Late Bronze Age long-distance maritime trade as ...

11. Jahrgang 2011

·

Heft 2

1

Inhalt

Vorwort Minoan shipsheds David Blackman

Which Way Forward? On the Directionality of Minoan/Cycladic Ships Shelley Wachsmann

Early Seafaring in the Ionian Sea Katarina P. Dellaporta

The Late Bronze Age Shipwreck off the islet of Modi (Poros) Christos S. Agouridis

Das Ende der pylischen Küstenwache? Eine heterodoxe Interpretation der o-ka-Tafeln Marko Müller

Late Bronze Age long-distance maritime trade as cultural agency The case of non-palatial contexts Andrea Vianello

„Unter Wasser segeln“ Warum Troia erobert wurde Karin Hornig

0ÂSPK OFNPK in the Bronze Age Aegean Dimitra Kamarinou

Bronze Age Metal Cargoes off the Israeli Coast Ehud Galili - Noel Gale - Baruch Rosen

3 4 8 19 25 35 40

The wrecks and artif discovered in the exc tions indicate that the h bor began gathering si its western end soon a the mole was constru to form the harbor ba In time, as the silting p gressed eastward and

49 58 64


74 88 96

106

Zeugnisse prähistorischer Seefahrt? Die Felsbilder mit Schiffsdarstellungen von der iberischen Halbinsel Dirk Paul Mielke – Thomas X. Schuhmacher

Kontrollierte Handeswege? Seerouten in der Ostadria (1300 - 800 v. Chr.) Anton Pavi´c

Zum ostasiatischen historischen Schiffbau Konstruktive Merkmale und Bauweisen Sieghard Wagener

Das Bücherbrett

Titelmotiv Thera fresco (West House, Room 5, South wall): ships drawn up on shore. Aus: David Blackman, Minoan shipsheds, Abb. 5.

wrecks and artifacts covered in the excavans indicate that the harbegan gathering silt at western end soon after mole was constructed orm the harbor basin. ime, as the silting prossed eastward and sth

40

Late Bronze Age long-distance maritime trade

·

A. Vianello

Late Bronze Age long-distance maritime trade as cultural agency The case for non-palatial contexts Andrea Vianello Abstract – This paper discusses Late Bronze Age maritime trade in the Mediterranean Sea attempting to assess the effectiveness of recent theoretical models and proposing some updated perspectives. In particular the effective role of elites in the exchanges is assessed. It is concluded that the exchanges were motivated by profit and were therefore distinct from the imperialistic and military schemes of the great kings of the Near East and the Egyptian pharaoh. Traders avoided for the most part direct contacts with major eastern kingdoms which seemed to have preferred the established gift exchange system. Trade was „non-palatial“ or „private“ in its nature, but these definitions do not preclude the involvement of members of palatial administrations, especially in smaller kingdoms such as Ugarit. Evidence from the western Mediterranean, as far as Sardinia, the Aegean and the Levant is assessed to provide a balanced perspective. Inhalt – Dieser Beitrag behandelt den spätbronzezeitlichen Seehandel im Mittelmeergebiet und versucht, die Tragfähigkeit neuer theoretischer Modelle abzuschätzen und einige aktualisierte Perspektiven vorzuschlagen. Besonders die Wirkungsweise von Eliten beim Güteraustausch wird beurteilt. Es wird gefolgert, dass dieser dem Streben nach Nutzen entsprang und daher außerhalb der imperialistischen und militärischen Systeme der großen Könige des Nahen Ostens und der ägyptischen Pharaonen stand. Händler mieden meistens direkte Kontakte mit größeren östlichen Königreichen, die das etablierte System des Geschenkeaustauschs vorgezogen zu haben scheinen. Handel war seiner Natur nach „nicht-palatial“ oder „privat“, aber diese Bezeichnungen schließen die Beteiligung von Mitgliedern der Palastverwaltungen, besonders in kleineren Reichen wie Ugarit, nicht aus. Belege aus dem westlichen Mittelmeergebiet bis nach Sardinien, aus der Ägäis und der Levante werden zum Zweck einer ausgewogenen Sichtweise gewürdigt. During the Late Bronze Age, maritime exchange networks expanded to include the whole Mediterranean. Products such as metals, amber and pottery crossed the Mediterranean covering long distances. Cargoes such as that of the Uluburun shipwreck demonstrate the importance of seafaring for the ancient societies and economies. Long-distance seafaring, largely motivated by trade, was also an occasion for significant cultural exchanges, both direct, between individuals of different cultures, and indirect, through the influence of foreign and exotic artefacts. Whilst trade controlled by palatial and other elites in hierarchical societies was conceived within established political alliances and strategies, long-distance trade in pre- and non-palatial societies, located mainly in the central and western Mediterranean, affected

local societies in many ways and with less predictability. Private trade shaped Mediterranean societies and economies in ways that royal gift-exchange and elite exchanges could not. Elites and kings were a pre-requisite of gift exchanges and the exchanges were economic extensions of the hierarchical arrangement of societies. Private trade, on the other hand, was driven by economic factors. In recent years, studies of Mycenaean products and copper oxhide ingots across the Mediterranean (e.g. Vianello 2005; Lo Schiavo 2009) have revealed the complexity of exchanges among Mediterranean societies during the Late Bronze Age (Aegean chronology). Important polities have been recognised in the Aegean region (Mycenaean palaces), the Italic peninsula (especially in the region of Apulia) and the is-

lands of Sicily and Sardinia, as well as on the Iberian Peninsula. Theoretical models concentrating on polities such as World Systems Theory (Wallerstein 1974) and Peer-Polity Interaction (Renfrew – Cherry 1986) can produce explanations, but they seem to me fatally flowed for the present case because they assume that all polities are comparable and each one acts directly as an agent on the exchanges and contacts. Even theories that account for the diversity of polities, such as core/periphery approaches, fall short of describing accurately the reality that emerges from the archaeological record. All these models ignore the entrepreneurship and impact that mariners and seafaring traders have had on the circulation of commodities, and, more importantly, on the socioeconomic development of societies made possible by the availability of

11. Jahrgang 2011

products previously not accessible, increased exchanges and cultural influences. It is not possible to present an economic model that describes with some accuracy the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean. Such an endeavour is very challenging for the later Classical and Roman periods (e.g. Manning and Morris 2005) and there is simply insufficient detail in the data that we have for earlier periods. A few economically informed observations can be made however, focussing on the Aegean. First, subsistence agriculture and animal husbandry still played a considerable role in the Late Bronze Age economy (Halstead 2001; Forstenpointner et al. 2010; Reid 2007), but surpluses were regularly produced by then, thanks to good organisation of labour, and surpluses sustained the elites who took responsibility for polities in the Near East and the Aegean. Secondly, trade increased significantly during the Late Bronze Age and this event increased specialisation: some people could work as artisans all year round, although they had to possess multiple skills (according to Linear B sources; Gregersen 1997; Tournavitou 1997) and be mobile (the existence of travelling artisans is proven by local productions of exotica across the Mediterranean). Thirdly, there are now several studies linking state formation (and development) with the production, consumption and exchange of luxury items by local elites (e.g. Sherratt – Sherratt 1991; Sherratt 2010; Burns 2010; Schon 2010). In the Near East, states and longdistance exchange networks had already appeared before the Aegean Late Bronze Age, from Egypt to Anatolia, but the Mediterranean remained largely a barrier, and gift exchange barely reached Cyprus, with only limited or sporadic contacts with Crete and the Aegean before the Mycenaean period. Michal Artzy (1997) has suggested the introduction of a new type of ship in Egypt and the Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age, the „round boat“, used by merchants

(„nomads of the sea“ in her own words). Whilst any new type of boat cannot be recognised in written texts (Routledge – McGeough 2009, 25), it is likely that larger ships were built after the intensification of trade and the opening of new maritime routes. The advent of long-distance maritime trade cannot be attributed to the expansion of „core“ areas or some innovation that made it possible to navigate the Mediterranean. In fact, the cargo of the Uluburun shipwreck is emblematic in suggesting that a simple expansion of the gift exchange area was tried, but ultimately did not work. The reason for this is to be found in the type of societies commonly found from the Aegean to the Iberian Peninsula: these were largely non-palatial societies, with scarce or limited evidence of hierarchy, which show no clear evidence of palatial elites, not even towards the end of the Bronze Age. The Minoan society on Crete, and the later Mycenaeans, built palaces and used writing, but never achieved a coherent unity of large territories under a single ruler or elite (not even on Crete), nor did Aegean palaces monopolize the economy, or society, in the same way as occurred in the Near East and Levant. For instance, in Egypt the pharaoh was a powerful individual who ruled, through a complex hierarchical web, lands outside the known borders of Egypt, and the pharaoh also had religious significance and a substantial influence on religion (the monotheistic shift by Akhenaten being the best example). In Crete, religion is pervasive in its manifestations across the island and palatial elites used it as a tool to maintain power, but there is also evidence of localised rituals and the constant decentralisation of beliefs. Furthermore, Linear B tablets are silent on several areas documented in eastern archives, including long-distance trade and any indication of a large armed force (it is likely that no army is mentioned at all in the o-ka tablets). If a unitary state existed it had to be defended and people as well as goods must have been transported regularly across the state.

·

Heft 2

41

Recent scholarship has focussed on the Mediterranean, resulting in a few areas (mainly the Levant, Aegean, central and west Mediterranean) being considered apart, with little interaction. Studies on agriculture and husbandry (and intriguingly Linear B studies) have also downplayed the importance of Aegean palaces, mostly revealing a localised control of the territory largely concerned with matters of local economy. No model that ignores the presence and political, as well as economic, action of palaces can be satisfactory. Research focussing on palaces and luxury or exotic products has instead pushed an agenda of promoting a role for Aegean palaces similar to eastern examples. The discovery of Minoan frescoes in the Levant (Alalakh, Tel Kabri, Tell el-Dabca; see respectively Niemeier – Niemeier 1998; Cline et al. 2011; Bietak 2007) has prompted much discussion, and more recently even the iconic Minoan snake goddess has been reassessed (correctly as it seems) in light of an apparent struggle to make Minoan palaces similar to their eastern counterparts, already active in antiquity: they are likely to be representations of Syrian goddesses, largely unknown in Crete, which were discarded shortly after their introduction in Crete (Miller Bonney 2011). The discarded goddesses, like the Uluburun shipwreck, are silent witnesses to a political project that did not work: the Aegean remained an independent and culturally independent area, never assimilated within eastern cultures. The reason for this „failure“ is not to be found in the tested and tried political and economic model adopted in the Near East. Trade expands to involve the whole Mediterranean and the circulation of commodities intensifies in most places, even producing the first panMediterranean material culture, the one that we associate with Mycenaean pottery styles. If failure is the wrong word in front of the evidence, then this means that something alternative to the palaces and elites typical of the Near East was equal-



42


ly successful in other regions. The non-palatial contexts that I discuss here are these alternative social and economic organisations. It is possible to think of the pharaoh and his court, or of Mycenaean palatial elites, and then consider all that is external, or which distinguished them as „non-palatial“, but this is not my definition. When a highly organised, tightly controlling hierarchy can be recognised in the archaeological record, as is the case in most of the Near East, no activity of any social or economic significance can escape palatial influence, be it formal running of the economy, or taxation and regulation, or perhaps permission or denial at the whim of rulers. If that happened then the palatial establishment would not be able to exercise the kind of control that even a basic leader of a community could exercise. In the case of the Near East, minor kings, such as those of the Levant, were probably allowed to maintain private entrepreneurship in their lands, provided that adequate taxation was possible and that any activities were in compliance with the will of the rulers, and possibly carried out as far away from the controlled lands as possible. Land routes were fraught with dangers and needed policing, which in turn allowed and justified taxation, and political borders, which may have provided a further excuse for more taxes. I cannot see any major investment in those routes without some form of sponsorship or formal endorsement from the ruling elites. Conversely, sea routes did not cross borders in a manifest way, and could not be policed or controlled as tightly as land routes: problematic coasts or sections of sea could be avoided entirely with a little knowledge and skill. The Mediterranean is vast and mostly empty, but it is not an ocean and should pose no problem to human endurance. Whilst a heavily laden ship such as the Uluburun vessel would have had difficulty in steering away from peril, and relied to an extent on agreements and support from all the rulers of the regions she visited, private ships

·

A. Vianello

must have been more agile to counteract the lack of security, but still capable of carrying significant loads (splitting the cargo found at Uluburun between two ships would suffice). The sea therefore provided the very best opportunities for the private traders who the ancient texts place in the Bronze Age Levant. Private traders in the Levant are understood here as people connected to the palaces of the minor kings that were operating outside formal gift exchange practices. The modern distinction between public (e.g. state/royal) and private (e.g. personal) trade does not apply for the ancient Near East. In the case of Minoan Crete, I have little doubt that the palaces on the island were on their way to becoming the equivalents of their eastern counterparts. Even after considering all the difficulties caused by its geographic location (Crete is an island with limited resources) and the tectonic instability of the island, Minoan palaces were an indigenous form of hierarchical organisation that would have been accepted by society in the long term. Minoan elites had the Near East firmly in sight, and this explains the many Egyptian (Phillips 2008) and Levantine (Cline 2009) products found in all palaces. The Peloponnese looked very distant from many Cretan polities, more so than Egypt. The Mycenaeans appear to have been keen to continue in developing the same model that inspired the Minoans, but they were debutants in the palatial arena. It took time for Crete to adapt to the new reality, and it took time for mainland Greece to adapt to what might have been a very foreign model to some people. Schon (2010, 221-225) has presented a sound „incongruence“ in the case of the tholoi of Kakovatos, demonstrating that there are no structured power centres in the early Mycenaean period. Furthermore, Bryan Burns (2010, 163-179) attempts a more systematic review of the funerary evidence in the Argolid, revealing that conflicting affiliations of people existed which are obscured by the emergence and

primacy of Mycenae. Conflict is also recognised in Mycenae itself, where exotic products are often associated „with a system external to the palace administration“ (ibid. 179). In short, the Mycenaean palaces seem to have functioned similarly to those in minor kingdoms of the Levant (and with which they were mostly in contact, e.g. Ugarit), exercising little control on longdistance exchanges. Unlike the eastern ones, where conflict was most evident among opposing rulers and the super-hierarchy of kingdoms, in Mycenae parts of the population within the very same citadel competed in the social, economic and political arenas with the palatial elites. Because of this, Mycenaean palaces, like the previous Minoan ones, failed to achieve the degree of control over the land that typified the eastern states. These non-palatial social and economic entities have been largely ignored in previous studies: they were confused with the main palatial administration. The case of the western Mediterranean, west of Greece, is relatively simple. There, there were no palaces, and no social hierarchies formed during the period of contacts, i.e. the local Middle to Final Bronze Age (an intense period of change). For many years scholars have worked on the assumption that chiefdoms and gift exchange must have been the dominant form of exchange, but proof never followed (Cazzella – Recchia 2010; Lo Schiavo pers. comm.), illustrating that the absence of evidence substantiating that theory may actually be evidence for the opposite: no social hierarchy played a major role in the exchanges nor was it formed, despite artisans moving to the Italian peninsula (locally produced Aegean-type pottery there must have originated with skilled Mycenaean artisans).Artisans were thought to move among palatial workshops because of the complexity of the operation and the implicit specialisation and highly organised system that must have been in place. The available evidence supporting the introduction of trade, the presence and mobility of artisans, along

11. Jahrgang 2011

with the many technical innovations that were being introduced from the east (e.g. the wheel for pottery production, olive culture, pure copper as ingots from Cyprus, etc.), are sufficient to meet the requirements for economic growth as framed by Saller (2005, 232) for the case of the Roman Empire. Not only was the potential there, but sophisticated workshops such as those in Frattesina (Bietti Sestieri 2010, 186-198) worked raw materials from distant places to produce luxuries and commodities for export and they were no less impressive than palatial workshops. In a previous study (Vianello 2005) I have also revealed that state formation, which takes place in the Iron Age in the Italian peninsula, has its roots in the Late Bronze Age, when some strategies of social and economic power can be recognised, but the emerging regions are best identified through patterns of production and consumption and other cultural markers. In short, the archaeological evidence presents a vast region without palaces which appears to have been as developed as eastern areas and, indeed, as capable of participation in the same Mediterranean economy of the Late Bronze Age. The populations trading here were comparable to those who were „external“ to the palatial administration of Mycenaean Greece and the functionaries of smaller courts (ruled by minor kings) in the Levant. World Systems perspective Andrew and Susan Sherratt (1991) have proposed an influential model to explain the trading situation in the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean. Susan Sherratt (2010) has refined that work, embracing World Systems Theory (Walllerstein 1974, but since then adapted by multiple authors, see e.g. Parkinson and Galaty 2010, 8-10), openly and squarely focusing her attention to macro-regional patterns of exchange. The model proposed by the Sherratts is based on evidence from the Levant, Cyprus, and the Aegean. However at least the evi-

dence from Ugarit in the Levant has been misunderstood (Routledge – McGeough 2009, 29), while the case of the western Mediterranean has been largely ignored. As a model aspiring to reveal macropatterns, it is excessively rooted in archaeological evidence from the Aegean – if not in the intentions, at least in the result. The model also suffers from early attempts to label all regions as cores, peripheries, or margins on the basis of the political and cultural influence of palatial elites, but it concludes that free trade decentralised and globalised the economy, eventually superseding the static palatial trade and contributing significantly to the fall of the Bronze Age palatial system. Sherratt (2010, 99) thinks that elites in core areas promoted the exchanges, and made participation desirable and possibly necessary, to satisfy their desire for exotica used in social power strategies. She considers metals a staple among the luxury products and materials that were exchanged, and indeed bases her interpretation of many interactions on that particular evidence. She recognises the Aegean as „marginal“ and recognises the development of Cyprus from marginal to core status thanks to the capitalisation of the wealth deriving from its copper ores (Sherratt 2010, 96-97). To explain the dynamic interaction, she proposes that „middlemen“ (intermediaries) were the essential players in the exchanges and these are the „private traders“ in my terminology. The model presents the exchanges as prompted by the demand for exotic materials desired by the elites. According to the model, the elites justify their social power on the basis of their access to such materials, some of which are indispensable to the local economy (e.g. metals), or by displaying wealth, also through exotic materials. Instead of elite-toelite exchanges such as the giftexchange system, elites would have used intermediaries, who effectively represent new centres of gravity, taking the role of elites. The determination of the status (core, periphery or margin) of an agent (e.g. elites, intermediaries, etc.) or re-

·

Heft 2

43

gion is determined by the wealth accumulated. Exotica in fact become commodities for the elites. Intermediaries with access to exotica can compete with elites in the new framework of market economy and globalisation, and eventually intermediaries form new cores or replace existing elites. The archaeological evidence however does not suggest that elites (and would-be elites) were the sole agents. The study of Aegean-type pottery has been most beneficial in revealing this. For instance at Ugarit (Yon – Karageorghis – Hirschfeld 2000, 68) Mycenaean-style pottery is now revealed to have been spread across many households; the palace was only the largest of these, rather than a separate case. Other evidence from exotica (Yon 2006, 125-172) also presents Levantine palaces as „dominating, rather than managing or controlling institutions“ (Routledge – McGeough 2009, 29). According to her model, Sherratt describes Sardinia as one of the „more distant 'marginal' areas“ (2010, 98), but Sardinia concentrated the trade of copper oxhide ingots in the western Mediterranean (Lo Schiavo et al. 2009) and Sardinian wares have been found both at Kommos on Crete (Watrous 1992) and on Cyprus at Pyla Kokkinokremos (Hermon et al. 2011; Gale 2011). Although globalisation is a useful perspective for identifying patterns in Late Bronze Age Mediterranean trade, it is unlikely that in antiquity there was a conscious understanding of all contacts across the Mediterranean – partial memory is more likely. The chronological scale of Late Bronze Age exchanges is also underestimated: the exchanges lasted at least half a millennium, and parts of it continued into the Iron Age. The main reason that drove the exchanges was also the attempt to profit economically. Sherratt’s narrow focus on elites and their reasons for consumption has overemphasised research on consumption patterns, a problem already recognised and criticised by Routledge – McGeough (2009, 27).



44


Substantivist approaches have also been influential, but they have only contributed to the general understanding of the type of market economy in which Late Bronze Age exchanges were inserted. Scholars have traditionally favoured eliteto-elite exchanges (gift exchanges), even before the Sherratts proposed their model, but now a profitdriven market economy seems to be increasingly accepted. Sherratt's model has changed too, and market economy has been accepted. The meaning of „market economy“ and „private trade“ often varies from author to author, and it is a cause of confusion. Sherratt refers to modern economic concepts and considers that private traders (intermediaries) are private parties trading in a free market. The main agents (cores) in her view are the elites, however, and when private traders become wealthy themselves, they also become cores and new elites (and may form new hierarchical states in previously marginal areas). In my view, the exchanges follow a profit-driven market economy, which is very dynamic and resilient. Private traders operate outside direct control from the palace (i.e. within non-palatial contexts, or uninfluenced by political and military schemes by the ruling elite) and they represent the largest player. Palatial trade is almost invisible outside gift exchanges, which were as much a political tool as were inter-dynastic marriages (Pintore 1978) and military campaigns. Private traders were however closely associated with palaces, where these were present, and they were likely to be functionaries in part of the palatial administration, as at Ugarit. In the Aegean, private traders seem to have limited the social power of the established elites, but their coexistence with palaces, one adjacent to the other, suggests that traders contributed through taxation to the palatial elite and probably benefited from military support. A few armed Mycenaeans may have escorted some cargoes, as occurred in relation to the Uluburun shipwreck (Bachhuber 2006), which may also represent a private venture,

·

A. Vianello

and armed Mycenaeans also turn up in Roca Vecchia, Apulia (Pagliara 2005; Fabbri 2002). In absence of palaces, local officers may have been appointed or elected and represented individual communities in the trading network. Alliances among communities and commercial partnerships may also have resulted in organised participation without the presence of a formal hierarchy within the community. The detailed study of the contexts of deposition of Aegean-type pottery in the western Mediterranean has provided evidence of some social complexity (i.e. hierarchy) in domestic and funerary architecture in the Italian peninsula and Sicily (Vianello 2005, 63-86). The evidence ranges from wealth display strategies in Sicilian tombs to prominent (apparently communal) buildings in many settlements. Nuragic Sardinia contributes to the general picture with its nuraghi. It seems to me that the case of early Rome may provide some clues to the situation in the Italian peninsula during the local Late and Final Bronze Age. Rome transited from a monarchic system, similar to the Etruscan models, to the republican system, which enabled participation in political matters for a larger section of the population. It is impossible to be precise on anything regarding the transition, but suffice it here to say that the existing aristocracy had to renegotiate social power by admitting commoners in positions of power. The history of the Roman Republic is characterised by the „social conflicts between the patricians and plebeians, often called the 'Struggle of the Orders'“ (Raaflaub 2005, 139). Elites in Latium had emerged about two centuries earlier (Early Iron Age 1/end of periodo laziale II at the cemetery of Osteria dell'Osa; Bietti Sestieri 2010, 283) and since then the inter-regional exchanges involved primarily the Etruscans as partners, as the material culture suggests (Bietti Sestieri 2010, 284). „Chiefs“ are recognisable from periodo laziale II (ibid. 278), and earlier, in periodo laziale I, Latium had regular exchanges with both

Etruria to the north and Campania to the south (ibid. 270). All periods mentioned above are subdivisions of the Early Iron Age I, which is the phase immediately following the Final Bronze Age (Late Bronze Age in Aegean chronology). The marked difference between the southern and northern Italian peninsula is notable because Late Bronze Age Mediterranean trade interested primarily the southern peninsula, and that area resisted the formation of elites the longest. Communal burials were still in use when Rome was emerging. The social conflict in early Rome therefore may represent the clash between two different social and political systems, one based on hierarchy and one on communality. Rome was the mediating arena between the two systems, and neither prevailed in the end, suggesting that they were perceived as equally viable and it is wrong to consider the two as subsequent phases. Elites were not needed at all for the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean exchange network to work, but where elites existed they were involved in the trades. Sherratt is wrong to suggest that private traders (intermediaries), accumulating wealth by tramping eventually formed new elites and replaced some existing ones, bringing the Bronze Age to an end. Routledge and McGeough (2009, 29) are equally critical of her conclusion when discussing the case of Ugarit. Localised problems probably resulted in migrations by sea, which unleashed a chain of events that destabilised weak political systems in the Levant. Exotica: their value and meaning The main corpus of evidence deriving from the exchanges can be defined as exotica. Although much has been lost to time, it seems reasonable to consider that almost anything transported for a long distance would have been valuable and „exotic“ on arrival, or there would be no reason to transport it. Technological transfers and cultural exchanges were also important, sug-

11. Jahrgang 2011

gesting that some products may have been appreciated by local communities by associating them with new people and techniques, and not for their intrinsic value. Exotica are not luxuries exchanged to demonstrate and display wealth, and by so doing helping individuals attain social power; rather they are a social construct by local consumers, serving local social and economic strategies. Exotica are primarily symbols, and they often tell us more about the identity of the consuming society than the originating society (Vianello 2011). Provenance studies are important, but they tend to overemphasise the voyage and organisation of the exchange network instead of explaining artefacts and their presence in specific archaeological contexts. In addition to forming elites and states, exotica also shape cultural identities, which distinguish themselves by adopting or refusing what is perceived as rare or different. The formation of identities through exotica in the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean has been recognised in at least three areas recently. •

•

•

After analysing the functional and depositional contexts of Aegean-type pottery in the western Mediterranean (Iberia to the Italian peninsula), I have recognised that such pottery was used to differentiate some coastal communities from inland „monolithic“ groups, such as the Apennine communities (Vianello 2005). Bryan Burns (2010) has recognised in Mycenaean Greece the use of exotica to justify the political power of palatial elites. The palaces did not control the entire territory however, and whilst the circulation of exotica became the framework for settling issues of social power and hierarchy, the greater availability of exotica to Sherratt's „middlemen“ also caused competition. In the Levant, Carol Bell (2006) has recognised different zones of influence of Aegean-type pottery, suggesting that the appreciation of such pottery was featured in a context of social competition between small

kingdoms (and wealthy traders within them) and greater kingdoms (and their elites). To sum up, I consider it more productive to focus on consumption in relation to exotica. Knowledge of primary local contexts provides better evidence for inferring general patterns than any theoretical model can. Whilst I can see the utility of some models, including World Systems Theory and globalisation models, the dynamic interactions of the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean were too complex and variable in time and space to be depicted on a single theoretical canvas. Trade in a market economy The non-palatial trade that took place in the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean exchange network was unregulated, chaotic, market-driven, and opportunistic, never under anyone’s direct control. Its only purpose was the accumulation of wealth by profitability. It is comparable with modern trade, but only regarding the basic motivation of acquiring wealth, and possibly greed. Countless risks must have been undertaken by traders. The Mediterranean provided opportunities for risk-takers, and there was no shortage of them. The ‘capital’ necessary to mount a sea voyage and source commodities overseas was significant and could only be found in advanced, palatial societies, and with the surpluses and taxation revenues available to them. Canaan and Ugarit were involved in long-distance maritime trades from the very beginning of the Late Bronze Age; Phoenicia replacing Canaan from the Iron Age. Weak polities (those without major imperialistic programs or excessive controls) favoured the emergence of trade, and a weakening still of these in the Iron Age seems not to have affected or even benefited trade because continuity can be recognised (Bell 2009, 34-38). The lack of a strong centre and the possibility of decentralised political structure indeed favoured trade in the Iron Age.

·

Heft 2

45

Could the expansion of maritime trade have emerged where no palaces existed, instead of where they existed but were not controlling maritime commerce? No, the initial capital requirements were still needed, and the challenge necessitated considerable organisational skills typically found in palaces. Maritime trade is a by-product of palaces, and probably it emerged after the transportation of commodities for gift exchange moved to coastal waters, which may have provided an easier, faster and safer route across the region. There is no doubt that the Minoans, and later the Mycenaeans, wanted to join the gift exchange network, but it seems that distance and a lack of familiarity with a static and highly organised system prevented them from doing so. Natural catastrophes, such as the eruption of Thera, also contributed to the failure. Because profit was the motivating driver for trade on all sides, it seems that the Mycenaeans successfully expanded the maritime network to include the whole Mediterranean in an attempt to seize the opportunity afforded. The puzzling distribution of Mycenaean pottery across the Mediterranean, and its universal acceptance, should be interpreted as evidence of the Mycenaean (and in some cases Cypriot) style becoming a symbol of wealth universally recognised. Possessing Aegeantype products (or in the Aegean, Levantine and eastern products) was meant to suggest the availability of wealth and direct access to the sources of exotica, which happened to be one of the reasons why the elites sought to guarantee them privileged status. However, there is no real evidence that the tensions between private traders and palatial administrations escalated. Palaces could still obtain luxury items from multiple sources. Political statements such as those typical of the Egyptian court, which suggested that commodities acquired were received as tributes from foreigners, would have left the dominant position of the elites unchallenged. Palaces undoubtedly benefited from exchanges too; the market economy suited most pala-



46


·

A. Vianello

ces very well. While it is time to acknowledge the importance of trade outside the formal mechanisms of exchange among great kings, and recognise the role of private initiatives in shaping those societies and their economies, it seems to me that a clear distinction between palatial and non-palatial models is impossible: it is more to do with 'formal' and ‘informal’perceptions. In this perspective, it makes sense that the western societies that managed to acquire most metals, and probably despatched trading parties all the way to Crete and Cyprus, were the ones that most clearly presented some form of hierarchical structure: e.g. the Nuragic culture of Sardinia.

idea of all the gold from the Shaft Graves at Mycenae. The Mycenaeans did not need a few trinkets from the Near East to make themselves noted in the archaeological literature, and clearly their society was more than capable of building impressive architectural edifices and producing dazzling works of art.

Trade as cultural agency

The utilitarian character of the exchanges is evident in the case of the import of copper oxhide ingots to Sardinia. In my 2005 book I came to the conclusion that „the Sardinians acquired copper to produce their own bronze artefacts. (…) It is hypothetically possible that raw materials arriving to the island were transformed into artefacts and then redistributed“ (Vianello 2005, 93). Today I am pleased that Lo Schiavo (pers. comm.) agrees that some Sardinians imported very pure Cypriot copper ingots because they were easier to work, and „in so doing they demonstrated their shrewdness in business“. Importing pure copper reduced the work required and allowed the bronze industry to thrive, concentrating on the production of finished artefacts. In so doing, the Bronze Age palatial production system was enacted: sourcing raw materials was done in one place and then the materials were brought elsewhere for specialised artisans to produce artefacts from them before they were redistributed to their intended recipients. The system must have impressed the Sardinians who decided to travel to Crete and Cyprus, but it has left no legacy.

The archaeological evidence proves that during the Late Bronze Age trade increased and societies changed. It is easy to correlate the two facts, but the relationship may not be direct. All Bronze Age polities involved in exchanges were under severe stress. The Levant was contended for by major powers and this must have caused difficulties. In the Aegean, palaces failed to achieve the same status as their eastern counterparts: they simply did not have enough time between destruction intervals. The western Mediterranean seems to have benefited the most, but as I suggested earlier, from a political and social point of view, the situation remained static probably up until the period of the Roman Republic. No coherent military or political strategy can be recognised in the running of the exchange network, only attempts to profit. Of course, in cases of direct contact between peoples of different cultures, much knowledge can be transferred in a short amount of time. Had we set out to determine the legacy of Late Bronze Age trade, what would it be? I can think of Bryan Burns' detailed analysis of the role that exotica played in Mycenaean society. Trade added so much to the dynamics of Mycenaean societies, but I also struggle with the

I also think of the humble potter’s wheel, which was diffused westwards, and also of olives and grapes being introduced into new regions. However these innovations derived from specialisation and were aimed at boosting or simplifying productivity and they do not seem to have been embraced wholeheartedly by local communities, at least not for some time after their introduction.

The legacy must therefore be found in the knowledge that so many cultures became accessible by sailing the Mediterranean, and so many opportunities were suddenly within

reach. No one technique or encounter in particular seems to have produced a legacy. People united to participate in trade, and these unions allowed latent identities to emerge strongly and reshape the political arena. Moreover, people remembered the opportunities that trade provided as well as the new world view, now expanded to a region much larger than Mesopotamia, or the ancient Near East. It was not a world of dreams, never to be reached, but a real world that was possible to visit, no matter how challenging or daunting such long-distance navigation might appear. The regional collaborations emerge as new communities, and then cultures and states. The memory of the Bronze Age shaped the Archaic period, with Levantine (now Phoenician) and Aegean (now Greek) communities launching themselves bravely into the new world, as conquistadores. Late Bronze Age trade brought about little change to its own time, but it made possible the Iron Age by preparing new generations for a changed world perspective: the Bronze Age system could be no more. Conclusions Much research over the past few decades and a series of exceptional discoveries have deeply changed our understanding of Late Bronze Age maritime trade. The dominant model proposed by the Sherratts (1991), which has much to be commended and is still valid in some aspects, has urged the formation of a world view perspective in the study of Mediterranean trade. It is now based on outdated information however. Among the key new findings, is the understanding we have of the royal palace of Ugarit, which is now understood to have been involved as a primary player in trades; the Mycenaean palaces, which never reached the level of control or social power of some eastern courts; and the regions west of the Aegean that now present substantial and detailed information about a vast and dynamic region that cannot be linked together in terms such as core, periphery or

11. Jahrgang 2011

margin. The discovery of Nuragic pottery in Cyprus is the first concrete proof that the Shardana of Egyptian memory may have been, after all, people from Sardinia, and the Sea People may just be a surviving memory of the tramping traders from the detached perspective of lavish royal courts. A definitive conclusion on that particular aspect cannot be reached. At the other end of the Mediterranean, Sardinia may be seen as largely excluded from exchanges of Mycenaean pottery, but very much intent on procuring copper for its bronze industry. This proves that the western regions were not on the receiving side, although fertile lands waiting to be colonised, but they played a very active role across the whole Mediterranean. Of course, Cypriot traders must have received something in exchange for the ingots sent to Sardinia, and whatever that was it was comparable to what might have been obtained via royal gift exchange. However the exchange this time was definitely agreed and viewed as a commercial partnership and not as some notion of (royal) fraternity. The first fundamental point that I have tried to present here is that, with „private“ or „non-palatial“ trade, the form changes, but the players and commodities to be exchanged probably remained the same. In front of the increasing body of evidence, I cannot accept the theory that palaces and palatial administrators were unaware that substantial quantities of their most precious merchandise would be leaving in private hands without their knowledge. The second point is that the expansion of the world view of many, and the multiplication of opportunities, must have revealed to people that their world needed to change. I do not advocate at this point that traders directly and consciously contributed to the fall of many cultures at the end of the Bronze Age. Instead, I suggest that traders spread awareness, and when the occasion materialised, people migrated (e.g. Philistines) or embraced fully and openly the new world (e.g. Cyprus,

Phoenicia). Trade produced a globalising effect by placing in contact quite suddenly numerous cultures spread across a vast and perhaps unknown region. Increased trade must have been beneficial to Late Bronze Age societies. All elements required for economic growth have been recognised as being present. Somebody must have benefited, but it cannot be Sherratt's intermediaries, because there is no evidence that mediation was needed between any two parties. The wealth from trade may have encouraged and empowered people to move across the Mediterranean, but with the exception of the Philistines, the impact of such movements was temporary and local. Maritime trade succeeded instead in becoming an agent of cultural exchange. The effects of this action however can only be seen in later periods, when new social and political identities emerge, or act, maintaining an historical memory of the previous periods. Private, non-palatial trade was a Levantine innovation and I wish to stress that some of the earliest wares accompanying some of the earliest Aegean-type artefacts scattered across the Mediterranean are Canaanite, and this area later becomes known as Phoenicia. The region, largely independent, but under recurring Egyptian influence, was strategically located and, most importantly, was aware of the Minoans and Crete. There would have been no Late Bronze Age maritime trade across the Mediterranean without the involvement of the Mycenaeans, partly replacing the fallen Minoans. The problem is determining what merchandise exactly the Canaanites and other Levantine communities would have been looking for from the Mycenaeans. So far it has been assumed that the Mycenaeans must have tried to assimilate the eastern cultures and persuade them to join in the rich exchanges in which they were involved. To my knowledge no one has suggested that Levantine cultures may have needed the help of the Aegeans to escape in-

·

Heft 2

47

fluences from the major kingdoms, at least in some areas. I conclude by mentioning a richly illustrated volume, the catalogue of the exhibition „Inseln der Winde“ (Guttandin et al. 2011). The illustrated pages of the volume make it impossible to ignore how connected to, and dependent from, the sea all Aegean civilisations have been since earliest times. This knowledge of the sea – the major routes and safe harbours – must have proven invaluable to early traders. The models and reconstructions of Bronze Age ships by Thomas Guttandin (Guttandin et al. 2011, 112-135) are particularly valuable for emphasizing the expertise in ship building and sailing that the Minoans and Mycenaeans counted as part of their heritage. Only the Egyptians could rival the Aegeans in terms of an equally impressive maritime tradition. In my view, the anchor-stone of long-distance maritime exchanges across the Mediterranean is best sought in an initial understanding between communities representing „minor“ Levantine palatial administrations and the Mycenaeans. Bibliography Artzy, M. 1997: Nomads of the Sea, in: Swiny, S. – Hohlfelder, R. – Swiny, H.W. (eds.), Res Maritimae: Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory through the Roman Period (Atlanta, Ga.) 1-16. Bachhuber, C. 2006: Aegean Interest on the Uluburun Ship, American Journal of Archaeology 110, 345-363. Bell, C. 2006: The evolution of long distance trading relationships across the LBA/ Iron Age transition on the northern Levantine coast: crisis, continuity and change. A study based on imported ceramics, bronze and its constituent metals (Oxford). Bietak, M. 2007: Bronze Age Paintings in the Levant: Chronological and Cultural Considerations, in: Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 9. The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. vol. III (Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd EuroConference, Vienna 2003). Denkschriften Wien 37 (Wien) 269-300.



48


Bietti Sestieri, A. M. 2010: L’Italia nell’età del bronzo e del ferro, dalle palafitte a Romolo (2200-700 a.C.) (Roma). Burns, B. E. 2010: Mycenaean Greece, Mediterranean commerce, and the formation of identity (Cambridge/New York). Cazzella, A. – Recchia, G. 2010: The ‚Mycenaeans‘ in the central Mediterranean, a comparison between the Adriatic and the Tyrrhenian seaways, Pasiphae 3, 27-40. Cline, E. H. 2009: Sailing the wine-dark sea: international trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean (Oxford). Cline, E. H. – Yasur-Landau, A. – Goshen, N. 2011: New Fragments of Aegean-Style Painted Plaster from Tel Kabri, Israel, American Journal of Archaeology 115, 245-261. Fabbri, P. F. 2002: Tafonomia di un gruppo di individui del bronzo medio scoperti nel passaggio C delle fortificazioni di Roca Vecchia, in: Gorgoglione, M. (ed.), Strutture e modelli di abitato del Bronzo Tardo da Torre Castelluccia a Roca Vecchia, Atti del convegno di studio 1996, Pulsano (Ta), (Manduria) 193-203. Forstenpointner, G., et al. 2010: Subsistence and more in Middle Bronze Age AeginaKolonna: Patterns of Husbandry, Hunting and Agriculture, in: Philippa-Touchais, A. – Touchais, G. et al. (eds.), Mesohelladika. La Grèce continentale au Bronze Moyen. Actes du colloque international … Athènes 2006. BCH Supplement 52, 733-742. Galaty, M. – Parkinson, W. (eds.) 2010: Archaic State Interaction: The Eastern Mediterranean in the Bronze Age (Santa Fe, N.M.). Galaty, M. – Parkinson, W. 2010: Introduction: Interaction and Ancient Societies, in: Galaty – Parkinson (eds.) 2010, 3-28. Gale, N. H. 2011: Appendix IV. Source of the lead metal used to make a repair clamp on a Nuragic vase recently excavated at Pyla-Kokkinokremos, in: Karageorghis – Kouka 2011, 107-112. Gregersen, M - L. B. 1997: Craftsmen in the Linear B Archives, in: Gillis, C. – Risberg, C. – Sjöberg, B. (eds.), Trade and Production in Premonetary Greece: Production and the Craftsman (Jonsered) 43-55. Guttandin, T. – Panagiotopoulos, D. et al. 2011: Inseln der Winde. Die maritime Kultur der bronzezeitlichen Ägäis (Berlin). Halstead, P. 2001: Mycenaean Wheat, Flax and Sheep: Palatial Intervention in Farm-

·

A. Vianello

ing and its Implications for Rural Society, in: Voutsaki, S. – Killen, J. (eds.), Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States (Cambridge) 38-50.

Late Bronze Age in the Eastern Mediterranean (Oxford) 22-29.

Hermon, S. et al. 2011: Appendix II. A virtual restoration of a broken pottery vessel, in: Karageorghis – Kouka 2011, 97-100.

Saller, R. 2005: Framing the Debate over Growth in the Ancient Economy, in: Manning, J.G. – Morris, I. (eds.), The ancient economy: evidence and models (Stanford) 223-238.

Karageorghis, V. – Kouka, O. (eds.) 2011: On Cooking Pots, Drinking Cups, Loomweights and Ethnicity in Bronze Age Cyprus and Neighbouring Regions (Nikosia).

Schon, R. 2010: Think Locally, Act Globally: Mycenaean Elites and the Late Bronze Age World-System, in: Galaty – Parkinson (eds.) 2010, 213-236.

Lo Schiavo, F. et al. 2009: Oxhide ingots in the central Mediterranean (Roma).

Sherratt, A. – Sherratt, S. 1991: From luxuries to commodities: the nature of Mediterranean Bronze Age trading systems, in: Gale, N.H. (ed.), Bronze Age trade in the Mediterranean (Jonsered) 351-86.

Manning, J. G. – Morris, I. (eds.) 2005: The ancient economy: evidence and models (Stanford). Miller Bonney, E. 2011: Disarming the Snake Goddess: A Reconsideration of the Faience Figurines from the Temple Repositories at Knossos, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 24, 171-190. Niemeier, W-D. – Niemeier, B. 1998: Minoan Frescoes in the Eastern Mediterranean, in: Cline, E.H. – Harris-Cline, D. (eds.), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium, Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium, University of Cincinnati, April 1997. Aegaeum 18 (Liège) 6998. Pagliara, C. 2005: Roca Vecchia (Lecce), il sito, le fortificazioni e l’abitato dell’età del bronzo, in: Laffineur, R. – Greco, E. (eds), Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean, Proceedings of the 10th Internat. Aegean Conference, Athens, April 2004. Aegaeum 25 (Liège) 629-637. Phillips, J. 2008: Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in Their Chronological Context: A Critical Review. Denkschr. Wien 49 (Wien). Pintore, F. 1978: Il matrimonio interdinastico nel Vicino Oriente durante i secoli XV-XIII (Roma). Raaflaub, K. A. 2005: Social struggles in archaic Rome: new perspectives on the conflict of the orders (Malden). Reid, J. 2007: Minoan Kato Zakro: a pastoral economy (Oxford). Renfrew, C. – Cherry, J.F. (eds.) 1986: Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-political Change (Cambridge). Routledge, B. – McGeough, K. 2009: Just What Collapsed? A Network Perspective on Trade, Exchange, and the Palace at Ugarit, in: Bachhuber, C. – Roberts, R.G. (eds.), Forces of Transformation: The End of the

Sherratt, S. 2010: The Aegean and the wider world: some thoughts on a worldsystems perspective, in: Galaty – Parkinson (eds.) 2010, 81-106. Tournavitou, I. 1997: The social and economic position of artisans in the Mycenaean world, in: Gillis, C. – Risberg, C. – Sjöberg, B. (eds.), Trade and Production in Premonetary Greece: Production and the Craftsman, Proceedings of the 4th and 5th Internat. Workshops, Athens 1994 and 1995 (Jonsered) 29–41. Vianello, A. 2005: Late bronze age Mycenaean and italic products in the west Mediterranean: a social and economic analysis (Oxford). Vianello, A. (ed.) 2011: Exotica in the prehistoric Mediterranean (Oxford). Wallerstein, I. 1974: The modern worldsystem 1: capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century (New York). Watrous, L.V. 1992: Kommos III. The Late Bronze Age Pottery (Princeton, NJ). Yon, M. 2006: The city of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra (Winona Lake). Yon, M. – Karageorghis, V. – Hirschfeld, N. (eds.) 2000: Céramiques mycéniennes d’Ougarit (Nicosia).

Address Dr Andrea Vianello 19 May Road Sheffield S6 4QF United Kingdom Email: [email protected]