Sicilian amber in West Med predates Baltic amber by 2,000 years

See:
https://popular-archaeology.com/art...rival-of-baltic-amber-by-at-least-2000-years/

"[FONT=&quot]‘Baltic’ amber from Scandinavia is often cited as a key material circulating in prehistoric Europe, but in a new study* published today in [/FONT]PLOS ONE[FONT=&quot] researchers have found that amber from Sicily was traveling around the Western Mediterranean as early as the 4th Millennium BC—at least 2,000 years before the arrival of any Baltic amber in Iberia."

"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“Interestingly, the first amber objects recovered in Sicily and identified as being made from the local amber there (known as simetite) also date from the 4th Millennium BC; however, there is no other evidence indicating direct contact between Sicily and Iberia at this time.”[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“Instead, what we do know about are the links between the Iberian Peninsula and North Africa. It is plausible that Sicilian amber reached Iberia through exchanges with North Africa. This amber appears at southern Iberian sites and its distribution is similar to that of ivory objects, suggesting that both materials reached the Iberian Peninsula following the same or similar channels.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Senior author Professor Marcos Martinón-Torres, of the Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge adds, “It is only from the Late Bronze Age that we see Baltic amber at a large number of Iberian sites and it is likely that it arrived via the Mediterranean, rather than through direct trade with Scandinavia.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“What’s peculiar is that this amber appears as associated with iron, silver and ceramics pointing to Mediterranean connections. This suggests that amber from the North may have moved South across Central Europe before being shipped to the West by Mediterranean sailors, challenging previous suggestions of direct trade between Scandinavia and Iberia.”"[/FONT]

makes me think of the obsidian trade

such networks existed, but with many middlemen and dificult to unravell

so Sardinian amber existed, but now exhausted?

bicicleur said:

makes me think of the obsidian trade

such networks existed, but with many middlemen and dificult to unravell
so Sardinian amber existed, but now exhausted?

Click to expand...

Sicilian amber, but yes, it seems so.

If they're correct about there being no direct trade between Sicily and Iberia at this time, then it would have to have been moved across North Africa and then across the Straits of Gibraltar to Spain, but is there any evidence of the amber in North Africa?

That's a supposition on their parts, though. If we take the obsidian trade as an example, it could have continued on a route across the northern Med. Just as an example, we thought we knew a lot about interactions between Sardinia and Etruria, with almost all the exchange going from Sardinia to the mainland, but just recently we found that goods not only went from Etruria to Sardinia, but the Etruscans built a settlement there.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/35200-First-Etruscan-settlement-found-in-Sardinia

I'm not convinced that there wasn't a trade route directly across the northern Med.


An Etruscan necklace made of Sicilian amber:


What's also interesting is that even the Baltic amber didn't go directly from the Baltics to Iberia but first to southern Europe and then west.

I've found a map about the amber find spots in bronze age Italy, is there one for the neolithic as well?

Does anyone notice the sites chosen for settlement by the ancients. They nearly all sit inside a sheltered bay or just up river from the coast.
Ive said from day 1 that they possessed sea going vessels. They were highly mobile on foot or by water.
Like the early explorers of the america's making contact with natives, not all were a threat and some liked to trade. these explorers would cache there goods for upto 12 months and then travel hundreds of miles making the most of fast flowing rivers to meet up with natives or ships headed back to europe, for trade.
Its pretty clear that this system of trade and travel has been around for a very very long time. Also there would have been no go areas and cut off routes due to conflict and wars.
Its like there are different factions that control there area's resources but the sea is not a border of there area, and its clearly not an obstacle.

15 ka fishermen and settlers crossed the Aegean
12 ka HG reached Cyprus
and there is nothing special about this, if you consider when Sahul and the Solomon Islands were colonised
but we don't know in what kind of vessels

I don't think the sea was an obstacle in travelling
hostile tribes were
that is why trade followed such unpredictable paths

O Neill said:

Does anyone notice the sites chosen for settlement by the ancients. They nearly all sit inside a sheltered bay or just up river from the coast.
Ive said from day 1 that they possessed sea going vessels. They were highly mobile on foot or by water.
Like the early explorers of the america's making contact with natives, not all were a threat and some liked to trade. these explorers would cache there goods for upto 12 months and then travel hundreds of miles making the most of fast flowing rivers to meet up with natives or ships headed back to europe, for trade.
Its pretty clear that this system of trade and travel has been around for a very very long time. Also there would have been no go areas and cut off routes due to conflict and wars.
Its like there are different factions that control there area's resources but the sea is not a border of there area, and its clearly not an obstacle.

Click to expand...

Even in the Roman Era, it was faster and cheaper to ship goods and men by sea. I think the odds are that there was direct trade by sea in the amber.