Ialysos in the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean

Lorraine Weis Ialysos in the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean Introduction Reconstructing the civilizations and interactions of the Late Bronze Age Aegean is a complex problem. The chronology for this region is largely described by trends in Mycenaean pottery, and trade of such objects allows the archaeological find to be correlated to those of other regions such as Egypt and Anatolia with varying strength, since Mycenaean pottery was widely distributed through the Mediterranean. This substantial propagation of both Mycenaean objects and styles indicates regular trade from the center of Mycenaean palatial civilization during the Late Bronze Age. However, quantifying trade from archaeological remains is a difficult prospect. Not only may artifacts be sparse, but objects may be traded multiple times, stockpiled, or copied so that it is difficult to attach them to interactions between particular cultures in a given time period. Despite these difficulties, reconstructing trade relationships is helpful in understanding economic and political structures in a civilization as they change over time. The island of Rhodes is a particularly interesting site for evidence of Mycenaean trade. As the largest island of the Dodecanese, it sits at the southwest corner of Anatolia, at the edge of the Aegean. Ialysos, a large settlement on the northern point of Rhodes, is a natural port for trade between mainland Greece and the eastern Mediterranean. The Late Bronze remains there show connections with Minoan Crete, Mycenaean Greece, Anatolia, and Cyprus in various time periods, indicative of Ialysos’s significant role in trade over a fairly wide geographical area and long timescale. Remains at Ialysos show stratification, which allows the development of a chronology for the remains with respect to other regions. While burial offerings are skewed to the wealthy, they do provide some perspective on population demographics, and the island’s relationship with other cultures. 1 Lorraine Weis Figure 1: Map of the southern Aegean (Berg) In order to examine the role of Ialysos in Southeast Aegean trade, the remains must be placed in a larger context. This paper provides a brief background in pottery, trade, the Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations, and the Dodecanese as a region. Evidence of cultural interaction between Ialysos and foreign cultures are analyzed for relevance to trade and cultural exchange with the major cultures at the time. This evidence allows some illumination of the larger cultural interactions in the Eastern Mediterranean during the late Bronze Age. Pottery Pottery is the standard tool in building a chronology of the Late Bronze Age (LBA). A number of characteristics make it particularly useful in building frameworks. The styles change 2 Lorraine Weis frequently compared to other artifacts such as bronze. Since pottery is commonly used in burials and discarded in garbage heaps, relative time can be determined by stratified layers of pottery. It is also used in a variety of settings; for storage, domestic wares, and prestige items, and therefore can represent a large vertical range of society. The vessels and storage containers also provide insight to the trade of other commodities such as textiles and bulk organic or metal materials. Furthermore, since styles and materials are also characteristic of cultures and regions, pottery may also be used to help quantify trade and cultural interactions. Mycenaean pottery remains demonstrate use by a large economic section of society. On Cyprus, for example, imported pottery is found in settings ranging from practical and domestic settings to aesthetic or religious contexts. Mycenaean pottery was found in an industrial complex, as well as in tombs as prestige items. (Wijngaarden, 128) Still, the significance of Mycenaean pottery varies significantly by region, especially outside the Aegean, where other aspects of Mycenaean cultural influence are less strong. By looking at the remains from individual sites in a broad context, a larger picture of LBA trade may be compiled. Mycenaean pottery is a particularly useful tool in the LBA Aegean because of its wide dispersion and fairly cohesive styles. While a detailed description of each phase of pottery is beyond the scope of this paper, the main Mycenaean periods are called Late Helladic (LH) I, II, III, with further divisions allowing more specific discourse. (Taylour, 30) Figure 1 demonstrates how these are roughly correlated to Egyptian, Minoan, and the Anno Domini chronologies. 3 Lorraine Weis Figure 2: Relation of key Mediterranean chronological frameworks. (Taylour, 30) Trade A study of trade allows a glimpse of social structure and intercultural relationships, based on the substantial archaeological evidence. Fully reconstructing ancient societies is a complex problem. However, the exchange of resources or culture can provide a limited understanding of infrastructure and broader interactions. In order to apply an understanding of trade to historical issues, a vocabulary has been developed to articulate the mechanisms of how trade may affect participating civilizations. Goods of another culture may be acquired in numerous ways. Distinguishing between these mechanisms provides substantial insight towards the relationship between the involved cultures. The methods include raiding and plundering, tribute, taxes, gift exchange commercial foreign 4 Lorraine Weis trade, politically administered trade, the movement of craftsmen, and imitation. (Renfrew, 12) Each mechanism might correlate with varying power imbalances, political ties, and hostility levels. Trade is a useful tool in archaeology, since it leaves substantial evidence that may be linked to locations and cultures. It is associated with the growth of civilization, since it fosters the development of cultural centers and specialties. Renfrew defines six processes by which central places are formed, either through internal or external exchange, which are discussed below. The trade of goods within a culture, and the associated more centralized social structure, in three ways, which Renfrew identifies as: social and religious exchange, population agglomeration and specialization, and intraregional diversity. Social and religious exchange drives the establishment of periodic centers, providing a motivation for different groups to interact. Over time, a periodic center may develop into a permanent center, with central persons supported by the surrounding population. Population agglomeration and craft specialization also lead to the growth of settlements and towns, since people may accomplish a wider variety of tasks when excess resources may be conveniently exchanged. (Renfrew, 26-32) Intraregional diversity also encourages the exchange of goods, since it allows broader access to particular resources. Each of these processes encourages the development of a more centralized structure. A more structured neighboring culture can encourage centralization in the surrounding region through urban imposition, implantation, and emulation. Urban imposition, perhaps as the result of armed conflict, may force an indigenous population to develop a similar internal structure. Implantation, or colonization, which is more of an insertion of a self sustaining community of foreigners, encourages intensive trade and thus economic organization. Emulation would also 5 Lorraine Weis encourage development; if the objects and structure of a more powerful foreign culture are seen as prestigious, indigenous peoples are likely to imitate these aspects. (Renfrew, 32) The distribution of regionally identifiable goods or cultural elements can suggest particular modes of exchange, which allows a better understanding of interactions between cultures. Renfrew also describes several modes of trade, such as direct access, central place redistribution, colonial enclave, and port-of-trade, each with a varying expected distribution of goods. (Renfrew 41-43) Obviously, since archaeological remains are sparse and probably a skewed sample of traded goods, establishing a convincing model is a complex prospect. In the Late Bronze Age Aegean, it is difficult to establish which sites were colonies, and which were local trading centers. Many sites show heavy influence, either Minoan or Mycenaean, but also retain some local cultural elements. The prevalence of hybrid cultures in boundary regions indicates a substantially more complex trade network than can be satisfyingly resolved with available evidence. Still, working to understand of trading relationships is key in developing a much fuller perspective of social structure and intercultural relationships in the Late Bronze Age Aegean. Mycenaean Greece The Late Bronze Age Aegean was largely shaped by two civilizations; the Minoans and the Mycenaeans. While these civilizations overlap, in terms of time period, spheres of influence, and cultural elements, they are distinct enough to provide an interesting and evolving picture of the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean. Establishing a general context within Minoan and Mycenaean cultures provides a means for understanding remains at specific sites, such as Ialysos. The Aegean shows a transition between the dominance of Minoan Crete and Mycenaean Greece in the Late Bronze Age. This makes evidence of influence from these cultures valuable in reconstructing this transition. 6 Lorraine Weis The Minoan civilization was a dominant power starting in the Protopalatial period of Crete. Minoan cultural influence was certainly widespread based on pottery styles,

Load more