Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina Proceedings of the Centennial Sympo: W. F. Albright Institute of Arc! Eeleecsch ana Americ Research Jerusalem, May 29-31, 2000 edited by WittaM G, Dever AND Seymour GiTiN Winona Lake, Indiana EISENBRAUNS 2003The Mediterranean Economy: “Globalization” at the End of the Second Millennium ac: Susan Sherratt ‘Ashmolean Museum University of Oxford Introduction For much of the last one and one-half centuries, we have been accustomed to thinking of the years around 1200 3.c.v." as the beginning of a “dark age,” conceived analogously to the post-Roman “Dark Age” of Western Europe in sweeping terms of the breakup of em- pires and widespread depopulation, the destruction and disappearance of established po- litical and economic centers, the retreat of literacy or loss of historical records, the disruption or forced cessation of interregional trade, and cultural or artistic decline—all ultimately brought about by the encroachment of mass migratory movements from the wilds of barbariandom into the centers of civilization of the eastern half of the Mediterra- nean. It has also been the convention to think of these same years as ushering in the Iron ‘Age—a technological development once intimately linked with the “dark age” in the sense that iron was seen as introduced to Greece by invading Dorians and to the Levant by mi- gratory Philistines, or at the very least let loose on the eastern Mediterranean world by the catastrophic events that destroyed the Hittite Empire and led to the liberation of its closely-guarded technological secrets. Few probably would nowadays subscribe to quite such a dramatic, millennial vision of the onset of a dark age characterized by generalized invasion or migration followed by a descent into a comparative loss of civilization over a wide area ranging from Greece in the west to Assyria in the east, from Anatolia in the north to the borders of Egypt in the south, Each region of increasingly specialized archacological endeavor now has its own version of what happened in this period, some distinctly less “dark” than others, each conceived and presented independently in different ways according to the current re- gional archaeological record and its interpretation. Examples of views of how things now Author’ note: Lam most grateful to the participants in the Albright/ASOR Centennial Symposium for much discussion of some of the issues with which this paper is concerned. 1 am particularly indebted to Nicola Schreiber for information about patterns of Cypriot ceramic imports to the Levant in the later Iron Age, and to Sabine Laemmel for discussion of various contextual and other aspects of Phi- listine Monochrome (Mycenaean [11C:1”) and Bichrome pottery. 1. ‘Throughout this paper, 1200 ».c.x. should be treated, in accordance with the principles of archaeo- logical chronology, as a purely notional date (as its convenient roundness suggests) and not asa single, pre- cise point in ahistorical scale of time, Allowance should be made for flexibility within a period of roughly two-three decades on either side of this notional point. 3738 Susan Sherratt look in Syria, Greece, and Anatolia can be found elsewhere in this volume (Caubet; ‘Muhly; sce also, ¢.g,, Liverani 1987; and various papers in Ward and Joukowsky 1992, in- cluding the essays by Caubet, Giiterbock, McClellan, Mubly, Rutter, and Sader). In the Cypriot coastal centers, much of the 12th century now begins to look like a more-concen- trated continuation of Neghi’s 13th-century “climax of urban development” (1986; cf, ¢.g., Muhly 1992: 19; Cadogan 1998: 13). In the southern Levant, the current consensus (insofar as there is one) seems to offer a picture of a gradual but uneven retreat of Egyptian impe- rial control during the two centuries or so following the battle of Kadesh (Dever 1992; for a range of varying perspectives, cf. Weinstein 1992; Joffe 1997: 216; Mazar 19972; 218), accompanied in the decades around 1200 ».c.x, by the invasion and migration (via Cyprus) of the so-called “Sea Peoples,” some of whom settled there as the Philistines of the Bible or the Sherden and Tjeker of Egyptian texts. The Philistines, we are reassured, are far from agents of “darkness,” as a combination of biblical propaganda, German colloquial metaphor, and the rhetorical conceits of Matthew Arnold might once have misled us into believing (Dothan and Dothan 1992: 3-6, 259). Under their current guise as bearers of Aegean (or, logically, since the decipherment of Linear B, “Greek”) civilization, they can hardly be tarred with that particular brush.? On the contrary, they are now seen as respon sible for imposing a full-blown exotic urban tradition on the smoldering ruins of the gen- erally smaller Egypto-Canaanite centers that they destroyed on their arrival (Stager 1995; Barako 2000). Nevertheless, at least one element that has traditionally formed part of the attributes of a generalized “dark age” is still seen as present in the early Iron Age of the southern Levant: in particular, the apparent cessation of trade between the Levant, Cy- prus, and the Aegean after 1200 8.c.8. Indeed, itis the seemingly abrupt and complete ces~ sation of trade between these areas, in comparison with the plentiful evidence for it during the preceding Late Bronze Age, that provides one of the main archaeological pil- lars on which the belief in a sudden, once-and-for-all, mass immigration from the west continues to rest among Levantine archaeologists (Barako 2000; ef, Sharon 2001). ‘At the same time that the “dark age” has been modified and regionally individualized, it has gradually been decoupled from the onset of an Iron Age, atleast in terms of a simple simultaneous package. Iron-sword-bearing Dorians have been irrevocably demolished in Greece; a Philistine monopoly on iron Gf not a particular association with it) has been de~ moted in the Levant; and even the idea of a sudden liberation of secret Hittite technology 2 See he remarks of Evans (909), who wasn arg part responsible or ext propagation ofthe idea that the Philistines were of Aegean origin and, as such, bearers eastward of the Minoan linear script, ‘which (he believed) was subsequently transformed into the Phoenician alphabet. From this, he went on to draw the conclusion that the Phoenicians themselves were well leavened by Aegean stock: “It must cereinly be sid thatthe character ofthe Phoenician mame enerprie thei eclectic religion, andthe ‘cosmopolitan colonial spirit generated by their great cities somewhat belies a purely Semitic origin” Geran tgon94) To she ads In. el consclouttyname-dropping foocante’ “In an iternacog conver sation that had with Mr, Gladstone at Hawarden in 1896, ig ihe of these possibilities were discussed, he enlarged on the maritime spirit of the Phoenicians and on other characteristics, and con~ ‘cluded with the remarkable expression of opinion, oie always believed that the Phoenicians were at bottom of noo Semitic tock” Cans 1909: 94) If eve historia construction could be sald cealy to display its origins in the international agenda and domestic prejudices of late-1gth-century British Lib- eralisn, then this is surely it, Ie i pity that its influence still seems so persistent.“Globalization” at the End of the Second Millennium n.c.t. 39 no longer seems quite as compelling as it may once have been.’ In terms of the labeling of periods, this has led in some places to a postponement of when the Iron Age is said to have begun. In Greece, where the once-neat package of invading Dorians, the destruc~ tion of Mycenaean palaces, iron, cremation, and Geometric pots* has long since fallen apart, the beginning of the Iron Age is notionally set around the middle of the mith cen- tury, at the beginning of the Protogeometric period, when (at least in some places) iron weapons start to make their presence evident in graves (Snodgrass 1971: 222; Hooker 1976: 174; Osborne 1996: 27; ef. McDonald and Thomas 1990: 450).5 On Cyprus, where Schaef fer’s attempts to introduce a Levantine chronology were rejected in favor of a chronology that runs more explicitly parallel to that of Greece, the official beginning of the Iron Age is also set in the mid-11th century, at the beginning of Cypro-Geometric (Schaeffer 19 48: j92ff.; Gjerstad et al. 1934: xvi; Karageorghis 1982: 10, 114). It is only in the Levant, where 12th-century iron objects of a practical nature are certainly no more numerous than on contemporary Cyprus (and arguably distinctly less so (cf. E. S. Sherratt 1994), that the years around 1200 w.c.t. are still conventionally reckoned as marking the begin- ning of Iron Age I, While the effects (if any) of this terminological decoupling elsewhere on explanations of the introduction of utilitarian iron use in the Levant remain to be scen,° in other parts of the eastern Mediterranean (above all in Greece), it has resulted in the development of a more indirect cause-and-effect explanation: in particular, that the disruption or cessation of international trade from around 1200 1.c.®, on led to regional shortages of bronze (or mote specifically tin), which stimulated the development of local iron technology (Snodgrass 1971). juan oF ir ae exelgion however, see most recently Moorey 1995: 53-68; but contra Muhly 1997: 14. 4. As summarized, for example, in the entry headed “Dorians” in the first edition of the Orford Classi «al Dictionary (ed. M. Cary etal 1948). 5, Despite the fact that iron technology has long been decoupled from the collapse of the Mycenaean palaces in Greece, the realignment of the beginning of the Iron Age with the appearance of Attic Proto- ‘geometric has continued to preserve a general sense of the notion of a historical “watershed.” ‘This is partly because of the traditional division of labor (and to some extent of prejudices) in this part of the ‘world between prehistorians on the one hand and ancient historians and Classical archaeologists ‘on the other. The latter, in particular, tend to trace the earliest origins of historical Greck “civilization” from the point at which the last debased vestiges of Mycenaean culture, as typified particularly by ceramic style, give way (at least in Attica) to something that is often regarded as both technically and esthetically more elevated, a point also seen as the start of a newly cleaned slate (Starr 1961; ef. Osborne 1996: 23-24, 28, 4D. It is not thought of as having anything (atleast directly) to do with iron itself, which merely pro- vides a coincidentally convenient (and ostensibly major) change of label within the traditional three-age system. An clement of something similar ean be seen in the arguments of Hallo (1992) for the retention of the Bronze Age/Iron Age transition at the beginning of the 12th century in the Levant, Its not so much ‘question of iron as such, but the idea ofa significant break with various features of the past that justifies the change of label. ‘While I am in considerable sympathy with the second of these examples (in which iron is indeed part of the story), the hijacking in general of technologically derived labels for use as sucrogates to mark more sneral historical “eras”—although convenient in terms of traditional cerminologies—seems to me un- Felpfl. Aktiough ts very hard to see how overa century of conventional usage can be undone ex, we should perhaps find some system of separating the two in the way we label chronological distinctions that are concerned with different classes of phenomena. 6, Ieseems unlikely at any rate that it was brought to the Levant by Philistines from the Aegean,40 Susan Sherratt My aim in this paper is to suggest that itis indeed no coincidence that the changes that we associate with the disintegration of empires and the collapse of established second- millennium political and economic structures on the one hand, and che gradual adoption of utilitarian uses for iron (particularly on Cyprus) on the other, should have taken place together in the decades immediately surrounding 1200 ».c.8. Indeed, both can be seen as the outcome of economic processes that were already well underway in the 13th century. In this view, the gradual introduction of utilitarian iron has nothing to do with a shortage of bronze or its constituents, or with any regional difficulties in obtaining these.’ On the contrary, it has much more to do with a significant increase in the net quantity of bronze entering the eastern Mediterranean economic system andin the pervasiveness and veloc- ity of its subsequent circulation, Similarly, I would argue that interregional maritime trade, far from grinding to a halt at the end of the 13th century, continued into the 12th century, although the extent and nature of this trade and the way in which it operated had undergone a radical change. Finally, I wane to propose that what we see is a further stage in the linking up of the Mediterranean, which brought about a form of “globalization,” the effects of which were in certain ways analogous to some of those that we have been expe- riencing at the end of our own second millennium c.x. I. Bronze and Iron For the sake of convenience, we may begin the story at some notional point in the sec- ond half of the 13th century (although it actually starts about a century earlier, in the Amarna period), This corresponds to Late Bronze (LB) IIB in the southern Levant, Late Cypriot (LC) LIC on Cyprus, Late Helladic (LH) / Minoan IIIB in the Aegean, and the “Urnfield” period (more specifically, the transition from Reinecke Bronze D to Hallstatt Ad in Europe, north of the Alps, Itis a time when several quite interesting (and, I believe, relevant) phenomena were either already well established or beginning to have a notice- able effect. One of these is the local production of Aegean (and in some cases also Cyp- riot) types of pottery in areas as far apart as the eastern and central Mediterranean.’ In the central Mediterranean, this can be seen in southern Italy (where it seems to have started carly in the 13th century), and possibly also in Sicily and Sardinia (Jones and Vagnetti 1991: 131-35; Vagnetti 1999a; Karageorghis 1995: 94-95; Graziadio 1997: 696; Leighton 1999: 172). It is accompanied by signs of increasing administrative complexity and economic specialization (including the manufacture of processed agricultural products such as olive oil and wine) at sites such as Broglio di Trebisacce in Calabria and Thapsos in Sicily, and it is best seen as a process of import substitution of “luxuries” originally introduced as im- ported exotica from farther east, and asa sign of the integration of local elites into the cul- tural and economic values of the eastern half of the Mediterranean (D'Agata 1997; Leighton 1999: 180-84; Vagnetti 1999a; cf. E. S. Sherratt 1999: 192-95), Meanwhile in the 13th century, farther north on either side of the Alps, there is evi- dence of bronze-working activity on a surprisingly large and specialized scale, using local 3; Pickles and Peltenburg 1998: 80-81. Blegen, Caskey, and Rawson 1953: 14, 16, 38; Mountjoy 1997; for Cyprus, see, ¢-g., Kling 1989; E. S, Sherratt 1992: 192; Knapp and Cherry 1994: 62,“Globalization” at the End of the Second Millennium 8.c.8. 4 and wider regional resources of copper and tin (Wells 1992: 35-36; Kristiansen 1994: 21-22; Pearce 2000). It is from some time around our notional point in the second half of the 13th century that the products of this circum-Alpine bronze industry (the so-called “Urnfield” bronzes) begin to make their way in significant quantities into the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean, where they turn up particularly on Cyprus (Bouzek 1985: 119-67; E. S, Sherratt 2000: 84-87). I see no reason to associate these with “Urnfield” invaders from the north or even with northern mercenaries, as has been commonly suggested in the past (Catling 1961; Sandars 1983;Bouzek 1985: 242~43; cf. Wells 1992: 38). The types represented fall overwhelmingly into the status-defining categories of personal orna- ments and weapons—fibulae, pins, knives, and weapons, such as flange-hilted cut-and- thrust swords, Peschiera daggers, and a variety of relatively short forms of spearheads with circular-cast sockets—and their attractions are evident both in their typological (and functional) novelty and, in several cases, their obviously extravagant use of bronze. Both their distribution in the eastern half of the Mediterranean and the contexts in which they are found strongly suggest that they initially traveled eastward as finished bronze goods along predominantly maritime routes, picked up in the Tyrrhenian area or in the Adriatic. By the early 12th century, many of these types had become “naturalized” in the castern half of the Mediterranean, a process undoubtedly facilitated by seaborne metal- workers, such as those indicated by the Gelidonya wreck or by the appearance of a single winged-axe mold at 13th century Mycenae (respectively, Bass 1967; Wace 1953: 15; cf Bor- gna 1995). Current evidence suggests that these “naturalized” versions, along with others that continued to travel eastwards from the central Mediterranean, also circulated pri- marily along the main maritime routes (Matthius 1980: 137-38; cf. E. S. Sherratt 2000: 87). ‘This development, which should also be seen against the more general background of a marked expansion of bronze industries in an arc around the northern fringes of the “civilized” world, from the Alps in the west to Luristan in the east (A, Sherratt 1993: 36, fig, 10; ef, Muhly 1997: 14), quite certainly represents a significant input into the total amount of bronze in circulation in the eastern half of the Mediterranean at the end of the 3th century. In that sense, it is undoubtedly related to another contemporary phenome- non: the increasing evidence in this period for the circulation of bronze in scrap form (Bass 1967; Knapp, Muhly, and Muhly 1988; Artzy 1994; Karageorghis and Kassianidou 1999; cf. E. S. Sherratt 2000: 87-88). Although traditionally interpreted as a sign of bronze (or tin) shortage, this is perhaps better seen as a manifestation of a further step in the commodification of alloyed bronze, which was at this stage circulating in increasingly small quantities and increasingly informally as a commodity in itself. The point is not recycling as such (which had been going on in one form or another since metalworking was first introduced in the late Neolithic), but the processes involved in the decentralized circulation and handling of bronze itself in relatively small units by independent indi- viduals or small groups of traders and metalworkers (Pickles and Peltenburg 1998: 87- 90). There was more bronze around and it was circulating more widely, reaching social groups whose access to it had previously been restricted or relatively tightly controlled. Itis these individuals or small groups, working on a scale at which every serap of bronze was economically worth using and conserving and in an environment of increasing commercial competition and resultant insecurity, who were probably responsible for4 Susan Sherratt the deliberately deposited hoards that are such a novel feature of the late 13th century in the eastern Mediterranean and Aegean (Pickles and Peltenburg 1998: 90; cf. Artay 1998: 443 0. 13). ‘ Cyprus was central to these developments in a number of ways. The distribution of “Urnfield” bronze types, with Cyprus as an apparent focal point in the eastern Mediterras nean, suggests that these were moving primarily along the main maritime routes that con- nected the eastern with the central Mediterranean (E. S, Sherratt 2000). From some time around the middle of the 13th century, when the port of Kommos on the central-south coast of Crete fell out of use,9 we begin for the first time to glimpse the direct activity of relatively small-scale Cypriot traders within western Aegean coastal waters: in the Iria wreck (Phelps, Lolos, and Vichos 1999) and in small quantities of recognizable Cypriotce= ramics at sites such as Tiryns, Chania, and Lefkandi (Cline 1994: nos. 399-400, 446-48, 632, 788-96; ef, E. S, Sherratt 1994: 70 n. 16). The Cypro-syllabic marks found incised after firing on Mycenaean pottery at Tiryns appear to belong particularly to this period and Suggest that Cypriot traders were now traveling as far as the Argolid to pick up Argive pots directly, instead of obtaining them at more easterly transshipment points such as Rhodes, as they seem to have done earlier (Hirschfeld 1996), Farther west, there is grow- ing evidence for specifically Cypriot links in the 13th and 12th centuries in southern Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia, and in the rath century at Frattesina in the Po Valley, at the head of the Adriatic, where materials such as locally-made glass and imported unworked ivory and os trich eggs are found (Bietti Sestieri 1982; Vagnetti 1986; r999b; Vagnetti and Lo Schiavo 1989; Jones and Vagnetti 1991; Ridgway and Serra Ridgway 1992; Karageorghis 1995; Pearce 2000: 111). The particular involvement of Cypriots in a long-distance trade in bronze goods and materials is suggested, not only by the largely similar distributions of Cypriot and “Urnfield” metal types in the eastern half of the Mediterranean,"® but also by the frequent association of these within the same hoards or other depositional contexts (E. S. Sherratt 2000: 88), Iris in this context of amore direct long-distance linkage between the eastern and cen- tral Mediterranean that I believe we should see the demise, around 1200 .c.e., of the ‘Mycenaean palaces, These essentially rather unimpressive centers (at least in eastern Mediterranean terms) owed their brief 14th—13th-century floruit to a temporary domina- tion of coherent sections of maritime trading routes at a time when these were more rig- idly segmented between local political centers. These comparatively primitive “nodal control centers” were increasingly bypassed by Cyprus-based traders operating in the Aegean and farther west in the later 13th and 12th centuries. These were the traders who. were responsible in the rth and 13th centuries for marketing vast quantities of their own pottery and lesser (but still large) quantities of Mycenaean (particularly Argive) pottery to a fairly wide social spectrum of consumers in the eastern Mediterranean (E. S, Sherratt 9. For the impressive haul of Cypriot and other eastern ceramic imports at Kommos in the r4th and ‘early 13th centuries, see most recently Rutter 1999. to, For the east-west distribution of Cypriot rod tripods and other stands from the 12th century om, ‘which largely replicates the distribution of “Urnfield” bronzes within the Aegean, see, eg, Mederos and Harrison t996: fi, 5; Matthiius 1988; figs. 6~7. The Aegean distributions of 12th-rith-century amber and iron objects further suggest that the same networks were also responsible for these (Harding and Hughes= Brock 1974: fig. 3; Harding 1984: 86-87; E, S, Sherratt 1994: figs. 1-2). J“Globalization” at the End of the Second Millennium 4“ 1999). Their prosperity was thus built on a relatively informal type of commercial trade in pottery, which they subsequently applied to a wider range of goods. The ships they ‘used were small and versatile, equipped with a boomless brail rig that enhanced maneu- verability, often double-prowed and capable of navigating the lower reaches of rivers as well as the open sea," That there was a general shift coward a preference for isthmus routes rather than long hauls around dangerous capes or across the open sea seems to be indicated by the fate of Messenia in the southwest Peloponnese, which, after the disap- pearance of the palace at Pylos around 1200 3.c.x., reverted to something of an under populated backwater," and by a contrasting increase in the 12th century in the number: of apparently prospering sites around the Argolic, Euboean, Saronic, and Corinthian gulfs, many of them showing evidence of eastward connections. ‘The beginnings of iron use should be seen against the general background outlined above, and in particular against the devaluation of bronze asa result of the increase in the ee “ 11, For the Gelidonya ship, see Bass 1967: 44-51; Pulak 1999: 220; and for « hypothetical reconstruc- tion of the Iria ship (based on estimations of the weight of the cargo), see Vichos 1999: 83, fig. 16; cf the discussion in Phelps, Lolos, and Vichos 1999: 118-19. The former ship is envisaged as around 10-13 m in length; the latter no more than 9 m, shell-built with a curving hull. Both are thus considerably smaller than the earlier Uuburun ship and perhaps approximately the wiz of a small sponge ishing boae (ass 1p67s0). These ae soplemeatd by a sange aa late-13th-1ath-century representational evidence from Peer pa acl areroas cee tee Aptos atorrng suis of erring tras aa ecole ieee the Medinet Habu reliefs, on graffiti at Akko, in the Nahal Me‘arot above Tel Nami on the Carmel coast, and at Kition, as well as on contemporary and later ceramies from the Aegean (Basch 1987: 66~69; Artzy 1998: 444-451 Wachsmann 1998: figs. 7.8, 7.16-17, 7.19, 721-28), Although these inchide ships traditionally associated (as at Medinet Habu) with the "Sea Peoples,” any attempt to pin them down geographically or {impose distinet “ethnicities” on them is clearly problematic and does not seem very helpful. Most regard the Medinet Habu *Sea Peoples" ships although perhaps somewhat smaller) as little different in general design from Syrian or later Phoenician merchantmen (Sandars 1978: 130-31; Basch 1987: 68, 304-6; 1991 2-53 {and ef, especially the double-prowed Phoenician inshore or river boats shown on various Assyrian reliefs: Basch 1987: figs, 648, 652; cf also fig. 641). Even if one accepts Wachsmann’s arguments (1998: 163-97) for particular similarities to ship representations in the Aegean, there is nothing to suggest that representations of such ships appear any earlier there than in the eastern Mediterranean, and there is cer- tainly no evidence that the boomless brail rig has priority in the Aegean, (Che krater from Kynos [Dako- ronia 1987: fig. 2}, adorned with a ship representation that Wachsmann {1998: 172] compares most closely with the Medinet Habu ships, belongs to a relatively advanced stage of LH LIC, and is thus likely to postdae the Medinet Habu reliefs by several decades.) The widespread and varied ship representations of the late 13th-12th centuries (some associated with shipboard are, to my mind, primarily in- dicative of a newly pervasive maritime emphasis in the culture of the whole eastern half of the Mediter- ‘ranean, which is also reflected in the distributions of goods and materials and in changes in coastal and route-determined settlement patterns around this time, and which was characterized by the exploitation ‘of new maritime economic and other opportunities. The significance of the adoption of the loose-footed bail fea sinos certainly intially inthe astern Meitreaean lobes got Wachemiann 198: 25-14 eran 9770; fist appears in Aegean representations no ear than mid-LH HIG) isin bea eules renecler allowed, both in marine and estuarine environments. 12 Itremained as such well into the first millennium (Davis etal. 1997: 455-56). 13, The extent to which portage over isthmus routes was used by individual ships and crews almost cer- Rasy varied In te cas ofthe Corarlan icin ja vey Maly thatthe hips themaclcs were healed across with their cargoes, as they were in the first millennium, with or without the help of some primitive forerunner of the diofkas. In other cases for example, the Mycenae corridor linking the Argive, Saronic, and Corinthian gulfs—we probably have to envisage goods traveling separately overland, Nonetheless, the high degree of consistent directionality visible in distributions of both eastern and central Mediter- ranean materials and goods over the entire length of the distance between the central Mediterranean and Cyprus suggests that much of this network was Cypriot-coordinated and Cypriot-capitalized, even if not operated exclusively by Cypriot ships and traders. ,44 Susan Sherratt Ss quantity of this material circulating more widely and at more diverse levels of society by the end of the 13th century. By contrast, the value of iron in the later second millennium ‘was still perceived as very high—the preserve of kings and other super-elites—its status maintained through a combination of technologically-determined rarity and the kind of ideological hype that bestowed on it an extraterrestrial origin. Although blade-sized pieces of iron had previously probably been obtained adventitiously as a by-product of copper-smelting using iron-rich fluxes, what seems to have changed around 1200 B.C. particularly on Cyprus, was the regular exploitation of this process (Pickles and Pelten- burg 1998). The motivation is not hard to see. If a trade in bronze and finished bronze goods could be supplemented by a relatively regular supply of iron knives or daggers in- jected into a cultural system that still regarded iron as immensely valuable, this would compensate for some of the downside of progressive bronze devaluation. Its, I believe, no coincidence that many of the iron types found on Cyprus and elsewhere in the rath and ith centuries closely echo the shapes of the “Urnfield” types imported into, or natural- ized in, the eastern half of the Mediterranean from the later 13th century ‘onward, Both were designed to appeal to the same sensibilities: the desire for exotic or novel personal ornaments and other status-enhancing objects of an ostentatiously extravagant nature thar were only then becoming available comparatively cheaply. Similar to the role of “Apple and Microsoft in taking computers from rare mainframe machines to a ubiquitous desktop facility and making them cheaper and more accessible, Cypriot commercial en- terprise fueled the forces of globalization, IL. The r2th Century: ‘The Role of Cyprus in the Eastern Mediterranean Despite conventional wisdom, it has long seemed evident ¢o me that close economic connections between Cyprus and the Levantine coast continued well into the 12th cen- tury just as they did between Cyprus and the Aegean and, indeed, areas still farther west. Eyen those scholars who are most closely wedded to the once-and-for-all mass migration scenario (which brings Philistines from the Aegean via Cyprus to Philistia in year 8 of Ramses IIT) emphasize the maritime outlook and aspects of Philistine settlement (Stager 1995: 338-393 344-45, and passim)-and are the first to admit the very close similarities be- tween Philistia and Cyprus in several aspects of material culture (¢.g., Barako 2000: 515). Yet, despite the fact that the immigrant Philistines immediately built their seaport at Ashkelon (Stager 1995: 342) and probably had other seaports at Ashdod, Gaza, and later ‘Tell Qasile, on their arrival in Philistia the shutters are supposed to have come down and, overseas trading ceased for well over a century (Barako 2000). The urbanism they im- posed on Canaan, with its sophisticated lifestyle and intensive manufacturing capacities, was (we are asked to believe) a manifestation of some innate cultural inheritance rather than the product of economic interaction, Therefore, one can only assume that this ur- banism depended on (and arose mysteriously quickly from) a wholly self-sufficient agei- cultural base, which there is little sign that they established in the first instance, and on theit own account, in the surrounding countryside." “This s the inference tobe drawn from Barako's somewhat startling conclusion that the fully urban= ined character of the Philistine sites and the socially and economically diverse communities inhabiting,“Globalization” at the End of the Second Millennium 0.0.8. 45 Ivis easy to see why this idea arose. It depends primarily on the disappearance of the large quantities of White Slip, Base Ring, and other characteristic Cypriot wares and accompanying Mycenaean painted ware that had reached the Levant during much of the LB period, and it is a symptom of a long-standing positivist (not to say ceramo-centric) archaeological tradition that tends to dictate that the presence or absence of trade be~ tween regions is seen primarily (and sometimes solely) in terms of the presence or ab- sence of a trade in easily identifiable pots. There is more than one reason why trade in pottery between Cyprus and the Levant should no longer be immediately evident in Iron ‘Age I. In the firse place, the characteristic Cypriot handmade fine export wares of LG I ‘were steadily fading out by the end of the 13th century, to be replaced by a catchall wheel- made painted ware of Aegean type (White Painted Wheelmade L11), This ware incorpo- rated a number of Aegean-looking shapes and decorations, which began as a form-of import substitution in the coastal urban centers quite early in LC II and progressively increased in quantity in LC IILA.at the beginning of the 12th century. The growth of this Cypriot import substitution in turn gradually undermitied the Cypriot market for spe- cially produced fine wares from the Aegean (especially the Argolid), so that by the end of the 13th century the number of these reaching Cyprus and the eastern Mediterranean had diminished virtually to nothing, presumably along with whatever substances had traveled in the small decorated stirrup jars and piriform jars that had formed a substantial propor- tion of this trade. In the second place, the Levant, too, subsequently embarked on its own manufacture of a functionally determined selection of the Cypriot White Painted Wheelmade III rep- ertoire, This manufacture began in LB 11B with stirrup jars (and presumably their con- tents), such as those from Tel Nami, Deir ‘Alla, and possibly also Ugarit (respectively Artzy 1994: 130; Hankey 1981: 113-14; Monchambert 1983: 27-28; ef, E. 8. Sherratt 1998: 402 n, 19), and continued with the wholly Cypriot looking “Mycenaean I1IC:1" (White Painted Wheelmade ILI) repertoire of Ashdod XIIIB and other Philistine (and non- Philistine) sites (cf, Caubet 1992: 124~27, 130). An implication of this is that the scope for trade in what was effectively the same pottery on both sides of the water was probably ex- tremely limited,'s A second possibility, equally likely in my view, is that an economically significant trade in pots for their own sake, such as is undoubtedly represented by a large proportion of Cypriot and Aegean imports in the preceding centuries (E, S, Sherratt 1999), was simply no longer an important consideration, now that both traders and them actively count against trade as having any role in their foundation or prosperity (2000), For the em- phasis on the almost exclusively urban nature of Philistine settlement with little sign of accompanying (et alone preparatory) rural colonization, see also Stager 1995; for the implications of this emphasis, see Bauer 1998, As it is, Barako’s conclusions seem at odds with Stager’s observation that, since the Philis- tines lacked good supplies of timber and had no metal resources, they were obviously receiving both through their crading activities (1995: 344). 45, In this connection, itis worth noting that the repertoire of locally-produced "Mycenaean I1IC1" ceramic types found at sites such as ‘Tel Miqne-Ekron and Ashdod appears to consist of drinking and ‘pouring vessels (bowls, keaters, and jugs of various sorts), with the addition of stirrup jars (Killebrew 1998: 397), Local manufacture of the former types, which are virtually identical in form and decorative style to their contemporary Cypriot-produced counterparts, would have rendered importation from Cyprus ‘edundant, particularly since these would have been imported only for their own sake and not for their ‘contents. By the same token, the local production of stirrup jars also implies import substitution of their typical contents, again reducing the scope of an import market for such vessels.46 Susan Sherratt customers were free to deal in more valuable goods and materials that had once been more closely controlled or monopolized by regional elites, At any rate, it is interesting that, among the few White Painted Wheelmade III (‘Mycenaean ITIC:1”) pots that are gener- ally agreed to be 12th-century Cypriot imports (for instance, from Tell Keisan and Beth- shean,! where there is no evidence of local production of such pottery; Warren and Hankey 1989: 163; Hankey 1993: 1043 Stager 1995: 3343 cf. Barako 2000: table 1), there is an overwhelming preponderance of closed-container shapes—mainly stirrup jars—which were presumably imported primarily for their contents, rather than as pots in their own right. As it is, even when Cypriot (Cypro-Geometric) ceramic imports to the Levant become readily recognizable again from the late 11th and roth centuries onward (coincid- ing with Phoenician expansion), both the quantity and the distributional range seem to remain severely limited by comparison with their Late Bronze Age counterparts (Schrei- ber 2000).'” Continuing with the subject of pottery, that there was at least regular and substantial contact between Cyprus and the Levantine coast (including the Philistine area) after 1200 B.C.R. seems to be indicated by the observation (for instance, by the excavators of Tel ‘Migne-Ekron) that stylistic development during the Monochrome “Mycenaean I1IC:1” phase of early Iron Age LA parallels stylistic development on Cyprus during the earlier part of LC IIIA (Dothan 1989: 4-6; 1998: 152; ef. Kling 1989: 173; E. S. Sherratt 1998: 304). Indeed, one may go as far as to argue that, between them, Ashdod XIIIB, Ashkelon Grid 38, and Tel Miqne-Ekron VII-VIC represent the entire sequence of earlier stylistic devel- opment of White Painted Wheelmade III on Cyprus, from the end of LC [IC or the tran- sition to LC IIIA to the end of Enkomi Level ITIA or Kition Floor ITI (Killebrew 1998: figs. 67, 10; E. S. Sherratt 1998: 302-3 n. 20; ef. E, S, Sherratt 1990: 156~633 Stager 1995: fig. 3). Similar considerations apply to the question of contact between Cyprus and the ‘Aegean. Here, too, actual imports of Mycenaean pottery seem to tail off by the end of the 13th century, and I can think of only one certain example in the 12th century of an Aegean LH TIC import found on Cyprus (possibly a Naxian stirrup jar, now in the City of Bir mingham Museum [Catling 1972)). Yet, although the detailed styles are different, Cyprus shares with the Aegean a parallelism in the broad trends of development of its White Painted Wheelmade III (“Mycenaean I11C:1”) pottery during the rath century, and it is even possible to trace specifically Cypriot developments traveling westward in the course 16. Among other things, the fragments from Beth-shean lack the frequently gritty surface texture characteristic of Monochrome (“Mycenaean ITIC:1") and Bichrome Philistine pottery from Ashkelon and possibly also Tel Miqne-Ekron and Ashdod (cf, .g., Dothan 1990; 20-21; Seager 199: 33~345 and sherds from Ashkelon in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford {1927.2100). 17, Indeed, there is probably a good argument to be made for the point of view that the unprece- «dented quantities of Cypriot (and lesser quantities of Mycenaean) ceramics that reached the Levant in the 14th and early 43th centuries, a considerable proportion of which traveled for their own sake rather than as containers for goods, are indicative of the specific politicoeconomic organization prevalent at the time rather than of the normal course of affairs. As long as the bulk movement of powerful materials such as ‘metals was tightly controlled as far as possible by elites, the incentive to create and supply economically significant sub-elite or substitute-elite markets in attractive but politically and socially innocuous pottery ‘was considerable, from the point of view of producers, carriers, and consumers (ES. Sherratt 1999), Once these controls were removed, however, pottery reverted to its normal status as typical “sailor's trade,” in which profits were made strictly at the margin.a? "Globalization" at the End of the Second Millennium B.c.8. 47 of the century to influence LH IIIC pottery (Catling 1972: 61; Kling 1989: 17076; cf. E. S. ‘Sherratt 1992: 195; Deger-Jalkotzy 1994: 19). We can hardly dismiss this as purely the result of some form of mystical, inherited cultural telepathy. Whatever the media by which such parallelism was effected (and both textiles and metalwork seem plausible possibilities), regular intercourse between Cyprus and areas to the west was demonstrably maintained, despite the lack of any obvious evidence of trade in pottery itself. When we look at objects other than fine pottery, the picture of an absence of trade be- ‘tween Cyprus and the Levant in the 12th century rapidly disappears. At the LC ITLA site of Maa-Palacokastro, 5,022 fragments of Canaanite jars were found, representing a mini- mum of 84 complete jars. Analysis of 26 samples of these, using a combination of petro- graphic and chemical techniques, suggests that the majority were made in centers in southern Palestine and the central Levant, while others were made on Cyprus (Hadjicosti 1988; Jones and Vaughan 1988). Equally large (if not larger) numbers of Canaanite jars spanning the LC IIC-IILA periods are known from other Cypriot sites, including Hala Sultan Tekke, and these, too, seem to include a range of eastern Mediterranean origins (Astrdim 1991)."* Ivory also continues to appear quite frequently in LC TILA contexts on Cyprus (Karageorghis 1982: 108-9; Courtois, Lagarce, and Lagarce 1986: 127-38), and it must have been imported from Egypt via the Levant, or from the Levant itself.*® Evidence for other types of goods and artifacts that crossed the water between the eastern Mediterranean mainland and Cyprus comes to us in less-direct forms, While we cannot prove that the iron knives found at Philistine and other southern Levantine sites originated on Cyprus, it seems a reasonable supposition that they did, given the con- siderably larger numbers of these found in contemporary contexts in Cyprus and their typological similarities (E, S, Sherratt 1994: 69, fig, 1). Even less direct is the evidence sug- gesting a trade in textiles, which not only arises from the prominence of artifacts con- nected with textile (and possibly also sail) manufacture at sites on both sides of the water (Karageorghis 2000: 257), but may also possibly be glimpsed second-hand in the type of decorations found on 12th-century (White Painted Wheelmade I1I/Mycenaean [IC:1" and Philistine Bichrome) pots. I find it particularly interesting that in the later part of the century, after the development of Philistine Bichrome that is characterized by the even- more-strikingly “textile” appearance of its decoration, Cypriot pottery (for example, in Enkomi Level [IC and in some aspects of the subsequent Proto-White-Painted Ware of the early 11th century) introduces additional features of shape and/or decorative style that Jook much more convincingly “metallic” (e.g., Dikaios 1969: pls. 83-85; Karageorghis 1975: pls. 14, 34, 36, 40-41, 43; cf. Steel 1994: 243). These features continue and become even 78, Olive oil (perhaps carried in some of the Canaanite jars) seems to have been produced on a large scale at a number of 13th- and r2th-century sites on Cyprus (Hadjsavvas 1992; 1996: 133) and was probably also produced at the same time in Philistia, 1t may well have moved in both directions, either on account of differing specialized qualities or additives, o in response to fluctuations in supply and demand, 19, Ivory also appears in contemporary contexts farther west, for example, at Perati in eastern Attica, Patras and Teichos Dymaion in Achaea, ‘Torre Mordillo in southern Italy, and Frattesina in the Po Valley (Poursat 19775 171-72} eiatoags 1979: 147; Vagnetti r999b: 191-92), 20. For hippopotamuses living in and around the Yarkon River in Iron Age I, see Mazar 1997b: 373. It seems likely that the hippopotamus bones found at the nearby site of Tell Qasile represent the exploica- tion of these animals primarily asa source of ivory, rather than a local gastronomic speciality.48 Susan Sherratt Se ee a more pronounced in some Cypro-Geometric wares of the late 11th-8th centuries, This hints at the development of an element of regional specialization within what had previ- ously been an area of comparatively undifferentiated (and to that extent “irrational”) trad- ing activity, with parts of the southern Levant perhaps continuing to specialize in the textiles for which the region as a whole was to remain famous in the earlier first millen- nium, Meanwhile, Cyprus—with its own copper resources and access to other metals (in- cluding silver) in the Aegean and even farther west—concentrated increasingly on the supply and production of metal goods (ef Bikai 1994: 34-35). ‘What I am arguing for (as I have done elsewhere) is an active maritime trading and manufacturing core in the eastern Mediterranean, at least for most of the 12th century, with its epicenter in the sea between Cyprus and certain areas of the mainland littoral, from Cilicia in the north to Philistia in the south. This maritime-centered core was set within a wider sphere of activity both in the east and much farther to the west. In the east, although our current knowledge is patchy due to the vagaries of excavation and the over- burden of later population centers, the apparently somewhat differing repertoires of Jocally-made pottery of Cypriot “Mycenaean I1IC:1” type that may be observed in differ= ent parts of the eastern Mediterranean mainland (including differing emphases on the range of types produced) seem consistent with the idea of a series of independent parti- cipants, each linked separately into this core primarily through contact with Cyprus as a focal center, and probably engaged in trading varying ranges of goods and commodities, depending on local circumstances. Moreover, there is a general impression of interstitial (not to say opportunistic) growth—of something that flowed like water in the cracks and crevices surrounding exist- ing (and previously perhaps more tightly controlled) systems of trade and communica: tion, Many of the r2th-century coastal sites that show the closest ceramic or other cultural relationships with Cyprus are situated broadly in areas where Egyptian or Hittite imperial or subimperial control* was strongest in the late 13th century, and where this was often accompanied bya relatively sparse network of urban centers with little sign of intensive ‘occupation of intervening areas by settled populations (Liverani 1987: 70; McClellan 1993; Falconer 1994: 326-29; Bunimovitz 1995; 1998: 108; Joffe 1997: 216; Yener et al. 2000: 187). Increasing imperial demands sucked resources into this largely center-focused system, creating economic vacuums by distorting whole areas of independent local enterprise and discouraging many forms of diversified or decentralized activity—particularly where “powerful” or valuable materials or goods (i.e., other than pottery) were concerned, In the context of the 12th century, the newly revived sites we are concerned with can generally be seen as located around the edges of reduced Egyptian and Hittite (or Neo- Hittite) spheres of activity, many of them well positioned, not only in relation to maritime activity, but also to take advantage of a proliferating series of inland-route networks that allowed them to siphon off goods and materials still traveling along “official” long- distance supply networks.” This can certainly be argued for the Philistine cities, which are well placed in relation to historical routes across the southern Judean Hills and the Liveranis “great kings" and “small kings” (1987: 66-67). +22, AAs Artay (1994; 1998) has argued for the slightly earlier Late Bronze IIB site of Tel Nami on the os coast,“Globalization” at the End of the Second Millennium b.c.. 49 northern fringes of the Negey, such as the routes that gave rise to the centers of Beer- sheba,} Hebron, Bethlehem, and Jerusalem itself, Moreover, the significance of their situation immediately on the edge of the remaining area of most intense Egyptian influ- ence and control, and close to the east-west corridor that linked the Ways of Horus with the King’s Highway and the Arabah (along which goods desired by Egypt and others, such ascopper from Timnah and Feinan and incense from Arabia, would naturally travel to the ‘southern Mediterranean coast) has not been lost on others (Liverani 1987: 71; Finkelstein +1988; Bauer 1998: 162), The trickle of Midianite pottery that can be seen traveling north- ‘westward to sites such as Gezer, Lachish, and Tell Far‘ah around this time would at least ‘appear to confirm the use of these trade routes in general (Barako 2000: 517-19; ef, Bauer 1998: 162), while the evident prosperity and apparently heterogeneous population of Tel ‘Masos, together with the renewed upsurge of small sites in the Negev Highlands and the “Transjordanian plateau, strongly suggest the involvement of greater numbers and a greater diversity of local and regional groups in the trade along them (Finkelstein 1988; Herr 1998). ‘Just who were the main beneficiaries of this trade—Egyptians or others—is hard to ‘tell, but there is no reason why it should not have been both, with others perhaps progres- ‘sively tapping into, and profiting from, what had originally started as supply lines predom- ‘inantly for Egyptian-run centers and Egypt itself, at the same time adding increasingly diversified goods and creating and feeding new markets, both on land and overseas." ‘iqually, itis hard to gauge whether the growth of independent manufacturing and trading ‘activities ar centers such as Ashkelon and Ashdod was regarded by the Egyptian authori- “ties on their borders as a subversive threat or a symbiotic convenience—but again the “answer may be: both, at different times, At any rate, there is clear evidence of some quite close connections between Egypt and the Philistine cities, at least from the later 12th cen~ nward (Weinstein 1998: 191-92; ef. Dothan 1990: 32, 34-35). _ Farther north, the site of Akko would appear to haye occupied a similar niche in rela~ to Tell Abu Hawam, an important port for Egyptian traffic via the Jezreel Valley for Ahof the Late Bronze Age, and may indeed have displaced it for a time in the 12th cen- (ef. Artzy 1998: 442-43; Bauer 1998: 155-56). Farther north still, in an area that once under Hittite imperial suzerainty, there is evidence that Ras ibn Hani, where both jot-looking “Mycenaean I11C:1” pottery (at least some of it locally made) and pottery. t resembles Philistine Bichrome have been found, continued to fulfill at least some of 43. Cf. Gen 21:22-34 for the suggestive interaction of Abraham and Philistines at Beersheba, For Tel sas ath-1ith-century structural predecessor of Beersheba, see Finkelstein 1988, ‘The face that the chief period of prosperity at’Tel Masos (associated with Philistine Bichrome pot- d the efflorescence of sedentary sites in the Negev Highlands seem to belong mainly to the second of the 1ath century (Finkelstein 1988) suggests that—as Bauer (1998) has indicated —direct involve- (as opposed to indirect and opportunistic pickings from) overland trade was a secondary develop- {atleast on the part of the Philistine cities of the Coastal Plain. “By the timewe reach the beginning of the 21st Dynasty in the early 11th century there is, of course, question of whether by Egypt in this context we mean (Theban) Upper Egypt or the CTanite) Delt is not lear that we could actually tell from the kinds of material remains involved (Weinstein 3), it ems reasonable to suppose that it was predominantly the latter (cf. also the tale of Wen- Indeed, i is quite possible chat it was the increasing involvement of the Delta in the com- trading activities of the southern Levant that precipitated the Third Intermediate split in the50 Susan Sherratt the coastally oriented functions of its Ugaritic predecessor, perhaps along with the nearby site of Ras Bassit (Caubet 1992). In the ‘Amug, a particularly important crossroads link- ing the Mediterranean coast with major inland routes (some straddled by possibly con- tinuing Neo-Hittite kingdoms such as Carchemish), “locally made imitations of Aegean pottery” from the period between 1200 and 1000 n.c.x, (“Amuq N) are also reported (Yener et al, 2000: 188-89). Although the precise nature (and probable date) of this pot- tery remains to be seen, it suggests that this region was also part of the same sort of Cypriot-linked phenomenon, Cilicia, following the decline of direct Hictite imperial control, also seems to have been drawn into a Cypriot-centered maritime orbit (Sherratt and Crouwel 1987), There the appearance in the 12th century of a number of sites on the narrow coastal plain to the west of Mersin, at the coastal end of a number of small routes into and through the Taurus (and where there are scant traces of occupation during the period of Hittite domination {Sherratt and Crouwel 1987: 341), suggests that these sites too may have been tapping into sources of goods and materials farther inland, probably ina largely opportunistic and ‘small-scale manner. ‘The one puzzle in all of this—if only we knew more about them —is the position of the Phoenician cities. Unlike some of the areas discussed above, these cities appear to have lain midway between the spheres of direct Hittite and Egyptian political influence at least after the death of Ramses II (Bikai 1992: 136; Weinstein 1992: 142-43) and thus might be said to have occupied an interstitial position on a large scale, and probably for some decades, by the early 12th century. Although there is no clear evidence that these cities produced their own versions of Cypriot White Painted Wheelmade ITI in the 12th cen- tury, it seems inconceivable that they should not have continued to engage in maritime trade of some sort during this period—and indeed Sarepta Strata G-F, in which evidence of metalworking and textile-dying seems to continue without a break from the 13th to rath centuries, produced a number of “Mycenaean I1IC:” deep bowls apparently im- ported from Cyprus or elsewhere in the Levant (Pritchard 1975: 90-91, fig, 52:1, 3; 1978: 78-79, 117-23; Koehl 1985: 119-22, fig. 8).*7 Given the probably uninterrupted growth in the strength of their own trading position from at least the later part of the 13th century (Bikai 1992; Gilboa 1998), it is possible that the Phoenician cities (unlike other, more newly “interstitial,” areas of the Levantine coast) were able to keep direct Cypriot inter- st in their own economic activities somewhat at bay and firmly under their own terms, If so, there would be little scope for the kind of intense Cypriot involvement and stim- ulation (including elements of Cypriot acculturation) of the kind that we seem to see elsewhere, An explanation of this sort might also have the ability to cast some light on the question of what happened to the Cypriot coastal urban centers at the end of the rath century (see below). 26. It may have been via Ras bn Hani that an iron knife and sword of probable Cypriot manufacture reached Hama in the 12th century (E,§, Sherratt 1994: 87). a, Tite eps cise types Gath prac 1 alos Pages OF LCITIA on Cypri aslcllg some (¢,., Koch! 1985: 44,121, no, 198, fig, 2) particularly characteristic of the later 12th century that are it replicated in the Philistine repertoire. Against this, a few of the Sarepta sherds look as though they ‘an share the gritty wrfe texture characeerai of pottery produced ne Palirtine les Ct. Kost 198% 44). The t2th-century strata at Sarepta also produced an iron knife with bronze rivets, most likely im- ported from Cyprus (Pritchard 1988: 107, no. 3).“Globalization” at the End of the Second Millennium v.c.x. su —<$ i —@—$ In the 12th century, Cypriot-based (or Cypriot-capitalized) traders linked the eastern ‘with the central Mediterranean via the Aegean. This western activity is not only seen in such phenomena as the orientalia found at sites such as Perati on the eastern Attic coast (lakovides 1969-70: 2.454~57, 469-70), but the routes and nature of much of it can be traced in the essentially maritime-based distribution of such objects and materials as iron Knives, Cypriot and “Urnfield” bronzes, amber, and ivory, and probably also the spread (both geographically and socially) of incense use in the Mediterranean (Mederos and Har- ‘ison 1996), The dominant role played by Cyprus in this westward activity is evident not only at the eastern end of these distributions and by the strong Cypriot links visible in places such as Frattesina and Sardinia, but also less directly in the conjunction of Adriatic and Cypriot objects on Thasos, for instance (E, S. Sherratt 1994: 75 n. 24; cf, Mubly 1996; 4), or in the indications that from around 1200 ».c.k, the area at the head of the Adriatic and the southeast Alpine region adopted a new weight system based on an eastern Medi- terranean shekel unit (Pare 1999; 506-8). IH. The 11th Century: The Tyrian Challenge ‘Tr would almost certainly be a mistake to imagine, however, that this eastern Mediter- ranean maritime trading network ever operated in a wholly peaceful, stable, and harmoni- ting, The stabilizing influences once exerted by the balance of Hittite and Egyptian Be saimperision had been written out of the picture, and the potentially high degree of competitiveness built into the kinds of opportunistic and decentralized trading activi- ties involved is quite likely to have resulted in an environment in which rivalry existed at “several levels (including interurban and in some cases possibly interregional), and in which ied aggression, possibly accompanied by privateering and coastal- and land-based raid- was endemic, The periodic destructions observed at sites on Cyprus and the Levan- ‘tine mainland during the course of the 12th and 11th centuries probably reflect this. This brings me to the question of what happened toward the end of the rath century and inthe “early rich century, a period of little more than 50 years that in some regions at least— iithough not in others—appears as the darkest remaining patch in our rapidly receding on of a dark age once characterized by several centuries of economic decline and re~ isolation. While there is plenty of light still in the southern Levant, where the Phi- area continued to flourish into the later arth century, apparently with increasingly ose Egyptian (or Tanite) connections (Dothan 1990: 32, 34-35; cf. Weinstein 1998: 192), ss the water on Cyprus things do not look quite so good. There the disappearance or 4¢ of 1ath-century installations at centers such as Hala Sultan ‘Tekke, Enkomi, and is accompanied by the silting up of harbors by the end of the century, probably due nore to a marked decline in their regular use than to any independent natural factors. A similar patch seems to have affected the western Aegean area, where coastal sites such as yns and Asine appear to have decreased in size around the end of the 12th century or lyin the 11th century, and Lefkandi disappears from sight for a short period (probably "ho more than 50 years) between the end of the LH T1IC settlement and the earliest graves _of the Skoubris cemetery (Popham and Sackett 1968: 5, 23). Farther west in the centralbd Susan Sherratt Mediterranean our chronology is much fuzzier, and it is impossible to tell at present whether that region also experienced a similar patch, * ‘Thisis the period of Wen-Amun’s epic journey, during which, after being given the run- around by the openly contemptuous princes of Dor and Byblos, he ends up somewhere on Cyprus, where the inhabitants are apparently either so unused to the arrival of foreign ships or so suspicious of their intentions that they are ready to kill him and his Byblite crew without first asking questions (Pritchard {ed.] 1958: 16~24). This is also the period of ‘Tiglath-pileser I's opportunistic march to the Mediterranean as far as Arvad, as a result of which he received “tribute” from Arvad, Sidon, and Byblos. It is also the period in which, according to much later traditions, the ships of Ashkelon destroyed Sidon (Bikai 1992: 132-33; Aubet 1993: 21, 26), The conjunction of all the above factors suggests that what lies behind them is not in any sense a decline in maritime economic activity in the eastern Mediterranean as a whole as much as shifts of temporary dominance within it. The story of Wen-Amun tells us of 20 Byblite ships in regular commercial partnership with the by- then independent ruler of Tanis in the Delta, and of another 50 ships at Sidon in commer- cial partnership with Werket-cl, variously identified as a resident of Ashkelon or (perhaps more likely in the context) of ‘Tanis. We also hear of the quantity and variety of goods including gold, silver, textiles, papyrus, hides, ropes, and foodstuffs (most of them des- tined to be invisible in the archaeological record, and without a pot in sight) —traded between Tanis and Byblos (Bikai 1992: 132 n. 6; Aubet 1993: 92~94). And Tiglath-pileser I would hardly have been drawn all the way to the Phoenician coast unless the “tribute” ex: tracted from Arvad, Sidon, and Byblos were something well known to be worth pursuing, Rather, what we are probably seeing are the effects of the working out of new configura- tions and alignments as the central part played by the Cypriot coastal centers in setting up and maintaining decentralized maritime trading networks in the eastern Mediterranean at the beginning of the 12th century was progressively challenged and eventually displaced by one or more Phoenician cities, themselves subject to increasing competition from each other (Bikai 1992; 1994). Be that as it may, by the later part of the 11th century we begin to glimpse the aggres- sively expanding star of Tyre emerging above the heads of its competitors and reinvigorat- ing commercial links with Cyprus and beyond,” Within another 50 years, Hiram of ‘Tyre, ‘on the strength of his city’s commercial maritime success and his own political position within the region, was able to form a mutually advantageous alliance with Solomon that not only guaranteed ‘Tyre large quantities of Israelite wheat and oil and access to the Red Sea incense route, but also ensured that his old rivals in the Philistine Pentapolis, already 28, IF it did, itis likely to have been experienced primarily at the level of a brief disruption in direct eastern contacts, That the west continued its own momentum of development, seen particularly in the continued expansion and homogenization of metalworking in the western and central Mediterranean and the increased integration of regional circulation patterns (Giardino 1992), seems clear, 29. It is Co this period that the conjunction of a Levantine juglet and an iron dagger in Barly Proto- geometric Tomb 46 in the Skoubris cemetery at Lefkandi in southwestern Euboea belongs Popham, Sackett, and Themelis 1980; 126, 25253, 347-48), This forms the prelude to an increasing quantity and variety of manufactured oriental trinkets in the Lefkandi cemeteries over the following two centuries. A ‘Tyrian fink is strongly hinted at by the fact that by far the greatest number of early southwestern Euboean ceramic exports to the eastern Mediterranean in the early roth century seem to have headed straight for ‘Tyre (Coldstream 1989: fig. ra; 1998,