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
[email protected].
http://www.jstor.org Wed May 23 07:18:44 2007
The "West Courtnseenin the foreground is traversed by the raised "Processional Way" Behind that is the West Wing (upper floor restored), which contained what are believed to be several shrines or sanctuaries, as well as rows o f storage "magazines."Beyond the West Wing is the Central Court, where various activities-like bull-leaping- would have taken place, and finally the East Wing, which probably served as the domestic quarter of the palace. The palace o f Knossos, like most Minoan palaces, was enclosed by an extensive residential area. The palaces stood at the apex of a settlement hierarchy that included 'kountry houses,"smaller towns, ports. farmsteads and "peak sanctuaries." Knossos was the largest and grandest of the palaces, not just in terms of size (about 75 hectares) but also in the quantity o f its administrative paraphernalia (LinearA and Linear B documents and sealings) and in the quality of its pottery, painting, other fine arts and architecture. It remains uncertain, however, whether Knossos ever exercised political or economic control over the rest of Crete. Photo courtesy o f Ekdotike Athenon S.A., Athens.
112
Bronze Age Mediterranean Island Cultures and the Ancient Near East, Part 2 ly A. Ikmwrd Knapp
Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
The Neo-Palatial Period About 1700 B.c.E., an earthquake (or series of quakes) destroyed Crete's first palaces. During the Neo-Palatial period that followed, these palaces were elaborately reconstructed: the magnificent frescos widely recognized as an important hallmark of Minoan civilization adorned the new palace walls. Fine pottery painted with marine and floral designs reveal a specialized level of craftsmanship; a variety of other products -jewelry, engraved gems, bronze items and ivory figurines -indicate unprecedented wealth. Self-sufficient in food and most basic resources (except metals),Minoan Crete reached the apex of prosperity by about 1600B.C.E. as a result of intensified agricultural
(olive and grape) and textile production (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 hierarchy that included "country houses" (second-orderregional administrative centers?),smaller towns, farmsteads and other sites that fulfilled specific functions (forexample, ports, "peak" sanctuaries for religious observances-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 exercised 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 political and economic power revolved 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 frescoes 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 specialization that had been reached by that time, lewelry, engraved gems, metal items and ivory figurines reveal the same sort o f unprecedented 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.
(Manning 1992).Yet even state controlled trade does not preclude merchants 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 suggests that this trade was much more extensive than the material remains alone indicate. Extensive finds of Minoan pottery, 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 colonies, seen as part of an extensive, Knossos-controlled, island empire (latertermed the "Minoan Thalassocracy" by Thucydides -Hagg and Marinatos 1984; Wiener 1990, 1991).
This latter suggestion must be questioned, because the sort of "cultural imperialism" implied by the presence of Minoan goods and influence overseas does not necessarily imply political or even economic domination 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 debates, 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-
su 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 millennium B.c.E., it is likely that prestige 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 exchange -Cherry 1987: 24); the longterm 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 The site of Akrotiri on Thera is the Bronze palaces were (re)builton Crete, AkroAge 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 reconstruction on a grander scale. The Minoan IA period, one of the most dramatic material evidence of this period of eruptions that has occurred on earth since grandeur on Thera has been uniquely the last ice age. The absolute calendar date for the eruption is still a matter o f intense de- preserved by a violent volcanic erupbate: on its resolution hinges the acceptance tion that occurred early in the Neoo f a high or low chronology, which has ramiPalatial period, toward the end of fications for the chronology not only o f the Mediterranean world, but for the cultures o f what Aegean prehistorians call the ancient western Asia and Egypt. The massive Late Minoan (LM)IA period. The abdestruction suffered by the town o f Santorini solute calendar date for the eruption, 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, in and shiuvinn and trade must have been dis. .the LM IA period, is still intensely debated (notedin part 1). rupted j6r some time. From a photograph taken by lames V Luce, author o f Lost In its final two phases of occuAtlantis (2969). pation, the settlement at Akrotiri The site ofAkrotiri on Thera, with a maritime location well suited to trade and communications within the Aegean, shows several signs of a centralized bureaucracy. In addition to the knowledge o f writing, there is good evidence for a standardized measuring system, as indicated by this series o f graduated lead weights excavated at Akrotiri; graduated volumetric measures o f capacity i n pottery vessels have also been proposed. A standardized measuring 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
. ..
.
took on urban characteristics similar to those of the dominant Minoan centers of Neo-Palatial Crete. Akrotirits size alone is exceptional within the MiddlelLate Bronze Age Cyclades: its estimated 20 hectares made it 10-20 times larger than contemporary sites on the Cycladic islands of Kea and Melos, and almost one-third the size of the contemporary settlement 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-determination: Akrotiri's multistoried architecture is unique, and its pottery and other fine arts represent a high Cycladic 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 equivalent to that known from Akrotiri. Unlike other Cycladic islands, where evidence of a highly nucleated settlement pattern (i.e.with one predominant center) has been discovered, 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 settlement, which may have been possible on Thera.) In Minoan terms, Akrotiri, with a maritime location ideally
.
..., .
,-, ',-
-,
.
p .
.1
Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
' .-.
@% . .
.,
p.
..
. I ,
&:. .*, .... m, .
-,
,r-.,
iT'
c
'i
3
...
.
. & ..
me,-
4-
.-::t .
.
F.>,
'-
-
'
-
-
..
C.
.
' 7 ,-
, 3 u
situated for inter-Aegeancommunications, would have represented the headquarters of a centralized bureaucracy. 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 extensiveadministrativeparaphernalia. Still, the hurried abandonment of the site in the face of a volcanic eruption increases the possibility that the excavators may find an administrative 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 extension 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 residents or merchants had direct links with the interregionaltrade and supply system in the eastern Mediterranean. A graduated series of disk welghts has been found at Akrotiri, and graduated volumetricmeasures of capacity in pottery vessels (similar to fractionalvalues proposed for Minoan Linear A signs)have been postulated (KatsarIbmara1990; Michailidou 1990).Both factors indicate -already during the Middle Bronze Age -a standardizedmeasuring system, and suggest that local Theran producers, administrators and merchants regulated commercial exchanges within the Cyclades. On Crete, units of measure for various commoditiesare implied by the Minoan Linear A writing system. If these conceptual similarities in Minoan and Theran calculatingmethods are taken at facevalue, a direct linkor 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 intraAegean 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 intrinsic to long-distance commercial transactions,and soreflect increasing demand from an interregionaltrade network. Akrotiri's economicaffluence must have derived chiefly from the maritime trading activities of its merchants or rulers. As in Crete, the incentive came from a desire to obtain certain symbolicallycharged prestige goods (inthe Theran case, often of Minoan origin or style)in order to concentrate and legitimize power, and from the ability of a small elite group to control and support a labor force that produced finished goods for trade (Manning1992). The cataclysmic destruction suffered by the town of Akrotiri (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 entire Aegean area -especially the southern Aegean and Crete-was somehow affected by ash fallout, if not tidal waves. Shipsat sea may 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 result, shipping and trading within the Aegean region must have been curtailed, and some scholars argue that this (hypothetical)series of related events must have broken Minoan control over Aegean seas. It must be cautioned that a natural event like a volcaniceruption (and its most devastatingeffects)occurs within a very short period of time. If a series of calamities or a major historical event like the (presumed)
--
~&cov(~
&kl@&t Each yeat many new discoveries are made that cntich our understanding of the roots of Western tradition-Since it f b trepotted the diswvery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, BibliculAtrhacdogist has led the way with &hating repom of the latest field work.Published quattetl~&A is beginning its 55th yeat of timely challenging articles.
I
Press, PO.Box 15399, Atlanta, GA 303330399.lldiIndivktua orders must bcprcp;udbydrcdcormoncyotder drawn on a United States bank or by
VISAorMastetCard.Forhtetmvice
Crad number Expitation date
Name
-ay
BiblicalArchaeologist, September 1992
destruction of the Minoan fleet (and thus the collapse of Minoan maritime 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 coordinating 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 several 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 concur 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 demonstrate any association between the eruption of Thera and the demise of Minoan culture and political domination.
The Collapse of Minoan Power: as at least a century later),the grand palace at Knossos was destroyed by The Post-Palatial Period on Crete Nearly all excavated Minoan sites - fire, which clearly diminished Knoswith the possible exception of Knos- sian influence over the island as a whole. Regional Minoan cultures sos- show evidence of damage, destruction 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 Hagia Triada on the south coast, and by human or natural agents, these destructions were followed eventual- Palaikastro in the east; but palatial life on Crete -and Minoan hegemony ly by extensive rebuilding in a style 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 economic collapse, and the subsequent this time in the same manner. cultural transformations, occurred Settlement all over Crete contracted 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 enigOther sites, furthermore, emulated mas in Mediterranean prehistoric developmentsat Knossos. At the same archaeology. Over the past 50 years, the LM IB destructions and the foltime, there was limited Mycenaean lowing Minoan collapse have been (i.e.Greek mainland)influence on attributed to such singular, exclusive Crete: "warriors"were buried with extensive weaponry (inthe ~ y c e n a e i factors as the Theran eruption, earthan fashion);unprecedented military quakes and fires, a Mycenaean invathemes 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, howcenaean 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
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 northeast 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 Late Minoan I A t o w n o f 7tianda on Rhodes covered more than 12 hectares and revealed abundant evidence of Minoan contacts: large-scale t o w n planning and architectural 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 maintain control over it)- are certainly valid in part (Yoffee1988),but specific historical or cultural factors will have precipitated these more common processes. Political power and economic predominance on Minoan Crete were most likely disrupted by several interlocking factors. The Theran eruption, for example, resulted at most in some structural stress on the Minoan system near the end of the LM IA period. Tephra fallout may have affected agriculture 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 precipitated a complete cultural collapse. Mycenaean influence is evident especially beginning in the midfourteenth century B.c+E.-butMinoan 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 mentioned 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 Minoan 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 Knossos. 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 systemic stress at the end of the Late Bronze Age (about 1200 B.c.E.-
Liverani 1987; Shrimpton 1987). Rhodes. The archaeological situation 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 potteryincluding a wealth of Mycenaeantype 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 twentieth 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 tendency to refer to "Minoan" Trianda or "Mycenaean"Ialysos (Mee 1982,
Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
117
1988; Benzi 1988),rather than to evaluate the full range of material in its Rhodian context. With regard to shipping and trade, Rhodes suffers from a dearth of natural harbors. The Bay of Trianda, for example, offers little shelter from northwest winds and rain, even though the proximity of the Anatolian 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 equally fertile northeast coast was sparsely settled, as was the whole southern part of the island (partially swampy, poor agricultural land). If contacts between Rhodes and the Aegean region seem particularly intense (less so but still evident with Cyprus), the island's comparative lack of Levantine or Near Eastern goods poses an enigma. The material culture of the earliest, Middle Bronze Age settlement at Trianda is local in character but interlaced with "Trojan" (northwest Anatolian) elements (Marketou 1988: 27-28). A subsequent, "Late Minoan I N town covered more than 12 hectares (contemporaryAkrotiri on Thera was about 20 hectares); so much evidence of Minoan contact large-scaletown planning, architectural design, pottery, fresco fragments, a pair of stone "horns of consecration," bronze statuettes -has been found in Trianda, that it is now widely regarded 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 settlements-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
the first Aegean port for traders coming from the east (no Middle or Late Bronze Age sites are known along the southern coast of Anatolia, and Rhodes is the first known stopping place west of Cyprus -Portugali and Knapp 1985: 52-53). Trianda would have been the obvious port in which to transship cargo from Cypriot or Levantine ships onto local ships; the site thus may have controlled much of the trade coming into the southeast Aegean from points farther east. In such a situation, one might expect to find more evidence of eastern Mediterranean contacts at Trianda or other Rhodian sites. If the Minoans actually dominated Rhodes, however, and controlled the flow of prestige goods or essential raw materials through the island (so ensuring their continued transport to Crete), the limited amounts of eastern Mediterranean materials found on the island would be more understandable. After what appears to be earthquake damage, the large LMIA town at Trianda underwent some renovation. But those renovations were disrupted and left unfinished, perhaps as one outcome of the massive volcanic eruption on Thera (Doumas
Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
:
I
-1
1 ---
\.., \
a \
:%
-
'd
d
-
- .-
#
After about 1350 B.c.E.; the Late Bronze Age on Rhodes is best known from the large cemetery site o f Ialysos, which contained more than 125 tombs o f "Mycenaean"type. A range of pottery from these tombs (55samples) analyzed by optical emissions spectroscopy indicated that most LHIIIA-B wares from Ialysos (like the kylix above) were imports, whereas most o f the LH lllC wares (like the jug below) were locally produced. Because fine Mycenaean pottery like this m a y have been reserved exclusively for mortuary use, one should not extrapolate from the 55 samples analyzed to the entire corpus o f Late Helladic (Mycenaean)pottery found on Rhodes. Photos courtesy o f Christopher Mee.
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 centuries, 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 cemetery 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 geochemically (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 origin; Jones and Mee 1978).These proportions 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 enclave thereafter. Evidence from the end of the Bronze Age (LHIIIC),moreover, demonstrates local production of "Mycenaean1'-typepottery, and indicates that most second-order settlements on the island had been abandoned. Although these developments 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 semiprecious 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 advantages within the eastern Mediterranean: 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 distance between Cyprus and mainland Greece, and two-thirds of the distance 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 as both port to the Cy~ladeslGreece)~ and junction, it may have hosted foreign ships at dock for several days at a time, while products were unloaded or reloaded for transshipment (Portugali and Knapp 1985: 53). Although some scholars- notably 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-
tem of trade (thepottery in question most likely emanated from mainland Greece, and was shipped both east and west- Jones and Mee 1978). Even conservative prehistorians would agree that intra-Aegeantradewith Rhodes at the easternmost perimeter- involved a great deal of entrepreneurial activity within a premonetar); 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 generally),there is no reason to insist that they had to establish full-fledged colonies 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 certain types of prestige goods from the Aegean core area.
Sardinia and the Shardanu Sardinia, with its 24,800 square kilometers, 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 (55kilometers from the mainland),which probably served as the steppingstone in the earliest colonization of both islands. In many respects, the material and documentary evidence that pertains 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 Sardiniahave been studied at great length by
Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
119
philologists, but are often cast by eastem Mediterranean archaeologists in rather dubious historical scenarios (forexample, Dothan 1986).Efforts of archaeological superintendents on Sardinia during the 1980s have dramatically expanded our knawledge of the island's archaeological record (especiallythat of the Bronze and Iron Ages).But the type of detailed information available on material culture, settlement patterns, and chronology in the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean has yet to be paralleled in Sardinia and the western Mediterranean. Recent archaeological excavations and archaeometallurgical research by Italian, British and American teams have cast important new light on contacts between the east and west Mediterranean
between about 1600-1000 B.C.E. (variouspapers in Marazzi and others 1986; Balmuth 1987; Lo Schiavo and others 1990;Tykot and Andrew 1992). Yet the study and understanding of the mechanisms of Mediterranean trade overall is still in its infancy: often it is no more than a scholar's geographical area of training, or their approach to the material in question, that leads to suggestions of ethnic preeminence-for example, by Canaanites, Cypriotes, Mycenaeans, or even Sardinians-and economic control over the trade that brought eastern Mediterranean goods and materials to central or west Mediterranean ports (BiettiSestieri 1988; Knapp 1990b). The history of archaeological exploration on Sardinia stands in con-
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 civilization, 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),"mainstream" Mediterranean archaeologists shunned fieldwork on Sardinia (Becker 1980). Yet even this exclusionary tactic failed to stifle interest in Sardinia's metal resources, and in the everincreasing number of copper oxhide ingots (of typically eastern Mediterranean 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 i990b: 142-43). In fact strong arguments can also be mounted for local production by indigenous miners (Lo Schiavo 1986),perhaps stimulated by demand from a wider, Late Bronze Age Mediterranean trade system. The nature of island life during the "Copper"Age and Early Bronze Age (about 2800-1800 B.c.E.) is poorly documented in comparison with our knowledge of developments on Sardinia during the centuries between 1800-500 B.C.E. (the"Nuragic periodlLthe upper limit suggested by the few radiocarbon dates available for Bronze Age Sardinia-Lo Schiavo 1981).The precursors of Nuragic society in Sardinia, and an understanding of the economic and political basis of pre-Nuragic society, are still matters 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 significance have been limited by inattention to the total social and spatial context in which these monumental towers were situated and by the extremely limited chronological controls 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 multitower complexes -occasionally with heavy curtains walls, stone galleries, bastions and subsidiary towers- that went through several building stages. Long thought to have served exclusively 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 specialization 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 (Lewthwaite 1986). During a long period of occupation, 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 kilometer 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, particularly when measured in terms of architectural elaboration, living space, exotic trade goods (finepainted pottery, ivory),and perhaps even access to metal resources or goods. Webster (1991)has sought to understand the long-term use of nuraghi by employing 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 complexes, and the development of village settlements immediately surrounding 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 Sardinia (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 seacoast. Of these, the Nuraghe Antigori, on the south central coast, contains 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 analysis, only about half proved to be im-
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 influence on local potters, and the Aegean technique of making wheelmade pottery may have influenced the local manufacture of fine handmade wares (forexample, ceramica grigia -"grey wares").Aegean and other eastern Mediterranean artifacts or influence, especially in metallurgical products, may have figured as exotica to be emulated or exchanged by elites within an intraisland network. With the exception of the large number of Aegean-style (and a few Cypriot-style)sherds at the Nuraghe Antigori, the exotic pottery is scattered 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 organized production or trade. Archaeological excavations have recovered two types of copper ingots: planoconvex (or"bun")ingots, and oxhide ingots (many of the latter lack provenience -Lo Schiavo 1989).The oxhide ingots are very similar in form and weight to those commonly found in the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean. Of the plano-convex ingots and Sardinian metal artifacts that have been sampled for chemical and isotopic analyses, most show a similar composition and were almost certainly produced from Sardinian ores (Gale and Stos-Gale 1987; Stos-Gale and Gale 1992).Oxhide ingots analyzed (from 15 sites) have a more pure copper content, and show close similarities in geochemical composition to eastern Mediterranean ingots. Many of these analyzed oxhide ingots may well be of Cypriot origin although, in principle, it is still possible that some were local products made to conform to a Mediterraneanwide standard of value.
Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
121
Although clear indications exist of metallurgical production- including 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 production, nor were nuraghi usually located 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 metalworking or of overseas trade, this may simply 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 metallurgical 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 sustained with increasing archaeological evidence and larger numbers of analyzed samples, it might be more realistic to speak of coastal trading
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 scenario, 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"complexes could have served as conduits between neighboring polities. If it were possible to confirm or reject such a hierarchical model of settlement, it would help resolve the debate over local versus foreign exploitation of Sardinia's copper resources. Furthermore, the proposed relationship between settlement ranking and metallurgical activity could be reconsidered 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 analytical 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 melting ores, and several metal "hoards" recovered from Nuragic villages (Lo Schiavo 1986).Such an array of evidence for secondary melting, refining and production of copper provides reasonable support for primary metallurgical 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 postulate the presence of Mycenaean colonists or Cypriot metallurgical specialists. The frequent occurrence of a copper oxhide ingot weighing from 30-35 kilograms (approximate-
Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
ly 66-77 pounds) in the Aegean, the eastern Mediterranean (Cyprus, Anatolia, the Levant) and the central Mediterranean (Lipari,Sicily, Sardinia) suggests an accepted standard for weight and purity (LoSchiavo and others 1985: 10-13; Gale and StosGale 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 economic response by Cypriot entrepreneurs 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 intensified commercialization of iron in eastern markets (Knapp1990b).On Sardinia, increased contact with and demand from the eastern Mediterranean may have strengthened tendencies toward a hierarchical ordering of settlements, extraneous to the internal 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 extensively- should provide important new evidence for understanding the sociopolitical and economic dynamics of Nuragic culture.
The Mediterranean Islands and the Ancient Near East: Discussion Cuneiform and hieroglyphic or hieratic documents, dated primarily to the second millennium B.c.E.,refer only sporadically to the major island polities of the Bronze Age Mediterranean. These texts are both limited in number (compared to the total body of Near Eastern documentary material) 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 archaeological record of the island to which they refer. Although epigraphers and philologists have studied these documents at length, their concern with lexical, syntactic or grammatical questions has seldom resulted in rigorous historical or cultural treatments. Historians and archaeologists, 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 supplement individual viewpoints. What, then, can be said generally about the nature and intensity of ties between Mediterranean island cultures and the mainland ancient Near East? Cyprus shows the clearest evidence -material and documentarvfor contacts with the Near East, bktween about 1800-1100 B.C.E. Cuneiform 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 became an important trade commodity throughout western Asia and Egypti as the Amarna Letters demonstrate, the ruler of Cyprus was firmly in control of the Mediterranean side of this trade by the mid-fourteenth century B.C.E. Besides copper, an extraordinary variety of goods was involved in the Cypro-Asiatic or Cypro-Egyptian trade (Knapp 1991: 21-68): food (barley, grain),wine and resins; horses and oxen; precious metals (gold, silver);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 economic orientations increasingly turned toward the Aegean and the central Mediterranean. Documentary evidence alone records 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 Karageorghis 1983).In both cases, the archaeological evidence corresponds in part to these likely ethnic orientations. 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?)maritime raids of the Lukka and Ahhiya wa
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 circumscribed, 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. Although 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
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 Hittitecontrolled 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 retained 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 centered at Ugarit and Mari were diverse,
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 archaeological evidence (or on controversial 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 detail a broad range and large number of material exchanges between the Aegean and the Near East (Lambrou-
Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
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 civilization. However, the impact of EgyptoLevantine 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 Eastern ideology in order to enhance their own political roles. At most, such contacts would have intensified intra-
Aegean competition to obtain prestige goods from the Near East, and thereby sparked sociopolitical or economic development within the Aegean. The Keftiu textual and iconographic evidence makes it clear that Aegean peoples visited Egypt during the mid-second millennium R.C.E. These contacts were certainly commercial in nature, even though the Egyptians chose to describe them as tributary-and thus politically motivated-in the tomb texts that depict the Keftiu. Mycenaean material continued to reach Egypt until the thirteenth 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 century R.c.E., it is a radical and otherwise ill-founded notion to maintain - as Rernal does- that this demonstrates
Egyptian suzerainty (overlordshipl over the Aegean. The statue base in cluestion was only one of five that lined a court in Amcnophis 111's funerary 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 AegeanNear Eastern relations during the second millennium B.C.E. should and will force scholars to reconsider certain colonial, racist and political concepts that have served to propagate European ethnocentrism in interpreting the past. However, his notions of Egyptian or Levantine colonizations in the Aegean are not persuasive, and in fact confuse the nature of economic and political-ideological processes at work in the Bronze Age Mediterranean. Within the Aegean, Crete's location proved to be strategic for eastwest trade and communications. As its material record demonstrates,
The Shardanu mong the groups of Sea Peoples mentioned in Near Eastern documentary 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, frequently equated with Sardinians (Tykot 1989, 1991). The Shardanu first appear in cuneiform texts as Egyptian mercenary troops stationed in Levantine garrisons (fourteenth 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 mobilized for military service by the royal palace, and others received royal land grants,
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 regarded as a Mediterranean group of raiders? 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 struggles of Ramesses 111, early in the twelfth century B.C.E.In Ramesses' eighth year, however, in the inscription cited in the
first part of this study (BA 55: 52), the Shardanu and the WSS were defeated and brought as captives to Egypt by the thousands I". . . like the sand of the shore"). Allowing here for a bit of pharaonic hyperbole, this inscription may describe the climax 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 Onomasticon of Arnenope) that refers to the towns and peoples of Canaan (the southern Levant).By this time, the pioneering interest of Bronze Age Cypriots and Aegeans in the centrallwest Mediterranean had been appropriated- or at least supplementedby the Iron Age Phoenicians (Muhly 1985). The earliest archaeological evidence of Phoenician settlements or trading stations at western Mediterranean sites is no earlier than the ninth century B.C.E. However, the eleventh century B.C.E.dating (basedon the writing style)of a Phoenician inscription found at Nora in Sardinia (the
A
124
Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
during the centuries between about 1600-1150 B.c.E.,Crete increasingly became involved in a n interregional exchange system (or interlinked systems) that extended from Sardinia (perhaps even from Spain's southeastern coast) in the west to the Euphrates and Jordan rivers in the east. As the KeftiulKaptaru documents 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 variety of goods locally grown or produced 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 Mediterranean 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
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 interregional political-economic standing in the broader Mediterranean world, and perhaps served- after about 1400 B.c.E.-to stimulate Aegea n maritime activities in the central Mediterranean. Despite the reservations of Aegean prehistorians, Mycenaean linguists, and Hittitologists, the Ahhiya wa-Achaiwa correspondence - circumstantial though it must remain- seems eminently defensible: it opens a window o n Aegean military and political maneuvers i n western Anatolia (less so in Cyprus), indicates that diplomatic relations 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 correspondences should not be regarded
as an attempt to reduce Mycenaean pottery, the Ahhiyawa and Homer's Achaean Greeks to a single, simplistic, material-documentary entity. Rather they represent an attempt to reconsider converging, or at least parallel, streams of evidence as aspects of sociopolitical and economic interactions in the Bronze Age eastern Mediterranean world. As is the case with the Sea Peoples i n general, what we are able to say about the Shardanu, Plst, IkwS and others, or even about Ahhiyawa, is limited because their identificat i o n ( ~with ) a specific country cannot be established beyond doubt. Thus the archaeological record of that country or region cannot be contrasted or compared to the documentary evidence without exercising great caution and heeding strict caveats. The upheavals that triggered the demographic disruptions and economic setbacks that became a hallmark of the century from about 1250-1150 B.C.E. are still debated.
"Nora Fragmentl'Cross 1972), together with a proposed eleventh century B.C.E. dating for certain Phoenician figurines, suggest that the Phoenicians were exploring the central Mediterranean two centuties 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 ninth century B.c.E.,some people called Shardanu dwelt on the island of Sardinia (Cross 1988). The link between the Shardanunow friend, now foe of the Egyptiansmentioned 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 substantiate. 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
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: 23840; Muhly and others 1988:283).The role of the Phoenicians in that trade seems unlikely, and in any case has not been demonstrated. The Phoenicians, nonetheless, not only functioned as purveyors of luxury and manufactured goods, but also came to monopolize the vital trade in raw materials (Frankenstein 1979).By so doing, they filled demand for these basic materials in various lands of the Mediterranean (Cyprus, Italy, North Africa, Malta, southern France, Spain and the Balearic islands). Sardinia, rich in both copper and silverbearing lead ores, may have become an important supplier of these metals, particularly since the western Mediterranean remained fully in a0BronzeAgel'economy until well into the first millennium B.C.E.
(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 millennium 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 evidence, 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.
,
B.C.E.
Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
One thing, however, seems evident: the collapse of eastern Mediterranean states and the movements of the Sea Peoples must be regarded as interrelatedphenomena, not as simple cause and effect. Economic and political disruptions led to demographic displacement, which led to further turmoil and disruption and helped set in motion a process about which ancient historians and archaeologists understand very little. Tribal movements occurred on the mainlands (Kaska in northern Anatolia; Aramaeans 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. Documentary 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
area contributed to the overall collapse throughout the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean. Communications were disrupted severely, while brigandage on land and piracy at sea complicated international trade. These were not new phenomena: beginning at least in the fourteenth century B.c.E.,groups like the Lukka and the Ahhiyawa raided coastal ports in Anatolia, Cyprus and the Levant, while other intrusive groups disrupted 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
(IkwS)or Anatolia [Lk)to do battle in the eastern Mediterranean, and on the other hand suggest that different elements (Skii, Trs, Skl) scattered to the central Mediterranean only after their setbacks against the Egyptians. Did the same groups of people who came from the eastern Mediterranean 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 archaeological 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 remain very hypothetical {however well documented and cleverly argued they may be). The raids of the Sea Peoples against international trading em-
land Greece, or some island kingdom off the Anatolian coast [for example, Rhodes or Cyprus). The texts make it clear that Ahhiyawa enjoyed a prominent political status in the Late Bronze Age eastern Mediterranean 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 fourteenththirteenth centuries B.C.E. Ahhiyawa first appears in Hittite
texts at a time (fourteenthcentury B.c.E.-LHIIIA)when there is a significant expansion 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 AchaiwaGuterboclz 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 Mediterranean, 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 dismiss as mere coincidence the contemporaneity of two prominent polities -with
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 centers outside of Greece. As such, Rhodes was equated by some with the land of Abhiyawa, mentioned in Hittite cuneiform texts of the fifteenth-thirteenth centuries B.C.E.Emil Forrer (1924),a Swiss scholar who studied these texts in the 1920s and 1930s, maintained that, although linguistically problematic, Ahhiyawa 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 equation; 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 kingdom, the Mycenaean kingdom on main-
126
Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
poria signaled the end of an era of piracy. Pirates, it must be remembered, thrive on consistent, lucrative, 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, dispersed (or returned?)-at different paces and in different ways -to several 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 Philistines (Plst)and Lukka, and the inhabitants of Ahhiyawa and Keftiu/ Kaptaru, were a seafaring people. There is nothing in the relevant evidence - archaeological or documentary-that precludes an argument maintaining that the Shardanu
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 Shardanu and Sardinia, but also between the Shardanu and some element of the Phoenicians. If these links are valid, it means, first, that the population dispersal, which followed the Sea Peoples' raids on Egypt, was a long and drawn out affair, and second, 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 considerable difficulties for historical reconstruction. 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
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 material 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 serious reservations. Because documentary evidence directly related to Bronze Age Greece is limited to what may be gleaned from Linear Baccount tablets (orextrapolated from the much later Homeric epics), many Mycenaean linguists and Aegean prehistorians find it difficult to acknowledge 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
of the southeast Aegean (from Rhodes north to Miletos on the Anatolian coastMelas 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 relevant 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 Mycenaean Greeks and Trojans (and by implication 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 appeared 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
with Crete. Given such restrictions, is it still ~ o s s i b l to e situate the island cultures of the Bronze Age Mediterranean within the cultural and historical framework of the ancient Near East?
Conclusion Cultural associations between the Mediterranean islands and the mainland 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 associated with the ethniclgeographic terms Abbiyawa, Alashiya, Keftiu, Kaptaru and Shardanu provides insight into certain kinds of islandmainland contacts, most often economic or geopolitical in nature. For example, what we can learn from textual evidence about relations between 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 indication of Wiluialswhereabouts. Recently, however, the joining of a broken Hittite cuneiform tablet (aletter written by a vassal 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, difficult 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.
Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
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 economic - advantage. Whereas documentary materials that refer to Alashiya and KeftiulKaptaru are predominantly economic in nature, it is evident that Cyprus had but a single ruler (who controlled copper production 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 dictated 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 system 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 evidence, or presumed from the evidence of personal names in documentary records: together they indicate that Semites, Hurrians, Anatolians, Egyptians, Minoans, Cypriotes and perhaps even Mycenaean Greeks were involved, but there is no acceptable way to determine who controlled or directed trade. A Canaanite thalassocracy, it may be emphasized, is no more acceptable than a Minoan one. Basic hypotheses about entrepreneurship, 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
(entrepreneurs)-is the picture that emerges from the foregoing evaluation of a diverse body of documentary and archaeological data relevant to Mediterranean island cultures and the ancient Near East. A one-to-one correspondence between archaeological data and documentary evidence seldom exists and, strictly speaking, the two should always be kept separate: they may be confronted or compared only when each has undergone careful scrutiny and methodological criticism in terms of its own inherent qualities (Knapp 1992b).When the documentary evidence is not even contemporary, and in fact belongs to the realm of "myth-history" (as is the case with the Hebrew Bible or the Homeric epics),the need for sound literary criticism becomes even more important. Historical reconstructions that conflate material, (contemporaneous)documentary and (non-contemporaneous)epic evidence present clear methodological problems, and must be handled with great care. It requires a bold historical stroke to combine these different 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 archaeological 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
Biblical Archaeologist, September 1992
Jack L. Davis, Steve 0.Held, Sturt W. Manning, and Gary S. Webster. Thanks also go to Cherry, Held, Manning and Webster for helpful comments on an earlier draft. I am indebted to several other scholars and institutions for providing illustrative material: John F. Cherry, Cheryl Haldane, Alice Kingsnorth, J. V. Luce, Christopher Mee, Anna Michailidou, Alison South, John Strange, Stuart Swiny, Shelley Wachsmann; The Ashmolean Museum, The Musee Borley, and The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Mr. Todd McGee, Senior Editor of BA, played the key role in acquiring most of these illustrations; my sincere thanks to him. In a study such as this, one relies heavily on the expertise and generosity of one's colleagues: as a result, and in a twist on the usual disclaimer, I ascribe equal culpability to them for any errors that appear in this study. A related but very condensed chapter on the same topic will appear in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson (Scribners:New York, scheduled to appear in 1993).
