Content uploaded by Karl Moore
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Karl Moore
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
The Birth of Brand1
Karl Moore2
Associate Professor
Susan E. Reid3
Assistant Professor
1 The authors gratefully acknowledge the help of David Lewis, Henry Mintzberg, Alan Rugman,
Laurette Dube and David Ulrich. We also like to thank participants who have made many
helpful comments at seminars at Oxford, Cambridge, University College London, Erasmus
University, Keio University, Tuck, USC, Duke, UBC, Warwick University and McGill.
2 Karl.moore@mcgill.ca, Faculty of Management, McGill University, 1001 Sherbrooke Street
West, Montreal, Canada, H3A 1G5, Telephone: 1 514 398-4138, Fax: 1 514 398-3876
3 sreid@ubishops.ca, Williams School of Business and Economics, Marketing Area
Lennoxville, Quebec, Canada, J1M 1Z7, Telephone: 1 819 822-9600, Fax: 1 819 822-9661
2
The Birth of Brand
Abstract
This paper seeks to show that brands are as old as civilization. It derives evidence of branding, in
various forms, from important historical periods beginning 2250 BCE in the Indus Valley
through to 300 BCE Greece. This evidence is compared with modern research directed toward
developing a meaning of “brand”.
3
INTRODUCTION
The first Journal of Marketing article on the topic of “brand” can be traced back to H.D. Wolfe’s
1942 “Techniques of Appraising Brand Preference and Brand Consciousness by Consumer
Interviewing”, with several other articles on brands and branding appearing in the popular
literature even earlier in the 20th century. While some thirty brand and branding articles
appeared in the top three consumer behavior journals (Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of
Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research) from 1942 to 1969, branding as a major topic of
study in the marketing discipline, began in earnest in the 1970’s. Books and journal articles have
tackled the topic of branding from a variety of perspectives. Specifically, a good portion of the
research on brands is devoted to building a better understanding in the areas of brand choice (or
preference), brand switching, brand loyalty and brand extensions. Table 1 provides an overview
of articles, according to topic area, from the top three consumer behavior journals (Journal of
Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research) where the main
focus was examining brands and branding. We note that this sample of articles is based on a
keyword search for “brand” or “branding” in the citation, and thereby is not exhaustive. As such,
there are likely to be many other articles on these topics that have not been included. However,
we feel that this sample provides a good overview and an idea of the level of focus on each topic
category that has been achieved to date in the literature.
Place Table 1 about here.
Interestingly, very few of the listed articles have strictly examined the inherent characteristics of
brands themselves. In other words, very few of the articles take the approach of asking the
4
question: “What is a brand?” Rather they have focused almost exclusively on the consumer side
of the equation in order to determine what makes an effective brand from the perspective of the
consumer, as reflected by most of the topic categories listed in Table 1 (i.e., brand choice, brand
switching, brand loyalty and the like). While we understand that effectiveness is an important
component of brands both from a strategic perspective and from a consumer satisfaction
perspective, a better understanding of the actual characteristics inherent to brands, will help to
both enrich our understanding of the topic and point to new potential avenues of research. As
such, this article seeks to gain a better understanding of what makes a brand, and will do so using
an historical methodological approach as has been applied in discussion on the occurrence of the
first proto-multinationals (Moore and Lewis 1998; Moore and Lewis 2000).
As Marketing’s study of branding has progressed, so too has the usage of branding by managers.
Several popular journals, including Brandweek, Brand Marketing and Brands and their
Companies have been mainstays for marketing management during the last two decades. Further,
Ries and Ries’ critically acclaimed “The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding” (1998) and Trout and
Ries’ “Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind” (1981) have created a veritable cult around the
importance of branding for today’s marketing managers. Taken in combination with the evidence
provided in Table 1, an important question arises as to whether branding really only began in
earnest in the latter half of the 20th century. Or, has branding existed, before the advent of
modern marketing? In order to answer these questions, it is necessary to first probe the extant
literature to determine whether it is possible for brand characteristics to exist separately from
consumer interpretation. Second, in order to answer the question regarding the existence of
5
brands and branding prior to the latter half of the 20th century, it will be necessary to find
historical evidence of products demonstrating brand characteristics.
This paper seeks to show that brands and branding are as old as civilization. We will demonstrate
evidence of “proto-brands” from as early as it has been possible to trace human existence. This
paper derives evidence of branding, in various forms, from important historical periods
beginning 2250 BCE in the Indus Valley through to 300 BCE Greece. Further, this evidence is
compared with modern (20th century) research directed toward developing a meaning of “brand”.
Two key roles played by brands are witnessed during each period of interest: first, as a conveyor
of information (origin and quality) regarding goods and/or services and second, as a conveyor of
image or meaning (power, value and/or personality). We hope that the examination of branding
in ancient times may lend a better understanding to an overall conceptualization of branding and
how it influences and plays a role in macromarkets and society.
METHOD
The historical method is applied in this paper to gain a better understanding of what brands and
branding are, whether these phenomena have evolved over time, and if so, how. There is a
precedent for the use of the historical method applied successfully to the discipline of marketing
(Fullerton 1987, 1988; Low and Fullerton 1994; Nevett 1991 to name but a few) and it is
expected that such a method will effectively shed light on the above-mentioned questions. The
main reasons necessitating the use of historical method include the following: evidence
suggesting that brands and branding did exist in ancient times, lack of research on these topics
from prior to the 20th century, and archaeological observations from periods in history for which
6
consumer responses or marketing literature are non-existent. Further, new methods now exist
which have led to the discovery of artifacts previously unknown to our culture, and, which
importantly shed light on the questions we are examining.
THESES
As is the convention for historical research, we state upfront our theses, which are representative
of our principal findings, followed by a presentation of the evidence and reasoning by which
these theses are supported. The theses are as follows:
1. Brands, from all periods in history, display two immutable characteristics related to the
conveyance of information to stakeholders: information about quality, and information
with the purpose of indicating the origin of the product (which sometimes includes
differentiation information to help with the logistical functions of marketing i.e., sorting,
storage, transportation, etc.).
2. The evolution of brands shows a movement to greater complexity in character, including
the addition of image or meaning (power, value and/or personality) to the list of critical
information elements.
3. Brands, from all periods in history, played critical roles not only for end customers, but
for stakeholders throughout the channel.
4. Brands did exist prior to the 20th century, but should be referred to as proto-brands.
7
BRANDING IN ANCIENT TIMES
Early Bronze IV: 2250 – 2000 BCE - The Indus Valley
The Sumerian and Akkadian economies of third and second millennia BCE were at the core of
an international economy that extended from Egypt in the west to the Indus Valley in the east.
The Indus Valley or Harappan civilization, located in modern-day India, arose in tandem with
Mesopotamian society. The cities and villages of the Harappan civilization covered 1,500
kilometers from north to south, stretching from what is now the southeastern corner of Iran to the
region of the Aral Sea in Russia (Moore and Lewis 1999a).
Sir John Marshall and D.R. Sahni began the excavation of two regions of the Indus in 1921:
Harappa in 1921 and Mohenjo-Daro, 600 kilometers to the southwest, in 1922. Virtually no
written records from Harappan society exist outside of a number of seals from this excavation
written in an as yet undeciphered script. As such, dating the rise of the Indus civilization proves a
challenge given the absence of written records, however some overlap between Indian and
Sumerian artifacts provide a few clues. A consistent pattern of radiocarbon dates, strongly
indicates the rise of the Indus cities began around 2600 BCE. The cities reached their peak
between 2300-1700 BCE (Lal 1994).
Findings from the excavation revealed that the whole of the Indus Valley cultural region was
linked together by trade and common cultural, social, religious, and political ties. The
8
civilization of Harappan India represented a vast cultural and linguistic community with the
same weights and measures. Red-and-black wheel-made pottery and figurines with painted
pottery symbols and seal motifs appears at all of the Indus sites, decorated with animal and
geometric motifs (Kenoyer 1994, p. 75).
The Harappan cities were home to craftsmen working in stone and bronze, who created little
square seals, which they sold to merchants. There are hundreds of square seals with animal
figures, used as trademarks, found at Mohenjo-daro, Harappa, and Lothal. Lothal was a
transportation center, strategically located between the major Indus cities and the cities of
Gujarat, the part of India which borders on the Arabian Sea. The city/The region was both a
transit center and a place where opening, checking, repacking, and sorting took place (Ratnagar
1981). Further, a Harappan seals have been found in Sumer, suggesting the presence of at least
a few Indian merchants in Mesopotamia, who 'had come abroad to see the dispatch of goods to
India' and that 'to a certain extent at least, Harappan goods were sent under contract or
commercial partnership to Mesopotamia' (Wolpert 2000, p. 192). A large number of seals have
also been found at Failaka in the heart of the Persian Gulf, a processing center where the Indus
trade circuit met the Sumerian one (Wolpert 2000). The seals found at Lothal are attached to jars,
baskets or other containers. Those found at the other two cities are message documents
unaccompanied by goods. These seals indicate, firstly, that 'at Mohenjo-daro and Harappa goods
were received, stored, processed and finally redistributed' and secondly, the function of the seals
was to convey ‘the identity of the sender of a certain piece of merchandise, or the authority
allocated by an individual or state department to a particular agent who carried the seal
9
impression' (Wolpert 2000, p. 188). The pattern of the seals indicates that Mohenjo-daro and
Harappa were administrative and redistributive centers.
While most of this trade was probably between state administrations, professional private
merchants may have been involved, as proposed by Wolpert (2000). These merchants would
have had to be supplied with market information as well as organized and able to send shipments
quickly. It was, 'a contractual trade with a scheduled and predetermined movement of
merchandise, of the Assyrian type' probably ' partly under state control and partly in the hands of
professional merchants, subject to price-regulating market conditions (Wolpert 2000, p. 225).
Here, we believe, one finds the earliest known example of branding. According to UCLA
Indianologist Stanley Wolpert, the magnificent seals of tigers, Brahma bulls, elephants, and other
Indian animals were “probably made for merchants who used them to 'brand' their wares” along
with accompanying writing in a yet untranslated language (Wolpert 2000). These were India's
first business documents, written in some 400 picture characters, which may well have been the
names of the merchants using the seal. One seal found near Mohenjo-Daro, showed a yogi with a
horned dress surrounded by a tiger, elephant, rhinoceros, water buffalo, and deer. It is possible
that this seal may have represented the mighty hunter and destroyer Shiva, who was venerated as
both a fertility god, tamer of beasts, and planter of seed (Wolpert 2000).
The artifacts from the Indus Valley allow us to draw some conclusions regarding the use of the
seals in commerce. First the markings on the seals were used for informational purposes in trade,
for manufacturers, re-sellers and government authorities. The markings have been shown to
10
indicate origin of manufacture and allow for the performance of various functions of marketing
(for example: sorting, storage, transportation) both by re-sellers and government authorities.
There is some indication that an occasional secondary reason for the seals was to promote some
imagery to potential buyers and users. For example, the fertility god label of Shiva described
above therefore becomes the oldest known use of brand imagery – thereby showing that the art
of using sex to sell was not unknown to ancient civilization. The degree of use of imagery in the
seals, however, seems to have taken a back seat to the informational characteristics implicit in
the brand, as shown by the evidence.
Whether these seals can be called brands is another issue. They certainly contain the important
information requirements of all modern day brands (information regarding quality and origin) - if
not more (information regarding the logistical functions of marketing) – however, the use of
imagery seems to be much less prevalent and therefore using the Keller (2003) understanding
from a consumer perspective of brand, we might suggest that what we are dealing with here is
really a “proto-brand”.
The Middle Bronze Age: 2000-1500 BCE- Shang China
While the Old Kingdom Pharaohs erected their pyramids and the damgara of Ebla and Sumer
flourished at the dawn of the Bronze Age, the peasants of the Huang He, or Yellow River
remained in a stone-age economy. The Yangshao people of the 4th and early 3rd millennium
BCE lived in small villages, fought with bows and arrows, grew millet, and made a few primitive
pots and silk cloth. Their more advanced successors, the Longshan people (late 3rd and early
2nd millennium BCE) still lagged behind their Akkadian and Indus Valley contemporaries. A
11
trail of their black pottery identifies their settlements, now enclosed with walls and spreading
along the Yellow River, with a few outlying towns as far away as Manchuria, the Yangzi, and
the southern regions populated by the Vietnamese. The group that followed, Shang China, was a
more advanced economy.
Most of what is known about Shang China comes from the excavations begun in 1928-1937 on
the site of Anyang, located in the northeastern part of today’s Henan Province. Anyang was also
the site of some 100,000 of the most ancient Chinese records, carved on bone and tortoise shells,
of which 1,000 have been translated. The Shang records are royal, not commercial, and suggest
very strongly that the early Chinese economy was a completely state-run operation (Moore and
Lewis 2005). The Shang organized their realm on the basis of towns settled by zu, or kin groups.
Smaller zu were combined into larger ones, ruled from a central town subject to supervision by
yet larger towns, which served as clan capitals. All were subject to the wang (king) in Anyang.
This kinship structure, in which the king was patriarch of all, controlled economic as well as
political life. Land in Bronze Age China was owned not by private farmers but by the king
himself.
Kin and lineage groups were the basis for occupational units not only in growing wheat and
raising livestock but in the trades as well. These zu had their own crests with names like
'pottery', 'flag', 'cooking pot', 'wine vessels', 'cordage', 'horse plume', 'fence', etc., and no doubt
stone, wood, and leather-workers had their own as well.
12
Can we consider the zu crests of Anyang to be brands? Certainly the crests were able to convey
basic information regarding origin and quality, no doubt regulated on some level by the king. We
can assume that the clan structure of the kin groups would involve somewhat small-scale
distribution of the zu products within the local community, so information for sorting, storage or
distribution was probably limited, as would be imagery beyond the utilitarian imagery associated
with the use of the product. As such, the zu crests are best representative of a proto-brand.
THE LATE BRONZE AGE: 1500-1000 BCE - CYPRUS
During the Late Bronze Age, beginning around 1500 BCE, the axis of most of world business
shifted to the west. The Indus Valley civilization collapsed, while Shang China remained in
isolation. No great Mesopotamian empire dominated the world during this time. Trade and
commerce began to thrive and grow in the eastern Mediterranean, which became the new focus
of economic activity.
Seaborne commerce, in the Late Bronze Age, began to emerge as a distinct business model in the
hands of seafaring Canaanites (Phoenicians), Minoans, and Mycenaean Greeks. Trade was
conducted by palace officials or temporary ventures of traders sometimes supported by the
palace. The Hittite code recognized private ownership and transactions in real estate but
combined them with obligations for public service imposed by the king. For example, the
households of weavers living in several key towns as well as priests were exempt, as were
bowmen, carpenters, and others involved in the royal chariot industry. (Roth 1997)
Coppersmiths; however, were not exempt from 'participating in ice procurement, construction of
13
fortresses and royal roads, or from harvesting vineyards.' (Roth 1997) While still a mixed model,
market freedoms showed more evidence than in the Indus or Shang regions.
The island of Cyprus, which means ‘copper’, was destined to play a key role in the growing Late
Bronze economy. In the days of Ramesses II, the mining of copper on the island began to boom
with copper being smelted at Enkomi on the east coast and being refined on the southern part of
the island. The copper was melted down into ingots and carried to both the Levant and the
Aegean, primarily by the Phoenicians. Cyprus has always served as a link between the Near
Eastern and Aegean business and cultural spheres. Not only was it strategically located and even
visible from the Levantine shore, but it was also the first place Phoenician ships would reach
sailing out into the Great Sea. The Phoenicians quickly seized the opportunity to become the key
middlemen in the evolving Near Eastern trading system. Vast trading fleets built from the forests
of Lebanon sailed between Egypt, Cyprus, Canaan and the Cilician coast of the Hittite empire.
Grain grown in Egypt or Babylonia was traded to the Cypriots and Hittites in return for their
precious copper and other metals which were processed in Phoenician workshops or shipped by
caravan and Euphratean reed boat to Babylon, Sippar, Ashur, and points east. Kassite horses
were sold to Egypt; Egyptian ivory to Mesopotamia, Elamand Hatti. Imported into Ugarit's
harbors from the mines of Cilicia and Cyprus, copper and precious metals were distributed to
guilds of merchants and traders by the harbor master. Both profits and royalties paid to the crown
were then re-invested in the construction of even more seagoing vessels, organized into fleets
which grew along with the volume of international trade now passing through the harbors and
along the roads under Phoenician control. Within the cities and towns of Ugarit and the other
Phoenician city-states guilds of highly-skilled craftsmen, most of them now self-employed, beat
14
and smelted the raw copper and tin, plus the gold and ivory of Egypt into finished products
which could be shipped by caravan to Mesopotamia via Carchemish or even Hatti or Egypt.
These enterprises had a specialized knowledge, which would lead them to enjoy high profits for
a considerable period of history.
The copper of Cyprus provides a special example of a brand characteristic which is affiliated
with raw materials as a symbol of status and inherent value. The interesting thing about a raw
material such as copper is that the quality of the copper was inherent to the raw material itself
and the origin of the copper was well known to be Cyprus.
THE IRON AGE REVOLUTION: 1000-500 BCE - TYRE
The greatest of all Phoenician cities, Tyre, beginning around 1000 BCE, adapted the model of
temple/palace management to overseas and long-distance trade (Moore and Lewis, 1999b).
Tyrian state managers and independent merchants entered into joint ventures with other nations
and erected permanent establishments as far west as Spain and as far east as Babylon. They
operated sometimes in synergy and sometimes in rivalry with the Greeks, who were beginning
also to trade and colonize in the Mediterranean.
The chief religious cult of Tyre, that of Baal-Melqart (King of the City), seems to have been
unknown before the city rose to commercial power and established its enlarged kingdom on the
Lebanese mainland. As Tyre under Prince Hiram, who likely created the cult, and Prince Itobaal,
who promoted it abroad, became more powerful, so did the international reputation of Melqart, a
Viking-like figure with a horned hat and a battle axe. Melqart pictured the ideal Tyrian king.
15
Legendary founder of Tyre, he was not only the god of rain and storm but of prosperity. Reputed
inventor of the dye industry, Melqart was also its patron. As Tyrian sea power grew, Melqart
would soon acquire the title of Patron of Westerly Navigation. Temples in his name would be
erected in not only Samaria, but Syria, Cyprus, Malta, Cathage, Sicily, Malta and most
importantly, Spain (Clifford 1990).
As Tyre’s traders expanded north and east as well as south and west, Tyrian priests opened
branch temples and colonies on the Gulf of Alexandra, in the region of Cilicia. Not only the
ever-present Phoenician jugs, but Phoenician inscriptions in the heart of the Aramaic-Hittite
territory affirm direct investment in the strategic territories of southern Turkey and
northern Syria before and after 850 BCE. A monument in Aleppo by the famous King Ben-
Hadad of Aram, dedicated to Melqart, implies not only the presence of a temple of the latter
nearby, but of the introduction of both Tyrian political influence and technology.
The princes of Tyre and the priests of Melqart presided over a well-oiled multinational trading
machine offering the advantages of internalization in the form of royal and temple support,
contractual partnerships, feudal loyalties and family connections. The large-scale intercontinental
seaborne trade now undertaken by Tyre's merchants could be profitable only for a solid and
solvent organization of shippers with a huge fleet of vessels, underwritten by temple and palace,
capable of transporting precious ores and finished goods in bulk sufficient to absorb any
potential losses while reaping substantial gains (Moore and Lewis 1999b). The expansion to the
west and the founding of the colonies in southern Spain could only be undertaken by Tyre when
she was sure of attaining her objectives: guaranteed silver ore and plentiful food resources, and
16
the certainty of real economic rewards (Aubet 1987). Under Itobaal’s successors, Balmazzer III
(846-41B.C.) and Mattin (840-32 B.C.), the island city increased her production of goods and
began to expand along a new east-west trading axis. With her traditional Israelite partner in civil
turmoil under the rule of the anti-Baalist House of Jehu and her supplies of metal from Anatolia
either threatened or now inadequate, Tyre herself now suffered food shortages and a need for
fresh sources of metals for her workshops. The court, priests, sailors and merchants responded
with an aggressive policy of colonization and investment in far distant strategic locations on the
islands and coastlines of the Mediterranean hundreds of kilometers from home (Harden 1971;
Aubet 1987).
Gades, now modern Cadiz in Spain, was the centerpiece of a coordinated strategy of foreign
colonization and investment in the Iberian peninsula. The Tyrian colonies in the central and
western Mediterranean all grew and prospered as a result of the success of the investment in
Spain. Trading their luxury goods for Spanish silver, the merchants of Tyre transported the silver
in bulk shipments to the east. The profit margins were so huge as to be able to finance further
colonization and investment in the central Mediterranean. The temple of Melqart in Gades
played a key part, according to leading Ibero-Phoenician scholar Maria Eugenia Aubet, in
supervising the entire venture corresponding to that of the Phoenician branch-temples in Sulcis
and Moyta: “the first Tyrian colonies in the west...started as sanctuaries administered by a
priestly group directly linked to the interests of Tyre” (Aubet 1987, p. 235). The massive Gades
shrine was, at the same time, itself subject to the Melqart temple in Tyre, from which it derived
its architecture, decorative patterns, twin columns, three sacrificial altars and eternal flame. A
huge administrative building housed a powerful Melqart priesthood destined to remain in the
17
hands of a handful of aristocratic families (Aubet 1987). As representatives of a deity
worshipped as the supernatural King of Tyre, the Melqart- priests of Gades exercised an
immeasurable control over Ibero-Phoenician business. The temple became the commercial as
well as religious bond between Gades and Tyre as both guarantor of honest exchange and source
of finance capital: In distant places where he [Melqart] possessed a temple, his function was a
very concrete one: to ensure the tutelage of the temple of Tyre and the monarchy over the
commercial enterprise, thus converting the colony into an extension of Tyre; and also to
guarantee the right of asylum and hospitality which, in distant lands, was equivalent to endorsing
contracts and commercial exchanges (Aubet 1987, p. 234).
The rise of the Tyrian multinational business empire produced an enormous social and economic
revolution in Iberia and other countries where it had substantial investments. Mud huts gave way
to stone houses, fortified defenses arose around Iberian cities and a thriving pottery industry
arose, manufacturing jugs based upon Tyrian models. Bulk shipments of Spanish silver, copper
and beef were traded for Phoenician ivory, pottery, wine, garments and tools of iron. Many of the
finished Phoenician goods were likely value-added items produced locally from bronze, gold,
glass and ivory in the shops of Gades and eventually Toscanos (Castro 1995). The coming of
Melqart and his disciples inspired not only large-scale silver mining and iron working, but
writing, building construction, pottery-making, and luxury items. Cemeteries at La Joya in
Huelva, Setefilla (Seville) and Trayamar told a story of the death of a traditional tribal Spanish
society and the emergence of a new urban elite of upwardly mobile aggressive entrepreneurs
eager not only to acquire the chariots, ivory carvings and other status goods imported from
Gades and Tyre but to flaunt them (Castro 1995). Where Iberian graves had once been
18
identical, those of the nouveau riche after 650 BCE became highly individual, vulgar and
ostentatious, documenting the accumulation of wealth in the hands of native leaders (Aubet
1987).
The clearest example of technology transfer took place in the explosive growth of the Iberian
pottery industry, which instead of a household skill, became a mass-production trade after 650
BCE. All over southern Spain workshops arose turning out large quantities of the popular grey
and red Tyrian jugs stylishly decorated with bands of red, black and maroon paint (Harrison
1988). The colonies in the Malága region became self-sufficient on the basis of farming, cattle-
raising, and the production of purple-dyed garments and Red Slip pottery with technology
brought from Tyre itself. The famous Red Slip ceramics have been unearthed all over southern
Spain, most strongly in the areas of Phoenician settlement, where they were produced locally in
the Phoenician settlements rather than being directly imported from Levantine factories (Tsirkin
1978).
The brand of Melquart reflects the central informational qualities of brand (quality, origin), while
also utilizing image in a powerful combination for the purpose of showing power or status and
value. The rise of Iberian culture in direct proportion to the partaking of the Melquart brand
shows evidence of that power and value.
THE IRON AGE: GREECE: 825-336 BCE
The Iron Age encouraged the growth of an alternative model of business organization, which
would eventually begin to challenge the hierarchical model of temple and palace. Beginning in a
19
small way in ancient Israel and then in a more forceful manner in Archaic Greece, a more purely
market-oriented entrepreneurial culture began to develop. Hand in hand with this development,
branding became used more consciously as a way to distinguish between entrepreneurs and, as
such, the use of imagery in branding began to thrive.
Greek pottery, very distinctive in terms of the times and places it came from, when cross-
referenced with Egyptian and other artifacts as well as authors like Herodotus and Thucydides,
has allowed archaeologists to reconstruct the Hellenic past. Tyrian and Cypriot traders voyaged
across the Aegean, docking at the Euboean ports, bringing knowledge of iron-working, the
phonetic alphabet, and, most importantly, continued knowledge of old Bronze Age trade routes
to both east and west. Greeks, and particularly Euboeans, could not help but be inspired to fit
out their own trading ventures along their old Mycenaean trade routes once they came into
early contact with the much older and much wider Cypro-Levantine network of pan-
Mediterranean commerce and communications (Ridgway 1973). A few enterprising Hellenes
soon began selling their pottery and drinking-vessels to the Levantine market (Hawkes 1973).
The trail of these entrepreneurs, or at least of their goods, was uncovered by Sir Leonard
Woolley excavating on the Syrian shore in the 1930s. The pottery and iron artifacts of Syria,
Cyprus, and Etruria revealed the existence of an eighth century BCE international Levant-
Aegean-Tyrrhenian trading network. The Greek traders of this network operated as private
individuals and enterprises operating on a small scale, not as organized firms.
The growth of agricultural prosperity, the coming of iron tools and weapons, and the
transformation of warfare was reflected in the strengthening of the city-state as the basic unit of
20
Greek life in the late eighth and early seventh centuries BCE. The polis was the first community
in history organized on a civic instead of a tribal or feudal basis. The center of the polis was a
fortified town built around a main market square called the agora, or marketplace. Much of the
territory, though, was made up of agrarian villages. The most important aspect of the polis was
that it was subject to the coded rule of law (Osborne 1996; Martin 1996). Personal loyalty to a
basileus (king or god) was replaced by a concept in which most of the inhabitants who were born
in a community were considered citizens who enjoyed full equality before the law (Green 1979).
With the evolution of the polis, the political landscape of Greece became the most fragmented in
history. There were perhaps 1,300 of these units, each one totally independent and still largely
self-sufficient, on the Greek mainland, with another 200 organized in the Aegean. Within them
protection and rights were granted to traders and entrepreneurial craftsmen, whether citizens or,
more often, the resident aliens known as metics. The new citizen-republics were well suited to a
new market economy. The political situation of iron-age Greece allowed an entrepreneurial
culture to flourish and was supportive of the efforts of entrepreneurs to distinguish themselves
from one another using more modern branding tactics.
Though it did not employ many and occurred on a very small scale, the pottery industry of
Corinth and later, Attica, may well symbolize the very birth of consumer capitalism in a society
still largely agrarian. These craftsmen, according to historian Oswyn Murray were peculiarly
open to economic pressures and incentives (Murray 1993). Athenian pottery was wheel-made
and fired between 800 and 950 degrees Centigrade. “The characteristic black-gloss surface of
many pieces was achieved by means of the addition of an agent (a ‘peptising agent’) to a solution
of the clay from which the pot was made and which fired black when water vapour was added to
21
the kiln under ‘reducing conditions’ on a second firing…Much artistry went into the decoration
of some pots, and much ingenuity has been spent on attributing pots to individual hands. Names
were devised to fit the supposed artistic personalities, careers invented, and a whole folklore
created, but recent research has shown that the shape and decoration of pots were largely
dependent on the norms of other media, with designs, even ‘signatures’, coming through from
the graphides that acknowledged artists made for silversmiths.” (Vickers 1999, p. 4)
Some vases carry painted (and scratched) inscriptions that indicate men who ‘made’ them. These
are painted in black on a clay background, or in purple on a black background where the painting
is in red-figure; occasionally black was used on black background, with a reserved outline round
the lettering, or again inscriptions were incised on the black gloss, whether on black-figure or
red-figure pottery. The inscription could be set on any part of the vase: body, neck, rim, foot,
handle. A study of the handwriting reveals that the writer could be a ‘letterer’ charged with the
task, not necessarily the man who ‘made’ the vase (Immerwahr 1999); in some cases the letterer
may be the painter who will thus finish off the work he has done.” (Sparkes 1996, p. 65) “The
names themselves tell us details about the men…With names on Attic pottery, some inscriptions
show that some ‘makers’ were also painters, e.g. Nearchos, Exekias, Euphronios (first as painter,
then as ‘maker’), Douris, Myson; some appear with the name of the painter, working in the same
shop, e.g., Ergotimos the ‘maker’ and Kleitias the painter; Python the ‘maker’ and Douris the
painter; Hieron the ‘maker’ and Makron the painter. Some names may reveal the origin of the
men, e.g. Sikanos, from Sicily; Brygos, from Phyragia; Thrax, from Thace; Syriskos, from Syria;
some of these may be slaves, as also Epiktetos meaning ‘Newly aquired’. Some add their ethnic
origin, e.g. Teisias the Thenian, working in Boeotia, Xenophantes the Athenian and Nikias, son
22
of Hermkles, of Anaphylystos, Amasis, a name shared with an Egyptian Pharaoh, has caused
some interest and discussion. Some, like Pyrrhos, advertise their family connections: in Attic
black-figure there are Tleson and Ergoteles, sons of Nearchos, the sons ‘makers’, the father both
a ‘maker’ and a painter, and Ergotimos had a son Eucheiros and a grandson, both ‘makers’; in
Attic red-figure Kleophrades, who was the son of the ‘maker’ Amasis, was himself a ‘maker’.
Very occasionally, two are given as makers of one cup.” (Sparkes 1996, p. 67) Thus the writers
may be the painters of the pots, the potters or shop-owners, merchants, purchasers or passers-by
who have picked up a piece of broken pottery in the street to scratch a message or impugn a rival
(Sparkes 1996, p. 52)
One vase said “Sophilos painted”, another boasted “Exekias painted and made me” and one vase
of Euthymides bragged that it was of “high quality as never (were those of) Euphronios”
(Osborne 1998 p. 87, 90-91). A motto on a cup imported to Italy from Rhodes may be history's
first recorded commercial advertisement: 'Nestor had a most drink-worthy cup, but whoever
drinks of mine will straightaway be smitten with desire of fair-crowned Aphrodite' (Murray 1993
p. 223).
The pottery industry, in particular, shows strong evidence that by the sixth century BCE, potters
in Corinth and elsewhere in Greece were producing pots targeted to specific markets stretching
from Spain to the Black Sea. Market competition became a way of life. For once Corinthian
potters produced an attractive brand of vessel, which both guaranteed contents and marketed an
image. Other Greek potters, even if only targeting a local market, were challenged to produce
even more persuasive packaging and even more attractive images (Osborne 1998).
23
Modern archaeologists have been able to trace different pots back to their respective makers and
workshops by comparing the very individualistic decorations each potter used. As early as the
seventh century BCE the potters of Euboea began to label their work, and the practice spread to
Athens and Corinth in the following century. Sophilos was the first Athenian potter to thus
identify his own work. Around the top of his vases Sophilos sometimes paraded the gods of
Athens (Osborne 1998). His signature, as well as that of other potters, indicated both a pride in
the product and a desire to attract future orders. Their scale and elaboration seem to justify the
artist's self-promotion (Osborne 1998). Other Athenian potters went after a mass market,
producing vessels of a lesser artistic quality to be exported abroad, especially to the Etruscans
and no doubt also the Romans.
The free market revolution in Greece brought with it an entrepreneurial culture unparalleled in
prior society. This change was reflected in branding practices, which built on the more traditional
proto-brand strategy of portraying information regarding origin and quality. Not only were
images used to invoke power and portray value, but we see through the Aphrodite example
another foray into the use of image to sell using sex. While image was clearly used to connote
personality characteristics of perhaps the maker, or manufacturer of a good in the pre-modern
marketing era, the large scale growth of the development of brand personality is truly a
phenomenon of the 20th century.
24
MODERN - THE 20th CENTURY
A central new concept in the marketing literature on brand involves brand personality. As noted
by Aaker (1997): “Researchers have focused on how the personality of a brand enables a
consumer to express his or her own self (Belk 1988), an ideal self (Malhotra 1981), or specific
dimensions of the self (Kleine, Kleine and Kernan 1993) through the use of a brand. Practitioners
view it as a key way to differentiate a brand in a product category (Halliday 1996), as a central
driver of consumer preference and usage (Biel 1993), and as a common denominator that can be
used to market a brand across cultures (Plummer 1985). Aaker goes on to define brand
personality as “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand.” Utilizing a sample of
114 possible personality traits and 37 well-known brands in various product categories, Aaker
(1997) uncovered 5 basic dimensions that according to Keller (2003) appear to have captured the
perceptual space of brands, and these include: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication,
and ruggedness. In other words, these personality traits, of people associated with the brand are
transferred to the brand itself (McCracken 1986). This is largely, we believe, a phenomenon that
could have only occurred starting at the end of the 19th century and into the 20th century, due to
the media (TV, radio, print advertising, etc.), which allow for the bi-directionality of influence
required for such a phenomenon to occur. It is interesting to note that in a 1923 book Hotchkiss
and Franken suggest that "The remarkable increase in the use of national advertising during the
past half century is perhaps sufficient evidence of its value...The good-will of certain well-
advertised names and brands is valued in the millions of dollars (p.1).” Later they point to how
things were different in the near past than in their day in the 1920s, "It should be remembered,
however, that a few years ago consumers did not know men's clothing or flour or fruit or coffee
by manufacturers' brands. The habit of brand discrimination was established by advertising in
25
these cases." (p. 34). As such, brand personality – the most recent addition to the characteristics
of brands – could not have been a component prior to this period of time.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Through an investigation of the historical archeology literature, we have been able to unearth
some clues, which point to both a definition for “proto-brand” and for “brand”. Table 2 provides
a look at the development of brand characteristics through the periods of time investigated in this
paper. What we see, is a gradual transition from more utilitarian provision of information
regarding origin and quality in order to reduce risk and uncertainty during earlier periods of
civilization (transactional), to the addition of more complex brand characteristics through time
which are related to image building and include status/power, inherent value and finally, the
development of brand personality (transformational). These brand characteristics connect well to
the consumer side of the equation relating to consumers’ cognitive representation of a brand (i.e.,
brand knowledge – Peter and Olson 2001; Keller 2003) as follows: information (awareness,
attributes, benefits) and image (images, thoughts, feelings, attitudes and experiences). As
described by Keller (2003, p. 596): “Much of this earlier research concentrated on more tangible,
product-related information for brands. One important thrust in recent branding research is an
attempt to understand more of the abstract, intangible aspects of brand knowledge not related to
the actual physical product or service specifications per se.” Interestingly, developments in brand
knowledge then seem to have mimicked a similar progression to the actual development of brand
characteristics through history, although obviously not on the same time scale.
Place Table 2 about here.
26
Generally speaking, “proto-brands” for ancient civilizations were information attached (either
physically or inherently) to a product or product vessel (packaging) which carried out at least one
of three functions. First, information regarding place of origin was connoted utilizing a known
mark, signature or through the known physical properties of a given raw material. Second, this
information was often elaborated in order to allow for some of the basic functions of marketing
to take place (i.e., sorting, transportation and storage). Finally, information regarding quality was
designated through the same vehicles – in other words, knowing the origin helped to remove
uncertainty for consumers, thereby reducing risk in purchase decisions and thereby increasing
perceived quality.
“Brands” for modern civilization involve both the informational characteristics of the ancient
proto-brands, and the more complex image characteristics of modern brands including
status/power, inherent value and finally, the development of brand personality. Further, as
described by McCracken (1986), the significance of consumer goods rests largely in their ability
to carry and communicate cultural meaning – and we believe that this is the ultimate role of
brands – to carry and communicate cultural meaning that is both transactional (information-
related) and transformational (image-related) in character.
27
Table 1
HISTORICAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH TOPICS ON BRANDING
Research Topics building understanding of “Brand” and “Branding” from the 3 Most Influential
Consumer Behavior Journals: Journal of Consumer Research (1974–2004), Journal of
Marketing Research (1965-2004) and Journal of Marketing (1936-2004).
Brand Switching Ehrenberg (JMR 1965)
Massy (JMR 1966)
Morrison (JMR 1966)
Massy and Morrison (JMR 1968)
Chance and French (JMR 1972)
Lehmann (JMR 1972)
Bass (JMR 1973)
Dodson, Tybout and Sternthal (JMR 1978)
Carpenter and Lehmann (JMR 1985)
Vilcassim and Jain (JMR 1991)
Grover and Srinivasan (JMR 1992)
Novak (JMR 1993)
Deighton, Henderson and Neslin (JMR 1994)
Wedel et al. (JMR 1995)
Bucklin, Russell and Srinivasan (JMR 1998)
Sun, Neslin and Srinivasan (JMR 2003)
Van Heerde, Gupta and Wittlink (JMR 2003)
Brand Loyalty Morrison (JMR 1966)
McConnell (JMR 1968)
Tucker (JMR 1964)
Farley (JMR 1964)
Sheth (JMR 1968)
Wind and Frank (JMR 1969)
Carman (JMR 1970)
Sheth (JMR 1970)
Cohen and Houston (JMR 1972)
Jacoby and Kyner (JMR 1973)
Newman and Werbel (JMR 1973)
Tarpey (JMR 1974)
Tarpey (JMR 1975)
Jacoby (JMR 1975)
Berkowitz (JMR 1978)
Kanetkar, Weinberg and Weiss (JMR 1986)
Bass and Leone (JMR 1986)
DuWors and Haines (JMR 1990)
Grover and Srinivasan (JMR 1992)
Fader and Schmittlein (JMR 1993)
28
Raj (JM 1985)
Chaudhuri and Holbrook (JM 2001)
Brand Attitude Myers (JMR 1967)
Miller, Mazis and Wright (JMR 1971)
Mitchell and Olson (JMR 1981)
Gardner (JMR 1985)
Mittal (JMR 1990)
Miniard, Bhatla and Rose (JMR 1990)
Aaker and Jacobson (JMR 2001)
Lutz (JCR 1975)
Mitchell (JCR 1986)
Mackenzie and Spreng (JCR 1992)
Munn (JM 1959)
Brand Choice/Preference/ Stafford (JMR 1966)
Brand Purchase Behavior Fry (JMR 1967)
Grubb and Hupp (JMR 1968)
Witt (JMR 1969)
Hawkins (JMR 1970)
Aaker (JMR 1970)
Jones (JMR 1970)
Jones (JMR 1970)
Thomas and Ehrenberg (JMR 1971)
Bass and Talarzyk (JMR 1972)
Weber and Hansen (JMR 1972)
Witt and Bruce (JMR 1972)
Bass (JMR 1972)
Charlton and Ehrenberg (JMR 1973)
Bass and Wilkie (JMR 1973)
Blattberg and Sen (JMR 1973)
Ginter (JMR 1974)
Stanton and Lowenhar (JMR 1974)
Chatfield and Goodhardt (JMR 1975)
Lawrence (JMR 1975)
Charlton and Ehrenberg (JMR 1976)
Shoemaker et al. (JMR 1977)
Tyebjee (JMR 1979)
Miller and Ginter (JMR 1979)
Moore, Pessemier and Little (JMR 1979)
Givon and Horsky (JMR 1979)
Givon (JMR 1980)
Ford and Ellis (JMR 1980)
Bass and Pilon (JMR 19890)
Palachek and Kerin (JMR 1982)
Kamakura and Srivastava (JMR 1984)
29
Magidson (JMR 1985)
Zufryden (JMR 1986)
Bawa and Shoemaker (JMR 1987)
Rao and Monroe (JMR 1989)
Lattin and Bucklin (JMR 1989)
Kahn and Louie (JMR 1990)
Kalwani et al. (JMR 1990)
Chintagunta, Jain and Vilcassim (JMR 1991)
Nowlis and Simonson (JMR 1996)
Gupta et al. (JMR 1996)
Mela, Gupta and Lehmann (JMR 1997)
Heilman, Bowman and Wright (JMR 2000)
Sengupta and Fitzsimons (JMR 2000)
Pauwels, Hanssens and Siddarth (JMR 2002)
Lee (JMR 2002)
Jacoby, Speller and Berning (JCR 1974)
Pan and Lehmann (JCR 1993)
Srinivasan and Kesavan (JCR 1976)
Reibstein (JCR 1978)
Lussier and OLshavsky (JCR 1979)
Tyebjee (JCR 1979)
Bearden and Etzel (JCR 1982)
Reingen et al. (JCR 1984)
Winer (JCR 1986)
Bahn (JCR 1986)
Rosen and Olshavsky (JCR 1987)
Glazer, Kahn and Moore (JCR 1991)
Miniard, Sirdeshmukh and Innis (JCR 1992)
Krishnamurthi, Mazumdar and Raj (JCR 1992)
Chernev (JCR 1997)
Chakravarti and Janiszewski (JCR 2004)
Wolfe (JM 1942)
Cassady (JM 1942)
Browne (JM 1950)
Banks (JM 1950)
Pessemier (JM 1964)
Twedt (JM 1967)
Seggev (JM 1970)
Teach (JM 1971)
Houston (JM 1972)
Sargent (JM 1976)
Jones (JM 1982)
D’Souza and Rao (JM 1995)
Brand Identification Allison and Uhl (JMR 1964)
30
Brand Assortment Seggev (JM 1970)
Branding Marquardt, Makens and Larzelere (JMR 1965)
Channels & Brand Slater (JMR 1969)
(i.e., Distbr vs. Mnfr Brand) Corstjens and Lal (JMR 2000)
Goodman (JM 1955)
Makens (JM 1964)
Schutte (JM 1969)
Swan (JM 1974)
Fein and Anderson (JM 1997)
Brand Categories Rao (JMR 1969)
(i.e., private, generics, national) Ehrenberg and Goodhardt (JMR 1970)
Burger and Schott (JMR 1972)
Leclerc, Schmitt and Dube (JMR 1994)
Sethuraman (JMR 1996)
Zhang and Schmitt (JMR 2001)
Makens (JM 1964)
McEnally (JM 1984)
Ailawadi, Neslin and Gedenk (JM 2001)
Brand Image and Beliefs Bird, Channon and Ehrenberg (JMR 1970)
Fry and Claxton (JMR 1971)
Barnard and Ehrenberg (JMR 1990)
Park et al. (JM 1986)
Loken and John (JM 1993)
Brand Perceptions Rao (JMR 1972)
Kinnear and Taylor (JMR 1973)
Brand Awareness/Familiarity Day and Pratt (JMR 1970)
Bogart and Lehman (JMR 1973)
Monroe (JCR 1976)
Hoyer and Brown (JCR 1990)
Campbell and Keller (JCR 2003)
Greenberg (JM 1958)
Keller, Heckler and Houston (JM 1998)
Kirmani (JCR 1990)
Kent and Allen (JM 1994)
Brand Discrimination Haley (JM 1979)
Brand Acceptance Aaker (JMR 1972)
31
Brand Ambiguity Miller, Mazis and Wright (JMR 1971)
Brand Information/ Woodruff (1972)
Understanding Brand Woodruff (JMR 1972)
Jacoby, Speller and Kohn (JMR 1974)
Park and Srinivasan (JMR 1994)
Jacoby, Szybillo and Busato-Schach (JCR 1977)
Rudd and Kohout (JCR 1983)
Simonson, Huber and Payne (JCR 1988)
Hastak and Olson (JCR 1989)
Brand Knowledge Keller (JCR 2003)
Brand Evaluation Kraft, Granbois and Summers (JMR 1973)
Davis, Inman and McAlister (JMR 1992)
Raghubir and Corfman (JMR 1999)
Gardner (JCR 1983)
Nedungadi (JCR 1990)
Venkataramani Johar, Jedidi and Jacoby (JCR 1997)
Gurhan-Canli (JCR 2003)
Adaval (JCR 2003)
Brand Features Green, Wind, Claycamp (JMR 1975)
Brand Segmentation/Positioning Blattberg and Sen (JMR 1976)
Starr and Rubinson (JMR 1978)
Sujan and Bettman (JMR 1989)
Waarts, Carree and Wierenga (JMR 1991)
Bucklin and Gupta (JMR 1992)
Chintagunta (JMR 1994)
Bucklin, Gupta and Han (JMR 1995)
Pham and Muthukrishnan (JMR 2002)
Pechmann and Ratneshwar (JCR 1991)
Blattberg (JM 1980)
Alden, Steenkamp and Batra (JM 1999)
Brand Life Cycles Simon (JMR 1979)
Schoemaker (JMR 1986)
Brand Comparisons Golden (JMR 1979)
Brand Recall/Memory Alba and Chattopadhayay (JMR 1986)
Unnava and Burnkrant (JMR 1991)
Hutchinson, Raman and Mantrala (JMR 1994)
Law (JMR 2002)
Morrin and Ratneshwar (JMR 2003)
32
Meyers-Levy (JCR 1989)
Keller (JCR 1987)
Kardes et al. (JCR 1993)
Shapiro and Spence (JCR 2002)
Russell (JCR 2002)
Lynch, Marmorstein and Weigold (JCR 1988)
Brand (&Inter-) Substitutability Bucklin and Srinivasan (JMR 1991)
Bergen, Dutta and Shugan (JMR 1996)
Brand Extensions Boush and Loken (JMR 1991)
Keller and Aaker (JMR 1992)
Smith and Whan (JMR 1992)
Broniarczyk and Alba (JMR 1994)
Dacin and Smith (JMR 1994)
Gurhan-Canli and Maheswaran (JMR 1998)
Morrin (JMR 1999)
Klink and Smith (JMR 2001)
Bottomley and Holden (JMR 2001)
Park, Milberg and Lawson (JCR 1991)
Barone, Miniard and Romeo (JCR 2000)
Zhang and Sood (JCR 2002)
Van Osselaer and Alba (JCR 2003)
Aaker and Keller (JM 1990)
Lane and Jacobson (JM 1995)
John, Loken and Joiner (JM 1998)
Desai and Keller (JM 2002)
Kirmani, Sood and Bridges (JM 1999)
Swaminathan. Fox and Reddy (JM 2001)
Balachander and Ghose (JM 2003)
Brand Equity Shocker (JMR 1993)
Herr (JMR 1994)
Buchanan, Simmons and Bickart (JMR 1999)
Dawar and Pillutla (JMR 2000)
Dillon, Madden, Kirmani and Mukherjee (JMR 2001)
Martin and Stewart (JMR 2001)
Broniarczyk and Gershoff (JMR 2003)
Osselaer and Alba (JCR 2000)
Keller (JM 1993)
Moore, Wilkie and Lutz (2002)
Ailawadi, Lehmann and Neslin (2003)
Brand Interest Machleit, Allen and Madden (JM 1993)
Brand Commitment Coulter, Price and Feick (JCR 2003)
33
Brand Imitation Zinkhan (JM 1997)
Brand Management Schocker, Srivastava and Ruekert (JMR 1994)
Low and Fullerton (JMR 1994)
Brand Strategy/Policy Slate (JMR 1968)
Myers (JMR 1969)
Gatignon, Weitz and Bansal (JMR 1990)
Brand Alliances Park, Jun and Shocker (JMR 1996)
Simonin and Ruth (JMR 1998)
Rao, Qu and Ruekert (JMR 1999)
Brand Personality Malhotra (JMR 1981)
Aaker, Jennifer (JMR 1997)
Belk (JCR 1988)
Umbrella Branding Erdem (JMR 1998)
Erdem and Sun (JMR 2002)
Brand Dependencies Bockenholt and Dillon (JMR 2000)
Brand Associations Janiszewski and Van Osselaer (JMR 2000)
(i.e., brand-quality) Lemon and Nowlis (JMR 2002)
Van Osselaer and Janiszweski (JCR 2001)
Richardson, Dick and Jain (JM 1994)
Brand Names Friedman (JCR 1985)
Janiszewski (JCR 1990)
Macklin (JCR 1996)
Ahluwalia and Gurhan-Canli (JCR 2000)
Meyers-Levy (JCR 1989)
Brand Logos Janiszewski and Meyvis (JCR 2001)
Brand Advantage Muthukrishnan (JCR 1995)
Brand Meaning Brown, Kazinets and Sherry (JM 2003)
Brand Community Muniz and O’Guinn (JCR 2001)
McAlexander, Schouten and Koening (JM 2002)
Consumer Culture and Branding McCracken (JCR 1986)
Fournier (JCR 1998)
Holt (JCR 2002)
34
Table 2
BRAND CHARACTERISTICS IN THE ANCIENT AND MODERN WORLDS
Brand Characteristics
Period Information:
Origin Information:
Quality Image:
Power Image:
Value Image:
Personality
Early Bronze IV
2250 – 2000 BCE
The Indus Valley
X X
The Middle Bronze Age
2000 – 1500 BCE
Shang China
X X
The Late Bronze Age
1500 – 1000 BCE
Cyprus
X X X
The Iron Age Revolution
1000 – 500 BCE
Tyre
X X X X
The Iron Age
825 – 336 BCE
Greece
X X X X
Modern X X X X X
35
REFERENCES
Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Marketing Research,
34 (August), 347-356.
Aubet, Maria Eugenia (1987), The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies and Trade.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Belk, Russell W. (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,” Journal of Consumer Research, 2
(September), 139-168.
Biel, Alexander (1993), “Converting Image Into Equity,” in Brand Equity and Advertising,
David A. Aaker and Alexander Biel, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 67 – 82.
Castro, Maria C. F. (1995), Iberia in Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Clifford, Richard (1990), “Phoenician Religion,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research, 279 (August), 55-66.
Fullerton, Ronald A. (1987), “Historicism: What It Is and What It Means for Consumer
Research,” in Advances in Consumer Research, 14, Melanie Wallendorf and Paul Anderson, eds.
Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 431-434.
36
Fullerton, Ronald A. (1988), “How Modern is Modern Marketing? Marketing’s Evolution and
the Myth of the ‘Production Era’,” Journal of Marketing, 52 (January), 108-125.
Halliday, Jean (1996), “Chrysler Brings out Brand Personalities with ’97 Ads,” Advertising Age,
67 (September), 3-5
Green, Peter (1979), A Concise History of Ancient Greece to the Close of the Classical Era.
London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.
Harden, Donald B. (1971), The Phoenicians. Second edition, New York: Frederick A. Praeger.
Harrison, Richard J. (1988), Spain at the Dawn History: Iberians, Phoenicians and Greeks.
London: Thames and Hudson.
Hawkes, C. (1973), “Commentary I: The Greek Venture and Archaeology,” in Archaeology into
History I: Greeks, Celts and Romans, Studies in Venture and Resistance, C. Hawkes and Sonia
Chadwick Hawkes, eds. London: J.M. Dent and Sons, Ltd, 1-2.
Hotchkiss, George B. and Richard B. Franken (1923), The Leadership of Advertised Brands: A
Study of 100 Representative Commodities Showing the Names and Brands that are Most
Familiar to the Public. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Page & Company.
37
Immerwahr, Sara A. (1999), Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age. University Park, PA:
Pennsylvania State University Press.
Keller, Kevin Lane (2003), “Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (March), 595-600.
Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark (1994), “The Harappan State, Was it or Wasn't it?” in From Sumer to
Meluhha: Contributions to the Archaeology of South and West Asia in Memory of George F.
Dales, Jr., Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, ed. Madison, WI: Prehistory Press, 71-80.
Kleine, Susan Shultz, Kleine, Robert E. and Kernan, Jerome B. (1993), “Mundane Consumption
and the Self: A Social-Identity Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2 (3), 209-235.
Lal, B.B. (1994). “The Chronological Horizon of the Mature Indus Civilization,” in From Sumer
to Meluhha: Contributions to the Archaeology of South and West Asia in Memory of George F.
Dales Jr., Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, ed. Madison, WI: Prehistory Press, 15-25.
Low, George A. and Fullerton, Ronald (1994), “Brands, Brand Management, and the Brand
Manager System: A Critical-Historical Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (May),
173-190.
Malhotra, Naresh K. (1981), “A Scale to Measure Self-Concepts, Person Concepts and Product
Concepts,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (November): 456-464.
38
McCracken, Grant (1986), “Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the Structure
and Movement of the Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods,” Journal of Consumer Research,
13 (June), 71-84.
Moore, Karl and Lewis, David (1998), “The First Multinationals: Assyria Circa 2000 B.C,”
Management International Review, 38 (2nd Quarter), 95-107.
---- and ---- (1999a), Birth of the Multinational. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School
Press.
---- and ---- (1999b), “Multinational Enterprise in Ancient Phoenicia.” Business History, 42 (2),
17-42.
---- and ---- (2005), Birth the Multinational II. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
Forthcoming.
Murray, Oswyn (1993), Early Greece, 2nd Edition. London: Fontana Press.
Nevett, Terence (1991), “Historical Investigation and the Practice of Marketing,” Journal of
Marketing, 55 (July), 13-23.
Osborne, Robin (1996), Greece in the Making, 1200-479 BCE. London: Routledge.
39
---- (1998), Archaic and Classical Greek Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peter, J Paul and Olson, Jerry C. (2001), Consumer Behavior. Chicago: Irwin.
Plummer, J. (1985), “Brand Personality: A Strategic Concept for Multinational Advertising,” in
American Marketing Association’s National Marketing Educators’ Conference, Robert F.
Lusch, Gary T. Ford, Gary L. Frazier, Roy D. Howell, Charles A. Ingene, Michael Reilly, and
Ronald W. Stampfl, eds. NY: Young & Rubicam, 1-31.
Ratnagar, Shereen (1981), Encounters: the Westerly Trade of the Harappa Civilization. Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Ridgway, David (1973), “The First Western Greeks: Campanian Coasts and Southern Etruria” in
Archaeology into History I: Greeks, Celts and Romans, Studies in Venture and Resistance, C.
Hawkes and Sonia Chadwick Hawkes, eds. London: J.M Dent and Sons, Ltd., 5, 8.
Ries, Al and Ries, Laura (1998), The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding. New York: Harper
Business Collins.
Roth, Martha Tobi (1997), Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, Second edition,
Martha Tobi Roth, Harry A. Hoffner and Piotr Michalowski, eds. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.
40
Sparks, Brian A. (1996), The Red and the Black: Studies in Greek Pottery. London: Routledge.
Trout, Jack and Ries, Al (1981), Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind. New York: McGraw
Hill.
Tsirkin, Julij. (1978), “Economy of the Phoenician Settlements in Spain: Sate and Temple
Economy in the Ancient Near East,” Proceedings of the International Conference Organized by
the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, April 10 - 14, 1978: 548 - 551.
Vickers, Michael (1999). Ancient Greek Pottery. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum, The University
of Oxford.
Wolfe, Harry Deane. (1942), “Techniques of Appraising Brand Preference and Brand
Consciousness by Consumer Interviewing,” Journal of Marketing, 6 (4), 81-87.
Wolpert, Stanley (2000), A New History of India, 6th Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
