On Aegean Involvement in Trade with the Near East during the Late Bronze Age

Alexander Zukerman, Jerusalem 1

International maritime trade is one of the central subjects in archaeological and historical studies of the Late Bronze Age eastern Mediterranean. One of the thorny topics in this eld of inquiry is the identication of the initiators and agents of trade connections between the Aegean and the Levant. The archaeological record, by its nature, can provide only indirect clues to this end, while the supposedly more informative data from written documents is, unfortunately, meager. Nevertheless, based on what can be gleaned from these two types of sources, scholars have been able to form a view concerning the identity of maritime merchants involved in this activity. Currently, the prevalent view holds that Late Bronze Age maritime trade was conducted by Cypriotes who served as mediators between the Aegean and the Levant. This view, rst articulated by Hankey (1967), was subsequently adopted and developed by other scholars (e. g., Gilmour, 1992 ; Knapp/Cherry, 1994 ; Sherratt, 1998 ; 1999, 183 ; Steel, 1998, 287 ; Hirschfeld, 2004, 101102 ; Artzy, 2006, 5559 ; Bell, 2006; Mee, 2008, 377). According to this theory, Cypriote merchants sold most of the traded Aegean wares (and, in the case of containers, whatever these vessels held) on the island, and the rest of the cargo, which could not be sold, was shipped to the Levant (see, especially, Hankey, 1967, 146 ; Gilmour, 1992, 115, 118). Historically, this position seems to be a reaction to earlier notions that Crete and Mainland Greece were the dominant commercial and colonizing powers in the Mediterranean (the so-called Minoan and Mycenaean thalassocracies; see, for example, Knapp, 1993). The Canaanite involvement in trade connections between the Aegean and the East, inferred from archaeological and written sources, is frequently emphasized as well (e. g., Astour, 1973, 2526 ; Gilmour, 1992, 120; Wachsmann, 1998, 40). The role of Aegeans in this trade is usually downplayed, and few scholars envisage them as taking an active part in it (e. g., van Wijngaarden, 2002, 7; Dabney, 2007 ; van Dongen, 2007, 2021 ; for a more cautious view see Gilmour, 1992, 118). The purpose of the present study is to reassess the role of Aegean merchants in the trade connections with the Levant during the 14th and 13th centuries BCE by examining various relevant groups of trade-

I would like to thank Linda Meiberg from the University of Pennsylvania for reading the article and making valuable comments and suggestions.
1

888

A. Zukerman

[UF 42

related evidence in light of important recent advancements in the eld. The view that Aegeans did not take part in trade relations between the Aegean and the Levant is based on a number of arguments. Foremost is the written evidence from Ugaritic, Hittite and Linear B sources. Until recently, it was argued that no Mycenaean personal names or toponyms are mentioned in written documents from Ugarit, while personal names of many other origins (including Cypriote and perhaps even Minoan) do appear (e. g., Caubet/Matoan, 1995, 100101). In Ugaritic texts, a merchant named Sinaranu is described as sending his ship from Ugarit to Crete (Cline, 1994, 120), but there is no clear historical evidence that Cretan merchants visited Ugarit.2 Newly published texts (Lackenbacher/Malbran-Labat, 2005 ; Singer, 2006) change the picture somewhat by supplying the rst reference to Mycenaean Greeks (Ahhiyawa of the Hittite texts) in the corpus of documents from Ugarit. Two Akkadian letters from the House of Urtenu (RS 94.2523 and RS. 94.2530) dated to the very end of the Hittite Empire mention man of Hiyawa and men of Hiyawa who are in (the land of) Lukka. Singer (2006) interpreted these references as Ahhiyawan merchants staying on the Lycian (southwestern Anatolian) coast and awaiting a cargo of metal ingots to be delivered to them in Ugaritic ships on behalf of the Hittite king.3 Singer also suggested the connection between this episode and the Cape Gelidonya ship that contained metal ingots and sank off the Lycian coast at about the same time (ca. 1200 BCE). Most scholars locate Ahhiyawa in the Aegean ; this polity was probably situated in Mainland Greece, even though other locations were also proposed, and this term sometimes can be understood as a generic reference to the entire Aegean region (Niemeier, 1998, 1925, 43 45; Heinhold-Krahmer, 2003, both with additional references). The men of Hiyawa mentioned in the two Ugaritic letters may originate from the Greek Mainland or the Aegean islands. Alternatively, they can be Mycenaeans (or even Aegeanized Anatolians) from the southwestern or western coast of Asia Minor, which exhibited clear signs of Aegean cultural inuence and settlement activity during the 13th century BCE (Niemeier, 1998; 2005, focusing on Miletos/ Millawanda). As argued by Yasur-Landau (2010, 42), the fact that these men of Hiyawa were located in the periphery of the Aegean region and did not come to Ugarit itself is signicant. Therefore, it can be concluded that, if Singers reconstruction is correct, the two letters from Ugarit present a unique glimpse into direct trade relations between the Mycenaeans and the Near East that took place mid-way between the Greek Mainland and the Levant. Some additional historical data can be interpreted as suggesting that Aegean traders in fact reached, albeit sporadically, certain Levantine coastal cities. The

Crete, however, might have been the destination of the shipwreck discovered at Uluburun. See Cline / Yasur-Landau, 2007, 129, 133134, as well as the discussion below. For a different interpretation that these persons are in fact mercenaries, see Bryce, 2010, 51.
3 2

2010] On Aegean Involvement in Trade with the Near East during the Late Bronze Age

889

so-called augamuwa Treaty found at Boazky and dated to between ca. 1250 and 1225 BCE (Cline, 1994, 124, with additional references), is interpreted by most scholars as including the instruction of the Hittite king to his vassal, the king of Amurru, to stop the ships of Ahhiyawa from sailing to the Syrian coast. Although, due to difculties in its reading and interpretation (Steiner, 1989, 395, 401 ; Jung, 2007, 551552, nn. 67 ; Bryce, 2010, 5051), this document cannot be regarded as unequivocal evidence for the involvement of Aegean merchants (as ships of Ahhiyawa?) in Levantine trade, its relevance for the issue discussed here seems to be under-evaluated in the current research. No Linear B documents were found at Ugarit, while Levantine (or possibly Levantine) personal names and toponyms in the Linear B texts are extremely rare (for a comprehensive list see Yasur-Landau, 2010, table 2.1). These two observations are usually considered as indicating the lack of direct connections between the Aegean and the Levant (Gilmour, 1992, 117 ; Walz, 1997, 1213). However, when put in a broader context, this inference seems to be insufciently compelling, because the appearance of names in ancient documents was inuenced by many different factors. In the specic case of the Linear B texts, it should be noted that these documents deal largely with administration and other internal matters of a polity (taxation, ration lists, storage inventories, etc.), and do not tell much about international connections of any kind (Killen, 1985; Palaima, 1991). For example, despite the close and well-documented relations between Cyprus and the Aegean during the Late Bronze Age, Cyprus is mentioned in the Linear B texts only 4 or 5 times (Cline, 1994, 130, with references). Moreover, these texts contain no references to important areas within the Aegean region, such as the Cyclades and the Dodecanese. In fact, no merchants of any specic origin are mentioned in the Linear B texts at all, impelling Chadwick to completely rebuff the existence of private merchants in Mycenaean society (1976, 156158) and driving Finley to posit that Mycenaeans had no interest in long-distance exchange (1982, 206). It seems, therefore, that the almost complete lack of Levantine personal names or toponyms in Aegean written sources is not necessarily indicative of a dearth of direct trade relations between the Aegean and the Levant (see also Cline, 2010, 177). The presently available Linear B texts simply do not deal with international trade. As demonstrated above, the scant Hittite and Ugaritic sources (3 documents at best) are also rather vague on the subject of AegeanLevantine relations. It seems that, on the basis of written sources alone, it is impossible to make any generalizations concerning the nature and frequency of relations between the Aegean and the Levant. What follows is an examination of the much more abundant archaeological evidence. One of the main archaeological arguments in favor of Cypriote dominance over trade relations between the Aegean and the Levant stresses the fact that in every Levantine site Aegean ceramic imports are accompanied by Cypriote pottery. This association is frequently interpreted as a sign that the merchants who

890

A. Zukerman

[UF 42

traded in both types of wares were Cypriote (Hankey, 1967, 146147; Gilmour 1992; Walz, 1997, 1415 ; Sherratt, 1998, 296 ; 1999, 183 ; Hirschfeld, 2000a, 69; for a similar interpretation of ceramic imports found in Egypt see Merrillees, 1973, 182). In my view, this interpretation is hard to accept for two reasons. First, nds deposited or found together need not have been part of the same cargo, nor were they necessarily marketed by the same traders. Both Aegean and Cypriote pottery were considered to be valuable goods of foreign origin, and, when found together in situ, their association is indicative only of the manner in which they were consumed, not of the way they were traded. Second, the distribution network that supplied foreign wares to consumers in Levantine hinterland settlements was certainly managed by local merchants who purchased the goods in coastal emporia and re-sold them elsewhere, in the down the line manner. The conclusion is that maritime traders, whether of Cypriote or of any other origin, had nothing to do with the manner in which Aegean pottery was consumed and subsequently deposited, particularly in inland Levantine settlements and cemeteries. Provenance studies have shown that the vast majority of Aegean ceramic imports to the Levant, Cyprus and Egypt was produced in the Argolid and perhaps also in Corinthia (e. g., Jones, 1986, 542571; Mountjoy/Mommsen, 2001 ; Badre, et al. 2005 ; Zuckerman et al., 2010). Thus, Mycenae and its environs were the major production center of the Aegean ceramic imports found in the Levant, and it is quite probable that some of the products manufactured in Mycenaean workshops were destinied for foreign markets (kerstrm, 1987, 119). Moreover, that same area yielded by far the largest assemblage of Levantine objects found in the Greek Mainland (Cline, 1994). Based on these observations, Dabney (2007) proposed that Aegean merchants tried, with varying degrees of success, to establish direct trade relations with Egypt and the Levant, and that direct trade existed between Mycenae and some Levantine ports.4 According to her reconstruction, Mycenae was the major center of trade with the Eastern Mediterranean, although additional Aegean towns, such as Kommos, Tiryns and Thebes, were involved in this trade as well. Each of these Aegean centers had its own independent connection with Levantine ports, selling tablewares, wine and scented oils (in ceramic containers), and buying luxury raw materials and objects (ivory, faience, glass and precious metals). Although a few of Dabneys reconstructions are highly speculative (e. g., the details of port-to-port connections between the Aegean and the Levant), her conclusion concerning the direct nature of the trade relations between the two regions deserves close attention. In favor of this conclusion, one may consider it improbable that the owners of the Mycenaean ceramic workshops would sell all

The existence of direct diplomatic contacts between the Aegean and Egypt during the 14th and 13th centuries BCE, recently proposed by Kelder (2009 ; 2010), requires further study.
4

2010] On Aegean Involvement in Trade with the Near East during the Late Bronze Age

891

their products to Cypriote middlemen and thus place their industry into dependence upon foreign traders. Rather, on the part of the Argolid elites who controlled these workshops it would be natural to attempt using their naval powers to secure a stable overseas market for their production (see also van Wijngaarden, 2002, 7; for the Aegean ships see Wachsmann, 1998, 123161). By exercising at least some degree of control over the marketing of their products to the East, they would maximize their prots. Some Aegean vessels imported to Cyprus and the Levant bore Cypriot-style painted or incised marks that were added to the vessel after ring. This often serves as evidence for heavy Cypriote involvement in the trade in Aegean wares (e. g., Walz, 1997, 15; Sherratt, 1999, 183). Hirschfeld, who studied these marks (1993 ; 2000b; 2004; 2006), concluded that they appear most commonly on closed vessels (containers) of both Cypriote and Aegean manufacture, on Canaanite jars, as well as on some local Levantine vessels of various other types. Post-ring marks, according to Hirschfeld, are typical of Cyprus. Some of the more complex marks are similar to Cypro-Minoan signs, and, therefore, this system of markings might be associated with Cyprus.5 Since there is no correspondence between the type of sign, the type of vessel they appear on, and the archaeological context of the vessels, these signs were made by persons who traded in them, and these persons were apparently Cypriotes. In order to evaluate this suggestion, it is important to note that although sites such as Enkomi, Tell Abu Hawam, and Ugarit yielded a large number of marked Aegean imports, from several tens up to 250, only a small fraction of Aegean vessels on the whole found in Cyprus and the Levant is marked (Hirschfeld, 2004, 99). Due to their relative rarity (about 1% of all Aegean imports), it would therefore appear that marked Aegean vessels cannot be regarded as a clear indication that the trade in Aegean vessels was conducted exclusively by Cypriote merchants, particularly as far as the appearance of these imports in Canaan is concerned. However, it should be emphasized that this reservation is not signicant enough to negate the possibility of the considerable degree of involvement of Cypriotes in the trade in Aegean pottery (and whatever it contained). What seems to be more questionable is the notion of the Cypriote hegemony over this trade. In my opinion, Hirschfelds conclusion that marks on Aegean vessels were made by Cypriote traders should not be understood as absolute. For example, in the case of marked Aegean vessels found in the Greek Mainland, Hirschfeld suggested that the marks were made either by Cypriots (travelling or resident) or by non-Cypriots who employed Cypriot methods of keeping track of vessels (2006, 86). In the same spirit, it can be proposed that many non-Cypriote (rst and foremost Canaanite, as well as Aegean) traders used a similar marking system, adopting it from their Cypriote colleagues and adapting it to their own

The denition (and identication) of Cypro-Minoan signs is, however, not without its problems. See Palaima, 1989 ; Davis, 2010, 4347.

892

A. Zukerman

[UF 42

needs. Hirschfeld herself (2000b, 182183) argued that marks on Canaanite jars from Ugarit represent a different system of signs, unrelated to Cypro-Minoan,6 and it is very likely that these signs were made by local Ugaritic traders or ofcials who modied the Cypriote marking system.7 This scenario ts well with the general cultural background of the Late Bronze Age central and eastern Mediterranean, where numerous cultural features were transmitted from one region to another (e. g., Bouzek, 1985; Maran, 2004; Hitchcock, 2005 ; 2008). Some additional relevant data come from Tell Abu Hawam, which is frequently interpreted as a Cypriote trade emporium (e. g., Artzy, 2006, 59). This site yielded numerous Aegean vessels with incised Cypriote-style signs, yet no Canaanite jars with this type of signs were found (Balensi, 1980, vol. 1, 557 558). Their absence at Tell Abu Hawam is curious since marked Canaanite jars are well-known from other places primarily from Cyprus, but also from Levantine sites such as Ugarit (Hirschfeld, 2000b, 165). If Canaanite jars were brought to Tell Abu Hawam by Cypriote traders, and if these signs were indeed a ngerprint of a Cypriote commercial network, then at least some of the jars found at the site would probably be marked. Therefore, it seems that, in the case of Tell Abu Hawam, these were local south Levantine merchants who traded in Canaanite jars, and Cypriote as well as Canaanite traders shared the anchorage facilities of the town. This case demonstrates that the notion of merchants of the same origin (in this case, Cyprus) as dominating a certain Late Bronze Age emporium is inherently problematic. In fact, regarding the numerous Aegean tablewares found in Tell Abu Hawam, Balensi (1980, vol. 1, 485486) suggested that they were used by Mycenaeans who visited the town.8 In addition, Aegean cooking pots were found at the site, including a Mycenaean cooking jug (g. 1:1) and fragments of one or more Minoan cauldrons (g. 1:3 ; see also Balensi, 1980, vol. 3, 55), alongside Levantine cooking pots (Artzy, 2006, g. 9:13) and a Cypriote frying pan (g. 1:2). These admittedly sporadic nds suggest that, if a variety of cooking wares found in Tell Abu Hawam reect the origins

Some jar handles from other Levantine sites had signs identied, with varying degrees of plausibility, as Cypro-Minoan (e. g., Yasur-Landau / Goren, 2004 ; Cross / Stager, 2006). To the best of my knowledge, the possibility that some of the marked Canaanite jars from Ugarit were made on Cyprus (cf. Hadjicosti, 1988 ; strm, 1991) was not examined by provenance analysis. Note that Masson (1974, 16) dened a variant of Cypro-Minoan script typical of Ugarit. The fact that both Cypro-Minoan inscriptions and Cypriote-style marks on vessels from Ugarit exhibit special characteristics is of interest. See also Gilmour, 1992, 118. Dabney (2007, 193194) suggested that open Aegean vessels found in some Levantine sites were used in feasts by both Mycenaeans and the local inhabitants. This hypothesis is perhaps valid for Tell Abu Hawam but is extremely problematic with regard to other Levantine towns where there is no evidence for integration of Aegean-style cultural practices into the local lifestyle (Yasur-Landau 2010, 195 200).
8 7 6

2010] On Aegean Involvement in Trade with the Near East during the Late Bronze Age

893

of the merchants who traded there, then the Aegeans, while most probably not being a dominant factor, certainly visited the harbor.9 Indeed, according to Artzy (2006, 55), among cooking ware from Tell Abu Hawam, we nd a staggering variety, which indicates the varied origins of the ships frequenting the international anchorage there. The apparent multi-cultural mercantile nature of Tell Abu Hawam and other East Mediterranean ports, as suggested by the various types of data reviewed here, does not support the notion that Aegeans were totally excluded from Levantine trade.

Figure 1: Aegean and Cypriote cooking vessels from Late Bronze Age Tell Abu Hawam. 1. Mycenaean cooking jug (after Artzy, 2006, g. 9 :4); 2. Cypriote frying pan (after Balensi 1980, vol. 2, pl. 11 :238); 3. Minoan cauldron (after Balensi 1980, vol. 2, pl. 11:239).

Finally the Uluburun wreck. This discovery, of prime importance for any discussion of Late Bronze Age trade/gift exchange, is particularly relevant to the issues discussed here. A number of recent studies have dealt with the inherent ambiguity of the evidence and contributed much to the clarication of the ships origin, its destination, the nature of its cargo, as well as its general signicance (Bloedow, 2005; Pulak, 2005; Bachhuber, 2006 ; Cline/Yasur-Landau, 2007; Jackson/Nicholson, 2010; Monroe, 2010, and others). The ship is generally considered to have been on its way to the Aegean region (either Crete or the

The alleged existence of architectural features of possible Aegean derivation from Tell Abu Hawam Stratum V (Harif, 1974 ; Balensi, 1980 vol. 1, 176186, but see Balensi, 2004, 150151) needs much additional study.
9

894

A. Zukerman

[UF 42

Greek Mainland),10 and the people on board included two high-ranking individuals, quite plausibly identied by Pulak (2005) as Aegeans (Mycenaeans) by their sealstones and other Aegean-type personal items.11 Although it is possible that some of the ships cargo was loaded on Cyprus, it is more likely that most or all of the goods originated in Egypt or north Syria, possibly Ugarit. Cline and Yasur-Landau (2007) suggested that the two Aegeans on board may have been purchasing agents who obtained the various raw materials and nished goods on behalf of an Aegean polity. It appears that these two Aegeans were responsible for the acquisition of the cargo and its shipment to the Aegean. Moreover, it seems highly likely that the goods on board represented merchandise rather than a royal gift sent to an Aegean ruler as part of a ceremonial gift exchange (as argued, e. g., by Pulak [2005, 308]), particularly due to the high ratio of raw materials in the cargo (see, especially, Cline/Yasur-Landau, 2007, 126128, for a somewhat different view see Bachhuber, 2006, 354355). In other words, the Uluburun wreck is best seen as an Aegean commercial ship returning from the East and managed by two Aegean trade agents or merchants.12 If this assumption is correct, then the ship represents a major piece of evidence for direct Aegean trade with the Near East. Due to the enormous value of its cargo, the Uluburun ship was either sent to the East by a ruler of a major Aegean polity (as argued by Cline and Yasur-Landau [2007]), or, at the very least, it belonged to a private rm which shared the costs of the cargo and the risk of its loss among several members and stakeholders, which perhaps included the local ruler (Monroe, 2009, 14, n. 25 ; 2010, 28 29). Previous scholarship viewed the involvement of private Aegean merchants in Levantine trade as impossible due to the belief that all economic activity in the Late Bronze Age Aegean was tightly controlled by the ruler and his bureaucracy (e. g., Chadwick, 1976, 158). Nowadays, most scholars see the Aegean economic structure as more exible and complex, and the function of the palaces as redistributive centers, which executed total control over the economy in their territory, is no longer accepted (see, e. g., Dickinson, 1994, 8186). Moreover, the degree of centralization differed according to polity and type of economic activity (Haskell, 1991, 340). This understanding of the palatial economic

10 11 12

For a different view, see Bloedow, 2005. For a somewhat more cautious view, see Bachhuber, 2006, 351355.

Note that the ships crew might have been Levantine, and that the ship itself was most probably constructed (or outtted) in one of the Levantine or Cypriote maritime towns, as evidenced by the typology of anchors found in the wreck (Wachsmann, 1998, 283). For the purpose of this study the nationality of the ship is established on basis of the identity of its owners / sponsors, not of its builders or crew. Ships constructed in one region could be sold to merchants from another country ; this is illustrated by Knapps (1983) interpretation of Ugaritic text RS 18.113A+18.113B as documenting a purchase of several ships from Ugarit by a Cypriote merchant.

2010] On Aegean Involvement in Trade with the Near East during the Late Bronze Age

895

structure would allow for private international trade, although it is unclear if the status of Aegean maritime merchants was similar that of the better-documented contemporary Near East. For example, tamkrs (merchants) at Ugarit were only partially dependent on the ruling elite and were frequently in a symbiotic relationship with it, functioning both as royal messengers/envoys and as private entrepreneurs (Cline, 1994, 85; Heltzer, 1999, 440). This short study has no intention of questioning the scholarly consensus that Levantine and Cypriote mariners were major participants in Late Bronze Age Mediterranean trade. However, the accumulation of various types of indirect indications surveyed in this study does not allow for the existing notion of a Cypro-Levantine thalassocracy to be accepted without qualications, and the current tendency to completely exclude Aegeans from this activity seems to be unjustied. On the basis of the data and arguments presented here, it can be suggested that some Aegean traders were involved in eastern Mediterranean international commerce alongside Cypriote and Levantine merchants, although unequivocal written evidence to this end is currently lacking. It is, therefore, possible that the share of Aegeans in this activity was relatively minor (cf. Manning/Hulin, 2005, 282286). In this respect, Late Bronze Age Aegean polities perhaps resembled New Kingdom Egypt, which allowed foreign merchants to trade in its products, but, nevertheless, periodically organized some trading ventures abroad, as evidenced by the Wenamun story (Lichtheim, 2003) and other sources (Wachsmann, 1998, 1011).13 It should also be noted that the recognition of additional participants in Late Bronze Age international trade is not only, as suggested here, a better explanation of the currently available data, but also has the potential advantage of presenting a researcher with new possibilities for interpreting future nds. As a nal point, the conclusions of this study might have some theoretical signicance. As argued by Knapp (1993), Mediterranean exchange was a multifaceted phenomenon that included various modes: ceremonial gift exchange, palace-based directional trade, freelance trade, and others (see also Liverani, 1990; Sherratt/Sherratt, 1998). In my view, only prolonged interaction between multiple agents from different social, geographical and cultural spheres could sustain this (or any other) truly complex system of contacts, while the CyproLevantine (or any other) hegemony over Mediterranean trade would never allow such a structure to emerge.

13

Although the Wenamun story dates to ca. 1075 BCE or perhaps even to a somewhat later period (Sass, 2002), it reects the Egyptian pattern of maritime exchange with the Levant and Cyprus that existed during the New Kingdom as well (see also, for example, Cline / Yasur-Landau, 2007, 127128).

896

A. Zukerman

[UF 42

References
kerstrm, ., 1987 : Berbati. Vol. 2 : The Pictorial Pottery. Stockholm. Artzy, M., 2006: The Carmel Coast during the Second Part of the Late Bronze Age: A Center for Eastern Mediterranean Transshipping. BASOR 343, 45 64. Astour, M., 1973 : Ugarit and the Aegean. In H. A. Hoffner, Jr. (ed.): Orient and Occident: Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. AOAT 22. Neukirchner-Vluyn. Pp. 1727. strm, P., 1991 : Problems of Denition of Local and Imported Fabrics of Late Cypriote Canaanite Ware. In J. A. Barlow / D. L. Bolger / B. Kling (eds.): Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record. University Museum Monographs 74. Philadelphia. Pp. 6772. Bachhuber, C., 2006 : Aegean Interest on the Uluburun Ship. AJA 110, 345363. Badre, L. / Boileau, M.-C. / Jung, R. / Mommsen, H., 2005 : The Provenance of Aegean- and Syrian-Type Pottery Found at Tell Kazel (Syria). Egypt and the Levant 15, 1547. Balensi, J., 1980: Les Fouilles de R. W. Hamilton Tell Abu-Hawam, Niveaux IV & V (1650950 environs av. J.-C.). (Ph. D. dissertation, Universit des Sciences Humaines). Strasbourg. 2004: Relativit du phnomne mycnien Tell Abu Hawam: un protomarkening? In J. Balensi / J.-E. Monchambert / S. Mller-Selka (eds.): La cramique mycnienne de lge au Levant. Hommage Vronwy Hankey. Travaux de la Maison de lOrient et de la Mditerrane 41. Lyon. Pp. 141 182. Bell, C., 2006 : The Evolution of the Long Distance Trading Relationships across the LB / Iron Age Transition on the Northern Levantine Coast: Crisis, Continuity and Change. BAR International Series 1574. Oxford. Bloedow, E.F. 2005 : Aspects of Trade in the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean: What Was the Ultimate Destination of the Uluburun Ship? In R. Lafneur / E. Greco (eds.): Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 1418 April 2004. Aegaeum 25. Lige. Pp. 335 341. Bouzek, J., 1985 : The Aegean, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural Interrelations in the Second Millennium BC. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 29. Gteborg. Bryce, T., 2010 : The Hittite Deal with the Hiyawa-Men. In Y. Cohen / A. Gilan / J. L. Miller (eds.): Pax Hethitica: Studies on the Hittites and Their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer. StBoT 51. Wiesbaden. Pp. 4753. Caubet, A. / Matoan, V., 1995: Ougarit et lge. In M. Yon / M. Sznycer / P. Bordreuil (eds.): Le Pays dOugarit autour de 1200 av. J.-C.: Actes du Colloque International Paris, 28 juin1er juillet 1993. RSOu 11. Paris. Pp. 99112.

2010] On Aegean Involvement in Trade with the Near East during the Late Bronze Age

897

Chadwick, J., 1976: The Mycenaean World. New York. Cline, E. H., 1994 : Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea. International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean. British Archaeological Reports International Series 591. Oxford. 2010: Bronze Age Interactions between the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean Revisited: Mainstream, Periphery, or Margin? In W.A. Parkinson / M. L. Galaty (eds.): Archaic State Interaction : The Eastern Mediterranean in the Bronze Age. Santa Fe, NM. Pp. 161180. Cline, E.H. / Yasur-Landau, A., 2007 : Musings from a Distant Shore: The Nature and Destination of the Uluburun Ship and Its Cargo. Tel Aviv 34/2, 125141. Cross, F.M. / Stager, L.E., 2006: Cypro-Minoan Inscriptions Found in Ashkelon. IEJ 56, 129159. Dabney, M., 2007: Marketing Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant. In P. P. Betancourt / M. C. Nelson / H. Williams (eds.): Krinoi kai Limenes: Studies in Honor of Joseph and Maria Shaw. Prehistory Monographs 22. Philadelphia. Pp. 191197. Davis, B., 2010: Introduction to the Aegean pre-Alphabetic Scripts. Kubaba 1, 3861. Dickinson, O. T. P. K., 1994: The Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge. Finley, M. I., 1982: Economy and Society in Ancient Greece. New York. Gilmour, G. H., 1992 : Mycenaean IIIA and IIIB Pottery in the Levant and Cyprus. RDAC, 113128. Hadjicosti, M., 1988: Canaanite Jars from Maa-Paleokastro. In V. Karageorghis / M. Demas (eds.): Excavations at Maa-Paleokastro 19791986. Nicosia. Pp. 340396. Hankey, V., 1967 : Mycenaean Pottery in the Middle East: Notes on Finds since 1951. ABSA 62, 107148. Harif, A., 1974 : A Mycenaean Building at Tell Abu Hawam in Palestine. PEQ 106, 8390. Haskell, H. W., 1999: Aspects of the Nature and Control of Mycenaean Foreign Trade. In P. P. Betancourt / V. Karageorghis / R. Lafneur / W.-D. Niemeier (eds.): Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year. Aegaeum 20. Austin, TX. Pp. 339 342. Heinhold-Krahmer, S., 2003 : Ahhiyawa Land der homerischen Acher im Krieg mit Wilua? In C. Ulf (ed.): Der neue Streit um Troia. Eine Bilanz. Mnchen. Pp. 193214. Heltzer, M., 1999: The Economy of Ugarit. In W. G. E. Watson / N. Wyatt (eds.): Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. HdO I/39. Leiden. Pp. 423454. Hirschfeld, N., 1993 : Incised Marks (Post-Firing) on Aegean Wares. In C. Zerner / P. Zerner / J. Winder (eds.): Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 19391989. Amsterdam. Pp. 311318.

898

A. Zukerman

[UF 42

2000a: Introduction to the Catalogue. In M. Yon / V. Karageorghis / N. Hirschfeld, Cramiques Mycniennes. RSOu 13. Paris. Pp. 6773. 2000b : Marked Late Bronze Age Pottery from the Kingdom of Ugarit. In M. Yon / V. Karageorghis / N. Hirschfeld : Cramiques Mycniennes. RSOu 13. Paris. Pp. 163200. 2004: Eastwards via Cyprus? The Marked Mycenaean Pottery of Enkomi, Ugarit and Tell Abu Hawam. In J. Balensi / J.-E. Monchambert / S. MllerSelka (eds.): La cramique mycnienne de lge au Levant. Hommage Vronwy Hankey. Travaux de la Maison de lOrient et de la Mditerrane 41. Lyon. Pp. 97104. 2006: Vases Marked for Exchange: The Not-so-Special Case of Pictorial Pottery. In E. Rystedt / B. Wells (eds.): Pictorial Pursuits: Figurative Painting on Mycenaean and Geometric Pottery. Papers from Two Seminars at the Swedish Institute at Athens in 1999 and 2001. Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 4/53. Stockholm. Pp. 8396. Hitchcock, L. A., 2005 : Who Will Personally Invite a Foreigner, Unless He is a Craftsman?: Exploring Interconnections in Aegean and Levantine Architecture. In R. Lafneur / E. Greco (eds.): Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 1418 April 2004. Aegaeum 25. Lige. Pp. 691699. 2008: Do You See a Man Skillful in His Work? He Will Stand Before Kings: Interpreting Architectural Inuences in the Bronze Age Mediterranean. Ancient West and East 7, 1748. Jackson, C. M. / Nicholson, P. T., 2010 : The Provenance of Some Glass Ingots from the Uluburun Shipwreck. Journal of Archaeological Science 37/2, 295 301. Jones, R. E., 1986 : Greek and Cypriote Pottery: A Review of Scientic Studies. Athens. Jung, R., 2007 : Tell Kazel and the Mycenaean Contacts with Amurru (Syria). In M. Bietak / E. Czerny (eds.): The Synchronisation of Civilization in the Eastern Mediterranean in Second Millennium B.C. III: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 2nd EuroConference, Vienna 28th of May 1st of June 2003. Vienna. Pp. 551570. Kelder, J. M., 2009: Royal Gift Exchange between Mycenae and Egypt: Olives as Greeting Gifts in the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean. AJA 113, 339352. 2010: The Egyptian Interest in Mycenaean Greece. JEOL 42, 125140. Killen, J. T., 1985: The Linear B Tablets and the Mycenaean Economy. In M. Davies / A. Duhoux / Y. Duhoux (eds.): Linear B: A 1984 Survey. Mycenaean Colloquium of the VIII Congress of the International Federation of the Societies of Classical Studies. Bibliotque des Cahiers de lInstitute de Linguistiqe de Louvain 26. Louvain-la-Neuve. Pp. 241305.

2010] On Aegean Involvement in Trade with the Near East during the Late Bronze Age

899

Knapp, A. B., 1983: An Alashiyan Merchant at Ugarit. Tel Aviv 10, 3845. 1993: Thalassocracies in Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean Trade: Making and Breaking a Myth. World Archaeology 24/3, 332347. Knapp, A. B. / Cherry, J. F., 1994: Provenience Studies and Bronze Age Cyprus: Production, Exchange, and Socio-Economic Change. Monographs in World Archaeology 21. Madison, WI. Lackenbacher, S. / Malbran-Labat, F. 2005 : Ugarit et les Hittites dans les archives de la Maison dUrtenu. SMEA 47, 227240. Lichtheim, M., 2003 : The Report of Wenamun. In W. W. Hallo / K. L. Younger, Jr. (eds.): The Context of Scripture. Vol. 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World. Leiden. Pp. 8993. Liverani, M., 1990: Prestige and Interest: International Relations in the Near East ca. 16001100 BC. Padova. Manning, S. / Hulin, L., 2005 : Maritime Commerce and Geographies of Mobility in the Late Bronze Age of the Eastern Mediterranean: Problemizations. In E. Blake / A. B. Knapp (eds.): The Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory. Oxford. Pp. 270291. Maran, J., 2004: The Spreading of Objects and Ideas in the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean : Two Case Examples from the Argolid of the 13th and 12th Centuries B. C. BASOR 336, 1130. Masson, E., 1974 : Cyprominoica: rpertoires, documents de Ras Shamra, essais dinterprtation. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 31/2. Gteborg. Mee, C., 2008: Mycenaean Greece, the Aegean, and Beyond. In C. W. Shelmerdine (ed.): The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge. Pp. 362386. Merrillees, R. S., 1973 : Mycenaean Pottery from the Time of Akhenaten in Egypt. In V. Karageorghis (ed.): Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium The Mycenaeans in the Eastern Mediterranean, Nicosia 27th March 2nd April 1972. Nicosia. Pp. 175186. Mountjoy, P. A. / Mommsen, H., 2001: Mycenaean Pottery from Qantir-Piramesse, Egypt. ABSA 96, 123155. Monroe, C. M., 2009: Scales of Fate: Trade, Tradition, and Transformation in the Eastern Mediterranean ca. 13501175 BCE. AOAT 357. Mnster. 2010: Sunk Costs at Late Bronze Age Uluburun. BASOR 357, 1933. Niemeier, W.-D., 1998: The Mycenaeans in Western Anatolia and the Problem of the Origins of the Sea Peoples. In S. Gitin / A. Mazar / E. Stern (eds.): Mediterranean Peoples in Transition : Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem. Pp. 1765. 2005: The Minoans and Mycenaeans in Western Asia Minor: Settlement, Emporia or Acculturation? In R. Lafneur / E. Greco (eds.): Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14 18 April 2004. Aegaeum 25. Lige. Pp. 199204.

900

A. Zukerman

[UF 42

Palaima, T., 1989: Cypro-Minoan Scripts: Problems of Historical Context. In Y. Duhoux / T. Palaima / J. Bennet (eds.): Problems in Decipherment. Bibliothque des Cahiers de lInstitut de Linguistique de Louvain 49. Louvain-laNeuve. Pp. 121187. 1991: Maritime Matters in the Linear B Tablets. In R. Lafneur / L. Basch (eds.) Thalassa: lEge prehistorique et la mer. Actes de la troisime rencontre genne internationale de lUniversit de Lige, Station de recherches sous-marines et oceanographiques (StaReSO), Calvi, Corse, 2325 avril 1990. Aegaeum 7. Lige. Pp. 273309. Pulak, C., 2005: Who Were the Mycenaeans Aboard the Uluburun Ship? In R. Lafneur / E. Greco (eds.): Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 1418 April 2004. Aegaeum 25. Lige. Pp. 295312. Sass, B., 2002 : Wenamun and his Levant 1075 B. C. or 925 B. C.? Egypt and the Levant 12, 247255. Sherratt, A. / Sherratt, E. S. 1998 : Small Worlds: Interaction and Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean. In E. H. Cline / D. Harris-Cline (eds.): The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the University of Cincinnati 1820 April 1997. Aegaeum 18. Lige. Pp. 329343. Sherratt, S., 1998 : Sea Peoples and the Economic Structure of the Late Second Millennium in the Eastern Mediterranean. In S. Gitin / A. Mazar / E. Stern (eds.): Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem. Pp. 292313. 1999: E pur si muove: Pots, Markets and Values in the Second Millennium Mediterranean. In J. P. Crielaard / V. Stissi / G. J. van Wijngaarden (eds.): The Complex Past of Pottery: Production, Circulation and Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (Sixteenth to Early Fifth Centuries BCE). Amsterdam. Pp. 163211. Singer, I., 2006 : Ships Bound for Lukka: A New Interpretation of the Companion Letters RS 94.2530 and RS 94.2523. AoF 33/2, 242262. Steel, L., 1998 : The Social Impact of Mycenaean Imported Pottery in Cyprus. ABSA 93, 285296. Steiner, G., 1989 : Schiffe von Ahhijawa oder Kriegsschiffe von Amurru im Sauskamuwa-Vertrag? UF 21, 393411. van Dongen, E., 2007 : Contacts between Pre-Classical Greece and the Near East in the Context of Cultural Inuences: An Overview. In R. Rollinger / A. Luther / J. Wiesehfer (eds.): Getrennte Wege? Kommunikation, Raum und Wahrnehmung in der Alten Welt. Oikumene, Studien zur antiken Weltgeschichte 2. Frankfurt am Main. Pp. 1348. van Wijngaarden, G. J., 2002: Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy (16001200 BC). Amsterdam.

2010] On Aegean Involvement in Trade with the Near East during the Late Bronze Age

901

Wachsmann, S., 1998 : Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant. London. Walz, C. A., 1997 : Black Athena and the Role of Cyprus in Near Eastern / Mycenaean Contacts. In J. Coleman / C. A. Walz (eds.): Greeks and Barbarians: Essays on the Interactions between Greeks and Non-Greeks in Antiquity and the Consequences for Eurocentrism. Occasional Publications of the Department of Near Eastern Studies and the Program of Jewish Studies, Cornell University 4. Bethesda. Pp. 127. Yasur-Landau, A., 2010 : The Philistines and Aegean Migration at the End of the Late Bronze Age. Cambridge. Yasur-Landau, A. / Goren, Y., 2004 : A Cypro-Minoan Potmark from Aphek. Tel Aviv 31/1, 2231. Zuckerman, S. / Ben-Shlomo, D. / Mountjoy, P. A. / Mommsen, H., 2010 : A Provenance Study of Mycenaean Pottery from Northern Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 409416.