Value is one of the concepts which are of importance in the way people structure their material surroundings. According to the philosophy of Georg Simmel, value finds its origins in the tension between the desire for objects and access to them. The dimensions of desirability and accessibility may be investigated archaeologically, in order to approach the concept of value. Such a perspective is taken in this article with reference to three different classes of imported Mycenaean pottery, which have been found in the Late Bronze Age levels of the site of Ugarit at the Mediterranean coast of Syria. It is concluded that various vessel types were appreciated differently at the city. The meanings imposed on these imported objects derived from the roles they played in the local cultural context.

Frank De Mita, Sophia Voutsaki and Todd Whitelaw, obviously, took the article for what it was meant to be: not a final assessment of the use of the concept of value in archaeology, nor a definitive analysis of the Mycenaean pottery at Ugarit, but an attempt to explore these issues as a basis for further discussion. Consequently, it is difficult for me to react to their comments. I can only nod in agreement to many of the points they raise and I feel that I just ought to thank them and go back to work with their valuable insights in mind. Instead of taking such an easy way out, however, I will react to some of the general issues raised by the three critics. Before doing so, I will briefly elaborate on the reasons why I chose Ugarit as the site to conduct my analyses. I feel this is necessary, because some of the criticisms derive from the difficulties inherent to the material of this site and below I will, unfortunately, repeatedly be forced to point to the limitations.