated peripheralityrsquo idea is surely relevant here Should Mycenaean civilisa-tion really be regarded as merely a super-ficial veneer adopted in emulation of the Minoan when the scribal and administra-tive systems associated with Linear B show a marked improvement over those associ-ated with Minoan Linear A (and those of mainland Linear B scribes over those of Knossos so it has been argued) If Myc-enaean centres depended for their wealth on their position as nodes in long-distance trade routes how do we explain the great centres in Boeotia and central Laconia (where a Linear B-using polity can now be identified) Why should a later bypassing of these nodes have had such apparently catastrophic effects in many parts of the Mycenaean world Such a shift could well undermine the elitesrsquo position yes but how far would it affect the majority of the popu-

lation who were not it is now recognised tied into a farming regime of narrow local specialisation run by the palaces but were largely self-sufficient and would hardly need imported materials except occasion-ally bronze Why concurrently with the mainland lsquocollapsersquo did a large part of the Cretan population abandon coastal regions to establish themselves successfully in a series of substantial villages in the hills I have no time for the modern myth of the all-conquering lsquoSea Peoplesrsquo but I think something more serious than a shift in trade-routes was going on In this con-nection I cannot resist commenting that the linking of Mycenae specifically with Egypt and Tiryns with Cyprus (p 50) is a totally unnecessary complication when in all probability both were part of the same polity until the lsquocollapsersquo

Much of this might seem to reflect a spe-cialistrsquos obsession with details but I think it important for European archaeologists to know that matters are by no means so cut and dried as the often extremely con-fident tone of various pronouncements in this book might suggest Sherratt is of course right to say that it is impossible to divorce the prehistory of the Aegean and the areas to its north and west from their eastern context and it is certainly right to emphasise the potential for external influ-ence on local development as WS theory does But the degree to which influences from the Eastern Mediterranean controlled the course of development in the Aegean remains very much open to debate and one may continue to share Clinersquos doubts of the need for WS theory in this context (p 173) In sum there is much to think about but also much to question in this book In this connection it is worth noting Bevanrsquos expression of disenchantment with WS analysis as now practised (200728) I would recommend his Chapter 3 as an excellently balanced and up-to-date survey of Bronze Age trading activity over the whole area

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey (

c) E

urop

ean

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

rcha

eolo

gist

sReviews 503

One final comment when in the tenth century BC evidence for a significant involvement with the Eastern Mediterra-nean begins to accumulate at some centres some of the impetus was surely from the Aegean side as it most certainly was when the real Greek expansion began in the eighth century

RefeReNces

Bevan A 2007 Stone Vessels and Values in the Bronze Age Mediterranean Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Dickinson O 2011 The lsquoThird Worldrsquo of the Aegean Middle Helladic Greece revisited In A-P Touchais G Touchais S Vout-saki and J Wright (eds) Mesohelladika The Greek Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age 15ndash27 Athens Ecole Franccedilaise drsquoAthegravenes (Bulletin de Correspondance Helleacutenique Sup-plement 52)

Driessen J and C Langohr 2007 Rallying round a lsquoMinoanrsquo past the legitimation of power at Knossos during the Late Bronze Age In ML Galaty and WA Parkin-son (eds) Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II 178ndash189 Los Angeles UCLA Costen Institute of Archaeology Press

Hall TD N Kardulias and C Chase-Dunn 2011 World systems analysis and archaeology continuing the dialogue Journal of Archaeological Research 19233ndash279

Harding A 1984 The Mycenaeans and Europe London and Orlando Academic Press

Kristiansen K 1998 Europe before History Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Nafplioti A 2008 lsquoMycenaeanrsquo political domination of Knossos following the Late Minoan IB destructions on Crete nega-tive evidence from strontium isotope ratio analysis (87Sr86Sr) Journal of Archaeologi-cal Science 352307‒2317

Oliver DickinsonDurham University United Kingdom

This book deals with the rock art of Bohus-laumln a region in southwestern Sweden in which Johan Ling demonstrates that rock art was closely linked to the sea geograph-ically and iconographically during the Bronze Age This connection apparently found throughout Scandinavia (p 44) has been acknowledged at some points during the history of research and neglected most of the time by what Ling calls the terres-trial paradigm (see the clever Chapter 4 where he explains every twist and turn of the perceptions of rock art in relation to land and sea) Now Ling with his PhD dissertation has simply solved the ques-tion But he also puts forward really rel-evant matters in archaeological research I will therefore briefly deal with formal

questions in order to move on to those important matters

The book is more than perfectly edited in English with an abstract a clearly structured text an exhaustive summary beautiful pictures and well-worked illus-trations Some minor problems such as typos (more than the errata list acknowl-edges but nothing really bothering) a somewhat difficult to read figure (p 64 figure 74 ndash no red dots are visible) and minor English slips do not blur this perfection More of a problem is what I will take as a formal fault with my best good will the use of lsquomanrsquo (p 29 p 231 ndash twice) instead of lsquohumanrsquo the author actually seems to assume that lsquosea-going menrsquo (p 255) are the main actors in his

Johan Ling Elevated Rock Art Towards a Maritime Understanding of Rock Art in Northern Bohuslaumln Sweden (GOTARC Serie B Gothenburg Archaeological Thesis 49 2008 271 pp illustrations 3 appendices CD ISBN 978-91-85245-34-8)

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey (

c) E

urop

ean

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

rcha

eolo

gist

sReviews 501

dence that they are reliable Here I have to say that as an Aegean specialist with a par-ticular interest in Middle Helladic (MH) and Mycenaean matters I frequently felt reservations The margins of my copy are sprinkled with queries references to omis-sions and contrary indications etc most of which there is no space to discuss here Overall the generalisations range from the acceptable through the contentious and speculative to the occasionally simply incor-rect (eg p 37 lsquofar from MH sites frequently being fortified no mainland fortifications are reliably datable to this periodrsquo) I would like to draw attention to some statements on important issues that have a particular potential to mislead and warn in general that there are patent conflicts between the account of Aegean development summa-rised in Chapter 2 and what is said in par-ticular chapters which is bound to perplex non-specialists who are they to believe

More is said about the genesis of the Mycenaean elites than their Minoan pred-ecessors It is surprising to see the MH period characterised as one in which lsquochief-doms jockeyed for positionrsquo when there is precious little evidence for lsquochiefsrsquo (cf Dickinson 201122‒25 on MH society citing Voutsaki and Wright) In speaking of the early Mycenaean development as resulting in the establishment of complex chiefdoms (p 215) Schon is closer to the mark but I doubt that this is the result of a lsquolong process of political consolidationrsquo rather in a relatively short period the com-petition between lsquofactionsrsquo centring on tem-porary leaders (hypothesised by Wright to be endemic to MH society) became much more intense leading to the establishment of a much more hierarchical form of society with a clearly marked elite New Minoan interest in the mainland may well have sparked this process off but Minoan influ-ence is not conspicuous everywhere that evidence of the new elite is found A point of note here is that Minoan influence was

nowhere felt as strongly on the mainland as in some Aegean islands lsquoMinoanisationrsquo in fact took distinctly different forms in dif-ferent places

It is startling to be told a paragraph later that the older Minoan states came into conflict with the younger Mycenaean states over the lsquocontrol of Mediterranean tradersquo resulting in the destruction of palaces throughout Crete and the occupa-tion of Knossos by Mycenaeans (pp 38 47) This is a traditional but I would have thought now totally discredited notion ndash any concept of lsquocontrolrsquo of trade presum-ably by sea power is surely anachronistic at this period ndash which runs directly counter to the much more subtle account by Sher-ratt The idea of a lsquoMycenaean conquestrsquo of Knossos and Crete in general at the end of the New Palace period is still accepted by some but has been strongly contested (there is some negative scientific evidence Nafplioti 2008) and is certainly not pro-moted in Driessen and Langohr 2007 which is cited in support their analysis itself contentious in places is much more complex This generalisation also reflects a regrettable tendency to treat Mycenaeans and Minoans as if they formed something like unified political blocs which is most unlikely to be true

But what caused me real dismay was Karduliasrsquos apparently unquestioning acceptance (p 63 and again in Hall Kar-dulias and Chase-Dunn 2011 247) of Kristiansenrsquos vastly overstated account of Mycenaean activity and influence in central Europe and the Black Sea region (1998) and use of a peculiar map taken from Kris-tiansen (fig 32 why no stippling on most of Mycenaean Greece) While I can cer-tainly believe that European commodities like metals could have been channelled through Mycenaean centres to the Eastern Mediterranean I also believe that Harding fatally undermined the arguments for sig-nificant Mycenaean influence in central

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey (

c) E

urop

ean

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

rcha

eolo

gist

sEuropean Journal of Archaeology 14 (3) 2011502

Europe long ago (1984) Further I know of no convincing evidence for Mycenaean activity in the Black Sea the distribution pattern of identifiably Mycenaean and Mycenaean-related material in Bulgaria nowhere approaches the Black Sea coast and probably reflects overland contacts from Macedonia (as demonstrated by the maps in an article sent to me by Dr Diana Doncheva for which I am very grateful)

It is a relief to turn to Sherrattrsquos well-presented theory that relates the whole history of development in the Bronze Age Aegean to its increasingly intimate involve-ment in Eastern Mediterranean trade net-works and explains shifts in the importance of sites and regions as reflecting changes made in trade routes The theory is clearly and straightforwardly presented and good points are made but after a while queries begin to accumulate Most significantly was the Aegean only ever acted upon as passive in trade relations as the Near East was imagined to be in the days when lsquothe Mycenaeansrsquo were supposed to be the great traders of the Mediterranean Karduliasrsquos lsquonegotiated peripheralityrsquo idea is surely relevant here Should Mycenaean civilisa-tion really be regarded as merely a super-ficial veneer adopted in emulation of the Minoan when the scribal and administra-tive systems associated with Linear B show a marked improvement over those associ-ated with Minoan Linear A (and those of mainland Linear B scribes over those of Knossos so it has been argued) If Myc-enaean centres depended for their wealth on their position as nodes in long-distance trade routes how do we explain the great centres in Boeotia and central Laconia (where a Linear B-using polity can now be identified) Why should a later bypassing of these nodes have had such apparently catastrophic effects in many parts of the Mycenaean world Such a shift could well undermine the elitesrsquo position yes but how far would it affect the majority of the popu-

lation who were not it is now recognised tied into a farming regime of narrow local specialisation run by the palaces but were largely self-sufficient and would hardly need imported materials except occasion-ally bronze Why concurrently with the mainland lsquocollapsersquo did a large part of the Cretan population abandon coastal regions to establish themselves successfully in a series of substantial villages in the hills I have no time for the modern myth of the all-conquering lsquoSea Peoplesrsquo but I think something more serious than a shift in trade-routes was going on In this con-nection I cannot resist commenting that the linking of Mycenae specifically with Egypt and Tiryns with Cyprus (p 50) is a totally unnecessary complication when in all probability both were part of the same polity until the lsquocollapsersquo

Much of this might seem to reflect a spe-cialistrsquos obsession with details but I think it important for European archaeologists to know that matters are by no means so cut and dried as the often extremely con-fident tone of various pronouncements in this book might suggest Sherratt is of course right to say that it is impossible to divorce the prehistory of the Aegean and the areas to its north and west from their eastern context and it is certainly right to emphasise the potential for external influ-ence on local development as WS theory does But the degree to which influences from the Eastern Mediterranean controlled the course of development in the Aegean remains very much open to debate and one may continue to share Clinersquos doubts of the need for WS theory in this context (p 173) In sum there is much to think about but also much to question in this book In this connection it is worth noting Bevanrsquos expression of disenchantment with WS analysis as now practised (200728) I would recommend his Chapter 3 as an excellently balanced and up-to-date survey of Bronze Age trading activity over the whole area

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey (

c) E

urop

ean

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

rcha

eolo

gist

sReviews 503

One final comment when in the tenth century BC evidence for a significant involvement with the Eastern Mediterra-nean begins to accumulate at some centres some of the impetus was surely from the Aegean side as it most certainly was when the real Greek expansion began in the eighth century

RefeReNces

Bevan A 2007 Stone Vessels and Values in the Bronze Age Mediterranean Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Dickinson O 2011 The lsquoThird Worldrsquo of the Aegean Middle Helladic Greece revisited In A-P Touchais G Touchais S Vout-saki and J Wright (eds) Mesohelladika The Greek Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age 15ndash27 Athens Ecole Franccedilaise drsquoAthegravenes (Bulletin de Correspondance Helleacutenique Sup-plement 52)

Driessen J and C Langohr 2007 Rallying round a lsquoMinoanrsquo past the legitimation of power at Knossos during the Late Bronze Age In ML Galaty and WA Parkin-son (eds) Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II 178ndash189 Los Angeles UCLA Costen Institute of Archaeology Press

Hall TD N Kardulias and C Chase-Dunn 2011 World systems analysis and archaeology continuing the dialogue Journal of Archaeological Research 19233ndash279

Harding A 1984 The Mycenaeans and Europe London and Orlando Academic Press

Kristiansen K 1998 Europe before History Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Nafplioti A 2008 lsquoMycenaeanrsquo political domination of Knossos following the Late Minoan IB destructions on Crete nega-tive evidence from strontium isotope ratio analysis (87Sr86Sr) Journal of Archaeologi-cal Science 352307‒2317

Oliver DickinsonDurham University United Kingdom

This book deals with the rock art of Bohus-laumln a region in southwestern Sweden in which Johan Ling demonstrates that rock art was closely linked to the sea geograph-ically and iconographically during the Bronze Age This connection apparently found throughout Scandinavia (p 44) has been acknowledged at some points during the history of research and neglected most of the time by what Ling calls the terres-trial paradigm (see the clever Chapter 4 where he explains every twist and turn of the perceptions of rock art in relation to land and sea) Now Ling with his PhD dissertation has simply solved the ques-tion But he also puts forward really rel-evant matters in archaeological research I will therefore briefly deal with formal

questions in order to move on to those important matters

The book is more than perfectly edited in English with an abstract a clearly structured text an exhaustive summary beautiful pictures and well-worked illus-trations Some minor problems such as typos (more than the errata list acknowl-edges but nothing really bothering) a somewhat difficult to read figure (p 64 figure 74 ndash no red dots are visible) and minor English slips do not blur this perfection More of a problem is what I will take as a formal fault with my best good will the use of lsquomanrsquo (p 29 p 231 ndash twice) instead of lsquohumanrsquo the author actually seems to assume that lsquosea-going menrsquo (p 255) are the main actors in his

Johan Ling Elevated Rock Art Towards a Maritime Understanding of Rock Art in Northern Bohuslaumln Sweden (GOTARC Serie B Gothenburg Archaeological Thesis 49 2008 271 pp illustrations 3 appendices CD ISBN 978-91-85245-34-8)

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey (

c) E

urop

ean

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

rcha

eolo

gist

sEuropean Journal of Archaeology 14 (3) 2011502

Europe long ago (1984) Further I know of no convincing evidence for Mycenaean activity in the Black Sea the distribution pattern of identifiably Mycenaean and Mycenaean-related material in Bulgaria nowhere approaches the Black Sea coast and probably reflects overland contacts from Macedonia (as demonstrated by the maps in an article sent to me by Dr Diana Doncheva for which I am very grateful)

It is a relief to turn to Sherrattrsquos well-presented theory that relates the whole history of development in the Bronze Age Aegean to its increasingly intimate involve-ment in Eastern Mediterranean trade net-works and explains shifts in the importance of sites and regions as reflecting changes made in trade routes The theory is clearly and straightforwardly presented and good points are made but after a while queries begin to accumulate Most significantly was the Aegean only ever acted upon as passive in trade relations as the Near East was imagined to be in the days when lsquothe Mycenaeansrsquo were supposed to be the great traders of the Mediterranean Karduliasrsquos lsquonegotiated peripheralityrsquo idea is surely relevant here Should Mycenaean civilisa-tion really be regarded as merely a super-ficial veneer adopted in emulation of the Minoan when the scribal and administra-tive systems associated with Linear B show a marked improvement over those associ-ated with Minoan Linear A (and those of mainland Linear B scribes over those of Knossos so it has been argued) If Myc-enaean centres depended for their wealth on their position as nodes in long-distance trade routes how do we explain the great centres in Boeotia and central Laconia (where a Linear B-using polity can now be identified) Why should a later bypassing of these nodes have had such apparently catastrophic effects in many parts of the Mycenaean world Such a shift could well undermine the elitesrsquo position yes but how far would it affect the majority of the popu-

lation who were not it is now recognised tied into a farming regime of narrow local specialisation run by the palaces but were largely self-sufficient and would hardly need imported materials except occasion-ally bronze Why concurrently with the mainland lsquocollapsersquo did a large part of the Cretan population abandon coastal regions to establish themselves successfully in a series of substantial villages in the hills I have no time for the modern myth of the all-conquering lsquoSea Peoplesrsquo but I think something more serious than a shift in trade-routes was going on In this con-nection I cannot resist commenting that the linking of Mycenae specifically with Egypt and Tiryns with Cyprus (p 50) is a totally unnecessary complication when in all probability both were part of the same polity until the lsquocollapsersquo

Much of this might seem to reflect a spe-cialistrsquos obsession with details but I think it important for European archaeologists to know that matters are by no means so cut and dried as the often extremely con-fident tone of various pronouncements in this book might suggest Sherratt is of course right to say that it is impossible to divorce the prehistory of the Aegean and the areas to its north and west from their eastern context and it is certainly right to emphasise the potential for external influ-ence on local development as WS theory does But the degree to which influences from the Eastern Mediterranean controlled the course of development in the Aegean remains very much open to debate and one may continue to share Clinersquos doubts of the need for WS theory in this context (p 173) In sum there is much to think about but also much to question in this book In this connection it is worth noting Bevanrsquos expression of disenchantment with WS analysis as now practised (200728) I would recommend his Chapter 3 as an excellently balanced and up-to-date survey of Bronze Age trading activity over the whole area

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey (

c) E

urop

ean

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

rcha

eolo

gist

sReviews 503

One final comment when in the tenth century BC evidence for a significant involvement with the Eastern Mediterra-nean begins to accumulate at some centres some of the impetus was surely from the Aegean side as it most certainly was when the real Greek expansion began in the eighth century

RefeReNces

Bevan A 2007 Stone Vessels and Values in the Bronze Age Mediterranean Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Dickinson O 2011 The lsquoThird Worldrsquo of the Aegean Middle Helladic Greece revisited In A-P Touchais G Touchais S Vout-saki and J Wright (eds) Mesohelladika The Greek Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age 15ndash27 Athens Ecole Franccedilaise drsquoAthegravenes (Bulletin de Correspondance Helleacutenique Sup-plement 52)

Driessen J and C Langohr 2007 Rallying round a lsquoMinoanrsquo past the legitimation of power at Knossos during the Late Bronze Age In ML Galaty and WA Parkin-son (eds) Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II 178ndash189 Los Angeles UCLA Costen Institute of Archaeology Press

Hall TD N Kardulias and C Chase-Dunn 2011 World systems analysis and archaeology continuing the dialogue Journal of Archaeological Research 19233ndash279

Harding A 1984 The Mycenaeans and Europe London and Orlando Academic Press

Kristiansen K 1998 Europe before History Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Nafplioti A 2008 lsquoMycenaeanrsquo political domination of Knossos following the Late Minoan IB destructions on Crete nega-tive evidence from strontium isotope ratio analysis (87Sr86Sr) Journal of Archaeologi-cal Science 352307‒2317

Oliver DickinsonDurham University United Kingdom

This book deals with the rock art of Bohus-laumln a region in southwestern Sweden in which Johan Ling demonstrates that rock art was closely linked to the sea geograph-ically and iconographically during the Bronze Age This connection apparently found throughout Scandinavia (p 44) has been acknowledged at some points during the history of research and neglected most of the time by what Ling calls the terres-trial paradigm (see the clever Chapter 4 where he explains every twist and turn of the perceptions of rock art in relation to land and sea) Now Ling with his PhD dissertation has simply solved the ques-tion But he also puts forward really rel-evant matters in archaeological research I will therefore briefly deal with formal

questions in order to move on to those important matters

The book is more than perfectly edited in English with an abstract a clearly structured text an exhaustive summary beautiful pictures and well-worked illus-trations Some minor problems such as typos (more than the errata list acknowl-edges but nothing really bothering) a somewhat difficult to read figure (p 64 figure 74 ndash no red dots are visible) and minor English slips do not blur this perfection More of a problem is what I will take as a formal fault with my best good will the use of lsquomanrsquo (p 29 p 231 ndash twice) instead of lsquohumanrsquo the author actually seems to assume that lsquosea-going menrsquo (p 255) are the main actors in his

Johan Ling Elevated Rock Art Towards a Maritime Understanding of Rock Art in Northern Bohuslaumln Sweden (GOTARC Serie B Gothenburg Archaeological Thesis 49 2008 271 pp illustrations 3 appendices CD ISBN 978-91-85245-34-8)

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey (

c) E

urop

ean

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

rcha

eolo

gist

sReviews 503

One final comment when in the tenth century BC evidence for a significant involvement with the Eastern Mediterra-nean begins to accumulate at some centres some of the impetus was surely from the Aegean side as it most certainly was when the real Greek expansion began in the eighth century

RefeReNces

Bevan A 2007 Stone Vessels and Values in the Bronze Age Mediterranean Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Dickinson O 2011 The lsquoThird Worldrsquo of the Aegean Middle Helladic Greece revisited In A-P Touchais G Touchais S Vout-saki and J Wright (eds) Mesohelladika The Greek Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age 15ndash27 Athens Ecole Franccedilaise drsquoAthegravenes (Bulletin de Correspondance Helleacutenique Sup-plement 52)

Driessen J and C Langohr 2007 Rallying round a lsquoMinoanrsquo past the legitimation of power at Knossos during the Late Bronze Age In ML Galaty and WA Parkin-son (eds) Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II 178ndash189 Los Angeles UCLA Costen Institute of Archaeology Press

Hall TD N Kardulias and C Chase-Dunn 2011 World systems analysis and archaeology continuing the dialogue Journal of Archaeological Research 19233ndash279

Harding A 1984 The Mycenaeans and Europe London and Orlando Academic Press

Kristiansen K 1998 Europe before History Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Nafplioti A 2008 lsquoMycenaeanrsquo political domination of Knossos following the Late Minoan IB destructions on Crete nega-tive evidence from strontium isotope ratio analysis (87Sr86Sr) Journal of Archaeologi-cal Science 352307‒2317

Oliver DickinsonDurham University United Kingdom

This book deals with the rock art of Bohus-laumln a region in southwestern Sweden in which Johan Ling demonstrates that rock art was closely linked to the sea geograph-ically and iconographically during the Bronze Age This connection apparently found throughout Scandinavia (p 44) has been acknowledged at some points during the history of research and neglected most of the time by what Ling calls the terres-trial paradigm (see the clever Chapter 4 where he explains every twist and turn of the perceptions of rock art in relation to land and sea) Now Ling with his PhD dissertation has simply solved the ques-tion But he also puts forward really rel-evant matters in archaeological research I will therefore briefly deal with formal

questions in order to move on to those important matters

The book is more than perfectly edited in English with an abstract a clearly structured text an exhaustive summary beautiful pictures and well-worked illus-trations Some minor problems such as typos (more than the errata list acknowl-edges but nothing really bothering) a somewhat difficult to read figure (p 64 figure 74 ndash no red dots are visible) and minor English slips do not blur this perfection More of a problem is what I will take as a formal fault with my best good will the use of lsquomanrsquo (p 29 p 231 ndash twice) instead of lsquohumanrsquo the author actually seems to assume that lsquosea-going menrsquo (p 255) are the main actors in his

Johan Ling Elevated Rock Art Towards a Maritime Understanding of Rock Art in Northern Bohuslaumln Sweden (GOTARC Serie B Gothenburg Archaeological Thesis 49 2008 271 pp illustrations 3 appendices CD ISBN 978-91-85245-34-8)