Bronze Age Mediterranean Island Cultures and the Ancient Near East

A. Bernard Knapp

The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 55, No. 3. (Sep., 1992), pp. 112-128.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0006-0895%28199209%2955%3A3%3C112%3ABAMICA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9

The Biblical Archaeologist is currently published by The American Schools of Oriental Research.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/asor.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For
more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
Wed May 23 07:18:44 2007
The "West Courtnseenin the foreground is The Neo-Palatial Period
traversed by the raised "Processional Way"
Behind that is the West Wing (upper floor re-
stored), which contained what are believed
to be several shrines or sanctuaries, as well
Bronze Age About 1700 B.c.E., an earthquake (or
series of quakes) destroyed Crete's
first palaces. During the Neo-Palatial
as rows o f storage "magazines."Beyond the
West Wing is the Central Court, where vari-
ous activities-like bull-leaping- would
Mediterranean period that followed, these palaces
were elaborately reconstructed: the
have taken place, and finally the East Wing,
which probably served as the domestic quar-
ter of the palace. The palace o f Knossos, like
Island magnificent frescos widely recog-
nized as an important hallmark of
Minoan civilization adorned the new
most Minoan palaces, was enclosed by an
extensive residential area. The palaces stood
at the apex of a settlement hierarchy that in-
cluded 'kountry houses,"smaller towns, ports.
Cultures and palace walls. Fine pottery painted
with marine and floral designs reveal
farmsteads and "peak sanctuaries." Knossos
was the largest and grandest of the palaces,
not just in terms of size (about 75 hectares)
the Ancient a specialized level of craftsmanship;
a variety of other products -jewelry,
engraved gems, bronze items and
but also in the quantity o f its administrative
paraphernalia (LinearA and Linear B docu-
ments and sealings) and in the quality of its
pottery, painting, other fine arts and architec-
Near East, ivory figurines -indicate unprece-
dented wealth. Self-sufficient in food
ture. It remains uncertain, however, whether
Knossos ever exercised political or economic
control over the rest of Crete. Photo courtesy
Part 2 and most basic resources (except
metals),Minoan Crete reached the
apex of prosperity by about 1600B.C.E.
o f Ekdotike Athenon S.A., Athens. ly A. Ikmwrd Knapp as a result of intensified agricultural

112 Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992

(olive and grape) and textile produc-
tion (forinternal consumption as
well as for export).Wide ranging trade
contacts funneled luxury items and
other goods into the economy.
In most cases, the palaces were
enclosed by extensive residential
areas and served as regional centers
for the surrounding territories. On
another level, the palaces stood at
the summit of a settlement hierar-
chy that included "country houses"
(second-orderregional administra-
tive centers?),smaller towns, farm-
steads and other sites that fulfilled
specific functions (forexample, ports,
"peak" sanctuaries for religious ob-
servances-Bennet 1988; Peatfield
1990).Knossos was preeminent
among the Neo-Palatial centers in
terms of its overall size (about 75
hectares?),quantity of administrative
paraphernalia and quality of pottery,
painting and architecture (Hoodand
Taylor 1984; Bennet 1990).However,
none of these factors demonstrates
unequivocally that Knossos exer-
cised political or economic control
over the rest of the island. On the
contrary, the evidence of seals and
sealings from this period suggests
distinct administrative districts
(Weingarten 1988; Bennet 1990).
Even if the economic basis of
the palaces and "country houses" lay
in land and agriculture-pastoralism,
centralized (palatial)control over
foreign trade would have provided
much of the extraordinary wealth and
prestige items around which politi-
cal and economic power revolved
(Manning 1992).Yet even state con-
trolled trade does not preclude mer-
chants or mariners dealing in other
forms of trade and barter to their own
advantage (Wiener 1987: 263-64).
Although specifically 'Minoan goods
(especiallypottery) are thin on the
ground in Cyprus, the Levant and
Egypt, documentary and pictorial
evidence for the KeftiulKaptaru sug-
gests that this trade was much more
extensive than the material remains
alone indicate.
Extensive finds of Minoan pot-
tery, or other indications of Minoan
cultural influence (in architecture,
wall-paintings, "double-axe"motifs,
"conical cups")in the Cyclades and on
a chain of islands stretching toward
Anatolia (Karpathos,Rhodes, Kos)
have led to suggestions of Minoan
settlement, or even of Minoan colo-
nies, seen as part of an extensive,
Knossos-controlled, island empire
(latertermed the "Minoan Thalasso-
cracy" by Thucydides -Hagg and
Marinatos 1984; Wiener 1990, 1991).
This latter suggestion must be ques-
tioned, because the sort of "cultural
imperialism" implied by the pres-
ence of Minoan goods and influence
overseas does not necessarily imply
political or even economic domina-
tion in that place. Certain pottery
styles (especially the Late Minoan IB
"Marine" style) once regarded as the
sole products of Knossos, and spread
widely throughout the island and
abroad, are now thought also to have
been made elsewhere in Crete, if not
overseas. At the moment, the issue of
Minoan colonies continues to spark
new lines of research and to fuel de-
bates, but there is no way to settle it
one way or another.
Thera. Even if the full implications
of Minoan cultural contacts overseas
remain uncertain, nowhere are they
so apparent as at the site of Akrotiri
on Thera, a veritable Bronze Age
Pompeii of the Aegean. Excavations
at Akrotiri have revealed copious
amounts of Minoan pottery, and
"Minoanizing" features and iconog-

Dated to the fifteenth century B.c.E., the

"Marseille Ewer"is one of the most elegant
and best known Late Minoan IB "Marine"
style vases. Along with the magnificent fres-
coes that adorned Cretan palace walls during
its "Neo-Palatialnperiod,fine painted pottery
with floral or marine motifs-such as the
Marseille Ewer-shows the high level o f spe-
cialization that had been reached by that
time, lewelry, engraved gems, metal items and
ivory figurines reveal the same sort o f unprece-
dented wealth, at least partially the result o f
wide-ranging trade contacts that typified the
"International Eranof the Late Bronze Age i n
the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean. Photo
courtesy o f the Musde Borley. Marseille.

su
Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992

The site of Akrotiri on Thera is the Bronze
Age Mediterranean's equivalent o f Pompeii:
this strikingphotograph reveals clear evidence tiri's "town houses" also underwent
for a major volcanic eruption during the Late
Minoan IA period, one of the most dramatic
eruptions that has occurred on earth since
the last ice age. The absolute calendar date
for the eruption is still a matter o f intense de- preserved by a violent volcanic erup-
bate: on its resolution hinges the acceptance
o f a high or low chronology, which has rami-
fications for the chronology not only o f the
Mediterranean world, but for the cultures o f
ancient western Asia and Egypt. The massive
destruction suffered by the town o f Santorini
buried it i n uv to 30 meters o f volcanic ash
and debris, as shown. The entire island, i f not and thus the range of time included
the southern Aegean and Crete, was affected,
and shiuvinn and trade must have been dis-
rupted j6r some time. From a photograph
taken by lames V Luce, author o f Lost
Atlantis (2969).
The site ofAkrotiri on Thera, with a maritime
location well suited to trade and communica-
tions within the Aegean, shows several signs
of a centralized bureaucracy. In addition to
the knowledge o f writing, there is good evi-
dence for a standardized measuring system,
as indicated by this series o f graduated lead
weights excavated at Akrotiri; graduated volu-
metric measures o f capacity i n pottery vessels
have also been proposed. A standardized mea-
suring system suggests, among other things,
that local Theran producers, administrators
and merchants could have helped to regulate
commercial exchanges within the Cyclades,
or in the wider Aegean world. Photo courtesy
of Anna Michailidou, Hellenic Research
Foundation, Athens.
114 Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
raphy in pottery, frescos, spindle
whorls, lamps and other items
(Doumas 1987; various papers in
Hardy, Doumas and others 1990).
When the Minoans became a major
political and economic force in the
Aegean during the early second mil-
lennium B.c.E., it is likely that pres-
tige or power accrued simply from
possessing Minoan products, or from
adopting certain aspects of Minoan
religion. If nothing else, such finds
reflect prehistoric socio-economic
relationships between neighboring
islands (for example, marriage or
trading partners; prestige goods ex-
change -Cherry 1987: 24); the long-
term maintenance of such links
would have ensured access to various
resources in times of shortage and
may be regarded as one means of
adapting to the inherent risks of
island life.
About the same time the new
palaces were (re)builton Crete, Akro-
reconstruction on a grander scale. The
material evidence of this period of
grandeur on Thera has been uniquely
tion that occurred early in the Neo-
Palatial period, toward the end of
what Aegean prehistorians call the
Late Minoan (LM)IA period. The ab-
solute calendar date for the eruption,
. .the LM IA period, is still intensely
in
debated (notedin part 1).
In its final two phases of occu-
pation, the settlement at Akrotiri
. .. . .
p
4- .
@%
.
. ..
.,
. I ,
.- &:.
1
' .-. .... m,
.
.*,
-,
took on urban characteristics simi-
lar to those of the dominant Minoan
centers of Neo-Palatial Crete. Akro-
tirits size alone is exceptional within
the MiddlelLate Bronze Age Cycla-
des: its estimated 20 hectares made it
10-20 times larger than contempo-
rary sites on the Cycladic islands of
Kea and Melos, and almost one-third
the size of the contemporary settle-
ment at Knossos (Davis and Cherry
1990: 191).Proximity between Crete
and Thera must have played some
role in these developments, but did
not preclude Therals self-determina-
tion: Akrotiri's multistoried archi-
tecture is unique, and its pottery and
other fine arts represent a high Cy-
cladic standard. Within the Cyclades,
Therals material refinement stands
out; there is some evidence of rural
settlements on the island, with a
quality and range of artifactual and
architectural sophistication equiva-
lent to that known from Akrotiri.
Unlike other Cycladic islands,
where evidence of a highly nucleat-
ed settlement pattern (i.e.with one
predominant center) has been discov-
ered, Thera shows signs of dispersed
settlement -farmsteads, villages,
perhaps even "country housescmore
reminiscent of contemporary Minoan
Crete (Davis and Cherry 1990: 192).
(The centralized palatial system on
Crete, however, is unlikely to have
promoted independent rural settle-
ment, which may have been possible
on Thera.) In Minoan terms, Akrotiri,
with a maritime location ideally
,-, ..., .
',-
.
-,
.-::t .
.
. & ..
me,-
p.
iT' ,r-
-., '7
'i c ' .. - ,-
3
...
F.>,
. '-
- - C. . , 3 u
situated for inter-Aegeancommuni-
cations, would have represented the
headquarters of a centralized bureau-
cracy. Although there is evidence of a
measuring system and the knowledge
of writing (inthe form of potmarks)
at Akrotiri, there is asyet no evidence
of a Minoan-typemini-palaceor its
extensiveadministrativeparapher-
nalia. Still, the hurried abandonment
of the site in the face of a volcanic
eruption increases the possibility
that the excavators may find an ad-
ministrative archive, which would
offer important new clues to the
Theran economy. Even if suggestions
of a hierarchicalsettlement system
and centralizedadministration on
Thera- based onthe Minoan model -
prove to be valid, it is unnecessary to
presume that this reflects the exten-
sion to Thera of Minoan settlement,
security, or control.
Akrotiri is distinct in many ways
from Crete and the remainder of the
Cyclades. Yet in economicterms, it
served as an important maritime
center for contacts and trade within
the Aegean; its material remains and
frescos suggest that Akrotiri's resi-
dents or merchants had direct links
with the interregionaltrade and sup-
ply system in the eastern Mediter-
ranean. A graduated series of disk
welghts has been found at Akrotiri,
and graduated volumetricmeasures
of capacity in pottery vessels (simi-
lar to fractionalvalues proposed for
Minoan Linear A signs)have been
postulated (KatsarIbmara1990;
Michailidou 1990).Both factors indi-
cate -already during the Middle
Bronze Age -a standardizedmeasur-
ing system, and suggest that local
Theran producers, administrators
and merchants regulated commer-
cial exchanges within the Cyclades.
On Crete, units of measure for vari-
ous commoditiesare implied by the
Minoan Linear A writing system. If
these conceptual similarities in Mi-
noan and Theran calculatingmethods
are taken at facevalue, a direct link-
or even a common system of weights
and measures-between Crete and
the Cyclades is likely. Such a system
would have facilitated interregional
communications and exchange.
Sailing ships (likeone depicted
on the "Miniature Fresco"from
Thera)also helped regularize intra-
Aegean trade and made possible an
increasedmovement of local, surplus
and luxury goods, includingthe bulk
exchange of metals. Standardized
measures and products (oxhideingots,
"stirrup"jars, storage jars) were in-
trinsic to long-distance commercial
transactions,and soreflect increasing --
demand from an interregionaltrade
network. Akrotiri's economicafflu-
ence must have derived chiefly from
~&cov(~
the maritime trading activities of its
merchants or rulers. As in Crete, the
incentive came from a desire to ob-
tain certain symbolicallycharged
prestige goods (inthe Theran case,
&kl@&t
often of Minoan origin or style)in Each yeat many new discoveries are
order to concentrate and legitimize made that cntich our understanding of
I
power, and from the ability of a small the roots of Western tradition-Since it
elite group to control and support a f btrepotted the diswvery of the Dead
labor force that produced finished Sea Scrolls in 1947, BibliculAtrhacdo-
goods for trade (Manning1992). gist has led the way with &hating
repom of the latest field work.Pub-
The cataclysmic destruction lished quattetl~&A is beginning its
suffered by the town of Akrotiri 55th yeat of timely challenging articles.
(towardthe end of LMIA)buried it in
up to 30 meters of volcanic ash and
debris. Thera itself was devastated,
and there is little doubt that the
Press, PO.Box 15399, Atlanta, GA
entire Aegean area -especially the 303330399.lldiIndivktua orders must
southern Aegean and Crete-was bcprcp;udbydrcdcormoncyotder
somehow affected by ash fallout, if drawn on a United States bank or by
not tidal waves. Shipsat sea may VISAorMastetCard.Forhtetmvice
have been battered but, because tidal
wavesbuildupto their greatestheight
and velocity when they encounter
shallowwater, ships in port would
have been destroyed utterly. As a re-
sult, shipping and trading within the
Aegean region must have been cur-
tailed, and some scholars argue that
this (hypothetical)series of related Crad number
events must have broken Minoan Expitation date
control over Aegean seas.
It must be cautioned that a natu- Name
ral event like a volcaniceruption (and
its most devastatingeffects)occurs
within a very short period of time.
If a series of calamities or a major -ay
historical event like the (presumed)
BiblicalArchaeologist, September 1992
destruction of the Minoan fleet (and
thus the collapse of Minoan mari-
time power) are attributed to the
same natural cause, the associated
archaeological levels -from which
such arguments are generated -and
the historical event must be shown
convincingly to belong to precisely
the same date (Davisand Cherry
1990: 196-98). Our current level of
understanding, measuring and coor-
dinating the occurrence of prehistoric
events makes this a Herculean task.
However, archaeologists and
physical scientists now agree that
stratified finds of Theran pumice and
tephra (volcanicsubstances)at sever-
al sites in the south and east Aegean
belong to a relative sequence late in
the LM IA pottery phase (Renfrew,in
Hardy, with Renfrew 1990: 11,242).
Yet if the causes of the destruction
levels at Akrotiri and at other sites
in the Aegean cannot be attributed
strictly to the same natural event (as
just argued),the eruption of Thera
cannot be held responsible for the
collapse of Minoan civilization. And
even if earthquakes connected with
the eruption caused some localized
destructions, most scholars now con-
cur that the series of catastrophes on
Crete, which seriously undermined
its preeminent position within the
Aegean, occurred during the LM IB
(not the LM IA) pottery phase. It is,
therefore, doubly difficult to demon-
strate any association between the
eruption of Thera and the demise
of Minoan culture and political
domination.
Along with the city-states of Ialysos and
Camiros, that at Lindos formed a major
Rhodian center during the Classical period.
During the Early Bronze Age, there was also
on important site at Lindos, on Rhodes'east
central coast. With the exception o f Lindos,
and as was the case during the Iron Age and
later periods, sites were concentrated along
the more fertile northwest coastal plain. The
sparse settlement o f the equally fertile north-
east coast perhaps resulted from its lack o f a
suitable harbor. The Bay o f Bianda, where the
important Late Bronze Age sites of Ialysos and
Bianda were situated, provided a natural
harbor, albeit one that offered little shelter
from the northwest winds and rain. Photo
courtesy of Christopher Mee.
116 Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
The Collapse of Minoan Power: as at least a century later),the grand
The Post-Palatial Period on Crete palace at Knossos was destroyed by
Nearly all excavated Minoan sites - fire, which clearly diminished Knos-
with the possible exception of Knos- sian influence over the island as a
sos- show evidence of damage, de- whole. Regional Minoan cultures
struction or desertion toward the end continued to flourish at sites such
of the LM IB period. Whether caused as Khania in the west, Kommos and
by human or natural agents, these Hagia Triada on the south coast, and
destructions were followed eventual- Palaikastro in the east; but palatial
ly by extensive rebuilding in a style life on Crete -and Minoan hegemony
hardly less elaborate than that of the in the Aegean-clearly had come to
palatial era. Even if Knossos was not an end.
destroyed, it too was remodeled at Because this political and eco-
this time in the same manner. nomic collapse, and the subsequent
Settlement all over Crete con- cultural transformations, occurred
tracted during the subsequent, LM II at a time when Minoan power -in
period, and henceforth Knossos was archaeological terms -seemed at its
the only functioning palatial center. peak, it is one of the enduring enig-
Other sites, furthermore, emulated mas in Mediterranean prehistoric
developmentsat Knossos. At the same archaeology. Over the past 50 years,
time, there was limited Mycenaean the LM IB destructions and the fol-
(i.e.Greek mainland)influence on lowing Minoan collapse have been
Crete: "warriors"were buried with attributed to such singular, exclusive
extensive weaponry (inthe ~ y c e n a e i factors as the Theran eruption, earth-
an fashion);unprecedented military quakes and fires, a Mycenaean inva-
themes were depicted in the frescos sion, or an internal revolution. The
that adorned the rebuilt palace at collapse of dominant early states at
Knossos; pottery reminiscent of My- their peak is not uncommon, how-
cenaean styles was produced; and the ever, and is demonstrated by such
Linear B script was used (towrite the examples as that of Mesopotamia
Mycenaean Greek dialect),which at during the Old Babylonian (Middle
least partially replaced Linear A. Bronze Age) or Neo-Assyrian (Iron
Finally, at some much disputed point Age) periods, or of Egypt during its
in time (oncethought to be within New Kingdom (LateBronze Age).
the first half of the fourteenth cen- The reasons marshaled to explain
tury B.C.E.but now generally regarded collapse- spiraling costs of various
The Late Minoan I A t o w n o f 7tianda on
Rhodes covered more than 12 hectares and
revealed abundant evidence of Minoan con-
tacts: large-scale t o w n planning and architec-
tural design, pottery, fresco fragments, bronze
statuettes and a pair o f Minoan-style "horns
o f consecration."Although m a n y scholars
therefore tend t o regard W a n d a as a Minoan
colony or outpost, such a designation ignores
the fact that W a n d a underwent a significant
expansion and elaboration during t h e Late
Minoan I B period, while smaller settlements
grew u p around the core town. n i a n d a would
have served as the first Aegean port for ships
and traders arriving from Cyprus, the Levant
or Egypt, and would have been a logical point
at which to transship cargo from Cypriot or
Levantine ships onto local carriers. Drawing
courtesy of Christopher Mee.
sorts, overspecialization, expansion
of territory (andthe inability to main-
tain control over it)- are certainly
valid in part (Yoffee1988),but specific
historical or cultural factors will
have precipitated these more com-
mon processes.
Political power and economic
predominance on Minoan Crete were
most likely disrupted by several inter-
locking factors. The Theran eruption,
for example, resulted at most in some
structural stress on the Minoan sys-
tem near the end of the LM IA period.
Tephra fallout may have affected agri-
culture in the short term, and other,
related factors may have disrupted the
smooth course of trade (especially in
metals) throughout the south and
eastern Aegean (including southwest
Anatolia). Subsequent earthquakes
during LM IB may have caused some
social strife or economic setbacks on
Crete, but are unlikely to have pre-
cipitated a complete cultural collapse.
Mycenaean influence is evident -
especially beginning in the mid-
fourteenth century B.c+E.-butMino-
an material culture remained strongly
in evidence: Linear A continued to be
used at least throughout LM II; and at
Knossos the Linear B archives reveal
that three-quarters of the names men-
tioned are non-Greek. Crete, in other
words, remained staunchly Minoan
to the end.
External factors, however, may
also have upset the balance of power
within Crete: increasing Mycenaean
,,
0 #
::
:j
::::::::::::: :
,: :
,: 1------------ .----
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - A L---.
m
power on the Greek mainland may
have disrupted the supply of metals
or other resources coming from or
through that quarter (thusexplaining
the increased presence of Cypriot
oxhide ingots on LM IB-LM I11 Crete,
between about 1500-1300 B.c.E.-
Muhly 1987);Hittite expansion
in Anatolia and north Syria may
have disrupted long-standing Mino-
an links with those areas. As a result
of these circumstances, if not others,
the multiple domains of power on
Late Minoan Crete were broken,
and-at first-an internal revolution
may have resulted in the temporary
concentration of power at Knos-
sos. Subsequently, during the late
fourteenth-thirteenth centuries
B.c.E.,settlements with distinctive
regional characteristics spread across
the island, and contacts with the
central Mediterranean began to be
cultivated. But Crete never regained
its position of dominance within the
Aegean and, like all states large and
small in the eastern Mediterranean,
it suffered further economic and sys-
temic stress at the end of the Late
Bronze Age (about 1200 B.c.E.-
Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
Liverani 1987; Shrimpton 1987).
Rhodes. The archaeological situa-
tion on Rhodes in the Dodecanese
("twelve-islands")has one important
thing in common with those on
Cyprus, Crete and the Cyclades:
clandestine and illegal excavations in
tombs during the nineteenth century
produced a multitude of pottery-
including a wealth of Mycenaean-
type pottery-whose findspots (and
thus cultural contexts) have been
lost forever.
Throughout the Dodecanese
(including Rhodes), archaeological
evidence for the Early and Middle
Bronze Ages is still poorly attested.
Excavations at Late Bronze Age sites
by Italian, British and Danish teams -
in the late nineteenth and early twen-
tieth centuries- have been continued
and expanded in recent decades by
the Greek Archaeological Service
(Dietz and Papachristodoulou 1988).
Because of the abundance of Minoan
and (laterin time)Mycenaean pottery
that characterizes the excavated sites,
there still exists an unfortunate ten-
dency to refer to "Minoan" Trianda
or "Mycenaean"Ialysos (Mee 1982,
117
1988; Benzi 1988),rather than to the first Aegean port for traders
evaluate the full range of material in coming from the east (no Middle or
its Rhodian context. Late Bronze Age sites are known
With regard to shipping and along the southern coast of Anatolia,

:
I

trade, Rhodes suffers from a dearth of and Rhodes is the first known stop- 1
natural harbors. The Bay of Trianda,
for example, offers little shelter from
ping place west of Cyprus -Portugali
and Knapp 1985: 52-53). Trianda -1 --- \..,
northwest winds and rain, even would have been the obvious port in
though the proximity of the Anatoli- which to transship cargo from Cyp- \

an plateau moderates the north wind,

and ameliorates winter temperatures
on Rhodes. Excepting the important
Early Bronze Age site of Lindos on
the east central coast, the heaviest
concentration of sites is found along
the fertile northwest coastal plain.
Two key Late Bronze Age sites -
Trianda and Ialysos -lie near the
northwestern tip of Rhodes. The
riot or Levantine ships onto local
ships; the site thus may have con-
a \ - :%
'd
trolled much of the trade coming into
the southeast Aegean from points
farther east. In such a situation, one
might expect to find more evidence d
of eastern Mediterranean contacts at
Trianda or other Rhodian sites. If
the Minoans actually dominated
Rhodes, however, and controlled the - - .- #

equally fertile northeast coast was flow of prestige goods or essential

sparsely settled, as was the whole raw materials through the island (so After about 1350 B.c.E.; the Late Bronze Age
southern part of the island (partially ensuring their continued transport on Rhodes is best known from the large
swampy, poor agricultural land). If to Crete), the limited amounts of cemetery site o f Ialysos, which contained
contacts between Rhodes and the eastern Mediterranean materials more than 125 tombs o f "Mycenaean"type.
A range of pottery from these tombs (55sam-
Aegean region seem particularly in- found on the island would be more ples) analyzed by optical emissions spectro-
tense (less so but still evident with understandable. scopy indicated that most LHIIIA-B wares
After what appears to be earth- from Ialysos (like the kylix above) were
Cyprus), the island's comparative imports, whereas most o f the LH lllC wares
lack of Levantine or Near Eastern quake damage, the large LMIA town (like the jug below) were locally produced.
goods poses an enigma. at Trianda underwent some renova- Because fine Mycenaean pottery like this
The material culture of the ear- tion. But those renovations were dis- m a y have been reserved exclusively for mor-
tuary use, one should not extrapolate from
liest, Middle Bronze Age settlement rupted and left unfinished, perhaps the 55 samples analyzed to the entire corpus
at Trianda is local in character but as one outcome of the massive vol- o f Late Helladic (Mycenaean)pottery found on
interlaced with "Trojan" (northwest canic eruption on Thera (Doumas Rhodes. Photos courtesy o f Christopher Mee.
Anatolian) elements (Marketou 1988:
27-28). A subsequent, "Late Minoan
I N town covered more than 12 hec-
tares (contemporaryAkrotiri on
Thera was about 20 hectares); so
much evidence of Minoan contact -
large-scaletown planning, architec-
tural design, pottery, fresco fragments,
a pair of stone "horns of consecration,"
bronze statuettes -has been found
in Trianda, that it is now widely re-
garded as a Minoan colony (Fururnark
1950; Marketou 1988: 28-31). Such a
classification tends to mask the fact
that Trianda-like contemporary
Akrotiri and many Minoan settle-
ments-underwent a remarkable
expansion and elaboration during
the LMIB period, while smaller
settlements developed around the
core town.
LMIA Trianda was a port town,

118 Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992

1988; Marketou 1990).Tephra from
several places in northwest Rhodes -
including stratigraphic excavations
at Trianda, and a layer up to 1 meter
thick found during the opening of a
sewer ditch- has been analyzed as
Theran in origin. Although Trianda
was partially reconstructed in LMIB,
and in fact continued to be occupied
until the mid-fourteenth century
B.c.E.,the new town was reduced in
size and limited in habitation to the
northern sector, nearest the sea. The
LMIB and Late Cypriot I pottery
found in this stratum suggests that
overseas links remained open; the
increasing presence of Mycenaean
pottery (Late Helladic 11-IIIA2)in the
upper layers indicates the same, but
perhaps with changing economic
orientations.
Evidence for Late Bronze Age
settlement on Rhodes ends with the
apparent abandonment of Trianda
(sometime during the fourteenth
century B.c.E.).For the following cen-
turies, the (mortuary)evidence is
overwhelmingly one-sided-based on
the massive cemetery site at nearby
Ialysos (Mee 1988).Intensive survey
work on Rhodes, furthermore, is
sorely lacking, and thus the entire
dimension of settlement pattern
analysis is denied to us. The ceme-
tery at Ialysos contained more than
125 chamber tombs (of "Mycenaean"
type) and hundreds of Mycenaean
pottery vessels, dated between about
1400-1200 B.C.E.(LHIIB-LHIIIC;Mee
1982, 1988).Some pottery from this
cemetery has been analyzed geo-
chemically (todetermine its origin),
and almost all of the LHIIIA-IIIBpots
proved to be imports (from Greece or
Crete);the reverse holds true for the
LHIIIC pottery (chiefly of local ori-
gin; Jones and Mee 1978).These pro-
portions should not be extrapolated
to encompass all Mycenaean pottery
found on Rhodes since; for cultural
reasons unknown to us, these fine
Mycenaean painted wares may have
been reserved for mortuary use.
Given the nature of the evidence,
it is inappropriate to characterize
Rhodes simply as a Minoan colony
during the first 200 years of the Late
Bronze Age, and as a Mycenaean en-
clave thereafter. Evidence from the
end of the Bronze Age (LHIIIC),more-
over, demonstrates local production
of "Mycenaean1'-typepottery, and
indicates that most second-order
settlements on the island had been
abandoned. Although these develop-
ments are often viewed as yet another
influx of Mycenaeans (refugeesthis
time), they could equally be seen as
reflecting internal change on Rhodes,
namely the nucleation of settlement
near Ialysos, for reasons yet to be
determined.
The presence in the Ialysos
tombs of a variety of metal artifacts
(including gold and silver),amber,
glass ornaments, beads of semipre-
cious stones (including rock crystal),
and even the odd seal and Egyptian
scarab (Mee 1982:45-46; Benzi 1988),
attests to far-flungeconomic relations
of some sort, even if Aegean materials
dominate most tomb assemblages.
It should be reiterated that Rhodes
offered significant locational advan-
tages within the eastern Mediterra-
nean: it has the first known major
settlement and port west of Cyprus,
and at the same time is the first major
stopping place after an extended sea
journey (approximately half the dis-
tance between Cyprus and mainland
Greece, and two-thirds of the dis-
tance between Cyprus and Crete);
the island of Rhodes is an important
junction along this route, because
the journey westward splits at this
point into two branches (toCrete, or
to the Cy~ladeslGreece)~ as both port
and junction, it may have hosted for-
eign ships at dock for several days at
a time, while products were unload-
ed or reloaded for transshipment
(Portugali and Knapp 1985: 53).
Although some scholars- nota-
bly Lord William Taylour - once
argued on the basis of pottery form
and decoration that Rhodian sailors
ventured as far west as South Italy
and Sicily, geochemical analyses
have failed to corroborate such a sys-
Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
tem of trade (thepottery in question
most likely emanated from main-
land Greece, and was shipped both
east and west- Jones and Mee 1978).
Even conservative prehistorians
would agree that intra-Aegeantrade-
with Rhodes at the easternmost
perimeter- involved a great deal of
entrepreneurial activity within a pre-
monetar); economy, where metals
and other goods may function as
valuables and move in all directions
(as dictated by demand for those
products). Although Minoans and
My~enaeanscertainly participated
in Late Bronze Age trade throughout
the eastern Mediterranean (including
Rhodes and the Dodecanese general-
ly),there is no reason to insist that
they had to establish full-fledged colo-
nies in order to do so. As it currently
exists, the archaeological record of
Late Bronze Age Rhodes suggests
that a group of Minoan or Mycenaean
merchants may have been quartered
at Trianda or Ialysos to handle the
transshipment of goods to and from
Cyprus and the Levant. In such a
system Rhodian elites would have
sought to emulate and acquire cer-
tain types of prestige goods from the
Aegean core area.
Sardinia and the Shardanu
Sardinia, with its 24,800 square kilo-
meters, is the second largest island
(after Sicily) in the Mediterranean.
At no point does Sardinia lie closer
than 200 kilometers to the Italian
mainland; yet only 12 kilometers
separate it from Corsica (55kilo-
meters from the mainland),which
probably served as the stepping-
stone in the earliest colonization
of both islands.
In many respects, the material
and documentary evidence that per-
tains to the west Mediterranean
island of Sardinia parallels that of
the eastern Mediterranean islands.
Texts that mention the Shardanu (or
Sherden-if indeed this term can be
associated with the Bronze-Early
Iron Age inhabitants of Sardinia-
have been studied at great length by
119

philologists, but are often cast by east-
em Mediterranean archaeologists in
rather dubious historical scenarios
(forexample, Dothan 1986).Efforts
of archaeological superintendents
on Sardinia during the 1980s have
dramatically expanded our knawl-
edge of the island's archaeological
record (especiallythat of the Bronze
and Iron Ages).But the type of de-
tailed information available on mate-
rial culture, settlement patterns, and
chronology in the Aegean and eastern
Mediterranean has yet to be paral-
leled in Sardinia and the western
Mediterranean. Recent archaeologi-
cal excavations and archaeometal-
lurgical research by Italian, British
and American teams have cast impor-
tant new light on contacts between
the east and west Mediterranean
Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
trast to the situation in the Aegean
and eastern Mediterranean. Deeply
felt notions about the superiority
of Classical Greek and Roman civi-
lization, together with a focus on
the complex, urban, literate cultures
of the Bronze Age, promoted the
widespread participation of foreign
archaeologists throughout the eastern
Mediterranean and Aegean. Because
Sardinia was regarded as a culturally
less complex society, and because its
unique stone monuments -nurag)u -
were regarded as crude in comparison
with the palaces of Minoan Crete (or
even the "temples"of Malta),"main-
stream" Mediterranean archaeolo-
gists shunned fieldwork on Sardinia
(Becker 1980).
Yet even this exclusionary tactic
failed to stifle interest in Sardinia's
metal resources, and in the ever-
increasing number of copper oxhide
ingots (of typically eastern Mediter-
ranean shape)found on the island.
Until very recently, however, this
evidence has always been interpreted
as the result of Aegean or eastern
Mediterranean colonists, merchants
or metalsmiths exploiting Sardinia's
resources (seeLo Schiavo and others
1985; Vagnetti and Lo Schiavo 1989:
23.1-33; compare Chapman 1985:
115-16; Bietti Sestieri 1988; Knapp
between about 1600-1000 B.C.E. i990b: 142-43). In fact strong argu-
(variouspapers in Marazzi and others ments can also be mounted for local
1986; Balmuth 1987; Lo Schiavo and production by indigenous miners (Lo
others 1990;Tykot and Andrew 1992). Schiavo 1986),perhaps stimulated by
Yet the study and understanding of demand from a wider, Late Bronze
the mechanisms of Mediterranean Age Mediterranean trade system.
trade overall is still in its infancy: The nature of island life during
often it is no more than a scholar's the "Copper"Age and Early Bronze
geographical area of training, or their Age (about 2800-1800 B.c.E.) is poor-
approach to the material in question, ly documented in comparison with
that leads to suggestions of ethnic our knowledge of developments on
preeminence-for example, by Ca- Sardinia during the centuries be-
naanites, Cypriotes, Mycenaeans, tween 1800-500 B.C.E. (the"Nuragic
or even Sardinians-and economic periodlLthe upper limit suggested by
control over the trade that brought the few radiocarbon dates available
eastern Mediterranean goods and for Bronze Age Sardinia-Lo Schiavo
materials to central or west Mediter- 1981).The precursors of Nuragic soci-
ranean ports (BiettiSestieri 1988; ety in Sardinia, and an understanding
Knapp 1990b). of the economic and political basis
The history of archaeological of pre-Nuragic society, are still mat-
exploration on Sardinia stands in con- ters for speculation (Lewthwaite
1986);in fact, even the economic
factors that stimulated east-west
Mediterranean contacts during the
Nuragic period are limited to the
realm of hypotheses. At this stage,
a chronological framework for Late
Bronze Age Sardinia is only a pious
hope; the dates that exist rely chiefly
on stratigraphic associations among
Aegean, eastern Mediterranean and
Sardinian artifacts.
The nuraghi are ubiquitous,
often well preserved features on the
Sardinian landscape. Attempts to
understand their cultural signifi-
cance have been limited by inatten-
tion to the total social and spatial
context in which these monumental
towers were situated and by the ex-
tremely limited chronological con-
trols available. More than 7,000
nuraghi have been inventoried and
mapped (Gallin 1987, 1989).Most
are modest single-tower structures,
but about 2,000 are elaborate multi-
tower complexes -occasionally with
heavy curtains walls, stone galleries,
bastions and subsidiary towers- that
went through several building stages.
Long thought to have served exclu-
sively military or defensive functions
in prehistoric Sardinian society (for
example, fortresses, signal towers,
refuges),the amount of occupational
and domestic debris recovered in
most excavated nuraghi suggests
that many served as habitations (in
times of danger perhaps as fortified
refuges for those who lived in the
adjacent villages). There is still no
evidence for economic specializa-
tion in the few excavated nuraghi
(for example, potters, metalsmiths
or even soldiers),or for a postulated
medieval type system, with rustic
lords and village peasants (Lewth-
waite 1986).
During a long period of occupa-
tion, abandonment, rebuilding and
use (fromabout 1800 B.c.E.-1000c.E.),
nuraghi must have served a variety
of domestic and other (defensive,
pastoral, ceremonial) functions.
Within any given 10-50square kilo-
meter area, it is possible to find not
only examples of all three types of
nuraghi (proto-,simple, complex),
but also of other civil or ceremonial
types of architecture: tombs, wells,
"temples" and "meeting houses." Such
groupings may indicate regional or
sub-regionalpolities and could reflect
sociopolitical hierarchies, particu-
larly when measured in terms of ar-
chitectural elaboration, living space,
exotic trade goods (finepainted pot-
tery, ivory),and perhaps even access
to metal resources or goods. Webster
(1991)has sought to understand the
long-term use of nuraghi by employ-
ing an ethnographically based,
"multiphase" model: in general,
nuraghi would have functioned as
fortified, single family residences,
which underwent specific changes
from non-permanent pastoral camps
(pre-Nuragicperiod), to permanent,
autonomous, tribally organized,
agro-pastoral homesteads (about
1800-1250 B.c.E.),and finally to high
status, residential family compounds
within villages that formed part of a
sub-regional, small scale chiefdom
(1250-500 B.c.E.).The period between
about 1250-900 B.C.E. witnessed the
elaboration of many single story
towers into large, multi-tower com-
plexes, and the development of village
settlements immediately surround-
ing them; it is, therefore, a time often
regarded as the high point of Nuragic
culture on Sardinia.
During the thirteenth century
B.c.E.,a few examples of Mycenaean
pottery and a miniature ivory head
of Mycenaean style arrived on Sar-
dinia (FerrareseCeruti and others
1987).Within 100years, "Aegean-style"
pottery had become widespread (even
if not in great quantities): it is found
at eight different sites, four of which
are situated on or very near the sea-
coast. Of these, the Nuraghe Anti-
gori, on the south central coast, con-
tains about 90 percent of the several
hundred extant Aegean-style vessels
or sherds thus far recovered. Of the
80 or so Aegean-style sherds sampled
and examined by geochemical analy-
sis, only about half proved to be im-
Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
ports (Jonesand Day 1987; Jones and
Vagnetti 1991).Most painted pottery
vessels or sherds appear -in the eyes
of specialists -to be local copies of
the more exotic imports.
This situation nonetheless
argues for some level of Aegean in-
fluence on local potters, and the
Aegean technique of making wheel-
made pottery may have influenced
the local manufacture of fine hand-
made wares (forexample, ceramica
grigia -"grey wares").Aegean and
other eastern Mediterranean artifacts
or influence, especially in metallur-
gical products, may have figured as
exotica to be emulated or exchanged
by elites within an intraisland net-
work. With the exception of the large
number of Aegean-style (and a few
Cypriot-style)sherds at the Nuraghe
Antigori, the exotic pottery is scat-
tered randomly, in small numbers,
among several sites around the island.
The distribution of metal finds
in Sardinia, while more widespread
than exotic pottery, still lacks any
patterning indicative of centrally or-
ganized production or trade. Archae-
ological excavations have recovered
two types of copper ingots: plano-
convex (or"bun")ingots, and oxhide
ingots (many of the latter lack prove-
nience -Lo Schiavo 1989).The oxhide
ingots are very similar in form and
weight to those commonly found in
the Aegean and eastern Mediterra-
nean. Of the plano-convex ingots and
Sardinian metal artifacts that have
been sampled for chemical and iso-
topic analyses, most show a similar
composition and were almost cer-
tainly produced from Sardinian ores
(Gale and Stos-Gale 1987; Stos-Gale
and Gale 1992).Oxhide ingots ana-
lyzed (from 15 sites) have a more
pure copper content, and show close
similarities in geochemical compo-
sition to eastern Mediterranean in-
gots. Many of these analyzed oxhide
ingots may well be of Cypriot origin
although, in principle, it is still pos-
sible that some were local products
made to conform to a Mediterranean-
wide standard of value.
121
 Although clear indications exist
of metallurgical production- includ-
ing the numerous tools that could
have been used for mining (LoSchiavo
1986-there is no firm evidence of
local metal workshops. Certainly no
known site could be construed as a
center for commercial scale produc-
tion, nor were nuraghi usually lo-
cated to take advantage of known
metal ore deposits. So far, there is no
clear correlation between the size of
nuraghi and metallurgical finds on
an interregional scale, as might be
expected with Sardinia's spatially
restricted ore sources and apparent
overseas trading contacts. Although
many of the largest nuraghi have
yielded little evidence of metalwork-
ing or of overseas trade, this may sim-
ply be the result of the small number
of Nuragic sites thus far excavated.
Until it is possible to assess the
level of specialization in pottery
or metal production on Sardinia, and
in particular to see how the output
of the coastal centers compares to
that in settlements islandwide, it
will be difficult to judge adequately
the relationship between metallur-
gical production and trade, and
settlement nucleation. Even at the
Nuraghe Antigori, with its hundreds
of "Aegean-style"pottery vessels or
sherds and indicators of incipient
iron metallurgy, the local context is
poorly understood: the suggestion
that it was an important trading
emporium serving as a gateway for
Mediterranean products is at this
time no more than an intriguing
proposition (FerrareseCeruti and
others 1987: 25-27).
Although the evidence is still
limited, geochemical analyses of
pottery and isotopic analysis of metal
ores, artifacts and ingots show that
different Nuragic sites received a
variety of both local and imported
goods (Gale and Stos-Gale 1987).If
such variability among sites is sus-
tained with increasing archaeologi-
cal evidence and larger numbers of
analyzed samples, it might be more
realistic to speak of coastal trading
Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
centers as standing at the apex of a
settlement hierarchy, with prestigious
goods traveling to inland sites via
some sort of "down-the-line"trading
system (Knapp 1990b).In such a sce-
nario, the suggestion of multi-towered
Nuragic complexes on the periphery
of a settlement system, with smaller,
single-towernuraghi at the center,
must also be reassessed carefully
(Gallin 1987):such "peripheral"com-
plexes could have served as conduits
between neighboring polities. If it
were possible to confirm or reject
such a hierarchical model of settle-
ment, it would help resolve the debate
over local versus foreign exploitation
of Sardinia's copper resources. Fur-
thermore, the proposed relationship
between settlement ranking and
metallurgical activity could be re-
considered on a sound, empirical
basis. If the nuraghi were grouped
hierarchically, it may be predicted
that the higher status settlements
will reveal evidence of control over
copper production or trade, and over
the interisland exchange of other,
prestige-related goods.
The spatial, temporal and ana-
lytical relationships between the
plano-convex (local products?)and
oxhide ingots (imports?)must be
reconsidered fully. Whatever the
outcome, solid evidence exists for
indigenous metalworking: bronze
and lead artifacts, bronzesmith's
tools, molds for casting tools and
implements, clay crucibles for melt-
ing ores, and several metal "hoards"
recovered from Nuragic villages (Lo
Schiavo 1986).Such an array of evi-
dence for secondary melting, refining
and production of copper provides
reasonable support for primary metal-
lurgical production. Neither in the
realm of copper production and trade,
nor in that of pottery production and
the distribution of other exotica, is
there any demonstrated need to pos-
tulate the presence of Mycenaean
colonists or Cypriot metallurgical
specialists. The frequent occurrence
of a copper oxhide ingot weighing
from 30-35 kilograms (approximate-
ly 66-77 pounds) in the Aegean,
the eastern Mediterranean (Cyprus,
Anatolia, the Levant) and the central
Mediterranean (Lipari,Sicily, Sar-
dinia) suggests an accepted standard
for weight and purity (LoSchiavo and
others 1985: 10-13; Gale and Stos-
Gale 1987: 136; compare Bass 1967:
71-72), and makes it possible that
all these areas were part of a broader
Mediterranean trade system.
If the oxhide ingots recovered on
Sardinia were produced in Cyprus, as
isotopic analysis suggests, they may
represent nothing more than the eco-
nomic response by Cypriot entrepre-
neurs to the collapse of the eastern
Mediterranean trade system (about
1200 B.c.E.).If SO,this response would
have been an attempt to maintain a
lucrative copper trade in the central
Mediterranean in the face of the in-
tensified commercialization of iron
in eastern markets (Knapp1990b).On
Sardinia, increased contact with and
demand from the eastern Mediterra-
nean may have strengthened tenden-
cies toward a hierarchical ordering of
settlements, extraneous to the inter-
nal system but integral to an external,
Mediterranean system. Such centers,
coastal or otherwise, should reveal
the clearest evidence for contacts
with the Aegean world or Cyprus,
and- once excavated more exten-
sively- should provide important
new evidence for understanding the
sociopolitical and economic dynam-
ics of Nuragic culture.
The Mediterranean Islands and the
Ancient Near East: Discussion
Cuneiform and hieroglyphic or hier-
atic documents, dated primarily to
the second millennium B.c.E.,refer
only sporadically to the major island
polities of the Bronze Age Mediterra-
nean. These texts are both limited in
number (compared to the total body
of Near Eastern documentary mate-
rial) and uneven in nature; they are
concerned with idiosyncratic matters
often devoid of interest to philologists
or even to historians. Many seem to
have little bearing on, and certainly
no one-to-one relationship to, the ar-
chaeological record of the island to
which they refer. Although epig-
raphers and philologists have studied
these documents at length, their
concern with lexical, syntactic or
grammatical questions has seldom
resulted in rigorous historical or cul-
tural treatments. Historians and ar-
chaeologists, for their part, have not
always used textual materials in a
suitably critical fashion, but rather
have tended to ward selectivity in
culling documents to reconstruct
cultural or historical scenarios that
focus on individual sites or supple-
ment individual viewpoints.
What, then, can be said generally
about the nature and intensity of ties
between Mediterranean island cul-
tures and the mainland ancient Near
East? Cyprus shows the clearest evi-
dence -material and documentarv-
for contacts with the Near East, bk-
tween about 1800-1100 B.C.E. Cunei-
form records from Mari mention the
copper of Alashiya as early as the
nineteenth-eighteenth centuries
B.C.E.Through time, and especially
during the centuries between about
1600-1300 B.c.E.,Cypriot copper be-
came an important trade commodity
throughout western Asia and Egypti
as the Amarna Letters demonstrate,
the ruler of Cyprus was firmly in con-
trol of the Mediterranean side of this
trade by the mid-fourteenth century
B.C.E.Besides copper, an extraordi-
nary variety of goods was involved in
the Cypro-Asiatic or Cypro-Egyptian
trade (Knapp 1991: 21-68): food (bar-
ley, grain),wine and resins; horses
and oxen; precious metals (gold, sil-
ver);clothing (linen,leather, wool,
hides) and blankets; woods (ebony,
boxwood) and ivory; oils, (olive and
vegetable oils, myrrh, myrtle, various
"perfumed"oils), aromatics and dyes
(blue-purple,red, gold, green).By the
end of the Bronze Age, Cyprus's eco-
nomic orientations increasingly
turned toward the Aegean and the
central Mediterranean.
Documentary evidence alone re-
cords Levantine and Asiatic elements
within Cyprus's polyglot society of
the fourteenth-thirteenth centuries
B.C.E.(Hurrians, Semites, Hittites,
Egyptians).By the early eleventh
century B.c.E.,a bronze spit inscribed
with a Greek personal name (from a
tomb near Paphos in the southwest)
suggests that Greek-speaking people
had attained some prominence on the
island (Masson and Masson, in Kara-
georghis 1983).In both cases, the
archaeological evidence corresponds
in part to these likely ethnic orienta-
tions. The fact that exiles banished
from Syria and Anatolia turned up
on Cyprus indicates some sort of
mutual - albeit perhaps strained -
relationship. Such a picture is not
denied by the (Hittite-backed?)mari-
time raids of the Lukka and Ahhiya wa
The issue of interrelationshim between
the Bronze Age Aegean and Egypt or the
Levant has alwavs been a volatile one.
based largely on archaeological evidence
(or on controversial documentary evidence).
against Cypriot coastal towns, or by
the battle fought between Hittite-
controlled ships and other ships from
Cyprus (although the latter were not
necessarily Cypriot ships).Perhaps
because political relations with Egypt
had a strong economic flavor, on the
whole they were more amicable than
Cypro-Asiatic relations. And yet,
when Cypriot merchants were re-
tained in Egypt (or perished there),
the king of Cyprus had to appeal for
their return (and for the dead man's
personal effects-unuti: el-Amarna
letter 35: 30-34; see Knapp 1991: 49).
Cypriot contacts with Egypt,
Hatti and the Syrian polities cen-
tered at Ugarit and Mari were diverse,
Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
often intense, and spread over several
centuries. The provision of Cypriot
copper to these states formed the
mainstay of such contacts, and the
wealth realized from this trade helped
to transform Cyprus from a circum-
scribed, village-basedsociety into a
highly coordinated, international
state system. In so doing, wittingly
or unwittingly, the reigning powers
of ancient western Asia opened up
a valuable nexus for trade with the
wider Mediterranean world. Al-
though the full ramifications of this
trade only became fully apparent
with the ventures of the Phoenicians
in the early Iron Age, Near Eastern
contacts with the Aegean world had
become quite intense by the Late
Bronze Age, at least in some instances
through Cypriot intermediaries.
The issue of interrelationships
between the Bronze Age Aegean and
Egypt or the Levant has always been
a volatile one, based largely on ar-
chaeological evidence (or on contro-
versial documentary evidence).It is,
moreover, charged and constrained by
nineteenth century preconceptions
that disallowed any significant level
of Semitic cultural impact upon the
Bronze Age precursors of Classical
Greek civilization. These views have
altered dramatically over the past five
years. Two recent doctoral theses de-
tail a broad range and large number
of material exchanges between the
Aegean and the Near East (Lambrou-
123
Phillipson 1990; Cline 1991b);Martin
Bernal's controversial new study
Black Athena (two of four projected
volumes have appeared- 1987, 1991)
maintains that Egyptian - and to a
lesser extent Levantine - cultural and
linguistic influences on the Aegean
world began as early as the first half of
the second millennium B.C.E.(with
an Egypto-Levantine colonization of
the Aegean) and played a central role
in the formation of Greek civiliza-
tion. However, the impact of Egypto-
Levantine influence on the Aegean
(and particularly on mainland Greece)
during the Early and Middle Bronze
Ages remains hypothetical at best;
the Minoan-style fresco recently
found in the Egyptian Delta perhaps
suggests that cultural influences
flowed in the opposite direction.
I pointed out earlier that, perhaps in
the wake of commercial exchanges,
some rulers of Minoan Crete may
have emulated aspects of Near East-
ern ideology in order to enhance their
own political roles. At most, such
contacts would have intensified intra-
The Shardanu
mong the groups of Sea Peoples men-
A tioned in Near Eastern documen-
tary evidence, the best known are the
Plst, or Philistines, who settled in the
southern Levant and gave their name to
the region still known as Palestine. Other
groups, whose association with various
ethnic elements or geographic locations
remains contentious, included the Lk
(Lycians?),7?s (Etruscans?),S k l ~or Skl
(Sicilians?), Dnyn (Danuna? Danaan
Greeks?)and the ShardanulSherden, fre-
quently equated with Sardinians (Tykot
1989, 1991).
The Shardanu first appear in cunei-
form texts as Egyptian mercenary troops
stationed in Levantine garrisons (four-
teenth century B.c.E.) or fighting with
Ramesses I1 against Hittites at the Battle
of Kadesh in southern Syria (thirteenth
century B.c.E.).Ugaritic administrative
texts of the thirteenth century B.C.E. also
mention the Shardanu; some were mobi-
lized for military service by the royal pal-
ace, and others received royal land grants,
124 Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
Aegean competition to obtain prestige
goods from the Near East, and thereby
sparked sociopolitical or economic
development within the Aegean.
The Keftiu textual and icono-
graphic evidence makes it clear that
Aegean peoples visited Egypt during
the mid-second millennium R.C.E.
These contacts were certainly com-
mercial in nature, even though the
Egyptians chose to describe them as
tributary-and thus politically moti-
vated-in the tomb texts that depict
the Keftiu. Mycenaean material con-
tinued to reach Egypt until the thir-
teenth century R.c.E., although it
is uncertain if this resulted from
direct contacts or through Levantine
intermediaries.
Even if it is accepted that
Amenophis 111's well-known statue
base, which mentions several Aegean
and Cretan place names, recorded
the visit of an Egyptian emissary to
the Aegean during the fourteenth cen-
tury R.c.E., it is a radical and otherwise
ill-founded notion to maintain - as
Rernal does- that this demonstrates
presumably as payment for their military
activities. By the reign of the Egyptian
pharaoh Merneptah late in the thirteenth
century B.c.E.,the Shardanu had switched
allegiance and appear among a group of
"Libyan" allies defeated by pharaoh in
Egypt's western delta.
Since this group of "Sea Peoples" also
included the S k l ~and 7?s (Sicilians and
Etruscans?),as well as the IkwS and Lk
(Achaeans and Lycians?),might it be re-
garded as a Mediterranean group of raid-
ers? Some of them would then have been
the logical precursors of groups who later
migrated westward and gave their names
to Sardinia, Sicily and Etruria. In such a
scenario, the groups repulsed in Egypt
must have scattered widely, or wandered
for long, indeterminate periods of time,
before settling in their final destinations.
The Shardanu reverted to their role as
Egyptian accomplices in the Libyan strug-
gles of Ramesses 111, early in the twelfth
century B.C.E.In Ramesses' eighth year,
however, in the inscription cited in the
Egyptian suzerainty (overlordshipl
over the Aegean. The statue base in
cluestion was only one of five that
lined a court in Amcnophis 111's fu-
nerary temple; many of the places
mentioned on the other bases (for
example, Hatti, Arzawa, Assyria,
Mitanni, Babylonia) could never be
considered as subservient to Egypt.
Bernal's challenge to the accepted
orthodoxy about the nature of Aegean-
Near Eastern relations during the
second millennium B.C.E. should and
will force scholars to reconsider cer-
tain colonial, racist and political con-
cepts that have served to propagate
European ethnocentrism in interpre-
ting the past. However, his notions
of Egyptian or Levantine coloniza-
tions in the Aegean are not persua-
sive, and in fact confuse the nature
of economic and political-ideological
processes at work in the Bronze Age
Mediterranean.
Within the Aegean, Crete's loca-
tion proved to be strategic for east-
west trade and communications. As
its material record demonstrates,
first part of this study (BA 55: 52), the
Shardanu and the WSS were defeated and
brought as captives to Egypt by the thou-
sands I". . . like the sand of the shore").
Allowing here for a bit of pharaonic hyper-
bole, this inscription may describe the cli-
max of the battles waged by the Egyptians
against the Sea Peoples.
The Shardanu appear next- together
with the Plst and Skl- in an early eleventh
century B.C.E. Egyptian text (the Onomas-
ticon of Arnenope) that refers to the towns
and peoples of Canaan (the southern Le-
vant).By this time, the pioneering interest
of Bronze Age Cypriots and Aegeans in
the centrallwest Mediterranean had been
appropriated- or at least supplemented-
by the Iron Age Phoenicians (Muhly 1985).
The earliest archaeological evidence of
Phoenician settlements or trading sta-
tions at western Mediterranean sites is no
earlier than the ninth century B.C.E. How-
ever, the eleventh century B.C.E.dating
(basedon the writing style)of a Phoenician
inscription found at Nora in Sardinia (the
during the centuries between about
1600-1150 B.c.E.,Crete increasingly
became involved in a n interregional
exchange system (or interlinked sys-
tems) that extended from Sardinia
(perhaps even from Spain's south-
eastern coast) in the west to the
Euphrates and Jordan rivers in the
east. As the KeftiulKaptaru docu-
ments demonstrate, the Aegean
world-particularly Crete - had a
recognized political status among
contemporary Near Eastern states
and enjoyed good economic relations
with Egypt, Mari and Ugarit. A va-
riety of goods locally grown or pro-
duced in the Aegean were exported
to Egypt and the Levant, and certain
Levantine items were transshipped
to Egypt on Keftiu ships. In exchange,
a range of Egyptian, eastern Mediter-
ranean and Near Eastern goods -tin,
copper, faience, alabaster, seals and
scarabs, pottery and stone vessels
(and their contents) and a n array of
organic goods -arrived from the east.
Crete's active involvement in this
trade enriched its own culture, helped
"Nora Fragmentl'Cross 1972), together
with a proposed eleventh century B.C.E.
dating for certain Phoenician figurines,
suggest that the Phoenicians were explor-
ing the central Mediterranean two cen-
tuties before they began to reside in that
area. Another inscription found at Nora
(the"Nora Stone") is even more significant
for this discussion: it indicates that, bv, the
, unlikely, and in any case has not been
ninth century B.c.E.,some people called
Shardanu dwelt on the island of Sardinia
(Cross 1988).
The link between the Shardanu-
now friend, now foe of the Egyptians-
mentioned in cuneiform and hieroglyphic
documents of the centuries between about
1400-1150 B.c.E., and the Shardanu of the
ninth century B.C.E. (Phoenician) Nora
Stone, is vague and difficult to substanti-
ate. To make the link historically valid,
it must be demonstrated that some of
the Levantine Shardanu had established
themselves (perhaps in a merchant colony
or quarter) on Sardinia, as Phoenician
traders or raiders, by the ninth century
to secure and vitalize the palatial
economy, and expanded its horizons
far beyond the Aegean world. Like
the situation on Bronze Age Cyprus,
Cretan contacts with the Near East
helped to transform the island's in-
terregional political-economic stand-
ing in the broader Mediterranean
world, and perhaps served- after
about 1400 B.c.E.-to stimulate Aege-
a n maritime activities in the central
Mediterranean.
Despite the reservations of
Aegean prehistorians, Mycenaean
linguists, and Hittitologists, the
Ahhiya wa-Achaiwa correspon-
dence - circumstantial though it
must remain- seems eminently de-
fensible: it opens a window o n Aege-
an military and political maneuvers
i n western Anatolia (less so in Cy-
prus), indicates that diplomatic rela-
tions existed between the two areas,
and makes it possible to consider
anew the quasi-historical aspects
of the Trojan war portrayed in the
Homeric epics. The proposed cor-
respondences should not be regarded
B.C.E. Although the trade in bulk metals
(i.e copper "oxhide" ingots) provides one
material link between the eastern and
central Mediterranean that hints at such
an association, that trade had ceased by
about 1000 B.C.E. (LoSchiavo 1986: 238-
40; Muhly and others 1988:283).The role
of the Phoenicians in that trade seems
demonstrated.
The Phoenicians, nonetheless, not
only functioned as purveyors of luxury
and manufactured goods, but also came to
monopolize the vital trade in raw materi-
als (Frankenstein 1979).By so doing, they
filled demand for these basic materials in
various lands of the Mediterranean (Cy-
prus, Italy, North Africa, Malta, southern
France, Spain and the Balearic islands).
Sardinia, rich in both copper and silver-
bearing lead ores, may have become an
important supplier of these metals, par-
ticularly since the western Mediterranean
remained fully in a0BronzeAgel'economy
until well into the first millennium B.C.E.
Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
as an attempt to reduce Mycenaean
pottery, the Ahhiyawa and Homer's
Achaean Greeks to a single, simplis-
tic, material-documentary entity.
Rather they represent an attempt to
reconsider converging, or at least
parallel, streams of evidence as as-
pects of sociopolitical and economic
interactions in the Bronze Age east-
ern Mediterranean world.
As is the case with the Sea Peo-
ples i n general, what we are able to
say about the Shardanu, Plst, IkwS
and others, or even about Ahhiyawa,
is limited because their identifica-
t i o n ( ~with
) a specific country can-
not be established beyond doubt.
Thus the archaeological record of
that country or region cannot be
contrasted or compared to the docu-
mentary evidence without exercising
great caution and heeding strict
caveats.
The upheavals that triggered the
demographic disruptions and eco-
nomic setbacks that became a hall-
mark of the century from about
1250-1150 B.C.E. are still debated.
(Sandars 1969: 25-26). Although some
scholars have suggested that Sardinia
served as a "middleman" in the transport
of tin from Cornwall (England)or western
Iberia to the eastern Mediterranean, in fact
the Phoenicians would have more readily
filled this (still hypothetical) role.
Are the Shardanu, then, simply one
group of Phoenicians, known in first mil-
lennium B.C.E.Sardinia by their earlier
ethnic name? Whereas the Onomasticon
suggests that some Shardanu perhaps
lived in the vicinity of Tyre during the
eleventh century B.c.E., the Nora Stone
confirms that other Shardanu dwelt on
Sardinia in the ninth century B.c.E., and
in addition makes reference to a person
called Pummay, thought to be Pygmalion,
King of Tyre (831-785 B.c.E.). Such evi-
dence, often regarded as definitive, is as
best persuasive and circumstantial; it
establishes a very tenuous link between
Shardanu and Sardinia acrcss a period
of almost 300 years and a space of 2,000
kilometers.
One thing, however, seems evident:
the collapse of eastern Mediterranean
states and the movements of the Sea
Peoples must be regarded as interre-
latedphenomena, not as simple cause
and effect. Economic and political
disruptions led to demographic dis-
placement, which led to further tur-
moil and disruption and helped set
in motion a process about which an-
cient historians and archaeologists
understand very little. Tribal move-
ments occurred on the mainlands
(Kaska in northern Anatolia; Arama-
eans and Israelites in the Levant).
The economic blockade established
by the Hittites at Levantine ports
against Assyria was probably only
one of many factors that destabilized
a tenuous economic balance. Docu-
mentary evidence also reveals that
famine seriously affected certain
areas of the eastern Mediterranean
at this time, and climatic change
may also have played a part.
Sociopolitical, economic and
ideological factors unique to each
Ahhiyawa
T he tombs full of Mycenaean pottery
in the cemetery at Ialysos led some
scholars to characterize Rhodes as one
of the most important Mycenaean cen-
ters outside of Greece. As such, Rhodes
was equated by some with the land of
Abhiyawa, mentioned in Hittite cunei-
form texts of the fifteenth-thirteenth cen-
turies B.C.E.Emil Forrer (1924),a Swiss
scholar who studied these texts in the
1920s and 1930s, maintained that, al-
though linguistically problematic, Ahhi-
yawa was the Hittite way of writing Greek
Achaiwa, which he equated with the
Achaean Greeks of the Homeric epics.
Ferdinand Sommer (1932), a German
scholar, strongly contested Forrer's equa-
tion; he felt that the resemblance between
Ahhiyawa and Achaiwa was entirely
superficial, and that Ahhiyawa most
likely referred to a western Anatolian
state. The debate continues to this day.
Over the decades Ahhiyawa has been
identified variously as an Anatolian king-
dom, the Mycenaean kingdom on main-
126 Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
area contributed to the overall col-
lapse throughout the Aegean and
eastern Mediterranean. Communica-
tions were disrupted severely, while
brigandage on land and piracy at
sea complicated international trade.
These were not new phenomena: be-
ginning at least in the fourteenth cen-
tury B.c.E.,groups like the Lukka and
the Ahhiyawa raided coastal ports
in Anatolia, Cyprus and the Levant,
while other intrusive groups dis-
rupted order at inland urban centers.
The Shardanu, who fought with
or against Egypt as circumstances
dictated, contributed in no small
measure to the chaos. The Shardanu
and their Libyan allies (in the battle
against Merneptah)- Skii, Trs, IkwS
and Lk- may have represented a
Mediterranean group of raiders, but
admittedly there is no evidence to
confirm this suggestion. There is,
furthermore, some inconsistency in
currently held notions that, on the
one hand, would bring some elements
of the Sea Peoples from the Aegean
land Greece, or some island kingdom off
the Anatolian coast [for example, Rhodes
or Cyprus).
The texts make it clear that Ahhi-
yawa enjoyed a prominent political status
in the Late Bronze Age eastern Mediter-
ranean world; the Hittites regarded its
ruler as an equal not only to the kings of
Egypt, Babylon, Assyria and Mitanni, but
to the Hittite king himself. The maritime
component of the Ahhiyawa-state is a
matter of debate (Steiner 1989; compare
Cline 1991a); Ahhiyawa nonetheless
seems to have been in close contact with
several polities in western Anatolia, the
northern Aegean, Cyprus and the Levant.
The subject matter of the Ahhiyawa
sources is predominantly geopolitical or
military in nature, even when it concerns
matters of economics or trade. Ahhiyawa
clearly constituted a forceful presence,
and exercised considerable influence in
the eastern Aegean during the fourteenth-
thirteenth centuries B.C.E.
Ahhiyawa first appears in Hittite
(IkwS)or Anatolia [Lk)to do battle
in the eastern Mediterranean, and
on the other hand suggest that differ-
ent elements (Skii, Trs, Skl) scattered
to the central Mediterranean only
after their setbacks against the Egyp-
tians. Did the same groups of people
who came from the eastern Mediter-
ranean to the Levant and Egypt in
the thirteenth century B.C.E. disperse
to the western Mediterranean in the
twelfth-eleventh centuries B.c.E.? If
so, why? These questions have never
been asked, much less answered.
Given the current state of archae-
ological lznowledge, and the steady
state of the documentary evidence,
our understanding of the causes and
outcomes of these "years of crisis" is
limited, and attempts to explain
politico-economic relationships in
the Bronze Age Mediterranean re-
main very hypothetical {however
well documented and cleverly argued
they may be).
The raids of the Sea Peoples
against international trading em-
texts at a time (fourteenthcentury B.c.E.--
LHIIIA)when there is a significant expan-
sion of Mycenaean activity throughout
the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean.
As a result, several scholars have come to
regard Ahhiyawa in an ethnic sense and
as a term that refers to some part of the
Mycenaean world (whether or not one
accepts the linguistically problematic
equation of Ahhiyawa and Achaiwa-
Guterboclz and others 1983; Bryce 1989a,
1989bj compare ~ n a 19911.
l Mycenaean
commercial ventures became increasingly
unified during the fourteenth-thirteenth
centuries B.C.E. (when the activities of the
Ahhiyawa reached their peak].The easily
recognized, often standardized Mycenaean
pottery is found throughout the Mediter-
ranean, from Egypt and the Levant in the
east to Sardinia and Spain in the west
(Leonard 1987; Martin de la Cruz 1990;
Hanlzey and Leonard unpublished).Does
it not push the limits of credibility to dis-
miss as mere coincidence the contempo-
raneity of two prominent polities -with
poria signaled the end of an era of
piracy. Pirates, it must be remem-
bered, thrive on consistent, lucra-
tive, commercial shipping ventures.
The Sea Peoples' quest, however, had
become more desperate, a search for
sustenance rather than wealth. By
devastating port cities in Cyprus and
all along the Levantine coast, they
finally destroyed their own prey, and
in the diaspora that followed, dis-
persed (or returned?)-at different
paces and in different ways -to sev-
eral Mediterranean shores. The
Egyptian monuments, in other words,
record the end of a chain reaction,
behind which lay a highly complex
series of ethnic intermixings and
demographic displacements.
The Shardanu, like the Philis-
tines (Plst)and Lukka, and the in-
habitants of Ahhiyawa and Keftiu/
Kaptaru, were a seafaring people.
There is nothing in the relevant evi-
dence - archaeological or documen-
tary-that precludes an argument
maintaining that the Shardanu
remarkably similar names-that make
their greatest impact in the same region
at the same time? Bryce (1989a) points
out that Ahbiyawa is well-known from
documentary records but lacks any mate-
rial trace, while the Mycenaean Greeks
are well attested archaeologically but
unknown in the contemporary textual
evidence.
While the circumstantial evidence
for the Ahhiyawa-Mycenaean equation
is persuasive, some scholars harbor seri-
ous reservations. Because documentary
evidence directly related to Bronze Age
Greece is limited to what may be gleaned
from Linear Baccount tablets (orextrapo-
lated from the much later Homeric epics),
many Mycenaean linguists and Aegean
prehistorians find it difficult to acknowl-
edge a sqgdicant Mycenaean political and
military involvement in western Asia.
Others suggest that a higher dating for the
Hittite A)?hiyawatexts (fifteenthcentury
B.c.E.) would make it plausible to identlfy
A)?)?iyawawith the "Minoanized"centers
played some role in east-west trade
by the eleventh century B.C.E.Such a
scenario, however, would necessitate
a firm link not only between Shar-
danu and Sardinia, but also between
the Shardanu and some element of
the Phoenicians. If these links are
valid, it means, first, that the popu-
lation dispersal, which followed the
Sea Peoples' raids on Egypt, was a
long and drawn out affair, and sec-
ond, that it is only in the context of
Phoenician prospection, mercantile
expansion and colonization, in the
ninth-eighth centuries B.c.E., that
the descendants of the Sea Peoples
imposed their names on the central
Mediterranean islands of Sicily and
Sardinia.
Exclusively ethnic terms like
Shardanu or Skli present consider-
able difficulties for historical recon-
struction. All scholars involved with
these matters have not accepted the
equations used without hesitation
in this study: Alashiya with Cyprus;
Keftiu with the Aegean; Kaptaru
of the southeast Aegean (from Rhodes
north to Miletos on the Anatolian coast-
Melas 1988: 118).
However one regards the historicity
of the Trojan war as presented in the
Homeric epics (as myth, as history, or as
some combination of the two -McNeill
19861, it is widely believed that the rele-
vant archaeological levels in the mound
of Hissarlik in northwest Anatolia can be
equated with the Bronze Age city of Troy
(Korfrnann 1986, 1990; Zangger 1992).If
this coastal plain in northwest Anatolia
was the setting for a war between Myce-
naean Greeks and Trojans (and by impli-
cation the location of a local Anatolian
polity during the Hittite empire period),
then Hittite texts should at least mention
the area. Forrer drew attention to the place
names Taruiia and Wiluia (which ap-
peared in a list of west Anatolian states
that had rebelled against Hittite rule),and
equated them with 7koy and (W)Ilios. In
addition, one of the kings of Wilus'a was
named Alakiandui, which resembles the
Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
with Crete. Given such restrictions,
is it still ~ o s s i b l to
e situate the island
cultures of the Bronze Age Mediter-
ranean within the cultural and his-
torical framework of the ancient
Near East?
Conclusion
Cultural associations between the
Mediterranean islands and the main-
land Near East are best demonstrated
by archaeological materials that,
in fact, show particularly close,
probably intensive contacts on the
part of Cyprus and Minoan Crete
during the Middle-Late Bronze Ages.
The documentary evidence associ-
ated with the ethniclgeographic
terms Abbiyawa, Alashiya, Keftiu,
Kaptaru and Shardanu provides in-
sight into certain kinds of island-
mainland contacts, most often eco-
nomic or geopolitical in nature. For
example, what we can learn from
textual evidence about relations be-
tween Ahbiya wa and Hittite Anatolia
is decidedly geopolitical or military
name of the Trojan prince Alexander
(Paris,son of Priarn)in Homer's Iliad.
Many scholars reject these equations,
not least because Hittite texts gave no indi-
cation of Wiluialswhereabouts. Recently,
however, the joining of a broken Hittite
cuneiform tablet (aletter written by a vas-
sal Hittite ruler in the west) has indicated
that the kingdom of Wiluia lay precisely
in northwest Anatolia, in close proximity
to the land of Lazpai (argued to be the
northeast Aegean island of Lesbos -Bryce
1985).This development strengthens the
equation of Wiluh with Ilios, and so of
Taruis'a with Troy. Hittite texts dated to
the thirteenth century B.C.E. also reveal
that Wiluia suffered several attacks, some
of which directly involved the king of the
Ahhiyawa, or else benefitted from his
nominal support. The implication, diffi-
cult to accept for many scholars who work
on both sidesof the Aegean sea, is that one
or all of these conflicts provided some of
the historical threads used to weave the
epic tales of the Iliad and Odyssey.
127
in outlook; yet it is clear that the
people of Ahhiyawa were able to ply
the eastern Mediterranean Sea to
their political- and perhaps eco-
nomic - advantage. Whereas docu-
mentary materials that refer to Ala-
shiya and KeftiulKaptaru are pre-
dominantly economic in nature, it is
evident that Cyprus had but a single
ruler (who controlled copper produc-
tion and used state agents [tamkiru]
to conduct the interregional trade in
copper), and that Keftiu was ranked
politically with powerful states such
as Babylon, Hatti, Assur, Ugarit and
Cyprus.
Diverse mechanisms propelled
the elaborate commercial network(s)
and interactions spheres of the
Bronze Age Mediterranean, and dic-
tated the nature and intensity of
Mediterranean contacts with the
ancient Near East. State-controlled
trade was the norm in Cyprus (at
least during the fourteenth century
B.c.E.), as it may have been with the
state of Ahhiyawa. Although some
would argue for an Aegean-wide
Minoan thalassocracy, there are good
reasons to think that a localized sys-
tem of trade existed in the Cycladic
and Dodecanese islands. In any case,
centralized control over some aspects
of trade does not preclude private
enterprise in others. The ethnicity
of the merchants and mariners who
conducted Mediterranean trade may
be deduced from archaeological evi-
dence, or presumed from the evidence
of personal names in documentary
records: together they indicate that
Semites, Hurrians, Anatolians, Egyp-
tians, Minoans, Cypriotes and per-
haps even Mycenaean Greeks were
involved, but there is no acceptable
way to determine who controlled or
directed trade. A Canaanite thalas-
socracy, it may be emphasized, is no
more acceptable than a Minoan one.
Basic hypotheses about entrepre-
neurship, ethnicity and trade are the
best that can be offered at this time:
a multidirectional network of trade -
including royal merchants, itinerant
tinkerers and private individuals
128 Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
(entrepreneurs)-is the picture that Jack L. Davis, Steve 0.Held, Sturt
emerges from the foregoing evalua- W. Manning, and Gary S. Webster.
tion of a diverse body of documen- Thanks also go to Cherry, Held,
tary and archaeological data relevant Manning and Webster for helpful
to Mediterranean island cultures comments on an earlier draft. I am
and the ancient Near East. indebted to several other scholars
A one-to-one correspondence and institutions for providing illus-
between archaeological data and trative material: John F. Cherry,
documentary evidence seldom Cheryl Haldane, Alice Kingsnorth,
exists and, strictly speaking, the J. V. Luce, Christopher Mee, Anna
two should always be kept separate: Michailidou, Alison South, John
they may be confronted or compared Strange, Stuart Swiny, Shelley Wachs-
only when each has undergone care- mann; The Ashmolean Museum,
ful scrutiny and methodological The Musee Borley, and The Metro-
criticism in terms of its own inher- politan Museum of Art. Mr. Todd
ent qualities (Knapp 1992b).When McGee, Senior Editor of BA, played
the documentary evidence is not even the key role in acquiring most of these
contemporary, and in fact belongs illustrations; my sincere thanks
to the realm of "myth-history" (as is to him. In a study such as this, one
the case with the Hebrew Bible or relies heavily on the expertise and
the Homeric epics),the need for generosity of one's colleagues: as a
sound literary criticism becomes result, and in a twist on the usual
even more important. Historical re- disclaimer, I ascribe equal culpability
constructions that conflate material, to them for any errors that appear in
(contemporaneous)documentary this study. A related but very con-
and (non-contemporaneous)epic evi- densed chapter on the same topic
dence present clear methodological will appear in Civilizations of the
problems, and must be handled with Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M.
great care. It requires a bold histori- Sasson (Scribners:New York, sched-
cal stroke to combine these different uled to appear in 1993).
streams of evidence in a coherent
and plausible fashion. For the most
part, only philologists have taken
this initiative, but the results are
tantalizing and have paved the way
for studies that could engage the ar-
chaeological evidence in a far more
comprehensive manner. There is
little firm ground on which to erect
arguments based on ethnicity, and
further discussion of the nature,
course and configuration of contacts
between the Mediterranean and the
Near East would benefit from a more
comprehensive synthesis of evidence
than has been possible in this study.
Acknowledgements
For providing unpublished papers
that made it possible to discuss a
wide range of Mediterranean material
on the basis of very recent evidence,
I am grateful to John F. Cherry and