Many studies of Minoan and Mycenaean trade draw on models that place significant responsibility for trade, as well as production, in the hands of individuals near the top of a social hierarchy. Chronological imprecision, among other factors, limits our view of Aegean prehistory, so it is particularly difficult to precisely identify who those individuals were and how products were exchanged. More nuanced views of specialized production and exchange suggest that rather than maintaining a far-flung economic and political empire, Minoan trade was limited in scope and relied on larger states such as Egypt to support local elite individuals. Similar perspectives likely apply to Mycenaean exchange as well, as suggested by a number of scholars. For example, the Uluburun shipwreck, originally interpreted as a ship operating at the highest-level of exchange and carrying gifts between kings, may instead to represent a more entrepreneurial approach. A number of specialist studies of the combination of sloppy pottery, heirloom pieces, and poor-quality copper ingots, among other finds aboard the ship, emphasize how little we know about trade at this time. Direct evidence for trade in the prehistoric Aegean is scant, and optimistic interpretations of such evidence may in fact obscure its scope and significance.