Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-995ml Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T13:35:00.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Interactions and -isations in the Aegean and beyond

Review products

Barry P.C.Molloy (ed.). Of odysseys and oddities: scales and modes of interaction between prehistoric Aegean societies and their neighbours. 2016. vi+460 pages, numerous b&w illustrations. Oxford & Philadelphia (PA): Oxbow; 978-1-78570-231-0 paperback £38.

EviGorogianni, PeterPavúk & LucaGirella (ed.). Beyond thalassocracies: understanding processes of Minoanisation and Mycenaeanisation in the Aegean. 2016. x+224 pages, numerous b&w illustrations. Oxford & Philadelphia (PA): Oxbow; 978-1-78570-203-7 hardback £45.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anthony Harding*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Exeter, Laver Building, North Park Road, Exeter EX4 4QE, UK (Email: a.f.harding@exeter.ac.uk)

Extract

Connectivity in the ancient world has become a subject of such consuming interest in recent years that new publications on various aspects of the issue, pertaining to some area or period, appear with great regularity. Just in later European prehistory we have Continental connections: exploring cross-channel relationships (Anderson-Whymark et al.2015), Exchange networks and local transformations (Alberti & Sabatini 2013) and Enclosed space—open society (Jaeger et al.2012), to name but a few. One can hardly believe otherwise than that every part of the later prehistoric world was intimately involved, not only with its immediate neighbours but also with other areas near and far. Allied to this is the matter of colonialism and ‘post-colonial’ archaeology, with questions of hybridity, importation, local imitation and acculturation or adaptation; all these are things that loom large in these volumes and many others (e.g. Stockhammer 2012). The question of ‘-isations’, such as ‘Romanisation’, has been a concern of archaeologists for many years; here it is ‘-isations’ of the prehistoric Aegean world that are the focus of attention.

Type
Review
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alberti, M.E. & Sabatini, S. (ed.). 2013. Exchange networks and local transformations. Interaction and local change in Europe and the Mediterranean from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. Oxford: Oxbow.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson-Whymark, H., Garrow, D. & Sturt, F. (ed.). 2015. Continental connections: exploring cross-channel relationships. Oxford: Oxbow.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broodbank, C. 2004. Minoanisation. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 50: 4691. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S006867350000105X Google Scholar
Buck, R.J. 1962. The Minoan thalassocracy re-examined. Historia 11: 129–37.Google Scholar
Furumark, A. 1950. The settlement of Ialysos and Aegean history c. 1550–1400. Opuscula Archaeologica 6: 140271.Google Scholar
Haas-Lebegyev, J. & Renfrew, C.. 2013. The spools from Dhaskalio, in Renfrew, C., Philaniotou, O., Brodie, N., Gavalas, G. & Boyd, M.J. (ed.) The settlement at Dhaskalio: 491504. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Harding, A. & Kavruk, V.. 2013. Explorations in salt archaeology in the Carpathian Zone. Budapest: Archaeolingua.Google Scholar
Horváth, T. 2012. ‘Spool-shaped clay artefact’: an unknown object-type of the Boleráz-Baden Cultures. Archeologia Moldovei 35: 297310.Google Scholar
Jaeger, M., Czebreszuk, J. & Fischl, K. (ed.). 2012. Enclosed space—open society. Contact and exchange in the context of Bronze Age fortified settlements in Central Europe (Studia nad pradziejami Europy Środkowej 9). Poznań & Bonn: Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe and Rudolf Habelt.Google Scholar
Jones, R., Levi, S.T., Bettelli, M. & Vagnetti, L.. 2014. Italo-Mycenaean pottery: the archaeological and archaeometric dimensions. Rome: Istituto di Studi sul Mediterraneo Antico; Incunabula Graeca, CIII.Google Scholar
Jung, R. & Mehofer, M.. 2008. A sword of Naue II type from Ugarit and the historical significance of Italian-type weaponry in the Eastern Mediterranean. Aegean Archaeology 8: 111–36.Google Scholar
Jung, R. & Mehofer, M.. 2013. Mycenaean Greece and Bronze Age Italy: cooperation, trade or war. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 43: 175–93.Google Scholar
Pare, C.F.E. 1999. Weights and weighing in Bronze Age Central Europe, in RGZM (ed.) Eliten in der Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen: 421514. Mainz: Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum.Google Scholar
Pare, C.F.E. 2013. Weighing, commodification and money, in Fokkens, H. & Harding, A. (ed.) The Oxford handbook of the European Bronze Age: 508–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199572861.013.0029 Google Scholar
Peroni, R. 1998. Bronzezeitliche Gewichtssysteme im Metallhandel zwischen Mittelmeer und Ostsee, in Hänsel, B. (ed.) Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit Europas: 217–24. Kiel: Oetker-Voges.Google Scholar
Ruiz-Galvez, M. 2000. Weight systems and exchange networks in Bronze Age Europe, in Pare, C.F.E. (ed.) Metals make the world go round. The supply and circulation of metals in Bronze Age Europe: 267–79. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Sørensen, M.L.S. 1997. Reading dress: the construction of social categories and identities in Bronze Age Europe. Journal of European Archaeology 5: 93114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/096576697800703656 Google Scholar
Stockhammer, P.W. (ed.). 2012. Conceptualizing cultural hybridization: a transdisciplinary approach. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar