The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

28
FORLAG ASTROMS STUDIES IN MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY VOL. xc BRONZE AGE TRADE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN Papers Presented at the Conference held at Rewley House, Oxford, in December 1989 Edited by N.H. Gale JONSERED 1991 PAUL

Transcript of The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

Page 1: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

FORLAGASTROMS

STUDIES IN MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY

VOL. xc

BRONZE AGE TRADE IN THEMEDITERRANEAN

Papers Presented at the Conference held at Rewley House, Oxford, in

December 1989

Edited by N.H. Gale

JONSERED 1991

PAUL

Page 2: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

z*

351

387

.111

92

121

127

149

152

162

180

197

240

249

289

295

303

. .

Melas: Mediterranean Trade in the Bronze Age: a Theoretical Perspective

& S. Sherratt: From Luxuries to Commodities: the Nature of MediterraneanBronze Age Trading Systems

M.

[email protected]. W iener: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

A.

iate Bronze Age Trade within Crete: the Evidence of Seals andSealings

Macdonald: Sources of Metals and Trade in the BronzeAge Aegean

J. Evans: Organic Traces and their Contribution to the Understanding of Trade

P.M. Warren: A Merchant Class in Bronze Age Crete? The Evidence of EgyptianStone Vases from the City of Knossos

J. Weingarten:

& C.F.

Oxhide Ingots: their Origin and their Place in the Bronze AgeMetals Trade in the Mediterranean

Th. Rehren: Selenium and Tellurium in Mediterranean Copper Ingots

Z.A. Stos-Gale

Hala Sultan Tekke: Analysis with SecondaryIon Mass Spectrometry

E. Peltenburg: Greeting Gifts and Luxury Faience: a Context for OrientalisingTrends in Late Mycenaean Greece

J.D. Muhly: The Development of Copper Metallurgy in Late Bronze Age Cyprus

N.H. Gale: Copper

Hala Sultan Tekke

P.M. Fischer: Canaanite Pottery from

Astrgm: Canaanite Jars from

& L. Vagnetti: Traders and Craftsmen in the Central Mediterranean:Archaeological Evidence and Archaeometric Research

P.

& A.B. Knapp: Quantitative Provenance Studies and Bronze AgeTrade in the Mediterranean: Some Preliminary Reflections

E.B. French: Tracing Exports of Mycenaean Pottery: the Manchester Contribution

R.E. Jones

McGrail: Bronze Age Seafaring in the Mediterranean: a View from N.W. Europe 83

J.F. Cherry

CONTENTS

Preface

H.W. Catling: Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean: a View

A.M. Snodgrass: Bronze Age Exchange: a Minimalist Position

A.B. Knapp: Spice, Drugs, Grain and Grog: Organic Goods in Bronze Age EastMediterranean Trade

iv

1

15

21

G.F. Bass: Evidence of Trade from Bronze Age Shipwrecks 69

S.

Page 3: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

Lsignificant quantities of ochre from Sicily foruse in funerary and other rituals (Maniscalco1989, 541).

Second, harbour sites are particularly subjectto loss through change of shoreline orreoccupation. Much of our knowledge of

Dothan 1981, 4-5; VanSeters 1979, 37; Lichtheim 1976, 224-230;Gardiner 1961, 306-313). When the natureof trade goods can be determined from theircontainers the result is sometimes a surprise,as in the early Chalcolithic period in thewestern Mediterranean where, in the firsthalf of the third millennium, Malta imported

EVIDENCI~Does the limited evidence of overseas contact

325

from the prepalatial period provide supportfor the minimalist view of trade advocated atthis Symposium by Snodgrass and Catling?Or does the evidence cited merely hint at thetrue extent of trade, given the accidents ofrecovery and the possibility of trade inperishables leaving no trace? Of course evenoccasional cross-cultural exchanges betweenrulers could have had major consequences,such as the acquisition of knowledge ofmetallurgy and writing (particularly if theexchange involved gifts of artisans, a practicewell-attested in Near Eastern texts). But wasBronze Age long-distance trade as limited inextent and nature as the minimalists suggest?

Three contrary arguments in particular seemworth noting. First, trade would always haveconsisted in large part of goods which leaveno trace. The tale of the mid-l 1 th centuryB.C. voyage of Wenamun, who travelledfrom Egypt to Byblos to purchase timber inexchange for significant quantities of linengarments, papyrus, ox hides, ropes, lentilsand fish, plus gold and silver, is an excellentexample of trade without a trace (Pemigotti1988, 267-268;

ER~MINFERENCE PROBLEMS OF THE AND0~ T RADE M~nmmr V IEW THB

EM11 contexts(Wilson, D. E. 1985, 358-359).

279-292), and by sherds from EH/ECIIsauceboats from good

Mesara tholoi are made (Stos-Gale 1989,

(Dawkins 1903-1904, 192-231). Trade linksto the north at this time are indicated by theprobable Kythnian origin of the copper fromwhich Minoan figurines and daggers foundin

1560), suggestingthe importation of tin to supply Cretanmetalsmiths at this period. The first ostrichegg known in Crete, from a tomb atPalaikastro, also comes from this horizon

44), with a tin content of 4.8%(Herakleion Museum, HM

EM111 material comes a bronzedagger of Cretan type (Branigan 1967, 214-215, Note

rice, ivory, and Egyptian stone vases on theislands. The contemporaneous burials atMochlos give evidence for the first time ofsignificant social stratification (Soles 1988,49-61). From a tomb at Mochlos withEMIIA to

faie-

EM11 witnesses a great expansionof trade horizons, with the appearance ofimports including gold, a silver seal,

1989;c.J:Torrence 1986).

On Crete

(Per&

Melian obsidian atvarious places, including inland sites on theGreek mainland beginning with the Paleo-lithic period

THE NATURE AND CONTROL OF MINOAN FOREIGN TRADE

Malcolm H. Wiener

For Sinclair and Rachel Hood

Trade (along with many other activities) hasbeen called the world ’s second oldest pro-fession, and indeed the eagerness with whichfive-year-olds trade objects might suggestthat trade is the oldest. In archaeological timealso, trade can claim great antiquity as sugg-ested by the appearance of

Page 4: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

--

the injunction contained in one letter Vcenhof 1972.) East

And1977; Adams 1974; and

- did notexist to any extent in the Aegean BronzeAge. Markets, he believes, were marginaland the concept of profit absent. Snodgrassenvisages, instead, a process of ceremonialgift exchange between rulers involving highvalue, low bulk prestige items, accompaniedby negotiated exchange of high bulknecessities and the systematic redistributionof these within Aegean communities. To thisview certain objections may be raised. First,as Snodgrass notes, trade by any definitionclearly flourished in the Near East in theBronze Age. The principal function of theAssyrian trading colonies in Anatolia was thegeneration of profits for state institutions andprivate investors in Assyria. (See, e.g., thepapers by Garelli, Larsen and Veenhof inHawkins (ed.), Trade in the Ancient Near

ofba further purchaser ” - “movement of goods without

knowledge

questi0n.l

On balance, it would appear that the risk ofunderestimation of the amount and societalimpact of long-distance trade in the BronzeAge is at least as great as the risk of over-estimation.

Snodgrass in his paper argues that trade byone definition

400 bronzesmiths (Chadwick 1976, 141).The existence of this number of bronzesmithsin the territory of Pylos is surely of somesignificance, even if most receive only asmall allotment of bronze and some none onthe tablets in

LH-LMIIIB habitation sites and tombs led somescholars to suspect a IIIB bronze shortage,but the Pylos tablets suggest a total of about

Ktiltepe list grht amounts of metal,practically none of which was found in theexcavations. The paucity of bronze in

Mari and the Assyrian trading colonyat

Haifa),and an enormous number of copper ingots(Bass 1986). Near Eastern archives fromEbla,

ingots from another shipwreck off

326

lOO), but who has ever seen a Canaanite jarin silver? Few of the gold vessels depicted inthe annals or in Egyptian tombs surviveeither (Lilyquist 1988, 39). The Kas ship-wreck disclosed ingots of tin and glass,otherwise unknown (except for some tin

has ever beenfound in Egypt. The Annals of Tuthmosis IIIcarved on his temple at Kamak record asbooty 52 silver jars of Canaanite shape(Wrezinski 1923, Plates 33A and B, Item

weaf iron-link tunics, but no Normanand only one Anglo-Saxon piece of theperiod survives (Wilson, D. M. 1985, 221).In the 17th century A.D., a silver brazier, orbrusero, was a frequent item of equipment inupper class houses in Spain and France, butdue probably to the large amount of silverthese objects contained practically none havesurvived (Gruber 1982, 232). Similarly,Egyptian New Kingdom tomb paintings andtemple reliefs depict a great number ofcopper ingots, but only one

armour in the 1 lth century A.D.provided by the Bayeux tapestry on the onehand, and by the archaeological record on theother. In the tapestry, senior ranks on bothsides

Knossos, where &he levelling of the hill,first perhaps before the construction of theOld Palace and again after the MMIIAdestruction, scattered much of the evidenceof earlier occupation.)

Third, the archaeological record tends inparticular to preserve a deceptively smallproportion of the metal in use at any time,since metal is always subject to melting andreuse. An illustration of the phenomenon isthe contrast between the evidence for theexistence of

prepalatial Minoan contacts with Egypt or theNear East comes from the island of Mochlos,which in Minoan times is thought to havebeen part of a peninsula. Detachment as anisland here acted as a partial deterrent topost-Roman reoccupation or cultivation, thusprotecting the tombs from discovery andlooting. (Our other major source of evidencefor overseas contact in the prepalatial periodis

Page 5: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

,.intensive search, planning and investment bythe controlling elite.

Middle Bronze IB to II was a time ofintensive trade, including trade in metals, inthe Near East. From the approximately 5%of the Karum Kanesh tablets published to

327

- that is to say,bronze was of critical importance to thesecurity, economy and prestige of thepalaces. Above all, the palaces would havewished to insure and control the supply ofweapons in troubled times. (A discussion ofevidence for warfare in protopalatial Creteappears below.) Accordingly it seems incon-ceivable that Minoan rulers would simplyhave waited passively, hoping for a NearEastern merchantman to arrive with copperand tin. Rather, it seems likely that copperand tin would have been the object of

(1987), Kopcke (1987) and Wiener (1987)argued for a strong palatial role in this trade,the last named emphasizing the need of thepalaces to insure access to supplies of copperand tin, or bronze. This paper expands onthat discussion, then considers the currentstate of the evidence regarding the control ofCrete in general (including overseas trade) inthe Old Palace period, and ends with a briefpostscript on the control of foreign tradeduring the New Palace period.

Bronze, of course, was of critical importancefor weapons, for tools to build palaces andships, and for prestige objects

PALACEPERIODWhat, then, was the nature and structure ofMinoan overseas trade in the Old Palaceperiod? In a 1984 symposium Alexiou

2

MINOAN OVERSEAS TRADE IN THE OLD

(Sasson1984, 248). As Adams observes, “Theanalytical separation between ‘administered’and ‘market’ trade may, in other words, lacka cognitive or behavioural equivalent ”(Adams 1974, 239).

While distinctions between “market” and“administered” trade, or between “trade” and“exchange”, do not seem particularly fruitful,

the question of the role of the state incomparison with the role of other entities andof individuals in long-distance, cross-culturaltrade appears of critical importance for ourunderstanding of the governance and econ-omy of Crete and the development of Minoancivilization.

of. royal journeys to makeprivate purchases for future sales

Mariin the 18th century B.C., some of whomused the occasion

Atrational purchaser may elect to maintain along-term relationship with a higher-costsupplier in order to insure access to a criticalresource (such as metal in the Bronze Age)while satisfying any increase in demand froma lower-cost source. It is appropriate at thispoint to recall the adage: “Markets [i.e.,prices] are made at the margin ”. It would besurprising if Minoan trading ventures did notseek out the lowest cost source of metals andother goods from time to time. Moreover,royal emissaries/merchants throughout his-tory have traded on their own account in thecourse of their missions, as in the case of themerchant ambassadors of Zimri-Lim of

118), and some ofthe vases are distributed within Babylonwhile others are exchanged elsewhere, thenthe result in fact is trade. Conversely, aceremonial gift exchange relationship bet-ween rulers, even one maintained despitethe availability of equivalent supplies atlower cost elsewhere, need not necessarilyconstitute “archaic” non-profit-maximizingbehaviour, when viewed in the long run.

99-100; Knudtzon 1915,

(Veenhof 1972, 88).

In any event, it is the effect of long-distance,cross-cultural trade that matters, rather thanthe purported intent. If, pursuant to a care-fully negotiated agreement the Pharaoh sendsa gift of a thousand Egyptian stone vasesfilled with unguents to the King of Babylonin exchange for other goods (Moran 1987,

- surely speaks thelanguage of markets “Sell at any price ”

Page 6: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

12), andMinoan pottery from the beginning of theOld Palace period has been found at Lapithosand Karmi on the north coast of Cyprus.

In the foregoing discussion emphasis is

328

(Watrous 1985,

Cypriotsherds have been recovered from a MMIBcontext at Kommos

& Brill, forthcoming).Gzbal, Joel,

Barnes

& Aksoy1989, 477-494; Yener, Sayer,

Gzbal, Minzoni-Deroche & Dixon 1965, 225-247;

Yener,

MM11 sherds are also knownfrom the Anatolian coastal sites of Miletus,Iasos and Knidos (Wiener 1984, 17-25 andforthcoming). Conversely, pieces of obsid-ian, linked through trace element analysis tothe Ciftlik source in southern Anatolia (nearmines identified by Yener as potentialsources of silver and other metals in theBronze Age), have been found at Knossos(Renfrew, Cann

Asty-palaea and Samos, and that Middle Minoanstone bowls have been found on Samos andRhodes, with the latter producing evidence oflocal manufacture of stone bowls of Minoantype as well.

Chalki, Kalymnos, Telos, Nisyros,

MM11 in date,has been. found along an island chainincluding Kasos, Karpathos, Rhodes, Kos,

Karahoyiik in Anatolia, such as the use of

multiple sealings and seals which areextremely similar but not identical, as well asa few specific design motifs previously notedby Levi. Weingarten notes that Near Easternspecialists have only recently begun to studysealings with respect to their function inadministrative systems, but believes onpresent evidence that the Minoan system wasimported in its entirety from somewhereabroad, probably coincident with thefoundation of the first palaces in Crete(Weingarten 1990, 105-106).

Ports along the coasts of Anatolia and Syriawere obvious destinations for Middle Minoanvoyagers seeking tin or bronze. Accordinglyit is not surprising that Middle Minoanpottery (including open shapes which couldnot have served as containers for Minoanexports), much of it said to be

201 and 1970, 97).

The existence of an interpreter suggestsregular contact, trade beyond the scope ofsign language or a tourist shoppingvocabulary, and an increased likelihood ofexchange of significant knowledge andstimuli between Crete and the Near Eastduring the Old Palace period. JudithWeingarten has recently argued that the firstcomplex administrative system of Crete forwhich we have evidence, that of the palace atPhaistos in MMII, shares certain specificcharacteristics with the system in use at

Dossin 1952, 3, 37[Letter

- an example, perhaps, of “down theline palatial gift exchange ” (Villard 1984,528-529, number 556; Kupper 1973, 8-22;Malamat 1971, 31;

Mari sendinggoods from Kaptara to Hammurabi ofBabylon

Maritablets refer to a Kaptarite inlaid metalweapon, and to Zimri-Lim of

Mari fromthe direction of Iran and went to many placesincluding Aleppo, Hazor and Ugarit, wheretwo resident and probably Mariote tinmerchants are mentioned. If “Kaptara” wasindeed Crete, as is generally believed, thenthe connection of Crete to this tin route isestablished by a reference in the same text totin destined for a man from Kaptara and aninterpreter resident in Ugarit (who is to bepaid in tin for his services). Other

500 kg of tin in the palace inventory, orenough for 8 to 10.5 tons of bronze. Thetablet shows that the tin came to

Mari on the Euphrates records over

300 tons ofbronze. Adams in his analysis of NearEastern trade observes that the amountinvolved seems considerably in excess oflocal needs, and accordingly suggests that thetin was alloyed with copper in Anatolia andthe resulting bronze shipped elsewhere(Adams 1974, 239). One tablet from thepalace at

200 to 5%-7% tin content)

date, we know already of 110 donkey loadscarrying 13,500 kilos, or almost 15 tons, oftin into Anatolia, enough to produce (assum-ing a

Page 7: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

38-63), when a single privatecarrying goods of high value

329

Revere 1957,merchantman

(Sasson 1966, 138;

enrente am-ong the great powers during which maritimerights were respected

part+ supp-ression of piracy in the eastern Mediterr-anean, stemming perhaps from

csources. While there may have been per-iods of maritime security and

161).

Long-distance trade with the eastern Medi-terranean and Egypt would have required thefollowing: first, ships suitable for long voy-ages, which could have served as well forattacking pirate lairs, together with ships ’crews and provisions, plus shipyards andshipwrights; second, goods for exchange, insome cases of a kind sufficient to interestforeign rulers; third, establishment of rel-ations with foreign courts and ports; andfourth, a chain of safe harbours, such asthose noted, on the route to the metal

woollencloth, wine, herbs and currants to Europe[Cadogan 1976,

197-203). Egypt was no doubt a readymarket for wood, olive oil and wine, all ofwhich it lacked. (In the 18th century A.D.Crete exported wood, olive oil,

(Sasson 1985,451). Egyptian texts of the early 18thdynasty refer to the importation of medicinalherbs and of lichens for embalming fluidfrom Keftiu, the Egyptian term generallythought to mean Crete (Sakellarakis 1984,

342:4-12) records clothing and a pair ofleather shoes from Kaptara

Mari tablet (ARMT 21(Killen

1964, l-15). A

(Palaima 1990, 94-95).From the Knossian Linear B tablets we knowthat wool production was a major element ofthe Minoan economy at that time

Triadhaindicate that it was a centre of wool prod-uction in LMIB

(Kantor 1947,58). Linear A tablets from Ayia

Rackham 1988, 168-169). The

proximity to forests may account in part forthe location and significance of the OldPalace site of Monastiraki, considered below,and the New Palace site of Zominthos. AnEgyptian tomb of the 18th Dynasty depictsKeftiu bearing folded cloth

&

Samaria Gorgein western Crete was the chief source ofcypress in the Venetian Empire (Nixon,Moody

& Chadwick 1973,370-373; I am grateful to T. Palaima for thisreference.). In the 5th century B.C. Creteexported cypress wood; in the 16th centuryA.D. travellers reported the

(Astour1973, 22). Both elm and willow arerecorded later in the Linear B tablets fromKnossos (assuming no shift in the names ofvarious woods between Linear B andClassical Greek) with willow mentionedfrequently as the material of which chariotwheels are made (Ventris

woollen cloth andagricultural products (including wine andmedicinal herbs). The annals of TuthmosisIII speak of ships of the Keftiu in Levantineports laden with poles, masts and great treesdestined for Egypt (Breasted 1962, 206). AnAkkadian type of wood (thought to be poplaror willow) is called “Kaptura”, a term bel-ieved to mean “Crete” or “Cretan”

cists in the West Magazines ofthe Palace of Knossos. It is reasonable toassume a palatial interest and role in suchimports.

Minoan exports, in addition to Kamares warepottery, may have included wood, oil(possibly perfumed),

placed on the necessity of obtaining bronzebecause of the active Minoan maritime rolewhich such a need implies. Minoan importswere of course not limited to bronze. Gold,silver, ivory and various types of stonearrived, the last in the form of Egyptianvases which were then reworked into Minoanforms (Platon 1971, 137-138) and in theform of raw material. Yule (1981, 199)catalogued 135 seals made from six differentNear Eastern stones found in Crete andbelonging to the MMII-III horizon; Branigan(forthcoming) calculates that at least 15% ofall known Cretan Old Palace seals were madefrom Near Eastern stones. Lead, probablyfrom Laurion, was imported for rivets andplugs and for linings such as those used towaterproof the

Page 8: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

330

non-

’palatial shrines. Such extra-palatial issuanceof metal is documented at the end of theBronze Age in the Pylos tablets. Moreover,the comparison once again is between

MM&II, but observes thatthese figures are difficult to assess accuratelybecause of incomplete publication, variationin quantity of raw material used forindividual objects, and other reasons. Inaddition to these caveats, we should note thatdifferent parties may be responsible forimporting metals on the one hand andproduction of implements on the other; asmith in a town, for example, may receivecopper and tin from a palace and manufactureimplements for his locality and local cult aswell as status objects for the palace and

Mesaratholoi as does one Syrian dagger of anothertype (Koumasa tholos); the other two comefrom sacred caves in the Lasithi Plain, wherethe rich deposits may have included palatialofferings. Finally, the tang from what maybe a Syrian dagger was found at Knossos(Branigan 1970, 182 and personal comm-unication. I am most grateful to K. Braniganfor his comments and assistance, givengenerously notwithstanding our differingviews on the question at issue.). (4) As tothe Egyptian stone vases, of the twelveprepalatial examples six come from palatialcontexts and five of the remaining six, listedas non-palatial by Branigan, come (as henotes) from a deposit immediately adjacent tothe NW comer of the Palace at Knossos, anarea within the outer enceinte wall of the OldPalace. (5) Branigan also notes 92 bronzeobjects appearing outside the palaces versus14 within during

Mesara tholoi toindicate how many seals a royal tombcontained. (3) Three of the five Syriandaggers with tangs also come from

Chryso-lakkos was thoroughly looted, so we have nopalatial analogue to the

!ombs are not generally thought to bethe burial places of the palatial elite, unlikeTholos B at Arkhanes which may well haveheld the remains of a palatial elite. Whatmay be a royal burial enclosure at

Mesara

Mesara. While it isconceivable that some members of thepalatial elite may have elected to be buried inlong-established family or clan tholoi, these

non-palatial contexts, and those three come fromtholos tombs in the

Kition, andeven at Carthage (1986, 62-63). Moreover,there is no evidence that Near Easterncylinders were ever used as seals in Crete.In any event, only three of the seven cylinderseals cited by Branigan come from

200 years, and Phoenician andClassical scarabs have been found as farafield as Britain and Scandinavia. (2) Cyl-inder seals travel in a similar manner;specimens of Collon’s Green Jasper Grouphave been found in a MMIII-LMI tomb inCrete, in a much later context at

1300 B.C. seem to bemostly bric-a-brac or heirlooms covering aperiod of over

4 The argument appearsunpersuasive for the following reasons. (1)The scarabs may simply have been the touristtrinkets and trading tokens of mariners; thescarabs from the Kas shipwreck off the coastof Anatolia of about

&Knapp 1985, 66 and sources cited therein).There are numerous references also to fleetsof ships in Egyptian and Near Easternrecords.3 While there is no reason to assumethat long-distance overseas trade was theexclusive prerogative and domain of thepalaces in Middle Minoan Crete, it seemshighly probable that the palaces provided thecritical incentive, investment and infra-structure required.

This view, however, has been challenged byBranigan, who argues that the frequentappearance in Cretan non-palatial contexts ofEgyptian scarabs, Near Eastern cylinderseals, Syrian daggers, Egyptian stone bowls,and objects made of bronze strongly suggestsa limited palatial role in the overseas trade ofthe Old Palace period (Branigan 1989, 65-71and forthcoming).

could have embarked on a long voyage,numerous Late Bronze Age Near Eastern andEgyptian texts indicate that naval attacks andpiracy were endemic at times (Portugali

Page 9: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

(Palaima -1990, 91-92)

331

(MacGillivray 1987, 277). Other workshopslocated near the palaces but outside theirwalls may also have been under palatialcontrol. The concentration of agriculturalsurpluses in the Old Palaces is indicated bythe textual evidence

,the concentration of craft production, withpalatial workshops combining various crafts

Mari, suggest the palatial

that such

nature of some of the goods exchanged.

exchanges facilitated traderelationships between states, does notnecessarily imply, however, that tradeconsisted solely or largely of such exch-anges.)

The creation of the first palaces in Crete sees

cere-menial and prestige objects as gifts, and

god of crafts at

’bending acrobat with what Branigan describesas African hair, is indicative of a strong

(That rulers may have exchanged luxurious

Malia swords, which depicts a backward- j

the

terrorem aspect, and hence wouldhave been of vital interest to the palaces.Branigan observes that the luxurious and,exotic nature of the gold pommel of one of

theA\

and noted that “the armourers ofEgypt and the Levant could produce nothingto compare with them” (Sandars 1961, 17-29and 1963, 117). While these swords were ofcourse ceremonial, surely their manufacturewas based upon a tradition of functionalsword production. Such swords constituted amajor advance in military technology, at leastin their in

MM11 date. Sandars has described

,

ficence” ,

likely 1

unsurpassed size and considerable magni-

of\

largest of the swords as “a weapon of

Malia contained great swords

Ihe Kaptarite (as well asEgyptian) origin sometimes ascribed to the

palace at

ant: I: inlaid metal objects from

Kaptara,concen;

Maritexts

269-271).5 A cont-rolling palatial role in metallurgy, and insword production in particular, seems likelyin view of the foregoing considerations,Indeed, the number of destructions (discussedbelow) probably attributable to warfare inMMII-IIIA suggests the possibility that an“arms race” may have been partly responsiblefor an intensive effort to acquire copper andtin, or bronze.

In addition to ships, shipyards and armedmen at times to battle pirates, long-distancetrade voyages to obtain metal and luxuryitems required that goods desired abroad beprovided for exchange. If one accepts theequation of Kaptara and Crete, then the

1987a,

MM1 to II material. Ametallurgical installation of the Old Palaceperiod was discovered in the same area,adjacent to the northern wall of the laterpalace (Pelon

Malia came carved steatite molds for castingaxes and blades, associated with a rede-posited fill of

the]

palatial interest in foreign trade. From anarea at the northwest fringe of the palace of

suggesu‘i byBranigan may be observed. For example,

:I ofdistribution different from that

pattc.~!

1979), (3) the Arkalochori Cavedeposit, discovered as it was being looted,and (4) the Minoan bronze swords and vasespreserved in the Shaft Graves of Mycenae.Equivalent information is lacking for the OldPalace period. Thus we are at risk of under-estimating the amount of bronze availablethen, although the total amount was obv-iously less than in the New Palace periodwhen Crete appears to have been extremelyrich in bronze.

If we examine items of trade or trade-relatedgift exchange likely to have been of greatinterest to the palatial elite, including objectsdependent upon imports of metal, a

neopalatial periodcomes from (1) the LMIB destructions and(in some cases) abandonments, (2) the bronzehoards buried in evident anticipation of them(Georgiou

archae-ologicalrecord was noted above. Our fortuitousknowledge of the great amounts of bronzepresent in Crete in the

palatial tombs and palatial habitation sites;bronze from the latter was of course usuallyrecovered and reused. The frequent dis-appearance of metal from the

Page 10: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

(Poursat1984, 86-87; Immerwahr 1984, 87). If so, itseems likely that they would have

332

Malia and fragments of the earliest Minoanwall painting that Minoan artists travelled toEgypt in the Old Palace period

ising motifs of moulded clay reliefs fromEgyptian-

Poursat and S. Immerwahr have concludedon the basis of examination of the

& 10, Plates 5-11) comefrom Crete, they are likely to have comefrom a palace, and the bronze boxes bearingthe cartouche of Amenemhet II in which theywere found in a temple in Egypt suggest thatthey may have been a gift to the temple fromthe pharaoh, again suggesting that palatialgift exchange played a prominent role inMiddle Minoan overseas trade. Some of thepalatial Kamares ware, on the other hand,was found in workmen ’s houses at Kahun.

Hankey 1989, 131-135, 170, Notes 9

&

T&l Treasure with their affinities indecoration to Kamares ware (Bisson de laRoque 1950; Warren

Poursat1984, 87). Of course if the silver bowls inthe

& Vandenabeele 1980, 89; Poursat

TadTreasure has been recovered (Detournay,

Malia a clay mould whichhad been formed over a metal bowl generallysimilar to the silver bowls from the

Mari referto bronze vessels and pincers from Kaptaru.In Quartier Mu at

277), wereprized in the East. Tablets from

34-39), and whichmay have been made in the same palatialworkshops (MacGillivray 1987,

59-60, Colour Plate opposite 176;Wiener 1984, 18 and 1987, 262, Note 9).

Perhaps the metal prototypes on whichKamares ware appears based (Evans 1921,242-245; Walberg 1976,

Merrillees 1980, l-3, Plate 1, 200-201,Figures &

Kantor 1947, 19; Betancourt1984, 90-92; Cadogan 1983, 512-518; Kemp

Saltz1977, 51-70;

109A and Plate 38; (Schaeffer 1939, 22, 54-56 and

1949, 51, Figure

Malia (Cadogan 1983, 516).Of course the total number of Kamares waresherds now known from the Near East andEgypt may represent no more than 50 vases,but other such sherds may await publication,as in the case noted. More significant interms of control of foreign trade is the factthat palatial Kamares ware has not beenfound or imitated in the hinterlands of theMinoan palaces (Walberg 1987, 284) butappears frequently and is sufficiently knownto be imitated locally at ports in east Crete,

sites along the coast of mainland Greece, theCyclades, the Near East (where it is copiedin Ugarit and appears as far inland as Qatnain Syria) and in Egypt as far up the Nile asAbydos

Aswan which, if not from Palaikastro,may come from

Drie-ssen, forthcoming), as well as one jug foundat

& (MacGillivray

6 The concentration ofadministration in the early palaces is shownby the more than 6,500 nodules or sealimpressions, plus tablets and other inscribeditems, from one room at the palace atPhaistos. The recording of goods in and outwas obviously of great interest to the palace. ’It would be surprising in this context if thepalaces did not also play a predominant rolein the organization of long-distance tradingventures.*

The non-textual archaeological evidence forMinoan exports in the Old Palace periodconsists principally of stone bowls andKamares ware vessels. There is evidence forstoneworking in basement rooms LI-LV ofthe Old Palace at Phaistos (Branigan,forthcoming). Fine palatial Kamares in Creteis found almost exclusively in the palaces andin peak sanctuaries and caves connected withthe palaces, and it is largely this Kamaresware which appears abroad. The exceptionto this rule is the east Cretan ware whichappears occasionally in Egypt, and whosepresence abroad may be due to the role ofPalaikastro as a port

300people for a year.

800 people for a year, and at Phaistosthe West Court koulouras could feed

and by the significant storage capacity of thekoulouras (underground storage silos). AtKnossos the three koulouras in the WestCourt alone could hold sufficient grain tofeed

Page 11: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

,established friendly relations with both thearrival area and any way stations en route, orsome combination of these elements. Kopckehas put the proposition as follows: “The far-ther the distance, the more organized theforces one expected to encounter, the greaterthe gains, [then] the more thoroughgoing thepreparations. ‘States’ were better equipped to

333

Maridocument refers would have required accessto precious and other metals and experiencewith a sophisticated pyrotechnology gainedover time, which strongly suggests that theobject was fashioned in a palatial workshop.

A trading expedition carrying valuable goodswould have required either protection bynaval military strength (as in the case ofViking trading expeditions), respect for thepower behind the venture, previously

East9 where, however, long-distanceoverland trade is likely to have been moreextensive than the sea trade between Creteand the Near East, as shown by the data onNear Eastern metal trade cited earlier.

In Crete, however, it was surely the palaceswhich provided the basic infrastructure forlong-distance trade, including (1) ships instrength, (2) relations with foreign courts andports, and (3) capital, including luxury andother products used in exchange. Forexample, the manufacture of the inlaid metalweapon from Kaptara to which a

‘The Old Palace periodappears to lack the number of luxurious,extra-palatial dwellings near the palaces andthe number of prosperous towns and villasthat are so marked a feature of neopalatialCrete, but we cannot exclude the possibilityof an independent merchant class. After all,gold, tin, ivory and ostrich eggs werebrought to Crete, as we have noted, beforethere were any palaces, or at least beforethere were any palaces as we subsequently

know them. In the absence of texts, wecannot hope to know the nature of therelationship between the Old Palaces andMinoan ship captains. The remuneration ofcaptains and crews may have taken the formof authority and license to trade on theirown, as long as the palatial mission,including in particular the procurement ofmetal, was accomplished. A specialist groupof traders could have emerged as a result ofsuch voyages. A class of at least semi-private merchants, often connected in someway to palace or temple, developed in theNear

91). The Userfragment could also have come, however,from an Egyptian statue of a type knownfrom the Middle East and thought to havebeen deposited in local shrines by Egyptianemissaries while abroad (Uphill 1984, 213).Uphill notes that these statues, which inEgypt were deposited in temples to receiveofferings, have been found in the Near Eastin cult places either in or near ports or inimportant towns on main trade routes. Whilethe unstratified and incomplete User statuecan hardly be considered persuasive evidenceof the presence of an Egyptian ambassador orresident agent at Knossos, it would also beunwise to ignore this possibility.

Could persons not directly connected to thepalaces have amassed enough capital to playa significant role in long-distance overseastrade, perhaps by following in the wake ofpalace-directed trade?

Hankey 1976, 213, Note

Myrtos-Pyrgos produced a piece of Egyptian stonepossibly reworked as a foot amulet [V.

70 cmbelow the pre-excavation surface of thepalace, the object could have arrived as apiece of black diorite raw material rather thanas a statue. (The excavation of

accompanied a Minoan ambassadorialvoyage.

The discovery at the Palace of Knossos ofpart of a diorite statue of an Egyptian MiddleKingdom official named User may berelevant to the question of the palatial role inMinoan-Egyptian trade in the Middle BronzeAge. Found in an unstratified context

Page 12: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

334

Zakros andthe objects found there which suggest it mayhave served as a port for Knossos (Wiener1987, 266 and works cited).

The separate ceramic zones of central, east

scalings made by Knossian seals,and the nature of the site of Kato bution of

distri-’

Malia -- let alone thepossibility of its having a commandingposition in the whole south Aegean ” (1987,72). On the other hand, a number of reasonshave been advanced for the view that Cretewas united under Knossos in the New Palaceperiod. These include the secure andpeaceful appearance of Crete as shown by theexistence of unprotected “country houses”,the expansion of Crete abroad, the spread ofKnossian-inspired pottery styles throughoutthe island in place of the regional diversity ofthe Old Palace period, the possible economiccontrol by Knossos implied by the

. in no way may we see Knossosas capital of Crete in Old Palace times, eventhough it was even then considerably largerthan Phaistos or

, “.

damage.ll Accordingly a further con-sideration of the horizon in which Knossosmay have taken the initial steps towardCretan dominance, perhaps including domi-nance of foreign trade, seems in order.

The position as regards the Old Palace periodhas been stated emphatically by Cadogan,who after noting the existence of considerableregional diversity in the Middle Minoanperiod, particularly as reflected in pottery,writes

and Anemospelia, wherethere is also evidence for earthquake damageperhaps at this time). The amount of damageimplied at Knossos, however, by the remainsof the House of the Fallen Blocks (and theuplift visible on the slopes of Juktas andAilias, together with the fault lines in theKairatos Valley, if attributable to thisearthquake) is certainly considerable. Ofcourse it is possible to imagine a greatearthquake causing (1) delegitimizing damage

to the authority of a ruler and/or hierarchy,religious or other-wise, and its replacementby a different elite with different dynastic tiesand more inclined to aggression; (2)shortages of foodstuffs leading to aggression,or (3) a period of weakness leading to attackson Knossian dynastic affiliates or allies if noton Knossos itself, followed by counterattackand con-quest. On the other hand one canimagine, perhaps more easily, that as a resultof a devastating earthquake attention wouldfor a time turn inward toward repairing the

Kom-mos, where there is also some evidence ofearthquake damage at this time) was greaterthan that at Knossos and its surrounding area(including Archanes

Hankey 1989, 6 l-65). Aproblem arises, however, in attempting todescribe a process by which an earthquakemight lead to dramatic change of this naturein the governance of Crete or the control ofits foreign trade. One possibility of course isthat the destruction at Phaistos and in thesurrounding area (probably including

&

favour-ing the existence of at least three independentpalaces in the Old Palace period, bu t(perhaps by a smaller majority), Knossiandomination in the New Palace period.

The dividing line between the periods isgenerally taken to be a great earthquakewhich at least at Knossos (and perhaps simul-taneously at Phaistos) marks the end of theOld Palaces and the construction of the NewPalaces (Warren

FORE IGNTRADEKopcke’s reference to “states” raises thequestion of the number of polities involved insponsoring long-distance trade, and perhapsestablishing relations with foreign courts, inthe Old Palace period. In the absence oftexts we must again admit to great uncer-tainty. It appears likely that a poll of Minoanprehistorians would show a majority

AND THE EFFECT ONCOOPERAT IONBET W EENTHE

O LD P ALACES

lo

CONTROL , CONFL ICT , COMPETITIONAND/OR

meet these challenges than individuals ”(1987, 257).

Page 13: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

comp-

335

:Aegean trade, particularly in that basiccommodity known as corn in the UnitedKingdom and wheat in the United States(Thucydides 2.38.2, 1.120.2; cf. 3.86.4;Rhodes 1985, 38). Cross-cultural

1988), of a highly strat-ified society with access to foreign luxuryproducts, and that the Old Palaces are inexistence by MMIB-MMIIA, there seems asufficient span of centuries to encompass apeer polity interaction phase prior to theearliest possible assertion of Knossiandominance in the Old Palace period. Theexistence of a direct link between control andtopography is also open to doubt, as the laterhistory of Crete and of the Aegean indicates.,In the 5th century B.C., for example, the eraof independent city-states was followed by anAthenian Empire which exercised control of

43), together with indications, in the burialsof Mochlos (Soles

centred on palaces in Minoan Cretehas been proposed by Cherry (1986) on thebasis of cross-cultural studies indicating thatmany societies have passed through a stage of“peer polity interaction” en route to largerfederations, and on the basis of the presump-tion that a polity comprising a Cretan palaceand its hinterland constitutes a natural unitfor the Bronze Age from the standpoint ofpolitical geography, as indicated by theexample of Mycenaean Greece. Considering,however, that large and imposing structuresappear in Crete in EMIIB (Branigan 1970,

Findlow1984). (Conversely the subsequent markedreduction of regionalism in the pottery of theneopalatial period, standing alone, couldresult from an internal “Versailles effect”reflecting the cultural prestige of the Palaceof Knossos and the consequent stimulus toimportation and emulation of its products bythe rest of Crete, rather than from theputative Knossian neopalatial hegemony inCrete.)

Another argument for politically independentregions

& DeAtley

& 278). By MM111 theregional differences in pottery have largelydisappeared (Walberg 1983, 151). Accord-ingly the argument based on pottery andother cultural artifact zones for independentpolities throughout the Old Palace perioddoes not appear compelling.

Moreover, there is no reason why a Knossianassertion of sovereignty over certain parts ofCrete in the Old Palace period shouldnecessarily result in the closure of localpottery and other workshops or in theirprompt adoption of Knossian styles or tech-niques, nor is there any reason why Knossiansovereignty would necessarily result in therapid diminution of local exchange networks.Recent work in contexts where politicalrelationships are known has shown that thecircumstances under which political boun-daries find clear expression in material cul-ture are “highly variable and very complex”

(Cherry 1986, 24, citing Hodder 1977; 1978,199-269; 1982; and

(MacGillivray1987, 249, 276

Malia-Pyrgos style does not appear in eastCrete or the Cyclades, whereas KnossianKamares appears in some quantity both atPalaikastro and Zakros (where it is alsoimitated) and in the Cyclades; and thatconversely much east Cretan and Cycladicpottery has been identified in the MiddleMinoan deposits from Knossos

(e.g., ashlar with orthostates, masons’marks) and cult areas and equipment. Withregard to the possible implications of potteryzones, it is worth noting that the east-central,

(Poursat1984, 75). The palatial Kamares pottery ofKnossos and Phaistos, on the other hand, isvery similar, as are the palaces in general inoverall design, characteristics of construction

Poursat1987, 75-76; Andreou 1987) and the ceramicdifferences between the northern (Knossian)and southern (Phaistian) sectors in the centralzone (Betancourt 1986, 284-292) arereinforced by what appears to be a specialeast central style of carpenter ’s tools

MM11 noted byCadogan and others (Cadogan 1983, 507-5 18and 1988, 95-99; Walberg 1983;

central and eastern Crete in

Page 14: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

336

(W. Mc-Donald, personal communication, for which Iam most grateful). Pendlebury noted many

&Venieri 1989); subsequent investigations haveconcluded that some of Evans’ examples ofMinoan roads were probably sections ofmedieval or Turkish kalderimi

cted in Tzedakis, Chryssoulaki, Boutsaki (colle-’

MM11 (1981, 85-88; Evans 1921,275, Figure 204H; see also Pendlebury 1965,147. Evans refers to the site as Sto Dhaso).Evans describes the road system and guardtowers in numerous early publications

MM11sherds from several of the watchtowers(Evans 1928, 78) and from the one at Ziros asignet with a hierographic inscription datedby Yule to

& Money-Coutts1932-1933, 99). Evans collected

Mac-Gillivray for informing me of the viaduct atChoiromandres.) Some of these structuresand the associated road system were notedlong ago by Evans, who referred to thestructures as Minoan guard stations or“phrouria” (1928, 76). With J. L. Myres hewas able to trace along a route through theLasithi district to Siteia “the repeatedoccurrence of such guard- or watch-stationsalong the course of a Minoan built way,similar in all respects to that which traversesthe central sector of the island ” [footnoteomitted]. Evans continues, “In view of theseconsistent phenomena it seems impossible notto admit the conclusion that the great Minoanroad-system that radiated from Knossos overthe whole of the central and eastern districtswas also planned with a certain strategiccontrol by the Minoan Priest-King” (1928,78-79; Pendlebury, Eccles

Choi-romandres appears to be part of the road andtower system, and thus of the same generalhorizon as the viaduct constructed at Knossosin MMIIA; future excavation will test thishypothesis. (I am grateful to J. A.

Mac-Gillivray (personal communications, forwhich I am most grateful). A viaduct nearthe watchtower/caravanserai at Zakros

MM11 buildingtechniques, a judgement shared by

carava&er$remaining to be excavated showsigns of the employment of

_..-.-_ _____ ehtowers or--

& Venieri 1989, 43-75). Chryssoulaki believes the visibleremains of the road system

(Tzedakis,Chryssoulaki, Boutsaki MM11 date for its construction

north-central and east Crete, in the Old Palaceperiod.

The first body of evidence to consider is thechain of hilltop watchtowers or caravanserai,and perhaps in some cases forts, arranged inline of sight along roadways, perhaps mostnoticeable in east Crete but recognizableelsewhere as well. In east Crete alone over40 have been identified, many of a seeminglycanonical size of about 14 by 11 meters, andextending along roads leading inland out ofsight of the sea in some cases, suggesting thatthe provision of internal rather than externalsecurity was their primary function.12 More-over, it is difficult to identify a foreign threatagainst which the road and watchtowersystem could have been directed, althoughthe possibility of Anatolian or Syrian piratescannot be totally discounted.

Chryssoulaki has now completed theexcavation of Zakros Choiromandres, thelargest and best preserved of the known eastCretan watchtowers, and has confirmed an

Malkata and at MedinetGurab at the entrance to the Fayum, and builta lake (presumably with an accompanyingpalace) at a site thought to be Akhmim, thehome of his wife Ty, in middle Egypt(Wiener 1987, 266, Note 47).

Accordingly, it seems appropriate to askwhether there is evidence to suggest thatKnossos may have taken the initial stepstowards hegemony, at least as regards

Bottero 1957) and that Amenhotep III hadmajor palaces at

(Sasson 1990;see

Marihad five palaces and spent a great deal of histime travelling between them

arisons with Middle and Late Bronze Agesocieties in the Near East and Egypt withwhich Minoan palatial rulers would havebeen familiar disclose that Zimri-Lim of

Page 15: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

337

.

1987b,189, 195).

We have already noted the appearance ofgreat swords in MMII, and the developedtradition of metallurgy and weapon man-ufacture on which they depended. MoreoverMinoan prowess in metal weapon productionwas not limited to the long sword, but incl-uded the short sword, the solid long daggerand the shoe-socketed and tube-socketedspearhead and arrowhead, all of ‘which may

1987a, 271;

Malia, assuggested by the results of recent excavationunder the northwest quarter of the LateMinoan palace (Pelon

[1989]have advocated a MMIIA horizon for variousdevelopments which Evans placed in MMIB.)It is possible that the same general horizonsaw monumental construction at

Momigliano [1989

and forthcoming B] and

ah, by the erection of monumental buildingswith complex pre-planned drainage systems,by the quarrying and transportation of largeashlar blocks for building and by theconstruction of the koulouras, Royal Roadand viaduct at Knossos, (MacGillivray

labour atKnossos and Phaistos, as indicated, inter

also rebuilt and re-occupied, receives Knossian pottery, and seesa fortification wall built in this period(Barber 1987, 68; MacGillivray, forthcomingA). Again, these fortification walls mayhave been intended to encourage Minoancontacts through trade instead of raid.

It is worth noting in connection with thesuggested construction of a roadway andwatchtower network covering much ofcentral and east Crete at this time that theMMIIA horizon sees a marked increase inlevel of ambition and deployment of

Melos is rebuilt duringMMIIA, to judge from the fine MMIIA jarsand cups from Knossos which appear, and afortification wall at the site may have itsorigin in this period, although the evidence asto date is unclear (Barber 1987, 67-68).Ayia Irini on Kea is

neopalatial(MacGillivray and Chryssoulaki, personalcommunication). A large, imposing buildingsurrounded by a wall with projecting towersexcavated by Dr. Tsipopoulou at Ayia Photiaon the eastern coast of MMI-II date mayprovide upon final publication important newinformation concerning the control anddefense of east Crete.

Whether these roadways and theaccompanying watchtowers, fairly uniform inappearance and ambitious in geographicscope, were built at the direction of variousregional centres or centrally inspired fromKnossos, and whether they were constructedcooperatively or competitively, will bedifficult to determine.’ “Peer polity” comp-etition (Renfrew and Cherry 1986) may existwith regard to roadworks as with othermatters, particularly when the spur ofmilitary competition or necessity is added.Indeed, it is possible that in parts of Crete theroadway and watchtower system was directed

against Knossos. Elsewhere in the Aegean,Phylakopi on

MM11 date, thenon present evidence the system existed priorto significant habitation in the valleys behindthe east Cretan coastline, a circumstancewhich suggests central, or at least regional,planning and administration rather than localdefense to protect women and livestockagainst brigands; the farmsteads which lateroccupy these valleys seem to be

watchtowers/caravanserai and roadsystem is in fact largely of

@ersonal comm-unication). Accordingly the number through-out Crete in the Bronze Age may have beenfar greater than is apparent today.

If the

1).13 Pendleburyalso noted that many of the remains observedby earlier travellers, such as the walls ofKisamos noted by Buondelmonte in 1422,had disappeared (1965, 16). The process con-tinues today; Chryssoulaki reports that theremains of three of the 40 watchtowers notedby her team in the first season have beenremoved by local farmers

watchtowers/caravanserai in histravels (1965, 10, Note of these!

Page 16: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

338

33-35), if not commondirection.

the_appearance of such specific architecturalpractices as the use of ashlar masonry,orthostates and masons’ marks, indicate atleast the existence of very close contact(Cherry 1986,

cultic equipment, of finds atpeak sanctuaries, and of the general design ofat least the palaces at Knossos and Phaistosafter MMIIA at the latest, together with

protopalatial period ” (1990, 18). Thesimilarity at various sites of hieroglyphic andLinear A scripts, of seals, of religiousdepictions and

leasr the last part of theal

MM11 witnessed the initialsteps towards the assertion of Knossianhegemony, at least as regards north-centraland east Crete, together with some degree ofcontrol over long-distance trade.

Other areas of evidence bearing on thepossibility of a single administration overmajor parts of Crete during parts of MMII-IIImay be noted. Olivier believes that thedegree of uniformity in hieroglyphic inscr-iptions on seals and documents and in theiruse at the various sites where they appearprobably denotes the “existence “of a largepower which extended over the whole ofCrete for

WaIberg 1983, 151).

Of course hegemony need not result fromwarfare, warfare need not necessarily resultin widespread destruction of sites, anddestruction caused by fighting may berepaired and hence difficult to detect in thearchaeological record. However, given thenumber of destructions of major sites, at leastsome in all likelihood resulting from warfarein MMII, it seems appropriate to note thepossibility that

6771). A major destruction ofPyrgos on the south coast to the east ofPhaistos may be assignable to this generalperiod as well. A tower, walls and a cisternhad been built at Pyrgos prior to thedestruction, possibly as a defensive measure(Cadogan 1977, 70-84;

[1982,

(Poursat bel-ieves this destruction may occur at the samegeneral time as the destructions at Knossosand Phaistos at the end of the Old Palace

period

agency.14

Malia) and neverreoccupied; the excavators believe that themost likely cause of the destruction wasdeliberate human

Malia a majoradministrative, storage and cult area,Quartier Mu, is also destroyed at the end ofMMIIB (as defined at

313), iscompletely destroyed and (perhaps moresignificantly) abandoned at the end ofMMIIB. There is no way at present ofdetermining whether the destruction andabandonment of Monastiraki was due towarfare involving Knossos, Phaistos or both,or to natural causes.

In the east central zone, at

Kanta 1988, & Fiandra 1990,

222, Note 4 and 224;

scalings and pottery resembling those ofVano 25 at Phaistos (Ferioli

Mesara toRethymnon on the north coast, and with

calcestrwzo (cement rubble) after whichlarge parts of the Old Palace are rebuilt.Nearby Kommos may have suffered adestruction also, but further excavation isrequired to determine its extent and precisehorizon. What may have been an earlypalace at Monastiraki, lying midway on thenatural route from Phaistos and the

MacGillivray, forthcoming B)may well have been caused by warfare.Phaistos at this time suffers a majordestruction by fire sealed by a layer of

(Hiller 1984, 27, 31).

Fire destructions of large areas of major sitesoccur in MMII, but it is of course alwaysdifficult to say whether such destructions arethe result of warfare, earthquakes or evenaccidents setting off widespread con-flagrations. Any of these could have causedthe fire destructions around the end ofMMIIA at Knossos and Phaistos. Some ofthe destr-uctions of major sites toward or atthe end of MMIIB (or the beginning ofMMIIIA --

have made their first Aegean appearance inCrete

Page 17: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

.gold, ivory,

339

sto Middle and Late Bronze Age Crete aswell. Of course it is also possible that two ormore palaces cooperated in major foreignventures; the Old Testament describes a jointsea venture through the Red Sea by Solomonand Hiram, the Phoenician ruler of Tyre, toacquire luxury items such as

i symbiosis -- all indizzyingly abrupt shifts ” (Adams 1974, 249).

Adams continues: “A concern for tradehighlights these inter-reactions -- partlyaggressive, partly symbiotic, at best onlypartly intelligible to the societies involved, atmost times dangerously competitive ” (Adams1974, 249). While these observations weremade in the context of Adams ’ work on tradein the ancient Near East, they appear relevant

Malia and Egypt indicated by theappliques and other material were direct orindirect, such as via Knossos-led giftexchange/trading ventures.

Of course the establishment of Knossianhegemony, whenever it occurred (if ever),need not have involved the direct use offorce; some combination of manoeuvre andmarriage, for example, might have beensufficient. Moreover, hegemony if achievedis unlikely to have been permanentlymaintained; rather the differing effects ofwar, drought, plague and malaria, theaccidents of individual longevity affectingrule and succession, and the varyinginfluence of dynastic intermarriage wouldprobably have resulted (if the history of othercivilizations is any guide) in shifting alliancesand political boundaries and differing degreesof central authority over time. Complexsocieties throughout history have tended, inthe words of Adams, to “dominate weakerneighbours, coalesce, suffer from varyingforms and degrees of predation, develop andbreak off patterns of

(Poursat 1982, 677; 1984, 86-87).

The questions of course remain whether theinspiration for the Egyptianising motifs camefrom the movement of Egyptian objects orMinoan artisans, and whether the contactsbetween

Malia, which also produced an Egyptianstone vase

Tad Treasure has already beennoted. Lastly and more significantly,Egyptianising motifs (falcons, cats, palmtrees, sphinx) appear on moulded-clay reliefappliques for vases from Quartier Mu at

Malia to the

all the kantharoi imitatemetal prototypes with probable Anatolianorigins (Davis, E.N. 1977, 89-90). Thegeneral similarity of the clay mould from

516), although suchvessels are also found at Knossos and in thesouth of Crete, and

crinkled-rimmed or lobed kantharoi from the samegroup (Cadogan 1983,

Malia Town group (thoughthe decoration finds its closest parallel atPalaikastro) and the Minoanising pottery ofHaregeh and Kahun resembles the

Aswanresembles that of

Malia andEgypt. The clay of a jug from

MM11 between

16 The occasional appearanceabroad of the east Cretan variety ofprovincial Kam-ares ware, discussed above,may reflect the role of east Cretan ports inoverseas trade.

There are also, however, some indications ofcontact during

communication).15 The blackangular tempered wares so common atPhaistos, on the other hand, are seldomfound abroad.

MM11 material fromAyia Irini, Phyla-kopi and Akrotiri (wherethe holes dug for the emplacement of the roofsupports revealed Kamares sherds of finestKnossian quality) and the MMIIB to IIIAwavy-line cups from Ugarit (1987, 273-279and personal

MacGillivray (while acknowledgingthe difficulty of distinguishing Knossian fromPhaistian Kamares ware) believes that mostof the Kamares sherds found abroad appearfrom illustrations to be Knossian, as in thecase of the MMIIA type bridge-spouted jarsand straight-sided cups found in Egypt, withtheir closest parallels from the LoomweightBasement/Early Olive Press and the north-west pit at Knossos, the

Is there any direct evidence for Knossiandominance or primacy with respect to foreigntrade?

Page 18: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

Greece;*8 the religious aspects ofthe building and its contents (N. Marinatos1984, 34-51) and the “official” appearance ofthe fleet depicted on one of its walls. (A

340

woollens forexport. Whether the West House was indeedprivate is of course open to question, giventhe non-domestic nature of its potteryassemblage with its numbers of particulartypes of specialized vessels, such as incenseburners on stands, together with numbers ofspecialized vessels from the Cyclades andmainland

Mesara while Phaistos remained thereligious centre, in which case the buildingsin which most of the tablets and ingots werefound would have been part of the palatialrather than the private sector.17

At Akrotiri on Thera, where the eruptionpreserved in one precise horizon so many ofthe materials of daily life, almost every housecontained lead weights, but with a greaterconcentration in houses containing largenumbers of loomweights, suggesting toMichailidou that the lead weights were usedin weighing wool (Michailidou, forthcomingA and B). Seal impressions as well asweights appear in houses. The West Housecontained loomweights in a number to rivalthe Loomweight Basement at the Palace ofKnossos, at least raising the question ofpossible private production of

Triadha had become the administrative centreof the

oxhide ingotsand Linear A tablets, and both are rich inluxury products and bronze objects. It ispossible, however, that by LMIB Ayia

Triadha andTylissos contained not only weights andloomweights, but also copper

754), could haveprovided homes for such merchant-mariners.The villa at Nirou Chani, a harbour on thenorth coast, was stacked with ritual equip-ment including 40-50 plastered stuccooffering tables possibly destined for export,although religious use at the site or the

existence there of a workshop are possiblealternative explanations for so large a supplyof offering tables and other ritual equipment.

Lead and stone weights are found, asMichailidou (forthcoming A and B) hasobserved, not only in the palaces and inhouses around the palaces, but also in housesin non-palatial settlements, villas and tombs.Villas and houses at Ayia

mini-palaces, luxurious separate town houses atpalatial and other sites, and fine countryvillas. Palaikastro, for example, with itsmain street running “straight and true, broadand well-surfaced, and flanked by impressivefacades” (Branigan 1972,

It would appear, however, that the case foran independent maritime or merchant classwith a significant role in long-distance tradeactually becomes somewhat more plausible,if quite unproven, in the New Palace period.For it is with the new palaces that we find alarge increase in population, particularly insettlements along the coasts, the growth oftowns which in some cases surround

209; 1987, 245-249 and 333; 1989,68; and forthcoming]).[1982,

neopalatial period

THENEWPALACE PERIOD

The creation of the New Palaces hassometimes been seen as marking a change inthe control of Cretan trade (for example byBranigan, who while doubting a significantpalatial role in long-distance trade in the OldPalace period, accepts a directing palatialrole for such trade in the

PO~TSCR~~ONFOREIGNTRADE IN

long-distance trade by the end of the Old Palaceperiod, the case for a decisive palatial role inMinoan trade with the Near East and Egyptseems compelling.

A

poleis. Butwhether one, two or several palaces wereprimarily responsible for Minoan

spices and rare animals (I Kings 9, 26-28).Moreover, a Knossian hegemony need nothave affected the trading relationships oractivities of other palaces, any more than thecreation of a Macedonian Empire inHellenistic Greece affected the tradingactivities of the individual Greek

Page 19: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

bronzesmiths is surely much inexcess of that required by the internal needs of thepalace, and implies that the palace controlled the

341

Sasson, P. Warren, J. Weinsteinand J. Younger. To them I here express myheartfelt thanks.

FOOTNOTES1. The number of

LPalaima, J.

Hankey, S. Iakovidis, A.Lewis, C. Lilyquist, J. and P. Muhly, T.

MacGillivray,J. Rutter, A. Snodgrass and V. Watrous. Ihave also received much helpful informationand advice from D. Collon, J. Crouwel, E.Davis, J. Davis, V.

Branigan, S. Chryssoulaki,0. Dickinson, S. Hood, J. A. Betancourt, K.

long-distance trade.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSIn the preparation of this paper I havereceived much critical advice andcommentary from D. and D. Arnold, P.

loom-weights cited earlier, a dramatic depiction inthe Miniature Fresco of fleets, armedwarriors and fighting, a useful reminder thatthe palaces must have played a critical role inproviding the infrastructure for long-distancetrade in the New Palace period as in the Old.Neopalatial Crete is extremely rich in bronze,but very poor in sources of copper and ofcourse totally lacking in sources of tin.Obtaining bronze or its constituents throughlong-distance trade must have been of vitalinterest to the New as well as the OldPalaces. In the Late as well as the MiddleMinoan period, it was surely the palaceswhich determined, and provided, the basicstructure and infrastructure of Minoan

4), surely the wealth of siteslike Zakros and Akrotiri can only be theresult of their role in a Minoan trade net-work, zealously maintained by the palatialrulers. The West House at Akrotiri provides,in addition to the lead weights and

Hankey 1989, &

private.19While it may be true in general that “Aegeanlife was essentially and always concernedwith agriculture and stockraising” (Warren

find at Zakros any demarcation

between the domains of palace and town,public and

landward entrance to thetown, stood House A with its 525 nodulesbearing 1,005 seal impressions stamped by214 seal types, some showing contact withparchment or hides (Weingarten 1983, 38-42.Subsequent research by Weingarten mayprovide additions to these figures). It seemslikely that House A was a control point forgoods coming in and out of Zakros. It wouldbe difficult to

300 meters from the sea at whatmay have been the

& Platon 1987,77-84). Indeed, the town blocks on theflanking hills seem to tower over andencroach upon the palace. At the comer ofthe hill to the north, 50 meters from thepalace and

oxhide ingots, andthe town responsible for preparing andstoring essential foodstuffs as indicated bythe frequent appearance there of wine andolive presses (Chryssoulaki

Tria-dha and other places represents private ven-tures, or whether this activity was centrallycontrolled, either by regional centres or(directly or indirectly) by Knossos. AtZakros, for example, “palace” and “town”appear to function as an economic unit, withthe palace shrine, storerooms and workshopscontaining all the luxury products and imp-orts, including reworked Egyptian vases,ivory elephant tusks and

TheranWest House fresco [Soles and Davaras,forthcoming]. The case for regarding Theraat the time of the eruption in LMIA as part ofa “Greater Minoa” is set forth in Wiener,forthcoming.)

Accordingly the possibility of a significantprivate role in long-distance trade may in factbe greater in the New Palace period than theOld, although hardly compelling in either.Indeed, it is far from clear whether theevidence for trade noted in houses atAkrotiri, Nirou Chani, Tylissos, Ayia

green jasper seal found by Soles at Mochloson the north coast of Crete in 1989 shows aship closely resembling those in the

Page 20: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

Iv (which islargely contemporary with MMIIA, though it maybegin earlier and end a little later) Minoan potteryincluding Knossian Kamares appears in limitedquantity at first, but then increases rapidly so that bythe end of Period IV Minoan pottery constitutes a

342

MMIIIA (forthcoming B).

15. At Ayia Irini on Kea in Period

pIa&this destruction in

MMIIB destruction by earthquake, but MacGillivray,who has recently restudied the pottery, would

Tuvernnes,that “it would be more in keeping with thepeaceful character of Minoan civilization and withconvivial Cretan habits if we could take a clue fromthis name and call them ‘taverns ’ rather than ‘forts ”.

14. Evans believed that Knossos itself suffered a great

sfa

Stella Chryssoulaki,who has investigated these buildings, and to Prof. J.A. MacGillivray for showing me some of thesestructures and discussing them with me.

13. Pendlebury referred to them as forts, butpreferred to think of the structures as caravanserai,noting of one, at a site called locally

& Lukermann 1985.65, 71).

12. I am greatly indebted to Dr.

Sasson 1966.

10. Kopcke ’s formulation reflects the existence ofhighly organized states in the Near East and Egypt inthe Middle and Late Bronze Age. Greek merchantmariners in the Archaic and Classical periods faced asomewhat different environment, particularly in thewest.

11. Worth noting, however, is the possibility ofmajor damage at other sites in the same general timehorizon, for which there is no evidence of earthquake(Moody

Zaggacnini, M. Heltzer andE. Lipinski. See also

Veenhof, M.T. Larsen, S. Dalley, C.

a fleet ofships sufficient to carry out the venture was itself atask of such magnitude that only an administration ofpalatial proportions could have undertaken it ” (1969,4).

9. See generally the papers in the volume, Trade inthe Ancient Near East, edited by J. D. Hawkins, andespecially the papers of P. Garelli, K. R.

monarchs failed to foster and control this newactivity. The organization and building of

. and it is unlikely that the palatial

‘(TJhe building of the palaces coincides with aremarkable impetus in the commercial activities of theMinoans overseas..

(Poursat,forthcoming), but of course not much weight shouldbe placed on a single example.

8. This view was at one point shared by Branigan.

MM11 been in existence in

Cyclades, probably based on a unit of about 60 grams,

may already have

neopalatial Crete and the

Maliaweighing 14.4 grams suggests the possibility that themetrological system of

1987b, 187-201).

6. Branigan 1987, 248, speaks of four koulouras atKnossos holding grain for 1,000 people, but theearliest of the four was probably covered over by theconstruction of the Theatral Area at the time the otherswere built in MMIIA (Evans 1935, 53 and Figure 30).I am grateful to S. Hood and J. A. MacGillivray fordrawing my attention to the sequence of use of thekoulouras.

7. A lead weight from Quartier Mu at

MM11 structure, at thesite of the Late Minoan palace, as indicated by thewalls obsevable under Quartier III and IV. In additionthere were major administrative and cult buildings atQuartier Mu nearby (Pelon

MM11similar to those at Knossos and Phaistos is uncertainbut there was at least a major

Malia in

appr to be undirected free-lance activity ”; and‘There is therefore no reason to think that the palacesplayed any significant role in the promotion andcontrol of trade relations with the Near East in the OldPalace period. ”

5. Whether there was a palace at

& Faulkner 1947, 40-46). (I amgrateful to Dr. Dieter Arnold for providing theEgyptian references.)

4. Branigan 1989, 66-67 writes: “It seems unlikelytherefore that Minoan commercial relations with theAegean in the Old Palace period were controlled bythe Palaces, and for the most part trading relations

S6derbergh 1946, 14) and the numbers of Syrianmerchantmen shown on the walls of the tomb ofKenamun (Davies

(SHve-

PRU,Volume 5, 88 ff and especially lines 34) and Egyptiantemples and tombs depict flotillas of ships, such as thePunt fleet of Hapshepsut at Deir el Bahari

1967, 221 citing C. Virolleaud, Fensham UT:2062:4-5;(Sasson 1966, 133 cites

Klengel 1974, 171-174); a tabletfound at Ugarit asked the ruler to equip an additional150 ships

Levant (Schafer 1902,30); a Hittite text speaks of 100 ships bringing grain(Heltzer 1977, 210;

St&grass ’ argument, with which I am in fullagreement.

3. For example, an Egyptian text from the time ofSnefru, the first ruler of the 4th Dynasty, refers to 40ships bringing cedars from the

wapons, is consideredbelow and in Wiener 1987.)

2. Indeed this seems the main thrust and point of

distribution of bronze throughout its realm. (The roleof the Cretan palaces in controlling the distribution ofbronze, at least as regards

Page 21: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

ASTOUR, M . 1973: “Ugarit andAegean ”. In H. Hoffner (Ed), OrientOccident: 17-24. Neukirchen-Vluyn.

theand

343

.

ANDREO U, F . 1987: Pottery Groups ofthe Old Palace Period in Crete,. Ph.D.Dissertation, University of Cincinnati.

& N. Marinatos (Eds.): 251-253.Hagg

15(3): 239-258.

ALEXIO U, S. 1987: “Minoan Palaces asCentres of Trade and Manufacture ”. In R.

McC. 1974: “AnthropologicalPerspectives on Ancient Trade ”, CurrentAnthropology

10021.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

ADAMS , R.

Zakros toprovide a sufficient agricultural surplus to support amajor independent palace.

Malcolm H. Wiener,720 Park Avenue,New York, New York

Betancourt for bringing the nature ofthe pottery assemblage to my attention.

19. Textual evidence listing large quantities offoodstuffs found together with agricultural implementsand large pithoi (Palaima 1990, 95 and Notes 42-43)may require a reconsideration of the doubts expressedin Warren 1985, 101, and Wiener 1987, 265, con-cerning the adequacy of the hinterland at

Recta), an Egyptian text of uncertain date,contains a phrase which has been translated “noblesare embalmed with their oil as far as Crete ”(Lichtheim 1976, 152).

18. I thank P.

Knudtzon 1915, 118). (1 thankP. Warren who, with typical generosity, brought theexistence of this tablet, which runs contra to his thesis,to my attention; and also D. Collon and C. Lilyquist,who provided information regarding the specifictablet.) The “Admonitions of Ipuwer ” (Papyrus Leideo344,

(Moran 1987, 99-100;

Amama tablet (EA 14 lines 34-46) reports the Pharaohmaking a gift to the ruler of Babylon of over athousand stone vases filled with five kinds of oil

LMII-LMIIIAl context, as did those from the LittlePalace/Unexplored Mansion and the twelve wholevases from the Isopata Tomb.

(4) the problem inherent in estimating byextrapolation the total number of Egyptian vasesreaching a site from the number of fragments found ina given area, a task which requires at the least the

inclusion of data concerning areas which did notproduce vase fragments as well as areas which did.

As to whether the vases arrived as a consequence ofstate or private activity, it is worth noting that a later

& Warren 1986, 333-388).

(2) the possibility of palatial involvementwith other areas where alabaster vases or vasefragments have been recovered such as the RoyalRoad, the Little Palace/Unexplored Mansion complex(Warren, this volume), the Warrior Graves north ofthe palace and Evans ’ ‘Isopata Royal Tomb ” whichcontained 12 complete Egyptian alabaster vases, aswell as two lapis lazuli Egyptian ape amulets and anEgyptian faience frog amulet (Evans 1906, 141-161;Warren 1969, 105, 112-l 13; Cline, forthcoming).

(3) the possibility that nearly all of thefragments are LMII and hence not indicative of thestructure of Minoan neopalatial trade since, as Warrennotes, the North House produced a single fragmentfrom the LMIB destruction level, while the fragmentsfrom the area of the dancing floors came from an

Kamares.

17. Warren ’s excavation on the Acropolis hill ofKnossos revealed numerous fragments of Egyptianalabaster vases outside the architectural limits of thepalace (this volume, above), but the significance ofthis material with respect to the question of privateparticipation in neopalatial trade is unclear given thefollowing considerations:

(1) the possible special nature of the areaexcavated, with its “dancing floors ”, (three circularstructures, unique in Crete, built from reused ashlarblocks), and its North House containing children ’sbones which in the judgement of the excavator bearmarks indicating human sacrifice and cannibalism(Wall, Musgrave

undenvaymay provide a means of distinguishing more readilybetween Knossian and Phaistian

its best parallel at Phaistos (Koehl, personalcommunication). Scientific studies now haa

the south and afragment of a MMIIA globular rhyton from Phylakopi

both from Knossosand from Phaistos and other sites in IO-52), is of a kind well known Karmi on the northwest coast of Cyprus (Grace 1940,

Overbeck 1989, 12).

16. An early export, the MMIB-MMIIA cup from

substantial proportion of the ceramic inventory. Thequantity of fragments from different vases suggeststhat “the number of vases brought in was immense ’ (J.

Page 22: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

344

L

CADOGAN , G. forthcoming: “The LasithiArea during the Old Palace Period”, Paperpresented at the Mycenaean Seminar,Institute of Classical Studies, University ofLondon, March 14, 1990, to be published inBICS.

Wardle(Eds), Problems in Greek Prehistory: 95-99. Bristol.

& K.A.

&N. Marinatos (Eds): 71-73.

CADOGAN , G. 1988: “Some Middle MinoanProblems“. In E.B. French

Htigg Knossos?“. In R. or

BRANIGAN, K forthcoming: “A DynamicView of the Early Palaces ”, Proceedings ofthe Sixth Cretological Congress, Chania,Crete, 1986.

BREASTED , J. H. 1962: Ancient Recordsof Egypt, Volume 2, 1906, reprint, NewYork.

C ADOGA N, G. 1976: Palaces of MinoanCrete, London.

CADOGAN , G. 1977: “Pyrgos, Crete, 1970-77”, AR 24: 70-84.

C ADOGA N, G.Middle Minoan518.

CADOGA N, G .

1983: “Early Minoan andChronology”, AJA 87: 507-

1987: “What Happened atthe Old Palace

Lii?ge 3: 65-71.I’UniversitC

de Eegt!enne de ‘ArchCologie

Annales

Marinates (Eds): 245-249.

BRANIGAN, K. 1989: “Minoan ForeignRelations in Transition”. Aegaeum,

& N.Hggg

(Eds), EarlyMetallurgy in Cyprus 4000-500 B.C.: 203-212. Nicosia.

BRANIGAN, K. 1987: “The Economic Roleof the First Palaces ”. In R.

Karageorghis Maddin& V.

Prepalatial Background ”,Kadmos 8: l-22.

BRANIGAN , K. 1970: The Foundations ofPalatial Crete: A Survey of Crete in theEarly Bronze Age, New York.

BRANIGAN , K. 1972: “Minoan Settlementsin East Crete ”. In P. J. Ucko, et al. (Eds)Man, Settlement and Urbanism: 751-759.London.

BRANIGAN , K. 1982: “Minoan Metallurgyand Cypriot Copper ”. In J.D. Muhly, R.

- The

Mari, Volume 7. Paris.

BRANIGAN , K. 1967: “Early Bronze AgeDaggers of Crete”, BSA 61: 21 l-239.

BRANIGAN , K. 1969: “The Earliest Minoanscripts

Royales de Bottkro (Ed), Archives

BOTT~RO, J. 1957: “Textes economiques etadministratifs”. In J.

& N. Marinatos(Eds.),Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality:89-92. Stockholm.

B ETANCOUR T, P.P. 1986: “The Chron-ology of Middle Minoan Plain Cups inSouthern Crete ”, Philia epi eis G. E.Mylonas: 284-292. Athens.

Htigg Thalass-

ocracy”. In R.

mu& du Caire, Numbers 70501-70754,Cairo.

B ETANCOUR T, P. P. 1984: “The MiddleMinoan Pottery of Southern Crete and theQuestion of a Middle Minoan

antiquit& Egyptiennesdu

g&&al des I’Egypte.

Catalogue antiquit& de

Trt!sor deT&d. Service des

90(3): 269-296.

B ISSON DE LA R OQU E, F. 1950:

(Kas): 1984 Campaign ”, AJABurun

BARBER , R. L. N. 1987: The Cyclades inthe Bronze Age, London.

BASS, G. 1986: “A Bronze Age Shipwreckat Ulu

Page 23: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

v . 1940: “A Cypriote Tomb andMinoan Evidence for its Date”, Bulletin of

345

.GEORGIOU , H. S. 1979: The Late Minoa nI Destruction of Crete: Metal Groups andStratigraphic Considerations, UCLA Insti-tute of Archaeology Monograph 9, LosAngeles.

GRACE,

Liege 5: 221-229.

GARDINER , A. H. 1961: Egypt and thePharaohs, Oxford.

I’UniversitCde

Eg&enne de Arch&ologied’ Annales

Palaima, (Ed.), Aegean Seals, Sealingsand Administration, Aegaeum,

Scalings in AdministrativeFunctions from the Fifth to First MillenniumB.C. in the Orient, Nubia, Egypt, and theAegean: Similarities and Differences ”. In T.G.

& E. F IANDRA 1990: “Th eUse of Clay

FENSHAM, F. C . 1967: “Shipwreck inUgarit and Ancient Near Eastern LawCodes”, OA 6: 221-224.

F ERIOL I, P.

EVANS, A. 1921: The Palace of Minos atKnossos, Volume 1, London

EVANS, A. 1928: The Palace of Minos atKnossos, Volume 2, Part 1, London.

EVANS , A. 1935: The Palace of Minos atKnossos, Volume 4, London.

& 2, London.EVANS, A. 1906: The Prehistoric Tombsof Knossos, Volumes 1

Philistines andTheir Material Culture, Jerusalem.DOTHAN, T . 1981: The

Mesopotamie au temps de Zimri-Lim ”, R.Assyr, 64: 97-99.

l’etain enDOSSIN, G. 1970: “La route de

Mari, Volume5. Paris.

Royales de (Eds), Archives

Dossin,& G. “Correspondance de

Iasmah-Addu”. In A. Parrot DOSSIN, G. 1952:

Cretoises, Volume 26: 152-155. Paris.

“Maha, Le QuartierMu II”, Etudes

& F .VANDENABEELE 1980

POURSAT

(ENS)

1984: Exploring the Limits: Frontiers andBoundaries in Prehistory, BAR I.S. 223,Oxford.

D ETOURNA Y, B. , J.-C.

FINDLOW & F. J. DEATLEY, S. P.

1903-1904: “ Excavationsat Palaikastro III”, BSA 10: 192-231.

& R.O. F AULKNER , 1947:“A Syrian Trading Venture to Egypt”. JEA33: 40-46.

DAVIS, E.N. 1977: The Vapheio Cups andAegean Gold and Silver Ware. New Yorkand London.

DAWKINS , R. M.

Mesopotamica 42 1, Malibu.

DAVIES , N.D.G.

Biblioteca

Kelly-Buccellati (Ed), Insights Through Images,Essays in Honor of Edith Porada: 57-70.

COLLON, D . 1986: “The Green JasperCylinder Seal Workshop ”. In M.

(Eds): 77-84.

CLINE , E. forthcoming: Orientalia in theLate Bronze Age, Ph.D. Dissertation,University of Pennsylvania (in progress).

& N.Marinatos

HBgg

& L. PLATON1987: “Relations Between the Town andPalace of Zakros ”. In R.

1%45.

CHRYSSOULAKI, ’ S.

(Eds): & J.F. Cherry

CHADWIC K, J. 1976: The MycenaeanWorld, Cambridge.

CHERRY, J. F. 1986: “Polities and Palaces:Some Problems in Minoan State Formation”.In A.C. Renfrew

Page 24: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

&

346

kastro”. In BCH Supplement, P. Darcque Palai-

& J. M. D RIESSE N

forthcoming: “Minoan Settlement at MACGILLIVRAY, J. A.

Marinates, (Eds.): 273-279.& N. Higg

MACGILLIVRAY, J. A . 1987: “PotteryWorkshops and the Old Palaces in Crete ”. InR.

LMMAJ 23: 5-68.

LICHTHEIM, M. 1976: Ancient EgyptianLiterature, Volume 2, Berkeley, LosAngeles and London,

L ILYQUIS T, C. 1988: “The Gold BowlNaming General Djehuty ”,

Marinates (Eds.):255-259.

KUPPE R, J.-R. 1973: “Northern Meso-potamia and Syria ”, CAH 2: 8-22.Cambridge.

& N. Htigg

AfO 1: 171-174.

K NUDTZO N, J. 1915: Die El-AmarnaTafeln, Volume 1, Leipzig.

KOPCKE , G. 1987: “The Cretan Palaces andTrade”. In R.

Hatti”,

l-15.

K LENGE L, H. 1974: “Hungers Jahre in

KILLEN, J. 1964 : “The Wool Industry ofCrete in the Late Bronze Age ”, BSA 54:

& R. S. M ERRILLEES 1980 :Minoan Pottery in Second MillenniumEgypt, Mainz.

KANTOR, H. 1947 : “The Aegean and theOrient in the Second Millennium B.C. “, AJA51: l-103.

K EM P, B. J.

Estea 2: 313.“Mom&rake”, KritikiKANTA, A. 1988 :

Thai-assocracy : Myth and Reality: 87.Stockholm.

&

N. Marinatos (Eds), The Minoan

Higg

Baring0District, West Kenya ”, Man 12: 239-269.

H ODDE R, I. (Ed.) 1978: The SpatialOrganization of Culture, Cambridge.

H ODDE R, I. 1982 : Symbols in Action,Cambridge.

IMMERWAH R, S. 1984: Comment made indiscussion of Poursat ’s paper. In R.

Items in the

Thalass-ocracy: Myth and Reality: 27-31.Stockholm.

H ODDE R, I. 1977 : “The Distribution ofMaterial Culture

& N.Marinatos (Eds), The Minoan

Hggg

203-211.London.

H ILLE R, S. 1984 : “Pax Minoica VersusMinoan Thalassocracy. Military Aspects ofMinoan Culture ”. In R.

HELTZER,. M., 1977: “The Metal Trade ofUgarit and the Problems of Transportation ofCommercial Goods”, Trade in the AncientNear East, Papers Presented at the XXIIRencontre Assyriologique Intemationale atthe University of Birmingham:

ionale at the University of Birmingham.London.

Intemat-

/HAWK IN S, J. D. (Ed) 1977: Trade in theAncient Near East, Papers Presented at theXXII Rencontre Assyriologique

Creto-logical Congress: 210-215. Athens.

HANKEY, V. 1976: “Stone Vessels at MyrtosPyrgos”, Proceedings of the Fourth

Athen35. Stokholm.

Institutet i

MARINATOS, (Eds.). 1987:The Function of the Minoan Palaces.Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska

& N. HAGG, R.

10-52.

GRUBER , A. 1982: Silverware, New York.

the American School of Classical Studies 44:

Page 25: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

194-200.“Lassi-

thi in Ancient Times”, BSA 37:

& Rome: 187-201. Strasbourg.

PENDLEBUR Y , J. D. S. 1936-1937:

Grece et Systeme Palatial en Orient,

en L&y (Ed), La

Minoens”., In E.DCveloppement des Palais “Particularit& e t

*

PELON, 0. 1987b:

& N. Marinatos (Eds): 269-272.Stockholm.Htigg

Malia”. In R.

Liege 5: 83-99

P ELO N, 0. 1987a : “Minoan Palaces andWorkshops: New Data from

l’Universit4de

$geenne de d’Arch&ologie Annales

Aegead Seals, Sealings andAdministration, Aegaeum,

Liege 5: 11-19.

OVERBECK , J. C. 1989: “Ayia Irini: PeriodIV, Part I, The Stratigraphy and the FindDeposits”, Keos, Volume 7, Mainz.

PALAIM A, T. G. 1990: “Origin, Develop-ment, Transition and Transformation: Th ePurposes and Techniques of Administrationin Minoan and Mycenaean Society ” In T.G.Palaima (Ed),

l’universitt! de l?g&enne d eArchbologied’ Annales

Palaima (Ed), Aegean Seals ,Sealings and Administration, Aegaeum,

“The RelationshipBetween Inscriptions on Hieroglyphic Sealsand Those Written on Archival Documents”.In T.G.

159-173,

O LIVIE R, J.-P. 1990:

EchCl 32:

RACKHAM1988: “Archaeological Survey in Sphakia,Crete.”

& 0.

diplo-matique du pharaon. Paris.

N IXO N, L., J. M OODY

d’el-Armarna; correspondenceLes lettres

W.D.E. Coulson (Eds), Contributions to AegeanArchaeology: Studies in Honor of Will-iam A. McDonald: 61-89. Minneapolis.

M ORA N, W. L. (Ed) 1987:

&

& F. E. L UKERMANN 1985 :“Proto-History: The Reconstruction of

347

Probable Worlds”, In N.C. Wilkie

Scientifique, Athens.

MOMIGLIANO , N. 1989: MMIA Potteryfrom Evans ’ Excavations at Knossos.Unpublished Dissertation, University ofLondon.

M OOD Y, J.

G&que et Romaine, Fondation Nationale dela Recherche

1’AntiquitC

03)“Systems of Weight and Relations ofProduction in the Aegean World of the LateBronze Age”, Poikila, Meletemata, Volume10, Centre de Recherches de

93(4): 537-54 1.

M ARINATO S, N. 1984: Art and Religionin Thera, Athens.

M ICHAILIDO U, A. forthcoming: (A) “TheLead Weights from Akrotiri: The Archaeo-logical Record”. In D. Hardy (Ed), Theraand the Aegean World III. London.

M ICHAILIDOU , A. forthcoming:

Mari Tin Inventory”, IEJ21: 31-38.

MANISCALCO , L. 1989: “Ocher Containersand Trade in the Central MediterraneanCopper Age”, AJA

“Knossos: Pottery Groups of the OldPalace”, BSA, Supplementary Volume.

M ALAMA T, A. 1971 : “Syro-PalestinianDestinations in a

MACGILLIVRAY, J.A. forthcoming: (B)

MACGILLIVRAY, J.A. forthcoming: (A)“The Foundation of the Old Palaces inCrete”, Proceedings of the SixthCretological Congress, Chania, Crete, 1986.

MACGILLIVRAY, J.A. 1989: Paper presentedto Columbia University InterconnectionsSeminar, December 8, 1989, New York.

prbhistorique. Paris.

&geen (Eds), L’habitat R. Treuil

Page 26: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

348

SASSON, J.M. 1990: Unpublished lecture atHebrew Union College, New York, March19, 1990.

inter-disciplinaires, Volume 4: 437-452.

Annales de recherches Mari:Mari, Part 1: The Presence of the King”,

Shamash ofMahanum, An Overview of One Year in

SASSON, J.M. 1985: “Year: Zimri-LimOffered a Great Throne to

BiblArch: 246-252.“Zimri-Lim Takes the

Grand Tour”, SASSON, J.M. 1984:

SASSON, J. M. 1966: “Canaanite MaritimeInvolvement in the Second MillenniumB.C.“, JAOS 86: 126-138.

117-153.

SANDARS, N. K. 1961: “The First AegeanSwords and their Ancestry”, AJA 65: 17-29.

SANDAR S, N.K. 1963 “Later AegeanBronze Swords”, AJA 67:

;

SALTZ , D. 1977: “The Chronology of theMiddle Cypriot Period ”. RDAC: 5 l-70.

197-203.Stockholm.

& N. Marinatos (Eds), The MinoanThalassocracy: Myth and Reality: Hsgg

& Y . 1984: “TheKeftiu and the Minoan Thalassocracy”. In R.SAKELLARAKIS, E.

Sock+Political Change, Cambridge.

R EVER E, R. B. 1957: “No Man ’s Coast:Ports of Trade in the Eastern Mediterr-anean”. In C. Polanyi (Ed), Trade andMarkets in the Early Empires: 38-63.Glencoe, Illinois.

R HODE S, P. J. 1985: The AthenianEmpire, Oxford.

(‘Eds.).1986: Peer Polity Interaction and

& J. F. C HERRY ,

60, 225-247.

R ENFREW , A. C.

& J. E.D IXON 1965 : “Obsidian in the Aegean”,BSA, Volume

CANN,

: “ Craftsmenand Traders at Thera: A View from Crete ”.In D. Hardy (Ed), Thera and the AegeanWorld III, London.

R ENFRE W, A.C., J. R.

POURSAT, J.-C. forthcoming

& N. Marinatos (Eds): 75-76.Stockholm .Hggg Malia in the Protopalatial Period ”. In R.POURSAT, J.-C. 1987: “Town and Palace at

& N. Marinatos (Eds), The MinoanThalassocracy: Myth and Reality: 85-87.Stockholm.

Higg

,1984: “ Une ThalassocratieMinoenne au Minoen Moyen II? “. In R.POURSAT, J.-C.

“Malia -- QuartierMu”. BCH 106: 677-680.POURSAT, J.-C. 1982:

(Eds), Prehistoric Production andExchange: 44-78. Los Angeles.

Stech &

T.

& A. B. K NAP P 1985:“Cyprus and the Aegean: A Spatial Analysisof Interaction in the Seventeenth to Four-teenth Centuries B.C.“. In A. B. Knapp

Antico: 267-268. Rome.

PLATO N, N. 1971: Zakros, The Discoveryof a Lost Palace of Ancient Crete, NewYork.

P ORTUGAL I, Y.

Precolonialinel Medit-erraneo

Momenti Musti (Eds), & D. MazzaGodart, F. ” In E. Acquaro, I. iana.

Egiz-cultura la Civilta Fenicia e Rapp-

orti tra la PERNIGO-ITI, S. 1988: “Aspetti dei

80-100.1934”, BSA 33: -COUTTS 1932-33: “Journeys in

Crete,

& M. B.MONEY

PENDELBUR Y, J.D.S. 1965: The Archae -ology of Crete, 1939, reprint, New York.

PENDLEBURY , J. D. S., E. ECCLES

Page 27: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

Ligge 5:105-l 14.

349

I’UniversitC de &gCenne de d’Arch&

ologie Annales

Palaima ’(Ed),Aegean Seals, Sealings and Admin-istration, Aegaeum,

Lin Minoan Sealing Administration: Evidencefor Radical Change ”.In T. G.

OrientisAntiqui Pertinentia, Volume 10, Leiden.

W EINGARTEN , J. 1990: “Three Upheavals

Giiteborg.

V EENHO F, K. R. 1972: Aspects of OldAssyrian Trade and Its Terminology,Studia et Documenta, Ad Iura

Scripta Mediterranea 6:7-18.

VAN SETER S, J. 1979: “What is Trade?The Nature of Egyptian Trade in the EastMediterranean During the Second Millen-nium B.C. “,Arch. News 8: 35-39.

W EINGARTEN , J. 1983: The Zakro Masterand his Place in Prehistory,

Chionology, Bristol.

UPHILL, E. 1984: “User and His Place inEgypto-Minoan History ”, BICS 3 1: 2 13.

W ATROU S, L. V. 1985: “Late Bronze AgeKommos: Imported Pottery as Evidence forForeign Contacts ”,

HANKEY 1989:Aegean Bronze Age

& V.

dCfense? “, BCH 113: 43-75.

W AR RE N , P. M.

DCfense de la circulation ou circulation de laprkliminaire.

& Y. V ENIERI 1989: “RoutesMinoennes: Un rapport

TZEDAKIS, Y. , S. C HRYSSOULAK I, S.BOUTSAKI

94-103.253(l):

IB House at Knossos ”, BSA 81: 333-388.

TORRENCE, R.A. 1986: Production andExchange of Stone Tools. New Studies inArchaeology, Cambridge.

W ARRE N, P. M. 1969: Minoan StoneVases, Cambridge.

W ARRE N, P.M. 1985: “Minoan Palaces ”,Scientific American

& P. M.WARREN 1986: “Human Bones from a LateMinoan

MUSGRAVE

& G.A. Wagner (Eds.), Old WorldMetallurgy. Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 7: 279-292. Bochum.

W AL L, S. M., J. H.

& N. Marinatos (Eds):281-285.

STOS-GALE, Z. 1989: “Cycladic CopperMetallurgy ”, In A. Hauptmann, E. Pemicka

Hfigg

1989 ”, Hesperia.

W ALBER G, G. 1987: “Palatial and Prov-incial Workshops in the Middle MinoanPeriod ”. In R.

& C. D AVARAS forthcoming :“Excavations at Mochlos,

&K.A. Wardle (Eds), Problems in GreekPrehistory: 49-60. Bristol.

W ALBER G, G. 1983: Provincial MiddleMinoan Pottery, Mainz.

SOLE S, J.

Prepalatial Cemeteries ”. In E.B. French

Kamares: A Study ofthe Character of Palatial Middle MinoanPottery, Uppsala.

SOLES, J. 1988: “Social Ranking in

Annales, Berlin.

WALBERG , G. 1976:

Agyptischer

Mari, Paris, 528-529, No. 556.SCHAEFFER , C. 1949: Ugaritica II, Paris.

SCHAFER , H. 1902: Ein Bruchstiick Alt

Royale de

& Documents in Mycenaean Greek, 2ndLeipzig. edition, Cambridge.

SCHAEFFER , C. 1939: Ugaritica I, Paris. VILLARD, P. 1984: Archives

& J. C HAD WIC K 1973:the 18th Egyptian Dynasty, Uppsala SAVE-S~DERBERGH, T. 1946: The Navy o f V ENTRI S, M.

Page 28: The Nature and Control of Minoan Foreign Trade

& R. H. B RILL

forthcoming: “The Central Taurus Mount-ains, Turkey: Lead Isotope Studies ”, Journalof Archaeological Science.

Y ULE , P. 1981: Early Cretan Seals: AStudy of Chronology, Mainz.

350

~~ZBAL, E.J OEL , I. L. B ARNES

5(4): 477-494.

YENE R, K. A., E. V. S AYR E, H.

& B. A KSOY 1989: “Bolkardag:Archaeometallurgy Surveys in the TaurusMountains, Turkey”, National GeographicResearch

MINZONI-DEROCHE

C~ZBAL, A.

’ Aegyptischen Kulturgeschichte, Volume 2,Leipzig.

Y ENE R, K. A., H.

w. 1923: Atlas zur altWREZINSKI,

HT. London.

W IL SO N, D.E. 1985: “The Pottery andArchitecture of the EMIIA West Court Houseat Knossos”, BSA 80: 281-364.

WILSON, D.M. 1985:Tapestry, New York.

The Bayeux

(Eds): 261-267.

W IENE R, M. forthcoming: “The Isles ofCrete?:The Minoan Thalassocracy Re-visited”. In D. Hardy (Ed), Thera and theAegean World

& N. MarinatosHagg

(Eds),The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth andReality: 17-25. Stockholm.

W IENE R, M. 1987: “Trade and Rule inPalatial Crete.” In R.

Marinates, & N. HHgg

W IENE R, M. H. 1984: “Crete and theCyclades in LMI: The Tale of the ConicalCups”. In R.