The Aegean Bronze Age in relation to the Wider European Context: Papers from a session at the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists, Cork, 5-11 September 2005 9781407301877, 9781407332321

Citation preview

BAR S1745 2008 WHITTAKER (Ed.) THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE IN RELATION TO THE WIDER EUROPEAN CONTEXT

B A R

The Aegean Bronze Age in relation to the Wider European Context Papers from a session at the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists, Cork, 5-11 September 2005

Edited by

Helène Whittaker

BAR International Series 1745 2008

The Aegean Bronze Age in relation to the Wider European Context Papers from a session at the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists, Cork, 5-11 September 2005 Edited by

Helène Whittaker

BAR International Series 1745 2008

ISBN 9781407301877 paperback ISBN 9781407332321 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407301877 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

1

ANDREA VIANELLO Late Bronze Age Aegean Trade Routes in the Western Mediterranean

7

LI WINTER From Diffusion to Interaction: Connections between the Nordic Area and Valcamonica during the First Millennium

35

MICHAEL WEDDE On the Alleged Connection between the Early Greek Galley and the Watercraft of Nordic Rock Art

57

HELÈNE WHITTAKER Warfare and Religion in the Bronze Age

73

GULLÖG NORDQUIST Perspectives on the "Bronze Age"

95

INDEX

104

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Andrea Vianello for his encouragement and help while editing this book. I am also grateful to Gullög Nordquist and Ann-Louise Schallin for informative discussions on the topic of contacts between north and south during the European Bronze Age. I am indebted to Sven von Hofsten for help with the final editing.

Tromsø, November 2007

CONTRIBUTORS GULLÖG NORDQUIST is professor of archaeology in the Department of Archaeology and Ancient History at Uppsala University. Her main area of research is the Bronze Age Aegean. ANDREA VIANELLO is reviewer for Institute at the University of Oxford. His main area of research is the Mediterranean in the Bronze Age. MICHAEL WEDDE is an archaeologist whose main area of research is the Bronze Age Aegean. HELÈNE WHITTAKER is professor of Greek and Latin at the University of Tromsø. Her main area of research is the Bronze Age Aegean. LI WINTER is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Archaeology at Stockholm University. Her dissertation deals with contacts between Scandinavia and the Mediterranean during the Bronze Age.

INTRODUCTION

archaeologists.5 Kristian Kristiansen has long argued that cultural influences from the Aegean played a formative role in developments which took place in continental and northern Europe during the European Middle and Late Bronze Ages. In a recent book, co-authored with Thomas B. Larsson, the claim is made that the south Scandinavian Bronze Age should be regarded as in some sense an imitation of Mycenae.6 Mention can also be made of a television series on Scandinavian prehistory which aired recently on Norwegian television, where it was stated with certainty that influences from Mycenae were crucial to the development of the south Scandinavian Bronze Age. The presence of Mycenaean traders and craftsmen in south Scandinavia was seen as very probable and the idea that the Mycenaeans might even have established colonies in northern Europe was floated.7 If popular presentations which claim to present research results to the general public can be taken to reflect mainstream archaeological thinking, it would seem that the existence of contacts between the Aegean world and south Scandinavia during the Bronze Age is now regarded as an established fact by many scholars within Nordic archaeology. That this is the case is also suggested by a recently published master's thesis from the University of Oslo in which close connections between the Near East, the Aegean, and south Scandinavia during the Bronze Age are accepted as a given not needing further discussion.8 Presumably supervisor and examination committee agreed with this approach.

With the exception of Gullög Nordquist's and Michael Wedde's contributions, the articles in this volume derive from a session held at the eleventh annual meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in Cork, September, 2005. The title of the session was Aegean Archaeology in the Wider European Context. The papers centred around questions concerning direct contacts and specific influences, cultural interaction between the Mycenaen world and the rest of Europe, and the role of Aegean material in discussions and interpretations of material found elsewhere. The Aegean Bronze Age is commonly regarded as a separate field, distinct from the study of the European Bronze Age as a whole. This is, for instance, clearly exemplified by the Cambridge World Archaeology series in which Europe and the Aegean are dealt with in separate volumes.1 The existence of contacts and the extent of cultural interaction between Europe and the Aegean in the Bronze Age are, however, subjects which have often been discussed. The topic of cultural interaction between various parts of Europe and the eastern Mediterranean, including the Aegean, in the Bronze Age has also been the subject of a session at an earlier meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists.2 It was also the topic of a conference which took place in Zagreb in 2005.3 Finds of Mycenaean pottery in various places in the central Mediteranean show that there was probably close contact between the Aegean and the central Mediterranean. It has furthermore been suggested that Mycenaean cultural influences may also have extended further west. For example, in his study of the Iberian stone stelae Richard Harrison considers Mycenaean influences to be significant to the developments which took place during the Bronze and Iron Ages in the westernmost part of the Mediterranean.4

With regard to central Europe Jan Bouzek has argued for the existence of close connections with the Aegean area, at least from the middle of the second millennium BC.9 He discusses a number of central European sites and artefact types which, he argues, demonstrate significant cultural interaction. Similarly, Peter Schauer discusses a number of artefacts which he believes illustrates the close connections between the Minoan/Mycenaean world and the rest of Europe.10 It is also worth mentioning in this connection that European unity in the Bronze Age constituted the theme of Bernhard Hänsel's Festvortrag at a seminar on the Bronze Age held at the Freie Universität

The view that there was close cultural contact between the Aegean on the one hand, and continental and northern Europe on the other, has a long history within Nordic archaeology. In the late nineteenth century Oscar Montelius saw influences from the Mycenaean world on the material culture of Bronze Age Scandinavia and his views still hold force among many Scandinavian

5

Montelius 1899; 1919, 125-127; cf. Trigger 1989, 158160. 6 Kristiansen & Larsson 2005. 7 Helleristerne; the series was made through a cooperation between the state broadcasting companies of Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, and featured several well-known Scandinavian archaeologists. 8 Fari 2003. 9 Bouzek 1985, 240-244. 10 Schauer 1984, 1985.

1

Harding 2000; Dickinson 1994. The sixth annual meeting which took place in Lisbon in 2000 (Werbart 2001). 3 Galanaki, Tomas, Galanakis & Laffineur 2007. 4 Harrison 2004, 168-170; see Sanjuán 2007 for some critical remarks. 2

1

HELÈNE WHITTAKER

Berlin in March 1997.11 According to Reinhard Jung and Regine Maraszek such views have in later years become common in central European archaeological research.12

Age, where does that leave the millions of present-day Europeans whose prehistoric roots lie in Asia or in Africa.18

It can be said then that in general in European archaeological thinking there is a noticeable tendency to argue or even to accept as a given that Europe, including the Aegean area, was characterised by a high degree of cultural unity during the Bronze Age. Most often the Aegean world is seen as a source of inspiration for cultural and social developments taking place further north or to the west. As has been pointed out by Anthony Harding this often takes the form of a core-periphery model, in which it is envisaged that mainland Greece was dependent on Europe for raw materials, while the Bronze Age inhabitants of Europe depended on the Aegean for manufactured goods and luxury items which could be used in social strategies.13

Another problematic aspect concerns the question of borders between the continents.19 Aegean archaeologists commonly see the Minoan and Mycenaean areas as part of the eastern Mediterranean which includes Anatolia, the Middle East, and Egypt, as well as Crete and the Greek mainland. Clearly the dividing-line between what is regarded as Europe and what is regarded as not-Europe today in this area has no meaning with regard to the Bronze Age, as is recognised by most scholars. Bozena Werbart, however, states that the "present painful conflict between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean and on Cyprus is but the most recent continuation of the clash between two different regions, the beginning of which can be traced back to the Bronze Age".20 Unfortunately she does not specify what she is talking about with regard to the Bronze Age, and it is therefore difficult to understand what precisely she is refering to. In a similar vein Bernhard Hänsel writes that during the Bronze Age Europe as a continent defines itself as a region separate from the civilisations of the Near East.21 From an Aegean perspective this is undoubtedly a strange way of looking at the political geography of the eastern Mediterranean during the Bronze Age. As is pointed out by Gullög Nordquist in her contribution in this volume, Gordon Childe saw Minoan Crete as thoroughly European in spirit, despite the fact that he willingly admitted that its culture quite clearly owed a debt to the Near East and Egypt.22 However, although Minoan Crete continues to be presented as the first European civilisation in popular works and undergraduate courses, it is hard to see how this relates in any meaningful way to the political, social, or cultural realities of the Bronze Age itself. While the culture of Bronze Age Crete was very much sui generis,

The Bronze Age is somtimes called the first European period. More or less explicit in this view is the idea that some kind of shared European identity was already in existence at that time.14 Accordingly, the developments which took place in various parts of Europe during the Bronze Age are considered to be at the core of presentday European identity. It is hard not to see this view of the European Bronze Age as in some way reflecting the pan-European aspirations of our own time.15 Aside from this, the idea that there is something distinctly and uniquely European in a cultural sense about the societies which developed during the Bronze Age within the area which is now recognised as Europe raises a number of problems. In the first place, identity is not a fixed and stable entity, but rather something which is continuously evolving and which therefore eludes any essentialist definition. That the Bronze Age is more European than any other past period one might care to choose would seem at best a debatable proposition.16 A recent book has argued, for example, that the true formation of European identity took place in the early Middle Ages.17 But there is also a further point to be made. If one claims that European identity was basically established in the Bronze

18

This concern would seem to be expressed by Kristiansen 2004, 84-85: "There are fewer similarities between a Danish Iron Age farmer and a present day farmer than there are between a present day Danish farmer and a Pakistan immigrant. They are both strangers and they are both part of history. But while we gladly integrate Iron Age farmers into our cultural heritage, in spite of their otherness, we are less generous when it comes to immigrants. However, European prehistory is also the history of our alienation. It is the history of recurring shifts, a multitude of languages and ethnicities, of social and economic transformations that integrated and created new social and cultural entities out of this historical multiplicity." (also quoted at eja.e-aa.org/category/recently-read/, European Journal of Archaeology Blog). 19 Cf. Jones & Graves-Brown 1996, 9-10. 20 Werbart 2001, 4. 21 Hänsel 1998. 22 See also Sherratt 2006 on Childe's views on the Minoans.

11

Hänsel 1998. Jung & Maraszek 2005, 117. 13 Harding 1996. 14 See, for example, Hänsel 1998, 19; Werbart 2001, 1. 15 Cf. Shore 1996; Jung & Maraszek 2005, 117; Sjögren 2006, 128; Nordquist 2005; in this volume. See, however, Larsson (1997, 6) who somewhat opaquely and perhaps disingenuously, since surely he knows that denial does not equal exculpation, writes that any criticism that his understanding of the pan-European nature of Bronze Age cosmology might be influenced by modern concerns is not worth answering as it is mistaken and has no basis in reality ("eftersom den bygger på felaktiga grunder och därmed kan avfärdas som en total missuppfattning"). 16 Cf. Harrison 2004, 17. 17 Olson 2007. 12

2

INTRODUCTION

it can also be stated that it had more in common with Anatolia, the Near East, and Egypt than with continental and northern Europe. Similarily, despite the fact that mainland Greece, in contrast to Crete, is geographically part of the European continent, its cultural affinities would seem to have been with areas to the south and east rather than with areas which lay to the north. It is hard to believe that a Mycenaean farmer would have felt a sense of shared identity with a northern or central European farmer which in some indefinable way set them apart from, for example, an Anatolian farmer.

are often believed to be dependent on or at least influenced by the cultures of the Aegean. Accordingly, artefacts or various types of cultural expression found in continental and northern Europe are compared with alleged Minoan or Mycenaean prototypes. Within the field of Mycenaean archaeology, on the other hand, connections with continental Europe have been given relatively little attention.28 Anthony Harding has recently argued that evidence of a "northern connection" in the Shaft Grave material should not be overlooked.29 In the past European connections have occasionally been discussed in relation to the origins and identity of those buried in the Shaft Graves at Mycenae.30 On the whole, however, parallels and sources of inspiration for Mycenaean artefacts or cultural developments in general have most often been sought in the other areas of the Aegean world or in the Near East. The view which seems to be quite common in central and northern European archaeology that the Mycenaeans functioned as middlemen between the civilisations of the Near East and the rest of Europe does not often feature in the discussions which take place within Aegean Archaeology itself. Consequently, the debate has been somewhat onesided as it has been mainly conducted on central and northern European ground.31 One might suspect that many aegeanists would be surprised at the important and influential role ascribed to the Mycenaeans in developments taking place in areas far to the north of the Aegean. Hypotheses regarding contacts and influences look very different when viewed from an Aegean perspective than they do from a central or a northern European one. It therefore seemed that differences in how the material evidence itself is evaluated would be worth a discussion. Part of the motivation for suggesting the session at the EAA meeting in Cork was that there seemed to be a need to widen the debate and that more input from the Aegean side would be desirable. However, the intention was to open up for a variety of topics which dealt with the Aegean Bronze Age in its relation to the wider European context.

In the publication of the afore-mentioned EAA session in Lisbon in 2000, the editor Bozena Werbart concluded that there is no longer any reason "to separate the two, previously different, scientific traditions in archaeology: ‘classical’ or Mediterranean and ‘prehistoric’".23 In their recent book on Bronze Age Europe Kristian Kristiansen and Thomas B. Larsson claim to have integrated the separate research fields of European and Mediterranean or Classical archaeology for the first time.24 These categorical statements certainly seem somewhat premature and overly optimistic to put it mildly, and one might reasonably suspect that many Classical and Aegean specialists would find it hard to agree with them. Deeprooted differences in research traditions are not eliminated quite so easily, by word alone.25 It is furthermore problematical that hypotheses about the Minoans and the Mycenaeans within northern and central European archaeology are often formulated in isolation from developments within the field of Aegean research itself.26 It is almost as if there is a separate and selfcontained sub-field of Minoan-Mycenaean studies which exists primarily to provide the interpretative background for the material culture of the Bronze Age in continental and northern Europe. As has been discussed in some detail by Lena Sjögren, views on Minoan material which have long been abandoned in Aegean research still make their appearance in interpretations of central and northern European material and the same is true with regard to Mycenaean material.27

The papers in this volume represent a variety of points of view. Andrea Vianello discusses contacts between the Mycenaeans and the western Mediterranean. He believes that these were mainly motivated by commercial concerns, but he also argues that there was perhaps considerable Mycenaean cultural influence on southern Italy and Sicily. Li Winter discusses the important subject of how similarities between cultural expressions which are widely-separated in place and also in some instances

As already mentioned, developments which took place in continental and northern Europe during the Bronze Age 23

Werbart 2001, 4. Kristiansen & Larsson 2005. 25 See Whitley (2001, 11-16) on the research traditions of Classical Archaeology. Prehistoric Aegean archaeology, albeit to a lesser extent, has also historically had closer ties to Classics and Art History than to the archaeologies of other parts of Europe. The heavy involvement of foreigners in the archaeologies of Italy, Greece, and Turkey also distinguishes Classical archaeology from other European archaeologies. 26 Kristiansen & Larsson's recent book (2005) is a good example; see the review article by Nordquist & Whittaker with reply by Kristiansen & Larsson (2007). 27 Sjögren 2005; 2006. 24

28

Contacts between Europe and the Mycenaean world have most thoroughly been discussed in Harding 1984. 29 Harding 2005; see also the papers from the conference Between the Aegean and the Baltic Sea which has just been published (Galanaki, Tomas, Galanakis & Laffineur 2007). 30 See Diamant 1988 for a relatively recent example. 31 Cf. Sjögren 2006, 128.

3

HELÈNE WHITTAKER

in time should be interpreted. She points to similarities between the rock carvings of southern Scandinavia and Valcamonica and argues that they provide significant information concerning the transmission of cultural influences and the exchange of ideas over great distances. The depictions of ships in south Scandinavian rock carvings have played a major role in discussions concerning the exchange of cultural ideas over great distances in the Bronze Age. In an in-depth discussion Michael Wedde looks at the suggested similarities between south Scandinavian rock carvings and Mycenaean an

Mycenaean and Archaic Greek ships from the perspective of Aegean archaeology. My own article discusses warfare during the Bronze Age in relation to its actual occurrence, its ideology and the religious beliefs which may have been associated with it. Gullög Nordquist provides a critical discussion of the role that archaeology has played with regard to the political and cultural preoccupations of the archaeologists' own times. She discusses how various political and nationalistic concerns have figured in the interpretation of the material remains of the past since the nineteenth century.

References Bouzek, Jan 1985, The Aegean, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural Interrelations in the Second Millennium B.C., Göteborg. Diamant, Stephen 1988, "Mycenaean Origins: Infiltration from the North?", in E. B. French & K. A. Wardle (eds.) Problems in Greek Prehistory. Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester April 1986, Bristol, 153-159. Dickinson, Oliver 1994, The Aegean Bronze Age, Cambridge. Fari, Camilla Helene 2003, Hieros-gamos: en sammenligning mellom symbolets uttrykk i den nordiske bronsealderens helleristningstradisjon og myteverdenen i det østlige middelhavsområdet, Oslo. Galanaki, Ioanna, Tomas, Helena, Galanakis, Yannis, & Laffineur (eds.) 2007, Between the Aegean and the Baltic Sea. Prehistory across Borders. Proceedings of the International Conference Bronze and Early Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Developments between the Aegean and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Northern Europe, University of Zagreb, 11-14 April 2005, Liège. Hänsel, Bernhard 1998, "Die Bronzezeit als erste europäische Epoche", in Bernhard Hänsel (ed.) Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Europas / Man and Environment in the European Bronze Age, Kiel, 19-26. Harding, Anthony 1984, The Mycenaeans and Europe, London. Harding, Anthony 1996, "Similarities and Differences between the Bronze Age Developments of the Aegean Area and that of the Rest of Europe", in Clarissa Belardelli, Johannes-Wolfgang Neugebeuer, Maria Novotna, Bohuslav Novotny, Christopher Pare, Renato Peroni (eds.) The Colloquia of the XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Forlì (Italia) 8-14 September 1996, 253-257. Harding, Anthony 2000, European Societies in the Bronze Age, Cambridge. Harding, Anthony 2005, "Horse-Harness and the Origins of the Mycenaean Civilisation", in Anastasia Dakouri-Hild & Susan Sherrat (eds.) Autochthon. Papers Presented to O.T.P.K. Dickinson on the Occasion of his Retirement, Oxford, 296-300. Harrison, Richard 2004, Symbols and Warriors: Images of the European Bronze Age, Bristol. Jones, Siân & Graves-Brown, Paul 1996, "Introduction. Archaeology and Cultural identity in Europe", in Paul GravesBrown, Siân Jones & Clive Gamble (eds.) Cultural Identity and Archaeology. The Construction of European Communities, London & New York, 1-24.

4

INTRODUCTION

Jung, Reinhard & Maraszek, Regine 2005, "The European Bronze Age from a Greek Perspective", in L'âge du bronze en Europe et en Méditerranée / The Bronze Age in Europe and the Mediterranean. Actes du XIVème Congrès UISPP, Université de Liège, Belgique, 2-8 septembre 2001, Oxford, 115-118. Kristiansen, Kristian 2004, "Who Owns the Past? Reflections on Roles and Responsibilities", in The Archaeologist: Detective and Thinker. Studies in Honour of Leo Klein on his Seventy-Seventh Birthday, St. Petersburg, 79-86. Kristiansen, Kristian & Larsson, Thomas B. 2005, The Rise of Bronze Age Society. Travels, Transmissions and Transformations, Cambridge. Kristiansen, Kristian & Larsson, Thomas B. 2007, Reply to Nordquist, Gullög & Whittaker, Helène 2007, "Comments on Kristian Kristiansen and Thomas B. Larsson: The Rise of Bronze Age Society. Travels, Transmissions and Transformation", Norwegian Archaeological Review 40, 85-93. Larsson, Thomas B. 1997, Materiell kultur och religiösa symboler. Mesopotamien, Anatolien och Skandinavien under det andra förkristna årtusendet, Umeå. Montelius, Oscar 1899, Der Orient und Europa, Stockholm. Montelius, Oscar 1919, Vår forntid, Stockholm. Olson, Lynette 2007, The Early Middle Ages: The Birth of Europe, New York. Nordquist, Gullög 2005, "Grekisk bronsålder – eller europeisk", in Joakim Goldhahn (ed.) Mellan sten och järn. Rapport från det 9:e nordiska bronsålderssymposiet, Göteborg 2003-10-09/12, Göteborg, 75-83. Nordquist, Gullög & Whittaker, Helène 2007, "Comments on Kristian Kristiansen and Thomas B. Larsson: The Rise of Bronze Age Society. Travels, Transmissions and Transformation", Norwegian Archaeological Review 40, 75-84. Sanjuán, Leonardo García 2007, "Review of Richard Harrison, Symbols and Warriors: Images of the European Bronze Age", American Journal of Archaeology 111.3, Online Review (no page numbers). Schauer, Peter 1984, "Spuren minoisch-mykenischen und orientalischen Einflusses im atlantischen Westeuropa", Jahrbuch des römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 31, 137-186. Schauer, Peter 1985, "Spuren orientalischen und ägäischen Einflusses im bronzezeitlichen nordischen Kreis", Jahrbuch des römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 32, 123-195. Sherratt, Andrew 2006, "Crete, Greece and the Orient in the Thought of Gordon Childe (with an Appendix on Toynbee and Spengler: The Afterlife of the Minoans in European Intellectual History)", in Y. Hamilakis & N. Momigliano (eds.) Archaeology and European Modernity. Producing and Consuming the ‘Minoans’ (Creta Antica 7), Padova. Shore, Chris 1996, "Imagining the New Europe: Identity and Heritage in European Community Discourse", in Paul Graves-Brown, Siân Jones & Clive Gamble (eds.) Cultural Identity and Archaeology. The Construction of European Communities, London & New York, 96-115. Sjögren, Lena 2005, "Minoiskt i norr? Om kulturella influenser från Kreta til Skandinavien", in Joakim Goldhahn (ed.) Mellan sten och järn. Rapport från det 9:e nordiska bronsålderssymposiet, Göteborg 2003-10-09/12, Göteborg, 151166. Sjögren, Lena 2006, "Minoan Wannabees: The Resurrection of Minoan Influences in Scandinavian Archaeology", in Y. Hamilakis & N. Momigliano (eds.) Archaeology and European Modernity. Producing and Consuming the ‘Minoans’ (Creta Antica 7), Padova, 127-142. Trigger, Bruce G. 1989, A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge.

5

HELÈNE WHITTAKER

Werbart, Bozena (ed.) 2001, Cultural Interactions in Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean during the Bronze Age (300-500 BC). Papers from a session held at the European Association of Archaeologists Sixth Annual Meeting in Lisbon 2000, Oxford. Whitley, James 2001, The Archaeology of Ancient Greece, Cambridge.

6

LATE BRONZE AGE AEGEAN TRADE ROUTES IN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN ANDREA VIANELLO

Aegean products reached the shores of the Italian peninsula, Sicily, Sardinia, and Iberia during the Late Bronze Age.1 Styles of imported pottery suggest that the earliest contacts started during Late Helladic I (LH I), even though only a handful of vessels of earlier styles have been found. Pattern-painted decorated pottery has survived in the largest quantities and is easily recognisable. Notably imported plain wares are rare, and pictorial pottery is almost entirely absent. The current estimate of Aegean pots imported into the western Mediterranean is approximately 500 vessels.2 A few Aegean-type ceramic figurines, probably representing deities, have been found associated with Aegean pottery.3 Fragments of a few Cypriot-type bowls and tripods,4 the latter featuring also in Linear B tablets,5 have been found with hoards.6 Copper oxhide ingots,7 mostly found in Sardinia, have a characteristic shape that clearly distinguishes them from any other object, and for this reason even small fragments have been recognised and reported. At Frattesina8 there is evidence that exotic objects (for example ostrich eggs), and materials used in the manufacture of luxury items such as glass ingots and ivory were imported. In addition, perishable raw materials – food, spices, oils and dyes – may also have been imported.

most decorated pottery of LH III style was produced by Italics and therefore any imports would have been subject to competition. Non-ceramic products can perhaps be traced through a few finds, but the amount imported is difficult to quantify since it is not possible to discern the origins of many raw materials and other products that circulated further afield than the areas typically involved in sea-borne trade. There is no evidence of colonisation or any programme of cultural or political domination enacted by foreigners. As a result, it appears that the influence of Aegean culture in the western Mediterranean probably occurred as a consequence of trade and therefore no distinctive ‘signature’, or any social, political or military programme would necessarily be recognisable. The detailed study of pattern-painted pottery demonstrates that regional patterns, varying throughout time, represent regional consumption attitudes to new products. This particular finding contrasts starkly with the patterns and attitudes observable in the same regions during the Greek 9 and Phoenician 10 colonization period. In the western Mediterranean, the range of imports appears limited and the average number of pots per site is often negligible; raw materials had scarce potential to influence indigenous cultures. This situation is quite different from the ancient Near East, where Aegean products, and especially pottery, are normally found in large concentrations11. The influence exercised by products such as pottery and metals continued for a long while in western manufacturing traditions – well into the Iron Age in fact – but it is difficult to detect a similar long-lasting influence in the eastern Mediterranean. There is no doubt that advanced civilizations, such as the Egyptian, would have resisted foreign influence longer than more simple societies –

The surviving material culture suggests that most contacts between the Aegean and the western Mediterranean involved exchanges of a commercial nature. Pottery vessels probably served as containers and do not seem to have been traded for their intrinsic or artistic value. Most early, undecorated vessels found in the Aeolian Islands, at Vivara and Monte Grande, were broken at the place of arrival. Decorated pottery appears to have been appreciated and occasionally reused, but

9

The Greek colonization of the western Mediterranean can be seen as a unique process, even if single poleis were independently responsible for individual colonies, because all Greeks shared significant traits of the same culture, and colonies were built using a common model. Greek colonies outlined their surrounding space in Greek eyes by maintaining their culture and appearing as civilized‘hotspots’in a Barbarian land. They redefined their space from a Greco-centric point of view: Magna Graecia was born (Tsetskhladze and De Angelis 2004). 10 Aubet 2001. 11 Wijngaarden 2002.

1

For a detailed overview of all sites that have yielded Aegean-type products, and especially pottery, in the western Mediterranean, the Gazetteer in Vianello (2005, 106-175) provides a detailed summary. 2 Vianello 2005. 3 Vianello 2005, 89. 4 Lo Schiavo, Macnamara and Vagnetti 1985. 5 Olivier and Vandenabeele 1979. 6 Vianello 2005, 91. 7 Lo Schiavo 2005; Primas 2005. 8 Vianello 2005, 94-96, 125.

7

ANDREA VIANELLO

such as the Italic communities. However, the Italics also showed some resistance to Aegean influences: as happened (especially) on the Tyrrhenian coast among people of Apennine and proto-Villanovan culture. In addition, the Italics seem to have selected the products that they used and imitated. This is particularly evident in the preference for pattern-painted pottery and the consumption of just a few shapes in most areas.12

although any substantial connection between the two areas before the MH period is unlikely.19 Since the Aeolian Islands passed through alternate phases of depopulation and repopulation, it seems plausible that ships straying off route, or early explorers, may have found safe harbours in the islands and places to settle. In contrast, the pottery from Monte Grande is in a highly fragmentary condition and although the excavators claim that around 5,000 potsherds have been found,20 these belong to a substantially lower number of vessels. However the potsherds were not from within a clear stratigraphic context, and some of the plain wares may belong to vessels of local production (mixed with a few Aegean pots), or be of later date. Alternatively for LH III C there is no usable timescale. LH III C pottery is quite frequent in the Italian peninsula but it is a local production based on LH III B 2 Mycenaean pottery and is characteristic of the Early Iron Age in the Italian peninsula. No contemporary Aegean production can really be compared with it. This leaves LH III A as a watershed period because of its significance as regards changing patterns of production and consumption, as well as the fact that such pottery can reliably be identified in the archaeological record.

The exchanges between the Aegean and the western Mediterranean can be best analysed by studying the pottery, because of its frequency in the archaeological record. Ceramic styles also provide the means to use relative chronology to determine the chronological development of the exchanges, and possibly assist the recognition phases. Furthermore, decorated pottery is the easiest Aegean product to recognise and is therefore more likely to have been reported.13 In the West Mediterranean14 two main phases have been detected: MH III/LH I – LH III A 1 and LH III A 2 – C. The distinction is less clear at the periphery: very few vessels found in the western Mediterranean predate LH I, and it seems possible that these were imported during LH I, or even LH II. On one hand, with the exception of the Aeolian Islands and perhaps Monte Grande, all vessels dated to LH I from the other sites may be interpreted as remainders, because of the significantly low quantities, or may have been produced as late as LH II B.15 Earlier ceramics in the Aeolian Islands can be compared with the production of mainland Greece, dating as early as EH III;16 Castelluccian ware might have been inspired by early mainland-Greek prototypes;17 and even in Apulia some wares appear to imitate early Aegean models,18

To understand the dynamics of the exchanges and their influences on peoples of the western Mediterranean, the two phases are repeatedly discussed and a general overview of the first phase on mainland Greece precedes the discussion of the situation in the western Mediterranean. The overview of mainland Greece does not summarise all the available archaeological evidence for that area at that period. Rather, it concentrates on a few specific issues in order to provide some background

12

19

Regional patterns of consumption demonstrate that each region had a preference for a few shapes, normally a subset of those Aegean designs that circulated in the whole of the western Mediterranean. At times this preference is also visible from site to site, for example Lipari, which was almost certainly on the same sea-route as other centres (e.g. Thapsos, Antigori, Vivara) but maintained its distinctive pattern. Of particular relevance also are the specific cases of Thapsos and Lipari, as well as the Ionian and Adriatic coasts of Apulia. In both cases the two areas were culturally and geographically close, but the patterns are distinguishable (Vianello 2005). 13 Oxhide ingots are also easy products to identify, but they are hardly representative of all metal objects. 14 Vianello 2005. 15 Vessels found in the western Mediterranean are often highly fragmentary and this can prevent a precise identification of the style. 16 Cavalier 1960; Bernabò Brea 2001. 17 Tusa 1999, 348-415. See also Bacci 2001 for the interpretation of figurines found near Messina as imitations of Cycladic examples. 18 Gorgoglione, pers. comm.

Similarities in ceramic wares of the Aegean and the western Mediterranean earlier than the Late Bronze Age appear in Italic contexts ranging from the Neolithic to the Middle Bronze Age of the southern Italian peninsula and Sicily, and may be coincidental – the product of sporadic contacts. In some cases disturbed contexts may equally be a possibility. It seems possible also that indigenous development of relatively simple vessels in different places and times may have been responsible for some similarities. In addition, it seems probable that any western imitation of Aegean or Eastern products may have been prompted by the occasional arrival of a ship forced off route by storm, or the arrival of a ship with old or obsolete items that may have not been exchangeable in the Aegean. In all cases, any Italic imitation of Aegean products, in absence of regular contacts, would have been probably of later date than the original production time of such materials in their original context. Accepting an exact chronological correspondence between Aegean styles and Italic imitations, before the regular contacts of the Late Bronze Age, would cause serious chronological problems and possible anachronisms. 20 Castellana 1998; Castellana 2000.

8

LATE BRONZE AGE AEGEAN TRADE ROUTES IN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN

the Middle and Late Bronze Ages.24 Since the seafaring capabilities of the Mycenaeans appear limited during the MH III – LH I periods,25 no territory most easily reached via the Mediterranean from mainland Greece should be regarded as the source of the increase in wealth. Thus, both Crete and the ancient Near East were probably not the providers of Mycenaean wealth: yet commercial and cultural contacts with these lands probably existed and eventually escalated once the Mycenaeans could present themselves as a ‘newly’ civilized land participating in Mediterranean trade. The presence of chariots in the Shaft Graves confirms that there was a connection with the Near East – chariots were not yet widely known in south-eastern or western Europe. However, the connection between the Near East and mainland Greece saw products from the East moving towards Greece, presumably in exchange for Mycenaean wealth. As a result, the commercial exchanges that brought wealth into mainland Greece were probably those with central Europe, particularly the region of Transylvania (modern Romania).26

to the discussion of the reasons for the initial exchanges with the west Mediterranean.

Mainland Greece, MH III – LH III A Mycenaean decorated pottery appears for the first time during LH I and is ‘a diagnostic feature for this phase’ in mainland Greece, where it was used mostly in funerary contexts.21 Small closed vessels deposited in burials are the commonest LH I decorated pots. The additional labour necessary for the decoration, the context of consumption and the typical shapes suggest that Mycenaean decorated pottery was used to contain precious commodities such as perfumed oils, honey, spices, and wine,22 which may have been offered to the dead. Mycenaean decorated pottery did not exist before LH I and did not develop in association with any particular meaning, social process or ritual. The development of a new repertoire and style of ceramics is not exceptional in antiquity and does not require the arrival of foreigners, or any other social or political turmoil, for explanation. This occurred, for example, at Itjtawy in Egypt, at the end of the First Intermediate Period, during the late years of the reign of Senwosret; the reason was a planned policy of ‘renewal for Egyptian culture’.23 In the case of Mycenaean decorated pottery, it may have been possible that new needs arose with the growth of wealth, but also that the Mycenaean rulers intended to appear equal, if not superior, to others with whom they had relationships. Such a policy would have had an impact on Mycenaean society, as the Mycenaean rulers could have staked a claim on raising the importance of their people in the esteem of others, as they could well have claimed equal political status, and therefore Mycenaean trade may have benefited from this. The employment of decorated ceramics as luxuries may, therefore, also be seen from an economic point of view: the wealthy Shaft Graves of Mycenae clearly imply that Mycenaean polities had sufficient economic surpluses to abandon an economic system geared to subsistence alone.

There is evidence of contacts27 between people of Mycenaean culture and people of the Middle Bronze Age Wietenberg culture of Transylvania. Hoards of the Wietenberg period containing bronze axes and Mycenaean-style daggers (rapiers) have been found at several sites28 (e.g. Sáromberke, Énlaka, Gyulafehérvár).

24

Davis 1983, 32; Köpeczi, Makkai, Mócsy, Szász and Barta 2001. 25 Davis 1981. 26 For an overview of those sites mining gold around the Aegean: Klemm 2005. 27 The creation of ‘citadels’, possible military strongholds modelled on Mycenaean citadels, may be evidence of Mycenaean involvement in the exploitation of mineral resources by organizing local elites capable of controlling production and favouring Mycenaean trade. The frequent spiral decoration found on bone objects (Hüttel 1982) and pottery (Vulpe 1975) at Suciu de Sus, and a decorated hearth plaque from Sighişoara (Hänsel 1982) in the region of the Wietenberg culture and neighbouring areas may also be evidence of cultural exchanges with the Mycenaeans. Swords and Mycenaean-style daggers (rapiers) constitute the strongest evidence for contacts between the two cultures. Daggers found in the Wietenberg region are dissimilar from any other objects found in previous or neighbouring cultures except for Mycenaean Greece. 28 Köpeczi, Makkai, Mócsy, Szász and Barta 2001; Davis 1983. Among the hoards found are those from: Cófalva (gold axes), in the area of the Monteoru culture; Perşinari (gold swords and daggers in two hoards, some clearly of Mycenaean style), in the area of the Tei culture; Ţufalău (copper and gold items); Măcin (two Mycenaean-style gold daggers with rivet holes).

The source of the sudden wealth detectable in the Shaft Graves of Mycenae is still disputed, but it seems probable that part of that wealth is of foreign origin, even if the individual objects may have been manufactured within Mycenaean Greece. It seems unlikely that the Minoans were the promoters of the exchanges with Transylvania and the Balkans: there is no evidence of products, especially gold, from that region reaching Crete during

21

Mountjoy 1986, 9. Linear B texts are useful in determining some of the possible commodities stored or transported within decorated pottery. 23 Franke 1995, 740-741. 22

9

ANDREA VIANELLO

Davis29 notes that Mycenaean-style objects are mostly weapons, and suggests that the Transylvanian people were probably seeking bronze swords and other similar weapons. In exchange, the Mycenaeans may have received gold weapons which were modelled on items received and it would therefore have been in essence the exchange of Transylvanian gold weapons for Mycenaean bronze weapons (although it is unknown if weapons made in the two materials were actually exchanged likefor-like). This is possible, as gold was relatively abundant in Transylvania and only a limited number of bronze weapons would have been necessary for a relatively small geographical area. In addition, Mycenaean warriors may have been present in Transylvania to help protect the exchanges, as perhaps were those Mycenaeans detected on board the Uluburun ship.30 By protecting their partners they added to the value of the weapons. If that was the case, then the number of gold weapons available could have matched the number of required bronze swords, making possible a like-for-like exchange of the two materials. Such exchanges could have been symbolic to some degree, as the real ‘added value’ the Mycenaeans would have provided would have been the service their warriors offered by providing protection. Gold, being very malleable, is inadequate for any purpose requiring strength and resilience. This was certainly known to both the Mycenaeans, who are not known to have used gold weapons, and the Transylvanians. Thus, the Transylvanian gold weapons were not functional, nor did they imitate indigenous weapons. It is possible that gold weapons were produced specifically for exchange and to be seen very much as equivalent and worthy items to be exchanged with status equals – a social and political convention that may have been very important to both sides. Since gold had greater value than bronze on mainland Greece and the ancient Near East, like-for-like exchanges of bronze items for gold ones could well have accounted for the sudden appearance of wealth associated with the Shaft Graves of Mycenae.

themselves accordingly. The whole exchange system was based on the fact that the Mycenaeans acted as intermediaries between the Near Eastern markets and central European populations where gold had a low value in one market and a high value in the other. Once the difference in value between the two markets of gold and other exchanged commodities diminished, the Mycenaeans would simply not have had an interest in continuing to act as intermediaries between those two areas, and probably significantly reduced 31 their trade from central Europe via Transylvania. Indeed, the wealthy Shaft Graves period (MH III – LH II A) 32 did not last long in terms of relative chronology and its end is not associated with any particular catastrophic event on mainland Greece.

Two events disrupted this political and economic scenario: the invasion of Tumulus- (Hügelgraber-) culture people in Transylvania, which pushed the existing Transylvanian populations to the north, and the eruption of the volcano on the Cycladic island of Thera. Both events are of uncertain date, but both had important effects on Mycenaean enterprises in the Mediterranean.

To sum up, the Mycenaeans faced an entirely new political and economic scenario at the end of the Shaft

The eruption of Thera, dating approximately to LH I, did not affect the region directly. However, the eruption seems to have affected the sea routes to the north of Crete, probably causing considerable damage to most harbours in the area.33 The absolute chronology of events is impossible to determine with any certainty. The eruption of Thera’s volcano should be the most reliable of the dates obtained, but it is instead contested and the possible range of dates spans roughly a century (ca. 1663 – 1599 BC) according to scientific analyses,34 and, significantly, this range excludes the period 1550 – 1500 BC suggested by using the traditional chronology of Egypt35 to date pumice found at Tell el-Dab’a,36 northeastern Egypt, and the pumice seen in depositional contexts with Cypriot White-Painted VI ware at Tell Kabri (Palestine).37 The resulting situation may have provided the Mycenaeans with the possibility of dominating the Aegean after the Cycladic and Minoan control of that area probably weakened. Most importantly, the Minoan ships might have been temporarily prevented from navigating waters north of Thera, leaving the northern routes open to Mycenaean and Cycladic ships only.

31

Pulak 2005. Rutter 1993, 785. 33 Lohmann (2005, 298) is critical of extensive damage further from the island itself, and asks, “Viel Larm um nichts?”(Much noise for nothing?) 34 Bronk Ramsey, Manning and Galimberti (2004) maintain that the eruption must have occurred during that period and the same position is repeated in Manning et al. (2006); Lohmann (2005) suggests that no particular signature stands out from ice cores in that period and therefore the eruption cannot be dated by current scientific data. 35 Kitchen 2000. 36 Bietak 1995. 37 Lohmann 2005. 32

The movements of peoples in central Europe disrupted gold supplies, because either the Mycenaeans were pushed out of those territories or the local people required more weapons to defend themselves – and the exchange rate had to be reviewed. It is also possible that the Transylvanians realised that gold had a superior market value than earlier thought and wanted to profit 29 30

1983, 34. Pulak 2005, 93.

10

LATE BRONZE AGE AEGEAN TRADE ROUTES IN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN

Graves period. Although each event probably happened at some chronological distance from the others and it is impossible to order them, it appears that the Mycenaeans had the opportunity to emerge as a new regional power and they took it. On the northern side of Mycenaean Greece, central Europe, and especially Transylvania (Dacia), were a source of wealth that for some reason was becoming uneconomic or otherwise inaccessible. However, the Mycenaeans must have been aware at some stage that beyond that region there were more peoples and possibly new markets to access.38 On the southern side of Mycenaean Greece, the Aegean became accessible to newcomers. About the same time that the Shaft Graves are discontinued, the Mycenaeans establish intensive links with the Cycladic islands and Cyprus,39 probably bolstering links with seafaring communities and gaining valuable experience in seafaring, unconstrained by any other regional power – such as the Minoans. The latter did not disappear, but by not exercising control (even for a few years) over the northern Aegean, they could not prevent the formation of a Mycenaean fleet and probably had to accept its existence thereafter.

analyses have proved inconclusive so far in determining the provenance of the earliest Aegean-type pottery at Vivara,42 it is possible that at least part of the pottery was locally produced by Aegean people residing on the island. At Vivara archaeologists have unearthed at least 43 potsherds of Levantine (Canaanite) pottery (Fig. 1c), which would be the largest concentration of such pottery in contexts possibly earlier than LH III. Undecorated pottery is found on the Aeolian Islands, where 155 potsherds have been reported.43 However 97 of these are classified as ‘fine decorated pottery’ and this category may contain undetermined fragments counted as both decorated and undecorated.44 At Lipari, Minoan (Cretan) and Cycladic pottery has been found, but there is no evidence of Canaanite or other Levantine fine or decorated wares.45 Undecorated and monochromatic pottery is also found at Monte Grande, but since the site was a workshop and the pottery was consumed (and broken) in place, there is no evidence of any impact that Aegean-type pottery had on the local population, nor can we be sure of quantities or the chronology: at least one fragment of Canaanite pottery has been found.46 The largest concentrations of LH I – II B pattern-painted Aegean-type pottery are also found on the Aeolian Islands and Vivara. On the Aeolian Islands there are over 80 vessels of this period in Lipari (Fig. 2), and about the same number of vessels at Filicudi (Fig. 3) are in styles current during the LH I – III A 2 period (Fig. 4). At Vivara (Fig. 5), 144 vessels have been reported and their style spans from LH I to LH III A 1 (Fig. 1). It is therefore possible to conclude that LH I – II B Aegeantype pottery is found in very limited amounts across the western Mediterranean and is largely concentrated in three areas: the Aeolian Islands (Lipari and Filicudi), Monte Grande in Sicily, and Vivara (three sites being excavated on the small island) near modern Naples. All three sites have yielded LH III pottery, but the excellent work in recording the stratigraphy undertaken by Bernabò Brea and Cavalier on the Aeolian Islands rules out that LH I – II B pottery was imported along with LH III pottery: clean strata with only pre-LH III pottery have been excavated on Filicudi.47 Thus early exchanges between people involving vessels of Mycenaean culture and Italics probably took place from LH I. It seems important to notice that Canaanite pottery was included with the exchanged assemblages at Vivara and Monte Grande, a miniscule amount of Cycladic and Cretan pottery was exchanged at Lipari, but no Cypriot pottery has been detected for this early period. The amounts of

The West Mediterranean, LH I – LH III A 1 The period between LH and LH III A 1 is characterised by fewer sites and products, but almost all seem to be imports: there is no evidence of Italic productions of Aegean-type pottery at this time. In the following overview, periods LH I – II B and LH III A 1 are analysed at the major sites. LH I – II B is the period when undecorated, matt-painted and monochromatic pottery may have been imported from the Aegean, albeit the quantities remain low.40 Remarkably, the southern Italian peninsula does not figure as an important region for the consumption of this pottery, with only 21 potsherds known to date.41 It was there that the Aegean-derived grey ware was produced in large quantities in the later phase, and therefore early imports and Italic production of Aegean-influenced pottery other than pattern-painted pottery cannot be connected directly. Undecorated and monochromatic pottery was largely localised at Vivara, where it is possible that early Aegean merchants may have settled in the small volcanic islands to facilitate trade and contacts with the local people. Since chemical and petrographic

38

42

Amber was arriving on mainland Greece via northern Greece during the period of the Shaft Graves. Harding and Hughes-Brock 1974. 39 Åström 1998; Steel 1998. Cline and Harris-Cline 1998. 40 Vianello 2005, 213 (table 15). The table refers to nonpattern painted pottery. 41 Ibid.

Jones, Levi and Vagnetti 2002, 178. Re (1999) has counted undecorated pottery across the central Mediterranean independently. 44 Ibid. 45 Vianello 2005. 46 Castellana 1998; Castellana 2000. 47 Bernabò Brea 1991. 43

11

ANDREA VIANELLO

LH I – II B Aegean pottery are quite modest at all of the Italic sites and probably all such vessels were imported.

eventually settle peacefully. This point of view also explains why Aegean ships did not stop near Mount Etna, which is obviously a closer and easily recognisable volcano, when volcanic products (such as sulphur) were being sought. There is also an economic perspective to the choice of these sites. As we have seen, Monte Grande could have been important only for its sulphur, an essential natural resource then as now.49 Aegean-type pottery was discarded there and this means that consumption took place in situ, even if there was no settlement in the immediate surroundings. Thus it is possible that almost no exchanges of pottery with the indigenous population occurred there: the same Aegean people who arrived there may have consumed the cargoes. The settlers may have been self sufficient, at least for periods, until the establishment of peaceful contacts with the indigenous people for the acquisition of fresh supplies that would have been brought into Monte Grande from some settlement. It is also possible that the Aegean people managed to extract sulphur by themselves. Of course exchanges with the local population must have occurred at some point, because the same ceramic evidence shows that pre-LH III material was mixed with contemporary Castelluccian ware. However if the resource sought was sulphur, it would have been obtained directly at the point of extraction and therefore its value should not be overstated: there was plenty in the area. Also, the type of exchange was direct and immediate, without intermediaries. It is impossible at present to ascertain exact amounts, but by counting the easily distinguishable Mycenaean decorated pottery there would have been tens of pots rather than the thousands reported by the excavators.

Vivara and Monte Grande appear connected in some way, because at both sites Levantine pottery has been found and the context of usage indicates that the vessels were broken on or at the point of arrival and rarely circulated. However, the geographic position of the sites suggests that the route followed by the ships probably bordered the southern Italian peninsula, possibly with a port-of-call at the now destroyed site of Punta Tonno (modern Taranto), or at Roca Vecchia on the Adriatic coast. The passage then divided near the Strait of Messina, with one route reaching Monte Grande and another Vivara, via the Aeolian Islands. A sea route to Vivara from the Strait of Messina avoiding the Aeolian Islands would have required the circumnavigation of Sicily and a long journey across the open sea. No traces of Aegean ships have been found for this period on the western coast of Sicily. Alternatively, some ships simply may not have stopped at the Aeolian Islands, but this is highly unlikely: the Aeolian Islands were obviously a safe stopover for Aegean ships in a territory largely unknown. Thus, the Aeolian Islands were an intermediate port-of-call to both Monte Grande and Vivara, which appear to have been termini of the routes. The possibility that the Aeolian Islands were a gateway 48 site to the others may explain the different behaviour recognisable in that area from the other two sites. All three sites are volcanic areas and therefore volcanic products may have been sought by Aegean traders. This may sound far-fetched considering that such materials were historically sourced from Cycladic Islands such as Melos and Thera, but as a result of its volcanic cataclysms Thera, at least, was certainly inaccessible between LH I and II B, and access to Melos may also have been disrupted. There is a social explanation for the choice of these sites: all three provided access to many populated regions but were themselves sparsely populated areas. At Monte Grande there is no evidence of a settlement, as the extraction of sulphur deterred any permanent settlers; the Aeolian Islands were suffering periodic depopulation and at least some of them were at times abandoned; and Vivara was a tiny island without any particular natural resources. They were three locations where Bronze Age people would hardly have wanted to visit or reside; they may have appeared to ancient eyes as barren places in the middle of nowhere. Thus they were ideal places for foreigners to visit and

Aegean ships stopped their travels to Monte Grande early in LH III A 1, although they were obviously transiting nearby en route to Cannatello. The early abandonment of Monte Grande by the Aegean people was probably due to the reopening (for extraction and trade) of the Cycladic sources of sulphur. Thus Monte Grande seems to provide a strong case for supporting the idea that the early exchanges were motivated by economic interests, and that it is, perhaps, the site at which the reasons for the Aegeans’ interest is clearest. The strategic position and depopulated state of the Aeolian Islands would have been ideal for Aegean merchants to use as permanent bases. Pottery was obviously an exchanged commodity in the islands – no clay is available and so either the raw material or the manufactured vessels have always been imported there. The depopulated state signalled by the periodic abandonment of some islands suggests that the workforce was minimal and their probable activities were fishing,

48

A ‘gateway’ site here is any location along an exchange network used as a port-of-call en route to other locations that are part of the same network, but unreachable using the same route. Gateway sites so intended were at the crossroads of different sea and land routes; examples are the Aeolian Islands and Punta Tonno.

49

For an introduction to the many uses of sulphur: Meyer 1977; Müller and Krebs 1984.

12

LATE BRONZE AGE AEGEAN TRADE ROUTES IN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN

gathering,50 basic animal husbandry, and, perhaps, subsistence farming. Seafaring capabilities51 and continued exchanges52 must also have been essential and everyday activities. By establishing an extensive exchange network, probably larger than needed for mere subsistence, the settlements had to be protected from pirates and raiders. The earliest settlement to be located on a hill was that at Montagnola di Capo Graziano, which replaced the nearby coastal settlement of Piano del Porto; Montagnola has also yielded some of the earliest Aegeantype pottery. The early Capo Graziano pottery has been found at many sites across eastern Sicily and the southern Tyrrhenian coast of the Italian peninsula, and demonstrates commercial links with peoples in all the surrounding lands.

The possibility that Aegean people settled in order to facilitate the exchanges is best demonstrated by the only building in the western Mediterranean54 that can be convincingly related to Aegean architecture – the Tholos of San Calogero (Fig. 6).55 Vivara acted as a terminus for Aegean ships and there is scarce evidence that Aegean products travelled beyond the little island. Pottery was consumed in situ, as was the case at Monte Grande. There is evidence of metalworking at Vivara but the site cannot be described as a production centre similar to Monte Grande, or as being a very large settlement. Instead Vivara was an entry point to the Apennine world. It is the most northerly site on the Tyrrhenian coast where a secure Aegean presence can be determined, and probably also the only one that had any organised and regular contacts with Aegean people on the Tyrrhenian coast of the Italian peninsula. The site was abandoned about LH III A 1, a process in which some volcanic activity probably played a part.

Only a few products probably departed the islands for exchanges, but little was needed in return. It is unlikely that Aegean ships bothered to sail so far for the little that the islands could offer. The islands were, though, located in an ideal position for Tyrrhenian and Sardinian ships so that the Aeolian Islands could have acted as exchange sites for Tyrrhenian and Sardinian products from the north and Sicilian products from the south. However ships coming from the south and east, such as Aegean vessels, would have had access to the islands of Malta, Ognina, and, perhaps, Pantelleria, which also acted as regional gateways at the time, before reaching the Aeolian Islands. Since it appears that Aegean ships ignored those islands, it seems that the Aegean people were more interested in northern products than Sicilian ones. It should be noted that, with the arrival of Aegean ships in the Aeolian Islands, the Sardinian presence apparently decreases rapidly and also the presence of people from the Italian peninsula appears to drop until the LH III arrival of the Ausonians.53 All this evidence suggests that the Aegean traders had no interest in the products that were exchanged on the islands surrounding Sicily; they appear rather to have had an interest in tapping specific resources (sulphur from Monte Grande), or reaching directly people who might provide what they needed without any mediated contact. Such a strategy is clearly a commercial one: direct access to production areas means stable supply at the lowest cost, and it is also possible to exercise some control on the production itself.

Vivara is located near the metal-rich hills of Tuscany and Latium and is not far from Sardinia, also rich in metals. The inhabitants of Vivara belonged to the people of the Apennine culture which stretched up to the Po Valley; trade routes were in operation with the Terremare and other northern cultures of Italy. Interestingly, whilst there is no evidence that after LH III A 1 Aegean ships returned to sites on the northern Tyrrhenian coast, LH III A 2 and later products are found on the Adriatic coast and also in the Po Valley. It is possible that the true reason for the Aegean traders sailing so far was the procurement of particular commodities, such as amber, that were imported through transalpine exchange networks from 54

Vianello 2005, 76-77. The tholos is better described as a spring chamber, but its architecture and possible connection with the underworld convincingly support the theory that it was built by (or with the participation of) Aegean people, probably during LH I – II. The poisonous hot spring is a by-product of volcanic activity, and its uniqueness in the region must have surprised ancient as much as modern people. The fact that the spring chamber was sacred is suggested by the restoration of the tholos undertaken by the Romans centuries later (Fig. 7), after an earthquake, when all the surrounding ground had been occupied by a sumptuous Roman thermal bath (thermae). The only reason for the Romans not to modify or rebuild such an old building must have been concerns for its sacredness. For an example of the Roman respect shown for pre-existing sacred places, Aquae Sulis (modern Bath; see Cunliffe 2000) is a good example. There, a Celtic shrine dedicated to Sulis was used by the local population to communicate with the underworld. The Romans respected the spring and the associated goddess, even after they identified Sulis with Minerva: it was then called Sulis Minerva. 55 Bernabò Brea, Cavalier and Belli 1990.

50

Coastal areas are rich in natural foods because of the combined presence of land and sea. 51 Reaching the islands in the first place, moving from island to island (and fishing), meant that seafaring capabilities were essential to the very survival of the islanders. 52 The absence of clay on the islands has been mentioned above. It may also have been necessary to replenish the islands with livestock and agricultural products. Exchanges were therefore another activity essential for survival. 53 Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1980.

13

ANDREA VIANELLO

central and northern Europe. Also it should be noted that Vivara is one of the few sites where gold pendants56 have been found associated with Aegean products.

may have destroyed archaeological evidence or discouraged visitors, and on Alicudi, the smallest of the islands. It seems that the Aegean products, and possibly people reaching the Aeolian Islands, were not restricted to, nor did they prefer, a particular site or island. Lipari is also the only known site with stratified depositional contexts containing Aegean-type pottery from LH I to LH III C. The use of different islands at different times suggests that there was some reorganisation within the islands, and this may have been provoked, at least in part, by the evolving exchange network. However, the clear continuity of use of Lipari within the Aegean exchange networks demonstrates that the same people that had sailed to Monte Grande and Vivara until LH III A 1 decided instead to sail to Thapsos, Cannatello and Antigori; no hiatus in the exchanges can be detected at Lipari.

Another region with some early Mycenaean products is Apulia. Punta Tonno, on the Ionian coast, is unfortunately destroyed and there is no record of early contacts, but the evidence from later periods suggests this was a very important site which acted as a gateway between the Aegean exchange networks and their Italic counterparts. In particular, there is evidence that metals (and probably amber) from central Europe were reaching Punta Tonno in significant quantities at least since LH III. It seems possible that Punta Tonno was already part of the Aegean exchange networks before LH III. There is also evidence of early Mycenaean products on the Adriatic coast of Apulia, especially at Roca Vecchia (Fig. 8, 9).57 The earliest products appear to be LM I Cretan pottery and LH II B Mycenaean wares. The settlement was destroyed after a siege58 at the end of the Italian Middle Bronze Age (ca. LH II B – III A 1). It seems that warfare in the region between the Middle and Recent Bronze Age disrupted Aegean attempts to sail further north on the Adriatic coast until LH III A 2 – B 1, and the unstable situation in the region may have channelled all Aegean ships to the then safer Tyrrhenian coast.

Thapsos59 is a small peninsula and consists of a harbour located between Sicily and the peninsula itself; a settlement close to the harbour and all the fields towards the sea were used as a cemetery and fortifications divided the harbour and settlement from the cemetery (Fig. 10). The site is surrounded by other smaller sites which have yielded Aegean-type pottery. Recent petrological and chemical analyses of some of these vessels suggest that they were all produced in the northern Peloponnese.60 The area of the necropolis is very large compared to the possible extension of the settlement, which is tucked away in a corner and with rectangular monumental multichambered buildings that were not used as dwellings. It is clear that if all the people deposed in the tombs lived at Thapsos it would have been the largest known settlement in the area, covering 20 to 30 hectares.61 Sea erosion is destroying some tombs in the northern necropolis and the reuse of the area since Greek times probably destroyed many other tombs; more tombs are also present in the area but are unexcavated and unreported.62 As a result, the estimated population could have reached over one thousand people at one time, which appears unlikely even in such a large settlement because parts of the area were used for workshops. In addition, such a large population would require fresh water, absent on the peninsula, and in addition food would have been scarce as no agriculture was possible there: fishing alone would have been the viable source of food. It is my opinion that importing both water and food would have prevented the settlement of a large population on the peninsula, and the weak defences of what appears to have been the wealthiest of the sites in the area also require an explanation. Both settlement and harbour were exposed to the Sicilian mainland and people from nearby sites could have

The West Mediterranean, LH III A 2 – C The second phase in the exchanges is characterised by a substantial reorganisation of the exchange network, the introduction of Cypriot products, including pottery and oxhide ingots, and the start of local production on the Italian peninsula. Two out of three important harbours in Sicily and the Tyrrhenian coast exit the exchange network by LH III A 1: Monte Grande and Vivara. The Aeolian Islands, which served as a hub, continued to be part of the exchange network, although four islands were used for the exchanges at different times: Filicudi (Montagnola di Capo Graziano) and Lipari in the first phase – Panarea (Capo Milazzese), Salina (two small settlements) and Lipari. There is no evidence of Aegean frequentation at Vulcano and Stromboli, which are active volcanoes and

56

Only one pendant has been found at Vivara. Marazzi and Tusa 2001 (Fig. 1a). 57 Guglielmino 2002. 58 Corpses have been found buried in the débris along the wall. Whilst Aegean involvement in the destruction remains speculative, there is no doubt that Roca was besieged, provided that the reported depositional context is confirmed after the excavations have been completed (Pagliara 2002).

59

Voza 1999. Jones and Levi 2004. 61 Voza estimates the settlement to be 1 km long and at most 300 m wide; Pelagatti and Voza 1973, 32. 62 Pelagatti and Voza 1973, 30. 60

14

LATE BRONZE AGE AEGEAN TRADE ROUTES IN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN

literally swam from the Sicilian coast to Thapsos; this would leave the settlement strangely unprotected when most of the other contemporary sites were located on the top of hills, in positions more easily defendable. I have suggested the possibility that Thapsos was a ‘federal’ harbour, the centre of a community that included the nearby sites of Thapsos culture.63 This suggestion cannot be proven yet and therefore it should be considered as a hypothesis. There are several reasons for proposing it, and perhaps the most important is that Thapsos appears a unique site in terms of its characteristics and cannot be classified either comparing other Sicilian or Italic sites that were involved in exchanges of Aegean-type products. There are three recognisable phases at Thapsos: the second phase is the only one when Aegean products circulated. In the first phase, it appears that there was only a small settlement, probably exploiting the natural harbour – but it was not included in regional exchanges. Two other similar sites with natural harbours were also present along the same eastern-Sicilian coast, Syracuse (Ortygia) and Ognina, of which only Ognina, the southernmost site, was clearly involved in regional exchanges with Malta. By the second phase, Aegean-type products appear in the archaeological record and the monumental multi-chambered buildings that were used as workshops provided a significant contribution to the expansion of the settlement. Whilst it is certain that the site grew from its exposure to long-distance exchanges, the cemetery still appears exceptionally large for the settlement. Moreover, about one third of the settlement was used for workshops and the huts were inserted in a complex system of roads and sewage that spaced them; they were not crammed together as in the contemporary site of Punta Milazzese at Panarea (Aeolian Islands). Thus, the archaeological evidence suggests that people worked and were buried at Thapsos, but the permanent resident community may have been smaller than the workforce. With regard to the problems of the relatively poor defences and the operation of the harbour, since the harbour of Thapsos faces the Sicilian coast and the sea is out of sight from the settlement (because of the cemetery), there is no practical way to spot incoming ships from the peninsula unless people were stationed in the cemetery, which appears unlikely. Instead, the nearby hills would have been easy to spot from the open sea, the settlement and the harbour of Thapsos, and may have been used to watch the open sea. Perhaps a signalling system was in place to alert the people at Thapsos of incoming ships. The fortifications located in the middle of the peninsula were probably hidden by the vegetation and not immediately visible from the sea. The rocky cemetery could easily have passed for a deserted and uninteresting area along the coast, effectively masking both the harbour and settlement. Not only were the hills

facing Thapsos probably directly involved in the activities of the harbour there, but also the entire region identified by the Thapsos culture seems to have utilized it. Sites such as Molinello to the south, as well as Syracuse, Milocca (Matrensa) and Plemmyrion appear to have acted as ‘exposed’ harbours,64 smaller and easy to see from the sea and connected to settlements in more defendable positions (the settlements were located at some distance from the harbours and have not yet been discovered; probably they were on the top of a nearby hill). Thapsos was at the heart of such a group of sites: easily accessible by sea, or, if necessary, by land, from any of the other sites, but also ‘hidden’ from the sea to those who did not know its exact location. In this way the exchange network benefited from multiple harbours, and, because of redundancy, any attacker targeting one of the minor sites would have caused relatively little damage. The few ships in danger may have tried to escape, while the people in the settlement would have been separated, or protected from the hostile activities, and ships could have moved to the next harbour for protection or harbouring. Yet a series of small harbours would have been of little importance without a main centre where people could meet, exchange, and work some of the transiting products. This site was Thapsos, which probably acted as a main hub for the exchanges and must have been supported by all the people in the surrounding communities. In this case, the larger quantities of Aegean-type pottery in Thapsos would be explained by the location’s importance. The nearby sites would not need to be peaceful competitors but members of a same federal polity sharing the same culture and access to the same exchange network. The monumental multichambered buildings would be the workplaces of that community and traders and workers may have been able to return to their settlements on a daily or weekly basis. Supplies of staples to Thapsos would have been carried by commuters or easily transported from the federated sites, and the large cemetery at Thapsos may be explained by the willingness of many people to be buried together – 64

Alberti 2004. Alberti carried out a typological study of the archaeological evidence from sites of Thapsos culture, concluding that Thapsos, Cozzo del Pantano, Plemmyrion and Milocca were founded during phase I of the Thapsos culture. Thapsos and Plemmyrion were used mostly during phase II, along with the newly founded site of Molinello. Plemmyrion, Milocca and Molinello were abandoned by the end of the second phase. Phase III signalled the passage between Middle BA and Late BA in the area, and corresponded to the LH III B 1 period. Tombs 1, 48, A1 and D at Thapsos were used in all three Thapsos-culture phases. With the exception of Thapsos, only funerary contexts are known, but corresponding settlements probably with harbours must have existed in the area of each site.

63

Vianello 2005, 76 for a preliminary version of the idea of Thapsos as a federal harbour; however suggestions of the sites involved should be discarded.

15

ANDREA VIANELLO

they felt themselves members of one community and Thapsos was their focal point.

‘Cypriot’ Base-Ring II pots are imitations, and, in his opinion, produced locally, but they could have been produced in the Peloponnese or Crete. There is no evidence of an Italic production of Cypriot pottery, but if that can be confirmed from clays the production centres would probably be located on the southern Italian peninsula as there is no indication of Aegean-type pottery production in Sicily.

Thapsos is an extraordinary place from which to study the formation of Aegean trade routes in the western Mediterranean as it demonstrates that Aegean traders, by involving the indigenous Italic peoples, could build an extremely sophisticated and efficient exchange network even when the area had not been previously used for exchanges. The exchanges of Aegean pottery at Thapsos seem to have ended when LH III B 1 products were imported (Fig. 11). The subsequent third phase (equivalent to LH III B 2) is one of decadence for Thapsos, and was at least partially contemporary with the emergence of Pantalica. Pantalica65 is an odd site, founded inland and following the course of the River Anapo (Fig. 12). It is formed of several necropoleis (Fig. 13, 14) encircling a monumental multi-chambered building,66 analogous to those of the second phase at Thapsos and more clearly recalling Mycenaean architecture in spite of its Byzantine restoration.67 It seems possible that the associated settlements were located on the top of the surrounding hills, although erosion may have destroyed them. The particular organisation of the space at Pantalica, with a workshop at the centre, merging necropoleis suggesting a shared sacred space for the afterlife, and probable separated settlements recalls the organisation of the region of Thapsos in an earlier phase, albeit on a smaller scale, and has prompted the suggestion that Thapsos was a federal centre. The location of Pantalica suggests a period of increased instability, especially on the coast, which would confirm suggestions of the movement of Aeolian sites up into the hills since LH I, and the apparently hidden position of Thapsos. At Pantalica numerous Aegean-type and -derived products68 (probably produced locally or by other Italics) demonstrate that the exchange network of Aegean products survived into the Iron Age. However actual imports from the Aegean become rare, if not absent entirely, and direct contacts probably end.

Cannatello70 is a settlement on the southern Sicilian coast where Cypriot and Mycenaean pottery has been found. Located not far from Monte Grande, the site entered the Aegean exchange network at the same time that Monte Grande exited it. However, the two sites are quite different: Monte Grande is an open mine and workshop for sulphur, whereas Cannatello was a standard, inhabited site where exchanges took place. There is no evidence that sulphur was exchanged at Cannatello. Several sites in central Sicily, both settlements and cemeteries, have yielded Aegean-type and -derived products (including golden objects71). The so-called tholos tombs of Sicily are in reality rock-cut tombs apparently mimicking the internal space of a tholos, but they may represent also the inside of a dwelling. This may purposefully suggest that the tomb was the ‘house’ of the deceased. There is no clear association between these tombs and Aegean-type and derived products: many tombs with Aegean-type products at Thapsos and Pantalica do not use this form. Both Cannatello and Thapsos are notable for the many Cypriot products imported there. One oxhide ingot has been found at each site and among several Cypriot vessels there is one uncertain fragment of White Slip ware (reported from Cannatello 72) and two White Shaved jugs (found at Thapsos73). Some Cypriot metal bowls have been found in both eastern and central Sicily (Caldare, Milena and Sant’Angelo Muxaro74). Only one Cypriot tripod has been found so far in Sicily, at Pantalica. Other Cypriot tripods have been found at Santadi on Sardinia, and Piediluco-Contigliano and Santa Domenica di Ricadi on the Italian peninsula.75 Petrographic and chemical analyses on transport jars from Cannatello suggest that they were manufactured on Crete.76 The Italic ware found at Kommos seems to have been manufactured on Sardinia,77 and therefore there is a strong possibility that many Cypriot products, including

No Aegean-type pottery has been found in the settlement of Thapsos and only a few vessels have been located inside the monumental multi-chambered buildings. Instead, plenty of Aegean-type products have been found inside the communal (probably family) tombs. The products were used in a strategy of wealth display that prized the rarest and finest vessels – Cypriot pottery. Karageorghis69 has recently determined that many

70

De Miro 1996; De Miro 1999. Nicoletti 2001. 72 Graziadio 1997, 697. 73 Vianello 2005, 163; tomb A1 and D. A later Sicilian imitation has been found at Realmese (Vianello 2005, 180), near Thapsos, in a Pantalica III (Iron Age) tomb. 74 Vianello 2005, 91. 75 Ibid. 76 Vianello 2005, 112. 77 Watrous, Day and Jones 1998. 71

65

Orsi 1899. The building is known as the Anaktoron. 67 Tanasi 2004, 345-347. In particular, the possibility that the Anaktoron was a Byzantine castle is rejected after a re-examination of the archaeological evidence found at the site. 68 Tanasi 2004. 69 Karageorghis 1995, 94. 66

16

LATE BRONZE AGE AEGEAN TRADE ROUTES IN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN

copper oxhide ingots, transited via Kommos. This possibility would rule out a direct link between Cyprus and the western Mediterranean, and rather demonstrates that long-distance exchanges were the result of shorter, interregional exchanges from terminus to terminus. A higher frequency of Cretan products in the latest periods (LH III B 2 – C) has been noted also on the Ionian coast, particularly at Broglio di Trebisacce,78 and may be due to the fall of Mycenaean palaces and a new reorganisation of the Aegean exchange networks.

The location of copper oxhide ingots suggests that the Po Valley was a terminus for a land route to central and northern Europe. The four fragments of ingots from Oberwilflingen probably arrived at Frattesina, or another nearby centre, by ship and then continued through the transalpine ‘amber route’. Discoveries of Aegean-type products in Germany include the two inscribed amber beads from Bernstorf87 found in a hoard with several golden objects. A dagger of Cycladic shape turned up with some amber beads in the Kyhna hoard (Saxony).88 The finds west of Sardinia suggest instead a route heading north to Corsica and then following the coastline of southern France and into Iberia, preferring small islands such as the Balearic Islands. In the Guadalquivir Valley of modern Spain a few potsherds of Mycenaean ware have been found: scientific analyses have confirmed that they are imports from the Peloponnese.89 Of some interest seems to be the fact that the only oxhide ingot from France so far was found near the mouth of the Rhône, while all Aegean-type pottery found in Iberia is located along the Guadalquivir, not far from its mouth. It seems that small islands and river mouths were conventional exchange places in the western Mediterranean and were actively looked for by traders.

Sardinia is a region involved in Aegean exchanges only during LH III. Aegean-type pottery on Sardinia is rare and mostly concentrated at Sarroch. However Sardinia has yielded most oxhide ingots (Fig. 15), which appear to be of Cypriot origin according to lead isotope analyses,79 and Cypriot-style tripods.80 Oxhide ingots have attracted particular attention as Sardinia is rich in metals, including copper, and the Nuragic artisans appear expert in mastering metalwork. As a result, Sardinia could have exported metals to the Aegean, but evidence seems to suggest that it was importing Cypriot copper oxhide ingots. Most ingots are from hoards and fragmentary, except for those found at Nuragus (three) and Ozieri (two), which are integral.81 However copper oxhide ingots have been found also on Sicily (poor in metals), at Thapsos, Cannatello and Lipari (all fragmentary);82 one integral example comes from Sant’Anastasia on Corsica.83 Another complete one comes from Sète in southern France, near the mouth of the Rhône,84 and four fragments have been found at Oberwilflingen in Germany.85 A shipwreck with oxhide ingots has been reported off the coast of Formentera, Balearic Islands.86

Copper oxhide ingots are normally interpreted as raw materials, and results from lead isotope and other scientific analyses are generally interpreted on this assumption. However Primas90 suggests that between Middle and Late Bronze Age (ca. MH III – LH II) daggers were probably exchanged according to gift exchange rules, i.e. each individual object had a value and was exchanged as a unit. In particular, she recalls the many representations of weapons in rock art, implying that weapons had a symbolic value for ancient people.91 From the mature Late Bronze Age (ca. LH III), she recognises that widespread interregional exchanges of metals, including gold, across Europe may signify that weighed metal was a means of payment,92 in effect the ‘currency’ of Bronze Age Europe. The detailed study of Bronze Age sickles93 from central Europe has revealed that they were deliberately broken into equal pieces or multiples of a basic weight, and studies of other types of metal objects may confirm that a standardised metrological system was in use in the western Mediterranean and central Europe.94 Primas95 also notes

78

Peroni, Vanzetti and Bagella 1998; Bettelli 2002. Gale 2001; Begemann 2001. 80 Lo Schiavo, Macnamara and Vagnetti 1985, 35-50. Often Sardinian Cypriot-style tripods are confused with imported Cypriot tripods (e.g. Matthäus 2005, 350-351). There is only one Cypriot tripod reported on Sardinia, all the others are regional imitations. 81 Primas 2005, 385-386; Lo Schiavo 2005, 404-405. 82 Vianello 2005, 92-93. 83 Lo Schiavo 2005, 407-408. 84 Lo Schiavo 2005, 408. Sète is located near the Rhône, but also not far from the Garonne, which was used as a major axis for exchanges by Bronze Age people. The diffusion of Early Neolithic cardial ware suggests that from the fourth or third millennium BC the Garonne was a major axis of communication for European exchange networks between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean (Cunliffe 2001, 220-221). The exchange axis was also involved in the spread of the later Bell Beaker culture. This was also the easiest route for Wessex amber to reach the Mediterranean. 85 Primas 2005, 389; Primas 1997. The site is also known as Wilflingen. 86 Parker 1992, 181. 79

87

Vianello 2005, 108; Moosauer and Traudl 2005. Gerloff 1993; Primas 1997, 121. 89 Mommsen, Diehl, Lambrecht Pantenburg and Weber 1990; De la Cruz 1990; Vianello 2005, 130. 90 Primas 1997, 123. 91 Primas 1997, 116. 92 Primas 1997, 123. 93 Primas 1986. 94 The weight of the four fragments of oxhide ingots found at Oberwilflingen is: 3254.2g, 1682.8g, 1411.8g, and 1346.4g. Primas recognises a regular system here, 88

17

ANDREA VIANELLO

regularities in weight among most standardised sets of objects, and the conventional notation on bronze items, using signs, may have reflected a system similar to that in use for transport vessels.96

needed supplies at low cost. Such a situation could have found parallels during the colonisation of America. The discovery of significant amounts of Aegean-type pottery at Roca Vecchia dated to the LH III B – C should also be remembered. Roca Vecchia appears to have been an important ritual centre and a landing point for artisans and other people coming from the Aegean102.

The case of the southern Italian peninsula is quite different from any other discussed so far. The massive Italic production in the region almost hides the few imports. There were sites used as termini of exchange networks. Punta Tonno was the largest and most important of these and perhaps Broglio di Trebisacce also had some importance in this regard. However, the industrial production of Aegean-type pottery wiped out any possibility for the exchange of Aegean imported pottery. In spite of the obvious Aegean influence, the archaeological evidence for exchanges of any product imported from the Aegean is extremely scanty. The migration of a few artisans during LH III B97 may have been responsible for the formation of social identities.98 There has been an intense debate since Biancofiore’s monograph99 on whether any site in the western Mediterranean was an Aegean colony, even if only a moderated ‘community colony’ with small groups of Aegean settlers within Italic communities supporting trade, as proposed by Vagnetti.100 It seems to me that formal colonies should be ruled out, as the archaeological evidence always includes a strong indigenous component. The evidence in Sicily supports a view of strict cooperation, where intermarriages may have occurred: there is no evidence of a separate community, as the ‘community colony’ model requires. This may also be the case on the southern Italian peninsula101 unless the potters manufacturing Aegean-type pottery were of Aegean origins and kept themselves apart from the Italic communities. It is possible that Aegean traders used the skills of any Aegean artisan or worker who may have moved there. In that case, the actual control of the territory was often less important than the relief of population pressure on the homeland and the provision of

Discussion The study of Aegean-type products in the West Mediterranean is becoming increasingly complex as new archaeological evidence allows a more detailed view. The difference between the eastern and western Mediterranean is already evident in the volumes and forms of vessels found in the two regions and is now also becoming apparent in studies of contexts of usage.103 Our understanding of imports and imitations has changed since the introduction of petrographic and chemical analyses on pottery, which have demonstrated that sometimes the difference is invisible to the naked eye. The analyses have opened a new branch of research that has moved from short studies in support of traditional publications104 to the publication of independent monographs on the subject.105 Researchers have become aware of regional patterns,106 and the systematic study of pottery has fragmented our view of the exchanges into a multitude of individual patterns that often vary region by region, period by period.107 In 1958 Taylour108 published a monograph examining all the Aegean-type pottery found up until then in Italy. This work was periodically updated,109 but it has now become impossible to publish all the evidence in one monograph because of the sheer volume of material and the distinctions that need to be made. All recent monographs have avoided generalisations, or interpretations, using all or significant parts of the available evidence, and concentrated rather on specific sites or regions.110 Of course ceramics do not represent all

with one fragment weighing around 3kg and the other three approximately half this (Primas 1997, 126). Bietti Sestieri (in Cocchi Genick 2006, 199-200) and Pare (1999) express doubts except for integral standardised metal objects; Peroni (in Cocchi Genick 2006, 201-202) rejects such objections. 95 Primas 1997, 123-124. 96 For example, signs on pottery in the Aeolian Islands have been present since the Early Bronze Age (Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1968; Marazzi 2001). Signs have also been found on transport jars at Cannatello (Vianello 2005, 112; Åström 1998; Hirschfeld 2001). 97 Bettelli 2002. 98 Vianello 2005. 99 Biancofiore 1967; Gorgoglione, pers. comm. 100 Bettelli 2002 (for an updated position and history of the debate). 101 Vianello 2005, for a full discussion of the evidence.

102

Pagliara and Guglielmino 2005. Steel 1998; Wijngaarden 2002. 104 Biancofiore 1967. 105 Levi 1999. 106 Bettelli 2002. 107 Vianello 2005. 108 Taylour 1958. 109 Taylour 1980; Vagnetti 1982; Marazzi, Tusa and Vagnetti 1986. 110 Wijngaarden (2002) only focuses on three sites for each of three macro-regions identified by the author; Marazzi and Tusa (2001) concentrate on Sicily and Vivara while Bettelli (2002) concentrates on the Italian peninsula; Vianello (2005) presents regional patterns and 103

18

LATE BRONZE AGE AEGEAN TRADE ROUTES IN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN

the available archaeological evidence, but they form the largest element and separate studies have generally been used in support of the interpretations based on pottery,111 or have only produced new controversies and problems.112 Comprehensive publications of specific categories of products have been attempted, especially for Cypriot products,113 but they overemphasise the importance of the products they focus on.

the Uluburun ship may have come from the area of modern Romania118), but the supply of some products and materials, possibly gold and other metals, may have been disrupted. It seems unlikely that the Minoans were involved in this early exchange network because it would have made no sense for them to sell their jewellery (literally, as they would probably have had to pay in gold!) to acquire the northern products of interest to them (possibly almost exclusively luxury items, such as amber beads), while they – and the palatial elites in particular – were experiencing a period of crisis around the same time. The possibility that Aegean merchants were looking for gold in the western Mediterranean is strengthened by finds of gold objects. One gold pendant has been found at Vivara (Fig. 1a).119 The necropoleis of Thapsos have yielded perhaps the earliest Bronze Age gold pendants in Sicily and many other Late Bronze Age Sicilian sites have yielded golden objects.120 Gold is not found in Sicily and therefore must have been imported: gold (and amber) have also been found in the German hoards.

The only general scheme that can be recognised is the predominance of pattern-decorated Mycenaean pottery. However other considerations are possible. Although Cyprus (oxhide ingots) and Crete (Kommos harbour 114) were involved in the exchange network, it seems that such involvement in western routes was late (LH III) and that the Mycenaeans maintained overall control. The dynamics of trade for Aegean ceramics are different, from a chronological point of view, between the eastern and western Mediterranean. For instance, while LH I – II pottery is present in significant quantities at a few western sites, ‘only small quantities of LM I and LH I/II are found on the island’ of Cyprus.115 Most imports among Aegean-type vessels in the West Mediterranean date to the LH I – III A 1. The preliminary reports of petrographic analyses116 (and optical examinations) of the later vessels suggest that only a very small minority of such vessels are imported, and almost none are LH III C. Regional production of vessels is well known to have occurred also in Cyprus and the eastern Mediterranean on a massive scale,117 but in the western Mediterranean it remained localised (mostly on the southern Italian peninsula) and accounts for the many vessels that are Aegean derived (influenced), rather than of Aegean type (imitative).

The eruption of Thera certainly disrupted maritime traffic near northern Crete and probably destroyed ships and harbours in the area, even if signatures cannot be recognised in the ice cores. That destruction would have afforded the Mycenaeans the opportunity to sail unconstrained in the northern Aegean, and possibly gain control of many islands – as suggested by Homer.121 They do not seem to have launched their initial contacts with the western Mediterranean from Crete,122 but this does not exclude the possibility of the early Mycenaean control of Crete. The early (LH I – III A 1) Aegean traders seem to have been motivated by the desire to acquire supplies of certain products and probably to find markets for some of their own outputs. The Near East was an obvious market, but it was hardly an open one. Mycenaean ceramics (and probably other products) finally entered the Levant after some partnership (or conquest) involving Cyprus, where local rulers had long participated in the practice of giftexchanges with their eastern counterparts. The western Mediterranean posed other challenges, but obviously Aegean merchants did not need to be accredited, as there was no pre-existing long-distance exchange network in place. They directly accessed Monte Grande for sulphur for a relatively short period, probably until volcanic activity settled down in the Cyclades and access to sources there could be re-established. They did not access

The prevalence of Mycenaean artefacts suggests a need to keep the research focussed on mainland Greece in the quest to understand the earliest exchanges. It seems that the wealth apparent since MH III on mainland Greece had its origins to the north, however the exchange network constructed by the Mycenaeans had collapsed by LH II. Contacts with the coastal sites of the northern Balkans probably continued (one of the crew members of site-by-site evidence, but demonstrates that different patterns were produced by different social and economic processes and, as a result, overemphasis on pattern relating should be avoided. 111 Cavarretta, Gioia and Mussi 2001 for ivory; Harding and Hughes Brock 1974 for amber; Bellintani, Gambacurta, Henderson and Towle 2001 for glass. 112 Gale 2001 (for oxhide ingots from Sardinia). 113 Lo Schiavo, Macnamara and Vagnetti 1985; Graziadio 1997. 114 Watrous 1985. 115 Steel 2004, 170. 116 Jones, Levi and Vagnetti 2002. 117 Åström 1998.

118

Pulak 2005, 93. Marazzi and Tusa 2001, 301. 120 Nicoletti 2001. All gold objects found at Thapsos come from tomb D. 121 Iliad, II, 108. 122 Petrographic and chemical analyses suggest a Peloponnesian origin for many LH I – III A 1 vessels; Jones, Levi and Vagnetti 2002, 172; Jones and Levi 2004. 119

19

ANDREA VIANELLO

the traditional locations of the existing Sicilian exchange networks, but there is no evidence of resistance from the indigenous population. Exchanges remained stable on the Aeolian Islands for a long time, and eventually increased in Sicily with the establishment of Thapsos and Cannatello as preferred ports-of-call. It seems clear enough that the Aegean merchants wanted to connect directly with the exchange network that brought amber and other products into the Balkans, but experienced political turbulence, if not open warfare, on the Adriatic coast – the only site providing evidence of hostile behaviour directly connected to the Aegean exchange network is at Roca Vecchia.123 On the Tyrrhenian coast Vivara acted as a trade intermediary 124 with the northern Italian peninsula (and perhaps Sardinia). This probably frustrated the Aegean traders who had travelled long distances only to find an intermediary in place. Eventually, people of the same Apennine culture (Vivara) took control of the Aeolian Islands, probably by violent conquest,125 and further social complications may have arisen on the southern Italian peninsula, where issues of emerging social identities diverging from the mainstream Apennine culture can be detected in coastal settlements.126 Any social process of identity formation would have been boosted by the arrival of a few Aegean artisans willing to share their culture and integrate with the Italic communities.

the local population at Monte Grande may have persuaded Aegean traders that Sicily itself was a valuable market. Antigori, on southern Sardinia, received a few Aegean products about this time, but it is unclear which routes were used to bring Aegean ceramics there. Oxhide ingots were probably carried exclusively by ship, and therefore via the Aeolian Islands, but a few fragments of these ingots have been found at Thapsos, Cannatello and Lipari. The situation changes dramatically also on the southern Italian peninsula, where small amounts of imported Aegean pottery stimulate an impressive production of both Aegean-type and -derived pottery. The settlement of Punta Tonno stands out as a terminus for exchanges from central Europe, via the Apennine culture, and from the Aegean. On the Adriatic coast there are only a few finds of pots, but some concentrations on the northern coast, and particularly the Po Valley,129 suggest that Aegean merchants succeeded in connecting with the transalpine ‘amber route’. An oxhide ingot in pure copper has been found as far north as Wilflingen 130 in modern Germany. At Bernstorf,131 again in modern Germany, two amber pieces inscribed with Linear B letters have been found. It seems to me that the amber pieces may have been samples sent through the network to request ‘more of the same’ – amber – and the marks (or letters) were perhaps a signature to certify some commercial agreement.

The LH III A was a period of change for the Aegean exchange network in general, not just for the western Mediterranean: at Kommos,127 a change in foreign imports has been detected between LH III A 1 and 2. At the end of LH III A 1, Aegean sailors abandoned the routes to Vivara and Monte Grande. However, the Aeolian Islands remained a hub for Aegean operations in the western Mediterranean and new destinations receive Aegean products: Thapsos and Cannatello were the most important destinations in Sicily. Thapsos is a peninsula located near a short crossing from the tip of the Italian peninsula and was therefore the first Sicilian site Aegean ships would have reached by following the Ionian coast. Cannatello is not far from Monte Grande, but it is a settlement. Its location by the mouth of a river was ideal for reaching the northern coast of Sicily without circumnavigating it, and from there it would have been possible to reach Sardinia via Ustica without transiting the Aeolian Islands.128 However previous contacts with

It is unclear how long the trade lasted, but it was probably quite a short time considering that these long-distance exchanges with central Europe via the Adriatic started not earlier than LH III A 2, and from LH III B 1 the Mycenaean palaces were being destroyed or abandoned. However, after such a long journey, both in chronological and geographical terms, the Mycenaeans would certainly have gained precious knowledge about the Italic peoples, the trading opportunities in the western Mediterranean and the transalpine routes, which were remembered by Aegean and Phoenician merchants during the Iron Age. There is little doubt that the earliest Aegean merchants were also explorers and that the modifications in the western sea routes from LH III A 2 were based on information gathered during previous enterprises. There is never the impression of opportunistic behaviour on the

evidence that Aegean ships transited via Cannatello and Ustica to reach Sardinia, but a route excluding the Aeolian Islands may have been sought after the Ausonian conquest of the islands. Eventually it appears that contacts between Aegean and Italic traders continued, albeit reduced, in Lipari until LH III C. Although the LH III B 2 - C pottery found in Lipari may have been imported from the southern Italian peninsula rather than the Aegean, the copper oxhide ingots suggest that ships from there continued to embark for the Aeolian Islands. 129 Vianello 2005, 216, table 19. 130 Primas 1997; Primas 2005. 131 Moosauer and Traudl 2005.

123

The settlement was besieged by people of probable Apennine culture. 124 Tokens found at Vivara strongly suggest that organized exchanges (trade) were the main reasons for the Aegean presence. Mammina, Marazzi and Tusa 1990; Mammina 2001. 125 Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1980. 126 Vianello 2005, 96-97. 127 Watrous 1985. 128 For Ustica: Mannino 1982. There is no archaeological

20

LATE BRONZE AGE AEGEAN TRADE ROUTES IN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN

Aegean side: they always knew what they wanted and where to go to source it.

capable of greatly influencing the peoples living in the coastal settlements of the respective regions. In Sicily there is evidence of wealth-display strategies and therefore the formation of hierarchical societies, which are clearly associated with gold, amber, Cypriot pottery, and other imported exotics. In the southern Italian peninsula new political identities seem to have adopted the Aegean culture to differentiate themselves from the surrounding peoples. In the Aegean too, however, the exchange network had profound effects. Such a complex network would not have been possible without producing wealth by sourcing and exchanging common products from one part of the Mediterranean for rare products elsewhere. As the exchange network enlarged to encompass all the Mediterranean, from Iberia to Egypt, the Mycenaean products suggest that mainland Greece retained some control of this network until the end. Aegean merchants influenced many cultures with their wealth, culture and trades more than any army could have done. They acted as cultural pollinators for all those Bronze-Age societies that faced the Mediterranean, and this is why we find their traces all over such a vast region.

It seems probable that the LH III A exchanges were, at least in part, the result of the partnership with Cypriot and possibly other Levantine merchants: Cypriot pottery appears from the earliest period of contact at Thapsos (fine pottery), Cannatello (transport jars), and Antigori (both). Oxhide ingots were probably also introduced into the exchanges at this time, but most of them have been found fragmented in hoards of later periods. Kommos was clearly connected with exchanges in the western Mediterranean, but it is improbable that it became the primary terminus in the Aegean for that particular exchange network. There is no evidence of a fixed ‘terminus to terminus’ route at any time in the western Mediterranean, and it would be speculative to suggest one for the Aegean. Kommos was obviously a terminus, and as such products were circulating in (and from) all directions: Italic pottery (particularly Sardinian 132) arrived there, as well as Mycenaean and Cypriot ceramic wares and other products. However proof of circulation of Italic products in the Aegean is still missing: a few swords similar to the Italic Pertosa-type have been found in the Uluburun shipwreck133 and on Crete.134 The similarity between Aegean Barbarian ware and Italic impasto ware has also been noted.135 However, except for Kommos, a secure Italic provenance has not been confirmed for most of the similar metal objects, and the origins of Barbarian ware remain doubtful.136

Acknowledgements: I wish to thank Prof. Helène Whittaker von Hofsten for inviting me to her session at the EAA annual meeting in 2005; Prof. Keith Branigan for reading an earlier version of this paper and his invaluable comments and support; Mr. Gerald Brisch for his comments on the English language of an earlier version of this paper. This paper was written while working with Dr. Ylva Berglund, Mr. Alun Edwards, Dr. Michael Fraser, Dr. Shoshannah Holdom and Dr. James Wilson for the Humbul Humanities Hub project at the University of Oxford.

To conclude, the Aegean exchange networks of the Late Bronze Age appear to have introduced the West Mediterranean to the Aegean and Near East, and vice versa. The exchanges were probably important for all these regions in economic terms, but they were also capable

132

Apart from possible Sardinian pottery at Kommos, an askos has been found there, Khaniale Tekke tholos tomb 2 (Vagnetti 1989; Ferrarese Ceruti 1991). 133 Pulak 2005. 134 Bettelli 2002, 132. 135 Bettelli 2002, 117-137 136 ‘Barbarian’is a simple ware which may imitate pottery from the western Mediterranean, or pottery from other places, or be indigenous.

21

ANDREA VIANELLO

References Alberti, Gianmarco 2004, "Contributo alla seriazione delle necropoli siracusane", in V. La Rosa (ed.) Le presenze micenee nel territorio siracusano, Padova, 99-170. Åström, Paul 1998, "Ceramics: Influences East and West", in E. H. Cline and D. Harris-Cline (eds.) The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium, Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium, University of Cincinnati, 18-20 April 1997, Liège. Aubet, Maria Eugenia 2001, The Phoenicians and the West: politics, colonies and trade, Cambridge; New York. Bacci, Giovanna Maria 2001, "Due idoletti di tipo egeo-cicladico da Camaro Sant'Anna presso Messina", in M. Marazzi and S. Tusa (eds.) Preistoria: dalle coste della Sicilia alle Isole Flegree, Napoli, 295-297. Begemann, Friedrich, Schmitt-Strecker, Sigrid, Pernicka, Ernst and Lo Schiavo, Fulvia 2001, "Chemical composition and lead isotopy of copper and bronze from Nuragic Sardinia", European Journal of Archaeology 4, (1), 43. Bellintani, Paolo, Giovanna Gambacurta, Julian Henderson, and Andrew Towle 2001, "Frattesina and Adria: report of scientific analysis of early glass from the Veneto", Padusa 37, 7-68. Bernabò Brea, Luigi 1991, Meligunìs Lipára 6. Filicudi. Insediamenti dell'età del Bronzo, Palermo. Bernabò Brea, Luigi 2001, "La cultura eoliana di Capo Graziano e le sue origini protoelladiche", in M. Marazzi and S. Tusa (eds.) Preistoria dalle coste della Sicilia alle Isole Flegree, Napoli, 415-420. Bernabò Brea, Luigi, and Madeleine Cavalier, 1968, Meligunìs-Lipára 3. Stazioni preistoriche delle isole Panarea, Salina e Stromboli, Palermo. Bernabò Brea, Luigi, and Madeleine Cavalier 1980, Meligunìs Lipára 4. L'acropoli de Lipari nella preistoria, Palermo. Bernabò Brea, Luigi, Madaleine Cavalier, and Paolo Belli 1990, "La tholos termale di San Calogero nell'isola di Lipari", Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 28, 7-84. Bettelli, Marco 2002, Italia meridionale e mondo miceneo: ricerche su dinamiche di acculturazione e aspetti archeologici, con particolare riferimento ai versanti adriatico e ionico della penisola italiana, with a summary in English, Firenze. Biancofiore, Franco 1967, Civiltà micenea nell'Italia meridionale, Roma. Bietak, Manfred 1995, "Connections between Egypt and the Minoan World: New Results from Tell el-Dab`a", in W. V. Davies and L. Schofield (eds.) Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant - Interconnections in the second Millennium BC, London, 19-27. Bronk Ramsey, Christopher, Sturt W. Manning, and Mariagrazia Galimberti 2004, "Dating the Volcanic Eruption at Thera", Radiocarbon 46, (1), 325-344. Cavalier, Madaleine 1960, "Les cultures préhistoriques des îles Éoliennes et leur rapport avec le monde égéen", Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 84, 319-346. Cavarretta, G., P. Gioia, M. Mussi, and M.R. Palombo (eds.) 2001, La terra degli Elefanti - The World of Elephants, Roma. Cline, Eric H., and Diane Harris-Cline (eds.) 1998, The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium, Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium, University of Cincinnati, 18-20 April 1997, Liège. Cocchi Genick, Daniela (ed.) 2006, Atti delle Riunioni Scientifiche: Materie prime e scambi nella preistoria italiana, Firenze.

22

LATE BRONZE AGE AEGEAN TRADE ROUTES IN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN

Cunliffe, Barry 2000, Roman Bath discovered, Stroud. Cunliffe, Barry 2001, Facing the ocean: the Atlantic and its peoples, 8000 BC-1500 AD, Oxford. David, Wolfgang 2001, "Zu den Beziehungen zwischen Donau-Karpatenraum, osteuropäischen Steppengebieten und ägäisch-anatolischem Raum zur Zeit der mykenischen Schachtgräber unter Berücksichtigung neuerer Funde aus Südbayern", in Anodos. Studies of the Ancient World 1, 51-80. Davis, Ellen N. 1977, The Vapheio cups and Aegean gold and silver ware, New York. Davis, Ellen N. 1983, "The Gold of the Shaft Graves: The Transylvanian Connection", in Temple University Aegean Symposium: 8. Gold in the Aegean Bronze Age, 32-38. Davis, Jack L. 1981, "Mycenaeans at Thera: Another Look", American Journal of Archaeology 85, 69-70. De la Cruz, Jose Clemente Martin 1990, "Die erste mykenische Keramik von der Iberischen Halbinsel", Prähistorische Zeitschrift 65, 49-52. De Miro, Ernesto 1996, "Recenti ritorovamenti micenei nell'agrigentino e il villaggio di Cannatello", in E. De Miro, L. Godart and A. Sacconi (eds.) Atti e memorie del secondo Congresso internazionale di micenologia: Roma-Napoli, 1420 ottobre 1991, Roma, 995-1011. De Miro, Ernesto 1999, "Un emporio miceneo sulla costa sud della Sicilia", in V. La Rosa, L. Vagnetti and D. Palermo (eds.) Epi ponton plazomenoi: Simposio italiano di studi egei dedicato a Luigi Bernabo Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, Roma, 439-449. Ferrarese Ceruti, Maria Luisa 1991, "Creta e Sardegna in età postmicenea", in D. Musti (ed.) La transizione dal Miceneo all'Alto Arcaismo. Dal palazzo alla città, Roma, 587-591. Franke, Detlef 1995, "The Middle Kingdom in Egypt", in J. M. Sasson (ed.) Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, New York, 735-748. Gale, Noel 2001, "Archaeology, science-based archaeology and the Mediterranean Bronze Age metals trade: a contribution to the debate", European Journal of Archaeology 4, (1), 113. Gerloff, Sabine 1993, "Zu Fragen mittelmeerländischer Kontakte und absoluter Chronologie der Frühbronzezeit in Mittel- und Westeuropa", Prähistorische Zeitschrift 68, (1), 58-102. Giumlia-Mair, Alessandra 2005, "Handel und Rohstoffgewinnung im Italien der späten Bronzezeit", in Ü. Yalçin, C. Pulak and R. Slotta (eds.) Das Schiff von Uluburun - Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren, Bochum, 415-430. Graziadio, Giampaolo 1997, "Le presenze cipriote in Italia nel quadro del commercio mediterraneo dei secoli XIV e XIII a.C.", Studi classici e orientali 46, (2), 681-719. Guglielmino, Riccardo 2002, "Ceramiche egee ed egeizzanti da Roca Vecchia (Melendugno, Lecce)", in M. Gorgoglione (ed.) Strutture e modelli di abitati del Bronzo tardo da Torre Castelluccia a Roca Vecchia, Manduria, 171192. Hänsel, B. 1982, "Südosteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 vor Christus", in B. Hänsel (ed.) Südosteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 vor Christus, Berlin, 1-38. Harding, Anthony, and Helen Hughes-Brock 1974, "Amber in the Mycenaean World", Annual of the British School at Athens 69, 145-172. Hirschfeld, Nicolle 2001, "Cypriots to the West? The Evidence of their Potmarks", in L. Bonfante and V. Karageorghis (eds.) Italy and Cyprus in Antiquity: 1500-450 BC, Nicosia, 121-129.

23

ANDREA VIANELLO

Hüttel, Hans-Georg 1982, "Zur Abkunft des Pferd-Wagen-Komplexes der Altbronzezeit", in B. Hänsel (ed.) Südosteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 vor Christus, Berlin, 39-63. Jones, Richard E., and Sara Tiziana Levi 2004, "Risultati preliminari delle analisi di ceramiche micenee dalla Sicilia sud-orientale", in V. La Rosa (ed.) Le presenze micenee nel territorio siracusano, Padova, 171-185. Jones, Richard E., Sara Tiziana Levi, and Lucia Vagnetti 2002, "Connections between the Aegean and Italy in the Later Bronze Age: The Ceramic Evidence", in V. Kilikoglou, A. Hein and Y. Maniatis (eds.) Modern Trends in Scientific Studies on Ancient Ceramics. Papers presented at the 5th European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics, Athens 1999, Oxford, 171-184. Karageorghis, Vassos 1995, "Cyprus and the Western Mediterranean: Some New Evidence for Interrelations", in J. B. Carter and S. P. Morris (eds.) The Ages of Homer: Festschrift Emily Townsend Vermeule, Austin, 93-97. Kitchen, K. A. 2000, "Regnal and genealogical data of Ancient Egypt (Absolute Chronology I): the historical chronology of Ancient Egypt, “Current Assessment”", in M. Bietak (ed.) The Synchronisation of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. Proceedings of the International Symposium at Schloß Haindorf, 15th-17th of November 1996 and at the Austrian Academy, Vienna 11th - 12th of May 1998, Wien, 39-52. Klemm, Dietrich D. 2005, "Goldproduktion im östlichen Mittelmeerraum um 1300 v. Chr.", in Ü. Yalçin, C. Pulak and R. Slotta (eds.) Das Schiff von Uluburun - Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren, Bochum, 527-532. Köpeczi, Béla, László Makkai, András Mócsy, Zoltán Szász, and Gábor Barta (eds) 2001, History of Transylvania. Vol. 1. From the beginnings to 1606, Boulder, Colorado. Levi, Sara Tiziana, and Salvatore Bianco 1999, Produzione e circolazione della ceramica nella Sibaritide protostorica, Firenze. Lo Schiavo, Fulvia 2005, "Metallhandel im zentralen Mittelmeer", in Ü. Yalçin, C. Pulak and R. Slotta (eds.) Das Schiff von Uluburun - Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren, Bochum, 399-414. Lo Schiavo, Fulvia, Ellen Macnamara, and Lucia Vagnetti 1985, "Late Cypriot Imports to Italy and their Influence on Local Bronzework", Papers of the British School at Rome 53, 1-71. Lohmann, Hans 2005, "Der Ausbruch des Santorinivulkans und seine Folgen - kritisch betrachtet", in Ü. Yalçin, C. Pulak and R. Slotta (eds.) Das Schiff von Uluburun - Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren, Bochum, 291-300. Mammina, Giuseppina 2001, "Le "rondelle" fittili nell'età del Bronzo", in M. Marazzi and S. Tusa (eds.) Preistoria: dalle coste della Sicilia alle Isole Flegree, Napoli, 444-446. Mammina, Giuseppina, Massimiliano Marazzi, and Sebastiano Tusa 1990, "Espedienti di computo: il caso Vivara", Dialoghi di archeologia 2, 5-48. Manning, Sturt W., Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Walter Kutschera, Thomas Higham, Bernd Kromer, Peter Steier, and Eva M. Wild 2006, "Chronology for the Aegean Late Bronze Age 1700-1400 B.C.", Science 312, (5773), 565-569. Mannino, G. 1982, "Il villaggio dei Faraglioni di Ustica. Notizie preliminari", Atti della Riunione Scientifica dell'Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria 21, 279-297. Marazzi, Massimiliano 2001, "Le "scritture eoliane": i segni grafici sulle ceramiche", in M. Marazzi and S. Tusa (eds.) Preistoria: dalle coste della Sicilia alle Isole Flegree, Napoli, 458-471. Marazzi, Massimiliano, and Sebastiano Tusa (eds.) 2001, Preistoria: dalle coste della Sicilia alle Isole Flegree: catalogo della mostra. Istituto Suor Orsola Benincasa, Napoli, 5 maggio-3 giugno 2001, Napoli. Marazzi, Massimiliano, Sebastiano Tusa, and Lucia Vagnetti (eds.) 1986, Traffici micenei nel Mediterraneo: problemi storici e documentazione archeologica: atti del Convegno di Palermo (11-12 maggio e 3-6 dicembre 1984), Vol. 3, Taranto.

24

LATE BRONZE AGE AEGEAN TRADE ROUTES IN THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN

Matthäus, Hartmut 2005, "Kulturaustausch, Handel und Seefahrt im Mittelmeerraum während der Späten Bronzezeit", in Ü. Yalçin, C. Pulak and R. Slotta (eds.) Das Schiff von Uluburun - Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren, Bochum, 333-366. Meyer, Beat, 1977, Sulfur, energy, and environment, Amsterdam ; Oxford. Mommsen, Hans, Ursula Diehl, Dieter Lambrecht, Franz Josef Pantenburg, and Johannes Weber 1990, "Eine mykenische Scherbe in Spanien: Bestätigung ihrer Herkunft mit der Neutronenaktivierungsanalyse (NAA)", Prähistorische Zeitschrift 65, 57-61. Moosauer, Manfred, and Traudl Bachmaier 2005, Bernstorf, Das Geheimnis der Bronzezeit, Stuttgart. Müller, A., and Bernt Krebs (eds.) 1984, Sulfur: its significance for chemistry, for the geo- , bio- and cosmosphere and technology, Amsterdam and Oxford. Nicoletti, Fabrizio 2001, "L'impronta egea nelle gioiellerie preelleniche", in M. Marazzi and S. Tusa (eds.) Preistoria: dalle coste della Sicilia alle Isole Flegree, Napoli, 531-533. Olivier, Jean-Pierre, and Frieda Vandenabeele 1979, Les idéogrammes archéologiques du linéaire B, Paris. Orsi, Paolo 1895, "Thapsos: necropoli sicula con vasi e bronzi Micenei", Monumenti antichi dei Lincei 6, 89-150. Orsi, Paolo 1899, "Pantalica e Cassibile", Monumenti antichi dei Lincei 9, 33-146. Pagliara, Cosimo 2002, "Roca. Gli Insediamenti dell'Età del Bronzo (medio e finale)", in M. Gorgoglione (ed.) Strutture e modelli di abitati del Bronzo tardo da Torre Castelluccia a Roca Vecchia, Manduria,155-169. Pagliara, Cosimo, and Riccardo Guglielmino 2005, "Roca dalle curiosità antiquarie allo scavo stratigrafico", in S. Settis and M. C. Parra (eds.) Magna Græcia archeologia di un sapere, Milano, 298-321. Pare, Christopher Frank Edward 1999, "Weights and Weighing in Bronze Age Central Europe", in I. Kilian-Dirlmeier and M. Egg (eds.) Eliten in der Bronzezeit, Mainz, 421-514. Parker, A. J. 1992, Ancient shipwrecks of the Mediterranean & the Roman provinces, Oxford. Pelagatti, Paola, and Giuseppe Voza 1973, Archeologia nella Sicilia sud-orientale, Napoli. Peroni, Renato, Alessandro Vanzetti, and Stefania Bagella 1998, Broglio di Trebisacce, 1990-1994: elementi e problemi nuovi dalle recenti campagne di scavo, Soveria Mannelli (Catanzaro). Primas, Margarita 1986, Die Sicheln in Mitteleuropa I (Österreich, Schweiz, Süddeutschland), München. Primas, Margarita 1997, "Bronze Age Economy and Ideology: Central Europe in Focus", Journal of European Archaeology 5, (1), 115-130. Primas, Margarita 2005, "Ochsenhautbarren in Europa", in Ü. Yalçin, C. Pulak and R. Slotta (eds.) Das Schiff von Uluburun - Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren, Bochum, 385-391. Pulak, Cemal 2005, "Das Schiffswrack von Uluburun und seine Ladung", in Ü. Yalçin, C. Pulak and R. Slotta (eds.) Das Schiff von Uluburun - Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren, Bochum, 55-102. Re, Licia 1999, "I più antichi contatti micenei nel Mediterraneo: un confronto fra Oriente e Occidente", in V. La Rosa, L. Vagnetti and D. Palermo (eds.) Epi ponton plazomenoi: Simposio italiano di studi egei dedicato a Luigi Bernabo Brea e Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, Roma. Rutter, Jeremy B. 1993, "Review of Aegean Prehistory II: The Prepalatial Bronze Age of the Southern and Central Greek Mainland", American Journal of Archaeology 97, (745-797.

25

ANDREA VIANELLO

Steel, Louise 1998, "The social impact of Mycenaean imported pottery in Cyprus", Annual of the British School at Athens 93, 285-296. Steel, Louise 2004, Cyprus before history: from the earliest settlers to the end of the Bronze Age, London. Tanasi, Davide 2004, "Per un riesame degli elementi di tipo miceneo nella cultura di Pantalica Nord", in V. La Rosa (ed.) Le presenze micenee nel territorio siracusano, Padova, 337-383. Taylour, William 1958, Mycenaean pottery in Italy, and adjacent areas, Cambridge. Taylour, William 1980, "Aegean sherds found at Lipari", in L. Bernabò Brea and M. Cavalier (eds.) Meligunìs Lipára 4. L'acropoli di Lipari nella preistoria, Palermo, 791–817. Tsetskhladze, Gocha R., and Franco De Angelis (eds.) 2004, The archaeology of Greek colonisation, Oxford. Tusa, Sebastiano 1999, La Sicilia nella preistoria, Palermo. Vagnetti, Lucia (ed.) 1982, Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo: atti del ventiduesimo Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto. Vagnetti, Lucia 1989, "A Sardinian Askos from Crete", Annual of the British School at Athens 84, 355-360. Vagnetti, Lucia 2001, "Some Observations on Late Cypriot Pottery from the Central Mediterranean", in L. Bonfante and V. Karageorghis (eds.) Italy and Cyprus in Antiquity: 1500-450 BC, Nicosia, 77-96. Vianello, Andrea 2005, Late Bronze Age Mycenaean and Italic products in the West Mediterranean: a social and economic analysis, Oxford. Voza, Giuseppe 1999, Nel segno dell'antico: archeologia nel territorio di Siracusa, Palermo. Vulpe, Alexandru 1975, "Einige Bemerkungen über die mittlere und die späte Bronzezeit im Norden Rumäniens", Dacia 19, 69-76. Watrous, Livingston Vance 1985, "Late Bronze Age Kommos: imported pottery as evidence for foreign contact", in J. W. Shaw and M. C. Shaw (eds.) Scripta Mediterranea 6. A Great Minoan Triangle in South-central Crete: Kommos, Hagia Triadha, Phaistos, Toronto, 7-18. Watrous, Livingstone Vance 1992, Kommos: an excavation on the south coast of Crete, Princeton, N.J. Watrous, Livingston Vance, Peter M. Day, and Richard E. Jones 1998, "The Sardinian Pottery from the Late Bronze Age Site of Kommos in Crete: Description, Chemical and Petrographic Analysis, and Historical Context", in M. S. Balmuth and R. H. Tykot (eds.) Sardinian and Aegean Chronology: Towards the Resolution of Relative and Absolute Dating in the Mediterranean, Oxford, 337-340. Wijngaarden, G. J. van 2002, Use and appreciation of Mycenaean pottery in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy (ca. 16001200 BC), Amsterdam.

26

LATE BRONZE AGE AEGEAN TRADE ROUTES IN THE W ESTERN MEDITERRANEAN

Figure 1: Aegean-type and associated products found at Vivara. Golden pendant (a); potsherd decorated in pattern-painted Mycenaean style (b); Canaanite jar (c). Adapted from Marazzi and Tusa 2001.

Figure 2: Lipari, the Bronze Age settlement (picture by the author).

27

ANDREA VIANELLO

Figure 3: Filicudi, settlement of Montagnola di Capo Graziano (picture by the author).

Figure 4: Filicudi, Aegean-type pottery from the settlement of Montagnola di Capo Graziano. Adapted from Bernabò Brea 1991.

28

LATE BRONZE AGE AEGEAN TRADE ROUTES IN THE W ESTERN MEDITERRANEAN

Figure 5: Vivara, plan of the island. Adapted from Marazzi and Tusa 2001.

Figure 6: Inside the "tholos" of San Calogero, island of Lipari. The spring and the white calcareous concretions are clearly visible (picture by the author).

29

ANDREA VIANELLO

Figure 7: Inside the "tholos" of San Calogero, island of Lipari. The visible brickwork is part of the restoration by the Romans (picture by the author).

Figure 8: Aegean-type pottery from Roca Vecchia. Adapted from Guglielmino 2002

30

LATE BRONZE AGE AEGEAN TRADE ROUTES IN THE W ESTERN MEDITERRANEAN

Figure 9: Aegean-type pottery from Roca Vecchia. Adapted from Guglielmino 2002.

Figure 10: Plan of Thaspos: Adapted from Voza 1999.

31

ANDREA VIANELLO

Figure 11: Aegean-type pottery from the necropoleis of Thapsos. Adapted from Orsi 1895.

Figure 12: Plan of Pantalica. Adapted from Orsi 1899.

32

LATE BRONZE AGE AEGEAN TRADE ROUTES IN THE W ESTERN MEDITERRANEAN

Figure 13: Pantalica, necropolis North (picture by the author).

Figure 14: Pantalica, necropolis North, detail of tomb; bench is indicated (picture by the author).

33

ANDREA VIANELLO

Figure 15: Map of Sardinia showing the sites where copper oxhide ingots have been found. The only five integral ingots are also shown. Adapted from Lo Schiavo 2005.

34

FROM DIFFUSION TO INTERACTION: CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE NORDIC AREA AND VALCAMONICA DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM BC LI WINTER

Introduction

BC) when house urns are found in ship settings on the Swedish island of Gotland.3 The Nordic Late Bronze Age coincides in time with the Iron Age in Greece and with the period of Greek colonization, and with the Villanova culture in Northern Italy. My study, as mentioned earlier, will focus on period V, 900 – 500 BC.

Travelling images constitute a transitory subject, as they are difficult to trace and difficult to interpret. Many figures in rock art are similar or even identical to images in other areas and regions with which we know they never have had any contact whatsoever during prehistory. This presentation is largely based on my forthcoming doctoral thesis which basically deals with the appearance of foreign images in the south Scandinavian rock art tradition during the Bronze Age. The main purpose of the thesis is to compile, illuminate and analyze the similarities that exist between Nordic rock art and the motifs which occur in the figurative and visual arts of the Mediterranean. The point of departure is that the similarities are not coincidental; rather they are conscious and selective depictions of objects or features that are not a part of the local rock art tradition and which in a very distinct way have been incorporated in the pictorial world of the existing culture. The images in question differ from the images found in the local rock art tradition with regard to typological features which are found in a number of rock carvings of ships as well as in the combination of figures, objects and symbols.1

In this paper, I will present examples of the rock art in Bohuslän which have parallels in the rock art of Valcamonica. My discussion of the images will be structured typologically according to the category to which they have been assigned. I will end the paper by discussing further aims and how to proceed in order to reveal the mechanisms which lay behind long distance connections in prehistoric times. Are there benefits to using concepts like diffusion, cultural interaction, cultural reception and transmission in analyses and interpretations concerning long distance connections? How have these concepts been used in previous studies?

From diffusion to interaction Finding new theoretical ways of approaching and explaining similarities in images and symbols, and similarities in the material record in cultures situated far apart geographically, is still one of the main issues in research concerning long distance connections and interaction. A possible approach might be to first identify useful theoretical concepts, then to deconstruct the meaning of the concepts most often used in this area of research and finally to redefine their meaning and explain how they will be used in the investigation. The concepts that might be useful from my point of view are, above all, diffusion, imitation, transformation, transmission, cultural reception, neo-diffusion and interaction. It is my intention to use the redefined concepts as interpretative tools in the process of examining the finds of objects and images in the local context, and their relationship with material from remote areas and cultures. As Henrik Thrane puts it, this method is a questionable one but with a sufficiently large group of finds the statistical frequency seems to

So far, my studies of material culture and rock art in the Nordic area has shown that there are a number of images, symbols and combinations of figures that show distinct similarities with features and depictions originating in the Mediterranean area, both from the Greek Bronze Age cultures, the Minoan and the Mycenaean cultures, and from the later Geometric Period, as well as from Egypt at the time of the eighteenth Dynasty. There seem to have been two distinct phases during the Bronze Age when long distance connections and interaction were particularly intense; the Early Nordic Bronze Age (13001100 BC) when the main source of inspiration for aspiring elites in the societies of Northern Europe was the Mycenaean culture, as Kristian Kristiansen and Thomas B. Larsson have recently shown in a massive study of the rise of Bronze Age Society.2 The later phase occurs during the Nordic Late Bronze Age, in Period 5 (900-500 1 2

Winter, manuscript in preparation. Kristiansen & Larsson 2005.

3

35

Winter 2001; 2002; 2005.

LI WINTER

support the validity of the method.4 The combination of finds and rock art images in my study are appropriate when working with cultural transmission from this point of view.

expressions in material culture and depictions of more symbolic character, and in the fact that the material record in the very North of Europe is different from that of the Mediterranean cultures. By different I mean in this connection the amount of artefacts. In the Mediterranean you find perhaps as many as 30.000 shards of pottery which clearly show the connections between different places and cultures, while in the North you are happy if you find one or two objects that do not fit into the local context. In other words you are forced to draw conclusions on the basis of a very small amount of archaeological material, creating societies entirely from what comes out of the ground. There are no literary sources on which we can build our interpretations from this period in the North, as there are in the Mediterranean cultures. The early texts found in the Mediterranean mostly consist of highly biased anecdotes or stories, the historical accuracy of which is open to question. However, during the last century or so, the archaeology of the Mediterranean civilizations has gradually built up a large, and fairly objective base or structure from which the classical texts can be studied and judged, and from which it is possible to create a reliable context for the material remains. In the North we are still mostly relying on what comes from the ground, and the archaeological record is the only source to our past. However, thanks to the many new publications, projects and excavations, a more detailed and partly new picture of Nordic Bronze Age society is now emerging.9

The concept of diffusion has a fairly long history of use in archaeological research. The concept originates from the field of anthropology and cultural history of the late nineteenth century, and developed as a reaction against growing nationalism during the early stages of the expanding industrialism.5 The industrial revolution caused a backlash which basically meant that nationalism increased, and towards the end of the century intellectuals encouraged this development in order to promote solidarity within their own countries by blaming economic and social problems on neighbouring countries.6 In A History of Archaeological Thought, Bruce G. Trigger states that the growing social and economic problems in Western Europe in the 1880s were actually encouraging conservatism and the idea of human beings as resistant to change by maintaining that human behaviour was biologically determined. This led to a belief that particular inventions could not have been made independently, which meant a growing reliance on diffusion and migration in order to explain cultural change.7 Diffusion was construed in the sense of one “original” core-area from which everything has spread. The concept of diffusion then represents nothing new, since already during the late nineteenth century ideas and theories like the hyper-diffusionist ideas of Grafton Elliot Smith (1871-1937) flourished. Elliot Smith had decided that all early cultural development had occurred in Egypt, and that there had been no agriculture, architecture, religion or government anywhere in the world prior to 4000 BC. The development of agriculture, which had been caused by the accidental harvesting of wild barley and millet, was then followed by other inventions such as pottery, clothing, the building of monuments and religious ideas.8 This hyper-diffusionist view was later further elaborated by W. J. Perry and Lord Raglan. They shared a belief that almost all human beings were primitive by nature and will always retrogress to savagery if not stopped by the ruling classes. In conclusion one can say that they denied that progress was natural and could arise in many places at the same time without any kind of contact. These hyper-diffusionist ideas have played an important part in the process of developing the negative tone attached to the meaning of the concept of diffusion.

With regard to the similarities in form between Nordic rock art and images found in the Mediterranean, it is clear that many scholars have noted that striking similarities exist, but they did not continue with deeper contextual studies of the mechanisms behind the diffusion of thought and objects, or of the character of the assumed connections. Migrations of groups of people have long been out of fashion in attempts to explain similarities in the material record or in the world of symbols. Instead interpretations have focused on trade and its specific nature (were trading connections mainly local or long distance; what were the means of transport; did trading routes go over land or sea, or along rivers; what kind of objects were traded; was prehistoric trade mainly a question of the exchange of valuables or was there some kind of monetary exchange in existence.10 During the past few years, this particular area of research has been the object of renewed interest. Scholars with a deep and thorough knowledge of the Bronze Age in northern and central Europe have begun to look to the Mediterranean again in trying to find the sources of inspiration for some of the features of the Nordic Bronze Age which cannot possibly be explained as a local

Research on long distance connections during the Bronze Age in Europe has been considered problematic for many decades. The problems have been seen to lie in the geographical distance between areas with similar 4

Thrane 1975, 260. Trigger 1993, 181ff. 6 Trigger 1989, 148. 7 Trigger 1989, 151. 8 Trigger 1989, 152f. 5

9

E.g. Borna-Ahlkvist 2002; Hauptman Wahlgren 2002; Victor 2002; Thedeen 2004; Feldt 2005; Artursson 2005; Lagerås & Strömberg 2005; Skoglund 2005. 10 Thrane 1979, 186ff.

36

FROM DIFFUSION TO INTERACTION: CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE NORDIC AREA AND VALCAMONICA DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM

development or idea.11 For example, Kristiansen and Larsson have recently published a new theoretical strategy for studying interaction. As there are many limitations in the present theoretical framework they propose to develop an explicit theoretical strategy for the interpretation and explanation of interregional interaction.12 The interpretations and strategies presented in their work have been heavily criticised, but it is my opinion that they present a useful way of approaching this particular area of research and the problems connected with it. There are however some limitations in the existing theoretical framework that must be dealt with in order to proceed.

In their recent book, Kristiansen and Larsson initially give us the background to the development of the autonomous framework in processual and postprocessual archaeology, interpreting this development as a reaction against the hyper-diffusionist ideas of the last century, as

accounted for above.14 Processual and postprocessual ways of thinking are said to have provided archaeology with the theoretical and methodological tools for understanding prehistoric social organisation and cosmology, but only at a local and regional level. The tools for extending our knowledge and understanding beyond those borders and moving towards a more international viewpoint in order to create a coherent history of prehistoric societies are not yet distinctly formulated. This is what Kristiansen an Larsson have set out to do in their book The Rise of Bronze Age Society. 15 Both Kristiansen and Larsson have contributed to the creation of a new theoretical framework in their earlier publications, which constitute the basis for the major theoretical construction represented by their new book.16 What is necessary, according to Kristiansen and Larsson, is a more explicit theoretical and interpretative strategy which will allow us to approach processes of interaction and cultural connections on a more fine-grained level; they suggest basically that we should abandon the whole terminology dealing with concepts of autonomy and diffusion, and instead develop a different conceptual framework that covers and takes into account the complexity of prehistoric interaction. There is definitely a need for “conceptual cleaning”. Kristiansen and Larsson critically examine the concepts used in earlier studies of interaction and long distance connections, and then recontextualise and redefine the meaning of the concepts within a different interpretative framework. They propose three interpretative strategies that are connected: first institutions should indeed be in focus as they are the foundations for the creation of societies; second they have constructed an interpretative methodology in order to be able to identify institutions in material culture basically by tracing central symbols and their contexts in time and space. By showing that a certain structure of symbolic meaning can be traced, and can also be shown to correspond with a certain institution, the history of the symbolic structure can be traced through time and space. This structural methodology makes it possible to identify the symbolic transmission of institutions, no matter what their cultural or chronological connections might be. The third strategy consists of a proposal for a new relational theoretical framework to trace, explain and interpret the processes of interaction, which have been documented by strategy one and two. The background to this is based on the assumption that theoretical concepts should be developed in order to provide more accurate and integrated frameworks for interpretation as a process. In their conclusion, Kristiansen and Larsson maintain that they have redefined earlier concepts and put them to work in a new framework that is relational and stands apart from the earlier autonomous archaeology of the processual and postprocessual traditions. New

11

14

According to Kristiansen and Larsson, the main problems associated with present explanations of interaction arise from the fact that they depart from the processual and postprocessual traditions which have one thing in common, an autonomous perspective. New paradigms often mean a total abandonment of old traditions, and certain phenomena are left unexplained. The processual and postprocessual archaeological traditions basically abandoned the cultural historical framework of diffusion to account for cultural change, which has meant that explanations and interpretations have become historically unbalanced and increasingly local.13 I agree with this, and I also believe that it is important to move away from explanations which only focus on the local level, and instead incorporate the local angle within a broader and more international perspective. All levels of research are equally important, problems arise when the results are not used and analysed in relation to each other. This is also valid on a larger scale, for studies which encompass different areas and traditions of archaeological research. There are for example large gaps between northern European archaeology and Classical archaeology with regard to both the nature of the material remains and the research traditions which have focused on different aspects of prehistory as well as very different material records. If we combine the fairly well-developed theoretical framework of the northern European archaeological research tradition with the enormously well-documented material record and meticulous chronologies of the Classical archaeological tradition, it is my conviction that we will obtain new and deeper knowledge of, for example, long distance connections and the social foundations of societies in Europe and the Mediterranean during the Bronze Age.

Kristiansen & Larsson 2005; Winter 2002, 2005; Larsson 1997. 12 Kristiansen & Larsson 2005, 4ff. 13 Kristiansen & Larsson 2005, 4f.

Kristiansen & Larsson 2005, 5ff. Kristiansen & Larsson 2005, 7. 16 Kristiansen 1998a; Kristiansen & Rowlands 1998; Larsson 1997; 2002. 15

37

LI WINTER

interconceptual and contextual meanings are defined in this way, and this opens up for new and more open interpretations and explanations in archaeology.17

Long distance connections? The rock art of Bohuslän and Valcamonica The province of Bohuslän on the west coast of Sweden and the valley Valcamonica in northern Italy are the two main areas containing rock art in northern Europe. There are however several sites in the Nordic countries with rock art but nowhere are there as many sites or such a rich body of artistically engraved images as in Bohuslän. The rock art of Bohuslän and Valcamonica differ in many ways, for example in the engraving techniques and the figurative content. But during the Late Bronze Age, the two traditions match perfectly in many ways.

As I have mentioned earlier in this article, it is necessary to deconstruct and redefine concepts, as the concepts are “polluted” with the ideas of earlier archaeological traditions, ideas that today have become unnecessary and delaying ballast. Give the concepts new meaning, and use them in a new and fruitful way, that is the prescription. I will not go into further detail on the exact procedure of Kristiansen’s and Larsson’s redefinition of the concepts, rather I will comment on how to continue with the proposed strategy. As Kristiansen and Larsson conclude, the new theoretical strategy only provides an interpretative skeleton which is useless without the archaeological material.

The province of Bohuslän is situated in the land area of Västra Götaland (fig 1; fig 2). Västra Götaland has an area 23,941 sq km and the county is the fifth largest in Sweden. The natural geography of the county is formed by the Swedish west coast with its open landscape, archipelago, exposed rocks, high-grade deciduous forests, areas of heather-covered moor and coastal forest. The Bohuslän coastal forest region with archipelago, pine forest and oak forests lies near agricultural areas. Further in from the coast there are hilly forests. The interior consists of the central agricultural plains of Götaland. The county’s archipelago consists of more than 14,000 islands, islets and rocks. Additionally, there are more than 15,000 islands in lakes and watercourses.

As I mentioned earlier, there are still limitations in the existing theoretical framework that must be dealt with in order to proceed. This is only natural as it is impossible to cover everything. Basically, the problems concern the archaeological material that, according to Kristiansen and Larsson, is supposed to add flesh to the bones of the theoretical structure. It is my opinion that most often the theoretical constructions that are created in order to bring order to the interpretations and explanations of the archaeological record fail to connect with the actual material remains. There is not enough data to draw conclusions from, and the data is sometimes cut from its context. Cultural connections and transmission of symbols and ideas between different areas and cultures are not easy to identify. When Kristiansen and Larsson speak about identifying institutions, and then trace the symbolic structures belonging to those institutions through time and space, I imagine that very much is lost along the way. The role of the institution in the original context, the reasons for adopting the institution in a new and changed context, and the ways in which this new institution is integrated, depicted and used in the new context are all questions that I believe are not fully covered by the theoretical strategy proposed by Kristiansen and Larsson. Furthermore, questions concerning the actual physical “transportation” of the package linked to the institutions are also not discussed in detail, but only on a very abstract and theoretical level. However, despite these reservations, I agree with much of what the authors propose and present, and I believe that the book constitutes an excellent beginning to the “new” tradition of studies on interaction and the diffusion of symbols and ideas during the Bronze Age in Europe and in the Mediterranean.

17

Today the engraved rocks in Bohuslän are found at the edges of cultivated land (fig 2; 3). During the Bronze Age many of the sites were situated by or close to creeks or sea inflows. The majority of the carvings are situated close to15 m.a.s.l., and are therefore dated to 1000-500 BC, according to the Swedish land elevation. Computer models of the sea level during the Bronze Age have been reconstructed that clearly show the close vicinity of the carvings to transport routes by the sea and also by land through the river valleys. The position by the sea has indeed characterised the history and development of the county of Bohuslän. The area is also a borderland and has experienced power games and conflicts between Denmark, Norway and Sweden for centuries. This position as borderland has also characterised its trade, social development, social contacts and also the everyday life of individual human beings. The rock art of Bohuslän is outstanding in Northern Europe and stylistically distinct. Altogether, Bohuslän has some 43 000 individual figures, representing upwards of a hundred different types. The most common figures are the cup marks, followed by the ship figures and human figures. Next there are animals, footprints and circular figures. In addition, there are more unusual rock carving types in Bohuslän, compared to what is found in other areas with rock art in the Nordic countries. These include chariots, both four-wheeled and two-wheeled, with and without charioteer and horses, and depictions of

Kristiansen & Larsson 2005, 7ff, 31.

38

FROM DIFFUSION TO INTERACTION: CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE NORDIC AREA AND VALCAMONICA DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM

jewellery and weapons. Most of the rock art for which parallels can be found further south in Europe is located in the northern part of the province; this location coincides with the extension of the granite ridges.

Ship figures In Scandinavia and especially in Bohuslän, the ship is the dominating motif. Typological parallels are not found in Valcamonica, however, but in the Aegean, in Greek Geometric vase paintings. The features of ships found in south Scandinavian rock art which have their parallels in Greek vase painting are the shape of the hull, the existence of a pointed extension of the keel line, decorative details such as the spiral-shaped decorations attached to the stem and stern, as well as the occurrence of an “eye” or cup mark in the hull which can be compared to the eyes painted on the Greek war galleys. Furthermore, there are double lined ship figures with extended stem and stern, and with the crew depicted as vertical strokes. In some cases there are human figures representing the crew as well as the crew strokes. These parallels have been accounted for elsewhere and will not be discussed further in this paper.21

Valcamonica is an alpine valley divided between the provinces of Bergamo and Brescia in northern Italy (fig 4). The rock art constitutes an archaeological, artistic, ethnographic and historical patrimony of inestimable value, not only for its antiquity but, above all, for its thematic and iconographic wealth. The rupestrian tradition of Valcamonica consists of about 300 000 engraved figures mainly located in the open air and on flat rocks. The art is distributed across five fundamental periods from the Palaeolithic to the arrival of the Romans in the valley.18 Among all those thousands of Italian rock art figures, there are direct parallels to the iconographic record of Bohuslän.19 In Valcamonica the figurative content is of course different, as it is a different culture, but still there are certain themes and figures that seem to have a related meaning as they appear in similar if not exactly the same combinations as in Bohuslän. Valcamonica was and still is a passage for trade between northern and southern Europe, and there are cultural features from the Mediterranean cultures as well as from the Balkans and Germany.

Warriors & Weapons Warriors constitute the main category of figures forming compositions (fig 6). The first warriors appear in Valcamonica during the period from the twelfth to the ninth centuries, the third Camunian style. In the last phase, the so-called fourth Camunian style at the beginning of the Iron Age the themes and scenes are of descriptive naturalism, as is the case in the rock art of Bohuslän. In both areas, the warriors dominate, but there are also hunting scenes, ritual duels, races and armed dances, wagons and chariots, weapons, music instruments (lurs in Bohuslän), divinities and topographical representations, as well as other types of figures which must have had great symbolical value, such as the footprints, cup marks, swastikas, stars, shovels. In Bohuslän there are no shovels; this design is only found in Valcamonica and is mostly interpreted as a female symbol related to the household. In Valcamonica there are also depictions of constructions resembling houses. Focusing on the warriors, one can probably conclude that there existed a widespread warrior mythology/ideology with ritual combats between two or more participants. This is very obvious, both in Scandinavia and Central Europe, as well as in the Aegean.

The Valcamonica rock art is generally referred to as Camunian rock art, after the people of the valley, the Camuni. This paper focuses on the third and fourth phases of the rock art of Valtellina and Valcamonica, the so-called Third, B-C-D Camunian style and the Fourth Camunian style. The third phase corresponds to the Bronze Age (the second millennium BC) and the fourth phase to the Final Bronze Age (twelfth – ninth centuries BC), and the figurative repertoire is a prelude to the beginning of the Iron Age with its immense iconographic content. Above all it is the warrior (fig 6) that constitutes the main theme during this period.20 It coincides with Period 5 in the Nordic Late Bronze Age (900-500 BC) which also has the richest thematic and iconographic content in the rock art tradition of south Scandinavia. Examples of figurative categories with parallels in different areas are for example ship figures, acrobats, warriors and weapons, human figures/antropomorphs, chariots and wagons, animal figures and symbols (circular figures, the Camunian rose, net figures, labyrinths, spiral figures), and will be presented in more detail in this paper.

A common trait is that the warriors are often depicted with enlarged hands, a gesture which is interpreted either as a symbol of power or as a gesture of worship. They are also quite often equipped with daggers, axes or swords (fig 7 a-f). The warriors have been interpreted as very important symbols of power in Valcamonica. They first appear in the Chalcolithic, continue to occur during the

18

Fossati 2005, 1. Glob 1969; Hygen & Bengtsson 1999; Bengtsson 2004, 7; Kristiansen 2002, 78. 20 Anati 1994; 1999. 19

21

39

Winter 2001, 11ff; 2002, 208ff.

LI WINTER

Bronze Age and finally disappear in the Iron Age. 22 Weapons, axes in particular, but also spears, swords and shields appear frequently also in the rock art of Bohuslän. Many of the combatants are shown standing in boats (fig 8e).

are usually depicted as if seen from above. As there are no parallels in any of the Nordic countries or in Europe to the engravings at Släbro, this interpretation seems as possible as any other of the proposed interpretations. In the light of the assumingly widespread warrior ideology in Europe and the Mediterranean during this period, feasts with food and meat fits in really well within the interpretation of an elite society in Bronze Age Scandinavia with international connections.

Human figures/ antropomorphs In Valcamonica, human anthropomorphic figures, sometimes depicted with a cup mark between the legs, are frequently engraved in several of the different sites along the valley (fig 9 b & c). In Bohuslän examples of this motif are found for example in the site Rished in Askum (fig 9a). Close to the human figures a fourwheeled wagon is depicted. Examples of similar wagons are also found in Valcamonica. The position of the hands, denoting prayer or adoration, is also identical, and this gesture is also common in Greek Geometric vase paintings.

Circular designs / disc figures Another category of figures consists of many unusual forms of circular designs, mainly called disc figures. The design has been interpreted as symbolizing the sun, and the female figures which can be seen in figure 12a are interpreted as the companions of the sun goddess. Parallels to this symbol are found at a few more rock art sites in Scandinavia, Valcamonica (fig 12e) and also in the rock paintings from Sahara (fig 12f).

The Camunian Rose is a characteristic image of Valcamonica, and the symbol is found at many sites all around the valley (fig 10a). Today the rose is used as the symbol representing the village of Capo di Ponte. There are two examples of this figure in Askum parish, in Bohuslän (fig 10 b & c). On the other hand, they are interpreted as Medieval and not Bronze Age. They do, however, represent an indication of interaction from another period of time, and the symbol must have travelled to Bohuslän with a person from Italy or with someone from the Nordic countries who has returned after visiting Italy.

Parallels in the material record It is not only images that are found in rock art which have parallels in other areas. There are artefacts found in Scandinavia which have their counterparts in other areas far away, or which have been manufactured elsewhere. The so-called Balkåkra drum is one example, dating to the Early Nordic Bronze Age. An identical twin piece comes from Hasfalva in Hungary. The two objects were manufactured from the same mould, as has been shown by analysis of traces in the Bronze. Mention can also be made of a number of folding chairs, found mainly in Danish graves from the Early Bronze Age. Counterparts are found in Egypt, but also in Greece, where they are depicted mainly on wine drinking utensils.24 In Denmark two miniature double axes, which have parallels in Mycenaean culture, have been found in a male burial. Furthermore, we have the Nordic house urns from the Late Bronze Age, which are found throughout a rather large territory consisting of four modern northern European countries, from the Hartz Mountains in the central part of Germany to the Swedish island of Gotland in northeast, and to Northern Jutland in northwest (fig 13b). According to Serena Sabatini, apart from the multiple character of the house urns, they also display certain regional similarities and it is possible to distinguish groups based on structural or/and ritual elements. A contemporary and similar practise exists in central western Italy, in the so called Villanova area, and the existence of this south European tradition opens up for a discussion concerning possible cultural relations

Frame figures, maps or labyrinths? Frame figures constitute a major category of figures with obscure meaning (fig 11). The meander design is also frequently depicted on Greek Geometric Pottery. Fig 11d shows an image from Släbro in Nyköping, eastern Sweden. This particular frame design has no counterparts in Scandinavia or in Europe, and the interpretations of the meaning are many and varied. The closest parallel comes from Valcamonica, where similar frame figures with cup marks and short lines are found in a number of sites. Most famous is the so-called Mappa di Bedolina, where the marks are interpreted as topographic representations. The huts were added in the Iron Age.23 Gunnel Ekroth, whose research has focused on animal sacrifice in ancient Greece, has proposed a totally new interpretation of the Släbro engravings. She points out that the framed figures are reminiscent of depictions of sacrificial grills, which 22 23

Sansoni & Maretta 2002, 9. Anati 1994, 151.

24

40

Kristiansen & Larsson 2005.

FROM DIFFUSION TO INTERACTION: CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE NORDIC AREA AND VALCAMONICA DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM

between the areas (fig 13a). The two traditions are very similar, both conceptually and chronologically, but at the same time they are formally very different in many ways, and if some kind of cultural exchange has taken place this must have been on a very sophisticated level.25 Many of the Scandinavian house urns are found in close connection with the so-called ship settings dating from the Late Bronze Age. They could therefore represent a distinct reflection of a foreign burial tradition which has been adopted and integrated in an already existing burial tradition (fig 14).

Critical voices Research about long distance connections and the transmission of certain symbols, ideas, and foreign beliefs has been quite heavily criticized, in particular that which assumes direct contact between the Minoan/Mycenaean world and Scandinavia during the Nordic Early Bronze Age. Lena Sjögren has delivered constructive criticism against this field of research in an article published in 2005, where she compiled her objections in three points: The original existence, extension and accessibility of the motif in its original contextual surroundings, was very restricted; it is therefore unlikely that people from the North would have been able to have access to these assumed prototypes. In her article Sjögren focuses on examples from Minoan culture, such as the Hagia Triada sarcophagus. The “symbolic” meaning of the motif in the original context was varied and ambiguous, a fact which is often neglected by those studying the assumed connections. The practicalities of the transmission of different motifs and their symbolic meaning from, for example, Crete to Scandinavia must be clarified before assumptions about influences can be made.26

The North and Europe in the Later Bronze Age: Conclusions, questions and further aims My approach to the study of interaction, and the transmission and diffusion of ideas, images/symbols and objects during the Bronze Age, departs from the world of rock art. Valcamonica constitutes the intermediary area both geographically and symbolically in the sense that images from both Sweden and the Aegean are present in the valley, and the rich visual account is a valuable source for further studies in the field of cultural contacts and cultural reception. The major difference in the figurative content between Valcamonica and Bohuslän is the fact that ship figures dominate in Bohuslän with many thousands of examples, while they are extremely rare in Valcamonica. The few figures that do exist are dated to much later periods. In Valcamonica depictions of houses constitute the dominating motif, but no one knows if they are meant to be understood as real houses or symbolic ones. No finds of similar houses have been made.

Some of the criticisms listed above are partly countered in the already cited work by Kristiansen and Larsson, but there is still a debate going on which focuses on eternal questions concerning the probability of the assumption that similarities in form are equal to similarity of meaning.27 The points made by Sjögren are of course relevant and must be considered very carefully. But I disagree with the notion that access to certain motifs and symbols was extremely restricted, as there were certain people who had unrestricted access to for example sanctuaries and palaces, and who could have spread knowledge about form and appearance as well as meaning. Furthermore, there are studies of the practical transmission of different motifs and their symbolic meaning that clearly show a linked chain through various contexts, and where different explanations are presented.28

As already mentioned, as concerns stylistic features, compositions, and scenes, the rock engravings closest to the Scandinavian ones are without hesitation the ones found in Valcamonica in the Italian Alps. The many striking similarities have raised questions concerning the existence of direct personal connections between the areas. There are however difficulties with this explanation, and there are a few other suggestions about how to explain the similarities that seem more likely. Unfortunately, there are very few archaeological finds, which can be said to support theories of direct contact, at least up to this date. A probable explanation could be that the connections took place in many steps with intermediate areas and societies, basically following in the wake of the trade and exchange with bronze and other objects and material. In this exchange system there were also travelling images and ideas. Designs on textiles and images on objects made of bronze have also contributed to a common conception of the world which was among other things reflected in the rock art.

25

One more point can be added to the list and this concern the idea that arguments concerning the international connections which can be interpreted with regard to single motifs can be made deeper by discussing certain rock art motifs in relation to the surrounding motifs and their positioning in the landscape. Camilla Helene Fari has done this in her study of the Hieros-Gamos motif and its relation to the surrounding rock art figures in the Nordic context.29 What we need to do then is to analyse 26

Sjögren 2005, 157ff. As discussed in Goldhahn 2006, 109. 28 Winter manuscript; Cunliffe 2004; Kristiansen & Larsson 2005; Sherratt 1987, 1994a, 1994b; Sherrat & Sherratt 1991. 29 Fari 2003. 27

Burenhult 1999, 64ff; Sabatini 2004, 421-435.

41

LI WINTER

the “new” meaning of the foreign motif in relation to the changed contextual surroundings.

were certainly different in many ways but this does not mean that no common ideas and conceptions existed, especially since travels and journeys in quest for prestige goods, knowledge and other for us unknown things constituted the core of all interaction during this period.32

What we can do so far is to conclude that the Nordic Bronze Age seems almost inexplicable, in the sense that it produced exceptional bronze objects without having any local bronze. Was the need for bronze the underlying reason for the development of long distance trading networks and increasing international connections? Another equally important question concerns the identity of the people who travelled. Were they members of aspiring Nordic elite families with allies in Central and Southern Europe on a quest for power and prestige?30 The only counterpart to the Nordic Bronze Age, according to Kristiansen and Larsson is Mycenae. What could the people of the North trade for the bronze? Amber was extremely important in the trade with the Continent and the Mediterranean, and analyses have shown that the amber beads from the necklaces found in the Mycenaean Shaft Graves came from the Baltic. It is significant that a piece of amber was placed on the chest of the Egyptian pharaoh Tutankhamen when he was laid in his grave. But here it is important to be aware of the fact that amber is also found on Sicily, so the analysis of the origins of amber must be very distinct. But when we now analyse the material in a new and different way using new theories, a completely different picture of the Bronze Age is revealed. The inhabitants of Bronze Age Europe travelled more and they travelled further than has previously been thought. They brought back with them new objects and above all, new knowledge about society and religion.

Charlotte Scheffer has worked with Greek iconography and some of her work deals with cultural reception. She has looked at the ways in which a motif is transmitted between cultures and the ways in which the motif changes along the way, for example between the Greeks, the Etruscans and the Romans. One of her examples is a case study of female demons. Since Etruscan literary texts have not been preserved to any great extent, differences between the visual arts of different cultures constitute an important source of information. In the Mediterranean it is more or less obvious when cultural contacts have taken place since you find Greek and Etruscan objects side by side.33 This is not the case in Scandinavia, although there are finds of objects originating from elsewhere. Most criticism concerns the fact that similarities in form are not enough and that you need more data, really good examples of finds which have their origin in another culture in order to posit influences. When this is a fact, one might assume that the society in the “new” context begun to imitate certain stylistic elements and motifs. There are finds of objects originating in the Mediterranean cultures, like the Hassle find from Glanshammar parish, Örebro kn, Närke, Sweden. The Hassle find is a depot find from the Late Bronze Age, found close to a stream in Glanshammar in the 1930s. The find consisted of two buckets made of bronze which were manufactured in Northern Italy, two Hallstatt swords, twelve circular bronze plates, and two bronze hooks. The situla in which all objects had been placed was most probably manufactured in Greece. It is sixty-four cm in diameter and thirty-four cm high.34 The objects in the Hassle find are a distinct reflection of the long distance connections that existed in Bronze Age Europe. In addition, one can point to the Mariesminde bog find, from Funen in Denmark, which consisted of a bronze situla of Italian origin dating to period IV, in which eleven cups made of gold had been deposited. The cups have been dated to the Middle Bronze Age.35

Summing up The rock art images presented in this paper are connected in more ways than just through similarities in form. The Alps have been the crossroads of Europe for ages, rather than a frontier with high mountains between tribal territories, as has been proposed by many when connections between cultures situated far apart are discussed. Valcamonica was during prehistoric times a vast area for hunting, pastoralism, the collection of wild fruits, mining, and trade, in other words an area where different people met and coalesced.31 As a result of the connections with areas further North, areas like Sweden and the province of Bohuslän, the rock art imagery of the two areas show many similarities in content, composition and style. Similarities which, based on the facts that the people of the Bronze Age begun to travel and develop trading networks in order to get metal and other valuables, came from common values and beliefs concerning the religious and social spheres. The cultures 30 31

There are well documented examples of long distance networks during prehistory: during the Paleolithic, 20.000-30.000 years ago, there are the well known Venus figurines which were widely spread across Europe at the time; also during the Paleolithic, there is evidence for long distance trade or perhaps rather exchange networks involving certain shells which originate in the Mediterranean, but are found throughout Europe. In 32

See for example: Thrane 1975; Winter 2001, 2002; Kristiansen & Larsson 2005. 33 Scheffer 1991, 51ff. 34 Burenhult 1999, 100f. 35 Burenhult 1999, 105.

Kristiansen & Larsson 2005. Anati 1999, 5.

42

FROM DIFFUSION TO INTERACTION: CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE NORDIC AREA AND VALCAMONICA DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM

Australia the Aborigines had long distance contact networks cutting across the Australian continent, and not to forget the peoples of the South Pacific who obviously travelled over open water in boats or canoes from a very early date.36 Furthermore, Göran Burenhult has pointed out the many connections between the megalithic traditions in Europe, departing from the Irish megalithic cemetery of Carrowmore.37 The Mediterranean is nothing more than a bathtub compared to the Pacific Ocean.

In the same way that the Greek paintings give insight into the legends, the religious beliefs, the ordinary living of people who provided the foundations for our western civilization, for our government, our literature, our architecture, the greatest refinements of our lives, it is my opinion that the Nordic rock art, as all rock art or classical visual arts, can be seen as a reflection of the most important values, beliefs and conceptions in the contemporary society. As I am in the initial stages of formulating a theoretical framework by using concepts of cultural reception and iconography in my study of rock art and foreign influences, I have so far been approaching the material in practical way: what does it look like in this place and what does it look like over there, what are the differences and similarities, how can we define local styles, etc. To further develop the theoretical analyses of the similarities in form and their meaning is one of my most important aims in my future work. I have no answers to give you yet, but hopefully I will at least be able to present a thorough study and documentation of the similarities in form and appearance found in the rock art in Sweden and in the central and southeastern part of the Mediterranean during the Bronze Age, as the work with my thesis proceeds. One thing is clear already; the images presented in this paper have been diffused through interaction between the various local cultures in Europe during the Bronze Age.

In conclusion, my studies of the rock art in Scandinavia represent only a point of departure for my studies of cultural connections, culture routes, and interaction between the different areas of Europe during the Bronze Age. It is not enough to conclude that connections, physical or mental, have taken place on the basis of similarities in form alone. It is my intention to continue to study the intermediate areas and cultures in Europe, like for example the Hallstatt culture which influenced many areas, in order to map the forms of cultural connections. 38 Jan Bouzek has compiled a major work on the connections between the Aegean, Anatolia and Europe during the Bronze Age, a work which is essential for my own, in view of his large catalogue of the material record of the different areas, where differences as well as similarities are clearly shown in the plates.39 Similarities in form as well as in appearance in certain categories can be separated from the more local traits in the material and in the figurative record. Furthermore, I will continue to develop reasonable answers to questions concerning the underlying reasons for the many signs of movements during the period in question, period V (900 – 500 BC) according to Montelius´ typological system. What was happening during this period? How did activities which took place in the Mediterranean cultures influence continental and northern Europe during the later part of the Nordic Bronze Age? How did the Nordic Bronze Age cultures respond to the movements in other parts of Europe, and what traces could the increasing international connections have left in the material record? These are some of the questions which still need to be answered.

Acknowledgements: I wish to express my gratitude to Lasse Bengtsson at the Vitlycke Rock Art Museum, and to the Museum itself for allowing me to use photographs of rock art from various sites in Bohuslän in this paper. I am also grateful to Gunvor & Josef Anérs stiftelse for the research grants, which allowed me to take time off in order to make the presentation held at the EAA meeting in Cork in September 2005, and to finish the paper based on the lecture. I also wish to thank Kim von Hackwitz and Göran Burenhult for constructive comments on the manuscript.

36

Malinowski 1922; Thomson 1949. Burenhult 2001. 38 Kristiansen 1998; Bouzek 1997; Wells 1980. 39 Bouzek 1985. 37

43

LI WINTER

References Anati, Emmanuel 1999, "Alpine Prehistory Becoming History", Adoranten 1999, Scandinavian Society for Prehistoric Art. Tanums Hällristningsmuseum Underslös, Tanumshede, 5-15. Anati, Emmanuel 1994, Valcamonica Rock Art. A New History for Europe Vol. 13 Studi Camuni, Edizioni del Centro, Capo di Ponte. Artursson, Magnus 2005, Byggnadstradition och bebyggelsestruktur under senmneolitikum och bronsålder, Supplement till Skånska spår – arkeologi längs Västkustbanan. Riksantikvarieämbetet. Avdelningen för arkeologiska undersökningar. UV Syd. Bengtsson, Lasse (ed) 1997, Arkeologisk rapport 3 från Vitlyckemuseet. Hällrstningar från Askums socken Bohuslän, Tanumshede. Bengtsson, Lasse (ed.) 1998, Arkeologisk rapport 4 från Vitlycke museum. Askum, Tanumshede. Bengtsson, Lasse (ed) 2002, Arkeologisk rapport 6. Askum socken, Bohuslän del 3, Vitlycke museum, Sweden. Borna-Ahlkvist, Hélène 2002, Hällristarnas hem. Gårdsbebyggelse och struktur i Pryssgården under bronsålder, Riksantikvarieämbetet Arkeologiska Undersökningar skrifter 42, Stockholm. Bouzek, Jan 1985, The Aegean, Anatolia and Europe: cultural interrelations in the second millenium B.C. Göteborg, Prague. Bouzek, Jan 1997, Greece, Anatolia and Europe: cultural interrelations during the Early Iron Age, Jonsered. Burenhult, Göran 1999, Arkeologi i Norden 2, Stockholm. Burenhult, Göran 2001, "Long-distance cultural interaction in megalithic Europe: Carrowmore and the Irish megalithic tradition in a western European and Mediterranean context", in Bozena Werbart (ed.) Cultural Interaction in Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean during the Bronze Age (3000-500 BC). Papers from a session held at the European Association of Archaeologists Sixth Annual Meeting in Lisbon 2000, Oxford (BAR International Series 985). Coles, John 2000, Patterns in a rocky land: Rock Carvings in South-West Uppland, Sweden, Volume 1, AUN 27. Uppsala. Cunliffe, Barry 2004, Facing the ocean : the Atlantic and its peoples, 8000 BC-AD 1500. Oxford. Fari, Camilla Helene 2003, Hieros-Gamos. En sammenligning mellom symbolets uttryck i den nordiska bronsealderns helleristningstradisjon og myteverdenen i det østlige middelhavsområdet, Hovedfagsoppgave i nordisk arkeologi, IAKK, Det historisk-filosofiske fakultet, Universitetet i Oslo. Feldt, Björn 2005, Synliga och osynliga gränser. Förändring i gravritualen under yngre bronsålder – förromersk järnålder i Södermanland, Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 37, Stockholm. Goldhahn, Joakim 2006, Hällbildsstudier i norra Europa – trender och traditioner under det nya millenniet, Göteborgs Universitet, Institutionen för arkeologi, Gotarc Serie C, Arkeologiska Skrifter No 64. Hauptman Wahlgren, Katherine 2002, Bilder av betydelse. Hällristningar och bronsålderslandskap i nordöstra Östergötland, Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 23, Stockholm. Kristiansen, Kristian 1998a, Europe before history, Cambridge. Kristiansen, Kristian 1998b, "A theoretical strategy for the interpretation of exchange and interaction in a Bronze Age context", in C. Mordant, M. Pernot and V. Rychner (eds.) L’Atelier du bronzier en Europe du XXe

44

FROM DIFFUSION TO INTERACTION: CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE NORDIC AREA AND VALCAMONICA DURING THE FIRST MILLENIUM

au VIIIe siécle avant notre ère: Actes du colloque international ‘Bronze 96’ Neuchâtel et Dijon, 1996. Tome III (session de Dijon) Production, circulation et consommation du bronze, Paris, 333-43. Kristiansen, Kristian & Rowlands, Michael 1998, Social transformations in Archaeology: Global and Local Perspectives, London and New York. Kristiansen, Kristian & Larsson, Thomas B. 2005, The Rise of Bronze Age Society. Travels, Transmissions and Transformation, Cambridge. Lagerås, Per & Strömberg, Bo (eds.) 2005, Bronsåldersbygd 2300 – 500 f. Kr. Skånska spår – arkeologi längs Västkustbanan, Riksantikvarieämbetet. Avdelningen för arkeologiska undersökningar. UV Syd. Leighton, Robert 2005, "House urns and Etruscan Tomb Painting: Tradition versus innovation in the NinthSeventh Cenutries BC", Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24 (4), 363-380. Malinowski, B. 1922, Argonauts of the Western Pacific, London. Sabatini, S. 2004, "A house for everyone? Interpreting preliminary data on age and gender and Late Bronze Age Nordic house urns from Sweden and Denmark", Ethnographisc-Archäologische Zeitschrift 46, 421-435. Sansoni, Umberto & Marretta, Alberto 2001, "The Masters of Zurla", Adoranten 2001, Scandinavian Society for Prehistoric Art. Tanums Hällristningsmuseum Underslös, Tanumshede, 23-34. Sansoni, Umberto & Marretta, Alberto 2002, "Recent discoveries in Zurla and Dos Cuí", Adoranten 2002, Scandinavian Society for Prehistoric Art, Tanums Hällristningsmuseum Underslös, Tanumshede, 5-14. Sansoni, Umberto 2003, "Zurla – Discoveries in Valcamonica in 2003", Adoranten 2003, Society for Prehistoric Art. Tanums Hällristningsmuseum Underslös, Tanumshede, 68-71.

Scandinavian

Scheffer, Charlotte 1991, "Harbingers of death? The Female demon in Late Etruscan Funerary art", in Munuscula Romana. Papers read at a conference in Lund (October 1-2, 1988) in celebration of the re-opening of the Swedish Institute in Rome, Acta Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae, Series in 8°, XVII, Stockholm, 51-63. Sherratt, Andrew 1987, "Warriors and traders: Bronze Age chiefdoms in Central Europe", in Barry Cunliffe (ed.) Origins: The roots of European Civilization, Oxford, 244-76. Sherratt, Andrew 1994a, "Core, periphery and margin: perspectives on the Bronze Age", in Mathers and Stoddart (eds.) Development and decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, Sheffield archaeological monographs 8, Sheffield, 335-45 Sherratt, Andrew 1994b, "What would a Bronze Age world system look like? Relations between temperate Europe and the Mediterranean in later prehistory", Journal of European Archaeology 1, no. 2, 1-59. Sherratt, Andrew & Sherratt, Susan 1991, "From luxuries to commodities: the nature of Mediterranean Bronze Age trading systems", in Gale, N.H. (ed.) Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 90. Jonsered. Sjögren, Lena 2005, "Minoiskt i norr? Om kulturella influenser från Kreta till Skandinavien", in Goldhahn, Joakim (ed) Mellan sten och järn. Del I. Rapport från det 9:e nordiska bronsålderssymposiet, Göteborg 200310-09/12. Gotarc Serie C. Arkeologiska Skrifter No 59, 151-166. Skoglund, Peter 2005, Vardagens landskap, lokala perspektiv på bronsålderns materiella kultur, Acta Archaeologica Lundensia Series in 8° No 49, Malmö. Thedéen, Susanne 2004, Gränser i livet – gränser i landskapet. Generationsrelationer och rituella praktiker i sörmländska bronsålderslandskap, Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 33, Stockholm.

45

LI WINTER

Thrane, Henrik 1975, Europæiske forbindelser. Bidrag til studiet af fremmende forbindelser i Danmarks yngre broncealder (periode IV-V), Nationalmuseet København. Trigger, Bruce G. 1989, A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge. Thomson, D.F. 1949, Economic Structure and the Ceremonial Exchange Cycle in Arnhem Land, Melbourne. Valcamonica Preistorica. Guida ai Parchi Archeologici, Coordinamento di Ariela Fradkin & Emmanuel Anati. Edizioni del Centro. Editore Centro Camuno di Studi Preistorici 2001. Victor, Helena 2002, Med graven som granne. Om bronsålderns kulthus, Aun 30, Uppsala. Wells, Peter 1980, Culture contact and culture change: Early Iron Age in central Europe and the Mediterranean world, Cambridge. Winter, Li 2001, "Cultural encounters. Symbols from the Mediterranean world in the South Scandinavian rock carving tradition during the Bronze Age", in Bozena Werbart (ed.) Cultural Interaction in Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean during the Bronze Age (3000-500 BC). Papers from a session held at the European Association of Archaeologists Sixth Annual Meeting in Lisbon 2000, London, BAR International Series 985, . Winter, Li 2002, "Relationen mellan Medelhavsområdets och Sydskandinaviens bildvärldar", in J. Goldhahn (ed.) Bilder av Bronsåldern, Vitlycke Hällristningsmuseum, 202-221. Winter, Li (manuscript in preparation), Long distance connections and cultural interaction during the Late Bronze Age: Travelling images and sailing ships.

46

FROM DIFFUSIONISM TO INTERACTION: CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE NORDIC AREA AND VALCAMONICA DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM

Fig 1: Map of Europe with Bohuslän, Valcamonica and the Aegean marked out.

Fig 2: Map showing Bohuslän, the major sites with rock art are marked out. After Hygen & Bengtsson 1999, 18.

47

LI WINTER

Fig. 3: Rock art landscape: View from the rock art site Backa, Brastad parish in Bohuslän. Photo Li Winter 2000.

Fig 4: Valcamonica in Northern Italy. After Anati 1994.

48

FROM DIFFUSIONISM TO INTERACTION: CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE NORDIC AREA AND VALCAMONICA DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM

Fig 5: View from Centro Camuno di Studi Preistorici, Valcamonica, Capo di Ponte, Italy. Rock art are found all over the mountainsides, and there are over 300 000 single figures in the valley. Photo Li Winter 2005.

Fig. 6. Rock art of Valcamonica: warriors from the site Foppe di Nadro. Photo Li Winter 2005. .

49

LI WINTER

a

d

b

c

e

f

Fig 7: Combatants from different sites in Bohuslän and Valcamonica: a) Warriors, or so-called "astronauts", duelling or dancing from Askum raä 42:7, Bohuslän. After Bengtsson 1997, 37. b) Valcamonica "astronauts" of the Etruscan phase (6th-5th centuries BC). After Sansoni & Maretta 2001, 29. c) Two scenes with warriors showing typological similarities in both composition and appearance and probably depicting similar rituals. The upper image is from Valcamonica and the lower image with a man holding a raised axe is from Bohuslän. After Anati & Fradkin 2001, 171. d) A realistic and exact depiction of a Bronze Age shield from Hede in Kville parish, Bohuslän. Photo Vitlycje Museum, raä 124. e) Human figures or warriors with horned helmets similar to the Bohuslän warrior on the right in fig. 5f. The figures have shields of the same type as the Kville Bronze Age shield in fig. 5d. After Anati & Fradkin 2001, 132. f) Two warriors with spears and horned helmets from Emelieborg in Tanum, Bohuslän. Photo Göran Burenhult.

a b c d e Fig. 8: Examples of warriors with various types of weapons from various sites in Bohuslän: a) Fossum raä 255; b) Aspeberget raä 18; c) Aspeberget raä 12; d) Tegneby raä 51; e) Fossum raä 255. Photo Vitlycke Rock Art Museum.

50

FROM DIFFUSIONISM TO INTERACTION: CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE NORDIC AREA AND VALCAMONICA DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM

b

a

c

Fig. 9: Human figures as adorants: a) Rished in Askum parish, Bohuslän; b) Naquane, Valcamonica, from period IV/D Middle Irn Age (700-500 BC); c) Foppe di Nadro, Roccia 1, Valcamonica. Human figure with a cup mark between the legs. Photo Li Winter 2005.

a

b

c

Fig 10. The Valcamonica rose: from the left examples from Valcamonica (a) and the two to the right from Askum parish in Bohuslän, b) raä 76:2; c) raä 80:1. After Anati 1994; Bengtsson (ed) 2003, 38 .

51

LI WINTER

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

Fig 11: Symbols in action: frame figures, spirals, net-figures, labyrinths, maps or sacrificial grills. a) Frame figures, daggers, battle axes and spears from Valcamonica. After Anati 1994, 150. b & c) Examples of frame figures from the province Östergötland, Sweden. After Burenhult 1973. d) Unique figures from Släbro, Södermanland parish, Sweden. Photo Li Winter 2005. e) Below right: the so-called “Mappa di Bedolina”, a large topographic composition from the Bronze Age, figures and huts were added during the Iron Age. After Anati 1994, 151. f) A number of figures from Zurla, R. 1. Valcamonica: “patterned” circles, meanders, warriors depicted inside foot prints and deer hunting scenes. The panel is dated to Middle Iron Age (7th-5th century BC. After Sansoni & Marretta 2002, 5. g) Patterned circles and meander labyrinths from Askum raä 697, Bohuslän (Bengtsson 1998).

52

FROM DIFFUSIONISM TO INTERACTION: CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE NORDIC AREA AND VALCAMONICA DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM

b

c

a

d e f Fig 12: Circular figures with extensions: Symbols of the sun, gods of fertility or mythical creatures? Parallells in form and appearance carvings from different areas and contexts. a) Circular figure and two accompanying female (?) figures from Aspeberget, Tanum parish, Bohuslän. Photo: Li Winter. b) Large cup mark with five obscure figures surrounding it, from Aspeberget raä 25, Tanum parish, Bohuslän. Photo Li Winter 2000. c) Similar design from Fossum raä 255, Tanum parish, Bohuslän. Photo Li Winter 2000. d) Circle figure with surrounding foot soles (?), from Boglösa 160, Uppland. After Coles 2000, 47. e) Circular figure with some sort of bird-hoofs and busts from Zurla, Valcamonica, Italy. After Sansoni 2003, 69. f) Circular figure with cattle emerging from the circle and also two female (?) figures. Tassili N´Ajjer, Northern Africa.

Fig 13a. Etruscan House urns. Fig. After Leighton 2005:372.

13b. House urn from Ansarve, Tofta parish, Gotland, Sweden. After Burenhult 1999:71. Photo: Carl O. Löfman.

53

LI WINTER

Fig. 14: The Gannarve ship setting on Gotland. Photo Göran Burenhult.

Fig. 15: Houses from Valcamonica. Photo Li Winter 2005.

54

FROM DIFFUSIONISM TO INTERACTION: CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE NORDIC AREA AND VALCAMONICA DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM

Fig 16: The Hassle Find. Photo Göran Burenhult.

55

ON THE ALLEGED CONNECTION BETWEEN THE EARLY GREEK GALLEY AND THE WATERCRAFT OF NORDIC ROCK ART MICHAEL WEDDE

Introduction

a given image depicts a plank-built ship as opposed to a wooden longboat or to a skinboat, is comparable. The size across the beam can be recovered by developing a method that seeks out clues scattered in the images that point to athwartship dimensions. These clues are provided by information concerning the mode(s) of propulsion:

It has become fashionable in North-Central European and Nordic archaeological circles to claim widespread influence from the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East during the Bronze Age.1 This connection is believed to cover anything and everything from specific artefact types to advanced technology to political organization to belief systems, thus firmly rooting the margins of Bronze Age ‘Europe’ to the centers of civilization in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and Greece, creating a single pan-European world system based on extensive man-toman contact across much of modern Europe.2 In other words: diffusionism reborn after the discredit that was heaped upon it through the invention of radiocarbon dating.3 Among the many areas of Aegeo-Oriental cultural achievement from which the North and NorthWest allegedly borrowed extensively, one notes, in particular, the galley-building tradition of the Late Bronze and Iron Ages of Greece. It has been claimed severally that Nordic rock art depicts vessels directly indebted to the Aegean art of ship construction, culminating in the affirmation that Mycenaean shipwrights traveled to Nordic waters there to construct galleys for the local chieftains.

4

1.

a craft must have a certain width to allow stable propulsion by sail unless it can be shown that it is equipped with an out-rigger, in which case the hull need hardly be wider than a dugout;4

2.

a craft propeled by oars must provide sufficient space between the fulcrum point on the gunwale and the rower for an in-board length of oar that allows the rower to work it with sufficient leverage—this space is doubled by virtue of there being a rower seated on each side of the hull;5

3.

as a craft designed to be rowed or sailed cannot be efficiently propulsed by paddles under normal operating conditions,6 it is surmised that

On sailing, cf. McGrail 1987:218-239. The outrigger hypothesis does appear in the Nordic literature: cf. Olsson 2000:146, Winter 2001:11. 5 Oared craft frequently have a central runway for passage between the rowers, as well as for sail handling (since an oared craft is wide enough to carry a sail, a sailing vessel is wide enough to ship a crew of rowers if designed to do so) adding to the width. Instances of the port rower sitting at the starboard gunwale, and vice versa, are known but are sufficiently rare not to require factoring in. If the rower handles both oars, the beam is correspondingly narrower: cf. McGrail & Farrell 1979:160 fig. 6 for a faering replica. On rowing, cf. McGrail 1987:207-218. 6 A notorious case of vessels being propulsed in a wholly inefficient manner is offered by the Miniature Wallpainting from Room 5 in the West House at Akrotiri: very large ships, proven by the wallpainting itself to be normally propeled by sail or by oars, are depicted being paddled, the effort requiring the men thus engaged to hang down over the gunwale to reach the water with their

Since the scholars formulating such hypotheses have failed to support them with a careful analysis of the model, the Mycenaean and early Greek galleys, and of the copy, the Nordic rock art vessels, an evaluation of this aspect of long-distance cultural exchange must proceed from such an examination. Particular care must be taken to ascertain the nature of the craft being compared, that is, whether the in two-dimensional depictions largely invisible third dimension, that which determines whether 1

A programmatic and sustained statement of the Nordic case is provided by Kristiansen & Larsson 2005. 2 In this, scientific research mirrors, and conforms to, official European Union policy: cf. the EU-sponsored travelling exhibition Demakopoulou et al. 1999. 3 Renfrew 1973, Trigger 1989:304-305, 384. Kristiansen & Larsson 2005 place their neo-diffusionist vision of European prehistory behind a veneer of ‘travels, transmissions and transformations’.

57

MICHAEL WEDDE

a vessel depicted with paddlers/paddles is narrow-beamed since paddlers require no leverage on the gunwale and must be seated close to it to reach the water, their minimum width amounting to little more than what is required for two paddlers side by side—with the exception of flat, barge-like structures.7

prerequisite, the Mycenaean galley came to its fore when rowed, being narrow, lighter, shallower in draught, and above all faster. Furthermore, the bow was totally reconceived: gone is the graceful rise from keel to stempost, replaced by an abrupt transition which scarfed the post at a right angle to the keel a small distance back from the extremity.10 Such an approach to the scarf had two effects, first strengthening it for bow-first beachings at speed, second providing increased bouyancy, allowing rowers to be seated into the eyes. The stern was swept up at a sharper rate than that of the Minoan ship, reducing the overhang.11 There resulted a new type of ship, designed for more turbulent times, manned not, as the Minoan type, by a crew of variable size depending on the mission, small when sailed for purposes of trade, large when on other business, but by a constant number of rower-warriors.12

Additionally, it is important to establish a modicum of methodological rigor when examining representations: in particular, it is imperative that interpretative statements are formulated on the basis of a large enough sample of images, i.e. that single instances are not allowed to set the agenda.8 With very large clusters of individuals forming the population of a type, the general tenor of the group must prime over occasional exceptions. Equally important is establishing a tradition of naval architecture since watercraft are not constructed in a vacuum; shipwrights and sailors are cautious and conservative, well aware of the price to pay at sea for design high wire acts: a new type always proceeds from a previous tried and tested design. A naval tradition, it follows, is firmly rooted in an operating environment created by land formations, currents, wind patterns, wave lengths, socio-political structures, economic parameters, plus the requirements of the user. This does not mean that a specific design cannot be transplanted into a new tradition and environment. It merely renders a successful transplantation a rarity.

Images painted on vases and larnakes, or modeled in clay, do not provide incontrovertible evidence for construction techniques of the vessels depicted. It is, nonetheless, possible to reconstruct the Mycenaean galley as a shell-first, keel-based, mortise-and-tenon assembled hull. The galley is a direct descendant of three successive Minoan hull types, the earliest of which derives from the Cycladic longboats depicted on the ‘frying-pans’ of the Syros-Keros culture of Early Cycladic II (Type I).13 These latter craft are derived from the Neolithic/Chalcolithic logboat, which was shaved down and expanded with strakes fastened by stitching to the dorsal member.14 These narrow, rapid, paddled vessels were reconfigured by the Minoans in the Prepalatial period to become the first sailed/oared vessels in the Aegean (Type II): shorter, beamier, and with further strakes attached to increase the draught. These ships built the Minoan world. They were improved by successive generations of shipwrights until a new type (III) appears in the Protopalatial period. By this time, the logboat

The Mycenaean galley The Mycenaean galley (Type VI in the author’s typology; Fig. 1) developed out of the Aegean ship building tradition, innovating on a solid base of Minoan shipwrightry.9 Yet, the galley is conceptually quite different: rather than constructing a capacious hull with space for cargo and rowers, primarily propeled by a square sail, the approach taken by Minoan Proto- and Neopalatial ship architects, the galley designer(s) conceived the hull as a container for the main propulsive force, the rowers, a mast providing secondary propulsion, and cargo stowed underneath the benches. Outsailed by a Minoan vessel, and unable to carry a large cargo since carrying a full crew of rowers was not an option but a

10

The existence of a keel on the Neopalatial Minoan shiptype cannot be proven, but appears likely, given its existence on the Mycenaean galley (the latter’s bow projection can hardly have existed if the central dorsal member of the hull had taken a different shape) and on Late Bronze Age models. Cf. Wedde 2000:117-119 for details. 11 A secondary effect would have been the loss of leverage for the helmsman, but when under oars any major, sudden change of course would have been implemented by the rowers. 12 On the Mycenaean galley, cf. Wedde 1999b, 2000:5456. 13 For statistics on cluster sizes, cf. Wedde 2003:298 fig. 4. 14 The author follows Basch 1987:85-87 in understanding the zig-zag line on two of the Cycladic craft as a reference to the fastening technique. On the reconstruction of the basic logboat to expanded logboat transition, cf. Wedde 1996:137-141.

blades (for example, Wedde 2000:cat.nr. 614). Only a ritual context can explain so counterintuitive behavior. 7 See, for example, the Ferriby boat reconstruction: Wright 1990:104-105 fig. 5.7. 8 The study of Aegean Bronze Age ship building has been bedeviled by recourse to the single item solution fallacy, cf. Wedde 2000:21-22. 9 For the typology of Aegean Bronze Age ships, cf. Wedde 1996:127-132, 1999a:46-52, 2000:35-62.

58

ON THE ALLEGED CONNECTION BETWEEN THE EARLY GREEK GALLEY AND THE WATERCRAFT OF NORDIC ROCK ART

origin had disappeared behind a keelplank, although it remains likely (albeit unprovable) that the strakes were assembled by stitching.15 The Neopalatial variant, Type IV, the best-represented craft of the Aegean Bronze Age courtesy of the Miniature Wallpainting from Akrotiri, may have constituted the turning point in terms of construction technique, with stitching giving way to mortise-and-tenon joinery, and a keel replacing the keelplank—but it must be stressed that such a reading is speculative.16 Mortise-and-tenon joinery is attested on the fourteenth century BC ship that wrecked off Uluburun,17 and the keel is part of the Mycenaean galley design. In other words, the Mycenaean galley, despite its innovative nature, is firmly entrenched in the Bronze Age Aegean ship building tradition.

thick keelline attached to the gunwale line by a series of vertical strokes representing the ribs, each square thus formed being the ‘room’ in which was seated a rower. Occasionally a wale is depicted. Although incapable of including much constructional detailing, the resulting images clearly indicate that the bow projection cannot be termed a ‘ram’ (as so often done in the literature). The projection surpasses the stempost only a short distance, enough to protect the scarf, not enough to place the point of impact sufficiently beyond the bow to avoid damage to the post itself, and in particular the post terminal (a birdshead in the Bronze Age). Furthermore, the bow morphology itself is inadequate for channeling the opposing force of impact into the hull: study of an early Hellenistic bronze ram from the sea off Athlit in Israel provides precious information on how this requirement dictated the bow design. The force was led through the hull along five lines: keel, the two wales, ramming timber (the heavy piece of wood at the center of the ram), and stempost. It is crucial that these lines are either straight or curve gently away from the point of impact. A vertical stem post and virtually no wood at all in the projection cannot fill the requirements.20

Pot and larnax painters, too, innovated in the manner in which they depicted this new design. Whereas Minoan craftsmen, in as far as they painted ships on vases,18 employed a black silhouette for the hull, their Mycenaean (and Mycenaean-ruled Minoan) homologues frequently turned to the x-ray technique.19 The hull consists of a 15

Mortise-and-tenon joinery is known from Old Kingdom Egypt, but it cannot be assumed that it was employed in the Aegean shortly thereafter, even if sustained contacts are evident from the archaeological material. 16 It springs from the observation that Types III and IV are very similar in terms of lines, with a difference in the stern design, yet clearly separated into a Proto- (III) and a Neopalatial (IV) type. One cannot but wonder if there is not a greater difference invisible to the eye (i.e. a difference in construction). The great leap forward on many fronts in the Neopalatial period may well have included one in the technology that comprised the lifeline of the Minoan civilization: ship construction. It also needs to be stressed that the author does not consider the Akrotiri ships ‘Minoan’ in sense of ownership, they may well be ‘Akrotirian’, but there can be no doubt that they are Minoan in design. There is virtually no information on Cycladic ship building beyond Early Cycladic III: the few pre-Akrotiri Miniature Wallpainting representations that exist are either unclassifiable or belong to a Minoan type. Whereas it cannot be excluded that there was Cycladic input, the Minoan cultural juggernaut has swept aside the evidence. 17 Pulak 1999. 18 One of the few Minoan vases (as opposed to Minoan vases produced during the Mycenaean period, in which case the ship image follows Mycenaean practices) to serve as support for ship images is the Late Minoan IB cup from Mokhlos, cf. Barnard & Brogan 2003:47-48 cat.nr. IB.202, fig. 7, discussed in Soles & Davaras 2004:3-15 with fig. 1B. The populations of the Minoan clusters are comprised essentially by glyptic images. 19 Cf. Basch 1987:174-175 on the x-ray technique (in relation to Geometric vessels). Elements of this x-ray technique had already appeared in the Neopalatial period

Further evidence for the non-existence of the ram in Late Bronze Age times is provided by a second type of Mycenaean galley (Type V; Fig. 2). This is a heavier galley, no doubt deeper and beamier, provided with a deck along the length of the hull.21 While it is, no doubt, not incorrect to argue that it resulted in a craft with greater cargo capacity than the Type VI vessel, it would appear from the frequent depiction of warriors on deck that its main virtue lay firmly in the realm of war at sea. The Type V galley is devoid of bow projection, the stempost being scarfed to the keel at its extermity. If ramming was an accepted form of confrontation between two ships, this design would have profited most from such a device as nothing discomfits the about-to-beboarded enemy as being thoroughly knocked on his ear in the immediately preceding instance. Craft capable of successfully pressing home a ramming attack do not appear until much later: it is doubtful that the long, narrow, unsheathed projection on Greek Geometric ships qualify as a ram in any offensive sense; it is far more likely that ramming begins to be successfully practiced in the Archaic period.22

for depicting the ‘talismanic’ ships on sealstones. These shorthand images for a Type IV ship with elaborate bowsprit and stern ikrion occasionally use the threedimensionality of the stone to hint at hull construction: cf. Wedde 2000:118-119 with fig. 13. 20 On the Athlit ram cf. Casson & Steffy 1991, Steffy 1983. 21 On decked craft, cf. Wedde 1999c, 2000:110-116. 22 The received narrative states that ramming began shortly after the Greek Bronze Age (Casson 1971:49), but

59

MICHAEL WEDDE

Whether these new types were designed at the height of Mycenaean power as means of further projecting the mainlanders’ influence, that is, in Late Helladic IIIA2, or as a response to the incipient unraveling of the Eastern Mediterranean world, which is visible in the archaeological record in Late Helladic IIIB2, remains unknown. The available pictorial evidence for both types falls in the LH IIIB and C periods, but it cannot be surmised a priori that archaeologists have uncovered the earliest depictions, nor that the design made it into the pictorial record as soon as the very first galley slid off the stocks.23 The LH IIIA2 period, the acme of Mycenaean civilization, is a good candidate for such a reconsideration of the ship as produced the galley. It is clear that the impulse came from within the Mycenaean ship building milieu since there is nothing comparable in the neighboring cultures. The advantages of the galley were so obvious to its users that the construction of this type of ship continues unabated beyond the destructions of ca. 1200 BC, through what scholars have termed the ‘Dark Ages’, through the Geometric period, with the introduction of the first hulls with the rowers on two levels, and on into Archaic and Classical times to become the triple-level trieres somewhere in the mid sixth century BC. The terminus post quem thus becomes ca. 1350 BC at the latest, with good prospects of an earlier date (perhaps ca. 1400 BC).24

Watercraft in Nordic rock art Nordic rock art offers an embarrassment of riches: some 17000 sites in Southern Scandinavia; around 75000 individual images at the some 5000 sites in just Bohuslän and Østfold; with numbers rising throughout the region. Watercraft constitute the most prevalent subject.25 Yet with so rich a material, scholars have nevertheless encountered serious problems at several levels. Many images are difficult to date, resulting in a series of chronological schemes; the images of watercraft are difficult to interpret in terms of construction technique, with four incompatible reconstructions resulting; the symbolic content remains widely beyond modern ken, giving birth to increasingly imaginative flights of fancy. For the present purposes, the most recent typological scheme, that of Flemming Kaul, will be adopted;26 the problems of moving from image to three-dimensional reconstruction will be discussed; the symbolic aspect will be left to those with the appropriate bent. A number of approaches have been taken to the classification of the different types.27 Overlaps on the picture support allow the establishment of a limited number of relative chronologies.28 Stylistic analyses has not proven very successful since it leads to an explosion of classes, while failing to recognize that single- and double-line representations may depict the same type.29 The most successful approach has proven to be that based on the shape of the extremities of the hull.30 A more solid basis has been provided by referring to images of watercraft on well-dated razors and other bronze implements from Danish burials, with occasional reference to North German finds.31 Correlated to Oscar Montelius’ chronological framework for the Northern European Bronze Age (1700-500 BC), the Danish razors allow sketching up a skeleton covering Periods III-VI, into which fall a vast number of rock carvings. Period I is anchored by the watercraft incised on the sword from Rørby, the time after Period VI by the close parallels between early Pre-Roman Iron Age carvings and the physical remains of the Hjortspring boat of ca. 350 BC. A pre-Period I extension into the Neolithic can be outlined at least in mid Norway and in Karelia.32

In summary, the Mycenaean galley is firmly identified as a ship, as opposed to a longboat, both by the two clusters of images upon which Types V and VI are based, and by its position within a tradition of watercraft architecture that reached the ship-stage ca. 2300 BC, and which continued well beyond the last embers of the Bronze Age.

this is debatable. For an attempt at reconsidering the evidence, cf. Wedde 2000:145-172. 23 A priority of Type V over VI cannot be argued on the basis of the imagery. The type numbers resulted from the hypothesis at the time of writing of Wedde 2000 (and earlier formulations) that Type V was structurally closer to Type IV, and that Type VI represented a more advanced design. Since then (Wedde 2000 was submitted as a dissertation in 1992 and not substantially rewritten), the author’s thinking has evolved: it is equally possible that Type V is a response to needs made evident by the design of Type VI, such as greater cargo capacity and the desirability of a deck in sea-based warfare, cf. Wedde 1999b. 24 The author accepts the high chronology, based on the eruption of the Thera volcano in the 17th c. BC: the date has fluctuated as scientists have refined their methodology, 1628 to 1644 to, most recently 1627-1600 BC, but it is preferable to the stylistic date of the archaeologists in the 15th c. BC.

25

Coles 2005:17, 26. Kaul 1998:87-112, with 88 fig. 53. 27 Cf. for instance the typology of E. and P. Fett reproduced by Halldin 1949:55 fig. 52. 28 Burenhult 1980. Cf. Burenhult 1971-72:153 fig. 1. 29 Malmer 1981. 30 For example, P.V.Glob (whose work is not available in Athens), illustrated in Schauer 1985:194 fig. 69, Kaul 1998:89 fig. 54; Sognnes 1998:150 with 151 fig. 9.3. Kaul 1998:88 fig. 53. 31 Kaul 1995, 1998. 32 Sognnes 1998:151 fig. 9.3; Autio 1981. 26

60

ON THE ALLEGED CONNECTION BETWEEN THE EARLY GREEK GALLEY AND THE WATERCRAFT OF NORDIC ROCK ART

Modes of propulsion are seldom depicted. The crews are generally reduced to short parallel lines, believed to lean in the direction of travel, sometimes elaborated with a ball added as a head. When propulsion is indicated it is generally done by depicting a reduced crew of crouching figures raising paddles above their heads (Fig. 4).33 Clear depictions of oars are so rare as to be almost non-existent (Fig. 5).34 A mast with or without sail occurs so seldom that it is frequently argued that it was introduced late, shortly before the Vikings, despite the use of the sail on the continent well before that date.35

excluded. However, such lines could also be interpreted as decorative, yet, in methodological terms, this would impose such a reading on the verticals as well lest too much freedom be granted the modern beholder to arrange the evidence in a suitable manner. The skinboat hypothesis encounters possibly strong objections in the fact that remains of dugouts have been excavated in Southern Scandinavia dating back to Neolithic times,40 and that Bronze Age tools are sufficient for fashioning logs into planks. It may also be noted that the Bronze Age in Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Near East is generally a period of plank-built water transport. Arguing for a reconstruction as wooden craft encounters, in turn, the problem of determining the distance progressed from the dugout, stages on that progression moving through three major stations: dugouts with sides raised by appended strakes, shaved-down dugouts extended by strakes, craft assembled from planks with no dugout core. While it is quite possible to argue that the Period I-VI succession of types is based on a constant, primitive dugout base to which are appended increasingly flamboyant stem- and sternposts, it seems unlikely that 1200 years of constructing watercraft did not affect the hull itself. To this assumption may also be added a hypothetical external influence from the immediately contiguous areas.41 Taking technological progress as a given, it is argued that the Period I-VI succession of types not only witness a more elaborate treatment of the posts, but also a gradual reduction of the dugout core and an increased use of planks.42 The Hjortspring boat, standing at the Pre-Roman Iron Age end of the series, has a central plank with cleats for attaching the frames, the extremities of the plank tapering to receive the horns at bow and stern.43 If, hypothetically speaking within the logic of the present reconstruction, the Rørby boat is largely an extended dugout, then the Hjortspring boat should be the goal toward which Nordic boatwrights unconsciously tended over time. 44

The Nordic vessels were initially reconstructed as skinboats in the scholarly literature.36 Convincing ethnographic parallels were provided by the Inuit umiak.37 A successful modern experimental archaeology project has produced a Nordic rock art craft as a skinboat.38 Further support for this reading may be gleaned from the representations: when the hull is treated in the x-ray fashion, the stanchions attaching the gunwale line to the keelline can be rendered both as verticals and as obliques.39 In the latter case a wooden craft is to be 33

Halldin 1949:71 fig. 60; Halldin 1952:35 fig. 53, 71 fig. 172 nr. 184; Kaul 1998:250 figs 165-166 (bronze razors); Coles 2005:19 figs 17-18, 24 fig. 27. 34 The Finntorp, Tanum 95 representations (Coles 2005:27 fig. 32 lower), showing a single-line hull with long vertical lines descending from it may be understood as a craft propelled by oars. It is unique. Kristiansen & Larsson 2005:269 are wrong in claiming that the watercraft on the Kivik slab is depicted with raised oars; the lines ending in a blob are interpreted as the crew by the specialists, and there are no parallels for lifted oars, only paddles. 35 Burenhult 1983:155. Sognnes 1998:151-152 (not until shortly before the Viking period). Burenhult 1971-72:157 with 154-156 figs 2-4 refers to 10 vessels from Hästhallen (Blekinge) and one from Lösen (Blekinge) equipped with a pole which he reads as a mast (although they are devoid of stays and never depicted supprting a sail). To explain their presence he resorts to endorsing M.P. Malmer’s hypothesis that the images are copies of Eastern Mediterranean originals (Burenhult 197172:159). An aside: for scholars writing in English, the language itself creates a problem: watercraft are frequently said to be sailing, even when mast and sail are absent (Wahlgren 2000:68 fig. 1). Wahlgren’s paper takes the expression ‘the lonesome sailing ships’ a step further in using it as a metaphor for research into Nordic rock carvings. 36 Burenhult 1983:153 fig. 53 (S. Marstrander’s reconstruction). Johnstone 1972, 1980:111 figs 9.13-14. 37 Johnstone 1980:108 fig. 9.9 (after S. Marstrander, not available in Athens). 38 Johnstone 1972, but see critique by Hale 1980. 39 Sognnes 1998:150 fig. 9.2 illustrates eight different ways of rendering a hull, using the Brandskog vessel as model; four of these involves filling the space between

gunwale and keel lines with a pattern: vertical lines, horizontal lines, crossed oblique lines, complete fill. Cf. also Halldin 1952:31 fig. 36 nrs 40-43. 40 McGrail 2001:172-174 with 73 fig. 5.2. On seaborne trade between Southern Norway and Jutland going back to the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Ages, i.e. a time well before the existence of plank-built longboats, cf. Solberg 1994. 41 Here the situation is, admittedly, unclear due to an absence of substantial German evidence, but note finds of paddles in Germany (McGrail 2001:176). 42 Strömberg & Strömberg 1985:76 (referring to an earlier article) proposes a mixed technique with wood for the central dorsal element and the framework, skin for the upper works. 43 Crumlin-Pedersen & Trakadas 2003. 44 For the reconstruction of Nordic rock carved vessels as wooden craft, cf. Hale 1980 with many cogent objections

61

MICHAEL WEDDE

A further argument against placing the Period IV-V types closer to the dugout end of the spectrum than to the plank-built end is provided by an artist’s impression of a dugout-based Nordic vessel of that time period (1100-700 BC).45 A rather too heavy craft ensues.46 Admittedly, this censure may be influenced by the lightly built boats that result if the hide-built option is exercised. It remains certain that on the currently available evidence an argument in favor reading the Nordic vessels as ships is to be excluded, not because it is inconceivable that the South Scandinavians built larger watercraft, but because their manner of notating the craft in their rock art is devoid of the indicators that would allow proposing a reading as ships (primarily mast, but also oars). In addition, the several instances of vessels depicted as propeled by paddles excludes—on the basis of current archaeological and for the area relevant ethnographic data—the interpretation going beyond a longboat.

identical or similar to that in which the ship of the receiving culture operate. Some examples illustrate this. The New Kingdom shipyard at Memphis, during the reign of Tuthmosis III (1504-1450 BC), employed a number of shipwrights from the Levantine coastal states, constructing craft that are believed to be of foreign design.47 Since these vessels were destined for use in the Eastern Mediterranean, particularly on the Delta to the Levant run, it is probable that the craft followed patterns established as successful for that appliction over hundreds of years. In 261 BC, Rome, when faced with the challenge of pushing the Punic Wars off the Italian peninsula and onto the territory of Carthage, employed a captured Carthaginian quinquereme as a model for an entire fleet, the first such undertaking by the Romans.48 The ‘prize’ was copied keel, strakes and ribs, with no need for adaptation as the operational environment was identical. The approach was employed again in 243/2 BC with a more advanced (lighter) design.49

In summary, the watercraft of Nordic rock art cannot be identified with ships, but rather with plank-built longboats. The rejection of an interpretation as ships is based on the extensive absence of depictions with mast or oars, i.e. on methodological grounds, and on the general tenor of the thousands of images, from the Late Neolithic down to the Pre-Roman Iron Age, as compatible with a reading as longboats.

The French, in their never-ending struggle with their cross-Channel neighbors, employed for over two centuries (14th-16th c. AD) galleys of the Venetian type. These vessels were widely used in the Mediterranean, by sovereign navies and pirates alike, an area in which the French had their own stake. For Northern waters they were not ideal, but if commanded by Venetian officers, and kept in harbor in inclement weather, they offered a distinct advantage over the English vessels in that they could operate independently of favorable winds and in shallow waters. The English, as part of Henry VIII’s massive naval build-up, constructed galley-like craft, not by slavishly copying ‘prizes’ (of which they had obtained a few), but by creating a new type, the ‘rowbarge’, less specialized, better adapted to local conditions, but also less effective in peak use.50

On the alleged connection Throughout the history of humankind, the occasional intrusive ship type appears in the archaeological and/or historical record of a number of cultures. Instances of foreign ships being merely depicted are irrelevant; the interesting cases are those in which a foreign type is integrated into the local socio-political economy, usually in three different forms: 1.

as a ‘prize’ taken in war, refurbished if needed, and manned by local crews;

2.

as a local copy of a foreign original (the latter often a ‘prize’);

3.

as a foreign design locally built by shipwrights from the culture of origin.

47

Glanville 1930, 1932. The importance of this undertaking is indicated by the control of the shipyard being in the hands of the crown-prince, the future Amenhotep II. The work probably included renovating vessels built outside Egypt, a task by nature prone to teaching local builders how to construct in a foreign manner. 48 Cary & Scullard 1975:118, Morrison & Coates 1996:43-44. 49 Morrison & Coates 1996:53-54, 353. Cary & Scullard 1975:120, but without mention of the Carthaginian model. 50 Rose 2002:27-28, 30-31, 60-64, 67-71, 84-86, Moorhouse 2005:passim. Cf. Moorhouse 2005:color illustrations, section 2, pl.7 for the Rose in the Sun rowbarge.

In all three cases the denominator is common: the intrusive craft originates from an operational environment to a skin boat interpretation. Strömberg & Strömberg 1985:84 stress the dugout origin of the Nordic craft. 45 Lethbridge 1952:113 fig. 23. 46 The subjectiveness of any such judgement should be apparent, yet in the absence of physical remains, there are no guidelines for the modern beholder.

62

ON THE ALLEGED CONNECTION BETWEEN THE EARLY GREEK GALLEY AND THE WATERCRAFT OF NORDIC ROCK ART

Due to the distance separating the Mycenaean operational environment from that of the South Scandinavians, the alleged Mycenaean-Nordic Bronze Age ship building connection requires suspension of disbelief on three crucial points: 1.

the prerequisite direct contact between the Mycenaeans and the Southern Scandinavians;

2.

the transfer of Mycenaean naval know-how to Southern Scandinavia, either through a circumnavigation by Mycenaean galleys of Western Europe, or the dispatch of Mycenaean shipwrights across Europe;51

3.

Similarly, the scene from Bohuslän of warriors on a Period V craft cannot be compared to the Middle Geometric II Eleusis 741 galley on any other grounds than that of ‘warrior on board’. The vessels are totally different, the Swedish one equipped with the usual rising bow extension and the short stern projection, and tall posts with decorative terminals, as well as an ample crew of short vertical lines; the Greek with the typical bow projection of the period, a stempost upon which is perched a bird, the up-swung stern post, five thole pins, and the helmsman. The hulls are totally different.54 Two comparisons are of some interest. A rock carving from Sandbäck in Bohuslän does show similarities with one of the ships on the stela from Dramesi (in Boiotia: Hyria is the suggested Homeric identification; Fig. 3), but without a chronological reference for the Swedish craft a discussion becomes difficult. When representations become so simplified they may no longer carry sufficient characteristics of their own image tradition.55 What must be emphatically rejected is the suggestion that the Dramesi image belongs to ‘a foreign Nordic tradition of rock carving, which suggests a Nordic chief or artisan, rather than local graffiti’: the stela consists of two fragments, the second carrying one of the best representations of a Mycenaean galley.56 The sailing ship from Järrestad 4 (Skåne; Fig. 6) compared with the ship on the White-painted IV oinochoe in the Lefkosia museum creates a number of problems.57 Morphologically, the comparison is valid at first sight, but closer examination indicates that the two hulls have

the ability of the Southern Scandinavians to integrate a vessel type so different to their own watercraft into their operational needs at a time when there is manifestedly nothing comparable in the Nordic record.

Particularly point 3 requires discussion for attempts to compare Mycenaean and early Greek galleys with Nordic rock art craft are largely founded on an ignorance of the difference in the nature of the respective vessels. A recurrent error involves claims that the Nordic extension of the keelline is the equivalent of the Aegean bow projection (occasionally misinterpreted at the Aegean end of the equation as a ram). As the Nordic extension rises at a 45 degree angle to a height frequently equal to that of the stempost figurehead, a use as a ram is excluded. In hydrodynamic terms, however, it functions in a similar manner to the Aegean bow projection: by shifting the buoyancy of the bow out beyond the post, it allows seating paddlers (or rowers in the Aegean case) in the eyes of the bow, thus increasing the crew capacity. This is not proof of Aegean influence since it is a feature of dugout-derived craft in various parts of the world.52 Thus a comparison of the Late Geometric I Dipylon dieres Louvre A517 with the vaguely identified image from Bottna socken (Bohuslän) is impossible on this aspect alone.53

54

Winter 2001:22 fig. 5(c). If the sole purpose is to draw a parallel between watercraft with large figures, then little is gained. 55 In the case of the Dramesi ship, it is not the hull, but the additional traits that allow a classification as Type IV (Wedde 2000:53 and cat. nr 683): to the right there is an ikrion, including the xyston naumakhon depicted on the Akrotiri Miniature Wallpainting extending out from it; to the left, the bird-shaped bowsprit typical of Type IV (Wedde 2000:119-122); the construction at the bow must be the fighting platform known from the Battle Scene (cf. Wedde 2000:cat. nr 626). 56 Winter 2001:12 with 22 fig. 5(b) = Olsson 2000:147 fig. b. Cf. Basch 1987:143-144 with figs 301-303, Wedde 2000:328-329 cat.nrs 683-689. The Dramesi stela is no longer dated to Late Helladic I (or late Middle Helladic/early Late Helladic as claimed by Kristiansen & Larsson 2005:207, based on Wachsmann 1998:143-144 figs 7.30-31) but to Late Helladic IIIB (Basch 1987:144, who was the first to correctly identify one of the ships as a Mycenaean [Type VI] galley: 145 fig. 300B). 57 Winter 2001:22 fig. 5(d) = Olsson 2000:148 fig. e. Cf. Burenhult 1971-72: 158 fig. 5. Problematic is the suggestion that the Cypriote ship can aid in dating the Järrestad 4 ship (Olsson 2000:147) when no reference is made to proof of contact with Cyprus of the 8th/7th c. BC in form of Cypriote artefacts in Southern Scandinavia.

51

Cf. Kristiansen & Larsson 2005:208. See, for example, Hale 1980:124 fig. 4b, pl. XV, Basch 1987:86 fig. 176, both from Lake Victoria, and Hornell 1946:210 fig. 39, from Celebes. 53 Winter 2001:22 fig. 5(a) = Winter 2002:209 fig. 9.6 = Olsson 2000:146 fig. a. The bow extension on the Bottna craft is merely the upward-turned bow extension common to most if not all Period IV and V Nordic craft and thus beyond any comparison with a Late Geometric keel projection. It may also be noted that the Greek craft (Basch 1987:172 fig. 353) is an early version of a ship with the rowers on two levels, thus an even further step away from the Scandinavian longboat. 52

63

MICHAEL WEDDE

only superficial similarities since the Swedish craft stands clearly in the local tradition and is therefore not an import. The stays are more intriging since both artists chose to the same four lines out of the much larger complement of ropes necessary to manipulate a sail.58

Conclusion The claim that specific Nordic rock art vessels depict Mycenaean-inspired, even Mycenaean-constructed galleys cannot stand as formulated.62 It is based on a number of problematic approaches to the available evidence: a faulty knowledge of the technology and the tradition of both Aegean and Nordic watercraft primarily of the Bronze Age; an invalid comparison between the ship of one culture and the longboat of another; an absence of additional hypotheses to explain several aspects of the neo-diffusionist reconstruction of relations between the North and the South. The reconstruction states that Nordic chieftains traveled to the Eastern Mediterranean to obtain prestige-enhancing knowledge and aid with which to create a Nordic culture to an appreciable extent aligned with the technology, social systems, and belief systems of the Mycenaeans, the Hittites, the Egyptians. It provides no information on:

This is not a recent problem. The search for Aegean and Near Eastern parallels for Northern European material culture has roots that grow deep into European Bronze Age archaeology praxis.59 This may be illustrated for representations of watercraft by the attempt made to compare the Period I vessel on the Rørby sword (ca. 1700-1400 BC) with the Late Helladic IIIC ship on the miniature stirrup jar from Asine (ca. 1100 BC).60 While the ‘noch nicht recht zu überbrückender Zeitdifferenzen’ are noted in regards to the Asine ship, the claim is nevertheless made that ‘der Vergleich [weist] die Richtung, aus der die Vorbilder für die Rørby-Gravur kamen.’ Both the Rørby and the Asine craft are incorrectly interpreted (leaving aside the far from minor matter that the former is a longboat, the latter a ship): the projection to the left on the Rørby image is interpreted as a ‘spitz zulaufende, rammspornartig gestaltete Bug’, whereas it is now properly understood as placed at the stern; the ‘übertrieben vorgezogener Bugspitze’ of the Asine ship is, in fact, the steering oar.61

1.

how it was possible for Nordic chieftains and their retinue to travel freely through Eastern Europe, despite the presence of several separate cultures through which territory they were required to pass—it is well known that goods move extensively because it is profitable for the hands through which they pass, but the same has not been demonstrated for groups of humans;63

2.

how the travelers could enter into intimate contact with, for example, the Mycenaeans, to obtain information on aspects of the Mycenaean civilization without access to a common tongue;64

3.

why the Mycenaean wanakes would have approved the divulging of information that must have ranked among the most closely guarded: the art of building galleys—in a period when increasing tensions within the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean would have placed a

58

The comparison is insufficient to prove that the mast and sail was introduced to Southern Scandinavia from Greece. A correction: Olsson 2000:147 fig. d (right) does not depict a model from Cyprus, but the very well-known model from Mokhlos (Wedde 2000:307 cat.nr. 101)— Halldin 1948:41 fig. 59 provides the correct provenance. 59 See the popular parallel drawn for the Ekenberg (Östergötland) longboats with the ships of the Novilara stela, for example, by Althin 1945:54-56 with fig. 19, Halldin 1952:83 fig. 215, Olsson 2000:147 fig. c. On the Novilara ships, cf. Bonino 1975. 60 The fact that Schauer 1985:194 is still working with the old Period I/II dating for the Rörby sword does not much alter the chronological gap. The Rørby sword was assigned to Period II as recently as Almgren 1987:43, but has now settled in Period I (Kaul 1998:88 fig. 53). The reference (Schauer 1985:193) to Geometric ships (760700 BC) is chronologically devoid of applicability and therefore best buried in a footnote. 61 Schauer 1985:193-194. This case is particularly interesting since it is based on a compounding of errors: the Asine vessel was misunderstood by earlier Aegean ship specialists: Kirk 1949:117 and Gray 1974:53 create a ram out of the steering-oar, R.T. Williams in Morrison & Williams 1968:10 BA.3 is uncertain.

62

Kristiansen & Larsson 2005 is taken here as the statement of orthodoxy, but the critique is also directed at Li Winter (Olsson) on specific points. The criticism is also valid for other scholars’ work of like tenor. 63 Kristiansen & Larsson 2005:236-240 invoke IndoEuropean kinship systems, particularly the exchange of foster sons, and the guest friendship networks known from ethnographic and ancient sources, but every example involves distances much shorter and cultures (when it is the case of more than one culture) far more compatible with each other than the proposed Scandinavia-to-Mycenae connection. 64 Once one questions the reconstruction it appears ‘obvious’ that sun-worship need not require external input—it is a feature of several cultures not subject to any proven contact.

64

ON THE ALLEGED CONNECTION BETWEEN THE EARLY GREEK GALLEY AND THE WATERCRAFT OF NORDIC ROCK ART

premium on building as many galleys as possible for local use;65 4.

that are apt to surface when distinct and distant cultures are contemplated simultaneously, but rather than postulate a whole-sale infusion of the Elixir of Civilization from the Aegeo-Near Eastern area, it should constitute—at least when observed from the scholarly perch of Aegean Bronze Age ship building—a far greater challenge to understand such apparent similarities within the context of the world of the Southern Scandinavians.

what the Nordic chieftains could offer in return: Southern Scandinavia was not a provider of copper or tin, while amber has been vastly overrated by the neo-diffusionists.66

Diffusionism by another term remains the castration of one culture by another. The receptor is deemed incapable of attaining a higher level without massive influxes of goods and knowledge from an external transmitter. There is ample evidence for the exchange over short and long distance of culturally significant artefacts. The Minoans, the Mycenaeans, the Archaic Greeks are prime examples, but in each case something borrowed was reworked and became something new. The Nordic neo-diffusionists are arguing that such a capacity was absent from the Southern Scandinavians. To pull their culture up by the bootstraps they were reduced to trecking across Europe to obtain the necessary ingredients. It is true that the neodiffusionist hypothesis uncovers a number of interesting parallels between North and South,67 parallels of a type

In sum, deriving a very limited number of Nordic rockcut watercraft representations from Mycenaean or later Greek ship images, particularly when done without the prerequisite knowledge of either Nordic nor Greek watercraft traditions, is definitely a dead end.68

Postscript In Flemming Kaul’s Ships on Bronzes there is frequent reference to the Central European Vogel-Sonnenbarken as a possible influence on the Period III-VI bird(?)-headed post terminals.69 Inevitably, he discusses the ‘Mycenaean Vogel-Sonnenbark’. The term is largely a misnomer. The sole instance in the data base is provided by the representation below the rim on a sherd from a small LH IIIC krater uncovered at Tiryns.70 It depicts the top of a nautilus-like design with a bird-headed post at each extremity (to remain within a questionably applied ship idiom, and treating lightly the exact nature of the beast depicted as the post terminal). This depiction has been connected with the later Vogel-Sonnenbarken of the Urnenfelderkultur, with which it does indeed share a number of traits. With Mycenaean ships of the galley type it has only the shape of the posts in common: it must be stressed that no Mycenaean ship was built with identical extremities, in fact, such an approach is entirely foreign to the Aegean Bronze Age tradition of watercraft. Furthermore, in terms of proper methodology, it is not

65

Whether one accepts that the first representations of Mycenaean galleys, in LH IIIB (with the first signs of a decline), marks the beginning of the type, or whether one argues that the galley may have been introduced already in LH IIIA2 (the boom of the Mycenaeans), does not markedly alter the outcome of the argument: either way, the Mycenaeans must have prioritized the construction of ships for their own use (the sharing of galley technology in LH IIIC must be considered inconceivable given the political situation). There is no evidence of galley use by the immediate extra-Aegean neighbors of the Mycenaeans, in a period when there is available a tolerable amount of data on Near Eastern ship building. For the following period affirmations must be less sanguine due to the dearth of ship representations in the Levantine area (the Western Asia Minor seabord being in Greek hands, Egypt being in self-imposed quarantine and ‘Sea People’ induced decline). 66 Kristiansen & Larsson 2005:236 speak of ‘the incredible social and economic importance of amber in Mycenaean society and in the east Mediterranean.’ This is not supported for the Aegean world by Harding 1984 or by any publication of major grave groups or by any study of jewellery or by any museum—a very noisy argumentum ex quasi silentio is thus required. One should note that Harding’s work is thrashed by Kristiansen & Larsson 2005:18-19 for not adhering to their orthodoxy. 67 When Kristiansen & Larsson 2005 resorts to Aegean parallels, these are founded severally on misinterpretations and misunderstandings—the danger of every world systems approach when the bibliography for each culture tossed into the mix overwhelms even the respective specialists. A few examples must suffice: the Knossian ‘Lily Prince’ (143 fig. 50) has been demolished

by Niemeier 1987 as being a creation by Sir Arthur Evans; the comparison between woman’s wicker-work headdress from the Danish oak coffin burial with the young crocus-picking girl on the wall painting in Akrotiri Xeste 3 Room 3a (153 fig. 57a-b) misses the point that the Theran girl has a shaved head indicating her age class (Marinatos 1976:35; cf. Marinatos 1993:202); it is not possible to compare the Tiryns gold ring with the scene from Kivik (192-193 with 192 fig. 82) as scenes of reception since the man on the Kivik slab clearly leads a procession (note his feet). 68 It would appear that Nordic archaeology is entering into a phase of self-doubt and seeks to redorer son blason with the same polish that so fascinated Aegean archaeology for several generations: the gloss of ex Oriente lux. The Aegeanists got over it. 69 Kaul 1998:93-94, 134-135, 148, 277-284. 70 Slenczka 1974:29-30, Matthäus 1980.

65

MICHAEL WEDDE

permissible to include a single instance in any authoritative typology: therefore, for the time being, the Tiryns ‘Vogel-Sonnenbark’ cannot be considered a Mycenaean ship type.

Acknowledgements: The author is grateful to Mrs. Ane Landøy, head librarian at the University of Bergen, for help in bibliographical matters, and to the editor for her patience. As always, Mrs. Ethel Wedde read and commented.

References Almgren, Bertil 1987, Die Datierung bronzezeitlicher Felszeichnungen in Westschweden, Uppsala. Althin, Carl-Axel 1945, Studien zu den bronzezeitlichen Felszeichnungen von Skåne I, Lund. Autio, Eero 1981, Karjalan kalliopiirrokset, Keuruu. Barnard, Kellee A. & Brogan, Thomas M. 2003, Mochlos IB. Period III. Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast: the Artisans’ Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri. The Neopalatial potter. INSTAP Prehistoric Monographs 8, Philadelphia. Basch, Lucien 1987, Le Musée imaginaire de la marine antique, Athens. Bonino, Marco 1975, "The Picene ships of the 7th century BC engraved at Novilara (Pesaro, Italy)", International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 4, 11-20. Burenhult, Göran 1971-72, "Rock carving chronology and rock carving ships with sails", Meddelanden från Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum 151-162. Burenhult, Göran 1980, Götalands hällristningar del 1, Stockholm. Burenhult, Göran 1983, Arkeologi i Sverige 2. Bönder och bronsgjutare, Höganäs. Cary, M. & Scullard, H.H. 1975, A History of Rome, London/Basingstoke. Casson, Lionel 1971, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Princeton. Casson, Lionel & Steffy, J. Richard (eds) 1991, The Athlit Ram. College Station. Coles, John 2005, Shadows of a Northern Past. Rock carving of Bohuslän and Østfold, Oxford. Crumlin-Pedersen, Ole & Trakadas, Athena (eds) 2003, Hjortspring. A Pre-Roman Iron-Age warship in context, Roskilde. Demakopoulou, Katie, Eluère, Christiane, Jensen, Jørgen, Jockenhövel, Albrecht & Mohen, Jean-Pierre 1999, Gods and Heroes of the European Bronze Age, London. Glanville, S.R.K. 1930, "Records of a royal dockyard at the time of Tuthmoses III: Papyrus British Museum 10056 – part I", Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 66, 105-121. Glanville, S.R.K.1932, "Records of a royal dockyard at the time of Tuthmoses III: Papyrus British Museum 10056 – part II", Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 68, 7-41. Gray, Dorothea 1974, Seewesen. Archaeologia Homerica Bd. I Kap. G, Göttingen. Hale, J.R. 1980, "Plank-built in the Bronze Age", Antiquity 54, 118-127.

66

ON THE ALLEGED CONNECTION BETWEEN THE EARLY GREEK GALLEY AND THE WATERCRAFT OF NORDIC ROCK ART

Halldin, Gustaf 1948, "Fartyg vid Medelhavets och Västeuropas kuster fram till omkring 500 f.Kr.", Sjöhistorisk Årsbok 14-78. Halldin, Gustaf 1949, "De skandinaviska hällristningarnas farkoster", Sjöhistorisk Årsbok 15-96. Halldin, Gustaf 1950, "Bilder av primitiva farkoster m.m. sammanställda för studiet av de skandinaviska hällristningarnas skeppsbilder", Sjöhistorisk Årsbok 11-96. Halldin, Gustaf 1952, "Vad för farkoster återge de sydskandinaviska hällristningarnas skeppsbilder?", Sjöhistorisk Årsbok 11-90. Harding, A.F. 1984, The Mycenaeans and Europe, New York. Hornell, James 1946, Water Transport. Origins and early evolution, Cambridge. Johnstone, Paul 1972, "Bronze Age sea trial", Antiquity 46, 269-274. Johnstone, Paul 1980, The Sea-craft of Prehistory, London/Henley. Kaul, Flemming 1995, "Ships on bronzes", in Crumlin-Pedersen, Ole & Munch Thye, Birgitte (eds) The Ship as Symbol in Prehistoric and Medieval Scandinavia, Copenhagen, 59-70. Kaul, Flemming 1998, Ships on Bronzes. A study in Bronze Age religion and iconography, Copenhagen. Kirk, G.S. 1949, "Ships on Geometric vases", Annual of the Bristish School at Athens 44, 93-153. Kristiansen, Kristian & Larsson, Thomas B. 2005, The Rise of Bronze Age Society. Travel, transmissions and transformations, Cambridge. Lethbridge, T.C. 1952, Boats and Boatmen, London/New York. McGrail, Seán 1987, Ancient Boats in N.W. Europe. The archaeology of water transport to AD 1500, London/New York. McGrail, Seán 2001, Boats of the World. From the Stone Age to Medieval times, Oxford. McGrail, Seán & Farrell, Anthony 1979, "Rowing: aspects of the ethnographic and iconographic evidence", International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 8, 155-166. Malmer, Mats P. 1981, A Chorological Study of North European Rock Art, Stockholm. Mandt, Gro & Lødøen, Trond 2005, Bergkunst. Helleristningar i Noreg, Oslo. Marinatos, Nanno 1993, Minoan Religion. Ritual, image, and symbol, Columbia (S.C.). Marinatos, Spyridon 1976, Excavations at Thera VII, Athens. Matthäus, Hartmut 1980, "Mykenische Vogelbarken. Antithetische Tierprotomen in der Kunst des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes", Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 10, 319-330. Moorhouse, Geoffrey 2005, Great Harry’s Navy. How Henry VIII gave England sea power, London. Morrison, J.S. & Williams, R.T. 1968, Greek Oared Ships 900-323 B.C., Cambridge. Morrison, J.S. & Coates, J.F. 1996, Greek and Roman Oared Warships 399-30 BC, Oxford. Niemeier, Wolf-Dietrich 1987, "Das Stuckrelief des “Prinzen mit der Federkrone” aus Knossos und minoische Götterdarstellungen", Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 102, 65-98.

67

MICHAEL WEDDE

Olsson, Li 2000, "Skepp från Medelhavsområdet på våra hällristningar?", in Burenhult, G. (ed.), Arkeologi i Norden, Stockholm, 146-149. Pulak, Cemal 1999, "The Uluburun hull remains", in Tzalas, Harry (ed.) Tropis VII. 7th International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity, Athens, 615-636. Renfrew, Colin 1973, Before Civilisation. The radiocarbon revolution and prehistoric Europe, Harmondsworth. Røstholm, Hans n.d., Vitlycke hällristningarna, Vitlycke. Rose, Susan 2002, Medieval Naval Warfare, 1000-1500, London/New York. Schauer, Peter 1985, "Spuren orientalischen und ägäischen Einflusses in bronzezeitlichen nordischen Kreis", Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum Mainz 32, 123-195. Slenczka, Eberhard 1974, Figürlich bemalte mykenische Keramik aus Tiryns, Tiryns VII, Mainz. Sognnes, Kalle 1998, "Symbols in a changing world: rock-art and the transition from hunting to farming in mid Norway", in Chippindale, Christopher & Taçon, Paul (eds), The Archaeology of Rock Art, Cambridge, 146-162. Solberg, Bergljot 1994, "Exchange and the role of import to Western Norway in the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age", Norwegian Archaeology Review 27, 111-126. Soles, Jeffrey & Davaras, Costis (eds) 2004, Mochlos IC. Period III. Neopalatial Settlement on the Coast: the Artisans’ Quarter and the Farmhouse at Chalinomouri. The small finds. INSTAP Prehistoric Monographs 9, Philadelphia. Steffy, J.Richard 1983, "The Athlit ram. A preliminary investigation of its structure", Mariner’s Mirror 69, 229-247. Strömberg, H. & Strömberg, M. 1985, "Plankbyggda båtar under bronsåldern?", Bohusläns Årsbok 75-86. Trigger, Bruce G.1989, A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge. Wachsmann, Shelley 1998, Seagoing Ships & Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant, College Station. Wahlgren, Katherina Hauptman 2000, "The lonesome sailing ships. Reflections on the rock-carvings of Sweden and their interpreters", Current Swedish Archaeology 8, 67-96. Wedde, Michael 1996, "From classification to narrative: the contribution of iconography towards writing a history of early Aegean ship building", Mediterranean Historical Review 11, 117-164. Wedde, Michael 1997, "The intellectual stowaway: on the movement of ideas within exchange systems—a Minoan case study", in Laffineur, Robert & Betancourt, Philip P. (eds), TEXNH. Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference, Temple University, Philadelphia (18-21 April 1996), Aegaeum 16, Liége, 67-76. Wedde, Michael 1999a, "Bronzezeitliche Schiffsdarstellungen in der Ägäis. Vorgeschichte, Entwicklung und eisenzeitliches Weiterleben der frühen Schiffsbaukunst Griechenlands", in Chrysos, Evangelos, Letsios, Dimitrios, Richter, Heinz A. & Stupperich, Reinhard (eds), Griechenland und das Meer. Beiträge eines Symposions in Frankfurt in Dezember 1996, Peleus. Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Griechenlands und Zyperns Bd. 4, Mannheim/Möhnesee, 45-64. Wedde, Michael 1999b, "War at sea: the Mycenaean and Early Iron Age oared galley", in Laffineur, Robert (ed.), Polemos. Le contexte guerrier en Égée à l’âge du Bronze, Actes de la septième Rencontre égéenne internationale de l’Université de Liège (14-17 avril 1998), Aegaeum 19, Liège, 465-474. Wedde, Michael 1999c, "Decked vessels in early Greek ship imagery", in Tzalas, Harry (ed.), Tropis V. 5th International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity, Athens, 505-526. Wedde, Michael 2000, Towards a Hermeneutics of Aegean Bronze Age Ship Imagery. Peleus. Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Griechenlands und Zyperns Bd. 6, Mannheim/Möhnesee.

68

ON THE ALLEGED CONNECTION BETWEEN THE EARLY GREEK GALLEY AND THE WATERCRAFT OF NORDIC ROCK ART

Wedde, Michael 2003, "The boat model from the Late Helladic IIIA-B sanctuary at Agios Konstantinos (Methana) and its typological context", in Konsolaki-Giannopoulou, Eleni (ed.), Ἀργοσαρωνικός. Πρακτικά 1ου Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Ἰστορίας καί Ἀρχαιολογίας του Ἀργοσαρωνικού. Πόρος, 26-29 Ἰουνίου 1998, Athens, 285-300. Winter, Li 2001, "Cultural encounters. Symbols from the Mediterranean world in the South Scandinavian rock carving tradition during the Bronze Age", in Werbart, Bozena (ed.), Cultural Interactions in Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean during the Bronze Age (3000-500 BC). Papers from a session held at the European Association of Archaeologists Sixth Annual Meeting in Lisbon 2000. BAR International Series 985, Oxford, 9-27. Winter, Li 2002, "Relationen mellan Medelhavsområdets och Sydskandinaviens bildvärldar", in Goldhahn, Joakim (ed.), Bilder av bronsålder—ett seminarium om förhistorisk kommunikation. Rapport från ett seminarium på Vitlycke Museum, 19.e-22.e oktober 2000, Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 8o, no. 37, Stockholm, 201-221. Wright, Edward 1990, The Ferriby Boats. Seacraft of the Bronze Age, London/New York.

69

MICHAEL WEDDE

Fig. 1: Type VI ship from Tragana (Wedde 2000:cat nr 643)

Fig. 2: Type V ship from Pyrgos Livanaton (Wedde 2000:cat. nr 6003)

Fig. 3: Type IV ship from Dramesi (Wedde 2000:cat. nr 683)

70

ON THE ALLEGED CONNECTION BETWEEN THE EARLY G REEK GALLEY AND THE WATERCRAFT OF NORDIC ROCK A RT

Fig. 4: Bro Utmark, Tanum 192 (Coles 2005:28 fig. 34)

Fig. 5: Finntorp, Tanum 95 (Coles 2005:27 fig. 32)

Fig. 6: Järrestad 4, Järrestad Parish (Burenhult 1971-72:158 fig. 5)

71

WARFARE AND RELIGION IN THE BRONZE AGE THE AEGEAN IN THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT HELÈNE WHITTAKER

Warfare can be defined as organised violence between different social, cultural, or ethnic groups. According to Harding warfare can be seen as a defining characteristic of the European Bronze Age as a whole, on an ideological and symbolic level as well as in terms of the frequency of actual combat.1 This is a view with which many would agree, and the frequency of armed conflicts and the importance of a warrior ethos to Bronze Age mentality have been increasingly stressed in recent years. The purpose of this paper is to look at evidence for warfare and to discuss its ideological significance, in particular with regard to religious beliefs and ritual, in the Aegean and in continental and northern Europe. The discussion will necessarily be somewhat patchy and with regard to northern and continental Europe based on literature which is readily available to those outside the field.

occurrence of warfare on the Greek mainland at this time. There is some skeletal evidence from Lerna and Asine in the Argolid dating to the Middle Helladic period which indicates that the individuals had suffered heavy trauma sometime during their lives.3 From a general point of view, it can, however, be remarked that the fact that violent death seems to have been a frequent occurrence in a certain area at a certain time may indicate a cultural acceptance of a high level of inter-personal violence rather than the existence of organised aggression or warfare.4 As has been pointed out by Parker Pearson the use of violence as a means of redressing a wrong can be an accepted part of justice in many societies.5 It is therefore very possible that the skeletal evidence from Middle Helladic Greece which shows that some individuals had suffered heavy injuries during life or died from unnatural causes should be interpreted in terms of the prehistoric equivalent of pub brawls, rather than anything which could reasonably be defined as warfare. The mortuary evidence from Asine which includes two women with facial injuries, perhaps from heavy blows, could indicate that the level of casual violence was at times quite high in Middle Helladic Greece. Also at Lerna female skeletal evidence indicates injuries which it would seem reasonable to interpret as the result of domestic violence.6 There is also in this period no evidence for the ideological importance of warrior lifestyle and values. Bronze knives occur occasionally in burials, but no weapons or other objects associated with warfare. Arrowhead or spearheads are sometimed found, but these may be evidence for hunting rather than for warfare.

The Mycenaean evidence The early Mycenaean period Mycenaean culture, that is the Late Bronze Age on the Greek Mainland, has traditionally been described as warlike in nature and in this sense has often been contrasted with the supposedly more pacific Minoan culture on Crete. However, the contrast between warlike Mycenaeans and peaceful Minoans is perhaps more a reflection of the idealisation of Minoan culture than an accurate description of prehistoric reality. While evidence which relates to the frequency or nature of warlike action is sparse, interest in warfare on Crete is stongly suggested by the evidence for the production and development of weapons as well as of protective gear such as shields and helmets from the Middle Bronze Age onwards.2 In contrast, there is little archaeological evidence for the

3

Nordquist 1987, 108; Angel 1971, 91-92. For example, historical sources indicate that the area of Øvre Hallingdal in Norway had, in comparison with the rest of the country, an exceptional high number of murders, usually stabbings, in the eighteenth century. The fact that, despite the high number of resulting deaths, the knife rather than recourse to the judicial system was the preferred way of regulating conflicts has been associated with the survival of cultural tradions from the Viking Age in an isolated part of the country (Sandnes 1990; Reime 2004). 5 Parker Pearson 2005, 21-22. 6 Nordquist 1987, 108; Angel 1971, 91-92. 4

1

Harding 1999, 157-173; 2000, 306. Dickinson 1994, 200-203; Peatfield 1999; Manning 1986; Sandars 1961. Driessen 1999 suggests that the wounds and injuries displayed by two male skeletons from the cemetery at Armenoi in central Crete, from Tomb 67 and Tomb 139, could have been inflicted in combat. 2

73

HELÈNE WHITTAKER

Towards the end of the Middle Bronze Age there is a clear change and evidence from burials indicates the increased importance of warfare with regard to both, it would seem, its actual occurrence and its ideological significance. In particular, the burials in the Shaft Graves in Grave Circles B and A at Mycenae which date to the transition from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age demonstrate almost certainly the existence and perhaps also prevalence of military conflict at this time. Many of the objects found as grave goods in the Grave Circles at Mycenae are characterised by the elaboration of weaponry and military iconography. Several of the male skeletons from Grave Circle B at Mycenae show clear evidence of violent trauma which can undoubtedly be interpreted as evidence for participation in warfare.7 It has furthermore been suggested by Acheson that the relatively young ages of those buried in Grave Circles B and A at Mycenae as well as in the contemporary Pylos Grave Circle in Messenia can also be seen as evidence for death in combat.8 The swords found in the Shaft Graves at Mycenae also constitute good evidence for the existence of warfare on the Mainland. The earliest swords found in the Aegean, known as Type A swords, are long and narrow. A number of Type A swords have been found in the Shaft Grave burials; it is likely that some or most of them may have been imports from Crete. Type B swords are also found in the Mycenae burials. These are shorter, broader, and stronger than Type A swords, and accordingly more effective and functional in close combat.9 It would seem likely that the development of Type B swords took place at Mycenae and that this indicates interest in the creation of superior military technology in the Argolid at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age.

Kiapha Thiti in Attica, at Argos in the Argolid, and at Malthi, Peristeria, and Pylos in Messenia.13 It is clear that the end of the Middle Bronze Age and the beginning of the Late Bronze Age on the Greek mainland was a time when wide-reaching social and political changes leading to the establishment of a more hierarchical social system were taking place. Warfare seems to have played a key role in this process. Precisely which factors gave rise to the social and political instability which characterises this period remain a matter of speculation. It is possible that population growth leading to increased pressure on available resources, in particular arable land, may have resulted in social unrest and inter-group violence. This could have led to the development of a warrior elite which based its power on the control of large areas of land. However, competition for control of land may not have been the only factor at work. The Middle Helladic period is also often described as poor and backward. There are relatively few imports and the period gives the impression of being culturally and economically isolated from neighbouring cultures in the eastern Mediterranean. As has increasingly been recognised, however, the isolation and poverty of the Greek Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age has been somewhat exaggerated. Zerner and Rutter have argued that contacts between Crete and coastal sites of east Peloponnese were not sporadic and infrequent, but part of well-established networks throughout the Middle Helladic period.14 The presence of obsidian on most settlements clearly testifies to regular contact with the Cyclades.15 Middle Helladic pottery has also been found in the Cyclades, while Cycladic pottery has been identifies at Lerna and Asine.16 Tin and copper, or bronze as a raw material must also have been obtained through trading networks. Examples of Minoan luxury goods such as stone vases, seals, and beads have also been found on several sites.17 All the same, in comparison with the contemporary cultures on Crete and in the Cyclades, the Greek mainland gives a definite impression of austerity.

Maran has pointed out that at the transition from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age changes in the settlement pattern in parts of the Greek mainland seem to occur. The movement of people into areas which had not been inhabited in the previous period can now be discerned. 10 It is possible that this was associated in some way with the occurrence of warfare in central parts of the Greek mainland. For instance, Tsoungiza in the Nemea Valley was settled late in the Middle Helladic period. Wright and Davis suggest that the settlers were fleeing from unstable conditions in the Argolid plain at the time when Mycenae was establishing itself as a major centre of power in the area.11 The forcible resettlement of people has also been suggested as a possibility by Maran.12 Further evidence for the prevalence of warfare in Mainland Greece at this time can be seen in the construction of fortifications at

13

Lauter 1989; Maran 1995, 68. Rutter & Zerner 1984. 15 On the obsidian at Asine see Nordquist 1987, 43; at Ayios Stephanos see Taylour 1972, 218. 16 Rutter & Zerner 1984; Dickinson 1977; Nordquist 1987, 50. 17 Minoanising pottery occurs in the Peloponnese from the beginning of the Middle Helladic period. It is particularly common at Lerna and Ayios Stephanos (Zerner & Rutter 1984; Nordquist 1987, 50; Dickinson 1996, 69-70). See also Dickinson 1977, 36-37; 1984; Wright et al. 1990, 641; Voutsaki 1999, 104; 2001. Minoan stone vases have been found at Argos, Mycenae, and Asine (Nordquist 1987, 41); A steatite seal from the end of the Early Minoan or beginning of the Middle Minoan period was found at Argos (Touchais 1998, 75): Semi-precious stones used for jewellery have been found at Asine (Nordquist 1987, 42-43). 14

7

Angel 1973. Acheson 1999, 98-99. 9 Sandars 1961; Dickinson 1994, 202-203; Peatfield 1999, 68-69. 10 Maran 1995. 11 Wright 1990. 12 Maran 1995, 72. 8

74

WARFARE AND RELIGION IN THE BRONZE AGE: THE AEGEAN IN THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT

At the end of the period, however, there is clearly a change in attitude towards the display of wealth and the material expression of status and authority. The burial evidence, also indicates that there is great interest in the display of material wealth, and luxury goods from Minoan Crete and the Cyclades clearly played an important role in the materialisation of power and prestige. Competition for the control of existing and perhaps also newly established trading routes and exchange networks may therefore also been a factor which could have led to more or less frequent episodes of armed conflict.18

weapons, although in some cases, only a single dagger or spearhead.24

The occurrence of warfare on the Greek mainland at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age is furthermore reflected in a corresponding emphasis on warrior ideology in the legitimation of status and power. The ideological significance of warfare is particularly evident in the prominence of weapons in burials which are otherwise rich in grave goods. The development of a strong warrior ideology associated with the power of emerging elites can therefore be postulated. The earliest example of a warrior grave is at Kolonna on the island of Aegina in the Saronic Gulf.19 The burial contained a bronze sword with a gold disc and an ivory pommel, two bronze daggers, a bronze spearhead, a bronze knife decorated with gold bull's heads and with gold sheathing on the hilt, fragments of boar's tusk plates which had originally been attached to a probably leather helmet, and an arrowhead made of obsidian. At Thebes a somewhat later burial, a built-stone cist grave, contained a sword, a spear, a knife, five arrowheads made of obsidian and flint, as well as pieces of perforated boar's tusk from a helmet.20 In Messenia the so-called Pylos Grave Circle contained at least twenty-seven burials in pits and pithoi. The grave goods included a large number of weapons and boar's tusks.21 Many of the swords and daggers were decorated with gold and ivory. One of the most important sites from this period is Mycenae. In the Shaft Grave burials of Grave Circles B and A, the importance of military ideology is evident in the large numbers of weapons found with the male burials.22 While the majority are actual weapons, others were richly ornamented and must be regarded as ceremonial replacements as the character of the decoration would have made them difficult to use in a real combat situation. Military symbolism is also evident in the iconography, such as on one of the two gold rings found in Grave IV of Grave Circle A which shows a battle scene.23 Also elsewhere in the Argolid a number of graves contained

On one level, the material wealth of the Shaft Graves burials at Mycenae clearly denotes the social identity and political status of those buried. As a material gold has a number of unique and particular qualities that make it a natural choice of material for objects intended for the display of status and power.25 However, the fact that gold does not tarnish or corrode also serves to make it particularly appropriate as a symbol of immortality. Its glowing colour is furthermore readily associated with the sun as the source of all life. Covering the dead body with items of gold can therefore be seen as a negation of the impermanence of human flesh and an assertion of the survival of the individual.26 It can be suggested that the use of gold for items such as weapons, imitations of armour, and drinking cups in the Shaft Grave burials at Mycenae indicates that the expression of warrior ideology had become closely intertwined with religious symbolism related to the passage from life to death and to the afterworld.27 From this perspective it would seem possible that the presentation of the dead as a warrior was meant to express beliefs in the continuity between life and death and to look forward to his role in the afterlife as well as to represent his social importance when still alive. It could be speculated that part of the meaning of the drinking vessels, weapons and other artefacts associated with the expression of warrior ideology found in burials was to materially demonstrate an allegiance to a war deity which transcended the border between life and death.

The occurrence of various types of objects made of or decorated with gold is an unprecedented and remarkable feature in the rich burials of this period. It is furthermore interesting that in the male burials at Mycenae, a connection can be seen between the use of gold and the warrior status of the dead. In addition to its use for the ornamentation of weapons, a number of items which can be interpreted as representations of body armour were also made of gold.

It can be argued that other evidence supports the idea that early Mycenaean warrior ideology was associated with religious concepts. In Messenia in western Greece swords which have been deliberately bent occur in a number of graves.28 This custom can be explained in various ways. 29 The intention may have been motivated by fear of the dead coming back and posing a threat to the living. Rendering a weapon useless for practical functions can 24

Protonotariou-Deilaki 1990 Renfrew 1986, 149; Sherratt & Taylor 1997, 433. 26 Cf. Cavanagh 1998, 104-105. 27 See Whittaker forthcoming for a more detailed discussion. 28 Taylour 1973, 152; Korres 1984, 147, n. 49; 1993, 237. 29 Åström 1989.

18

25

Cf. Maran 1995, 69. 19 Walter 1981; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1995, 49. 20 Aravantinos 1995, 615. 21 Taylour 1973. 22 Karo 1930; Mylonas 1973; Graziadio 1991. 23 Karo 1930, no. 241, Pl. XXXIV.

75

HELÈNE WHITTAKER

also be seen as the humanisation of an inanimate object. Not only is the sword deposited with its owner in the grave as a confirmation of his warrior status, it also dies with him. It is also possible that rendering objects useless for this world was intended to make them suitable for use in the afterlife. It is therefore possible that the meaning of the bent swords in Messenian graves at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age was also associated with ideas and beliefs relating to the immortality of the warrior.

altered state of mind and the sense of displacement from the body which is induced by alcohol were believed to signify contact with the divine world and access to supernatural powers which could be deployed in battle. It is possible that the occurrence of drinking equipment along with weapons in a ritual context as well as in warrior burials reflects the religious aspects of communal drinking as much as its social importance.33 The evidence from Kynortion could suggest that not only the ideological aspects of warfare were associated with religion in Late Bronze Age Greece but also its actual practice. Numerous present-day and historical examples exist of religion being the cause of or providing the legitimation for war. The close associations that may exist between ritual and warfare have, for instance, been highlighted with regard to pre-contact Central and South America by Arkush and Stanish.34 However, warfare may also be woven into the very fabric of religion so that participation in warlike activities is in itself regarded as religious action. For example, Hedeager has argued that in the Germanic Iron Age religion and war were inseparable from each other, since worship of the war god Odin was at the centre of the identity of the warrior elites.35 With regard to the Near East in Antiquity Hamblin has emphasised that war was not viewed as the result of wilful human action but as the means by which the gods restored cosmic order.36 Participating in warfare was therefore conceived of as complying with the will of the gods. As he also points out other examples of inseparable ties between religion and war can be recognised in many cultures throughout history.

Close connections between religious beliefs and warrior ideology at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age can also be seen in the sanctuary at Kynortion above Epidauros in the Argolid.30 The nature of the material found at Kynortion suggests elite involvement and it would also seem likely that there may have been close connections with the centre of power at Mycenae, as the richness of the finds can be compared with the finds from Grave Circle A at Mycenae. In the period contemporary with the Shaft Graves at Mycenae, the sanctuary consisted of a stone terrace supporting a thick layer of ash. The terrace was identified as a sacrificial altar as animal bones were found mixed in with the ash deposits. A large number of bronze swords, daggers, and spearheads, both actual weapons and votive replicas were also found within the ash deposit. In view of the evident importance of military symbolism in the votive material, it would seem not unlikely that the sanctuary was centred on the worship of a war deity. Ritual activity may have been concerned with gaining access to the power of the deity. Fragments of a stone rhyton (libation vessel) which is decorated with scenes of military combat may document the association between the performance of libations in honour of a god or goddess and the renewal of the warrior spirit among the worshippers. The ceramic evidence which consisted to a large extent of cups and bowls as well as the animal bones indicates that religious activities included eating and drinking on a large scale. The large number of drinking cups found at Kynortion suggest that there was a close association between the consumption of alcohol and cult activity.

The later Mycenaean period The landscape of the Greek mainland in the later part of the Mycenaean period (Late Helladic III) is characterised by monumental palaces with massive fortification walls. Mycenaean palaces have been identified at Mycenae, Tiryns, Midea, Athens, Thebes, Gla, and at Pylos. In the Argolid, most of the settlement would have been located in the areas outside of the fortification walls. At Pylos the fortification walls seem to have encircled the entire settlement which lay on the ridge and not only the palace itself; the ridge on which the palace and settlement were situated had steep sides which would also have provided a natural defence.37 At first sight this emphasis on defence in Mycenaean palatial architecture would seem to constitute indisputable evidence that the Mycenaean

The male burials in the Shaft Graves at Mycenae also included a large number of vessels. Many of these were made of gold, and it would seem likely that they refer to the formalised drinking ceremonies which seem to have developed in the latter part of the Middle Bronze Age as an integral part of the warrior lifestyle.31 It may, however, also be relevant that cross-cultural evidence indicates that the altered state of body and mind caused by inebriation or drunkenness can be interpreted as possession by a supernatural force.32 It could therefore be speculated that, in addition to the evident social effects, the Bronze Age drinking ceremonies had religious dimensions in that the

33

Cf. Sherratt 1997a, 391; 1997b, 419 on the ritual aspects of drinking. 34 Arkush & Stanish 2005. 35 Hedeager 1992. 36 Hamblin 2006, 12. 37 Shelmerdine 2001, 337-339.

30

Lambrinudakis 1976, 1981. Laffineur 1977; Cavanagh & Mee 1998, 55-51; Nordquist 2002; see also Wright 2004, 17-28. 32 Joffe 1998, 298; Heath 2003, 32. 31

76

WARFARE AND RELIGION IN THE BRONZE AGE: THE AEGEAN IN THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT

occasions.46 If the armour was worn in ceremonies it would seem likely that the bronze would have been highly polished in order to recall the glow of gold, and this would certainly have been the case when it was laid in the tomb. The funerary significance of the Dendra suit of armour and other armour found in burial contexts during the Mycenaean period may therefore relate to the same ideas about the afterlife as the gold imitations of armour from Grave Circle A. It is, however, interesting in this connection that in the Dendra tomb the dead man had not been clothed in his suit of armour and boar's tusk helmet, but that these had been placed beside him along with the grave goods. The height of the dead man was estimated to have been at least 174 cm.47 The suit of armour, however, had been made to fit a slight man of around 168 cm. Perhaps, the reason why he was not laid to rest wearing the armour was that it did not fit him as it did not originally belong to him. This can be seen as an indication of the importance of military ideology to the representation of the male elite at the time of burial. A shoulder piece from a similar suit of armour was found in Grave 8 at Dendra.48

powers were constantly at war, presumably with one another. However, it has been suggested that references to the practice of warfare was part of the language of power associated with the Mycenaean palaces, and that accordingly the fortifications of the Myceaean palaces should be seen in terms of ostentatious display rather than as evidence for warfare as such.38 In fact, the length of time needed for the construction of the walls at Mycenae or Tiryns indicates that they were not built as a response to any imminent threats from hostile forces.39 The construction of massive fortifications demands a heavy investment in labour as well as being costly, and can possibly also be seen as a means of uniting the people of an area in a common project. This would also have the advantage of preventing or hindering political or social unrest. It is also worth emphasising that there is no evidence for fortifications at some sites where palaces have plausibly been identified, such as Dhimini in Thessaly, Orchomenos in Boeotia, and the Menelaion in Laconia.40 While it is possible that active warfare ceased to be of any great importance to the establishment and maintenance of power after the first part of the Late Bronze Age, it can be said that an emphasis on military values continued to be of ideological importance throughout the palatial period, perhaps functioning as the main source of legitimation for the ruling elite. The ideological significance of warrior ideology is also evident from the continuing popularity of weapons as grave goods.41 Little body armour has survived from the Greek Bronze Age.42 The most complete example comes from Dendra in the Argolid, where a suit of armour made of bronze plates sewn together probably with leather thongs was found in Tomb 12.43 The tomb dates to the beginning of the fourteenth century. The remains of swords and daggers, a bronze knife, and fragments of a boar's tusk helmet were also found.44 The Dendra suit of armour could conceivably have been worn in combat, but it would have been very heavy and unwieldy. Experiments with a reproduction indicate that if it had been made for active combat purposes it could only have been used by a swordsman.45 It is, however, perhaps more likely that it was made and used for ceremonial or ritual purposes. The surface was almost entirely corroded so it was not possible to determine whether the suit of armour had ever been used in combat or on other

In general, the extent to which finds of military equipment as grave goods actually correspond to warlike conditions on the Greek mainland during the palatial period is uncertain.With regard to the last part of the Bronze Age, however, it would seem plausible that the decline and collapse of palatial rule and the destruction of major Mycenaean centres at the end of the Late Helladic IIIB period (ca 1200 BC) was in some way associated with or accompanied by the development of warlike conditions, between the Mycenaean powers, between various social groups within the Mycenaean kingdoms, or a combination of both.49 Loader has suggested that the end of the palatial era should be seen in terms of an everincreasing competitiveness in the display of power which may have placed too great a strain on the resources of the palaces and as a consequence led to warfare.50 The fact that some settlements are abandoned while others are being fortified indicates that the need for safety was influencing the movements and living conditions of the inhabitants of mainland Greece during the last phase of the Bronze Age.51 The underground cisterns which were built at Athens and Mycenae have commonly been interpreted in terms of the need to secure the water supply in the event of a long-lasting siege. Moody has, however, argued that the last period of the Bronze Age was a period of unstable climatic conditions in the Aegean and suggested that the motivation may have been to ensure

38

Dickinson 2006, 42. Loader 1998, 180; Dickinson 2006, 42; 40 Dickinson 2006, 25. 41 Cavanagh & Mee 1998, 61-79. 42 See Verdelis 1977 36-37 fo a list and discussion of finds or armour on the Greek mainland and on Crete. 43 Åström 1977; Wardle 1988, 474-476; Dickinson 1994, 203-205. The tomb had been partly plundered. 44 Åström 1977, 12-18; Verdelis 1977. 45 Wardle 1988, 476. 39

46

Åström 1977, 28. Åström 1977, 18; Wardle 1988, 474. 48 Verdelis 1977, 30-31. 49 Dickinson 1998, 54-55. 50 Loader 1998, 162. 51 Cf. Loader 1998, 162-163. 47

77

HELÈNE WHITTAKER

access to sufficient water for the palaces in times of drought.52

less closely intertwined and that warrior ideology played a subordinate role in the legitimation of the ruler.57

The religious significance of warfare throughout the Late Bronze Age on the Greek mainland is clear from iconography which depicts weapons in clearly ritual contexts. Several examples come from the citadel og Mycenae. The relationship between Mycenaean deities and military attributes would seem to be confirmed by the wall painting from the Room with the Fresco Complex at Mycenae dated to around 1250 BC.53 The fresco comes from a room which is believed to have had a ritual function. In front of the fresco there was a platform, possibly to be identified as an altar for the deposition of offerings. The fresco is divided into two separate scenes, one above the other; the uppermost scene depicts two female figures, most commonly identified as goddesses, who are facing each other. One of them is holding an oversize sword, while the other is holding a spear. Between them are two small and schematic male figures hovering in the air. In Mycenaean art, size is sometimes used as a conventional way of distinguishing between deities and humans. It would seem possible then that the meaning of this image is associated with a belief that the military prowess of Mycenaean men is derived from the power of the goddesses. Further evidence for the religious connotations of warfare is provided by a small limestone plaque also found in a cultic context at Mycenae which shows a small figure with a figure-of-eight shield.54 The Room with the Fresco Complex is one of a number of cult buildings which are located together in an area to the south of the palace known as the Cult Centre.55 The location of the Cult Centre close to the fortress walls can also be seen as a materialisation of the close ties between religion and warrior ideology at Mycenae. Also at Mycenae, the Lion Gate Relief above the main entrance through the fortification wall may indicate that the expression of the military force of the ruler was closely bound up with divine power. The Lion Gate Relief shows two lions with their heads (now lost) facing outwards on either side of a column with their feet on two altars of a well-known Minoan and Mycenaean type.56 The column is most likely an abbreviated rendering of the palace itself, although it has been suggested that columns and pillars were religious symbols in the Bronze Age Aegean.

Evidence for warfare in continental and northern Europe Reliable evidence for episodes of actual warfare in Bronze Age Europe would seem to be relatively scarce. Burials where the skeletal remains indicate that the dead had suffered severe trauma at some point in their lives provide some evidence for the existence of armed confrontation. In some case it can be ascertained that those buried had also died as a result of violence and it would seem reasonable to associate this with warfare, particularly if many contemporary burials in one area indicate that violent death was not uncommon. This would seem to be the case in southwestern Slovakia during the Early Bronze Age, when many of the skeletons from the later burials of the Nitra group have fracture wounds which show that they probably died in combat. It can therefore reasonably be assumed that the Early Bronze Age in this area was a time of conflict and violence.58 The underlying causes of the unstable situation in this area are, however, not easy to ascertain. On the one hand, it has been suggested that the Nitra group who are believed to have immigrated into the area from what is now Poland and the western Ukraine at the beginning of the Bronze Age established themselves through the use of force.59 On the other hand, it has been argued that the Nitra culture should not be associated with the incursions of warlike newcomers, but rather be seen as a development of the Eneolithic cultures of the area. While evidence for the existence of ongoing conflicts between the various groups which inhabited southwestern Slovakia can be recognised throughout the period associated with the Nitra culture, the fact that warfare seems to increase through time is possibly to be seen in the context of socio-political changes which came about as a result of contact with the Únětice culture in Moravia and Austria.60 Isolated finds which indicate that one or several individuals had died a violent death may be more difficult to interpret as evidence of warfare. At Tomarton in South Gloucestershire, the remains of three males who had, it would seem, been dumped in a ditch were found in 1968.61 Two of the skeletons showed clear evidence of having been killed by spear thrusts. Further investigations at the site in 1999 and 2000 revealed the remains of

The close relationship between religion and warfare in the construction of power which is evident at Mycenae may not however, be valid throughout the Mycenaean world. At Pylos, written evidence, the Linear B tablets, give the impression that military might and religion were

52

57

53

58

Moody 2005, 130. French 2002, 84-92, Pl. 12. 54 Rehak 1999. 55 French 2002, 84-92. 56 See Shaw 1986 on the Lion Gate Relief at Mycenae.

Palaima 1995; Stavrianopoulou 1995. Hårde 2005, 87; Hårde 2006. 59 Bátora 1999. 60 Hårde 2005; 2006, 370-372. 61 Osgood 2006.

78

WARFARE AND RELIGION IN THE BRONZE AGE: THE AEGEAN IN THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT

probably two more men. Although the skeletons of these last show no evidence of trauma, it seems very likely that they had also suffered a violent death. This can be concluded from the fact that the ditch with the burials had been covered with large limestone slabs in a single phase, indicating that all the men had died, or at least been buried, at the same time. Osgood suggests that the original function of the ditch was as a boundary and that this may be relevant to the fate of those buried within it. The finds at Tomarton have been dated to the Middle Bronze Age. While skeletal material which indicates that the individual in question had been killed is rare in Britain, the fact that other ditches with some associated human remains dating to the Middle Bronze Age have been recognised could suggest that conflict over land rights may have been a relatively frequent occurrence. 62 In general, Osgood argues that other types of evidence such as finds of weapons and the presence of hillforts indicate that raiding may have been common in Bronze Age Britain. He further suggests that competion for prestige goods may have been of equal or perhaps greater significance than land disputes in this connection.63

can be debated to what extent it represents the Bronze Age reality of the Netherlands and surrounding areas as a whole. It could equally well be argued that the remains of the twelve individuals (six men, one certain and one probable woman, four children or adolescents), who were identified in the burial pit, represent members of a single extended family who had been killed in an isolated incident, for instance, in connection with a quarrel between neighbours which had gotten out of hand. The fact that contemporary settlements in this part of the Netherlands were small and undefended indicates that protection against the possible occurrence of armed attacks does not seem to have been a matter of great concern to the population. Furthermore, even if one accepts that the people at Wassenaar had been killed in connection with some kind of military action, it might be questioned to what extent the evidence from one small site can be regarded as representative for a larger area. As in the Netherlands, the Bronze Age in Norway has traditionally been envisaged as a peaceful period. However, this picture has been somewhat disturbed by the recovery of the skeletal remains of twenty to thirty individuals, who had been buried in a gravel pit, at Sund in central Norway. The osteological evidence shows that they had died from injuries most likely acquired in warfare.67 Particularly noteworthy is the fact that several of the skeletons showed evidence of old injuries as this can be taken as an indication that those buried were people who had lived a life of frequent or even constant fighting. It is also interesting to note that none of the skeletons found in contemporary burial cairns in the same area show evidence of injuries which can be attributed to violence. It was therfore argued that the remains in the gravel pit at Sund indicate the existence of a separate warrior class. It was furthermore suggested that violence and warfare may have had an accepted social function in the northern European or Scandinavian Bronze Age. The burial pit at Sund dates to the Early Bronze Age (ca. 1300 BC). While the evidence from Sund can be said to constitute quite strong evidence for the existence of a warrior class in this particular area of central Norway, as was the case with Wassenaar, it might be questioned whether it is permissable to move from the interpretation of one site to the characterisation of a wider area over an extended period of time, in this case the entire Scandinavian Bronze Age.

At Wassenaar in the coastal area of the southern Netherlands the remains of twelve individuals, who were found buried in a pit, have been associated with warfare. 64 The dead included women and small children as well as adult males. An arrow was found between the ribs of one of the male burials, and several of the other skeletons showed evidence of blow marks which had not healed before death. It would therefore seem clear that those buried in the pit had died after some kind of violent confrontation or had been massacred. The burial pit at Wassenaar has been dated to around 1700 cal. BC, the transition to the Middle Bronze Age. The Bronze Age as a whole in the Netherlands has usually been interpreted as a peaceful period. It has, however, been argued that the evidence from Wassenaar changes the picture and indicates that warfare, most likely having its origins in constant conflict over arable land, was a regular occurrence. As a result of the finds at Wassenaar, Louwe Koijmans is inclined to believe that armed conflict may have been a normal part of Bronze Age social life, not only in the Netherlands but throughout western and central Europe.65 The definition of Wassenaar as a "massacre site" seems to have been widely accepted.66 However, it can be objected that Wassenaar is an exceptional find and consequently it

A skeleton found at Over Vindinge in Denmark has also been refered to as evidence for warfare as part of a bronze spearhead was found lodged in the body.68 The man had clearly been shot from behind. However, other explanations, such as, for instance, death in a hunting accident, are also possible.

62

Osgood 2006. Osgood 1998, 85-88. 64 Louwe Kooijmans 1993, 1-20; 1998, 336-339. Fontijn 2003, 145-154; 2005. Wassenaar is located just north of The Hague. 65 Louwe Koijmans 1993, 18. 66 Parker Pearson 2005, 20; Osgood 2006, 338; Vandkilde 2006, 58. 63

67 68

79

Fyllingen 2003. Aner & Kersten 1976, 184 (no. 1292 I).

HELÈNE WHITTAKER

The existence of fortifications would seem in most cases to constitute incontrovertible evidence that warfare posed a constant threat to local populations. In the Early Bronze Age it can hardly be doubted that the small fortified villages of the Otomani Culture show that the need for defence was an important factor in the lives of the inhabitants of the Carpathian Basin.69 Fortifications are particularly evident in many parts of Europe from the Late Bronze Age or Urnfield period onwards, and it would seem reasonable to interpret this as evidence for a general rise in insecurity due to increasingly warlike conditions.70 For instance, at Velim-Skalka in Bohemia several phases of fortifications dating to the late Tumulus and early Urnfield periods can be recognised; the settlement was abandoned after a violent destruction.71

the character of actual warfare.76 Furthermore, not all types of wounds will show in the skeletal material. The effects of warfare on human life, such as enslavement, the enforced displacement of populations, or the movements of refugees will also in most cases be archaeologically invisible.77 It cannot be doubted that warfare must have and did occur at various times and places during the Bronze Age. However, there is no general agreement concerning the extent and nature ofarmed conflict. The Bronze Age cultures in many parts of Europe have often been envisaged as settled and essentially peaceful agrarian societies. Against this view, Kristiansen has argued that there has been a marked tendency in European archaeology to idealise the Bronze Age. To the contrary, he sees armed conflict as an integrated part of daily life in central and northern Europe for most of the second millennium.78 As envisioned by Kristiansen, life in the Bronze Age revolved around the twin poles of agriculture and warfare, and social hierarchy was expressed through military organisation. On similar lines Nordbladh suggests that relations between communities may have been largely determined by warfare.79 According to Kristiansen and Nordbladh then, warfare can be regarded as a defining characteristic of the European Bronze Age not only in the sense that armed conflicts, which could be relatively small-scale or involve entire regions, erupted for a number of reasons in different places at diferent times more or less frequently, but in the sense that it formed the basis for the structure of society. On a somewhat different track, Vandkilde has pointed out that even in those cases where warfare is regarded as the direct cause of social change, the realities of the horror, hardship, and human suffering which are inevitably associated with any kind of violent conflict have largely been bypassed.80 The Bronze Age warrior is seen more as a romantic figure than as a ruthless and vicious killer. She argues that consequently the evidence which in fact exists and which indicates the prevalence of warfare in European prehistory has not been properly evaluated.

Many aspects of warfare are clearly impossible to detect in the archaeological record. Knowledge of the location of historical battlefields is usually preserved by textual evidence and the archaeological remains of warfare at the site are very often non-existent. Prehistoric battlefields will therefore be almost impossible to identify in most cases.72 Weapons and other types of military equipment made of organic material have not survived, and even if they had done so, it is quite possible that their function in connection with warfare would not have been recognised.73 The most common types of offensive weapons may well have been massive clubs and sharpened staves made of wood, the fabrication and use of which required no particular skills or training. 74 Wooden boomerangs could also have been commonly used in warfare. Wood was readily available and various kinds of wooden weapons could be quickly made when required. Likewise, information regarding shields made of leather, animal skins, or wood is also largely lacking. 75 If protective armour was used, it was probably made of leather or heavy padded linen or wool cloth. However, those fighting may more often have relied on agility and skill with weapons than on armour. As is the case in the Aegean, the bronze armour which has survived was almost certainly made for display, and while it clearly documents the importance of military values and prestige, it does not provide clear-cut evidence for the frequency or

On the whole, however, while it may be easy to agree that life in the European Bronze Age has often been idealised, it would seem uncertain whether it can be said that warfare or the threat of violent conflict was an everpresent, let alone endemic part of Bronze Age life in general. While it can be argued that the evidence from Norway and Central Europe which has been discussed above supports the view of a bellicose Bronze Age population, in other cases, such as Wassenaar, it would seem more uncertain. It would seem arguable that at

69

Fontijn 2005, 58 Harding 2002, 317 71 Hrala, Sedláček, & Vávra 1992, 288-308. 72 Cf. Vencl 1984, 123. 73 Capelle 1982. 74 This, of course, was also the case in later times. On the Bayeux Tapestry, for instance, Bishop Odo is depicted wielding a wooden club. 75 Shields made of wood or leather have been found in Ireland and Germany (Osgood 1998, 8, 27-29). See Osgood 1998, 49-52 for a discussion on the use of weapons made of organic materials in ethnographically documented warfare. 70

76

Harding 1994, 332; Osgood 1998, 37. Vencl 1984, 123-125. 78 Kristiansen 1999, 182. 79 Nordbladh 1989, 331. 80 Vandkilde 2006; see also Vencl 1984. 77

80

WARFARE AND RELIGION IN THE BRONZE AGE: THE AEGEAN IN THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT

some times and in some areas it may be more appropriate to speak of relatively infrequent incidents of conflict rather than of prolonged warfare. Raids for plunder or the capture of cattle, disputes over arable land, or over the control of trade-routes and access to prestige goods can be seen as likely causes of armed conflict or warfare during the Bronze Age, as was the case in other periods. Even if conflicts of this type could have have erupted quickly and been fairly frequent, they may not necessarily have been long-lasting or had devastating effects for the majority of the population. The existence of unfortified settlements throughout the whole of the Bronze Age suggests, at the least, that long periods of peaceful existence may have alternated with more unsettled conditions.81 In any case, it can hardly be said that the available evidence allows us to proclaim that warfare was more a characteristic of societies in the Bronze Age than in the Neolithic or in the Iron Age. It could furthermore be argued that recent history may have led to a belief in the inevitability of war which colours the understanding of evidence which may be ambiguous and open to several interpretations.82

expression of personal prestige, social status, or both. Male dagger graves have been called the chief diagnostic feaure of the Wessex Culture in southern England. 84 Similar burials have been found on the continent, especially in Brittany, during the Early Bronze Age. The occurrence of bronze daggers found in what would seem to be predominately male graves which clearly represent the dominant social class indicates that warfare or the idea of warfare had become important to the materialisation of status and power.85 Regarding the afore-mentioned Nitra graves in Slovakia, it has been noticed that the types of wounds documented by the skeletal evidence would seem to have been caused by heavy hitting implements such as clubs or axes. The weapons found associated with the dead, however, consist mainly of daggers and arrows.86 It has therefore been suggested by Hårde that the weapons found as grave goods do not represent the implements which had actually been used by the dead individuals in armed conflict. While he believes that they do identify the dead as practising warriors, they should also be interpreted as markers of social status. The elevated social status of certain warriors is also supported by the fact that the tombs used for warriors were larger, of better construction, and more elaborately equipped with grave goods than other burials. This suggests the existence of a class of high-ranking warriors at the top of the social hierarchy.87 The fact that some women were buried with warrior equiment may also relate to the ideological importance of warfare.88

Warfare as ideology Regardless of the ways in which the evidence for the frequency and extent of armed conflict should be evaluated, it would seem clear that the importance of warfare as a defining characteristic of the European Bronze Age in an ideological sense can hardly be doubted.

Most types of Bronze Age implements which could have functioned as weapons can also be classified as agricultural tools or they could have been used for hunting.89 Axes can constitute powerful offensive weapons, yet their original function was associated with the felling of trees and the clearing of land. Knives can be, and often are, used as weapons, but their main function is with practical use in many everyday tasks. The use of spears or bows and arrows is just as much associated with hunting as with warfare. It is therefore not always possible to be certain that knives, daggers, axes, bows and arrows, or spears were acquired primarily for the purpose of intentionally wounding or killing other human beings or that the symbolic meanings associated with them always contained a metaphorical reference to warfare. The occurrence of weapons or potential weapons

In England during the Early Bronze Age bronze daggers are often found in graves along with special pottery vessels, faience beads, ornaments made of sheet-gold, amber beads and pendants, stone battle-axes, bone and bronze pins.83 Some daggers show signs of wear, but there are examples which seem to have served solely a ceremonial purpose. For example, a number of daggers of the Milston type are characterised by elaborate ornamentation and are highly polished, perhaps in order to imitate gold, and it is unlikely that they could have had any functional use as weapons. Although they may have been intended to emphasise the warrior identity of the dead, their significance was probably also related to the 81

Jockenhövel 1999. Vandkilde (2003) has argued that an emergence of archaeological interest in war can be seen as a consequence of the many ethnic-based wars since the 1990s. Contra Parker Pearson (2005, 20-21), who argues that for many archaeologists, recent interest in warfare is mostly a natural consequence of the availability of new archaeological evidence which dramatically illustrates the practice of war in European prehistory. 83 Gerloff 1975; Harding 2000, 90-92. 82

84

Gerloff 1975, 197 Gerloff 1975, 1. 86 Hårde 2005, 98. 87 Hårde 2006, 346-347. 88 However, as pointed out by Hårde (2006, 355) the possibility that women participated actively in combat should not be rejected. See also Osgood (1998, 84) on the role of women in warfare. 89 Cf. Harding 2006, 506. 85

81

HELÈNE WHITTAKER

part of a narrative scene.97 It has been seen as likely that most, if not all, functioned as grave markers. In addition to being associated with the expression of social status and the perpetuation of the memory of individual warriors, Harrison argues that the placement of the stelae in the landscape indicates that they had a territorial function and marked the possession and protection of land.98 The average size of the Iberian warrior stelae is around one and a half metres, and they have been dated to the Late Bronze Age, between 1250 and 750 BC.

in grave contexts can therefore relate to various social and symbolic concepts among which warfare may not necessarily be the most important. In contrast, the sword was specifically designed for warfare. The possession of a sword can therefore be said to unequivocally designate its owner as a warrior.90 The invention of the sword in continental Europe around 1700 BC, at the transition to the Middle Bronze Age, would therefore seem to indicate an increased emphasis on efficient military action. However, Harding has expressed some doubt about whether Bronze Age swords in general were in fact very effective for actual combat.91 This view has been countered by Kristiansen who, on the basis of wear marks, has argued that Bronze Age swords were indeed functional and both could have been and were used in warfare.92 A study of British swords shows that many have signs of wear and damage consistent with their having been used in combat.93 In either case, it is, however, remarkable that many Bronze Age swords which have been found in various parts of Europe are extremely well-crafted and often richly decorated objects. It can therefore hardly be doubted that they had important symbolic meanings associated with the expression of social status or personal prestige. In fact, it is clear that some swords can be considered replicas rather than functional weapons as the character of the decoration would have rendered them useless in actual combat. Oversize swords such as the Middle Bronze Age Plougrescant-Ommerschans type found in the Netherlands must also be regarded as having been made solely for ceremonial purposes.94 Fontijn has therefore argued that the invention of the sword at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age was associated with the social and political importance of warfare as ideology rather than with specific needs or experiences derived from combat.95

It has been argued by several scholars that given the apparently widespread existence of an ideology associated with the expression of military prowess it is possible to speak of shared cultural beliefs throughout much of Europe.99 Within this ideology, weapons, in particular swords, functioned as symbols of social status and personal prestige, and indicate furthermore the idealisation of the person and lifestyle of the warrior. The expression of Bronze Age warrior ideology is most obviously documented by the occurrence of burials where the dead was accompanied by a number of weapons. For example, a rich tumulus burial from Hagenau near Regenstauf in Germany contained two flange-hilted swords, one long and one short, a dagger, an axe, and four arrowheads. The grave also contained gold jewellery, three needles, a razor, a blade made of chert, a large number of decorative pins, and a large cylindical vessel.100 As has recently been discussed by Treherne in relation to the warrior graves found in central and northern Europe from the middle of the second millennium BC onwards, in addition to weapons and other items associated with the practice of warfare, the warrior lifestyle was also materialised in artefacts related to dress, ornaments, and drinking.101 It would seem that social status and personal prestige were communicated by means of artefacts which referred to warfare and the lifestyle associated with the person of the warrior. It has furthermore been suggested that the social order of many European Bronze Age societies was characterised by the existence of a class of warriors which was synonomous with or closely associated with the ruling elite.102 If this was the case, the social and political legitimation for the power of local elites may have been to a large extent dependent on their ability to protect their territories and peoples against armed attacks. Alternatively, warrior ideology can be seen as the glorification of the use of force in order to maintain power and to deter resistence

In Spain and Portugal more than one hundred engraved depictions of warriors and military equipment on stone stelae testify to the ideological importance of warfare in Bronze Age Iberia.96 Some examples consist of the depiction of a shield flanked by a sword and a spear. On other examples, a human figure is the central motif. This figure is usually armed and in some cases seems to be 90

Cf. Treherne 1995, 109. Harding 1999; cf. Fontijn 2005, 146. 92 Kristiansen 1984; 1999, 177; 2002, 319-32; Parker Pearson 2005, 29. 93 Osgood 1998, 13-15; see also Bridgford 1997, 106 on Irish swords. 94 Fontijn 2005, 147. 95 Fontijn 2003, 227; 2005, 145; cf. Treherne 1995, 109. 96 Celestino 2001; Harrison 2004; Sanjuán 2007; Oliveira Jorge 1999. Harrison has estimated that the total number of stelae erected during the Late Bronze Age may have been as many as two thousand. 91

97

According to Harrison, the stelae without a human figure are the earliest in date. However, this seems uncertain (cf. Sanjuán 2007). 98 Harrison 2004, 3. 99 Hänsel 1998, 21; Harrison 2003, 59-61, 170-176. 100 Boos 1999. 101 Treherne 1995, 109. 102 Schauer 1984, 209-35.

82

WARFARE AND RELIGION IN THE BRONZE AGE: THE AEGEAN IN THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT

by subject populations. In the latter case there may have been close supra-regional ties between elites in various parts of northern and central Europe. As has been pointed out by Fontijn with regard to the Netherlands, it is not unusual for swords to be found out of context, that is in areas which may lie at some distance from their place of manufacture.103 It would seem not unlikely that as objects of value they played a role in gift-exchange and functioned to cement alliances and loyalties.

may be to serve as memories of actual battles. Alternatively, it could be suggested that the depictions refer to mythological battles involving the gods. In either case, it can be argued that the act of imposing permanent images of warriors in action onto the landscape by carving them into the bedrock in itself indicates the existence of close links between religion and warfare.106 It is generally believed that the rock carvings have some kind of religious significance and that they may have been made in connection with ritual activity. In the rock carvings at Kville in western Sweden, several figures are depicted wearing horned helmets. Actual horned helmets have been found in Denmark at Viksø.107 The Viksø helmets are top heavy and could not have had any functional use as military equipment. It can therefore be assumed that they had a ceremonial function and it could be speculated that they were used in ritual impersonations of deities.

The wide-spread significance of warrior ideology in the European Bronze Age is generally acknowledged, and this could be considered an argument in favour of those views which see the European Bronze Age as a time of frequent and violent conflict. It would seem highly likely that the origins of warrior ideology anywhere lie in the occurrence of warfare as a factor of social and political change at local and regional levels. It would therefore seem reasonable to assume that armed conflict played a political and social role in the establishment of power relations and in the creation of ruling elites in various part of Europe during the Bronze Age. It could be argued that the continuing social and political significance of warfare as ideology throughout the Bronze Age must have been upheld, at least occasionally, by the demonstration of military superiority. It is difficult to envision the efficacy of warrior ideology in essentially pacifist societies which are rarely disrupted by violence. It seems inherently unlikely, for instance, that the sword was invented solely for display purposes. It would seem a reasonable assumption that in most cases the ceremonial significance of swords and other weapons reflected their functional use in armed aggression against those regarded as enemies.

Some of the motifs on the Iberian stelae may relate to religious symbolism. In particular, several stelae show a figure with horns or wearing a helmet with horns who may possibly represent a divine being. Alternatively, it has also been suggested by Harrison that the horns symbolise the super-human powers of the warrior.108 Various types of vessels associated with drinking are standard equipment in warrior graves, and the importance of alcohol consumption to the lifestyle of the European Bronze Age warrior has often been emphasised. The drinking ceremonies have been seen in terms of conviviality and the reinforcement of solidarity between comrades, as well as in terms of the establishment of new alliances.109 Osgood has also suggested that drinking before battle may have been usual as a means of increasing the valour of the warriors and this is a plausible and attractive suggestion.110 With regard to the early Mycenaean material it was suggested that communal drinking had religious connotations as well as a social function and similar meanings would seem possible also in the northern and central European context. Accordingly the presentation of the dead warrior in terms of his social persona in life may have been related to beliefs concerning continuity between life and death or the nature of the afterlife.

Religious aspects of warfare Kristiansen has argued that the warrior aristocracies of Bronze Age Europe were institutionalised and legitimised through ritual. In his view the exercise of power was interlinked with ritual action. Even if one may hesitate to accept completely his views about the social and political role of warfare, the possibility that there was a close association between military ideology and religious beliefs in the European Bronze Age is an interesting idea.

Further evidence that the ideological importance of warfare was closely interlinked with religious beliefs is provided by the practice of depositing weapons in hoards. At Hadjúsámson in northeast Hungary a sword and twelve bronze battle-axes had been deposited in the sandy earth. The weapons were particularly fine examples and

In Scandinavia armed men with various types of weapons are commonly depicted in rock art, particularly in Norway and western Sweden.104 Vandkilde has argued that they depict the warlike activities of privileged social groups and were related to the materialisation of the ideology of the elite.105 In that case part of their function

Nordbladh 1989, 323-33. Osgood 1998, 31 108 Harrison 2004, 74. 109 Treherne 1995, 109. 110 Osgood 1998, 87; cf. Murray 1991. 106 107

Fontijn 2005, 147. Coles 2005. 105 Vandkilde 2006, 488. 103 104

83

HELÈNE WHITTAKER

the deposit had been carefully arranged; the sword lay with its tip towards the north and the axes had been placed across it with the blade to the west. This was clearly a ceremonial deposition of some kind which can in all likelihood be seen as an expression of religious beliefs associated with warfare. The find belongs to the Middle Bronze Age Otomani culture and the existence of similar deposits have been recognised elsewhere in Hungary and Romania.111

and associated with cosmological beliefs and the power of the gods.119 In some cases, it is possible that the weapons found in rivers and lakes represent the deposition of booty captured from the enemy or the dedication of weapons used in combat and attest to religious beliefs associated with the practice of warfare.120 Further evidence of the interconnections between warfare and religious beliefs may come from Velim-Skalka in Bohemia, where the skeletons of two adult women and eight children were found in a large pit within a ditch which formed part of the fortifications. Three skulls which had been separately deposited were also recovered. The bodies had apparently been thrown in without any recognisable burial rites. However, some gold objects which were found under the hand of one of the women are possibly to be identified as grave goods. A hoard of bronze objects was also found in the lower levels. Both animal and human bones were plentiful in the fill. Other pits in which dead bodies had been unceremoniously thrown in were found in the area of the fortifications. The unusual treatment of the bodies has been interpreted as evidence of human sacrifice, and possibly cannibalism, as the bones were apparently split, perhaps in order to obtain the marrow.121

In general weapon hoards are widely found throughout continental and northern Europe during the Late Bronze Age.112 Particularly noteworthy are the finds of weapons which have been deposited in watery locations, a practice which occurs from Scandinavia and the British Isles to the Balkans.113 It would seem possible to conclude that weapons, in particular swords, could relate to religious beliefs associated with water which were shared over a large area. In central Sweden at Fröslunda on the southern side of Lake Vänern, a number of shields were found which had been deposited in what was originally shallow water or a swampy area.114 The shields are of the Herzsprung type and have been dated to the Late Bronze Age. Comparable deposits of shields have been found elsewhere.115 In Britain a large number of spears, daggers, swords, and other weapons have been recovered from the Thames. Some had apparently been deliberately damaged before being thrown into the river.116 Of considerable interest is a hoard which included four swords and a number of daggers found at Spandau near the confluence of the rivers Spree and Havel. Post-holes suggest that there may have been som kind of built sanctuary. As the objects are not all dated to the same time, it is possible that this may have been a cult area which was in use for a long period of time in the second half of the second millennium.117

The practice of human sacrifice associated with warfare has been suggested for other Bronze Age sites. At Kettlasbrunn in the northeastern part of Lower Austria a child, a man, and two women were found buried in what had originally been a storage pit, dating to the Early Bronze Age.122 The bodies had been buried at different times and with the exception of the man showed signs of having been exposed in open air for a long period before being covered with earth. The nature of the wounds could suggest ritualised killing; among other injuries, the man had had a stake driven through his chest. Human sacrifice has also been suggested for a similar find at Nižna Myzšl'a in eastern Slovakia where a number of skeletons were found in a storage pit dating to the early Otomani culture.123

Rivers and lakes divide the landscape into clearly separated areas and form natural boundaries between people.118 It has been suggested that the weapons and other valuable objects found in rivers and lakes should be classified as offerings to the gods and that watery places were regarded as liminal zones and believed to represent the boundary also between the world of humans and the world of the gods. The weapons found in watery places may therefore have been offerings to the gods. With regard to rivers, it would also seem possible that flowing water was regarded as a symbol of the passage of time

Concluding discussion Within anthropology there has been much interesting discussion in recent years concerning the effects on human beings of living under conditions of extreme violence. However, in view of the fact that the basic step

111

Sherratt 1987, 54-55. Harding 1999, 157. 113 Bradley 1990, 97-154; Hänsel & Hänsel 1997; Hansen 1997; Glogović 1998; Bridgford 1997, 108-113. 114 Hagberg 1988, 1998. 115 Harding 1999, 157. 116 York 2002, 77-92. 117 Hänsel & Hänsel 1997, 202-204. 118 York 2002, 90-91 112

119

York 2002. See Kristiansen 1999, 179; Vandkilde 2006, 486. 121 Hrala, Sedláček, Vávra 1992, 301; cf Bouzek 1985, 72-73 on ritual cannibalism in central Europe. 122 Hårde 2006, 373-378. 123 Hårde 2006, 378-381. 120

84

WARFARE AND RELIGION IN THE BRONZE AGE: THE AEGEAN IN THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT

of establishing reasonably secure empirical evidence for the existence of warfare, it would seem difficult to utilise these anthropological insights in order to come to a closer understanding of the lives of people in prehistoric Europe. Moreover, much research on warfare in Bronze Age Europe can be criticised for being elite-centred. Vandkilde is certainly right in maintaining that the Bronze Age warrior has been romanticised. This is not unique to the European Bronze Age, but it can be considered a phenomenon which needs further investigation. Presumably, it can be partly explained by the aesthetic qualities of the weapons and other types of military equipment which have survived.

prestige presumably based on military values as well as on access to esoteric ritual knowledge.126 According to Kristiansen, European warrior ideology has its origins in the Mycenaean world.127 While Kristiansen mostly emphasises the social and political aspects of warrior ideology which he believes characterised most of Europe during the second millennium BC, he also points to its ritual significance, but does not go into any detailed discussion in relation to the material evidence. In a recent book co-written by Larsson and Kristiansen these ideas are expanded and the Minoan-Mycenaean world is seen as the origins of much of the socio-politcal developments which took place in continental and northern Europe during the Bronze Age.128 It is been argued that contact with the Mycenaean world led to a structural transformation of the central and northern European Bronze Age societies around 1500 BC. This entailed the development of a new form of social and political organisation which was centred on warfare. A major role in this scenario is played by interacting networks of elites whose activities resulted in a high degree of cultural correspondance between various regions. In sum, it is argued that there was a shared European Bronze Age ideology from the Aegean to Scandinavia, in the context of which the ritual significance of warfare can be seen.

Both in the Aegean and in central and northern Europe the ideological, social and symbolic aspects of warfare seem to have been important, and questions can be asked about whether this should be seen in terms common beliefs and values which were shared over a very large area. In general, opinions have varied on whether suggested parallels between central and northern Europe on the one hand and the Aegean on the other should be regarded as evidence for direct contact and close cultural interaction. In this connection it is relevant that evidence for ritual activity in continental and northern Europe has at times been elucidated with reference to Minoan and Mycenaean cultures. In his widely-read and influential book The Aegean, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural Interrelations in the Second Millennium B.C. Bouzek argues for the existence of a European-Aegean Koine.124 In his discussion, he concentrated on what he saw as evidence for close ritual connections between central Europe and the Mycenaeans. For instance, he compares what has been identified as an Otomani temple at Salacea with Aegean sanctuaries. He also identifies clay libation tables which can be compared with Minoan examples, and suggests that the clay bull figurines found at Uherský Brod are related to the bull figurines found on Crete during the Bronze Age. More radically, Larsson has argued that all of Bronze Age Europe was united by a single religious belief system.125 He sees the origins of European Bronze Age religion in Mesopotamia and states that for him it is obvious that there exists a close relationship between the symbolic language which we find in southern Scandinavia during the Bronze Age from about 2000 BC onwards, and that which we find in Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and the Mycenaean world. In this connection he discusses a number of specific objects which he sees as reflecting ultimately Mesopotamian religious beliefs. For instance, he argues that several swords with curved tips which have been found in Denmark and southern Sweden were made with Hittite or other Near Eastern prototypes in mind. Larsson interprets these as symbols of chiefly power which expressed

There are clearly similarities between various parts of Europe in the ideological and ritual importance of warfare. Although it cannot be recognised in all periods of the Bronze Age, the importance of warrior ideals for the expression of both personal prestige and political and social status and authority can be seen as a pan-European phenomenon. There are many points of comparison between the Aegean on the one hand and central and northern Europe on the other. Comparisons can be made, for example between the ceremonial elaboration of weapons and armour, the occurrence of warrior burials, the associations between drinking and warfare. However, it can also be remarked that these similarities are of a fairly general nature. The decorative elaboration of weapons and other objects associated with a warrior lifestyle is, however, something which is found in many cultures where the social importance of military ideology can be recognised.129 The association between communal drinking and a warrior lifestyle, for example, is widespread. As has been pointed out by Murray, it was perhaps only in the early Islamic world that social rituals involving alcohol consumption played no part in the development of a successful military caste.130 With regard specifically to the religious connotations of warfare close similarities are not particularly noticeable. 126

Larsson 1999, 52. Kristiansen 1998, 359-419; 1999; 2001; Heddeager & Kristiansen 1985, 15-18. 128 Kristiansen & Larsson 2005. 129 See Friday 2004, 78 on the Samurai. 130 Murray 1991, 83. 127

124 125

Bouzek 1985. Larsson 1999.

85

HELÈNE WHITTAKER

Weapon hoards have not been uncovered in Greece. Nor is there any evidence for the ritual importance of watery locations on the Greek Mainland.

the Aegean, the occurrence of warfare and its concomitant elevation to the status of ideology intermixed with religious symbolism can be seen in terms of local socio-political development. This may not exclude completely any relationship to wider trends. In this connection, however, it may be relevant that the earliest swords found on the Greek Mainland are derived from Minoan prototypes, and that the invention of the sword in the Aegean is regarded as having been independent of its more or less contemporary invention in continental Europe. In any case, the social and political context within which the ideology associated with warfare operated was very different. On the Greek mainland, the Late Bronze Age saw the development of palace-states which controlled large territories and populations. The social landscape seems to have been very different in the rest of Bronze Age Europe. I wish therefore to conclude by asking whether with regard to the ideological and religious connotations of warfare in the Aegean and in various parts of central and northern Europe it does not make more sense to speak of more or less independent processes which may be broadly comparable rather than of specific influences going in either direction.

There are, furthermore, chronological problems in seeing the Mycenaean world as the source for developments which took place in other parts of Europe. As the evidence from the Wessex and Únětice cultures would seem to indicate, the ideological importance of warfare can be traced back further in continental Europe than on the Greek mainland. Furthermore, theories which see influence from the Mycenaean world as a pivotal factor in developments taking place in continental or northern Europe generally rely on the idea that Mycenae functioned as a powerful cultural, economic, and political centre in the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean already from the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. However, at that time Mycenae was just in the process of establishing itself as the dominant centre of power in the Argolid and it seems highly unlikely that it would have been perceived as an important centre in the Aegean by the inhabitants of central and northern Europe. It can moreover be questioned whether the model of centre and periphery is appropriate to the discussion of relations between the Mycenaean world and continental Europe. In

References Acheson, Phoebe E. 1999, "The Role of Force in the Development of Early Mycenaean Polities", in Robert Laffineur (ed.) Polemos. Le contexte guerrier en Égée à l' âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Université de Liège, 14-17 avril 1998, Liège, 97-105. Aner, Ekkehard & Kersten, Karl 1976, Die Funde der älteren Bronzezeit des nordischen Kreises in Dänemark, Schleswig-Holstein und Niedersachsen, Dänischen Nationalmuseum in København / Archäologischen Landesmuseum der Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel in Schleswig. Angel, Lawrence 1971, Lerna. A Preclassical Site in the Argolid, Vol. 2, The People, Princeton. Angel, Lawrence 1973, in George Mylonas Ὁ ταφικὸς κύκλος Β τῶν Μυκηνῶν, Athens, 379-397. Aravantinos, Vassilis 1995, "Old and New Evidence for the Palatial Society of Mycenaean Thebes: an Outline", in Robert Laffineur & Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier (eds.) Politeia. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10-13 April 1994, Liège, 613-623. Arkush, Elizabeth & Stanish, Charles 2005, "Interpreting Conflicts in the Ancient Andes. Implications for the Archaeology of Warfare", Current Anthropology 46, 3-28. Åström, Paul 1977, The Cuirass Tomb and Other Finds at Dendra, Göteborg. Åström, Paul 1989, "Intentional Destruction of Grave Goods", in Robert Laffineur (ed.) Thanatos. Les coutumes funéraires en Egée à l'Âge du Bronze. Actes du colloque de Liège (21-23 avril 1986), Liège, 213-217. Bátora, Jozef 1999, "Gräber mit Totenhäusern auf frühbronzezeitlichen Gräberfeldern in der Slowakei (Beitrag zu Kulturverbindungen zwischen Mittel-, West- und Osteuropa), Praehistorische Zeitschrift 74, 1-57.

86

WARFARE AND RELIGION IN THE BRONZE AGE: THE AEGEAN IN THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT

Boos, Andreas 1999, "The Chieftains Grave of Hagenau and related Warrior Graves", in Katie Demakopoulou, Christine Eluère, Jørgen Jensen, Albrecht Jockenhövel, Jean-Pierre Mohen (eds.) Gods and Heroes of the European Bronze Age, London. Bouzek, Jan 1985, The Aegean, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural Interrelations in the Second Millennium B. C., Göteborg. Bray, Warwick 2000, "Malagana and the Goldworking Tradition of Southwest Colombia", in Colin McEwan (ed.) Precolombian Gold. Technology, Style and Iconography, London, 94-111. Bradley, Richard 1990, The Passage of Arms. An Archaeological Analysis of Prehistoric Hoards and Votive Deposits, Cambridge. Bridgford, Sue 1997, "Mightier than the Pen? An Edgewise Look at Irish Bronze Age Swords", in John Carman (ed.) Material Harm. Archaeological Studies of War and Violence, Glasgow, 95-115. Capelle, Torsten 1982, "Erkenntnismöglichkeiten ur- und frühgeschichtlicher Bewaffnungsformen. Zum Problem von Waffen aud organischen Material", Bonner Jahrbücher des rheinischen Landesmuseums in Bonn und des rheinischen Amtes für Bodendenkmalpflege im Landschaftsverband Rheinland und des vereins von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande 182, 265-288. Cavanagh, William 1998, "Innovation, Conservatism and Variation in Mycenaean Funerary Ritual", in Keith Branigan (ed.) Cemetery and Society in the Bronze Age, Sheffield, 103-114. Cavanagh, William & Mee, Christopher 1998, A Private Place: Death in Prehistoric Greece, Jonsered. Celestino, Sebastián 2001, Estelas de guerrero y estelas diademadas. La precolonización y formación del mundo tartésico, Barcelona. Coles, John 2005, Shadows of a Northern Past. Rock Carvings of Bohuslän and Østfold, Oxford. Dickinson, Oliver 1977, The Origins of Mycenaean Civilization, Göteborg. Dickinson, Oliver 1994, The Aegean Bronze Age, Cambridge. Dickinson, Oliver 1996, "Minoans in Mainland Greece, Mycenaeans in Crete", Cretan Studies 5, 63-71. Dickinson, Oliver 2006, The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron Age. Continuity and Change between the Twelfth and Eight Centuries BC, London & New York. Driessen, Jan 1999, "The Archaeology of Aegean Warfare", in Robert Laffineur (ed.) Polemos. Le contexte guerrier en Égée à l' âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Université de Liège, 14-17 avril 1998, Liège, 11-20. Filow, Bogdan D. 1927, Die Archaische Nekropole von Trebenischte am Ochrida-See, Berlin & Leipzig. Fontijn, David 2003, Sacrificial Landscapes. Cultural Biographies of Persons, Objects, and ‘Natural’ Places in the Bronze Age of the Southern Netherlands, c. 2300-600 BC, Leiden. Fontijn, David 2005, "Giving up Weapons", in Mike Parker Pearson and I.J.N. Thorpe (eds.), Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Prehistory. Proceedings of a Prehistoric Society Conference at Sheffield University, Oxford, 145-154. French, Elizabeth 2002, Mycenae. Agamemnon's Capital, Stroud. Friday, Karl F. 2004, Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan, New York & London. Fyllingen, Hilde 2003, "Society and Violence in the Early Bronze Age: An Analysis of Human Skeletons from NordTrøndelag, Norway", Norwegian Archaeological Review, 36, 27-43.

87

HELÈNE WHITTAKER

Gerloff, Sabine 1975, The Early Bronze Age Daggers in Great Britain and a Reconsideration of the Wessex Culture (Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abteilung VI Band 2) München. Glogović, Dunja 1998, "Bronze Age Swords: Aquatic finds from Croatia and the Neighbouring Regions", in Bernhard Hänsel (ed.) Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Europas, Kiel, 567-570. Graziadio, Giampaolo 1991, "The Process of Social Stratification at Mycenae in the Shaft Grave Period: A Comparative Examination of the Evidence", American Journal of Archaeology 95, 403-440. Hagberg, Ulf Erik 1988, "The Bronze Shields from Fröslunda near Lake Vänern, West Sweden", in Birgitta Hårdh, Lars Larsson, Deborah Olaussen Rolf Petré (eds.) Trade and Exchange in Prehistory. Studies in Honour of Berta Stjernquist, Lund, 119-126. Hagberg, Ulf Erik 1998, "Die westschwedischen Bronzeschilde von Fröslunda- eine große Gabe an die Götter", in Bernhard Hänsel (ed.) Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Europas, Kiel, 507-508. Hamblin, William J. 2006, Warfare in the Ancient near East to 1600 BC. Holy Warriors at the Dawn of History, London. Hänsel, Bernhard 1998, "Die Bronzezeit als erste europäische Epoche", in Bernhard Hänsel (ed.) Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Europas, Kiel, 19-26. Hänsel, Alix & Hänsel, Bernhard 1997, Gaben and die Götter. Schätze der Bronzezeit Europas. Ausstellung der Freien Universität Berlin in Verbindung mit dem Museum für Vor- un Frügeschichte, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin. Hansen, Svend 1997, "Sacrificia ad flumina - Gewässerfunde im bronzezeitlichen Europa", in Alix und Bernhard Hänsel (eds.) Gaben an die Götter. Schätze der Bronzezeit Europas. Ausstellung der Freien Universität Berlin in Verbindung mit dem Museum für Vor- un Frügeschichte, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin - Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin, 29-31. Hårde, Andreas 2005, "The Emergence of Warfare in the Early Bronze Age: the Nitra Group in Slovakia and Moravia, 2200-1800 BC", in Mike Parker Pearson and I.J.N. Thorpe (eds.) Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Prehistory. Proceedings of a Prehistoric Society Conference at Sheffield University (BAR International Series 1374: BAR Publishing), 87-105. Hårde, Andreas 2006, "Funerary Rituals and Warfare in the Early Bronze Age Nitra Culture of Slovakia and Moravia", in Ton Otto, Henrik Thrane, & Helle Vandkilde (eds.) Warfare and Society. Archaeological and Social Anthropological Perspectives, Aarhus, 341-382. Harding, Anthony 1996, "Similarities and Differences between the Bronze Age Development of the Aegean Area and that of the Rest of Europe", in Clarissa Belardelli, Johannes-Wolfgang Neugebeuer, Wolfgang Novotna, Bohuslav Novotny, Cristopher Pare, Renato Peroni (eds.) The Colloquia of the XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences. The Bronze Age in Europe and the Mediterranean, Forlì, 253-57. Harding, Anthony 1999, "Warfare: A Defining Characteristic of Bronze Age Europe", in John Carman and Anthony Harding (eds.) Ancient Warfare. Archaeological Perspectives Stroud, 157-73. Harding, Anthony 2000, European Societies in the Bronze Age, Cambridge. Harding, Anthony 2002, "The Bronze Age", in Sarunas Milisauskas (ed.) European Prehistory. A Survey, New York, 271-334. Harding, Anthony 2006, "What Does the Context of Deposition and Frequency of Bronze Age Weaponry Tell us about the Function of Weapons?", in Ton Otto, Henrik Thrane & Helle Vandkilde (eds.) Warfare and Society. Archaeological and Social Anthropological Perspectives, Aarhus, 505-513. Harrison, Richard 2004, Symbols and Warriors: Images of the European Bronze Age, Bristol.

88

WARFARE AND RELIGION IN THE BRONZE AGE: THE AEGEAN IN THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT

Hedeager, Lotte 1992, "Kingdoms, Ethnicity and Material Culture: Denmark in a European Perspective", in Martin Carver (ed.) The Age of Sutton Hoo. The Seventh Century in North-Western Europe, Ipswich, 279-300. Hedeager, Lotte & Kristiansen, Kristian 1985, "Krig og samfund i Danmarks oldtid", Den jyske historiker 31-32, 9-24. Heath, Dwight 2003, "A Decade of Development in the Anthropological Study of Alcohol Use", in Mary Douglas (ed.) Constructive Drinking. Perspectives on Drink from Anthropology, London & New York, 16-69. Hrala, Jiři, Sedláček, Zbyněk, and Vávra, Miloš (1992), "Velim: A Hilltop Site of the Middle Bronze Age in Bohemia", Památky Archeologické, 83, 288-308. Ikram, Salima 2003, Death and Burial in Ancient Egypt, Harlow. Jockenhövel, Albrecht 1999, "Bronze Age Fortresses in Europe: Territorial Security", in Katie Demakopoulou, Christiane Eluère, Jørgen Jensen, Albrecht Jockenhövel, Jean-Pierre Mohen (eds.) Gods and Heroes of the European Bronze Age, London, Joffe, Alexander H. 1998, "Alcohol and Social Complexity in Western Asia", Current Anthropology 39, 297-322. Karo, Georg 1930, Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai, München. Kilian-Dirlmeier 1995, "Reiche Gräber der mittelhelladischen Zeit", in Robert Laffineur & Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier (eds,) Politeia. Society and Atate in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10-13 April 1994, Liège, 49-53. Korres, George S. 1984, "The Relations between Crete and Messenia in the Late Middle Helladic and Early Late Helladic Period", in Robin Hägg & Nannó Marinatos (eds.) The Minoan Thalassocracy. Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May - 5 June, 1982, Stockholm, 141-152. Korres, George S. 1993, "Messenia and its Commercial Connections in the Bronze Age", in Carol Zerner, Peter Zerner, John Winder (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference Wace and Blegen. Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989 held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens Athens, December 2-3, 1989, Amsterdam, 231-248. Kristiansen, Kristian 1984, "Krieger und Häuptlinge in der Bronzezeit Dänemarks. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des bronzezeitlichen Schwertes", Jahrbuch des römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 34, 1984, 187-208. Kristiansen, Kristian 1998, Europe before History, Cambridge. Kristiansen, Kristian 1999, "The Emergence of Warrior Aristocracies in Later European Prehistory and their LongTerm History", in John Carman and Anthony Harding (eds.) Ancient Warfare. Archaeological Perspectives, Stroud, 175-89. Kristiansen, Kristian 2001, "Rulers and Warriors. Symbolic Transmissions and Social Transformations in Bronze Age Europe", in Jonathan Haas (ed.) From Leaders to Rulers, New York, 85-104. Kristiansen, Kristian 2002, "The Tale of the Sword - Swords and Swordfighters in Bronze Age Europe", Oxford Journal of Archaeology 21, 319-32. Kristiansen, Kristian & Larsson, Thomas B. 2005, The Rise of Bronze Age Society. Travels, Transmissions and Transformations, Cambridge. Laffineur, Robert 1977, Les vases en métal précieux à l'époque mycénienne, Göteborg. Lambrinudakis, Vassilis 1976, "Ανασκαφή στο ιερό τού Απόλλωνος Μαλεάτα", Praktiká, 202-209. Lambrinudakis, Vassilis 1981, "Remains of the Mycenaean Period in the Sanctuary of Apollon Maleatas", in Robin Hägg & Nannó Marinatos (eds.) Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the First

89

HELÈNE WHITTAKER

International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 12-13 May, 1980, Stockhom, 59-65. Larsson, Thomas B. 1997, Materiell kultur och religiösa symboler. Mesopotamien, Anatolien och Skandinavien under det andra förkristna årtusendet, Umeå. Larsson, Thomas B. 1999, "The Transmission of an Élite Ideology - Europe and the Near East in the Second Millennium BC", in Joakim Goldhahn (ed.) Rock Art as Social Representation. Papers from a Session held at the European Association of Archaeologists Fourth Annual Meeting in Göteborg 1998, Oxford, 49-61. Lauter, Hans 1989, "Die protomykenische Burg auf Kiapha Thiti in Attika", in Robert Laffineur (ed.) Transition. Le monde égéen du bronze moyen au bronze récent. Actes de la deuxième Rencontre égéenne internationale de l'Université de Liège (18-20 avril 1988), Liège, 145-149. Loader, N. Claire 1998, Building in Cyclopean Masonry. With Special Reference to the Mycenaean Fortifications on Mainland Greece, Jonsered. Louwe Kooijmans, L. P. 1993, "An Early / Middle Bronze Age Multiple Burial at Wassenaar, the Netherlands", in Corrie Bakels (ed.) The End of Our Third Decade. Papers Written on the Occasion of the 30th Anniversary of the Institute of Prehistory, Vol II, Leiden, 1-20. Louwe Kooijmans, Leendert P. 1998, "Bronzezeitliche Bauern in und um de niederländische Delta-Niederung", in Bernhard Hänsel (ed.) Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronze Zeit Europas, Kiel, 327-39. Manning, Sturt W. 1986, "The Military Function in Late Minoan Crete: a Note", World Archaeology 18, 284-288. Maran, Joseph 1995, "Structural Changes in the Pattern of Settlement during the Shaft Grave Period on the Greek Mainland", in Robert Laffineur & Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier (eds.) Politeia. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10-13 April 1994, Liège, 67-72. Moody, Jennifer 2005, "‘Drought and the Decline of Mycenae’ Updated", in Anastasia Dakouri-Hild & Sue Sherratt (eds.) Autochthon. Papers presented to O.T.P.K. Dickinson on the Occasion of his Retirement, Oxford, 126-133 Murray, Oswyn 1991, "War and the Symposium", in William J. Slater (ed.) Dining in a Classical Context, Ann Arbor, 83-103. Nordbladh, Jarl 1989, "Armour and Fighting in the South Scandinavial Bronze Age, Especially in View of Rock Art Representations", in Thomas B. Larsson and Hans Lundmark (eds.) Approaches to Swedish Prehistory. A Spectrum of Problems and Perspectives in Contemporary Research, Oxford, 323-333. Nordquist, Gullög C. 1987, A Middle Helladic Village. Asine in the Argolid, Uppsala. Oliveira Jorge, Susana 1999, "Bronze Age Stelai and Menhirs of the Iberian Peninsula: Discourses of Power", in Katie Demakopoulou, Christiane Eluère, Jørgen Jensen, Albrecht Jockenhövel, Jean-Pierre Mohen (eds.) Gods and heroes of the European Bronze Age, London. Osgood, Richard 1998, Warfare in the Late Bronze Age of North Europe, Oxford (BAR International Series 694). Osgood, Richard 2006, "The Dead of Tomarton: Bronze Age Combat Victims?", in Ton Otto, Henrik Thrane, Helle Vandkilde (eds.) Warfare and Society. Archaeological and Social Anthropological Perspectives, Aarhus 2006, 331340. T. G. Palaima 1995, "The Nature of the Mycenaean Wanax: Non-Indo-European Origins and Priestly Functions", in P. Rehak (ed.) The role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean. Proceedings of a panel discussion presented at the annual meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America New Orleans, Louisiana 28 December 1992, Liège (Aegaeum 11), 119-139. Parker Pearson, Mike 2005, "Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Later preistory: an Introduction", in Mike Parker

90

WARFARE AND RELIGION IN THE BRONZE AGE: THE AEGEAN IN THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT

Pearson & I. J. N. Thorpe (eds.) Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Prehistory. Proceedings of a Prehistoric Society Conference at Sheffield University, Oxford (BAR International Series 1374), 19-33. Peatfield, Alan 1999, "The Paradox of Violence: Weaponry and Martial Art in Minoan Crete", in Robert Laffineur (ed.) Polemos. Le contexte guerrier en Égée à l'âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Université de Liège, 14-17 avril 1998, Liège (Aegaeum 19), 67-74. Protonotariou-Deilaki, Evangelia 1990, "Burial Customs and Funerary Rites in the Prehistoric Argolid", in Robin Hägg & Gullög Nordquist (eds.) Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 11-13 June 1988, Stockholm, 69-83. Rehak, Paul 1999, "The Mycenaean ‘Warrior Goddess’ Revisited", in Robert Laffineur (ed.) Polemos. Le contexte guerrier en Égée à l'âge du Bronze. Actes de la 7e rencontre égéenne internationale, Université de Liège, 14-17 avril 1998, Liège, 232-236. Reime, Frode Brenden 2004, "Da kniven satt løst i hallingdølens slir", Levende historie 1, 13-16. Renfrew, Colin 1986, " Varna and the Emergence of Wealth in Prehistoric Europe," in A. Appadurai (ed.) The Social Life of Things. Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Cambridge, pp. 141-168. Rutter, J. B. & Zerner, C. W. 1984, "Early Hellado-Minoan Contacts", in Robin Hägg & Nannó Marinatos (eds.) The Minoan Thalassocracy. Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May - 5 June, 1982, Stockholm, 75-83. Sandars, Nancy K. 1961, "The First Aegean Swords and their Ancestry", American Journal of Archaeology 65, 17-29. Sandnes, Jørn 1990, Kniven, ølet og æren. Kriminalitet og samfunn i Norge på 1500- og 1600-tallet, Oslo. Sanjuán, Leonardo García 2007, "Review of Richard Harrison, Symbols and Warriors: Images of the European Bronze Age", American Journal of Archaeology 111.3, Online Review (no page numbers). Schauer, Peter 1984, "Überregionale Gemeinsamkeiten bei Waffengräbern der ausgehenden Bronzezeit und älteren Urnenfelderzeit des Voralpenraumes", Jahrbuch des römisch-germanisches Zentralmuseums Mainz, 31, 209-35. Shaw, Maria C. 1986, "The Lion Gate Relief of Mycenae Reconsidered", in Φιλία ἔπη εἰς Γεώργιον Ε. Μυλωνᾶν διὰ τὰ 60 ἔτη τοῦ ἀνασκαφικοῦ τοῦ ἔργου, Library of the Archaeological Society of Athens 103, Athens, 108-123. Shelmerdine, Cynthia 2001, "The Palatial Bronze Age of the Southern and Central Greek Mainland", in Tracy Cullen (ed.) Aegean Prehistory. A Review, Boston, 329-381. Sherratt, Andrew 1987, "Warriors and Traders: Bronze Age Chiefdoms in Central Europe", in Barry Cunliffe (ed.) Origins. The Roots of European Civilization, London, 54-183. Sherratt, Andrew 1997a, "Cups that Cheered: The Introduction of Alcohol to Prehistoric Europe", in Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe. Changing Perspectives, Princeton, 376-402. Sherratt, Andrew [1991] 1997b, "Sacred and profane Substances: The Ritual Use of Narcotics in Later Neolithic Europe", in Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe. Changing Perspectives, Princeton, 403-430. Sherratt, Andrew & Taylor, T. [1989] 1997, "Metal Vessels in Bronze Age Europe and the Context of Vulchetrun", in Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe. Changing Perspectives, Princeton, 431-456. Shimada, Izumi, Griffin, Jo Ann, Gordus, Adon 2000, "The Technology, Iconography and Social Significance of Metals: A Multi-Dimensional Ananlysis of Middle Sicán Objects", in Colin McEwan (ed.) Precolombian Gold. Technology, Style and Iconography London, 28-61. Stavrianopoulou, Eftychia 1995, "Das politische und das religiöse im mykenischen Pylos", in Robert Laffineur & WolfDietrich Niemeier (eds.) Politeia. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International

91

HELÈNE WHITTAKER

Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Αrchäologisches Institut, 10-13 April 1994, Liège, 423-433. Taylour, William D. 1972, "Excavations at Ayios Stephanos", Annual of the British School at Athens 67, 206-270. Taylour, William D. 1973, "Grave Circle", in Carl W. Blegen, Marion Rawson, Lord William Taylour, William P. Donovan, The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia, Volume III. Acropolis and Lower Town, Tholoi, Grave Circle, and Chamber Tombs. Discoveries Outside the Citadel, Princeton, 134-176. Taylour, John 1994, "Masks in Ancient Egypt: the Image of Divinity", in John Mack (ed.) Masks. The Art of Expression, London, 168-189. Theodosiev, Nikola 1998, "The Dead with Golden Faces: Dasaretian, Pelagonian, Mygdonian and Boeotian Funeral Masks", Oxford Journal of Archaeology 17, 345-367. Touchais, Giles 1998, "Argos à l'époque mésohelladique: un habitat ou des habitats?", in Anna Pariente & Gilles Touchais (eds.) Argos et l'Argolide. Topographie et urbanisme. Actes de la Table Ronde internationale Αθήνα-Αργος 28/4-1/5/1990, Paris, 71-84. Treherne, Paul 1995, "The Warrior's Beauty: The Masculine Body and Self-Identity in Bronze Age Europe", Journal of European Archaeology 3, 105-144. Vandkilde, Helle 2003, "Commemorative Tales: Archaeological Responses to Modern Myth, Politics, and War", World Archaeology 35, 126-144. Vandkilde, Helle 2006, "Archaeology and War: Presentations of Warriors and peasants in Archaeological Interpretations", in Ton Otto, Henrik Thrane, & Helle Vandkilde (eds.) Warfare and Society. Archaeological and Social Anthropological Perspectives, Aarhus 2006, 57-73. Vecl, Sl. 1984, "War and Warfare in Archaeology", Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3, 116-132. Verdelis, N. M. 1977, "The Metal Finds", in Paul Åström The Cuiras Tomb and other Finds at Dendra, Göteborg, 2865. Voutsaki, Sofia 1999, "Mortuary Display, Prestige and Identity in the Shaft Grave Era", in I. Kilian-Dirlmeier & M. Egg (eds.) Eliten der Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen, Mainz, 103-117. Walter, Hans 1981, "Ανασκαφή στό λοφό Κολώνα Αίγινας, Athens Annals of Archaeology, 179-184. Wardle, Diana E. H. 1988, "Does Reconstruction Help? A Mycenaean Dress and the Dendra Suit of Armour", in E. B. French & K. A. Wardle (eds.) Problems in Greek Prehistory. Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester April 1986, Bristol, 469-476. Whittaker, Helène forthcoming, "Religious Symbolism and the Use of Gold in Burial Contexts in the Late Middle Helladic and Early Mycenaean Periods", Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici. Wright, James C. 1990, "An Early Mycenaean Hamlet on Tsoungiza at Ancient Nemea", in Pascal Darcque & René Treuil (eds.) L'Habitat égéen préhistorique. Actes de la table ronde internationale organisée par le Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique l'Université de Paris et l'École française d'Athènes (Athènes 23-25 Juin 1987), Paris, 347357. Wright, James, Cherry, John F., Davis, Jack L., Mantzourani, Eleni, Sutton, Susan B. 1990, "The Nemea Valley Archaeological Project: A Preliminary Report", Hesperia 59, 579-659. Wright, James 2004, "The Spatial Configuration of Belief: The Archaeology of Mycenaean Religion", in Susan Alcock & Robin Osborne (eds.) Placing the Gods. Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece, Oxford, 37-78. York, Jill 2002, "The Life Cycle of Bronze Age Metal Work from the Thames", Oxford Journal of Archaeology 21, 7792.

92

WARFARE AND RELIGION IN THE BRONZE AGE: THE AEGEAN IN THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT

AEGEAN AND EUROPEAN BRONZE AGE CHRONOLOGY

Northern and Central Europe131 ca. 2200-1500 Early Bronze Age Wessex

Reinecke A Únětice, Otomani, Nitra

Montelius Period I

Montelius Period II Nordic Early Bronze Age Montelius Period III, Nordic Early Bronze Age (= first half of Hallstatt A) Montelius Period IV, V Nordic Late Bronze Age (= last half of Hallstatt A & B)

ca. 1500-1300

Middle Bronze Age

Reinecke B. C Tumulus cultures

ca. 1300-750

Late Bronze Age

Reinecke D (= Hallstatt A, B) Urnenfelder

131

Mainland Greece Early Helladic II, Middle Helladic, beginning of Late Helladic ca. 1600 132 Late Helladic IIIIIA1 Late Helladic IIIA2Iron Age (beginning of Iron Age ca. 1100)

The dating for central and northern Europe is based on Harding 2002, 274. This is the traditional date for the beginning of the Late Bronze Age on the Greek Mainland. If the dating of the eruption of the Thera volcano to between 1650 and 1600 rather than ca. 1500 becomes generally accepted, the beginning of the Late Helladic period will have to be adjusted to around 1700. 132

93

PERSPECTIVES ON THE "BRONZE AGE" GULLÖG NORDQUIST

Archaeology was established as an academic discipline during the nineteenth century.1 In the same period, Greece emerged from Turkish occupation as a free nation and a national state of Western European type, and not as a group of polis-states or as a region within a large empire. It became important, not only for the new Hellas, but also for the European community of the time, to clearly identify this nation as European, in contrast to the former Oriental occupying power, the decadent and dying Ottoman Turkey, the remains of which the Western powers were pulling to pieces in the Middle East. Hellas, as the representative of Classical Greek Antiquity, was already an ideal dominant in the academic and lettered Western world, and this ideal was a natural base for the national cultural heritage of the newborn modern nation state. The archaeological excavations that started not long after the liberation were therefore done not only to explore the archaeological sites, but were also regarded as a way of reconquering the past. The excavations themselves could be seen as national symbols of the important classical heritage of art, culture and civilization that was Greece’s gift to the modern Western civilizations.2 This constitution of a national past was perhaps necessary in order to find and establish the roots of the men and women who were building and living in the new state, but it led also to an extermination of that past that was identified as non-Greek and therefore did not correspond to the ideal.3

preferably in famous cult places and in sanctuaries known from the ancient authors. It was certainly not a coincidence that the German empire decided to manifest itself in the sanctuary of Olympian Zeus, the king of the gods, while the French turned to the sanctuary in Delphi, that represented the god of culture (and diplomacy), Apollo. Thanks to the Rockefeller Foundation, the United States could start excavations in the Agora, the cultural and commercial centre of ancient Athens. Also Britain and Austria began excavations at an early date and belonged to the group of Western nations that established archaeological institutes in Athens during the second half of the nineteenth century.5 With the excavations of Auguste Salzman and the British Vice-Consul Alfred Biliotti on Rhodes as early as 1868,6 a more general interest was created also for earlier periods, and as a consequence a number of explorations were started on pre-Classical sites, e.g. Heinrich Schliemann’s excavations in Mycenae (in 1874) and in Tiryns.7 Smaller nations also wanted to take part in this exploration, and thus the first Swedish excavations in Greece were carried out in 1894 by Sam Wide at Aphidna in Attica.8 Later followed of course the excavations in Knossos by Sir Arthur Evans9 and the exploration of the Greek Bronze Age on many other sites. This gave Greece a new prehistory, a past which had earlier only been known from stories and myths in the works of ancient authors. But it also created problems. Because how should one look at these finds and artefacts that were so different from the marble sculptures and the red and black pottery, and therefore did not correspond to the classical ideal as it had been formulated in the Western academies? Some argued that these coarse objects were of little artistic value, and that consequently the cultures that they belonged to were unimportant and should not be treated by classical archaeologists.10

Of course, such a development was not unique to Greece. All over nineteenth century Europe nationalistic ideals created equally nationalistic pasts, and these were expressed in the collections of the physical remains of what was considered cultural heritage in public, indeed often national, museums, and by the excavation of key sites. The excavations which took place in Greece were, however, of major interest, since they in a very concrete and pragmatic manner opened people’s eyes to the European inheritance, the culture that made Us, i.e. the Westerners, different from Them (such as Turks, Albanians, Arabs, Egyptians and other ethnic groups).4 The major Western powers of the time took part in these investigations of our Common History in Greece,

The Bronze Age archaeologists who worked during the period from the end of the nineteenth and the beginning 5

Fitton 2001, 107-109. See also Whitley 2001, 32-36, especially for the German influence. 6 The finds were taken to the British Museum, see Fitton 2001, 31. 7 Schliemann 1878, 1901. See Fitton (2001: 48-103) for a balanced overview of the discussions concerning Schliemann’s excavations. Cf Easton 1984a and 1984b. 8 Wide 1895. 9 Evans 1921-36; cf. Fitton 2001, 115-139. 10 Fitton 2001, 28-34.

1

An earlier version in Swedish of this article was published as Nordquist 2005. For general overview of Aegean research, see e.g. Bennet & Galaty 1997 and Cullen (ed.) 2001. 2 Hamilakis 2003, 60-63. 3 Whitley 2001, 29f., Hamilakis 2003, 62. 4 Whitley 2001, 29-36.

95

GULLÖG NORDQUIST

of the twentieth centuries tended to place themselves and their findings in a mythical/historical framework. It was important to bind together the new prehistory with the old classical age and ideal that had long taken its place as the common heritage of all Europeans. It is symptomatic that Schliemann began his publication of Mycenae with quotes not only from Homer, but also from Aischylos and Sophokles. New terms, from the mythological past, were coined for the new finds, such as “Minoan” after king Minos, one of the seven sages, for the Cretan Bronze Age culture and ”Minyan” after the less well-known king Minyas in Boeotia for the mainland culture. It is to be noted that the adjective Mycenaean was derived from a place whose name had never been forgotten. As late as in 1966 George Mylonas explained the fall of Mycenae as a result of a civil war that had broken out after the murder of king Agamemnon.11 This reliance on textual sources is still relevant in many cases. Also in our time it has been important for excavators to be able to identify their site with, for example, a place mentioned in the Catalogue of Ships. And of course we Swedes never refrain from modestly mentioning that "our" site Asine in the Argolid belongs to this exclusive group of sites in the Bronze Age textual "Hall of Fame".12

Cycle in fact is more representative of the Trojan War tradition than the Homeric poems.15 The Homeric question, or rather questions, have of course been discussed since the nineteenth century. Since the publication of Moses Finley's book, The World of Odysseus, it has been recognized that although the Iliad and the Odyssey contain Bronze Age material, they also depict Iron Age societies.16 When they were written down, according to the most common view in eighth century Ionia, it was in the context of and as an expression of the élite culture of that time. The Ionian elites needed to fasten their lineage roots in the mythohistorical soil, in order to distinguish themselves both from other aristocratic families, with other roots in the complex system of tales and myths, and from those families that lacked such roots altogether. In contrast to this “mythological” interpretation of the past, there existed early on a more critical perspective, proposed by the great Greek archaeologist, Christos Tsountas, the excavator of Mycenae, who also wrote what was to become the standard work on Greek prehistory during the early 1900s.17 For him the prehistory of Greece was first of all a Greek development.

Schliemann’s deeply-held belief that the world of Homer was a real one was the direct reason why he started excavations in Troy, Tiryns and Mycenae – a brilliant success for what can be called a fundamental strategy, not only in the form of splendid finds, but also as the start of a new research field, Aegean Bronze Age archaeology. Schliemann himself was, as were others, e.g. William Gladstone in the preface to the English version of the Mycenae publication from 1878, convinced that he had found the burials of Agamemnon and his courtiers in the shaft graves of Grave Circle A within the walls of Mycenae. It should, however, be recognized that many contemporary scholars, especially in Germany, who had a more negative view of the historicity of the Homeric epics were sceptical and in fact the hypothesis that the shaft grave burials represented the graves of Agamemnon et consortes was soon put aside.13

At about the same time new theories and methods were developed by scholars, who had been educated in the Classical tradition, but worked with materials and excavations in northern and western Europe. These systems were transferred also to the archaeologies of Greece and Italy. For example, the three-period-system, developed by the Danish archaeologist Christian Jürgensen Thomsen (1788-1865) was further developed by Alan Wace and Carl Blegen in 1916-1918, in their classification of Greek prehistoric pottery. The Aegean Bronze Age was divided according to the standard number: three periods, early, middle and late, and three regions, Cycladic, Minoan and Helladic.18 Northern Greece was not included – something that reflected the geopolitical reality of that time, since the area was still under Turkish rule.

The Homeric epics were and are still in the centre of this mytho-historical view. They are the best preserved remains of the early Greek epic tradition, but fragments of several other epic poems concerning the Trojan War, also written in dactylic hexameter, are known and have been collected in the Ἐπικὸς Κύκλος, the Epic Cycle. 14 They are traditionally considered later than the Homeric epics but there is no certain evidence as to the date of composition of them, and Burgess suggests that the Epic

It had become necessary to move not only the Classical cultures but also Greek prehistory in under the European 15

"If the tradition of the Trojan War were a tree, initially the Iliad and Odyssey would have been a couple of small branches, whereas the Cycle poems would be somewhere in the trunk" (Burgess 2001, 21). Photios also mentions a Theban epic cycle (Oidipodeia, Thebaid (attributed to Homer in Antiquity), Epigonoi, Alkmeonis), which is usually considered to have been written down between the eighth and sixth centuries BC, as well as a Titanomachy. 16 Finley 1962; Bennet 1997, 511-514; Whitley 2001, 8990; The Cambridge companion to Homer 2004. 17 Tsountas-Manatt 1897. See Fitton 2001, 104-106 18 Fitton 2001, 245f.

11

Mylonas 1966, 226f., cf. 4f. Iliad 2: 560-561. 13 Fitton 2001, 41-46. 14 Photios, Bibliotheca (9th cent. AD). The epics are Kypria, Aithiopis, Little Iliad, Ilioupersis, Nostoi and Telegony. 12

96

PERSPECTIVES ON THE "BRONZE AGE"

umbrella and include it in the ancestry also of non-Greek Europeans. The British ancient historian and archaeologist Harry Reginald Hall writes in 192819: "the Minoan civilization was in part the ancestor of Greek culture, which is our own today: it is the firstfruits of the Greek genius that are here revealed to us: These Minoans were our own culture-ancestors". The Minoan culture as seen on Crete is, according to the quoted passage, an ancestor of the Greek (i.e. the Classical Greek) culture, 20 which in its turn is an ancestor of the Western European culture. In other words, the Minoans are the ancestors also of the modern British people. But at the same time Hall himself recognized strong Anatolian and Egyptian influences in Minoan culture, and the communis opinio among scholars of the time was that the inhabitants of Bronze Age Greece were not Greek (who according to the commonly-held view of that time came into Greece from the North after the Bronze Age), but pre-Greek and (probably) non-Indo-Europeans. In other words, "the ancestors to our culture", the non-Indo-European Minoans, were pushed aside by Indo-European Greek invaders from the north ("our ancestors"). But the Minoans are still our cultural ancestors because they predate the Greeks, i.e. Western culture. It seems as if ancestor worship is rarely very far from scholarly interpretations of the past, regardless of which group that does the interpreting, even if thankfully few nowadays would go so far as to agree with German archaeologists of the interwar period that the Mycenaean culture must have been created by Aryan conquerors, or with theories of the Biblical origin of Western civilization which were argued by Christian groups who found that it corresponded to the Biblical tradition.21

Mesopotamia and Egypt, "the Minoan spirit is … thoroughly European and in no sense Oriental". This is especially apparent in fresco painting, on which Childe states, that the Cretan artist was not limited to: "perpetuating the cruel deeds of a selfish despot, nor doomed to formalism by the innate conservatism of priestly superstition". 24 The modern and civilised West, Europe, is contrasted with a conservative, despotic and superstitious East. In later editions of the book Childe expresses similar opinions: "But if new arts were introduced by immigrants, the Minoan schools these founded were original and creative both in devising fresh techniques and in creating a new naturalistic style that owed little to Oriental models. In beholding the charming scenes of games and processions, animals and fishes, flowers, and trees …. We breathe already a European atmosphere".25 The ideas expressed by archaeologists of the twentieth century (and which to a certain extent still have force even today) reflect the stereotypic ideas of the eastern neighbours found also in the Classical authors: The eastern civilizations are rich, powerful but also despotic and conservative with an enslaved population; Western societies, on the other hand, are democratic, just and innovative. It seems as if, in the main, modern scholars more or less uncritically accepted this view. It should here be noted that as a geographical term the word ”Europe” is used by the ancient Greek authors mainly for middle or northern parts of modern Greece or the area just beyond (e.g. Herodotos 4.45). But of course there were also other points of view. Sir Arthur Evans expressing the ideals of the early socialists, for example, was almost anti-Classical in his views and stood firmly in the soil of Bronze Age Knossos, which he saw as a glorious non-Greek culture which conquered barbarian Greece and gave it civilisation.26 However, most of these scholars have one thing in common: Aegean prehistory is seen both as an offshoot of and as an ancestor to Classical Greece. In this period, when the Linear B tablets were still undeciphered, there was a hope that they would give us the ”true” stories of the ancient heroes, known from the classical literature of some 500-1000 years later: "the deeds of great men before Agamemnon … of Minos the lawgiver himself and his thalassocracy, … what part the Phoenicean really played in the civilization if the Mediterranean; and many other prehistoric event or question".27 The result of the decipherment was therefore for many a disappointment.

Ethnicity in the past was an important issue for the early archaeologists: Cretan Neolithic pottery “looks” European, not Egyptian, while other elements of the material culture such as the so-called Minyan Ware, 22 were regarded as not part of the Aegean Bronze Age, since they did not fit into the stereotypic concept of prehistoric Greece, but were instead seen as belonging to “the west Anatolian civilization of Troy”23, or to other non-Greek cultures. But at the same time Aegean Bronze Age culture was in general regarded as non-Hellenic, while it was suggested that early Thessalian was a protoHellenic culture. Similar arguments are given by Gordon Childe in the first edition of The Dawn of European civilization published in 1925. Even if Minoan civilization is dependent on influences from 19

The way we see the past is always dependent on the ideas of the present, and this is true also for those of us who work with archaeology today. The development of the discipline must be seen against the background of the

Hall 1928, 5. Cf. Hamilakis 2000, 179: "Prehistory teaching (in Greek universities) is mostly of the Minoan and Mycenaean past, since it is seen as the substratum of classical ’civilisation’ and is connected with it through documentary sources." 21 Trigger 1993, 195f. 22 Hall 1928, 28f. 23 Hall 1928, 28f. 20

24

Childe 1925, 29. Childe 6th edition 1957, cf. Childe 1973, 62f. 26 Fitton 2001, 115-139. 27 Hall 1928, 6. 25

97

GULLÖG NORDQUIST

events and ideas of its time. The politics in the eastern Mediterranean region were from the nineteenth century onwards a consequence of the slow collapse of the Turkish empire and a corresponding European expansion: British and French interests governed in practice Egypt, although on paper it remained a Turkish province, the Middle East became an arena for international political, diplomatic and military intrigue, as well as for archaeological exploration, in accordance with national interests. Many archaeological finds were taken, often on dubious moral, legal and scholarly grounds, to Western museums. Since it was argued that Greek culture was European and not or at least not only Greek, it was not seen as a problem to move material to museums in other Western countries. It was rather a way of appropriating one’s own cultural heritage: As Hall put it "We may indeed congratulate ourselves on the foremost place which British Archaeology has taken in the discovery and study of the oldest remains of Greece, and on their firstrate representations in our museums".28 In the same manner, the eastern influences seen in the Aegean cultures29 could be used in a kind of intellectual imperialism in order to legitimate the Western political and archaeological presence in the Middle East and Egypt. In Greece, however, the Classical heritage was cultivated as a national heritage, but also one that the rest of Europe is dependent on.30

influences or even an invasion from Mycenae. The existence of a common past was thereby clearly demonstrated. To a certain extent one can view the relations between northwestern and southern European archaeologies from a post-colonial perspective. They can often be said to express ideas of "orientalism" to quote Edward Said. The theory formation, the areas of scientific interest and the structure of the administration of research and university education that is prevalent at universities in northwestern Europe and the United States are generally seen as hegemonic. Scholars from these traditions have seen themselves as having the rights to interpretation, as being the more advanced, theoretically, intellectually and culturally. As missionaries of proper scholarly methods and theories they have seen it as their prerogative to educate their less fortunate colleagues in the South.31 Modern concerns, models and abstractions shape the past. This is a trite comment, but one that is necessary to remember. A clear example is provided by the scholarly dispute between Minoans and Mycenaeans, or rather between their archaeological representatives during the first half of the twentieth century, Arthur Evans and Alan Wace. Evans saw the Mycenaean culture as the result of a Minoan conquest of the mainland, while Wace argued that the Mycenaean culture, although influenced by the Minoan, was indigenous to the mainland. In his view, it was rather the Mycenaeans who had conquered Crete during the Late Bronze Age. In the long run Wace’s views prevailed. But the dispute was so serious and Evans’s influence so strong that the British School at Athens in 1923 stopped Wace from further work in Mycenae and refused to prolong his position as Director of the British School at Athens.32 What can we learn from this conflict? That scholars in Western academia consider it more prestigious to be a conqueror than to represent the conquered?

In this period, it was also natural to stress the identity of the newly liberated Greece as a totally European area bordering the Other, the potentially dangerous Oriental cultures and peoples, rather than to see Greek culture as a bridge or a cultural mediator between these and Europe. It was difficult, and not politically correct to find any general acceptance for the idea that ancient Greek civilisation was not only influenced by Near Eastern cultures, but also influenced them, so that they in their turn preserved parts of the ancient Greek cultural heritage that had been destroyed or forgotten in Christian Europe. The same general hegemonic pattern of ideas can be seen in the way in which the "Ancient Classical Man" was accepted as the founder of modern democracy and Western civilization. It was against this idealistic picture that archaeologists interpreted finds in northern and western Europe by connecting them to the Mediterranean civilisations; for example, the megalithic monuments on Malta and in western Europe were seen as the results of

We also have a tendency to limit our research and scope of interest in line with modern national and ethnical boundaries – partly, of course for practical reasons, due to what antiquarian authority that is responsible for and finances the research, or interests from the sponsors or political interests. The European commission or EU’s framework programmes are also influential since they fund research, conservation and education. It is nowadays considered to be important to find the common European story and history, and to preserve "European heritage of exceptional importance".33 We as archaeologist are told

28

Hall 1928, 4. Cf. Montelius 1885, 1903. Hall 1928, 3-5: ”It is the Eastern rather than the Western connexion of early Greek culture that will absorb our attention so far as foreign relations are concerned.” Hall himself, however, studied especially the connections between Crete and Egypt, and also wrote a standard work on the history on the History of the Near East: from the earliest times to the battle of Salamis, that appeared in several editions during the first half of the 20th century, Hall 1920. 30 Hamilakis 2003, 60. 29

31

Persson 1931. Fitton 2001, 155. 33 Europe and culture: The cultural heritage is regulated by Article 151 of the Treaty, which stipulates that “the Community must support and supplement action by the Member States in order to conserve and safeguard cultural heritage of European significance”. Although 32

98

PERSPECTIVES ON THE "BRONZE AGE"

to create "a shared cultural area bringing people together while preserving their national and regional diversity" 34 in order to give us Europeans "a sense of common belonging" 35. The European Year of the Bronze Age in 1998 was one part in this ideology building process.

as traitors. Thus the ancient Greek culture, including the Bronze Age, can be used as symbol for Western European values, civilization and democracy. But this same past and its ideals can, as was the case in the midtwentieth century, also be used by those who are enemies of these same ideas.

Many modern academic disciplines are today a result of a long process, with roots in the nineteenth century; they have developed over the years, changed in structure, methods, theory-building, epistemology and so on. In that perspective the Greek Bronze Age is certainly European. Also for the modern state of Hellas–as for all national states–it has been important to stress the national heritage. Archaeology has been and still is one important part of the building of the national past which provides inspiration for the future. Signs on Greek archaeological sites remind the visitors of this "profane sanctity" and spell out the correct forms of dress and behaviour required for visiting the site.

In modern Europe two conflicting models of the past can be seen. One is based in the old nationalistic ideals, and with them the view of the past as local and indigenous developments; this view is reflected in the national structures for handling the past within the borders of the modern nations, such as in the national museums, in the conservation of the national heritage and in popular presentations of past periods and events. The other is a European community perspective, which stresses communality across borders. There is a political will and therefore also funding for projects that work to legitimize the common European heritage (although it must be admitted that it is seen as containing also a plurality). The EU is concerned with raising "awareness of cultural heritage", in e.g. the Europe, a common heritage campaign, launched in 1999 by the Council of Europe. And as it is said: "Europe's cultural heritage is a precious asset in economic terms too".36

In times of conflicts and/or nationalistic tendencies, it becomes more important to mark the borders that separate one from one's neighbours than to seek out episodes of past cooperation and to stress the areas of common culture that may also exist. When what is conceived of as a real threat to the group that is "us" exists, history and archaeology tend to serve the national interests, and those who want to see the nuances or alternative to such a political correct picture may be seen

The building of a common European past has thus become an issue today.37 European scholars today prefer to log into the ancient Greek Bronze Age net-work, while fewer show any interest in establishing relations with, for example, the Italic or Iberian Bronze Age cultures, maybe because these latter lack "civilizations". There are several problems with this new diffusionism. Though based on theoretical models which are often interesting, the empiric material from the Mediterranean is seen as unproblematic and the need to problematize contexts, dating, interpretation or reconstructions is disregarded. 38 The existence of a cultural homogeneity over time and over large regions is taken for granted.

initially limited to support restoration of "built heritage", such as the Athenian Acropolis, it has come to include actions with regard to movable and immovable heritage in museums, collections, libraries and archives; archaeological and architectural heritage and also natural heritage. Archaeological heritage is seen as sites, points in the landscape, while landscape belongs to “natural interest, http://ec.europa.eu/culture/portal/activities/heritage/cultur al_heritage_en.htm. 34 The Council and the EU since 1991organise European Heritage Days. The Culture 2000 programme finances projects that aim to “raise awareness of common heritage”, and supports European heritage laboratories for conserving European heritage of exceptional importance. International cooperation is regarded, at least with the Union's partner countries and regional programmes, e.g. EUROMED Heritage for “the development of cultural heritage in the European Mediterranean area”. http://ec.europa.eu/culture/portal/activities/heritage/cultur al_heritage_vehic_en.htm. Programme Culture framework programme was instituted in 2007 for five years, until 2013, to strengthen the EU’s support for cultural action. It’s aim is to, among other cultural cooperations is to “develop heritage sites and collections of European importance”. http://ec.europa.eu/culture/portal/action/cooperation/cult_ area_en.htm. 35 Krüger 2000.

But the Mediterranean was an international sphere with a lot of interaction between different cultures. There were many different ethnic groups, people with different languages, with sometimes conflicting ideas, religions and social structures and going through a sometimes fast diachronical change. Elite and diplomatic exchange 36

http://ec.europa.eu/culture/portal/activities/heritage/cult ural_heritage_dev_en.htm 37 See e.g. Sherratt 1993. 38 The Greek material cited dates from Middle Minoan, over Mycenaean to Homer, i.e. a period over maybe 800 years seen as a unity (Kristiansen & Larsson 2005; Nordquist and Whittaker 2007; Kristiansen and Larsson 2007). Since it is difficult to be an expert of so diverse material, often only secondary literature is used, e.g. the much debated Camp-stool fresco from Knossos (Cameron 1964, Immerwahr 1990), cf Larsson (2002, fig 4.5 A) who refers to Marinatos’ (1993) on Greek religion.

99

GULLÖG NORDQUIST

would have played an important role in this region as witnessed in accounts from e.g. El Amarna.39 Such elite contacts over longer and shorter distances are well-known phenomena both from anthropology and from studies of the past in archaeology and history. Simultaneously, regional over-land exchange systems also existed. In Greece, these are visible in records preserved on the Linear B tablets, The Mycenaeans were road-builders, albeit not on the same scale as the people of the Near East. But goods, ideas, services could also have been carried by for example, shepherds, slaves, craftswomen and craftsmen and traders. It would be wrong the see the landscape of the past as empty of travellers.

are instead turning to the Near East and Egypt, perhaps partly inspired by the debate following Martin Bernal’s 40 theories about the Afro-Asiatic roots of Classical Greek civilization. Scholars such as Sarah Morris41 stress the oriental influences evident in Greek culture especially in the transition to the Iron Age, that Morris sees as "nor … more Greek than … oriental" 42. In the Near Eastern and Egyptian civilizations one may find the predecessors to and the origins of the Aegean, especially the Minoan and Mycenaean, cultures, not only in the import of goods and artefacts, but also in the shape of writing, motifs and iconography, symbols, administrative systems, social organization, myths and cults. It is in relation to these eastern Mediterranean civilizations and the complex web of networks that existed between them that we must see the Aegean, that is the prehistory of a nation that is an important part of what is now Europe.43

Ideas and objects that people carry with them do not remain unaltered. The exchange of ideas or objects has as a consequence that the meaning of an object or idea may be altered by the very fact of being adapted to a new context in a new society. In the Aegean we can see how an octopus with its wavy arms hugging a Minoan vessel, or a flowering mountain hillscape are changed when they are transferred into Mycenaean iconography and become an octopus standing to military attention and a wavy line – are these motifs then similar or not? And can the Mycenaean ideas behind the iconography be said to be identical or similar to the Minoan? In what manner is similarity and dissimilarity expressed and what do they mean? ”Similarity” is a concept that is basic in archaeology, in taxonomy, typology and comparisons, but it is far too often misused or at least not sufficiently discussed. Basically “similarity” means that we as modern scholars decide that two or more things are similar– but similarity is in the eye of the beholder. Once we move into the area of interpretation it becomes even more difficult. Even if we believe that we have found the “origin” of an object, symbol or motif, it does not really explain how the object was viewed and interpreted at the place and time when it entered into the archaeological record. Why are things different? Why was it important for the Mycenaeans to use the octopus motif in the way they did, thereby deliberately departing from the Minoan model? Somehow also dissimilarity must be taken into account and carry perhaps more weight. Today terms and concepts taken from American English are predominant in business and IT circles in Sweden as in the rest of Europe, lyrics to popular music are usually written in English and objects imported especially from the United States abound – but at the same time there are large and important differences between Sweden and the United States in socio-political, juridical and ideological structures.

When looking at the past of the archaeological discipline and the treatment of the Aegean Bronze Age it is easy to see the problems that arose from the viewpoints, traditions and ethics of the scholarly traditions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. But little is to be gained from viewing other scholarly and archaeological traditions, whether old or contemporary, with contempt – rather it is important to respect the scholars who made it possible for us today to study the period, to criticise and use their research results to build our past, which in its turn will certainly be attacked by future archaeologists. And it is equally important for archaeologists with different specialities to find ways to cooperate with each other, even if crossing disciplinary boundaries has too often been seen as less “scientific” than in-depth specialization. Perhaps the most important issue for us who study the past is to accept it in its complexity, to refrain as far as possible from “attaching” the past to modern borders or pre-conceived concepts, as emphasised by Yannis Hamilakis with regard to the Minoans44: "There is thus an urgent need to de-familiarise ourselves with the Minoan past … to accept, accommodate and understand its otherness … And de-familiarisation will necessarily involve its de-Europeanisation … and abandonment of the discourse of Minoan civilisation, with all its evolutionist and ultimately racist connotations".

At the same time that Scandinavian archaeologists turn to Greece and the Mediterranean in order to interpret the Nordic Bronze Age, archaeologist working in that area

40

Bernal 1991. Morris 1992 and 1997. 42 Morris 1992, 124. 43 Preziosi & Hitchcock 1999, see also discussions in Davis & Schoefield 1995. 44 Hamilakis 2002, 19. 41

39

Cline 1994, 1995. E.g. the famous Ulu Burun ship wreck (Bass et al. 1989). See also for example Kardulias (1999) and Sherratt (1993).

100

PERSPECTIVES ON THE "BRONZE AGE"

References Bass, George F. et al. 1989, "A Bronze Age shipwreck at Ulu Burun: 1986 campaign", American Journal of Archaeology 93, 1-29. Bennet, John 1997, "Homer and the Bronze Age", in I. Morris & B. Powell (eds.), A Companion to Homer (Mnemosyne, suppl. 163), Leiden, 511-533. Bennet, John & Galaty, M. 1997, "Ancient Greece: Recent developments in Aegean Archaeology and regional studies", Journal of Archaeological Research 5 (1), 75-119. Bernal, Martin 1991, Black Athena. The Afroasiatic roots of Classical civilization, London. Burgess, Jonathan S. 2001, The tradition of the Trojan War in Homer and the Epic Cycle, Baltimore. Robert Fowler (ed.) 2004, The Cambridge companion to Homer, Cambridge. Cameron, Mark A. S. 1964, "An addition to ‘la Parisienne’", Kretika Chronika 18, 38-53. Childe, Gordon V. 1925, The Dawn of European civilization, London. Cline, Eric 1994, Sailing the wine-dark sea. International trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean (BAR International Serie 591), Oxford. Cline, Eric 1995, "Tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor. Minoans and Mycenaeans abroad", in R. Laffineur, & W.-D Niemeier (eds.) Politeia. Society and state in the Aegean Bronze age. Proceedings of the 5th international Aegean conference 1994, Liége & Austin, 265-88. Cullen, T. (ed.) 2001, "Aegean prehistory. A review", American Journal of Archaeology, Suppl. 1., Boston. Davies, W. Vivian & Schoefield, Louise (eds.) 1995, Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant. Interconnections in the second Millenium, London. Easton, D. 1984a, "Priam's treasure", Anatolian Studies 34, 141-169. Easton, D. 1984b, "Schliemann's mendacity: a false trail?", Antiquity 58, 197-204. Europe and culture, European Commission (http://www.Europa.eu.int/comm./culture/ (200101-07) Evans, Arthur 1921-36, The Palace of Minos. A comparative account of the successive stages of the early Cretan civilization as illustrated by the discoveries at Knossos, London. Finley, Moses I. 1962, The world of Odysseus, Harmondsworth. Fitton, J. Leslie 2001, The discovery of the Greek Bronze age, London. Hall, Harry Reginald 1901, The oldest civilization of Greece, London. Hall, Harry Reginald 1915, Aegean archaeology, London. Hall, Harry Reginald 1920, Ancient history of the Near East: from the earliest times to the battle of Salamis, 5th ed. 1920, 8th ed. 1938. Hall, Harry Reginald 1928, The civilization of Greece in the Bronze Age. (The Rhind lectures 1923), New York. Hamilakis, Yannis 2000, "Archaeology in Greek higher education", Antiquity 74, 177-81.

101

GULLÖG NORDQUIST

Hamilakis, Yannis. 2002. "What future for the ‘Minoan’ past?", in Yannis Hamilakis (ed.), Labyrinth revisited. Rethinking “Minoan” archaeology, Oxford, 2-28. Hamilakis, Yannis. 2003, "Lives in ruins: Antiquities and national imagination in Greece", in S. Kane (ed.) The politics of archaeology and identity in a global context (Archaeological Institute of America), Boston, 51-78. Immerwahr, Sarah 1990, Aegean painting in the Bronze Age, London. Kardulias, P. Nick 1999, "Multiple levels in the Aegean Bronze Age world system", in P. N. Kardulias (ed.) Worldsystems theory in practice. Leadership, production, and exchange, Lanham, 179-210. Krüger, Hans Christian 2000, "Speech. Closing of the ‘Europe, a common heritage’ campaign (Riga, 7-9 December 2000)", Council of Europe homepage: http://www.coe.int/ Cultural_co-operation/Heritage/A_common_ heritage_/Campaign (2007-04-04). Kristiansen, Kristian & Thomas B. Larsson 2005, The Rise of Bronze Age Society. Travels, Transmissions and Transformations, Cambridge. Kristiansen, Kristian & Thomas Larsson, 2007, "The Classical Tradition Strikes Back. Reply to Comments on The Rise of Bronze Age Society from Gullög Nordquist and Helène Whittaker", Norwegian archaeological review 2007 (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a772838898~db=all~order=pubdate) Larsson, Thomas B. 2002, "De döda, de ‘andra’ och djuren", in J. Goldhahn (ed.), Bilder av bronsåldern (Acta Archaeologica Lundensia Series in 8°, No 37), Lund, 91-112 Marinatos, Nanno 1993, Minoan religion. Ritual, image and symbol, Columbia. Montelius, Oscar 1885, Om tidsbestämning inom bronsåldern med särskild hänsyn till Skandinavien, (KVHAA Handlingar 30 (ny följd no 10)), Stockholm. Montelius, Oscar 1903, Die typologische Methode. Die älteren Kulturperioden im Orient und in Europa, Stockholm. Morris, Sarah P. 1992, Daidalos and the origins of Greek art, Princeton. Morris, Sarah P. 1997, "Greek and Near Eastern art in the age of Homer", in Susan Langdon (ed.) New light on a Dark Age. Exploring the culture of Geometric Greece, Columbia Mo. 56-71. Mylonas, George, 1966, Mycenae and the Mycenaean age, Princeton. Nordquist Gullög, 2005, "Grekisk förhistoria – eller europeisk?", in Joakim Goldhahn (ed.), Mellan sten och järn. Rapport från det 9.e nordiska bronsålderssymposiet, Göteborg 2003-10-09/12, (Gotarc Serie C. Arkeologiska Skrifter No 59), del II, Göteborg, 75-83. Nordquist Gullög & Helène Whittaker 2007, "Comments on Kristian Kristiansen and Thomas B. Larsson (2005): The Rise of Bronze Age Society. Travels, Transmissions and Transformations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge", Norwegian archaeological review 2007 (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a771150535&fmt=.html&fulltext=713240928&scope=doc). Persson, Axel W. 1931, Asine. De svenska utgrävningarna, Uppsala. Preziosi, Donald & Hitchcock, Louise A., 1999, Aegean art and architecture, Oxford. Schliemann, Heinrich 1878, Mycenae, London. Schliemann, Heinrich 1901, Mykene. Bericht über meine Forschungen und Entdeckungen in Mykenae und Tiryns, Berlin.

102

PERSPECTIVES ON THE "BRONZE AGE"

Sherratt, Andrew 1993, "What would a Bronze-Age world system look like? Relations between temperate Europe and the Mediteranean in later prehistory", Journal of European Archaeology 1(2), 1-57. Sjögren, Lena 2005, "Minoiskt i norr? Om kulturella influenser från Kreta till Skandinavien ", in Joakim Goldhahn (ed.), Mellan sten och järn. Rapport från det 9.e nordiska bronsålderssymposiet, Göteborg 2003-10-09/12, (Gotarc Serie C. Arkeologiska Skrifter No 59), del II, Göteborg Tsountas, Christos & Manatt, J. Irving 1897, The Mycenaean age. A study of the monuments and culture of preHomeric Greece, London. Trigger, Bruce G. 1993, Arkeologins idéhistoria, Stockholm. Wace, Alan & Blegen, Carl 1916-18, "The pre-mycenaean pottery of the mainland", Annual of the British School at Athens 22, 175-189. Whitley, James 2001, The archaeology of ancient Greece, Cambridge. Wide, Sam 1895, "Aphidna in Nord-Attika", Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 21, 385-409.

103

INDEX Aegina, 75 Aeolian Islands, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20 Alicudi, 14 amber, 11(n.38), 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 42, 65, 81 Anapo, river, 16 Anatolia, 2, 3, 57, 85, 97 Antigori, 14, 20, 21 Aphidna, 95 Apulia, 8, 14 Argolid, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 86 Argos, 74 Armenoi, 73(n.2) Asine, 64, 73, 74, 96 Askum, 40 Athens, 76 Athlit, 59 Attica, 74, 95 Austria, 78, 84 Balkåkra drum, 40 Balkans, 9, 20, 39, 84 Baltic, 42 Bernal, Martin, 100 Bernstorf, 17, 20 Blegen, Carl, 96 boar's tusk, 75, 77 Boeotia, 75, 76, 77, 96 Bohemia, 80, 84 Bohuslän, 35, 38, 42, 60, 63 British Isles, 84 Brittany, 81 Broglio di Trebisacce, 17, 18 Caldare, 16 Camuni, 39 Canaanite (Levantine) pottery, 11, 12 Cannatello, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21 Capo Milazzese, 14 Carpathian Basin, 80 Carrowmore, 43 Carthage, 62 Castelluccian Ware, 8, 12 Catalogue of Ships chariot(s), 9 Childe, Gordon, 2, 97 Cófalva, 9(n.28) colonisation, 1, 7, 18 copper, 7, 17, 65, 74 Corsica, 17 Cozzo del Pantano, 15(n.54) Crete, 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 19, 58, 73, 74, 75, 85 Cyclades, 10, 11, 19, 58, 74, 75 Cypriote pottery, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16, 21 Cyprus, 11, 17, 19, 63 Delphi, 95 Dendra, 77 Denmark, 40, 79, 83, 85 Dhimini, 77 diffusionism, 35-36, 57, 65 Dramesi, 63 Egypt, 2, 3, 9, 10, 21, 35, 36, 40, 57, 59, 62, 64, 97, 98, 100 Ekenberg longboats, 64(n.59) El Amarna, 100 Énlaka, 9 Epic Cycle, 96 Epidauros, 76 Etna, Mt., 12 Evans, Sir Arthur, 65(n.67), 95, 97, 98 Filicudi, 11, 14 Formentera, 17

fortifications, 74, 76, 77, 80, 84 Frattesina, 17 Fröslunda, 84 gift-exchange, 19 Gla, 76 glass, 7 Gloucestershire, 78 gold, 9(n.28), 10, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 42, 75, 76, 77, 81, 82, 84 Götaland, 38 Gotland, 35, 40 Guadalquivir Valley, 17 Gyulafehérvár, 9 Hadjúsámson, 83 Hagenau, 82 Hagia Triada sarcophagus, 41 Hallstatt Culture, 42, 43 Hasfalva, 40 Hassle Find, 42 Henry VIII, 62 hillforts, 79 Hittites, 64, 85 Hjortspring boat, 60, 61 Homer, 19, 96 house urn, 35, 40-41 Hungary, 83-84 Iberia, 1, 7, 17, 21, 99 Iron Age, 1, 7, 16, 20, 35, 39, 40, 57, 62, 76, 81, 96, 100 ivory, 7, 75 Järrestad, 63 Karelia, 60 Ketlasbrunn, 84 Kiapha Thiti, 74 Kivik, 61(n.34), 65(n. 67) Knossos, 95, 97 Kolonna, 75 Kommos, 16-17, 19, 20, 21 Kville, 83 Kynortion, 76 Laconia, 77 Latium, 13 Lerna, 73, 74 Linear B, 7, 9(n.22), 20, 78, 97, 100 Lipari, 11, 14, 17, 20 Măcin, 9(n.28) Malta, 13, 15, 98 Malthi, 74 Mappa di Bedolino, 40 Mariesminde bog find, 42 Melos, 12 Memphis, 62 Menelaion, 77 Mesopotamia, 57, 85, 97 Messenia, 74, 75 metalworking, 13, 17 Midea, 76 Milena, 16 Milocca, 15 Milston daggers, 81 Minoan (Cretan) pottery, 11, 14, 100 Minoans, 1, 2, 3, 9, 11, 58, 65, 73, 86, 97, 98, 100 Minyan Ware, 97 Mokhlos, 64(n.58) Molinello, 15 Montagnola di Capo Graziano, 13, 14 Monte Grande, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20 Montelius, Oscar, 1, 60 Monteoru culture, 9(n.23) Moravia, 78

104

INDEX

Mycenae, 1, 3, 42, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 86, 95, 96, 98 Cult Centre, 78 Lion Gate, 78 Shaft Graves, 3, 9, 10, 11, 42, 74, 75, 76, 96 Near East,1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 19, 57, 61, 100 Netherlands, 79, 83 Nitra Culture, 78, 81 Nižna Myzšl'a, 84 Norway, 79, 80, 83 Novilara stele, 64(n.59) obsidian, 74, 75 Ognina, 13, 15 Olympia, 95 Orchomenos, 77 Østfold, 60 ostrich eggs, 7 Otomani Culture, 79, 84, 85 Over Vindige, 79 oxhide ingot(s), 7, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21 Panarea, 14, 15 Pantalica, 16 Pantelleria, 13 Peloponnese, 14, 16, 17, 74 Peristeria, 74 Perry, W. J., 36 Perşinari, 9(n.9) Phoenician(s), 7, 20, 97 Piano del Porto, 13 Piediluco-Contigliano, 16 Plemmyrion, 15 Poland, 78 Po valley, 13, 17, 20 Punta Tonno, 12, 14, 18, 20 Pylos, 74, 76, 78 Grave Circle, 74, 75 Raglan, Lord, 36 Rhodes, 95 Roca Vecchia, 14, 18, 20 Romania, 84 Rome, 62 Rørby sword, 60, 61, 64 sacrifice, 40, 76, 84 Said, Edward, 98 Salacea, 85 Salina, 14 San Calogero Tholos, 13 Santadi, 16 Santa Domenica di Ricardi, 16 Sant'Anastasia, 17 Sant'Angelo Muxaro, 16 Sardinia, 7, 13, 16, 17, 20 Sáromberke, 9 Sarroch, 17 Scandinavia, 84 Schliemann, Heinrich, 95, 96 Seros-Keros Culture, 58 Sète, 17 ship settings, 35, 41 Sicily, 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 42 Sighişoara, 9(n.27) Släbro, 40 Slovakia. 78, 81, 84

Smith, Grafton Elliot, 36 Spandau, 84 stone stelae, 1, 82, 83 Stromboli, 4 Suciu de Sus, 9(n.27) sulphur, 12, 13, 16, 19 Sund, 79 Syracuse, 15 Syros-Keros culture, 58 Sweden, 83, 84, 85 Terremare Culture, 13 Tei Culture, 9(n.28) Tell el-Dab'a, 10 Tell Kabri, 10 Thames, 84 Thapsos, 14-16, 17, 19, 20, 21 Thebes, 75, 76 Thera, 10, 12 eruption of volcano, 10, 19, 60(24) wall-paintings, 57, 59, 65(n.67) Thessaly, 77, 97 Thomsen, Christian Jürgensen, 96 Thutmosis III, 62 tin, 65, 74 Tiryns, 65, 76, 77, 95, 96 Tomarton, 78, 79 Transylvania, 9, 10 Trojan War, 96 Troy, 96, 97 Tsountas, Christos, 96 Tufalău, 9(n.28) Tumulus Culture, 10, 80 Turkey, 2, 95 Tuscany, 13 Tutankhamen, 42 Uherský Brod, 85 Ukraine, 78 Uluburun shipwreck, 10, 19, 21, 59 Únětice, 78, 86 Urnfield Culture, 80 Ustica, 20 Valcamonica, 3, 35, 39, 42 Valtellina, 39 Vänern, Lake, 84 Velim-Skalka, 80, 84 Venice, 62 Venus figurines, 42 Vikings, 61 Viksø, 83 Villanova Culture, 35, 40 Vivara, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20 Vulcano, 14 Wace, Alan, 96, 98 warrior(s), depictions of, 39, 63 Wassenaar, 79, 81 weapon(s), 9(n. 27), 10, 17, 42, 73, 76, 79 in burials, 74, 75, 77, 81, 85 depictions of, 39, 40, 78, 83 hoards, 9(n.28), 83-84, 86 Wessex Culture, 81, 86 Wietenberg Culture, 9 Wilflingen, 17, 20

105