MULTIPLE LEVELS IN THE AEGEAN BRONZE AGE WORLD-SYSTEM Paper presented in the Invited Session "Leadership, Production, and Exchange: An Evaluation of World Systems Theory in a Global Context" at the 94th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological A~sociation, November 15-19, 1995, Washington, D. 

Aegean societies in the third and second millennia B.C. developed complex economics based on the accumulation of substantial agricultural surpluses, craft specialization, and intricate distribution systems. The trade items included both utilitarian and luxury goods. To place these activities in a proper context, this paper initially evaluates the world systems literature as it relates to antiquity. The paper then presents some specific evidence to support the contention that the Aegean BA economy was an adjunct to an Eastern Mediterranean world system. While Wallcrstcin's model offers valuable insights into the operation of trade networks, his approach has certain limitations. The paper explores some of these limitations, in particular the absence of periphery dependence on core areas that is a hallmark of modern capitalist systems, discusses revisions suggested by other scholars, and demonstrates the validity of the altered model with data from the Aegean. The evidence suggest~ the existence of a system with local, intraregional, and cxtrarcgional components. Finally, the paper also suggests that the world systems approach needs to place greater emphasis on production, not just exchange, as the crucial nexus of economic activity. figure I. Map of the Aegean !iho-wing some of the locations mentioned in the text. [Page I] Jm11r.tll ()(W()rld-Syste1n~ Re~eal'(:h Introduction ·Many schohcrs lur.rc al";ucd whether prcciq,ittl!ist rade network., constiti:ttc world systems. At lc1.1st 1.1s far I.IS the Acgc1.111 Br= Age (BA) is concerned, ,nch a description seems to be 11pJm,priatc. Overland and sea trade mntes, both local and long-di,tancc, were a rcguhcr fcati:crc of Aegean Brnnzc Age societies. In fact, exchange sy,tems of some sophistication existed in the ll!'Ca during the Ncolitlric and Mcsolitlric, bnt they did not possess the requisite traits of a world s;,'>tcm. The BA, howc.;;:r, v.11s a dilTcrcnt story. Aegean societies in tl1c tlrinl and second millennia B.C. attitincd social complexity (ranked, stratified, and finally state sMtL, in tl1c Late Brnnzc Age), v.itl1 wcll-ol";anizcd rcdi,trilmtivc and later micrkct economics bi.t.~cd on tl1c a::,mnmli.ttion of ,nbstanti.'-11 agricultnral si:nphL,cs, craft spccialwrtion, and di,trilmtion s;,'>tcms v.ith a vicricty of nodes. The trade items included sniplc foOll,, utiliticrian objects (e.g., pottc1y) and preciosities. But to place these acti.itics in a proper context, 1 would like to evaluate briefly the workl s;,'>tcms literl.lttcrc 11., it relates to antiquity, and in picrticulicr to tlic Old ·workl.1 will then present some specific c.idcncc to si:rpport the contention tl1at tl1c Aegean BA cconomywa, an a.lj-nnct o an Eastern IvicditcJrancan world s;,'Stem. ·\\llrilc Wallerstein's model offers valuable insights to the operation of trade networks, his approach has certain limitations. I will explore briefly some of these limitations , discuss revisions suggested by other scholars, and demonstrate the validity of the altered model with data from the Aegean. I will also suggest that the world systems approach needs to place greater emphasis on production as the crucial nexus of economic activity. Economic History-The Ancient Economy Before I review the world systems literature, I would like to provide an overview of scholarship on the economic history of the ancient Mediterran ean. The ideas of historians have acted as the wellspring for advocates and detractors of world systems theory (WST). [Page 2] Journal of World-Systems Research We can sec mirrored in the work of various ancient historians some of the key issues WST confronts. In his monumental work on the Roman and Greek economics, Rostovtzeff discusses the emergence of distinct economic cla~ses. He talks of an urban bourgeoisie that held most of the wealth, while pca~ant landowners, tenant farmers, day laborers and slaves had minute incomes in the Hellenistic Aegean (Rostovtz cff 194 1: 1145, 1149). In order of importance, Rostovtzcff ( 1941: 1168,1 177) lists the key economic activities a~ agriculture, forestry, minin g, and fishing. Agricultural products included wheat, barley, dairy items, honey, olive (fruit and oil), wine, and meat. Systems of production varied according to the need of each area and industry. Ro stovtzeff claims that "Decentralization of production became the tendency of the day, and local, not centralized production became the dominating feature of the ceramic industry" ( 1941: 1210). Metals were high demand objects and generated much commercial activity (Rostovtzcff 1941: 1219). Textiles were important products and exports of Egypt, Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Greek cities of the Anatolian coa~t, but most households produced material for their own needs (Rostovtzcff 1941: 1222-3,1227). Rostovtzcff suggested trade occurred at two level~. Local trade took place among the parts of the same state or other Greek states, while foreign trade involved regions ( e.g., India, Parthia, Illyria) outside that system (Rostovtzcff 1941: 1238). Even in periods ofpolitical upheaval, trade in luxury items continued. The foreign goods reached the Mediterranean by core-core exchange; the peripheral zones included such area~ a~ Somalia, Baluchistan, and central Asia (Rostovtzeff 1941: 1245, 1247). Trade in manufactured items wa~ never well developed, perhaps with the exception of luxury goods. Trade network~ tapped the va~t hinterlands of distant area~. For example, Panticapacum in the Crimea wa~ an cntrcpot for fish from the Sea of Azov and items (e.g., animal skins) from the southern Russian steppes (Rostovtzcff 1941: 1263). In a general a~scssmcnt, Rostovtzcff (1941: 1303) characterizes the Hellenis tic economy a~ capital ism, in which the Ea~t eventually incorporated the West in an oikoumcnc. The eminent sociologist Max Weber tackled the problem of how to describe the ancient economy in his book The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations. He considered the question whether "Antiquity had characteristics which rule out use of concepts used to analyze the economic history of mediaeval and modern Europe" (Weber 1976: 42). He concluded that, because property was used to make a profit in a market economy, the ancient system qualifies a.., capitalism. Indeed, capitalism wa.., particularly evident during so-called golden ages (Weber 1976: 51 ). Public finance, and in particular tax fanning, wa.., the major form of ancient capital investment. City states offered greater opportunity for such capital growth because they lacked the restrictive bureaucracies found in monarchies. So for Weber the ancient economy of the Near East and Mediterranean wa.., a variable phenomenon, but [Page 3] Journal of World-Systems Research trade played a major role in a lucrative capitalist system geared to individual profit. He outlined the major traits of ancient economics: "l) cities exported certain articles of high labor input and quality; 2) cities were constantly dependent on grain imports from distant lands; 3) slaves were purcha..,cd; 4) city policies were shaped by specific commercial interests" (Weber 1976: 48). As an extension of this view, Pircnn c (1933: 2-5) argued that the well-developed commerce of the ancient world, centered on the Mediterranean, fell apart only after the Muslim conquest of the southern, southca..,tcrn, and western shores of the great inland sea. Contrary to Pircnnc's view, the Islamic advanc es did not terminate, but rather reoriented, the system. Europeans had to trade through Muslim commercial centers, such a.., Dama..,cus and Cairo. In addition, Byzantium offered a series of important emporia, including Constantinople, Smyrna, and Trcbi zond. One can argue that this system wa.., core-core exchange, but a va..,t network wa.., tapped. M.I. Finl ey developed what some have called the primitivist view of ancient economics . Finley argues that cycles in ancient economics were due to natural cata..,trophcs and political turmoil, and not to supply and demand in a money market. In addition, he notes, in agreement with Rostovtzcff, that manufacturing played a minor role in providing goods to exchange for economic necessities (food, metal, slaves). Furthermor e, Finley contends that the much-touted ancient trade network wa.., a restricted phenomenon: The roll of nearly all the great centers ... can be called without going more than a few miles inland. For a long time everything beyond this thin belt was periphery , land to be drawn upon for hides,food, metals and slaves, to be raidedfor booty, to be ga rrisoned for defense, but to be inhabited by barbarians, not by Greeks or Romans .... To be meaning/id, "world market" must embrace something more than the exchange o_fsome goods over long distances ... One must show the existence o_linterlocking behavio r and responses over wide areas --Erich Rail's "enormou s conglom erate o_linterdependent markets"--in the dominant sectors o_fthe economy, in food and metal prices, for example, and one cannot (Finley 1973: 34). Citing the economic geographer B.J.L. Berry, who noted that central-place settlement hierarchies depend on extensive division of labor and the lack of housch old selfsufficicncy, Finley (1973: 34) suggests ancient economies, which lacked these traits, cannot be treated as capitalist systems with well-integrated exchange networks. The economic systems were much more independent. This perspective seems to mirror Polanyi's (1957) approach to ancient [Page 4] Journa I of World-Systems Research economic systems as embedded features of the particular cultures. For Polanyi, markets did not characterize ancient economic systems because they lacked the uniformity necessary for such a structure. Some of the readers will recognize in Polanyi's, and by extension Finley's, arguments the basis for the substantivist approach that decries the formalist effort to describe all economic behavior by universal rules of economic behavior. World Systems Theory Wal


Introduction
•Many schohcrs lur.rc al";ucd whether prcciq,ittl!ist trade network., constiti:ttc world systems.At lc1.1st 1.1s far I.IS the Acgc1.111Br= Age (BA) is concerned, ,nch a description seems to be 11pJm,priatc.Overland and sea trade mntes, both local and long-di,tancc, were a rcguhcr fcati:crc of Aegean Brnnzc Age societies.In fact, exchange sy,tems of some sophistication existed in the ll!'Ca during the Ncolitlric and Mcsolitlric, bnt they did not possess the requisite traits of a world s;,'>tcm.The BA, howc.;;:r,v.11s a dilTcrcnt story.Aegean societies in tl1c tlrinl and second millennia B.C. attitincd social complexity (ranked, stratified, and finally state sMtL, in tl1c Late Brnnzc Age), v.itl1 wcll-ol";anizcd rcdi,trilmtivc and later micrkct economics bi.t.~cd on tl1c a::,mnmli.ttion of ,nbstanti.'-11agricultnral si:nphL,cs, craft spccialwrtion, and di,trilmtion s;,'>tcms v.ith a vicricty of nodes.The trade items included sniplc foOll,, utiliticrian objects (e.g., pottc1y) and preciosities.But to place these acti.itics in a proper context, 1 would like to evaluate briefly the workl s;,'>tcms literl.lttcrc 11., it relates to antiquity, and in picrticulicr to tlic Old •workl.1 will then present some specific c.idcncc to si:rpport the contention tl1at tl1c Aegean BA cconomywa, an a.lj-nnct to an Eastern IvicditcJrancan world s;,'Stem.•\\llrilc The eminent sociologist Max Weber tackled the problem of how to describe the ancient economy in his book The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations.He considered the question whether "Antiquity had characteristics which rule out use of conc epts used to analyze the economic history of mediaeval and modern Europe" (Weber 1976: 42).He concluded that, because property was used to make a profit in a market economy, the ancient system qualifies a.., capitalism.Indeed, capitalism wa.., particularly evident during so-called golden ages (Weber 1976: 51 ).Public finance, and in particular tax fanning, wa.., the major form of ancient capital investment.City states offered greater opportunity for such capital growth because they lacked the restrictive bureaucracies found in monarchies.So for Weber the ancient economy of the Near East and Mediterranean wa.., a variable phenomenon, but [Page 3] Journal of World-Systems Research trade played a major role in a lucrative capitalist system geared to individual profit.He outlined the major traits of ancient economics: "l) cities exported certain articles of high labor input and quality; 2) cities were constantly dependent on grain imports from distant lands; 3) slaves were purcha..,cd; 4) city policies were shaped by specific commercial interests" (Weber 1976: 48).As an extension of this view, Pircnn c (1933: 2-5) argued that the well-developed commerce of the ancient world, centered on the Medit erranean, fell apart only after the Muslim conquest of the southern, southca..,t crn, and western shores of the great inland sea.Contrary to Pircnnc's view, the Islamic advanc es did not terminate, but rather reoriented, the system.Europeans had to trade through Muslim commercial centers, such a.., Dama..,cus and Cairo.In addition, Byzantium offered a series of important emporia, including Constantinople, Smyrna, and Trcbi zond .One can argue that this system wa.., core-core exchange, but a va..,t network wa.., tapped.M.I.Finl ey developed what some have called the primitivist view of ancient economics .Finley argues that cycles in ancient economics were due to natural cata..,trophcs and political turmoil, and not to supply and demand in a money market.In addition, he notes, in agreement with Rostovtzcff, that manufacturing played a minor role in providing goods to exchange for economic necessities (food, metal, slaves).Furthermor e, Finley contends that the much-touted ancient trade network wa.., a restricted phenomenon: The roll of nearly all the great centers ... can be called witho ut going more than a few miles inland.For a long time everything beyond this thin belt was periphery , land to be drawn upon for hides,food, metals and slaves, to be raidedfor booty, to be ga rrisoned for defense, but to be inhabited by barbarians, not by Greeks or Romans .... To be meaning/id, "world market" must embrace something more than the exchange o_fsome goods over long distances ... One must show the existence o_linterlocking behavio r and responses over wide areas --Erich R ail's "enormou s conglom erate o_linterdependent markets"--in the dominant sectors o_fthe economy, in food and metal prices, for examp le, and one cannot (Finley 1973: 34).
Citing the economic geographer B.J.L. Berry, who noted that central-place settlement hierarchies depend on extensive division of labor and the lack of housch old selfsufficicncy, Finley (1973: 34) suggests ancient economies, which lacked these traits, cannot be treated as capitalist systems with well-integrated exchange networks.Th e economic systems were much more independent.This perspective seems to mirror Polanyi's (1957)  Journa I of World-Systems Research economic systems as embedded features of the particular cultures.For Polanyi, markets did not characterize ancient economic systems because they lacked the uniformity necessary for such a structure.Some of the readers will recognize in Polanyi's, and by extension Finley's, arguments the basis for the substantivist approach that decries the formalist effort to describe all economic behavior by universal rules of economic behavior.

World Systems Theory
Wallerstcin describes a world-system a-; one of only two true social systems (the other is the small, isolated society with an autonomous mode of subsistcnce-c.g., the !Kung San foragers of the Kalahari Desert in southern Africa) because it is self-contained and its developmental dynamics arc largely internal.W odd-systems " ... arc defined by the fact that their self-containment as an economic-material entity is ba..,ed on extensiv e division of labor and that they contain within them a multiplicity of cultures" (Wall erstein 1974: 348).Wallcrstcin distinguishes between two types of world-s ystems, world-empires and world-economics; the difference is the presence in the former of a single political structure over a va..,t area.Capitalism provided stability to the modern world-economy that emerged in the fifteenth century, offered a venue for interact ion among a numb er of nation-states, and provided the means for constant expansion of the European worldsystcm .Furthermore, the operation of a world-economy requires the presence of corcstatcs and peripheral area..,.Core-s tates exhibit complex political structures (stratified cla..,s systems with large bureaucracies) and, by means of superior technology, control the major facilities of production, transportation, and communication.Political organi zation in peripheral area.., is at the pre-state or incipient state level and is relatively weak compared to that in core-sta tes.Core -states incorporate peripheral areas into the capitalist world-economy because these peripheral regions often contain important natural resources .European core -states controlled the division of labor and reserved those ta"k" that required a higher level of ability and capita l investment for th e higher-ranking area, i.e., Europe itself.Through poli tical and economic control of the system, Wall crstcin contends, core-sta tes exploited the labor and mater ial resources of peripheral area.., and received a disproportionately large share of the surplus or benefits.European nati onstatcs competed among themselves for control or access to peripheral area.., in order to increa ... c profits (Wallcrs tcin 1974: 348-350) .
Wallcrstcin's image of the emergent world-economy and the relationship between corcstatcs and peripheral areas provides an excellent model of Europ ean expansion in the early modern period.By presenting incorporation into a world-economy as largely unidirectional, however, Wallerstein oversimplifies a complex process.Hall (1986), among others, argues that one must study the local conditions in peripheral areas as well as capitalist economy in core-states in order to understand fully the nature of incorporation as a variable phenomenon.

[Page 5] Journal of World-Systems Research
Hall notes that incorporation into a world-economy is a matter of degree and that nonstatc peripheral societies play a more active role than generally believed.This aspect is particularly true for various periods in antiquity when complete domination of a peripheral zone was technologically and politically impossible.
A major issue is the degree to which the world systems model applies to the ancient world.Wallcrstein suggests the world system was an outgrowth of capitalism and is thus a creation of the sixteenth century.Braudel (1977) believes such systems existed in antiquit y.An import ant effort has been Philip Kohl's (1989) revision of world systems theory to fit ancient conditions.In a careful critique of the primitivist views ofM.I. Finley and others, Kohl cites many examples of price fixing, inflation, and m arket mentality that demonstrate the complexity of ancient economics.He builds a strong argument for the existence of an intricate multi-c entered world system during the Bron ze Age in Southwest Asia.In contrast with modern world economics, ancient technol ogies were easily transferable from core to periphery, and the latter could offer its resourc es to competing states and thus retai n its autonomy; the lack of major colonization precluded the exploitation and underdevelopment of the periphery.Kohl ( 1992) exp lores the corcpcriphcry relation ship specifically as it concerns the Transcau casus and provides concepts useful for an examination of the Aegean BA.He borrows Chcrnykh's notion of "metallur gical provinces", defined by "their shared utilization of typologically similar metal ornaments, tools, and weapons; by a common technology of metallur gical production; and by the availability of or access to the same metallurgical sou rces" (Kohl 1992: 134).What he proceeds to say about the Transcaucasus is equally app licabl e to the Aegean area: If tin was not obtained locally, the very profusion of tin-bron zes in Transcaucasia from Late Bronze times onward suggests an interregional linka ge with real economic dependencies ( or, better, inter dependencies ) .... Th e barb arian "peripheri es or northern frontiers of Tran scaucasia and Centra l Asia, like their Aegean counterpart far to the west, did not palely reflec t the light of civilization emanating from the ancient Near East; rather, they stimul ated the latter civilized areas and profoundly affecte d their courses of development" (Kohl 1992: 134-135).Below, I shall investigate the Aegean BA trade netwo rk as j ust such an interdependent part of a larger world system.Whil e the trade in metals was central to this system, I will examine other commodities that also played a significan t role .
In an effort similar to Kohl's, Zagarcll (1989) redefines the relation ship between pa.:;toral societies and early states.Similar settlement and subsistence patterns characterized both lowland and highland Mesopotamia until late Middle Chaleolithic times, when the latter reverted to smaller settlement.:;and mobile pastoralism while sites on the alluvial plains incrca.:;cd in size and intensified irrigation agriculture.Zagarcll interprets conditions in both [Page 6] Journa I of World-Systems Research area.:;a.:; efforts to enhance production.Due to environmental limitations the highland society could not emulate the lowland model ( expansion of agriculture).To enhance production, highlanders turned to pa.:;toral nomadism on a large scale.In an excellent discussion of these complementary development.:;,Zagarcll notes there is no inherent antagonism between pa.:;toral and agricultural societies.This a.:;scssmcnt ha.:; obvious implications for economic exchanges between such populations and presents a model of core-periphery interaction with no exact modern analog.
In a review of world systems applications, Schortman and Urban (1987 : 58-60) point out some of the problems a.:;sociatcd with using the world system.:;approach in archaeology.First of all, they find limitin g Wallcrstc in's definition of social system primarily in economic terms.Also problematic for them is his neglect of cultural variation a.:; an important component in the interaction process.A signific ant difficulty is W all crstcin's a.:;scrtion that prccapitalist world systems did not exist; his a.:;scrtion that prccapitalist empires were intrinsically unstable ha.:; no empirical backing (Schortman and Urb an 1987: 59).A key point is that Wallcrstcin's stress on the economic a.:;pccts of trade obscures the non-economic, non-material clements both of trade and of other types of interact ion (Schortman andUrban 1987: 61-62, 1992).In their model of int crsocictal contact, Schortman and Urban suggest the units of study should be society and ethnicity, which arc connected by the flow of inform ation, i.e., "energy, materials, socia l institutions , and idea.:;" and then a.:;sumc that "Only that information that ha.:; the ability to set off positive feedback rel ations within a society ha.:; developmental significance" (Schortman and Urban 1987: 69-69) .So, not only trade, but also factors such a.:; shifts in ideologies inspir ed by the introduct ion of foreign inform ation can generate social change.Because the various members of the network arc affected by the interact ion, they use the term cocvolution to describe a situat ion of pronounced intcrsocictal interaction (Schortman and Urban 1987: 69,76).While I agree that a narrow concentration on trade oversimplifies the proce ss of interaction, I think that a focus on mat erial concerns explains more of the variation in the archaeologica l reco rd.What, precisely, changes in this process of cocvolution?A prim ary affect is a shift in production, whether it is in terms of intensifi cation of a particular technique, or expansion in an effort to augment the resource ba.:;c.The use to which the additional products arc put will vary according to a range of value s, but the realization of the new goals, whether these arc strictly material or not, cannot be ach ieved withou t augmen ted surplus.While we cannot read the minds of people long dead, we can see the effect on the land..,cape and in sites of their change in productive capacity.The underlying goal in the ensuing discussion is to demonstrate the role of trade in expanding the productive ba..,e of the BA Aegean.Concepts provided by several other authors arc useful in this attempt.

[Page 7] Journal of World-Systems Research
Recently, Chase-Dunn and Hall (1991Hall ( , 1993) ) have suggested revisions to WST to make it appropriate to a broader historical and geographical context.The ba..,ic thrust of their work is "that the fundamental unit of historical development is not the single society, but the entire intcrsocietal context within which individual societies exist" (Cha..,e-Dunn and Hall 1993).Their goal is to provide a comparative matrix within which to study contacts for all societies, even stateless foraging groups.The interactions, in a..,ccnding order of regional extent, involve the exchange of bulk good..,, political or milita ry int erchang e, prestige good.., exchange, and information and cultural flows (Hall, personal communication, 1995); more localized interactions can be nested in mor e extensive systems.Of special relevance to the present study is their definition of two kinds of core/periphery relationships: Theflrst will be called core/per iphery d(fferentiation, in which societies at d(fferent levels of complexity and population density are in interaction with each other within the same world-system as defined above.The second type is a core/periphery hierarchy, which will be understood to mean the existence ofpolitical, economic or ideological domination between d[fferent societies within the same world-system ....We designate two types of core/periphery relations ... because we think it is mistaken to assume that all relations among "more developed" and "less developed" societies involve exploitation and the pro cesses of the development of underdevelopment which are often found in the modern world-system (Chase-Dunn and Hall 1991: 19).
This distinction places a label on the type of interaction Kohl describes for Southwest A..,ia in the BA; what he argues for is core/periphery differentiation, and I believe the same term applies to the Aegean BA trade system.Cha..,e-Dunn and Hall then propose a tripartite typology of world system.., ba..,cd on the societal complexity of th e most developed societies in each category: 1 )Kin-ba..,ed mode dominant, 2)Tributary mod es dominant (urban cultures), 3)Capitalist mode dominant.Category 2 includes both primary empir es and multic entered world-systems in which peripheral zones, empir es, and autonomous states interact; the Aegean system fits the second of thes e two cla..,ses.From this theoretical edifice , Cha..,c-Dunn and Hall (1991: 27-30) derive four work ing hypotheses: l ) Social hierarchy institut ions are mandatory for int crsocietal domination.2) Stratification in core societ ies enhances the ability of core/periphery hierarchies to exploit peripheral zones.3) The development of mar ket exchange, monetary systems, and other mechanism.., of trade facilitate the spread to perip heral regions of social and technological elements from the core.4) Social innovation occurs readily in semipcripheral zones because they receive input from cores and peripheries and arc [Page 8] Journal of World-Systems Research not burdened by excessive core controls.Chase -Dunn and Hall provide a dynamic, useful model by which to understand the variation in world systems and to test basic concept<;.The present study is in part an answer to their call for case studies to provide the comparative data base necessary to test their hypotheses.Sherratt (1993) has used the term "margin" to refer to a zone that does not interact directly with a core, but does provide materials that are critical to the operation of a world system.He points to the role of amber from the Baltic region and various metal<; from central Europe in the Mediterranean trade system.The urban core of the Near East and the Aegean in the Bronze Age stimulated the exchange of many commodities through multiple links without members from either geographical extreme ever coming into dir ect contact.Parts of this system existed in the Neolithic and continued down into historic times, but not without alterations.The trade in metals, especially bronze, was particularly significant; the liquidity provided by bronze made possible the int egration of "regional exchange cycles".Sherratt implies the Bronze Age is aptly named, not simply because of the artifacts, but because this metal alloy fueled the economic expans ion on which many early states depended.

The Aegean World System
The Aegean culture area is bounded by the Greek mainland on the west, Macedonia and Thrace on the north, Anatolia on the ca<;t and Crete on the south (Fig. 1).The continental shores of the area arc heavily dissected and offer numerous good anchorages.For millennia, the rough hinterland ha<; forced the people of the region to look to the sea a<; the major avenue of trade and communication.Human occupation in the region dates back to the Lower Palaeolithic (Tartaron and Runnels 1992), but witnesses no great upswing until the Neolithic.With the exception of Crete and some of the Northern Sporadcs, none of the Aegean islands wa<; settled until well into the Neolithic.The Bronze Age, however, witnessed a substant ial incr ca<; e in site numb er, size, and complexity (Cherry 1990;Jameson ct al . 1994).The conditions for stratified society developed in the third millennium B.C .and blossomed into state-level organi zation in the next millennium (Renfrew 1972).Scholars have argued for th e primacy of various factors in the emergence of these early state polities, represe nted by the great palaces at Mycenae, Knossos, Pylos, and cl<;cwhcrc. Halstead (1981;ct al. 1986) stresses the role of social storage in a redistributiv e economy .Renfr ew (1972) [Page 9] Journal of World-Systems Research has offered a variety of hypotheses.His subsistence /redistribution model argues that domestication of the vine and olive stimulated the cultivation of marginal land.., in the Early BA and led to an increase in population and subsequent stratification throu gh unequal distribution of the wealth generated by the agricultural system.In the craft specialization /wealth model, Renfrew contends that specialized production and trade produced wealth, and stimulated hierarchical social divisions.Van Andel and Runn els (1988) suggest that elites sponsored agricultural enterprises because domesticat ed product.., provided much of the trade material by which elites gained their exalted status.These and other views assign trade a critical importance in establishing and maintaining complexity.While trade is only one facet of the total center-periphery connection (Edens 1992: 134), it ha.., received a great deal of attention.Below I will examin e the Aegean exchange network a.., a general system and then how it relates to several specific materials, i.e., obsidian and metal ( copper and bronze).
I would like to suggest emendation of the system described by Cha..,c-Dunn and Hall (1991).In particular their conception of the core/periphery differentiation is applicable, with some modifications, to the situation in the BA Aegean.Whcrca.., they sec societies at different levels of socio-political integration interacting in such a system, I suggest there arc instances in which the groups involved are at the same level of compl exity, i.e. peer politics (sec Renfrew and Cherry 1986).Furthermore, the specific syste m in the Aegean had three interconn ected, but also separable levels: l) Internal.Such networks operated within a narrowl y defined region in which land transport or short coa..,tal hops suffic ed for the transfer of goods.The local system.., on Crete, Cyprus, and the Argo lid peninsula would be of this type.In each area th ere existed a group of relatively small states, described a.., Early State Modules (ESMs) by Renfrew (l 984 ).Within each polity were a number of settlements which exchanged a variety of commodities.I do not mean to suggest that the exchange wa.., egalitarian.Some individuals and settlements certainly acted a.., key nodes in the system and siphoned off a significant share of the good ....I would argue, however, that there wa.., a rough parity in the economic structure within each of the polities, and that most of the ESMs were on an equal footing.Involved in such exchanges would be a range of good.., either native t o each region or ca.., ily obtained by each.
2) Intermediate.This system encom pa..,sed the entire Aegean area and thus involv ed sea travel between island and mainland .Scholars have formulated various schemes to model this interaction.Cherry and Davis (1982) propo sed a "Western String" exchange system

Journal o.lWorld-Sys tems Research
the western Aegean between Attik.a and Thcra, and others have suggested a Minoan thala-;socracy in which Crete governed a va-;t commercial empire.Knapp (1993) denies the existence of such commercial monopolies.Whether one polity or island wa-; preeminent in this trade or not, the exchanges took place between entities of roughly equal stature.The commodities involved in this network.probably included some foods, pottery, and certain prestige good-; not available locally.
3) Long-distancc.ln this category would be connections with societies outside the Aegean area, including the Near Ea-;t, the Anatolian interior, and Egypt.The available evidence indicates that this cxtrapelagic exchange centered around a variety of goods, including food-;tuffa, utilitarian good-;, and preciosities.The system brought Myccnacans and Minoans into contact with the great empires of North Africa and the Levant, but neither side dominated the other, although there certainly wa-; influence ( economic, artistic, ctc.).ln WST terms, this wa-; core-core interaction.It is perhaps at this level that one can best perceive the large-scale BA system which, according to Frank (1993), pervaded the entire Near Ea-;t and neighboring area-; like the Aegean.Frank also discusses the cyclical expansion and contraction of the BA world system.He suggests that the period 1400-1200 B. C., which coincides with the Late BA in the Aegean and will be the focus of much of the discussion below, wa-; a general pha-;c of expansion (Frank 1993: 389).
The Shcrratts (l 993) discuss the development of a Mediterran ean world system in th e first millennium B. C. in a similar fa-;hion.They suggest that, in contra-;t to the Bronz e Age, the Iron Age economy exhibited considerable local variation a-; the result of people taking advantage of regional opportunities.While I believe the BA economy also had considerable local differentiation, I do agree that the system wa-; highly fluid and that individuals played an active role in shaping the exchange networks.
The key point about obsidian procurement is that visitors to Melos seem to have had direct, unimpeded access to this resourc e (Renfrew 1982: 223-224;Torr ence 1986).It seems that travelers roughed out conical cores which they carri ed back to hom e sites for final tool production.The distribution of obsidian suggests that people in th e Cyclades, Crete, and the Greek mainland all had the opportunity and kn owledge to acquire and process the material (Renfrew 1972: 443).If any regulatio n of the obsidian trade did occur, it is more likel y that such control starte d at the coa<;tal sites where the rough cores arrived.Sites in closest

[Page 12]
Journa I of World-Systems Research physical proximi ty to Melos have the majority of the cores; a<; distan ce from the source incrca<;cs, the cores disappear while blades persist in the archaeolo gical record.Van Horn (1980) records the rela tive abundance of blade cores in the Argolid and the accompanying plethora of blades.This contra<; ts with the situation at Servi a in Macedonia where blades seem to have been imported already mad e since no cores were retrieved during the excavat ion (Watson 1983: 122).A similar condition seems to have existed on Crete, with cores and blad es at Mochlos, but only bl ades at Deb la and Myrtos (Warren and Tzcdhakis 1974: 332;Warren 1972: 326-328).What we find is that, apart from one or two gateway communities, the distribution of obsidian is relatively uniform throughout the individual regions.In addition, the pattern appears to be the same betwe en regions and suggests that the ESMs attained a certain internal consistency.For example, Bennet (1990: 199-200) argues that the palaces of Crete were indigenous developments and that, despite strong tics among them, no one center held hegemony over the others.
The Linear B tablets from palace archives, especially those of Pylos and Knossos, provide considerable detail on other facets of the internal economic system.Chadwick (1976) ha-.reconstructed many aspects of Mycenaean life from these document-..The tablets from Pylos indicate that the state was composed of a series of communities (damos) intimately tied to the palace.The king (wanax) headed a social hierarchy in which land was assigned by title.Chief-tenants and sub-tenants administered and worked the farm land and produced substantial amounts of wheat and barley.A significant portion of the crop wa-.transferred to the palace storerooms, from where rations were meted out to slaves and others who labored in the palace work-.hops.In times of need the palace stores sustained a significant number of the region's inhabitants.Other agricultural product-.involved in this redistributive system were olives, wine, figs, honey, and livestock (Chadwick 1976: 116-128).The image that emerges from the text-.is of a centralized system in which land tenure depended on one's relation to the palac e.Whether one looks at Pylos, Knossos, or Mycenae, the systems exhibit a considerable de gree of homogeneity.Agricultural product-.found their way into the central storehouses and lesser quantities then went back out through the various channels.An important question is whether these palace economics constituted market systems.There is no evidence of markets in the Linear B texts, but these deal only with the flow of goods into and out of the palaces.There is reference, however, to private property (Chadwick 1976: 117), and there is a stress on profit, whether from crops or secondary animal products, especially wool.In addition, it is hard to imagin e that the residents of the villag es and hamlets did not periodically gather to exchange what surplus remained after the palac e "taxes" were paid.Chadwick (1976: 158) suggests som e mark ets existed, but he questions the [Page 13] Journa I of World-Systems Research exist ence of a regular merchan t cla-.s.

Intermediate System
The interchang e of mater ial from island to island in the Aegean best represents this level of the Aegean world system.Throu gh this system, products peculiar to specific parts of the Aegean found their way to all corners of the archipelago.In addition, the mor e productive area-., such a-.Crete, found outlets for th eir surplus.The much-deb ated question of a Minoan thala-.socracy in essence a-.k-.whether the Cyclades, Dodckancsc, and the Greek mainland were periph eries under the core domination of Crete.Although not phra..,ed in WST terms, Evans (1921) provided an early expression of this perspective.He believed that Mycenaean civilization not only received its generative stimulus from Crete, but also that the mainland wa.., under the political, economic, and artistic sway of the Minoans.When Wace (1949) and others demonstrated the independence of Mycenae , the way wa.., opened to a more interactive model of Aegean BA economy.The archaeological record indicates a symmetrical economic relationship among many of the settlements, but there is also evidence that Crete's "pull" created some imbalances.In the second millennium B.C., Cycladic culture wa.., a rich fabric oflarge settlement..,, unique expressive art, and material prosperity.Much of that prosperity probably derived from the fact that the various islands served a.., way stations for the commerce between Crete, the Greek mainland, and area.., to the ea..,t.The "Western String" exchange system proposed by Cherry and Davis (1982) tied Kea, Melos, and Thera into a trading relationship with Attik.a and Crete.From Laurion in southea..,tern Attik.acame lead, used for rivets, plugs, and waterproof linings for storage bins, and silver, an important medium of exchange in the entire region (Weiner l99la).In the other direction went Minoan pottery, various manufactured status goods, and probably woolen textiles (Finley 1981: 3 7-38).As the system of trade became incrca..,ingly important to Crete, evidence for Minoan infiltration of the Aegean increa..,es.There is a Minoanization of pottery, town-planning, and artistic expression in various important sites, such a.., Akrotiri on Thera and Trianda on Rhodes .From such evidence, Weiner (1984, l99la: 31) argues for the presence of many Minoans or their descendants in the Cyclades and Dodek.anese,but the natur e of the contacts "may include casual, unofficial, small-scale migration involving merchants ... or an expanding Minoan elite seeking to carve out baronies, or a Cretan nobility exercising loose diplomatic control".The Aegean interm ediate or regional world system benefitted many local communities and engendered, at most, a loose confederation within which Crete wa.., unable to exercise hegemony even though her dynamic economy and elites generated much of the [Page 14] Journal of World-Systems Research demand for goods that raised production levels and stimulated trade.While certain individuals may have desired to control the system, they could not fully expl oit it because of the numb er of middlemen, and their relative isolation on so many islands .

Long-Distance System
The trade in obsidian and certain other commodities seems to have been limit ed to the immediate circum-Ae gean region.Other items, however, trave led much further and brought the Aegean world into contact with Near Ea..,tern civilizations and periph eral zones.A wealth of evidence ha.., appe ared from the hold of a Lat e BA ( ca .1400 B .C.) shipwreck excavated by George Ba..,s and his colleagues (1986 ;1989;Pulak 1988).The Ulu Burun wreck, off the southwest tip of Ana tolia , wa.., a merchantman returning from an exped ition to the Levant and Cyprus.The ship contained both raw and manufactur ed goods.In the former category are copper and tin ingots in the ox-hide shape, spherical gla-;s ingots, unworkcd elephant and hippopotamus ivory, orpimcnt (arsenic trisulfidc--a pigment), myrrh and :frankincense (Ba-;s 1986), and two logs of Egyptian ebony (Pulak ct al. 1992). Foodstuff-;included pomegranates, acorns, figs, grapes, olives, almonds, safflower, wheat, barley, pulses, coriander, sumac, and probably wine and olive oil (inferred from the great number of amphorae); the cargo also includ ed an estimated one metric ton of terebinth resin, used in the producton of aromatic oils and emollients (Ba-;s 1986;Haldane 1993;Pulak ct al. 1992).The finished products included Cypriot pottery, Syro-Palestinian pottery, gold and silver jewelry of Canaanite form, bronze tools and weapons, hematite weight-;, stone artifacts, beads of faicncc, gla-;s, and amber (Ba-;s 1986), two Near Ea-;tcrn (Ka-;sitc) cylinder seals, and a gold scarab with an inscription indicating an 18th Dyna-;ty Egyptian origin (Ba-;s et al. 1989).The ship wa-; trav elling cast to west at the time it met disa-;tcr.Pulak (1988: 36-37) suggests the ship had a Mycenaean origin, with landfalls at Syrian ports (e.g., Ugarit), and CyprLL-;; it may have been headed for Rhodes or the Anatolian coa-;t, with a high probability that much of the copper was destined for Crete, and a subsequent continuation to Egypt is a possibility.An Aegean-Egyptian connection is well established.In Egyptian texts and funerary art, individuals identified a-; Kcftiu, and dressed like Minoans, are depicted delivering goods to Pharaoh and other lords.In addition, a substantial amount of Minoan pottery appears in Egyptian contexts (Kemp and Mcrrillccs 1980).What is clear is that the Ulu Burun ship wa-; not unique and that an extensive network connected the Aeg ean directly to North Africa, the [Page 15] Journal of World-Systems Research Levant, CyprLL-;, and the Anatolian coa-;t.Beyond the direct tics, indir ect tra de link ed th e Aegean with the Anatolian interior and Mesopotamia.
The metals trade is the best example of the international commerce in which Aegean peoples engaged.Borrowing from Kohl, I would suggest the existence of an Aegean or Ea-;tern Mediterranean metall urgical province that clearly represents a world system, but one with a core-core relationship .Sherratt (1993) ha-; argued that bronze wa-; the critical commodity whose liquidity facilitated the integrat ion of regional exchan ge systems ; elite demand for bronze greatly stimulated metal production.Bronze wa-; a critical resour ce in the BA Aegean because it provided weapons, tools for the construction of the great palaces, and prestige o~ject-; (Weiner 199la: 22,199lb: 327).Weiner (199la: 23) contends that the economic and political security of the Minoan elites depended on bronze, and thLL-; the procure ment of the metal "would hav e been the object of int ensiv e searc h, planning, and investment".Edens (1992: 126) makes a similar argument for the Mesopotamian worl d system.He suggests that the shift from chert to copper or bron ze sickles and other tools reflects incrca-;cd economic and probably political centralization bccaLL-;e metals arc rarer and more difficult to obtain .In addition, he argu es that luxuri es became necessities in the Persian Gulf trad e.Several questions arise from Ed ens argument: Did people have to accede more to the demands of the elite, who controlled the metal trade?Docs trade in certain materials, especially metals, become institutionali zed?To answer such questions, which place trade in its larger cultural contcxt--Edcns (1992: 134) argues trade is just one facet of core-periphery relationships and cannot be comprehended without consideration of warfare, diplomacy, cultural hegemony, and the social contexts of production and consumption, much in the way that Chase-Dunn and Hall (l 991) argue for the nested nature of these relationships--one must consider the procurement, production, and consumption systems.I will now turn to a consideration of each of these components of the Aegean economic system.
Procurement required extensive contacts.The Aegean has only a few large sources of copper.Lead isotope analyses (Gale and Stos-Galc 1982) have identified several key sources for BA artifacts; these include Kithnos, Sifnos, Laurion, and Cyprus, with the latter two by far the most important by the Late BA (sec Budd ct al. 1995 who disput e the interpretation).The other critical component required to make a good bronze alloy is tin, which is much rarer than copper.There is considerable debate about the sources of the tin used in the manufacture of Aegean bronze.Y cncr and others suggest the deposits near Kltcpc in Anatolia were mined in the BA, but Muhly and others disagree.Weiner (l99la: 23) suggests three possible island chains comprised the major routes in the Aegean, especially Minoan, [Page 16] Journal of World-Systems Research search for copper and tin.One was to the north through Thcra, Naxos and Kea to Laurion--Chcrry and Davis' "Western String".A second went cast to Cyprus and on to the Levant, and perhaps on to Mcrsin in southern Anatolia, with stops at Kasos, Karpathos, Chalki, and Trianda (Rhodes).The third route followed the west coast of Anatolia to Knidos, Iasos, Milctos, Tcichiussa, then to Troy by way of Samos; stops on this route could have included Kalymnos, Telos, Nisyros, Astypalaia , and Kos.Obviously, the Aegean merchants merely bartered for ingots at the various ports of call.The Ulu Burun wreck gives us an indication of the quantities involved.The ship was carrying about 300 ox-hide copper ingots (average weight: 25 kg) and a dozen tin ingots.These quantities surpass those recorded in many ancient Near Eastern texts (Pulak 1988: 34-35) .Ifwc assume that this shipment was large, but not unique, we get some idea of the scale of the metal trade .
A second, but equally important, problem in evaluating the trad e network is the administration of the system.It is clear that by the Late BA, Crete and the mainland had well developed palac e bureaucracies that had a major interest in the metal trade .But did the palaces regulate and subsidize the long-dis tance trade or did independent m erchants undertake the ventures?Branigan (1982) suggests there was free-lance trade in metals.I agree with Weiner ( 1987: 264) that the role of copper, bronze, and other metals to the elites was of such importance that the expeditions were planned and subsidized by th e by the palaces.The importance of copper and bronze in particular ha.., already been discussed above.There is clear evidence in the distribution of bronze artifacts for privileged access.Just a.., significant is the evolution of written scripts by which th e palaces administered the metal trade.Some have argued that the administrati ve system ba..,cd on seals and writing wa.., borrowed from the Near Ea..,t a.., a result of commercial contacts.While there is no doubt about Aegean familiarity with Nea r Ea..,t crn peoples and product..,, the process of diffusion is complex.It is important to note that when Cyprus becomes a major supplier of copper to Crete, people on the former island opt for Minoan Linear A rather than cuneiform a.., the administrative script (Palaima 1989; Weiner 1990:   236).A.., Weiner (1987: 263) ha.., stated: "any amount of trad e at a given time can tak e place without writing, but both complex administration and investment over time require literacy.Providing ships and goods for extensive oversea.., trade involves an investm ent over time."Thus, the Aegean world system involved the emergence of social hierarchi es, but none of the major trading partners had the ability to dominate the others, i.e., th ere is no development of a cla..,sic core-periphery dependency relationship.
Production involved several different levels.Smelting wa.., often performed at or near the quarries.Alternatively, certain sites intermediate between the inland quarries and the coast provided this service; for example, the site of Pamboulari tis Koukounina.., near

[Page 17] Journa I of World-Systems Research
Athicnou in central Cyprus is some distance from both the copper-b earing mount ains and the sea (Dothan and Ben-Tor 1983).Kcswani (1993) argues there were eight coppcrproducing politics on LBA Cyprus, and these centers provid ed raw material for th e Aegean.The ingots were then transported to coa..,tal area.., (mentions of donkey caravans in some texts) and transhippcd to the various Aegean locales.The transformation into finished products took place under the watchful eye of the palac e administrators.Th e best evidence for the syste m comes from the tablets at Pylos.These tablets were meant a.., only temporary records on unbaked clay; the conflagration that destroyed the palace ca.1200 B .C. fortuitously fired the document.., and made possible their preservation.Th e tablet.., thus provide inventories for one sca..,on, or at best, one year in the palace system .Scribes recorded the quantities of bronze allotted to bronzcsmiths in the palace and in surrounding communities from palace stores.A system of weights and fractions permitted accurate recording of the quantities so a ... signcd.Metal smiths may have emerged a.., specialists in the Middle BA; th ere is a smith's shop at Malthi (Mcsscnia) and possibly another at Lerna (Argolid) in the pre-palatial period on the mainland (Vcnn culc 1964: 75, 228).Each table t in the Jn series from Pylos provid es a place name, list of th e smiths and the quantity of bronze allotted to each, and a total ; there is commonly another list of smiths who receiv ed no metal.It seems that approximately one-third of all the smiths were not working metal at the time tablets were wr itten; the remainder may have been invol ved in subsistence activities, and suggests the presenc e of part-tim e specialists who could be called upon when conditions required a larger pro fessional work force.Chadwick (1976: 140-142) estimates there were close to 400 smiths in the Pylos kingdom.Palace control of the metal industry is suggested not only by the disbursements recorded in the tablets, but also by the concentration of smiths in certain areas, with up to 26 in one locale.The amounts of bronze assigned to each smith are relatively small, with a range from l.5 to 12 kg and an average of 3-4 kg.Total quantities are significant: one tablet records l,046 kg and another l,562 kg.The artisans fashioned a wide range of artifacts from bronze: pots, cups, braziers, knives, axes, adzes, tweezers, razors, saws, chisels, awls, scale pans, lamps, and a wide assortment of military equipment, including daggers, swords, spearpoints, arrowheads, armor, helmets, and bindings on chariot wheels (Chadwick 1976: 142-143).Estimates suggest that from a ton of bronze the smiths could manufacture 534,000 arrowheads or l,000 helmets (Vermeule 1964: 228).
Just as important as productive capacity are the relations of production.As mentioned above, the smiths were under palace direction.They worked, in large part, at the sufferance of the central administration, which hoarded the supply of raw materials.Despite the quantities mentioned in the tablets, bronze was gene rally in short supply and palace officials regulated its flow.Chadwick (1976: 141-142)  Journa I of World-Systems Research system of rationing.Bronze was in relatively short supply and its use was prioritized, with military concerns primary.Tablet Jn 829 details contributions of bron ze from local governors requested by the palace in order to make spear and javelin points.One assumes the bronze was gathered and then distributed to the smiths, who melted down the artifacts and produced the weapons, which were, in turn, returned to the palace.Other evidence for the existence ofa crisis is found on tablets (An 657, An 654, AN 519, An 656, An 661) that mention groups of coast watchers "guarding the coastal regions" under the direction of royal officials; the subsequent destruction of the palace is mute testimony to the inability of the administration to handle the situation (Chadwick 1976: 175-177).The bronzesmiths can be classified as attached specialists whose role as artisans was subsidized, directed, and in large part developed because of the needs of the palace elite.The palaces would have supported other specialists, such as potters, fresco painters, architects, stone masons, and lapidaries, the bulk of whose products ended up in royal storerooms.To be certain, there must have been other artisans, full-time and part-time, who provided various goods and services to non -elites, but economic specialization seems to have been rather centralized.
The metal artifacts were largely consumed by elites.Large quantities of bronze swords, daggers, and armor have been found in Mycenaean and Minoan tombs.These objects probably represent the milita ry nature of the hierarchy that held sway on the Greek mainland and at Knossos in the Late BA Gilman ( 1981) has argued that such objects in the European BA bespeak societal domination by a warrior class.Nothing from the Aegean contexts seems to dispute that claim.The Shaft Graves in Grave Circle A at Mycenae date to the early Mycenaean (early Late BA, ca.1550-1450 B.C.) and provide good evidence for the concentration of wealth by the elite.A partial inventory from Shaft Grave IV in Grave Circle A includes three gold ma"ks, two gold crowns, eight gold "diadems", 27 sword", five daggers, 16 knives, five razors, 22 bronze va5cs, 38 arrowhead", 683 gold discs and rcpousse ornaments (Vcnncul c 1964: 88 -89); th ere arc a host of other objects, but even this incomplete list of the metal offerings demonstrates the exalted status of those interred.In addition to the bronze, other materials of foreign origin were found in this grave: ostrich eggs (Nubia), lapis lazuli (Afghanistan by way of Mesopotamia), alaba"tcr and faicncc (Crete), ivory (Syria), silver (Anatolia), amber (Baltic region) (Vcnnculc 1964: 89).Excavations at Aegean BA sites over the pa"t 125 years have revealed a decidedly skewed distribution of such materials.The luxury items appear in abundance in tombs and palace destruction levels at the major centers and in smaller amount" in large residences at secondary sites.In addition to domestic consumption, metal artifacts were probably also key exchange items in trade among the

Journa I of World-Systems Research
Aegean politics and with the mor e distant members of the world system (e.g., Egypt, Anatolia, Syria).Chadwick (1976: 141) argues, correctly I believe, that the suggested numb er of 400 smiths in Pylos produced a significant surplus, beyond dom estic ( elite and non-elite) needs, of bronze objects, many of which were exported by sea.Th e forei gn trade, especially that in metals, wa5 central to the Aegean BA econom y and its disruption could have had disa"trous consequences for the palace administrative systems.Such a disruption did occur in the 12th and 13th centuries B.C. and the entire ca"tcrn Mediterranean world system suffered a serious decline.The Aegean branch of that system did not recov er.Many scholars cite the inva5ions of the so-called Sea Peoples, recorded in Egyptian documents, a" the series of events in the Late BA that reflect th e dislocation of many people in the ca"tcrn Mediterranean; the mov ements of these people in their search for new homelands upset the political and econo mic system in the reg ion (Knapp 1992) .The collapse of the trade system led to the decline of the Aegean elites.Perhaps more important than the exchange system per sc wa" the decline in production, with its stimulative impact on society (Harris 1991: 21-23).

Conclusion
In sum , the Aegean trade system wa" extensive and administered by the palaces in the Late BA It brought into contact a variety of cultures with well develope d economics and an appetite for prestige and utilitarian goods.Because of the distanc es involved and the lack of direct control of sources of raw materials, no dependent core-periphery relationship s emerged betwee n the Aegean and the other major players (Egypt, Mesopotamia, Lcvantinc states).This docs not minimi ze the importanc e of the world systems perspective for provi ding a theoretical approach to understand the context of interaction.Wallerstein's original formulation is flexible enough to accommodate the somewhat different economic conditions of antiquity.What is clear is that there was in place an interaction sphere that involved several different levels.The local system involved the exchange of materials within the ESMs.The Aegean system encompassed an interaction sphere in which the mainland and islands participated.With the exception of possible Minoan colonists on some Aegean islands and the Late BA Mycenaean occupation of Knossos, the Aegean core politics ( e.g., Mycenae, Knosso s, Pylos) did not maintain a permanent residence in areas from which they derived materials.The extraction of raw materials was locally controlled; contact with the Aegean ESMs stimulated production, but did not evidently lead to political domination.The Eastern Mediterranean world system was an international interchange that involved the tran sfer of [Page 20] Journa I of World-Systems Research both bulk goods and preciosities to and from the Aegean, Egypt , the Syro-Palcstinian coast, Cyprus, and Anatolia.Direct Aegean contacts were limit ed to coastal areas in these other lands.The network, however, did extend far beyond the littoral zones.Tin came from th e interior of Anatolia, ostrich eggs and gold from as far as Nubia, aromatic ointments from the Arabian peninsula, cylinder seals from Mesopotamia.Th ere is some evidence to suggest that the procurement of the raw materials in some of thes e areas was accomplished by way of direct core exploitation of peripheral areas.For example, cuneiform tablets indicat e that Assyrian traders established an outpost at Kan esh (Kiiltepe) in central Anatolia in ca.1950 B.C., and from this site exported tons of copp er to Mesopotamia.The texts also explain that Kancsh was the central node in a series of nine Assyrian outposts in the region (Oz gi.i<;1963).Furthermore, if the name "Kaptara" refers to Crete, as many scholars believe, then the mention in a Mari tablet of a man from this area as the recipient of tin from the cast (Weiner 1991b: 328) establishes the link between the Mesopotamian and Aegean world systems.While the relation ships among the various participants in the interlocking exchange systems varied, there is a clear reliance by urban centers on products or materials available in marginal zones.Th e inability , in most cases, of the core states to muster sufficient manpow er to subjugate the peripheral areas precluded the development of a dependent rol e for the latter.With the modifications mentioned above, the term world system still serves we ll to characterize the internal and external relations of the late prehistoric Aegean area in the BA.
detects a distinct note of urgency in the Pylos [Page 18]