Anatolia and Etruria have been separated by scholarship as much as by the Mediterranean itself. Although Anatolian archaeology has rested in the preserve of Near Eastern scholars, with Etruscan studies falling more within the domain of Classical-oriented scholars, neither sits at the center of Near Eastern or Classical Archaeology. Recent theoretical developments that seek to connect communities more effectively have begun to emphasize the links between these cultural groups and thus bring together their respective scholarly disciplines. This contribution examines the history of interest in the relationship between Anatolia and Etruria, and it reassesses our evidence for it within a Mediterranean-wide context. To do this, it considers historical interpretations of these connections and presents a new perspective that balances shared practices with localized differences, which increasingly is preferred to characterize this period of Mediterranean history.

The temporal focus of the present volume lies predominantly between c.1100 and c.600 BCE. In the chronologies of the disciplines of Near Eastern Archaeology and Greek Archaeology, this period is known as the Iron Age. This chapter explores the relationship between this absolute date range and its descriptor. In addressing when the Iron Age begins and ends, it also considers who the protagonists of this era are, and how have we identified them as such. None of these topics is straight-forward, however.

One of the most dramatic features of our connected Mediterranean Iron Age period is the use of writing by many of the populations across the sea with alphabets of a common origin. This is the first such occurrence in Mediterranean history. The mechanisms by which this happened, where and when have been the subject of considerable debate, given the particularly patchy nature of the evidence of writing during this period. Our preserved examples are on very durable materials, such as ceramic, stone or metal, although much more was likely written on perishable media, such as papyrus and parchment, which simply have not survived.

To understand the nature of interconnections between people in dispersed places, we must first consider by what means such groups maintain those connections. This is what underpins globalisation processes in a globalising world. Indeed, in modern discourse, globalisation is often regarded initially and predominantly as of an economic nature, from which other forms of connectivity develop, including socio-cultural ones. The foundations of the intensive and widespread interconnectivities we see developing over the Mediterranean Iron Age have their origins in the exchange of objects. This is an economy of both things and ideas, however, since the use of objects in new contexts may well differ from how such items were used in their context of origin. Understanding both their common appeal and transnationalised uses together enables us to consider globalisation in action.

This volume has focused on certain features – materials exchanged, urban development, the use of writing – because these have been the emphasis of much archaeological research on this period to date, especially with regard to comparative Mediterranean Iron Age colonisation studies. Other aspects could have been examined, such as religion, technology, wealth or identities, aspects that are also of considerable interest to scholarship of this period. These aspects cannot be divorced from an interpretation that incorporates knowledge and understanding of the role Phoenicians and Greeks played in creating such a connected Mediterranean (and the Etruscans, to a more limited extent). Yet in order to demonstrate how globalisation thinking can provide a fresh means of reconsideration of not only the movement of people, but also the impact such movements had on others, it has been necessary to begin with an assessment of where we have come from in our interpretations. For this reason, this volume has emphasised those well-known, perhaps obvious, features of study to demonstrate more clearly and explicitly the utility of a globalisation perspective. As a result, a starting point from which to assess additional aspects has now been established.

The Mediterranean is both simple and challenging to define. It is an inland sea where the continents of Europe, Asia and Africa meet (Figure 1.1). It is bounded by a coastline that extends from the shores of modern day Syria, Lebanon and Israel in the east to Morocco and Gibraltar in the west, and it is ringed by mountains for much of its perimeter. This is particularly true along its northern edge, where the environment mutates between high, wide mountainous ranges, fertile upland plateaux, and lower-lying plains. Along its southern littoral, there are sharply defined landscapes of fecund hinterlands and desert expanses. The sea itself is often considered an open, uniform expanse between landfalls that is described by its surface conditions, currents and wind patterns. Its islands may be regarded as stepping stones across the expanse of water and, indeed, have been used by people in this way throughout its inhabited history. Collectively, these present a kind of unification to the definition of what the Mediterranean is. But such a singular conceptualisation can break down when one recognises that the Mediterranean comprises the sum of many seas, such as the Aegean, Adriatic and Tyrrhenian, each of which possesses its own character, and as a result requires its own distinctive navigation methods and sailing crafts.

The origins of the city are often traced back to the fourth millennium BCE Mesopotamian city of Uruk. Thus, we should not be surprised to find that cities were a feature of the eastern Mediterranean, in particular, long before the dawn of the Iron Age. Indeed, Mediterranean archaeology more widely could be described as an archaeology of urban contexts, since most sites that have been examined are of an urban nature, and for major settlements, it is usually the public spaces, including cemeteries, that have been the focus of fieldwork. Thus, we have considerable evidence pertaining to the complex built environments of antiquity. Yet the variability between the socio-political and physical characteristics of such places renders it difficult to define ‘the city’ or what it means to be urban for the Mediterranean past.

The trait that most characterises the Mediterranean Iron Age is the movement of groups and individuals on an unprecedented scale, particularly the Phoenicians and the Greeks. Their settlement around the Mediterranean is the focus of this chapter. Understanding the motivation behind any such mobility enables us to then characterise the nature of that movement. Scholars have therefore often sought overarching reasons, such as economic pressure on the Phoenicians to pay tribute to the Neo-Assyrians, or overpopulation in the case of the Greeks. Climatic developments are also cited as a push factor, building on recent evidence of more arid, cooler and unstable conditions around the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean between the thirteenth and tenth centuries, and efforts have been made to link such changes to very particular events. None of these can be applied broadly, however. As we shall see below, new data for Phoenician movement in the Mediterranean no longer supports the tribute payment theory, while for the Greeks, the only regions that seem to demonstrate population increase in the early first millennium BCE are those that do not appear to have established settlements elsewhere in the Mediterranean at this time. With regard to the environmental evidence for this era more generally, since most climate data are on multi-decadal to century-plus scales, it is extremely difficult to tie these results to a particular historical process. Furthermore, given the geographic microregionality of the Mediterranean zone itself, neighbouring regions may not have necessarily experienced the same environmental changes concurrently, if at all, although change in one area may well have impacted on another region because of response strategies in the climate-affected area. In short, no single explanation can account sufficiently for the variety of developments we see in the centuries around the turn of the first millennium BCE. The scenario was much more complex and multifaceted. Motivations behind mobility, therefore, must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.