In this study, we outline a maritime perspective on interaction in the Late Bronze/early Iron Age Mediterranean. In response to what has elsewhere been termed the ‘maximalist’ approach, which foregrounds direct, long-distance trading connections between distant Mediterranean regions as a key feature of Late Bronze Age exchange systems, we propose a more nuanced, ‘minimalist’ and argue that notions of contact, connectivity and mobility need to be carefully distinguished if we wish to discuss both the material and social dimensions of maritime mobility. In particular, we critique the prominently proposed, allegedly direct trade route between Sardinia and Cyprus. The network we suggest hinges on multiply connected nodes, where a variety of social actors take part in the creation and maintenance of maritime connections. By unpacking several such nodes between Sardinia and Cyprus, we demonstrate that simply asserting the dominance of Sardinian, Cypriot or Aegean mariners falls short of the complex archaeological evidence and eschews possible social interpretations. In conclusion, we submit that maritime connectivity is an inherently social activity, and that a culturally diverse prehistoric Mediterranean was connected by multiple interlocking and overlapping networks.

Recent research reveals what we term a ‘discourse of certainty’ regarding an assumed predominant socio-economic and cultural impact of Late Bronze Age Cypriotes or Mycenaeans on the local peoples of Sardinia and/or Sicily and Italy, not least in terms of a systematic, seaborne trading network extending from the Cyprus to the Tyrrhenian Sea. ‘Minimalist’ approaches to such a phenomenon have a long and venerable but more limited pedigree. In this study, we question why minimalist views have been so summarily dismissed in much current literature that seeks to evaluate an eastern Mediterranean presence or influence in the central Mediterranean. We focus on Sardinia, and on the range of Cypriot or ‘Cypriot-type’ materials found there. We consider the nature of the Cypriot–Sardinian relationship, and suggest that we should decouple foreign objects from foreign agents. We question several of the perceived Cypriot influences on Sardinian artefacts, and consider possible alternative mechanisms and routes of exchange between the east and central Mediterranean. We outline and discuss the array of presumed or actual Cypriot artefacts found on Sardinia, and argue that these do not add up to a ‘significant’ corpus of Late Cypriot materials and connections.

Ling and Stos-Gale (above, p. 206) end their study on a safe, if rather vague, note: “[w]e could, perhaps, consider the maritime-themed rock art depictions [of ships and copper oxide ingots] as records of travellers’ tales, where representations of reality mingle with myths, magic and sailors' stories”. Yes, perhaps we could, since at least two of the ingot depictions (Kville 156:1 at Torsbo, Norrköping) look strikingly similar—as the authors note—to the ‘pillow ingots’ (Kissenbarren) known from the Mediterranean world. Or, perhaps, we could remain more cautious before even broaching the idea of interconnectedness between Late Bronze Age Scandinavia and the eastern Mediterranean. Such a suggestion requires a lot more faith in the basic arguments of Kristiansen and Larsson (2005)—namely, that Europe and the Mediterranean formed a massive, open network through which warrior elites and others travelled at will—than I am able to muster. For Kristiansen and Larsson, cultural contact and cultural change ultimately still flow ex oriente—thus, they return whence Childe began. Yet whereas their work is an attempt at synthesis, not analysis, Ling and Stos-Gale have a stab at analysis, of the lead isotope variety. The question is how well they succeed.