Београдски историјски гласник IV, 2013
Belgrade Historical Review IV, 2013
Прикази / Reviews
Danijela Stefanović, Ph.D.
Assoc. Prof.
Department of History, Faculty of Philosophy
University of Belgrade
[email protected]
Maria Eugenia Aubet, Commerce and colonization in the Ancient Near
East (English transl. by Mary Turton; first published 2007), Cambridge;
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013, vii, 414 p.
(ISBN 9780521514170)
This is the English translation of Maria Eugenia Aubet’s Comercio y
colonialism en el Próximo Oriente Antiguo. Los antecedentes coloniales de III y II
milenios a. C., published by Ediciones Bellaterra (Barcelona) in 2007.
The introduction states that ”in this analysis of the first colonialisms in
history, the eastern roots of the Phoenician colonial system in the first millennium
BC are traced and the metropolis of Tyre is established as the final link in a
long chain of colonial experiences in the ancient Near East. The author reviews
some of the theories and debates about trade and the colonial phenomenon,
scrutinises the colonial situations that arose in the East in a context of longdistance inter-regional trade, and analyses the examples – Egypt, Byblos, Uruk,
and Assur – where a metropolis with a mercantile tradition intervenes and acts
as intermediary in different inter-regional exchange circuits.”
The material presented by the author is organized into two main sections:
Part I – The debate concerning ancient economy (pp. 7–115) and Part II – Trade
and colonialism in the Near East (pp. 117–369).
Within the first part of the book (subdivided into four chapters: 1. The
first great debate: primitivists versus modernists; 2. Karl Polanyi and his view
of ancient economy; 3. Colonialism and cultures in contact: theorisings and
criticiques; 4. The place of trade in ancient economies) the author presents
the state of art in respect to the debate between primitivists and modernists
(represented respectively by K. Bucher and E. Meyer), as well as the substantivism
of K. Polanyi, but also analyses other theoretical models such as postcolonialism.
In respect to the theoretical concepts, the third chapter (pp. 41–78) is of
233
БИГ IV (2013) 233–252
particular importance: Aubet argues that although colonialism appears to have
existed throughout history, the approaches to this phenomenon tend to rely
on the already existing, or better to say ‘already recognized’ Greek and Roman
Eurocentric models. Another important issue which the author elaborates is
that of postcolonial theory and the study of the other, which presents another
aspect of the process of colonization, i.e. interdependence between settlers and
local populations.
The first part of the book ends with the chapter ‘The place of trade in
ancient economies’ (pp. 79–116) which is based on the concepts of exchange
that Polanyi postulated, and on the further modifications of C. Renfrew, and
their implementations into archaeology.
The second part of the book is introduced by the chapter ‘State trade versus
private initiative’ (pp. 117–156). Starting with the concepts of temple or palace
economies, and following Polanyi’s postulates of redistribution, Aubet touches
upon the concept of new modernist such as C. Charles Lamberg- Karlovsky and
M. Silver. Other issues analyzed in the same chapter are those of the role of the
merchants, market economy, the regulation of prices and tariffs, and the role of
silver in the exchange of goods.
In the following chapter named ‘Uruk and the first colonialism’ (pp.
157–200), the author examines the early Sumerian interregional trade and its
importance for the formative state. Furthermore, the model of G. Algaze of
colonialism of Uruk is favoured, and contrasted to the theories of H. T. Wright,
H. J. Nissen, C. Gosden, and G. J. Stein.
Regarding the second part of the book the reviewer feels most ‘at home’
with Egypt and so will concentrate on that. The seventh chapter, ‘Byblos and
Egypt: reciprocity and shared ideologies’, gives an overview of Neolithic and
Chalcolithic Byblos, and also focuses on the early contacts with Egypt during
the Predynastic period. According to Aubet, Egypt established – after the
political unification of the country – small colonial enclaves in the Levant. The
Egyptian Old Kingdom artefacts discovered in Byblos, as well as the attestations
of Egyptian officials, are especially emphasized. According to the author, these
evidences consolidated the idea of Egyptian colonialism.
In more recent years, several important studies have been published
which shed considerably different light on the nature of contacts between Egypt
and Byblos, and raise the question: is it really appropriate to speak of Egyptian
colonies in the Levant, especially during the Old and Middle Kingdom?1 What
1
See especially Karin N. Sowada (Egypt in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Old Kingdom: An Archaeological Perspective. With a contribution by Peter Grave, Göttingen 2009) on the
contacts between Old Kingdom Egypt and its eastern and northern neighbours, but mainly with
the Levant during the Early Bronze Age. The most recent study is Andrés Diego Espinel (Egypt
and the Levant during the Old Kingdom, Aula Orientalis 30, 2012, 359–367)
234
Прикази / Reviews
seems in fact to be a mark of ‘egyptianisation’ of Byblos, and Byblite rulers, as
an effect of Egyptian diplomatic and commercial practice with the Canaanite
city,2 for author is the sign of Egyptian colonialism.3 The analysis of scarabs and
sealings of Egyptian officials found in Byblos4 and of Canaanite scarabs found in
Egypt (especially those coming from Tell el-Dab’a5 which is completely lacking,
would perhaps challenge the author to reconsider her conclusions, i.e. the nature
of Egyptian ‘presence’ in Byblos especially during the Old and Middle Kingdom
(c. 2680–1750 BCE).
‘The Assyrian trade network in Anatolia: the metropolis’ (pp. 267–306),
presented in chapter eight, examines the Assyrian trading colonies, emphasizing
the importance of karum Kanesh and its links with the city of Assur.
In the ninth chapter, ‘The Assyrian trade network in Anatolia: the colonies’
(pp. 307–364), karum Kanesh is analyzed from the stand point of archaeology,
with a special emphasis on its social and political organization, within the
framework of colonial doctrine.
‘Final thoughts’ (pp. 365–370) summarizes the author’s conclusions and
assumptions of the colonial system of the Ancient Near East, stressing, with all
good reasons, its divergent nature.
Despite the reviewer’s few comments, the book of Maria Eugenia Aubet is
a welcome addition to the general study of the Ancient Near Eastern economies.
Still, the time span between the two editions necessarily has asked for updates.
2
See Roxana Flammini, Elite Emulation and Patronage Relationships in the Middle
Bronze: The Egyptianized Dynasty of Byblos, Tel Aviv: Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of
Tel Aviv University 37, 2010, pp. 154–168.
3
For Aubet the temple of Ba’alat Gebal is one of the ‘key-arguments’ for her theory of
Egyptian colonialism. See, for example, very different approach to the same issue by Andrés Diego
Espinel, The Role of the Temple of Ba’alat Gebal as Intermediary between Egypt and Byblos during
the Old Kingdom, Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 30, 2002, pp. 103–119, and Marat Yunusov,
Baalat Gubl and Hathor: The history of relations between Byblos and Egypt in the periods of the Old
and Middle Kingdom, Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 2, 2005, pp. 3–13.
4
For a recent study, see Daphna Ben-Tor, The historical Implications of Middle Kingdom
scarabs found in Palestine bearing Private Names and Titles of Officials, Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 294, 1994, pp. 7–22; Id., Scarabs of Middle Bronze age rulers of Byblos, in: Bilder als Quellen. Images as Sources. Studies on ancient Near Eastern artifacts and the
Bible inspired by the work of Othmar Keel, ed. by Susanne Bickel, Fribourg 2007, pp. 177–188.
5
See Daphna Ben-Tor, Scarabs, chronology, and interconnections: Egypt and Palestine in the
Second Intermediate Period, Fribourg 2007, with more extensive bibliography.
235