Dennis Poulter asks:
> Are you then suggesting that these established, densely populated and
> successful states were influenced or even dominated by the relatively
> small and poor Cretans and Myceneans? This seems to defy common-
> sense.
It does defy common sense as presented. For some reason we are culturally
"memed" to think only in terms of "states". The Greek colony tradition was
not new..it goes back through Myceneans to Cretans to Anatolians. It may be
simply a sea trade version of the land trade Assyrian enclaves in Anatolia.
Relatively small yes, but Poor? I don't think so. A sea trade base in
several locations in the Levant coupled with the routes and the technology
(or access to it through the colony network) and the shipping..gave them
dominance of what they wanted dominance of: Sea trade.
The Levant (and possibly Phoenicia) is comparable to Ionia in this
respect..I keep seeing references to Ionia as a State..It wasn't, certainly
not prior to Persian consolidation..It was an area of Lydia in which the
culture and wealth was significantly influenced by the presence of the Greek
colonies spotted about the mouths of rivers, which were trade highways from
the interior. Croesus was simultaneously making treaties with some of these
"trade enclaves" while besieging others. I submit the Levant was similar: a
series of "sea peoples" colonies inserted into a locally governed and
populated (however dynamic) region with no intent on hegemony or political
dominance..going through a series of "remote store business managers".
I suspect the Egyptians at one point recognized the value of this
"business" set up (as the Myceneans had recognized the value of the
Minoan)..and challenged the control of the trade bases. A similar scenario
could have generated the so called "Sea Peoples" invasion attempt. I don't
think any military force capable of the armada suggested as entering the
Delta in that conflict seriously considered it possible to militarily
dominate Egypt by floating linearly up stream on the Nile (a row of
perpetual targets...it is militarily dumb.) That was a dispute over "who
owns the store on the coast". Certainly the Egyptian attempts to build a
naval trade power included contract and mercenary "sea men" from the
established traditions. But they were trying to edge into a market system
that was already ancient.
La Revedere;
Rex H. McTyeire
Bucharest, Romania
<
rexbo@...>