Reconstructing Maritime Networks in the Bronze and Iron Age Eastern Mediterranean: a Diachronic Analysis of Canaanite and Phoenician Maritime Transport Containers

Reconstructing Maritime Networks in the Bronze and Iron Age Eastern Mediterranean: A Diachronic Analysis of Canaanite and Phoenician Maritime Transport Containers

Robert Martin

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations University of Toronto

Reconstructing Maritime Networks in the Bronze and Iron Age Eastern Mediterranean: A Diachronic Analysis of Canaanite and Phoenician Maritime Transport Containers

Robert Martin

Doctor of Philosophy

Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations University of Toronto

2021 Abstract

This thesis provides a diachronic overview of the evolution of Canaanite and Phoenician

Maritime Transport Containers (MTCs) produced in the Levant from the Early Bronze Age

(EBA) II/III to the terminal Iron Age (IA) II. The focus is on the morphological development of these ceramics and how this relates to maritime function, standardization for international markets and technological innovation. Through an examination of the spatial distribution and provenance of these ceramics, as well as EBA precursor and Iron Age successors, this study will elucidate their essential relationship with eastern Mediterranean maritime (and terrestrial) exchange networks. Their morphological development reflects growing specialization as an

MTC and the transport of bulk liquid staples like oils, resins, and wine, characteristic of production in the Levant. Littoral patterns are apparent, with exemplar MTCs common to coastal centres, but with evidence for dendritic patterns of exchange connected to hinterland production.

This study reveals expansions and contractions in long-distance trade during the Bronze and Iron

Ages, with some continuity in patterns stemming from coastal emporia, which interfaced with other economic centres via long-distance maritime activities. iii

A basic typological framework for the development of Levantine MTCs is presented, covering a period of nearly two millennia, but revealing appreciable continuity. With the growth of incipient

EBA long-distance maritime routes, so too occurred the innovation of new ceramic technologies in the form of MTC prototypes (MTC #1), further refined in the Canaanite Jars (MTC #2) of the

Middle Bronze Age (MBA), and with the expansion of international networks in the Late Bronze

Age (LBA) IIB, producing what may be the earliest purpose-built MTCs (MTC #3). Despite the disappearance of this distinctive, standardized type with the transition to the Iron Age, likely due to contraction in long-distance trade, there is continuity in the production of this carinated jar tradition along the Phoenician coast (MTC #4). The Phoenician MTCs of the Iron I-II relate to similar processes, with evidence that international trade continues during the Iron I (particularly with Egypt and Cyprus), and that it proliferates during the Iron II when MTC #5 is similarly standardized for international markets and provides evidence for deposition in contemporary shipwrecks. These Phoenician MTCs display further continuity with amphorae produced into the later Persian, Classical, and Roman periods. iv

Acknowledgments

For my mother, Jody.

Table of Contents Contents

Acknowledgments...... iv

Table of Contents ...... v

List of Tables ...... x

List of Plates ...... xi

List of Figures ...... xii

List of Appendices ...... xv

Chapter 1 Reconstructing Ancient Maritime Networks ...... 1

1.1 Introduction ...... 1

1.2 Maritime Transport Container Classification and Thesis ...... 4

1.3 Data Types ...... 6

1.3.1 Chronological Scope ...... 8

1.3.2 Geographical Scope ...... 9

1.4 History of the Problem: MTC Classification / Ceramic Typologies ...... 11

1.5 Summary of Chapters...... 15

Levantine MTCs: A History of Research and Literature Review ...... 16

2.1 Introduction ...... 16

2.2 History of Research and Early Studies of Levantine MTCs ...... 17

2.3 The Bronze Age ...... 21

2.4 The Iron Age ...... 25

2.5 Summary and Conclusions ...... 33

Creating a Levantine MTC Typology ...... 34

3.1 Introduction ...... 34

3.2 Maritime Transport Container Classification ...... 36 vi

3.2.1 MTC #1: Early Bronze Age Combed Ware Jars (Flat-Based) (Figure 2: EBA; Figure 3; Appendix I: Pl. I) ...... 37

3.2.2 MTC #2: Middle Bronze Age ‘Canaanite Jars’ (Ovoid) (Figure 2: MBA; Figure 6; Appendix I: Pl. 2) ...... 42

3.2.3 Late Bronze Age ‘Canaanite Jars’ ...... 48

3.2.4 LBA: Pedrazzi Type 4 (Bulbous) (Figure 2: LBA:A/IA:A/ Appendix I: Pl. 10) ...... 49

3.2.5 MTC #3: LBA, Pedrazzi Type 5.4 (Conical / Carinated) (Figures 11; 26: A-C / Appendix I: Pls. 4-6) ...... 50

3.2.6 MTC #4: Iron I, Pedrazzi Type 5.2 (Conical / Carinated) (Figures 15; 22:C-C2 / Appendix I: Pl. 9) ...... 56

3.2.7 Iron I: Type 5.5 (Conical / Carinated) (Figures 18; 22: B-B1 / Appendix I: Pl. 11) ...... 59

3.2.8 Iron I: Type 5.7 (Conical / Carinated - Transitional Type?) (Figures 20; 22: E; Appendix I: Pl. 12)...... 62

3.2.9 Iron I: Type 16 (Ovoid / Bulbous) (Figures 21; 22: D1/Appendix I: Pl. 14) ...... 63

3.2.10 MTC #5: Iron Age II, Aznar Type 9.B1 (Cylindrical / Conical) (Figures 23; 29 / Appendix I: Pls. 16 and 21) ...... 65

3.2.11 MTC #6: Iron Age II, Aznar Type 9.B2 (Cylindrical/ Conical / Pyriform / Parabolic) (Figures 24; 29 / Appendix I: Pls. 17 and 21) ...... 67

3.2.12 Maritime Transport Container Typology ...... 69

3.3 Summary and Conclusions ...... 71

Levantine MTCs in the Archaeological Record ...... 76

4.1 Introduction ...... 76

4.2 Early Bronze Age ‘Combed Ware’ Jars (MTC #1) ...... 76

4.3 Middle Bronze Age ‘Canaanite Jars’ (MTC #2) ...... 83

4.4 Late Bronze Age ‘Canaanite Jars’ (Pedrazzi Type 4, but especially MTC #3 / Pedrazzi Type 5.4) ...... 87

4.5 Iron Age I: Phoenician Maritime Transport Containers (MTC #4 / Pedrazzi Type 5.2) ...... 96 vii

4.6 Iron Age II: Phoenician Maritime Transport Containers (MTC #5-6 / Aznar Type 9.B1-9.B2) ...... 99

4.7 Summary and Conclusions ...... 102

Spatial Distribution of MTC Types ...... 106

5.1 Introduction ...... 106

5.2 Methodology ...... 106

5.3 Distribution Data and Analysis...... 107

5.3.1 Early Bronze Age ‘Combed Ware’ Distribution (MTC #1) (Appendix I: Pl. 1) ...... 107

5.3.2 Middle Bronze Age ‘Canaanite Jar’ Distribution (MTC #2) (Appendix I: Pl. 2) ...... 112

5.3.3 Late Bronze Age ‘Canaanite Jar’ Distribution (all types) ...... 116

5.3.4 Late Bronze Age MTC #3 Distribution (Pedrazzi Type 5.4) (Appendix I: Pls. 4-7) ...... 123

5.3.5 Iron Age I MTC #4 Distribution (Pedrazzi Type 5.2) (Appendix I: Pl. 9) ...... 127

5.3.6 Iron Age II MTC #5-6 Distribution (Aznar Type 9.B1 / 9.B2) (Appendix I: Pls. 16-17) ...... 130

5.4 Summary and Conclusion ...... 133

Provenance Studies and Data ...... 136

6.1 Introduction ...... 136

6.2 Provenance Data by Chronological Period / MTC Type ...... 136

6.2.1 Early Bronze Age ‘Combed Ware’ Jars (MTC #1) ...... 136

6.2.2 Middle Bronze Age Canaanite Jar (MTC #2) ...... 141

6.2.3 Late Bronze Age / Pedrazzi Type 5.4 (MTC #3) ...... 146

6.2.4 Iron Age I: Pedrazzi Type 5.2 (MTC #4) ...... 154

6.2.5 Iron Age II / Aznar Type 9.B1 (MTC #5) ...... 156

6.3 Summary and Conclusions ...... 157

Physical Mechanics and Strength: MTC Morphology and Shape ...... 160 viii

7.1 Introduction ...... 160

7.2 The evolution of the MTC: Reliability as an index of maritime trade and function revealed by changing morphology ...... 160

7.2.1 Ceramic Materials and Physics: Weight versus Stress (Stress = Force/Area) ...... 163

7.2.2 Ceramic Materials and Physics: Nesting ...... 166

7.2.3 Standardization or Strength? Examining the prevalence of conical and cylindrical MTC morphology ...... 167

7.2.4 Predicting the volume of conical and cylindrical MTCs in Ancient Canaan / Egypt ...... 168

7.2.5 Predicting volume based on manipulation of height and or radius/diameter in cylinders: π × r2 × h ...... 170

7.2.6 Predicting volume based on manipulation of height and/or radius/diameter in Cones: (1/3) π × r2 × h ...... 170

7.2.7 Nesting Revisited ...... 174

7.2.8 MTC Morphological Variation: The question of why conical, cylindrical (MTC #5 / 9.B1) or pyriform / parabolic (MTC #6 / 9.B2)? ...... 175

7.3 Summary and Conclusions ...... 178

Synthesis and Conclusions ...... 183

8.1 Introduction ...... 183

8.2 MTC distribution and reconstructing maritime trade networks spatially/ diachronically ...... 184

8.3 Port Power in the Near East and the greater Mediterranean ...... 186

8.3.1 Middle Bronze Age II ‘Port Power’ and Maritime Trade ...... 191

8.3.2 Late Bronze Age Maritime Trade and Eastern Mediterranean Port Power ...... 194

8.3.3 Iron Age I: Phoenician Port Power and Maritime Trade ...... 196

8.3.4 Iron Age II: Phoenician Port Power in the Greater Mediterranean ...... 197

8.3.5 The Socio-economic Framework of Maritime Networks: Applying Port Power Theory ...... 199 ix

8.4 The potential role of Trade Diaspora ...... 202

8.5 Levantine MTCs and their distribution patterns ...... 204

8.5.1 MTC Distribution Data, Networks and Future Scholarship ...... 209

8.6 The Periphery in the center and the making of the Middle Sea ...... 210

Bibliography ...... 213

Appendix I: Pottery Plates ...... 249

List of Tables

TABLE 1. General Chronology for the Levant ………………...………...……………………... 8

TABLE 2. MTC Exemplars #1-6 (Features and Typological Correlations)……………...……..75

TABLE 3. Volumetric Data from EBA-Iron II for MTC #1-5………..………………..…102-103

TABLE 4. Contents of MTCs…………………………...…………………………...…………104

TABLE 5. Archaeological Sites in Early Bronze Age Distribution (MTC #1)……...... ……….111

TABLE 6. Archaeological Sites in Middle Bronze Age Distribution (MTC #2)…….………...115

TABLE 7. Archaeological Sites in Late Bronze Age Distribution (all types)…………….121-122

TABLE 8: Archaeological Sites in LBA Distribution of MTC #3 (Type 5.4)..…….…...... 126

TABLE 9. Archaeological Sites in Iron Age I Distribution of MTC #4 (Type 5.2)…………...129

TABLE 10. Archaeological Sites in Iron Age II Distribution of MTC #5 (Type 9.B1)……….132

TABLE 11. LBA Canaanite jars found in Egypt by fabric and provenance………….………..149

TABLE 12: NK Canaanite jars found in Egypt; site, date, context, and fabrics…………...…..149

TABLE 13: LBA Canaanite jar petrographic groups/provenance/identified residues...……….151

TABLE 14: Summary of Provenance Data………..………………………………………...…159

TABLE 15: Key to Appendix I (Pottery Plates)………..…………………………………273-282

List of Plates

Plate 1: Early Bronze Age III (MTC #1)…..………….………..……………………………... 250

Plate 2: Middle Bronze Age II (MTC #2)….……….…………………………………………..251

Plate 3: Cretan MTC Prototype…………………………………………………………………252

Plate 4: LBA MTC #3 (Type 5.4)………...…………………………………………………….253

Plate 4.1: LBA MTC #3 (Type 5.4)……...…………………………………………...………...254

Plate 5: LBA MTC #3 (Type 5.4)……..………………………………………………………. 255

Plate 6: LBA MTC #3 (Type 5.4) (variant 2)…………..………………………………………256

Plate 7: LBA MTC #3 (Type 5.4) (variant 3)………………..……...………………………….257

Plate 7.1: LBA MTC #3 (Type 5.4) (variant 4)…………………….....………………………..258

Plate 8: Iron I: Miscellaneous………………………………………...………………………...259

Plate 9: Iron Age I MTC #4 (Type 5.2)……………………..………………………………….260

Plate 10: Iron Age I MTC #4 (Type 5.2)..………………………………...……………………261

Plate 11: Iron Age I Type 5.5………………………………………………………………….. 262

Plate 12: Iron Age I Type 5.7.…………………………………………………………………. 263

Plate 13: Iron Age II Type 5.3……………………………………………...…………………. 264

Plate 14: Iron Age I Type 16....……………………………………………...………………… 265

Plate 15: Iron Age II Type 9.A……………………………………………...………………… 266

Plate 16: Iron II MTC #5 (Type 9.B1)….……...…………………………….…...…………… 267

Plate 17: Iron II MTC #6 (Type 9.B2)………………………………………..……………….. 268

Plate 18: Iron III Miscellaneous ...... …………………………………………………………. 269

Plate 19: LBA Miscellaneous.……………………………………………………...……….….270

Plate 20: LBA / IA Exemplars…………………………………………………...……………. 271

Plate 21: Iron II Exemplars…………………………………………………………...……….. 272

xii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Major archaeological sites and shipwrecks…………………………………….….…..10

Figure 2: Diachronic Overview of Levantine MTC Morphological Development………..…….14

Figure 3: MTC #1 / Early Bronze Age Exported Combed Ware Jar – Egypt….………………..37

Figure 4: Compare (1) combed ware specimen (“Abydos Ware”) from the Naqada IIIB/EBA I tomb of U-y (Egypt), with Early Bronze II Cretan MTC Prototype: “Red Brown Ware”……....38

Figure 5: Combed Ware Jars from coastal Syria-Palestine and Egypt………………………..…39

Figure 6: MBA Exported ‘Canaanite Jar’ From Egypt and Cyprus…………………………..…42

Figure 7: Late EBA Combed Ware from Tell Arqa phase P, compared to MBA phases with Classic Canaanite Jar forms emerging………………….………..…………………………..…..43

Figure 8: Interpreted Petrographic Groups…………………………….……………………...…45

Figure 9: Line drawings of Tell el-Dabʿa jars with fabrics similar to Memphis Group 4, “Northern Coastal Palestine”……………………………………………………………….…... 47

Figure 10: Late Bronze Age Pedrazzi Type 4 Exported to Maa-Palaeokastro, Cyprus………....49

Figure 11: MTC #3 / LBA Pedrazzi Type 5.4 ‘Canaanite Jar’ from the Uluburun ………….….50

Figure 12: LBA I-IIA storage jar rims from Tyre compared with Memphis……..….……..……52

Figure 13: Maps of proposed provenance assignments for MBA/LBA Canaanite jar petrographic groups…………………………………………………………………………………………….53

Figure 14: LBA Canaanite jars from Egypt, fabrics P31 and P70 assigned to Northern Coastal Palestine………………………………………………………………………………………….55

Figure 15: Iron Age I MTC #4 / Pedrazzi Type 5.2………………..………………....………….56

Figure 16: MTC #4 / Type 5.2 also known as “Avner Jars……………..…………………...…..58

Figure 17: TT 217 (Ipuy) from the 19th Dynasty (Ramses II). Scene of Type 5.4 amphorae (MTC #3) or very early examples of Type 5.2 (MTC #4) being used as a shaduf...... 58

Figure 18: Pedrazzi Type 5.5 variants…………………………………………..……………….59

Figure 19: Reconstructed Iron I MTC (Kommos, Crete)……………………………………..…61

Figure 20: Iron I: Type 5.7….……………………………………………………………………62

Figure 21: Compare Type 16 from Cyprus / Egypt………………………………………...……63 xiii

Figure 22: Iron Age I Exported Levantine Commercial Jars / MTCs………………………..…64

Figure 23: Iron II MTC #5 (Aznar Type 9.B1) Phoenician MTCs…………………………..….65

Figure 24: Iron II MTC #6 (Aznar Type 9.B2) Phoenician MTCs………………….………..…67

Figure 25: Iron Age II Phoenician Commercial Jars and Maritime Transport Containers……...68

Figure 26: Diachronic overview of dominant MTCs (EBA III-Iron II)…………………………69

Figure 27: LBA MTC #3 (Type 5.4) compare to Iron I MTC #4 (Type 5.2)…………..…...…...72

Figure 28: Compare MTC #3 (Type 5.4) and MTC #4 (Type 5.2) at Dor……….…………..….72

Figure 29: Exported Iron II MTC #5-6 (Type 9.B1-9.B2)...... …………………….………...... 73

Figure 30: Metallic Ware ‘Donkey’ Transporting Pithoi?...... 79

Figure 31: Sea Ship with a West Semitic crew, from the relief of the temple of Sahure, Old Kingdom, 5th Dynasty (c. 2400 BCE)………………………………………………………..…81

Figure 32: Representation of foreign pottery, possibly combed ware, in Old Kingdom tomb of Ptah-Hotep……………..……………………………………………………………………..….83

Figure 33: MTC #2 / MBA Canaanite Jar from Tel el-Dab’a (Egypt) ……………………….…84

Figure 34: Syrian Merchant Ships from Tomb 162 (Thebes).………………..………………….88

Figure 35: Postulated LBA Morphological Development of the ‘Canaanite Jar’…………….....89

Figure 36: Warehouse at LBA Ugarit……………………………………………………………90

Figure 37: Uluburun Cargo/ Levantine Jars of Pedrazzi Type 5.4 Reconstructed……………...91

Figure 38: MTC #3 (Type 5.4) from Uluburun shipwreck, Mycenae and port of Ugarit…….…93

Figure 39: MTC #4 (Type 5.2) from Palaepaphos-Skales, Tyre and Sarepta……………...……97

Figure 40: MTC #4 found near kiln G at Sarepta…………………………….……….…...….…97

Figure 41: Mosaic of Tanit shipwreck, approx. ca. 750 B.C…………………………….……..100

Figure 42: Stager’s distribution map for MTC #5 (Type 9.B1)…………………………….…..101

Figure 43: Early Bronze Age ‘Combed Ware’ Jar Distribution (MTC #1)………...………..…110

Figure 44: Middle Bronze Age ‘Canaanite Jar’ Distribution (MTC #2)…………...………..…114

Figure 45: Late Bronze Age Distribution of ‘Canaanite Jars’…………….……………….…...120

Figure 46: Examples of MTC #3 exported to the Aegean (Menidi)…….…………...…………124 xiv

Figure 47: LBA Distribution of MTC #3 (Type 5.4) ………………...…………..…………….125

Figure 48: Iron Age I Distribution of MTC #4 (5.2)………………… ……………………..…126

Figure 49: Iron Age II Distribution of MTC #5 (9.B1)…………………………………..….…129

Figure 50: EBA II-III Combed Ware Jars (MTC #1)…………………………...………..….…137

Figure 51: Levantine Combed Ware Fabrics (Giza)……………………………………..….….137

Figure 52: Interpreted provenance areas for major Petrographic Groups 1 through 4……..…..142

Figure 53: Map of provenances for petrographic groups A-K……………………………..….144

Figure 54: Map of proposed assignment for LBA Canaanite jar petrographic groups…………147

Figure 55: MTC #4 (Type 5.2) Analysis………………..………………………...……..……..154

Figure 56: Graphic representation of Parabola/Conic Section showing Parabola / Approximation of Parabola within a 3-Dimensional conical form……………………………...………………162

Figure 57: Sketch of reduced physical compression in parabolic MTC forms ……..………….164

Figure 58: Iron II MTC #5 (Aznar Type 9.B1)………………………………...……...………..165

Figure 59: Reconstruction of stacking………………………………………...………………..165

Figure 60: MTC #6 (Aznar 9.B2)……………………………………………...…...…………..165

Figure 61: Reconstruction of stacking…………………………………………...……………..165

Figure 62: 6th Century ‘Greek form of pithos’ from Tarsus……………………..…………….166

Figure 63: 1st-2nd Century BCE Button shaped amphorae base (Rhodian).……...…………….166

Figure 64: Calculating the volume of a conical form…………………………...…..………….169

Figure 65: Calculating the volume of a cylinder……………………………...………………..169

Figure 66: Three different sizes of conical Canaanite jars (MTC #3) from the Uluburun Wreck inverted to better illustrate the parabolic morphology (arched features) of the cone and the wheel- thrown conical body from which the volume could be predicted………….……..…………….171

Figure 67: MTC #5 compared with breakdown of linear measurements illustrating cylindrical sections composing the body and by which the volume could be predicted using…………..…172

Figure 68: Continuity in later Roman Period morphological types…………………………….181

Figure 69: Principal Sites Sampled……………………………………………………………..187

Figure 70: Idealized Model of dendritic trade networks………………………………………..187 xv

Figure 71: Map of Port Power Networks in EBA…………………..…….…………………….189

Figure 72: Map of Port Power Networks in MBAII…….…………..……….…………………192

Figure 73: Miniature MTC #6 (Type 9.B2) from Cumae (Italy)……..………….……………..206

Figure 74: Large Punic Amphorae (comparable to Aznar Type 9.A) and Miniature Phoenician MTC #5 (Aznar Type 9.B1) excavated from Iron II tombs on Pithekoussai (identical to the example from Elissa wreck)………………………………………………….…….…………...207

List of Appendices

Appendix I: Catalogue and Pottery Drawings for all Jar Types...…………………..……..249-272 1

Chapter 1 Reconstructing Ancient Maritime Networks

Earthen jars full of wine are brought into Egypt twice a year from all Greece and Phoenicia besides: yet one might safely say there is not a single empty wine jar anywhere in the country. What then (one may ask) becomes of them? I shall explain this too. Each governor of a district must gather in all the earthen pots from his own township and take them to Memphis, and the people of Memphis must fill them with water and carry them to those arid lands of Syria; so the earthen pottery that is brought to Egypt and unloaded or emptied there is carried to Syria to join the stock that has already been taken there. (Herodotus, Histories 3: 6–7)

1.1 Introduction

Activity on the open seas has extremely limited archaeological visibility, and thus scholars of the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (EIA) periods have struggled to assemble terrestrial finds (ceramics and trade goods) in attempts to determine the nature and date the emergence of the earliest maritime trade networks (Esse 1991: 116, De Miroschedji 2002: Fig. 2.5, Sowada 2009: Figs. 45-47). These efforts have met with some success, especially with regard to elucidating ancient maritime trade routes and the general development of Bronze Age maritime exchange in the eastern Mediterranean (Sauvage 2017: 151-164). My research has sought to isolate a reliable index that would allow for the reconstruction of Bronze Age maritime activity and patterns of long-distance trade. In order to move the discussion beyond a handful of underwater shipwreck sites, this thesis will focus largely on the distribution of diagnostic ceramics. One particular class common to prominent wrecks, such as the Late Bronze Age (LBA) Uluburun and Cape Gelidonya, and one that, at least in exported contexts, can provide a useful index of maritime exchange networks: the so-called ‘Canaanite jar’ (Figure 2; also see examples in Appendix I).

Emerging during the Middle Bronze Age (MBA), the Canaanite jar, also referred to as the “commercial” (Amiran 1970: 140) and “portable jar” (Raban 1980), is ideally suited to 2 provide a useful index of the trade networks that connected the eastern Mediterranean (Raban 1980, Sugerman 2000, Martin 2016). Amiran (1970: 140-143) emphasized the difference between the Canaanite jar and the morphologically similar “decorated jars” that were primarily for storage (140-143), describing the Canaanite jars as “jars made purposely for trading”, and felt that changes in the morphology of the jar were dictated by its function and “the expanding commerce toward the 14th century B.C.E.” (1970: 141). This very durable ceramic jar would become the “most commonly used shipping container” of the MBII-LBA (Sugerman 2000: 11). As such, Canaanite jars are a useful indicator of trade for several reasons: (1) they are among the most “commonly identified types of ceramic artifacts in and outside Syria-Palestine”, and (2) “the provenience of their raw clay can be identified with some precision” (Sugerman 2000: 5-6). Often described as a purpose-built transport vessel (see discussion below), the Canaanite jar has an intrinsic connection to exchange networks, and the West Semitic peoples of the littoral of Syria-Palestine. By examining the spatial distribution of this ceramic tradition, as well as its Early Bronze Age (EBA) precursor and Iron Age successors, this study will elucidate those maritime trade networks, which the distribution of these vessels typifies, particularly in exported contexts. This thesis will provide new perspectives on maritime trade and networks through a Braudelian longue durée, the advantage of this approach being that one can truly highlight changes and continuity of Maritime Transport Containers (MTCs), including their original development, and patterns of regional and international networks.

Moreover, in analyzing this ceramic data and these distribution patterns, an effort will be made to position this investigation within the larger context and framework of the Mediterranean as a meaningful cultural unit of study. Given the breadth of the present study both temporally and geographically, such an undertaking might be criticized as overly ambitious or macroscale, however, there is an important body of descriptive and theoretical scholarship seeking to expand upon our conception of the Mediterranean as a collection of disparate societies, largely disconnected in antiquity – to an elaborate network that when viewed as a whole, represents an important and formative system (Broodbank 2013: 55-60). This holistic approach, made prominent in the groundbreaking work: The Making of the Middle Sea, brings together essential aspects of archaeological and historical data to understand how the Mediterranean evolved into a tapestry of human societies that despite numerous geographic barriers, were inextricably interconnected by the sea. Broodbank (2013: 91) emphasized the agency of the inhabitants of the 3 coastal regions and islands, the mariners, traders and enduring emporia in this “circum- Mediterranean theatre”.

Despite his attention to virtually all contributing factors from regional geology and prehistory to pastoral nomadism and local environments, in reconstructing this Mediterranean connectivity, Broodbank is strongly focused on the sea, seafaring and associated technologies (2013: 72-76, 152-54, 213-15, 287-92, 327-30, 373-74, 465-66, 513-14, 599-600). In keeping with the design of the present thesis, his work (especially Chapters 7-10) brings together the archaeology of various regions that had historically been largely examined in isolation (for example, Greece) or viewed as a unidirectional influencer (Egypt, for example), bringing a holistic approach to bear that allows for the consideration of larger scale socio-economic and cultural processes and reciprocal interactions / exchange throughout the Middle Sea. Despite some criticism of certain aspects of this reconstruction and explanatory framework and the ways in which it challenged accepted standards, there is great value in Broodbank’s holistic approach, which will be employed in the present work.

By reconstructing the distribution of Levantine MTCs diachronically (over the long term) and throughout the Mediterranean, this thesis will provide yet another layer of data from which these interconnections and networks might be inferred, and the appreciably rapid evolution of this complex region better understood and characterized. Furthermore, despite a focus here on reconstructing large-scale Mediterranean interactions as reflected in the available archaeological data, it is important that significant theoretical works are at least considered, particularly those that might help to better characterize this data, such as network theory (see below) and World Systems (Algaze 1993; see especially Horden and Purcell 2000). Moreover, in attempting some reconstruction of ancient trade/exchange networks, it is necessary to consider the socioeconomic framework in which they are situated. These networks are difficult to access and assess, but presumably existed within some kind of economic context. Essentially, this thesis will attempt to apply the essential economics encapsulated in Stager’s (2001) port power theory to explain and describe the basic framework within which these maritime networks operated (see Chapter 8).

Finally, in considering the kinds of network analysis that might be undertaken utilizing this thesis and the data that will be presented, it is necessary to differentiate between spatial and material networks. Spatial networks, recalled in the work of Broodbank (2000) on the Cyclades 4 using tools from graph theory, and spatial interaction models such as imperfect optimization, applied to the Aegean Bronze Age (Knappett et al. 2008), are wonderful new tools being employed by archaeologist to gain valuable inference and insight into the ancient Mediterranean. However, because this thesis utilizes data (quantitative and otherwise), and is not really a theoretical model, the kinds of network analysis that would be most effectively employed is focused on material networks, such as the work of Mills (2017: 379-97). Spatial Network Analysis (SNA) can be applied to different kinds of material culture, including ceramics, based on presence/absence data or frequencies of material culture / artefacts – both of which will be examined in the context of Levantine MTCs in Chapter 5. These reconstructed patterns will be important to future scholarship, in that this manner of spatial distribution analysis based on material culture “can be used to address a number of anthropological questions, including shared identities, the structure of power relationships, the diffusion/transmission of technological innovations, and participation in ideological and other social movements” (Mills 2017: 387). In particular, it is likely that the spatial distribution analysis of MTCs (Chapter 5) undertaken here could be usefully employed in conjunction with provenance data (Chapter 6) to elucidate the dissemination of technological innovations, including alphabetic writing (Chapter 8).

1.2 Maritime Transport Container Classification and Thesis

Despite the obvious role of what Raban (1980) described as the ‘commercial jar’ in maritime networks stemming from and connected to the Levant throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages, we have until recently lacked the typological foundation necessary to properly classify the various manifestations of this tradition in the Syria-Palestine, particularly those that may have been more specifically adapted to maritime export. This thesis will utilize new ceramic typologies developed over the past decade of archaeological research to establish a classification of commercial jars isolated here from coastal/exported traditions, which may have been specifically adapted for maritime transport and functioned predominantly as MTCs as reflected in both their morphological evolution and spatial distribution over time (see Chapters 3-5).

This undertaking is indebted from the outset to Avner Raban (1980), who attempted a similar diachronic analysis early on. However, this task may now be executed with the application of several modern ceramic typologies, additional archaeological data and exposures, and perhaps most importantly, a large pool of provenance analyses coming from multiple 5 analytical sources. Although chemical and elemental analysis, including Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) and X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) will be included here, an effort will be made to bring the last decade of petrofabric analysis that has been conducted on this ceramic corpus, particularly in exported contexts, to the forefront of this work and to create a comprehensive study cataloguing morphology, distribution and provenance, reflecting plausible regions of production in the Levant that can be associated with the dominant MTC types; particularly the corpus from the MBA, LBA, Iron Age I and the Iron Age II.

This thesis provides a diachronic overview of the evolution of Canaanite and Phoenician MTCs produced in the Levant from the Early Bronze Age (EBA) II/III to the end of the Early Iron Age (IA) II, and the eighth century BCE, with a focus on the LBA/Iron transition (13th - 12th century BCE), and investigating continuities in the Iron Age II-III. My analysis will examine the distribution and morphological development of these vessels through time and how that relates to function, maritime adaptation, commercialization, standardization, and innovation. I will attempt to move beyond the broad and general classification ‘Canaanite jar’, and to refine a more meaningful terminology of types for each period, primarily based upon the ceramic typologies of Pedrazzi (2007; 2010) and Aznar (2005), and emergent provenance data for these MTCs (Gilboa et al. 2015; Waiman-Barak 2016). By a more meaningful terminology, this thesis means to move beyond the broad nomenclature of transport and storage jars, to isolate the most diagnostic forms that represent early MTCs, manufactured in coastal regions and designed for and specifically involved in maritime trading activities. Although a case can be made for the inclusion of a diversity of jar forms in a review of plausible MTCs from Bronze and early Iron Age Syria-Palestine (Martin 2016a), here I will isolate definitive exemplars and provide insight into their production centres, distribution, provenance, and the development of their characteristic morphological features.

In examining the distribution and provenance of these ceramic vessels, their relationship with eastern Mediterranean maritime (and terrestrial) trade networks becomes evident, displaying spatial distribution patterns effectively generated by contemporary sea routes and trade networks. In the case of the MTC exemplars reviewed in Chapters 3-5, we will see these patterns are strongly littoral and when viewed diachronically these also reflect increasing scale and volume of maritime trade networks in the eastern Mediterranean during the Bronze and early Iron Age. The morphological development of these jar forms gradually reveals growing 6 specialization as an MTC, the refinement of which appears to relate closely, but not exclusively to the transport and exchange economy of bulk liquid and viscous staples (oils, resins, and wine).

In sum, the main contribution of this thesis consists of a refined MTC typology with a broad diachronic range, expressed and discussed also in terms of spatial distribution. Mapping the distribution of chronologically and functionally diagnostic exported pottery vessel types, while tracing / tracking this distribution diachronically, it is possible to utilize this ceramic corpus as an index of contemporary maritime networks stemming from the Levant, extending into the Mediterranean and international markets. An emphasis is placed upon the importance of littoral and dendritic patterns of exchange (e.g., Sugerman 2000, Stager 2001). Significantly, the diachronic and interregional distribution of specific Levantine MTC types reflects expansions and contractions in long-distance trade during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These patterns also suggest continuity in maritime trade networks stemming from coastal nodes, which interfaced with other maritime and interregional trade networks. These networks, defined as connections that existed between individual sites (for example, Tyre and Sarepta) and between larger regional units thereof (Syria-Palestine, Egypt, Cyprus, etc), were complex, and will be reconstituted here only in a broad sense via spatial distribution patterns, with the presence of diagnostic MTCs reflecting maritime trade at sites, and being mapped and represented by a node (Chapter 5) for diachronic comparison. This will enable future scholarship to consider network analyses utilizing these patterns and data, like for example the work of Mills (2017) and Peeples (2019) on material networks.

1.3 Data Types

A number of analytical methods are relevant to the research objectives of this thesis and must be employed, the first and foremost being preserved ceramics from terrestrial and underwater archaeology. Employing my earlier work regarding the identification of dominant Bronze and Early Iron Age MTC types (Martin 2016a/b), this thesis will present a more refined diachronic typology of diagnostic Levantine MTCs based upon similar criteria: presence in shipwrecks, shipping warehouses, exported contexts, evidence of coastal manufacture, standardization for international markets, functional morphological features, etc. (see Chapters 2-7), but with an expanded survey of the available evidence and distribution mapping coupled with provenance data. In order to undertake this spatial distribution analysis and lay the necessary foundation for 7 reconstructing eastern Mediterranean maritime routes and network patterns stemming from the Levant, this thesis will isolate the earliest prototypes manufactured in and exported from the Levant, as well the later MTCs exemplars diagnostic of the Bronze and early Iron Age. A survey of this archaeological data is necessary so that it may be topologized and spatially mapped, allowing for diachronic comparison of the data sets from each chronological period and the ceramic distribution patterns compared utilizing geospatial software (ArcGIS). The primary method of analysis that will be employed is spatial analysis, focusing on the distribution of dominant MTC types that will be outlined in Chapters 2 and 3.

To add meaning to these MTC distribution patterns and contextualize the maritime networks these patterns should reflect, ceramic analyses will also be reviewed from available petrographic and chemical data, to determine the geographic origin of production of the MTCs, which can be compared with the ultimate destination (location of deposition in exported contexts), better characterizing the directional nature and structure of these archaic maritime patterns of trade/exchange, and implications regarding settlement patterns. A review of residue analyses will provide information on the contents of these containers (see Chapter 3), while examining the extant petrographic and chemical analysis (Chapter 6) will answer questions of provenance that are necessary to explore in order for the distribution patterns of exported vessels to be meaningful and to ensure the examples included can be sourced to the Levant. In addition, the material physics and related geometry and mathematics of MTC morphology, standardization and transport will be examined for explanatory models relating to the development of Canaanite and Phoenician MTC forms (Gray 1997; Davis 2012; Vince 2019).

Pottery will be reviewed from a variety of contexts, including the most precise stratigraphic excavations at key Levantine coastal sites associated with the production and export of MTCs. In Syria-Palestine, these will namely be: Tyre: EBA-IA II, Sarepta: MBA-IAII and Dor: LBA-Iron I, but also other key centers in the Syria-Palestinian littoral from which growing publication data is available (Arqa, Kazel, Keisan, Sidon, Ugarit, Abu Hawam). Available archaeological and textual evidence will be examined to make intelligent inference regarding the nature of this Bronze and Iron Age maritime trade (both seaborne and riverine), the contents of these MTCs, and the important implications this has more broadly in the economic, technological and socio-political development of these Mediterranean societies and their relationship with peripheral regions. 8

1.3.1 Chronological Scope

The chronological scope of this study will encompass the Bronze and Iron Ages in order to present a holistic and complete diachronic analysis of MTC development, maritime network formation, and their important economic, technological, and cultural implications. Discussion will range from the EBA when maritime network formation and associated MTC prototypes are first evidenced archaeologically, to the IA II when important implications for these earlier practices are more archaeologically visible and explicitly evidenced in the context of twin shipwrecks with a homogenous load of MTCs, carrying a cargo of wine bound for international markets (Finkelstein et al. 2011).

Table 1: General Chronology for the Levant (Sharon 2013: Table 4.3)

This diachronic analysis will also make a more explicit connection between processes (technological innovation, standardization, containerization) that first occurred in the ancient 9

Near East, but were broadly seminal to the subsequent formation of Mediterranean societies and their representative MTCs (Bevan 2014). This is particularly important with regard to the activities of the Phoenicians in the western Mediterranean during the 8th Century BCE. 1

1.3.2 Geographical Scope

The geographic scope of this study will focus on the eastern Mediterranean, with some expansion to include the central and west Mediterranean during the Iron Age when trade patterns shifted westward (see Figure 1). It will vary to some extent by period based upon the distribution of the MTCs examined. The geographical scope will be restricted (by time period) to the Early Bronze Age of Syria-Palestine and Egypt; the Middle Bronze Age eastern Mediterranean (Syria- Palestine/Egypt, with limited data from Cyprus and Crete); the Late Bronze Age eastern Mediterranean (Syria-Palestine/Egypt, while more broadly extending to Nubia, Cyprus, Cilicia, and the Aegean), and finally the Iron Age I eastern Mediterranean (largely restricted to Phoenicia, Egypt, Cyprus and available Iron I exposures, with limited data from the Aegean).

The terminal LBA population movements that affected the southern Levant (Canaan) (Stager 1995; Cross and Stager 2006) and the northern, Syrian coast (Birney 2007; 2008; Harrison 2009; Hawkins 2009; Osborne 2011), did not have the same impacts for the central Levant (Phoenicia), which the available evidence suggests remained largely undisturbed (Stieglitz 1990; Joffe 2002: Fig. 1; Bell 2006: 92). Some have even speculated that the Phoenician city-states may have in some ways benefited from an influx of immigrants during this dynamic transitional period (Gilboa and Sharon 2008: 190), but whatever the case, the Iron Age very gradually witnessed a pattern of trade that would radiate from these “surviving Canaanite- Phoenician cities” (Master 2009: 118), also continuing the production and refinement of ‘Canaanite’ style ‘commercial jars’, and giving rise to the Phoenician MTCs of the Iron Age I-II (Ballard et al. 2002: 159). In analyzing the production and use of Levantine MTCs in the Iron I, it is not surprising that the Phoenician city-states and their maritime trading activities will provide the bulk of available archaeological data.

1 See Stager’s model of “port power” (Stager 2001: 625-38). 10

Figure 1: Major archaeological sites and shipwrecks. Data provided by the University of Toronto CRANE Project; shape files created by Stephen Batiuk and Dominique Langis-Barsetti. 11

Lastly, MTCs that persist into the Iron Age II will be discussed within the broader scope of the greater Mediterranean, extending from the Levant westward to Carthage (North Africa) and Italy; however, like specific elements of the succeeding Iron III and Classical era, these later periods and their ceramic continuities are important to acknowledge, but not central to the primary diachronic analysis conducted here (EBA-Iron Age II).

1.4 History of the Problem: MTC Classification / Ceramic Typologies

Following my earlier works on Levantine MTCs (Martin 2016a/b), their classification and history of research, the Bronze Age and the formative processes which led to the Iron Age will be reviewed and examined herein, but as discussed above, the primary focus of the present study will be the terminal LBA (13th Century) and Early Iron Age / Iron Age I (ca. 1200-900 BCE) periods (see Table 1). Although the Iron Age has received an increasing amount of attention in recent years, thanks to new data from ongoing excavations, our understanding of the Iron Age I in the Levant, particularly of certain important coastal regions (those outside ancient Phoenicia: e.g., Coastal Palestine and Syria), has remained limited in part because it followed the disruptive events that characterised the end of the LBA. Despite the limitations of available Iron Age I archaeological exposures, ongoing research has increasingly challenged the concept of an ensuing ‘Dark Age’, as data from modern excavations has increased, along with the evidence for continuity amidst this change (e.g., Mazzoni 2000; Gilboa et al. 2008; Bachhuber and Roberts 2009; Harrison 2009).

Indeed, as in the Bronze Age, the production and distribution of MTCs in the Iron Age Levant still clearly involved the West Semitic-speaking peoples of the Levantine littoral, whether those inhabitants are characterized as ‘Canaanites’ or ‘Phoenicians’. Despite its problematic, ethnically charged name, the ‘Canaanite jar’ certainly originated with and proliferated amongst these groups, most of whom likely identified themselves with their city-states of origin but are referred to in literature as Canaanites or Phoenicians (Cross 1989: 80; Regev 2004: 337). One must exercise caution regarding the suggestion that LBA Canaanite more or less translates to Iron Age Phoenician (Grace 1979: 6; Cross 1989: 80). However, in light of the prevalent and established use of the terminology ‘Canaanite jar’ in scholarly literature, it will be to some extent be employed here, while making greater typological distinction among forms where possible (for 12 example, the bulbous LBA Canaanite jar classified as Type 4, versus the conical LBA II forms of Type 5.4). Moreover, it is important to avoid the suggestion that pots equal people and making inherent linkages between ethnic designations and specific elements of material culture, ergo the provenance data reviewed in Chapter 6 will be crucial in substantiating the Levantine origin of exported ceramics from those, which in some cases, are imitations or of demonstrable foreign manufacture (for example, Canaanite jars made on LBA Cyprus or in Egypt, discussed below).

After the end of the LBA, Canaanite culture was more restricted, occupying a region that extended roughly from around Haifa Bay in the south, through coastal Lebanon and at least some of coastal Syria in the north (Krahmalkov 2000: 1-2; Haber et al. 2017: 274). It is to these Iron Age ‘Phoenician’ city-states we must look when examining the continued production and refinement of ‘Canaanite’ style jars in the form of ‘Phoenician transport amphorae’ (Regev 2004), and the more clearly “purpose-built” MTCs of the Iron Age II Levant (Ballard et al. 2002: 159).2 Recently, I have proposed a preliminary framework for the Levantine Iron Age (Martin 2016a/b).

Nevertheless, in addressing the role and history of MTCs in the Levant, one is immediately confronted by a number of obstacles. Given the appreciable morphological uniformity of the containers themselves through time, and the ad hoc re-use of jars in variable contexts, how is one to make any conclusive functional distinction between a storage jar, a transport jar or, for that matter, a purpose-built MTC? Is such a distinction demonstrably relevant to the potters and networks of the Bronze and Early Iron Ages? Of equal concern is the limited number of Iron Age shipwrecks that might help to fill in this picture, or studies investigating the use of such containers in moving various commodities via sea (cf. Stager 2003; Finkelstein et al. 2011). Although some effort has gone into establishing typologies as well as basic chronologies for these ceramic containers, terminology save ‘storage jar’ has seldom consistently been applied because a definitive nomenclature does not exist. The Hellenistic terms pithos and amphorae also commonly appear, but in the Levant the Semitic term would be kad (jar). Thus, while Grace (1956: 80-81) made a connection between the early two handled containers of the Levant and the

2 Locally produced Philistine pottery is not included in the present study, but see Ben-Shlomo 2006 for discussion.

13 much later proliferation of classical amphorae, ‘Canaanite jar’ was the ethnically charged label of choice. Amiran (1970: 140) would later append to “the Canaanite Commercial Jar”, recognizing a functional attribution as well as the postulated ethnic origins, while Raban’s (1980) study of the Levantine ‘commercial jar’ went a step further in extending this terminology to the Iron Age. Most ceramic analyses and excavation reports that discuss pottery typologies typically do so without distinguishing between transport and storage containers (cf. Regev 2004), or those that may have been specifically produced for maritime transport per se. The term ‘storage jar’ is ubiquitous, but designations including “commercial jars’ (Amiran 1970; Raban 1980; Sugerman 2000; Gilboa et al. 2008; Pedrazzi 2010), ‘transport amphorae’ (Regev 2004), ‘transport and storage jars’ (Pedrazzi 2007), ‘transport jars’ or ‘containers’ (Bevan 2014), all represent attempts to assign function to those forms that played some role in trade networks. By the Iron Age II, we also encounter terms for vessels that relate directly to their production and fabric, especially Tyre’s ‘crisp ware’, and the associated morphological features that are of limited assistance, like ‘torpedo-shaped jar’, ‘wasp-waisted’, conical and bulbous shapes, characteristic of Phoenician MTCs (Bikai 1978; 1983, Martin 2016a). It is really only the Iron Age II Levantine material to which any scholar has as yet assigned the explicit label ‘purpose built maritime transport container’ (Stager, in Ballard et al. 2002: 159). This appeared a relatively safe conclusion given the twin shipwreck context of the Phoenician ‘torpedo-shaped’ jars, yet even this view was later articulated less pointedly as ‘primarily made for marine transportation’ (Finkelstein et al. 2011: 257) because of the diverse contextual nature of our available archaeological data.

The great diversity of Middle-Late Bronze Age jar forms termed ‘Canaanite’, which not only had diverse origins (albeit largely Levantine), but also various uses, re-uses, and depositional contexts, as well as different kinds of contents, has given rise to the notion that, although their production and export can be tied to seaborne trade in wine and olive oil, such containers had a general, multi-purpose function (e.g., Leonard 1996: 252). The same problems arise with regard to Iron Age Levantine vessels, but are compounded by other factors, for example, the relatively poor visibility of Iron I archaeological contexts (especially shipwrecks); a general lack of analytical data regarding centres of production or vessel contents, and a more complex ethnic composition within the region. Thus, it becomes somewhat difficult to categorize forms within a corpus of what are typically termed storage jars, but are here examined as ‘Phoenician’ MTCs, found in maritime contexts or overseas. 14

Figure 2: Diachronic Overview of Levantine MTC Morphological Development

Source: Adapted from Martin 2016b: Fig. 3

Nearly all of the Early Iron Age Levantine ‘storage jars’ retain a stylistic and morphological similarity to the Canaanite jars of the LBA, while some forms also reveal consistency in their distribution patterns throughout the eastern Mediterranean, especially on 15

Cyprus and on Crete at Kommos (Gilboa 1998: 423; Regev 2004: 339-340), as well as in Egypt and at Tarsus in Cilicia. Although some work has already been conducted on Iron Age ‘Levantine commercial jars’ (e.g., Gilboa et al. 2008; Pedrazzi 2007; 2010), this thesis adds a further functional distinction in isolating examples used as MTCs, deposited in such contexts (ship’s holds), and further proposes that in some cases, these examples were manufactured specifically for that purpose. In sum, this thesis will present an overview of the relevant evidence from the EBA through eighth century BCE, focusing most intensely on the transitional period from the LBA and the Iron Age I-II periods in the Levant (see Figure 2). As we will see, the most significant changes in the nature of Levantine maritime trade occur with the transition to the Iron Age, when MTC production reflects some continuity in forms, but distribution patterns reveal change, suggesting a restructuring of networks akin to that of the preceding MBA (Chapter 5).

1.5 Summary of Chapters

The following chapters will provide further review of the available scholarship, beginning with Chapter 2’s research and literature review, which outlines in greater detail the extant scholarship on MTCs and their development in the eastern Mediterranean. Chapter 3 presents a full discussion of the ceramic typology and the diachronic development of MTC types, tentatively summarized above in Figure 2. A description of source material will be conducted in Chapter 4, expanding on the ceramic and archaeological data being employed and relevant source details. The spatial distribution analysis of MTC Types is undertaken in Chapter 5, which reviews the spatial distribution data for each dominant MTC type outlined in Chapter 3’s final typology. This distribution analysis by MTC type can then be related to the available provenance data and studies documented in Chapter 6, identifying known origins of production in the Levant and surrounding regions. The physical mechanics and strength of MTC morphology and shape will be reviewed in Chapter 7, along with evidence for standardization utilizing the basic predictable geometry of conical and cylindrical forms. Finally, Chapter 8’s synthesis and conclusion will interpret the results of the typological, spatial and provenance data outlined in Chapters 2-7, and explore the implications for and relationship with maritime trade, economic, technological, socio-cultural development and settlement patterns in Syria-Palestine, as well as any conclusions in relation to my thesis. 16

Levantine MTCs: A History of Research and Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

The question of when and where the first purpose-built maritime transport containers were manufactured has only really come into focus in the last two decades of scholarship, however, the identification of relevant ceramic traditions and their analysis has been ongoing. Not surprisingly, Mediterranean archaeology has continued to provide the earliest and most compelling evidence for the production and use of MTCs in excavating the remains of Bronze and Iron Age societies inhabiting this large and complex region, interconnected via the sea. Perhaps most significantly this has occurred by making the imperative leap towards developing the practice of Underwater Archaeology, especially in the pioneering work of George Bass (founder of the Institute of Nautical Archaeology). Bass (1967; 1973; 1986; 1987) was the first to excavate an ancient shipwreck on the seabed, in its entirety, subsequently excavating wrecks from not only the Bronze Age, but also Classical era and Byzantine period, beginning in the 1960s. A distinguished Professor Emeritus at Texas A&M University before his recent passing, this Chapter is dedicated to his groundbreaking work in the sea.

This Chapter draws heavily from my first publication on this topic (Martin 2016a), providing an overview and critique of extant scholarship and thorough discussion of the present state of research that this thesis will advance. Following this extensive review, the archaeological evidence for exported Levantine MTC types and their coastal parallels will be discussed at length, focusing on the representative types that have been incorporated into a preliminary typological framework, which will be used for the spatial distribution analysis presented in Chapter 5. It is important to begin by further addressing the terminology being employed here in relation to MTCs, essentially defining this class of ceramic vessel in relation to functional criterion, but also form and fabric characteristics. The absence of this more refined classification in historical scholarship and the prevalence instead of broader terminology like ‘Canaanite jar’, ‘commercial jar’, ‘amphorae’, etc., is problematic, however, in reviewing the extant literature it is necessary to include this historical terminology (see section 2.2 below) and associated 17 discourse, to demonstrate the relevance to this thesis and isolating MTCs within the archaeological record.

2.2 History of Research and Early Studies of Levantine MTCs

In her seminal publication: The Canaanite Jar, The Aegean and the Near East: Studies Presented to Hetty Goldman, Grace (1956) was among the first to utilize this ethnically charged nomenclature, a decision that no doubt related to her linking this “early two handled pottery container” with the region of Canaan from which they were thought to derive, but also her view that archetypal amphorae likewise originated with the “Canaanites, forefathers of the Phoenicians” (Grace 1979: 6). Grace was also among the first to link the Canaanite jar and associated products of LBA Canaanite culture with the proliferation of later Iron Age amphorae and maritime trade in the Classical era, though her early work did not explicitly address important continuities that bridged the transition to the Iron Age. For example, she did not elucidate the continuities visible in the production and distribution in the LBA Canaanite jar Type 5.4 (MTC #3), and the Phoenician Iron Age I Type 5.2 (MTC #4) that will be discussed in Chapter 3. Amiran’s (1970) study of Levantine pottery is another foundational work that identified some connections with Bronze Age forms, but like Grace, her Early Iron Age ceramic typology was limited by the ceramic and archaeological data then available, including a paucity of shipwrecks. Her discussion of Iron Age I pithoi, storage jars or amphoriskoi (Amiran 1970: 191-192, 232-237, 250), lacks the emphasis she placed on maritime activity during the LBA, describing the role of ‘commercial’ Levantine jars on international markets (Amiran 1970: 140).

Raban (1980) produced the first very detailed and comprehensive catalogue of the ‘commercial jar’, which included the available corpus of Levantine MTCs, and represents the earliest analytical work to study and isolate these ceramics from a large corpus of Bronze and Iron Age material. He examined the development of ceramics diachronically and made efforts to elucidate the commercial jar’s function and its specific association with long-distance, international and maritime trade (Raban 1980: 1-18). He also examined the contents of specific examples as well, their centres of production and distribution. He expanded our knowledge of exported Bronze Age forms, including MBA forms to Cyprus, and provided the earliest Iron Age typology of ‘commercial jar’ forms manufactured in the Levant. Raban noted distinctive regional trends during both the Bronze and Iron Age, emphasizing morphological developments that 18 occurred during the Iron I-II (Raban 1980: 9), while theorizing how the morphology of forms related to contents, modes of storage, transport and systems of supply and demand. He provided some of the earliest analytical data from chemical analysis of Bronze Age types (Raban 1980: 16-18), but with regard to the Iron Age I and II material, like that of Grace and Amiran, his work was limited by a lack of excavated and published material.

In his broad analysis of Bronze and Iron Age jars, Sagona (1982) noted the diversity of terminology and the problems this created, reflecting the absence of a typological framework from which to proceed. His work catalogued thirteen categories of Levantine ‘storage jars’ from the Levant, Cyprus, Egypt, Anatolia, and the Aegean (as well as some examples from Mesopotamia and Iran), dated between the thirteenth and fourth centuries BCE (most dating to the later Iron Age). He provided specific contexts in some instances, but his discussion largely focused on the often weak stratigraphic evidence assigned, and the various possible chronologies involved. Sagona’s catalogue includes hundreds of different entries, spread over dozens of sites, but provide very little information or detail regarding context or precise chronology, or how exactly this corpus of ceramics may have developed through time.

In several important publications, Bikai (1978; 1983; 1987) presented the Bronze-Iron Age material from the famous port city of Tyre in the Lebanon and the Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus, greatly expanding upon the available Iron Age ceramic material from several key sites (1987: 45-47, Pls. 22-23), and cataloguing numerous ‘Canaanite storage jars’ from Cyprus that Sagona had overlooked. Her concerns, however, were primarily dating and describing these ceramics, focusing on decoration and drawing examples rather than on their contents or contexts (virtually all come from tombs). The use of the term ‘storage jar’ is prevalent in the work of both Sagona and Bikai, and in examining the relevant pottery on Cyprus, Bikai (1987: 49, Pls. XXII- XXIII) described the majority of EIA “Phoenician store jars” (a designation that included those utilized as MTCs) as having “plain vertical rims rising from a sloping shoulder” (1987: 49), with a body that is generally triangular in form, sometimes with a bulbous base, but displaying significant variation. Unlike other classes of Phoenician pottery, she observed that EIA ‘storage jars’ did not show the same clear morphological development (1987: 49). Much later in her career she made similar contributions to our knowledge of Phoenician ceramics and MTCs from the Greek sanctuary at Kommos (Bikai 2000: 302-335), which despite a lack of available 19 provenance data, helped to flag conspicuous Levantine material for future analysis and subsequent confirmation of a definitively Phoenician origin of production (see Chapter 6).

The work of Greenberg and Porat (1996) on EBA pottery production and metallic Combed Ware was certainly important in the context of the Levant and provided crucial type site comparanda from this region to which exported EBA MTC prototypes of this ware type could be compared. However, it was not really until the publication of two very important studies of Bronze Age ceramics and trade, also employing modern petrography and chemical analysis, that substantive comment could be made on the nature of the patterns revealed by the large corpus of Levantine commercial jars. The publication of Sowada’s Egypt in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Old Kingdom (2009) provided crucial evidence about the earliest exported Levantine MTCs (classified therein as Combed Ware Jars), their distribution, contexts and origins. Prior to that study, these aspects of the EBA material remained unclear, and academic discourse of this material and its documentation had been limited to a few brief, yet ground-breaking works (Esse and Hopke 1986; Esse 1991).

Smith, Bourriau and Serpico (2000) provided scholarship elucidating similar patterns and developments in the MBA and especially the LBA ceramic material (see also Smith, Bourriau, Goren, Hughes and Serpico 2004, and Sugerman 2000 in the context of LBA Levantine dendritic trade involving Canaanite jars). However, the somewhat later work of Mary Ownby (2010) was among the most comprehensive in understanding developments in the MBA/LBA, bringing a multitude of earlier works together with her own analytical data, and with a diachronic overview relying on modern petrography and chemical analysis. It was really Ownby’s thesis that provided crucial analytical data from Levantine MTCs found in exported contexts during the MBA and LBA, which when coupled with the aforementioned work of Sowada (2009), allowed scholars to bridge the gap between the available EBA, MBA and LBA ceramic data.

Regarding scholarship on the subsequent Iron Age, Regev (2004: 337) described the corpus of Iron age vessels characterized by Bikai as ‘Phoenician transport amphorae’, with some limited examination of their distribution, provenance, and morphological variants that developed during that period. Following the work of Bikai, he noted that the earliest Phoenician transport amphorae were known only in the Levant, on Cyprus, and in Crete. To this we can now add a handful of poorly documented EIA forms exported to Egypt and Cilicia during the EIA, but by 20 the Iron Age II period, however, these MTCs were again more widely distributed throughout the Mediterranean (apart from mainland Greece), and remained common in the Levant (Regev 2004: 340-341). Regev’s (2004) work in cataloguing various forms nevertheless provides some preliminary distribution data for a number of Phoenician Iron Age MTC types.

Pedrazzi’s (2007; 2010) catalogue, although it similarly did not identify MTCs per se, has provided the most extensive typology and study to date of what are termed ‘transport and storage jars’ produced in the Levant during the LBA and EIA, between ca. 1400-900 BCE. In her view, “storage jars” could have been used for transport over “medium to long distances” (Pedrazzi 2007: 367), with many of the same ceramic forms involved in both terrestrial and maritime trade networks. Her publication contains a few errors in the display of some forms, but the most relevant to this thesis occurs in her exemplars of Type 5.2 (Pedrazzi 2007: 73); her Figure 3.22 provides incorrect site attributions for all three representative examples.3 Despite these errors, Pedrazzi covers a vast amount of ceramic material with good referencing and accurate drawings. She also considers other factors, such as provenance, contexts, vessel contents and volume, a functional analysis, and socioeconomic implications. Her detailed typological classifications provide a nomenclature of ‘storage jar’ types from which this study will draw for the LBA and Iron I material. This thesis will however go beyond her classification of storage and transport jars to isolate the exemplar Levantine MTCs specifically, and also provide both spatial distribution analysis in conjunction with provenance data for each diagnostic type. Moreover, in the context of the LBA/Iron transition, the typology presented here in Chapter 3 will move beyond this earlier work to identify further connections between the MTCs of the LBA (MTC#3 / Type 5.4) and the incipient forms of the early Iron Age (MTC #4 / Type 5.2), which carry on this tradition in terms of production, style and distribution.

Gilboa et al. (2008) has provided the most focused ‘Phoenician’ ceramic analysis, with great attention to chronological detail and the origins of production when possible. The detailed chronology developed in that study serves to frame any discussion of Iron Age Phoenician MTCs and the maritime activities underlying their continued production and reflected in their

3 All three references for the forms shown in Pedrazzi’s Figure 3.22 are incorrect and should read as follows: a) Tell Abu Hawam (Hamilton 1935: Pl. XXXVI: 99), b) Palaepaphos-Skales (Karageorghis 1983: Fig. CLIV: 46), c) Tyre (Bikai 1978: Pl.35:12) 21 distribution. Despite the fact that this important work focuses largely on exported material from Cyprus in a limited number of tomb contexts, with no data from Egypt or Crete, it remains an important and useful analysis employing only the best preserved and chronologically reliable of the exported contexts for this EIA Phoenician material, and allows associations to be made between the MTC forms reviewed here and other diagnostic ceramics (chronologically and otherwise).

Finally, the most recent and detailed excursus into the typologizing and identification of MTCs in the eastern Mediterranean and in the Levant is by Knapp and Demesticha (2016), and my contribution to that volume (Martin 2016a), will help to provide a basic methodological framework and definition for this functional category of ceramic containers. The limitations of these works being primarily in the brevity of the presentation of distribution data, but also to some extent in the analysis and overviews provided. They remain important compilations that leave room for more extensive analysis like that which will be undertaken here, especially with regard to spatial distribution and the mapping of MTC types (Chapter 5), but also in terms of isolating the most diagnostic MTC forms manufactured in the Levant and exported to foreign markets (Chapter 3-4). Martin (2016a) includes a relatively broad survey of the most common commercial jar types, some of which may or may not be definitively recognized as MTCs per se. The present analysis goes much further in isolating only the most representative Levantine MTC forms and presenting these in a more selective and refined typology and expansive review of provenance data, some of which was published only recently. By developing a refined typology of MTC types, the present study will reveal important spatial distribution patterns and review provenance, that when viewed diachronically, help to better characterize the nature of Bronze and Iron Age sea routes and maritime networks extending from the Levantine coast, where these MTCs were manufactured and from which they were exported.

2.3 The Bronze Age

The following is drawn from and expands upon my earlier publication (Martin 2016b). In discussing maritime and long-distance trade in the Mediterranean, the LBA is often considered the time when this phenomenon achieved new heights (Amiran 1970, Bevan 2014, Cline 2014, Martin 2016a). Indeed, LBA seaborne and riverine trade networks in the eastern Mediterranean had come to play a significant role in the transmission of goods and peoples as well as 22 technologies and ideas (Brysbaert 2008), and in creating positive feedback that accelerated the development of complex societies. Nevertheless, our ability to reconstruct these early (Bronze and Early Iron Age) networks that characterize the peripheries and coasts of the Levant remains limited, with few Levantine texts prior to the LBA4, a paucity of contemporary shipwrecks, and none predating the LBA. Yet, if these later Bronze Age wrecks tell us anything about earlier practices, maritime transport and trade was already a powerful economic and sociocultural force by the LBA (Knapp and Demesticha 2016: 157).

Given the general paucity of underwater shipwreck sites, I will focus on the distribution of diagnostic ceramics common to prominent wrecks (Uluburun and Cape Gelidonya), as well as exported contexts. They provide a useful index of maritime trade patterns: the so-called ‘Canaanite jar’ of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (examples in Appendix I). This diagnostic family of Bronze Age ceramic jars is the most conspicuous contemporary transport vessel, which at the time represented the functional equivalent of the Classical amphorae and was perhaps even not so disparate from the modern two-litre bottle, albeit with handles and a capacity that ranged closer to some 10-20 litres during the LBA (Martin 2016b: 113). Although such vessels were not exclusive to maritime networks (Pedrazzi 2007: 367), their production and use along the coast of Syria-Palestine and its peripheries has been closely linked to seaborne trade (Knapp and Demesticha 2016; Martin 2016a/b).

Certainly, liquids were not the exclusive cargo, and it is imperative to be aware that the reuse of these containers is possible when considering their contexts (Abdelhamid 2013). However, following their deposition in exported contexts, much of the available archaeological evidence suggests that MTCs manufactured in the Levant provide reasonable evidence for expansive maritime trade involving specialized containers for the transport of bulk liquid staples characteristic of the Levant throughout the Bronze Age (e.g., oils, resins, wine, etc.; see Pedrazzi 2007: 247-264; Marcus 2007: 137; Sowada 2009: 207; Ownby 2010: 83). Nevertheless, their use as a general-purpose container for the storage and transport of other commodities has also been identified and discussed, ranging from agricultural dry goods to glass beads, etc. (Bass 1987; Pulak 1997: 240; Knapp and Demesticha 2016: 36-70).

4 Late Bronze Age Ugarit provides a snapshot of such commercial activities in their local alphabetic cuneiform archives and commercial texts / shipping records (Yon 2006). 23

Although we can observe some refinement and degree of standardization within the LBA ceramic corpus, this was not the beginning of a Levantine tradition in MTCs, nor was the MBA, when the production and export of Canaanite jars was already advanced. The production, development, and distribution of these containers may be traced back all the way to the EBA, when similar, sometimes two handled jars, were manufactured in the Levant and also transported via seaborne trade along the coast (Marcus 2002: 409-411). Outside of the Levant, it appears that Egypt was a primary recipient of these vessels, containers for precisely the same kinds of bulk liquid staples sent in later periods, and they were exported via early maritime networks (Sowada 2009: 39, 52). These EBA jars include the so called ‘Abydos Ware’, which was deposited in quantity in Abydos tomb U-j, the burial of a Protodynastic Egyptian ruler (Hartung 2002), with similar ceramics excavated in Early Dynastic contexts also (Sowada 2009: 39-44). The deposition of such early imported jars continued with the royal mastabas of the Old Kingdom, often including ‘Combed Ware’ or ‘metallic Combed Ware’ jars (Thalmann and Sowada 2014), depending on their fabric and surface treatment (for ‘Combed Ware’, see Appendix I, Plate I). The place of the Combed Ware Jars as an indigenous forerunner to the MBA and LBA ‘Canaanite jars’ is evident; therefore it will represent my MTC #1 in Chapter 3’s typology.5

Parr (1973: 177) felt that the “functional superiority” of the somewhat later MBA Canaanite jars was “a complete innovation to the region” during the Bronze Age, largely due to more sophisticated manufacturing and apparent morphological superiority. Parr’s work was influenced by the previous studies of both Grace (1956) and Amiran (1970: 141); the latter had already suggested that these vessels were “made purposely for trading” and that changes in the morphology were dictated by their function and “the expanding commerce toward the 14th century B.C.E.”. Parr (1973: 176-77), however, looked east toward Mesopotamia for the genesis of globular MBA Canaanite jar forms, when, in fact, it was the early maritime societies of the Mediterranean who had first experimented with this morphology, and who certainly manufactured and exported some of the earliest MTCs (see Knapp and Demesticha 2016: 36- 147). Indeed, beyond the potential influence of other Mediterranean societies, especially the very early (EBA II) bulbous transport jars of Crete (Day and Wilson 2016: 17, Fig. 2; See also Appendix I: Pl.3, below), it is likely that the MBA Canaanite jar was a gradual development

5 See also Raban (1980) on the history of the “commercial jar” in the Levant. 24 from the large ‘Combed Ware’ jars already produced in the EBA II-III Levant (See Chapter 3). “Certainly, one can see the appreciable stylistic, if not volumetric, continuity as represented in these examples over a period of nearly two millennia” (Martin 2016b: 114; see Figure 2 above).

Commercial jar production proliferated in the Levant throughout the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, and into the Iron Age. Gradual changes in shape likely represent the development of better manufacturing techniques linked to standardization, shipping loads more efficiently and increasing use in maritime exchange networks. By the time of LBA II, the so-called ‘Canaanite jar’ assumed a more conical character, a development that continues into the Iron Age and is often argued to relate to its maritime utility (Parr 1973: 176; Leonard 1996: 239; Bevan 2014: 391; Martin 2016a: 117), as well as a need to stack vessels in large kilns (Martin 2016a: 128). Indeed, this tradition has long been associated with some of the earliest vestiges of Classical era amphorae (Grace 1956). However, the evidence under discussion here is complex and, although a commercial and transport function is evident, to suggest that all of these vessels were produced and utilised exclusively as MTCs would belie the diversity of the wide range of available data.

Be that as it may, during the LBA certain Canaanite jar forms came to serve a much more specialized function as transport containers (Amiran 1970: 141), a transformation culminating in LBA II with the proliferation of conical forms (MTC #3/ Type 5.4), exhibiting some degree of standardization. Moreover, a similar process can be observed during the Iron II period with the proliferation of a more streamlined ‘torpedo’ form (MTC #5, see Fig. 2: IA II.B), associated with the extensive maritime trading activities of the Phoenicians (Ballard et al. 2002: 163; Martin 2016a: 117-126). Nonetheless, one must exercise caution in interpreting the associated morphological changes, which, despite the prominent role these containers had in maritime networks, may relate more to advances in modes of production and technological development, such as the fast wheel, for example, and especially a need for standardization (Pedrazzi 2010: 53, 55; Anderson 1987: 43-44; Finkelstein et al. 2011: 250-251; Martin 2016a/b). As noted, such factors are not necessarily distinct from attributes that would lend themselves to (maritime) transport, and thus it often becomes difficult to offer conclusive interpretations on the intended function of such jars during these formative periods in the Levant. 25

2.4 The Iron Age

As first noted in Martin (2016a) apart from a lost wreck deposit at Dor’s harbour (see Chapter 4) associated with deposition of Type 5.2 /MTC #4 (Kingsley and Raveh 1996: 57-78; Waiman- Barak 2016: 86), there are no other known Iron I shipwrecks from the eastern Mediterranean. Thus, we must look to examples of exported vessels and/or material excavated in maritime contexts to define the Early Iron Age MTCs. In this respect, Cyprus and Crete figure prominently, as does other relevant data from Egypt, Cilicia, and the Levant. Despite some disruptions, fundamental shifting and contraction in interregional and long-distance trade, it is nonetheless evident that maritime trading networks continued to operate following the transition between the LBA and Iron I. Although analytical data regarding provenance and contents are limited, it is likely that bulk liquid staples like those common to the Bronze Age, such as wine, resins and oils, were still transported over the sea and there are signs of continuity in regional Levantine ceramic repertoires, as well as some consistency in their distribution, production, and container volume.

Pedrazzi (2007) was able to distinguish between the broader category of LBA jar forms termed ‘Canaanite’ and the morphologically distinct and appreciably standardized ‘angular shouldered’ variants (her Type 5.4; Killebrew’s type CA 22), widely associated with LBA long- distance maritime trade. She notes the virtual disappearance of this angular-shouldered type by the beginning of the Iron Age (Pedrazzi 2010: 54-55), perhaps the result of some contraction of long-distance trade. Her description of morphological developments with Type 5.4 is generally consistent with Amiran’s (1970) work but notes two EIA developments: (1) Type 4.1 (a variant of her Type 5.4) and (2) Types 5.2 and 5.3 (most types mentioned are illustrated and discussed below in the sections on Levantine MTC Typology; see Appendix I). These trends are all significant in refining a typology of Levantine MTCs, with carination remaining common and the nearly complete reduction of the neck merging as an important chronological marker for the Iron Age I period. Other commercial jar types continued in use (e.g., Killebrew’s Type CA 21; Pedrazzi’s Type 1 variants), whilst the carinated version tended to develop a more cylindrical body, with multiple regional variants (Pedrazzi 2007: 368, 374, 376). Pedrazzi (2010: 54, and Fig. 3) argues for a shift to the predominance of high-rimmed, globular storage jar forms at the onset of the Iron Age, concentrated in the regions of the northern Levantine coast, and extending south at least to Tell Kazel, west to Cyprus, and north to the area of Cilicia. These continuations 26 of LBA forms were obviously important in maritime networks, as attested by their continued import to Cyprus throughout the Late Cypriot IIIA–Cypro-Geometric I periods (Gilboa 1998: 423; see also Bell 2006: 35-36; 2008: 98).

Gilboa et al. (2008: 130) discuss the complicated nature of reconstructing the commercial jar repertoire along the Phoenician coast during the Early Iron Age. They divide this material into four ‘pre-colonization’ stages, beginning with Iron IA and IB (equivalent in their view to Late Cypriot IIIB–transitional Cypro-Geometric I) and extending to the Iron IIA horizon (early Cypro-Geometric III) (Gilboa et al. 2008: 123-168). The authors maintain that the only Cypriot context in which Phoenician jars of this early stage are documented come from is the Ingot God ‘sanctuary’ at Enkomi (Gilboa et al. 2008: Fig. 6.5; see also Courtois 1971: Fig. 96), however, approaching the end of the Iron IA sequence, they note that two other commercial jar types appear at Dor, which both reach their zenith during Iron Age IB (early to mid-Cypro-Geometric I, their Stage 2). It is important to note that unlike many early scholarly attributions of elements of this corpus of pottery to Phoenicia, the work of Gilboa (2008; 2016), Gilboa and Waiman- Barak (2016) and Waiman-Barak (2016) also rely upon petrographic analysis in making such attributions and any classification as Phoenician (see further discussion below, as well as Chapter 3 and 7).

Bikai’s detailed studies (1978; 1983; 1987; 2000) are concentrated mainly on Phoenicia, or on ‘Phoenician storage jars’, excavated on Cyprus and Crete. According to her (2000: 309), there are three general classes of storage jars, the earliest corresponding to Pedrazzi’s Type 5.5, a direct descendent of the Bronze Age ‘storage’ jars. Bikai (2000: 310) refers to the complete examples from Tel Keisan (Pedrazzi’s Type 5.5.1 variant) with a bulbed base, a feature that Pedrazzi (2007: 369) also associated with a Phoenician tradition. Thus, Type 5.5 and its variants are very common in Levantine coastal sites, with some examples exported to Cyprus (Pedrazzi 2007: 78-84). Bikai (2000: 309-310) equated her second Iron Age class with examples of storage-jar type SJ9 at Tyre, a problematic classification (Gilboa et al. 2008: 130, 139) that includes several Pedrazzi types and variants. Indeed, Tyre SJ9 includes several other body types and forms because its classification is essentially based on rim and base morphology. Bikai (2000: 310) noted rims of this type at Kommos on Crete, dated no earlier than 925 BCE (Chapter 3). Evidence of such jars from Palaepaphos-Skales on Cyprus, however, suggests they were involved in maritime trade as early as Cypro-Geometric I (1050-1000 BCE), with later examples 27 known at Kition and Salamis. Finally, Bikai’s (2000: 310) third Iron Age class, predominant by Iron II, was termed “crisp ware” or “torpedo storage jars”.

The (presumably) imported corpus of Phoenician jars from tombs at Palaepaphos-Skales on Cyprus is exceptional for the preservation of complete Iron I Phoenician MTCs. Bikai (1983) divided this corpus of 12 examples into two main groups: Type 1 with ten examples, and Type 2 (Pedrazzi’s Type 5.2), the heaviest of the imported jars, with two examples. Pedrazzi (2007) subsequently divided Bikai’s two types into further four types, with additional morphological sub-types. Adopting the nomenclature of Bikai or even Pedrazzi, then, one might think the corpus from Palaepaphos-Skales was comprised of two or three broad types, but this belies the notable diversity of the well-preserved, exported MTC corpus, even given its limited size. Karageorghis (1983: 371-372) regarded the discovery of these twelve amphorae at Palaepaphos- Skales, along with other Levantine pottery types as unprecedented, especially when compare with other early Cypro-Geometric sites on the island. He concluded that either Palaepaphos- Skales was the most important trading center on early Iron Age Cyprus, or else the Phoenicians began their westward expansion earlier than previously thought and used the site as a trading base (see also Bikai in Karageorghis 1983: 405; Bell 2006: 90-91). The latter possibility was eventually reinforced by the discovery of ‘Phoenician storage jars’ at Kommos on Crete (Bikai 2000), although these are dated closer to terminal Iron Age I. Maier (1999) has also stressed the importance of Phoenician imports at Palaepaphos-Skales, while Gilboa (2005) has argued for close and continuing contacts between Phoenicia and Cyprus overall at this time. This prospect is further supported by Canaanite jar sherds noted in tomb material from Palaipaphos Marchello (Maier 2008: 200, 247), but it is not clear if these include the examples mentioned in an earlier publication (Maier 1999: 81, 84 n.14). Renewed work by Iacovou (2008; 2014a) on the Palaipaphos Urban Landscape Project has also identified fragments of Canaanite jars at Hadjiabdoulla (2009-2010) and Marchello (2006-2008), as noted in Martin (2016a: 107).

The Iron Age I Phoenician commercial jars excavated at Kommos on Crete are extremely fragmentary (Figure 19). Bikai (2000: 302) isolated 339 sherds as being of Phoenician origin, 308 (91%) of which belonged to “storage jars”. Of these sherds, 68% had ferrous inclusions, which were regarded as a marker of Phoenician coastal pottery. Chemical analyses (AAS) also assigned the sherds to the central Levant, but noted significantly that the best comparanda seem to lie with the imported Canaanite jars from Maa Palaeokastro on Cyprus (Jones 2000: 332). 28

Interestingly, Bikai (2000: 302) also identified 23 sherds of apparent ‘crisp ware’ fabric (discussed below under Iron II wares), which did not stand apart chemically. Bikai identified all of the Kommos fragments as being of the same type as SJ9 from Tyre, in her view the preeminent type of Iron I Phoenician storage jar. One of the Kommos jar handles had a finger impression at its base, a well-attested feature of early Phoenician jars (Bikai 2000: 308). Eight rim fragments also had distinctive ridges or grooves (termed ‘incisions’) on the upper part of the shoulder, and were all of the same fabric; Bikai (2000: 309) noted that most rims showed similar treatment. Similar marks were so common at both Tyre and Sarepta that they were initially disregarded. One published parallel of a ‘storage jar’ of similar type to the Kommos examples with these incisions near the rim comes from Sarepta (Pritchard 1988: 15, no.18, Fig. 3.18). Bikai (2000: 309) felt that these imported jars might well be associated with production at Sarepta, particularly because of the extensive, specialized, and long-lived pottery manufacturing area excavated there (Anderson 1987; 1989).

Given the complexity of possible parallels and the wide diversity in dates assigned to the Phoenician jars excavated on Cyprus and in the Levant, Bikai (2000: 310) suggested that the Kommos jar fragments ought to be dated on the basis of their excavated context at the site (a date range closer to Iron II). She also speculated that this material might represent a single shipment, dated contextually to ca. 920/880 BCE. Gilboa et al. (2008: 190, n. 261), however, have since noted the problematic nature of the dating and determinations of these types at Kommos, and questioned their definition as ‘Phoenician’. Significantly, the very recent work by Gilboa et al. (2015) has now definitively shown the Kommos material to be products of the Phoenician coast, and that its dating should rather reflect an Iron Age I-Iron Age II range.

Pedrazzi (2007; 2010) has provided the most extensive typology of EIA Levantine transport and storage jars. Although her detailed typological classification does not isolate MTCs explicitly, however the typology and nomenclature she devises nonetheless provide one of the foundations upon which to build a more refined classification of MTCs (Martin 2016a), and several of her ‘storage jar’ types (particularly Types 5.4 and 5.2) remain included in the Levantine MTC typology presented here in Chapter 3.

In contrast to the available Iron Age I data, for the Iron Age II we have extremely compelling evidence from two Phoenician shipwrecks. The focus therefore falls on the jar forms 29 documented from these deep-water wreck deposits, which provide the best indications of contemporary ‘Phoenician’ MTC types. Nevertheless, most Iron II types are variously termed in the literature and archaeological reports as: ‘storage jars’ (Amiran 1970: 241-42; Zemer 1977: 14-17; Sagona 1982; Aznar 2005), ‘transport amphorae’ (Regev 2004), or ‘commercial jars’ (Raban 1980: 9-13). With respect to the MTC typology described here in Chapter 3, it is these ‘Crisp Ware Torpedo Jars’ that typify the Iron II period, with their unique morphology and manufacture, standing apart from the larger corpus of contemporary ‘storage jars’, even before the fortuitous discovery of the Iron II shipwrecks (Ballard et al. 2002).

Amiran (1970: 241; Pls. 81.4-8, 82.6) attributed Bikai’s ‘Crisp Ware Torpedo Jars’ (Amiran’s Group 2: ‘sausage-shaped jars’) to Iron II C; of the three main morphological forms discussed here, she further attributed two types to the northern Levant and one to the southern Levant. Raban (1980: 10) similarly argued that, while the ‘sausage-shaped jar’ was more common to the north, a ‘wasp-waisted’ form was common to the south. Amiran (1970: 241) also observed that, unlike other Iron II storage jar types, all the ‘sausage-shaped jars’ were particularly well made, ‘… well levigated and well-baked to give off a metallic sound’. It is precisely this auditory feature that later led Bikai (1978: 46) to term such forms and their fabrics as ‘Crisp Ware’ at Tyre. Bikai (1983: 396) saw the continued evolution of the Iron II jars into more compact-waisted varieties (see Appendix I: Pls. 16-18), which became common in Iron II- III (Bikai 1987: 49). Raban (1980: 10) argued that the heyday of the ‘sausage jars’ was limited in time, as such long and narrow jars would have been impractical for storing upright in the hold of a ship. Thus, he saw the shorter, more conical forms of the Late Iron II-III as part of their continued evolution into vessels specifically designed for maritime transport. He regarded these “jars of a conical shorter type, known as Torpedo Shape” as the more definitive MTCs of the Iron Age (Raban 1980: 11). Sagona (1982), following Amiran, noted the same three principal forms of ‘Levantine Storage Jars’ that characterize the Iron II (Martin 2016a: Fig. 39).

Aznar (2005) developed a refined typology for the ‘Crisp Ware’ corpus of Iron II, adding some much-needed petrographic analyses and tentatively identifying some production centres. Her work thus provided a foundation on which to build an Iron II MTC nomenclature (Martin 2016a: 122), including the distinctive Type 9.B1 and 9.B2 that remain included here in Chapter 3’s refined MTC Typology. Sagona’s (1982) Types 1-3 also form part of the same ‘Crisp Ware’ tradition; discussed in Martin (2016a: 123-25; Figs. 39b-c) as morphological variants of Aznar’s 30

Types 9.B1 and 9.B2. The three primary Iron II forms examined in Martin (2016a) are of Aznar’s (2005: 58) Type 9 (9.A, 9B.1 and 9.B2), the cylindrical storage jar family (correlating with Sagona’s Type 1-3), with the majority of complete, exported examples of her Type 9.B1 deriving from the Iron II Phoenician shipwrecks.

The cargoes of these two shipwrecks, the Tanit and Elissa, shed crucial light on the central place of MTCs in Phoenician maritime trade during Iron Age II (Ballard et al. 2002; Stager 2003; Finkelstein et al. 2011). Approximately 2 km apart, these wrecks were discovered in deep-water explorations (400 m), about 30 nautical miles off the coast of the Gaza Strip in 1997. Further investigations in 1999 indicated that the wrecks should be dated to the eighth century BCE. Both ships were argued to be of ‘Phoenician’ origin, laden with wine-filled jars (estimated to weigh over ten tons on each ship) and destined for either Egypt or, perhaps, Carthage. The Phoenician origin was proposed based on other types of pottery vessels found on the wreck and common on Phoenician sites in the central or southern Levant. These include in particular a small incense stand and a ‘mushroom-lipped decanter’, as well as the diagnostic Phoenician torpedo jars that made up the bulk of each ship’s cargo (Ballard et al. 2002: 163, 160 Fig. 9.1).

Utilizing highly specialized equipment, the Mediterranean expedition first identified and mapped the stacked amphorae, which appeared to show their vertical orientation and arrangement in intercalated layers that is often suggested for MTCs (see Chapters 3-4). The team then raised 16 vessels (of 385 visible in the top tiers) from the Tanit and 7 (of 396 visible) from the Elissa for closer examination and provenance analyses (see Figure 41). The ‘torpedo-shaped’ jars from both wrecks appear to be standardized, averaging 68.8 cm in height, 22.3 cm in width, and with an average estimated volume of 17.8 litres of liquid. These vessels have close parallels from mid-to-late eighth century BCE contexts at sites such as Megiddo III, Hazor VI-V, Tyre III- II, and Sarepta (Ballard et al. 2002: 158, nn.13-14, Fig. 7; 160 Fig. 9; 162 table 3). The authors maintained that the small-sized handles of these vessels were designed for ‘guide ropes’, used to contain and consolidate seaborne cargo. They also asserted that “… the petrographic profile of these jars is consistent with the Phoenician coast” (Ballard et al. 2002: 159-160), a point reinforced in subsequent studies (Aznar 2005: 66–68, 157–160; Singer-Avitz 2010: 188-190). The vessels were deemed impractical for terrestrial transport, having been designed as “purpose- built maritime containers” (Ballard et al. 2002: 159). More recently, Finkelstein et al. (2011: 31

257) have described them as “primarily made for marine transportation”. Infrared spectrometry, liquid chromatography, and wet chemical analyses indicate that at least one of these amphorae contained tartaric acid, which occurs in grape products such as wine (McGovern, in Ballard et al. 2002: 160-161), which has since been the presumptive cargo.

Based upon Stager’s (2003: 239) calculations of the torpedo-shaped vessels recovered from the Tanit and Elissa shipwrecks, their dry weight ranged between 6.7–7.2 kg, whilst their wet weight (e.g., filled with water or wine) ranged between 22.5–27.6 kg. Thus, the weight of each pottery vessel being shipped represented 30-35% of the jar’s weight when full. Given that these ships carried some 400 jars6, and that any increase in capacity presumably meant an increase in efficiency and profit, this factor may have been a consideration for the potters and merchants involved. The vessels might also have doubled as ballast, but in any event, it seems unlikely that the modified morphology of the Iron Age II torpedo-shaped jars was motivated by a need to reduce MTC vessel weight.

Apart from any perceived need for standardization, these vessels may have offered a better answer to an essential problem facing all pottery shipments by sea, namely how to modify the shape in order to maximize the number and capacity of jars that could fit into the hull of a ship (or in a kiln for that matter), while at the same time, utilizing specialized vessels that were manufactured in such a way that they could handle the stress and distribute the weight and compression of being stacked in the hull of a ship (see Chapter 7 for full discussion). The clustering of upright jars along the centre of these sunken ships, from keel to stern, thus may reflect their original stacking and intended orientation in the hull during shipment (Ballard et al. 2002: Figs. 3, 5).

The most representative examples of intact, cylindrical variants of the ‘Crisp Ware Torpedo Jars’ (Aznar Type 9.B1) are found among the 781 vessels counted on these twin shipwrecks. Finkelstein et al. (2011: 250-251), who note that land-based excavations have produced less than 300 examples of this type of vessel, sought to determine if the corpus of jars from the shipwrecks reflected any level of standardization, especially in comparison with torpedo-shaped vessels found on land sites. They undertook volumetric analyses of 20 examples

6 Approximately ten metric tonnes. 32 from the wrecks along with 134 examples from land sites (based on published drawings) to generate 3D computer models of volume. The jars were compared according to their profile, variability in shape, and approximate volume (see also Zapassky et al. 2009). 51 of the 154 jars analyzed formed a compact sub-cluster that included all 20 of the vessels from the shipwrecks (Finkelstein et al. 2011: 254).

Given the extremely lengthy history of Egyptian contacts with the Levant, Finkelstein et al. (2011: 255) assessed the shape and volume of these MTCs with respect to ancient Egyptian units of measure: the Egyptian royal cubit (as the unit of length), and the hekat (as the unit of volume). Their conclusions were essentially that the cylindrical variants represent a standardized form that was manufactured in specialized pottery workshops, primarily for the maritime transport of liquids (Finkelstein et al. 2011: 258). The jars displayed less than 5% difference between the narrowest and widest diameters. According to their analyses, physical measurements and 3D modelling indicate that “… simple and directly taken outer measurements of the height and circumference of a torpedo jar’s cylindrical part” could guarantee a volume of 4 hekats (=19.2 l), the standard liquid trade unit of this period (Finkelstein et al. 2011: 255-257). Certainly, there is evidence to suggest that there was some knowledge in antiquity of the relationship between linear and volumetric measures, especially the aforementioned hekat (Hirsch 2013), and as will be illustrated in Chapter 7, the cylindrical shape of these MTCs lends itself to such early attempts at standardization.

That there was a close relationship between these cylindrical variants and the Mediterranean wine trade seems evident, as does their place within a broader corpus of ‘Crisp Ware’ emanating from production centres on the Phoenician coast (Aznar 2005: 206). Much like the observed development of the Canaanite jar into seemingly more standardized forms used in long-distance maritime trade during the LBA, the question has remained whether the documented morphological variation of the ‘Crisp Ware Torpedo Jar’ relates to a need for standardization, or to something else, like technological production methods (as intimated by the limited evidence for pottery workshops at Tyre), or more generally to the attributes of an MTC. The following Chapters will serve to better answer this query. In any case, the Iron Age II Torpedo Jar was essentially a streamlined and standardized development of the Canaanite jar and by the Iron Age II period, this tradition of MTCs had undergone its most distinctive technological and morphological development. The stubby, sometimes bulbous, reinforced bases 33 of the Iron Age I forms were replaced by a sturdy ‘beak’, which as we will see, withstood stacking and storage in a ship’s hull without breakage. In Stager’s (2003) view, supported by the volumetric analyses of Finkelstein et al. (2011), these Iron Age II MTCs (Aznar Type 9.B1) became the most standardized ‘commercial jar’ yet known from the Levant. To understand more about the production and use of these later, diagnostic MTCs, sourced to the Phoenician coast, their distribution and available analyses of their composition will be examined in Chapters 5-6.

2.5 Summary and Conclusions

As outlined here, this research and the ceramic analysis my thesis rest upon is greatly indebted to the early work of Grace (1956), Amiran (1970), Raban (1980) and Bikai (1978; 1983; 1987; 2000), and could not have proceeded in the absence of much larger and more recent studies undertaken by Sowada (2009) regarding the EBA, and Ownby (2011) in the context of the MBA/LBA, with Pedrazzi (2007), Aznar (2005), Waiman-Barak (2016) and Waiman-Barak and Gilboa (2016) helping to elucidate the Iron Age I-II. In terms of both petrography and volumetric analysis, this undertaking has also benefited from the recent works of Cateloy (2016; 2019), whose forthcoming thesis will no doubt be an incredibly valuable contribution to this field of study. Finally, with regard to typology, this work is greatly informed by the early thesis of Raban (1980), whom was the first to attempt a diachronic analysis of Levantine MTCs, albeit termed commercial jars, and moreover, was also among the first to couple this investigation with provenance and distribution data to provide greater insight and significance. My first publication, Martin (2016a) serves foundationally to support elements of this thesis and provide a broad survey of plausible Iron Age MTCs of the Levant and particularly Phoenicia. This thesis goes a step further in isolating MTC exemplars that are distinct from ‘storage jars’, ‘transport jars’ and other more generalized functional terminology. Moreover, the present work, which has been informed by and is dedicated to these earlier publications, will serve to better organize and classify this important corpus of ceramic material. Each of the aforementioned publications made seminal contributions to the evolving academic discourse on Levantine MTCs and are essential to this expanded analysis and the diachronic overview presented in the following chapters.

Creating a Levantine MTC Typology 3.1 Introduction

For the purposes of this study, MTCs are defined as ceramic jars (pottery vessels / containers) involved commercially in maritime networks, which in some cases may have been manufactured specifically for that purpose.7 Certainly, this undertaking is complicated by the diversity of ‘commercial jars’ and containerization during both the Bronze and Iron Age (see Bevan 2014). However, by focusing on exported exemplars, in addition to those forms derived from shipwrecks, these pottery forms can be compared to the locally produced repertoire of coastal Syria-Palestine, which in some instances reflects production of the very same MTC types based upon typological analysis and emergent provenance data (see Chapter 6). In short, the artifacts identified in the following ceramic corpus were isolated foremost based upon their context (exported and/or deposited in shipwrecks) as well as comparative analysis (identifying examples with similar characteristics from other contexts, especially the coastal Levant).

Following Knapp and Demesticha (2016) and Martin (2016a), this study will consider the origin, diachronic development and function of the so called ‘Maritime Transport Container’ (MTC), along the coastal Levant and in exported contexts during the Bronze and Early Iron Age. Whereas these earlier works also focus on the origin and development of MTCs from the Early Bronze through Early Iron Age periods (ca. 3200-700 BCE), the present research and typology focuses even more explicitly on isolating Levantine forms that provide the most definitive evidence for their production and use as MTCs per se and those which appear to have given rise to later MTC types. A distribution analysis of these exemplar MTC types will also be considered (Chapter 5), as well as a catalogue of pottery drawings of each type documented (Appendix I), made in CorelDRAW, which can be referred to for further study and expanded upon by future scholarship (see also Table 15: Key to Appendix I).

In isolating MTC exemplars to create this Levantine MTC Typology, I’ve focused on the types found in shipwrecks and exported contexts and also known to be manufactured or predominantly in use at coastal sites in Syria-Palestine, but beyond this sort of criteria and

7 For more detailed discussion of this terminology, see Knapp and Demesticha (2016: 36-41). 35 expanding on my earlier work on MTCs that published some elements of my dissertation research, the current manuscript goes a step further in isolating what are (presently) the best candidates for definitive MTC exemplars. Examples are isolated from each chronological period that appear part of a general trajectory to a more purpose-built, standardized MTC, with morphologies and distinctive characteristics that carry on into the Iron III and the Classical era and Roman period amphorae. So, while my earlier works surveyed a variety of possible MTCs amongst the many transport and storage jars, this work isolates what I hope are the genuine exemplars from the Late Bronze Age, down through the Iron II, while also including EBA and MBA forerunners in a larger diachronic overview. Thus, creating a more restricted and better articulated Levantine MTC Typology, albeit with a very simple nomenclature: MTC #1-6 (see Figure 26 and Table 2, below).

In some cases, scholars must supplement the paucity of known and excavated shipwrecks and look to certain exported Levantine jar types that reveal themselves as the best candidates for nascent or established MTCs. Ergo, those examples found in shipwrecks and retrieved from the Mediterranean Sea, any MTCs deposited as a result of apparent long-distance export (international trade), will be compared with the specific coastal Levantine ‘storage’, ‘transport’ or ‘commercial’ jar traditions to which these exported jar types correspond (Appendix I). Given the diversity of the ceramic data available and the dual association between some Levantine jar types and both coastal and hinterland production centers (see Stager 2001, Gilboa 2016), what little data is available from shipwreck sites is given primacy because these unique and undisturbed maritime contexts will help to inform the analysis of exactly which jar types were more directly associated with shipborne transport and maritime trade to international markets. Moreover, such data provide insight as to which types may have been designed specifically for that purpose as MTCs, as opposed to repurposed storage and/or commercial jars (see Gilboa et al. 2008 on the terminology ‘commercial jar’). In sum, by examining exported Levantine vessels from Anatolia, Cyprus, Egypt, Nubia, Crete, Libya, and the Aegean (and other long-distance maritime and littoral contacts in the west Mediterranean by the Iron II), it is possible to expand on the limited data from Bronze or Early Iron Age shipwrecks, and to identify the predominant traditions involved in maritime trade and transport throughout these successive periods (Late Bronze and Iron Age I-II). 36

The primary exemplars of exported jar types that will be examined here are largely restricted to complete vessels to ensure accuracy in the identification and the viability of these exemplars for pottery drawing, morphological comparison, future volumetric analysis and comparative study. Fragmentary but diagnostic examples are still sometimes included in the illustrated catalogue (Appendix I) for examination,8 particularly for future provenance analysis and petrographic data. Nevertheless, the exemplars utilized in this typology will depend largely on the preservation of complete exported vessel types, most often deriving from tombs in Egypt, Nubia, Cyprus, and the Aegean. This inevitably will lead to a bias in the representative data, in that it derives from tomb contexts, which are more common and/or have greater preservation potential in particular regions or during specific periods (for example, Cyprus in the early Iron Age). The impact of this variable / limited archaeological visibility is however unavoidable and must be acknowledged along with a dependency on the archaeological data from a handful of shipwrecks, given their paucity in some periods and absence in others.

3.2 Maritime Transport Container Classification

The primary works upon which the present examination of the Levantine MTC corpus is based will be the ceramic typologies of Amiran (1970), Pedrazzi (2007), Aznar (2005), Gilboa et al. (2015), and Martin (2016a/b). Typological correlations will also be considered with other extant typologies, including Sagona (1982), Bikai (1987), Killebrew (2007), and Aston (2004). Other archaeological and ceramic data derives from excavation reports, and associated chemical, petrographic, volumetric (Aznar 2005; Cateloy 2016, 2019; Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004; Finkelstein et al. 2011; Gilboa et al. 2015; Goren 2003; Jones and Vaughn 1988; Jones 2000; McGovern 1997, 2000; Ownby 2010; 2012; Porat and Goren 1996, 2002; Raban 1980; Wodzińska and Ownby 2011; Ownby 2012; Ownby and Smith 2011; Ownby and Bourriau 2009: 177-181; Pedrazzi 2007, 2010, Sowada 2009, Thalmann 2007; Waiman-Barak 2016), and residue analyses (Leonard 1996; McGovern 1997, 2009; McGovern and Michel 1996, Zamora 2000).

To ensure a focus on vessels that were likely produced for and utilized in maritime trade networks, special attention will be given to exported contexts and shipwrecks, but in addition to

8 This is necessary also due to a paucity of complete exported examples from the Iron Age I-II. 37 these primary contexts of paramount significance for the identification of MTCs, the analysis will also discuss material associated with probable production and distribution centres. Sites where such vessels were manufactured and distribution centres where they may have been filled with their contents or loaded onto ships. This will in some cases vary diachronically, for example with the transition to the Iron Age when production and MTC deposition are documented predominantly along the Phoenician coast. This examination will depend greatly on sites and material derived from Phoenicia, with city-states and coastal emporia that provide a continuous stratigraphic profile and ceramic record from the EBA II/III- IA II at Tyre (Bikai 1982), and from the MBA-IA II at Sarepta (Pritchard 1978). The available material published from Dor/Dor Harbour is critical (Raban 2000; Gilboa et al. 2007; Waiman-Barak 2016), while other sites like Sidon provide less data (Saideh 2004). Despite this Levantine focus for the Iron Age material, largely centered on Phoenicia, data from the (then Philistine) port of Ashkelon will also be included due to its continued role as a maritime trade hub (Stager 2011; Barako 2008).

3.2.1 MTC #1: Early Bronze Age Combed Ware Jars (Flat-Based) (Figure 2: EBA; Figure 3; Appendix I: Pl. I)

Figure 3: MTC #1 / Early Bronze Age Exported Combed Ware Jar - Egypt (after Knoblauch 2010: 249)

Beginning with the large, flat-based Combed Ware jars produced in the EBA Levant and most commonly exported to Old Kingdom Egypt. Significantly, these early prototypes do not just appear out of thin air and it’s important to acknowledge the probable origins of this type in 38 earlier Levantine ceramic traditions. In short, it’s likely that the best case for the importation of Levantine wine in Combed Ware jars (Figure 3) during the EBA, might be made through even earlier pre/proto Dynastic analogues: the so called ‘Abydos wares’.

Recently in examining this early corpus of imported pottery from Abydos, Hartung et al. (2015), clarify some of the mechanisms involved in early trade and the commodities transported, suggesting that at this time, maritime trade along the coast was gaining new significance and was the most suitable method of transport for commodities like wine jars, as opposed to overland donkey caravan. Interestingly, although northern coastal Palestine, which an important area of production in later periods like the LBA (see Chapter 6), is implicated in their petrographic examination of the larger corpus of ‘Abydos wares’, so too is northern coastal Lebanon. This correlates well with sourcing data that will be examined later for MTC #1-5, in Chapter 6’s review of provenance data. Some of the vessels found in very early contexts in Egypt, like those examined in their study, provide plausible prototypes for the larger Combed Ware jars exported from the Levant to Egypt during the EBA III – my MTC #1 or prototypical MTC. Furthermore, the authors are able to push the importation of archetypal Levantine combed wine jars back several generations, if one takes the Combed Ware specimen from the Naqada IIIB in the tomb of U-y as the earliest evidence (Figure 4 below).

Figure 4: Compare (1) Combed Ware specimen (“Abydos Ware”) from the Naqada IIIB/EBA I tomb of U-y (Egypt), with (2) Early Bronze II Cretan MTC Prototype: “Red Brown Ware”

Source: Hartung et al. 2015: Fig. 6.1 After Day and Wilson 2016: 23; II-196 39

This would only be slightly later in date than tomb U-j, which had the largest assemblage of imported pre-dynastic pottery known. Also, it is significant that the U-j assemblage is thought to reflect the importation and consumption of wine, and that wine making is not attested to prior to Dynasty 0, beginning somewhat earlier in the Levant, which is the presumed origin of wine in pre-dynastic Egypt. In the OK-EBIII, the importation into Egypt of smaller ceramic jars and juglets characteristic of the earliest long-distance trade between Egypt and Palestine (see Braun 2011: Fig.12.10), declined (Stager 1985: 179; Sowada 2009: 156). These earlier forms likely carried some of the same viscous staples (Sowada 2009: 161) as EBA Combed Ware jars (Figure 5) are postulated to have transported, such as resin, oil, wine, etc. from Syria-Palestine to Egypt (Stager 1985; Sowada 2009: 156; 160-162). They were subsequently replaced by much larger two-handled containers, depicted in Figure 5 (Esse 1986, Sowada 2009), which often display “combed” decoration, essentially conspicuous patterns of lines running vertically, horizontally and diagonally on the surface that were made pre-firing by the potter using a comb-like tool (Sowada 2009: 156).

Figure 5: Combed Ware Jars from coastal Syria-Palestine and Egypt (see Appendix 1: Pl.1 / Table 12: Pl.1)

Hence, due to these characteristic treatments, these large jars, forerunner to the later iterations of the MBA Canaanite jar (Martin 2016b: 115), are termed ‘Combed Ware’ (Sowada 2009: 154-158). These large pithoi were built by hand using coils of clay from the bottom 40 upward (Greenberg and Porat 1996: 10), with a rim that was often finished on a wheel of some kind or a basic “turning device” (Sowada 1999:156). In terms of fabric, it is often noted to be quite hard, with most discussion centered around surface treatment and detailed studies for the period of Old Kingdom interactions lacking. Nevertheless, generally there are three Combed Ware jar fabric types isolated in the analysis of this corpus, which are themselves broadly attributable to specific regions of production in Syria-Palestine. Following the work of Sowada (2009: 169), who examined the imported ceramics in Egypt during the Old Kingdom, these Combed Ware fabrics are as follows: a) Byblos and north Syrian coast fabric:

As yet, little detailed work has been done on the petrography of northern Levantine Combed Ware or specifically the Byblite. Despite some similarity in appearance of combed, metallic Brittle Orange Ware from the Amuq phases G-J with northern Canaan material, this ware is in reality a local variant based on petrographic examination (Greenberg and Porat 1996: 17-8). b) Northern Canaan and Central Levant:

It has been suggested that potters preferred clays from the Hatira Formation to manufacture their pottery (Kempinski and Niemeier 1991: 43, Greenberg and Porat 1996: 17), perhaps because these clays were very rich in iron and could therefore be fired at much higher temperatures (Kempinski and Niemeier 1991: 43), allowing vessel walls to be thinner while maintaining a high degree of strength. Tempering agents utilized ranged from small shale fragments, fine and coarse quartz, some carbonates, siltstones, igneous rocks and oolites (Greenberg and Porat 1996: 13-6). Analysis of this material using PIXE-PIGME reveals that some pottery exported to Egypt and deposited there was constructed with clays from the aforementioned Hatira Formation (possibly around the inland center of Tel Dan, or along the coastal approach to Byblos at sites such as Sidon).9

9 Sowada (2009: 169) notes that Combed Ware is known at Sidon and not published, but that she has seen pictures of a vessel that was very similar in shape and ware to one made from clays of the Hatira formation excavated at Matmar. See also Collins (2006). 41 c) Southern Canaan:

Significantly the Combed Ware jars manufactured in southern Canaan are made from local calcareous clay, silty in nature and possessing a temper often comprised of chalk and limestone, and sometimes with distinctive surface treatment in the form of a lime wash / coating (Greenberg and Porat 1996: 17). This surface treatment (discussed further in Chapter 4) likely enhances the reflective properties of the vessels and may have some significance with regard to the transport mechanisms involved, but this as yet remains unclear. The primary type sites with this kind of clay/ fabric are the main EBA III centers of Megiddo, Tel Erani, Tell el-Hesi, Tal Halif and Tel Yarmuth. Similar, smaller formations from which raw materials for Metallic Ware were acquired are known further south in the Negev, Samaria, the Dead Sea (east of) and the Galilee Hills’ eastern slopes (Sowada 2009: 169; Greenberg and Porat 1996: 16).

Hennessy has speculated that the commodity these jars transported was oil/wine or some liquid due to the narrow shape of the neck (Hennessy 1967: 72; see also Sowada 1999: 156), a prospect reinforced by the use of hard plaster to seal some containers (Esse 1991: 124). There is some variation in the production and surface treatment of these MTC prototypes, throughout the EBA, and by the end of the Old Kingdom vessels are both taller and wider with little or no combing (Sowada 1999: 158).

This transition from the much smaller one handled imported jugs (likely to have carried the same viscous commodities) is thought to reflect the change in the mechanism of transport (now predominantly maritime) from the Levant to Egypt beginning in the EBA II, but also an associated increase in production, capacity, speed and scale of trade (Esse 1991: 115-16, Stager 1985: 179). In general, it can be said that Combed Ware sherds are common to nearly every EBA III site in the southern and littoral northern Levant (Sowada 2009:155), as well as southern and northern Canaan (Greenberg and Porat 1996: Figs. 5-6). The appearance of Combed Ware (especially in association with Khirbet Kerak Ware) is a diagnostic marker for the EBA III, appearing primarily at sites along the Nile (see Chapter 5) in Egypt from Dynasty 4-6 (Sowada 1999: 155; 158). 42

3.2.2 MTC #2: Middle Bronze Age ‘Canaanite Jars’ (Ovoid) (Figure 2: MBA; Figure 6; Appendix I: Pl. 2)

Figure 6: MTC #2 / MBA Exported ‘Canaanite Jar’ From Egypt and Cyprus

Sources: Middle Bronze Age (MBA) Exported ‘Canaanite jar’ from Arpera (Mosphilos) Cyprus (after Merrillees 1974: Fig. 35; 59) and Avaris (Tell el-Dabʿa) Egypt (after Aston 2004a: Pl.169)

The earliest Bronze Age store jars and transport containers of the Levant, exemplified by the aforementioned EBA Combed Ware Jars, were often flat-based, but gradually during the MBA a new “rounded base began to occur on these large forms” (Leonard Jr. 1996: 239) and sometime after 2000 B.C.E., this morphological change is evidenced in the MBA cemetery of Tell el-‘Ajjul and the Royal tombs at Byblos. The rounded base significantly reduced stress from the weight of contents, but one also notes the vertical handles so ideal for transport and manipulation like later amphorae. The term “Canaanite jar” is generally applied to large two- handled vessels of Bronze Age manufacture, displaying “an ovoid shape and restricted neck… typically utilized to store and transport goods” (Ownby 2010: 63). Canaanite jars of MBA date found in exported contexts, like Egypt, show some variable production techniques when compared to those of the succeeding Late Bronze Age, which tend to be more consistently manufactured (see especially MTC #3 / Type 5.4 below).

It is very likely that MBA Canaanite Jars were a gradual development from EBA Combed Ware Jars (see Figure 7 below). Although she does not suggest EBA Combed Ware jars 43 specifically or exclusively, Ownby concedes that the development of the MBA Canaanite jar from Early Bronze Age storage jars in Syria-Palestine is “likely” (2010: 63-64),10 and ultimately her work does make reference to large Combed Ware jars from coastal sites like Arqa (Thalmann 2002: 376, 2003: 28). She observes that during the early phases of the MBA, the Canaanite jar shape acquired its characteristic form with a shorter neck, more tapering body and two handles (Gerstenblith 1983: 78). Interestingly, comparison is made between the large Combed Ware jars of Arqa’s late EBA levels and the later manifestations of the so called ‘Canaanite jar’ that appear in levels thereafter, plausibly developing from local traditions, but as Ownby (2010: 64) observes: “whose origins may relate to the ceramic repertoire of the northern Levant or north Syria”, pointing to the work of Thalmann (2002: 376, 2003: 28). She ultimately concludes that it is probable the classic Canaanite jar appeared at a few MBA coastal sites, early on, and was gradually adopted by other sites as their participation in maritime trade increased.

Figure 7: Late EBA Combed Ware from Tell Arqa phase P, compared to MBA phases with Classic Canaanite Jar forms emerging (Thalmann 2003: Figs. 6, 10, 15, and 16)

10 Unlike Parr (1973: 179-180) who saw the origin of the MBA Canaanite jars in storage jars found in southern Mesopotamia, Gerstenblith (1983: 63) suggested they derived from Khabur ware, painted MBI Levantine storage vessels without handles; see also Ownby (2010: 63-64) for more discussion on possible origins. 44

Vessels of this type appear slightly earlier at sites in Syria and Cilicia, which may support theorized connection with the Northern Levant. The discovery of early Canaanite Jars at MBA Byblos in the Chamber of Offerings, dated to MBA I (MBA IIA), may accurately reflect their production and use along the northern coastal Levant at this time (Thalmann 2008: 67).11

Ownby (2010: 65) identifies problems in examining the shape developments of MBA Canaanite jars, including: 1) chronological issues (discussed in her Chapter 2); 2) “terminological problems in identifying “Canaanite jar”; 3) complete examples deriving mostly from tombs; and 4) no discussion of fabric,” the latter being essential to understanding any changes over time and how this relates to shape/composition. Nevertheless, there are some morphological traits that can be identified in association with the jar type, specifically features of vessel size: as “a guide, the MBA Canaanite jar rims are between 10 and 15 cm. in diameter” (Ownby 2010: 65), and vessel height typically ranged between 40 and 70 centimeters (Ownby 2010: 70). There are observable changes in MBA Canaanite jar bases over time (especially during the MBIIA), which displays a narrowing (Beck 1975: 52, 1985: 186, 192, 194; Aston 2002: 59-65). Regarding methods of production, Ownby observes that the early MBA jars from Tell Arqa seem to be constructed by building coils, finishing the neck/rim on the wheel (Thalmann 2002: 370).

Most of the MBA Canaanite jars included in Parr’s work (1973: 174, 178) appear to be distinctly wheel-made, while some featured marks on the exterior of the body’s surface that suggest a thinning of the vessel wall using scraping tools.12 A combed pattern was a documented feature of decoration for the body that continued into the MBA to some extent, also occurring on jars in the earlier EBA II period, perhaps signifying some continuity in MTC production.13 Lastly, clay bands with incised decoration were sometimes applied to the neck and shoulder join of the vessels in the early MBA (Beck 2000: 115, 177; Thalmann 2003: 32).

11 These examples display some differences in form from those excavated at Tell Arqa, signifying that within the MBA I (MBA IIA), “regional traits existed” (Ownby 2010: 64-65).

12 Similar techniques of manufacture are found on the vessels at Tell el-Dabʿa (see Aston 2002: 44, 2004: 163)

13 This practice appears to continue in use to some degree even into the MBA IIB period (Amiran 1970: 59, 66-67, 103; Finkelstein et al.. 2000: 199; Beck 2000: 177; Aston 2002: 44; Thalmann 2003: 27-28, 32). 45

Furthermore, in reviewing the available data regarding the MBA and LBA Canaanite Jar in Egypt, Ownby’s (2010: 120-78) work added considerably to the academic discourse by conducting additional petrographic analysis of many imported Canaanite Jars samples from Egypt, primarily excavated at Memphis, as evidence, ultimately comparing the MBA data with the LBA and inferring the nature of contemporary trade and political relationships between Egypt and the Levant. Her comprehensive review of macroscopic, petrographic, and chemical analyses of a large corpus of MBA Canaanite jar samples examines not only the provenance of these imported MTCs, but also strives to better understand any relationships between samples, fabric classification and the rims. Despite a number of chemical analyses undertaken on the corpus of MBA Canaanite Jars, we as yet lack comprehensive fabric descriptions for much of the MBA corpus, and therefore Ownby’s (2010: Table 5.2) laboratory macroscopic examination of 56 MBA Canaanite jar sherds provides some of the best descriptions of individual fabrics displayed by a corpus of such MTCs imported to Egypt. These fabric groups are summarized in Figure 8, reflecting production areas along the Levantine coast and particularly Lebanon and North Coastal Palestine, a conspicuous trend which continues throughout MTC production in the Levant (see Chapter 6 on provenance for full discussion).

Figure 8: Interpreted Petrographic Groups (Ownby 2010: Table 5.2)

Ownby (2010: 179) undertook a further analysis comparing the corpus of imported MBA Canaanite Jar material from Memphis to that of Tell el-Dabʿa, noting that MBA Canaanite jars 46 have been excavated from the earliest levels at the site of Ezbet Rushdi, to the end of occupation at Tell el-Dabʿa, effectively spanning the late 12th Dynasty to the end of the Second Intermediate Period. This material has been discussed in several previous studies (Bietak 1991; Czerny 1999: 204; Aston 2002: 44-45, 59-71; Aston 2004a: 163-164, 239-240; Müller 2008: 185-187). The fabrics, first classified by Bietak, but later Aston (1991b: 328-330; Aston 2004a: 35), and later Kopetzky (2004: 254-255, 267, 274, 276), observing a reduction in the number of fabrics displayed by these transport vessels over time, which declined with the overall imports (Aston 2004a: 239-240). Regarding the thin sections examined, Ownby (2010: 180) noted that of the imported vessels excavated at Tell el-Dabʿa, examined at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, 231 thin sections were available and 217 were analyzed, 105 from Canaanite jars, many corresponding to the late 12th-13th Dynasty (based on the Tell el-Dabʿa relative chronology), while the Memphite Canaanite jars were dated from the mid-13th Dynasty to the Second Intermediate Period (a temporal deviation that obviously affected the comparability of the two sites and the ceramic material). The first focus of the thin section examination was the 43 samples included from Cohen-Weinberger and Goren’s (2004) discussion, primarily due to the provenance being reasonably well-known, and thereby assisting in identifying similarities in minerals and clay composition. A comparison of the 105 Canaanite jar thin sections from Tell el- Dabʿa and the Memphite Canaanite jar samples yielded 61 similar examples, with 44 displaying different clay matrices although the inclusion types were comparable. This is possibly attributable to the fact that Levantine potters had various clays options, with some analyses showing the same set of inclusions present in different clays (see Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004).

Few thin sections were a close match, an expected result given the variation in clays/inclusion material, however the samples that were similar to the Memphite examples were mostly of coastal Lebanon (this includes Memphis Group 3, Tell el-Dabʿa Groups B1-B2), as well as the northern coast of Palestine in a few cases (Memphis Group 4, Tell el-Dabʿa Group G). In sum, the Tell el-Dabʿa samples that correlated well with the Memphite material, originated from along coastal Palestine and Lebanon, the same general region suggested as the location of production of the Canaanite Jars from Memphis.

Figure 9: Line drawings of Tell el-Dabʿa jars with fabrics similar to those in Memphis Group 4, “Northern Coastal Palestine” (Ownby 2010: Fig. 6.18)

In comparing the fabrics specifically, Ownby (2010: 195-97) notes that the results of the comparison of the Canaanite jar sherd material from both of these important sites revealed additional samples from Tell el-Dabʿa that were analogous to the Memphite Canaanite Jar material. In total, 25 chips were “slightly similar”, while 41 were “similar” to the examples from Memphis. A number of other samples were more superficially comparable to the jars from Memphis, but the application of more rigorous criteria determined that despite being visually similar, the fabrics could in fact derive from different geographic regions. There was a very small number that were identical, and Ownby observed that the fundamental variation in the sherd sample fabrics precluded “perfect matches.” Regarding any association between fabrics and vessel forms within the corpus of MBA Canaanite Jars examined from Tell el-Dabʿa and Memphis, Ownby’s (2010: 203-07) further comparison of the two was attempted, which sought to determine any similarities or differences between the two corpora: Petrographic/macroscopic comparisons revealed that the jars from both of these sites were actually of related fabrics, and as will be discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 6 (Provenance), are likely to have originated from similar Levantine regions. In Ownby’s view this suggests the areas exporting jars to Egypt at Tell el-Dabʿa were likely the same production centres shipping MBA Canaanite Jars to Memphis (e.g., the Akkar Plain, inland and coastal Lebanon, northern / coastal Palestine), and although at least a few jars found at Memphis appear to come from the same areas that produced many of the jars deposited at Tell el-Dabʿa, there are some differences between the two corpora: for example, the absence of jars at Memphis coming from inland Palestine, however, the available data supports some degree of contact with the port at Tell el-Dabʿa and the large corpus of MBA Canaanite Jars there. 48

Essentially, MBA MTCs from Tell el-Dabʿa were made at sites along coastal Syria- Palestine and also inland sites in Palestine, while MBA MTCs found at Memphis were made at coastal sites, likely signaling the different trade networks that the two sites were part of. Tell el- Dabʿa had a high ‘Asiatic’ demographic, it might be reasonable to think that the population there was part of a broad trade network that included both the coastal sites and also overland trade routes with Palestine. In contrast, Memphis was less culturally diverse, with weaker connections to the Levant and diminished political and economic power. Its inhabitants may not have had direct access to the overland routes to areas in the Levantine interior because of the expanding power of Tell el-Dabʿa, which was situated at a geographical point that enabled it to control that crucial access point.

3.2.3 Late Bronze Age ‘Canaanite Jars’

There are two primary morphological variants of LBA Canaanite Jars that will be examined here. The first being a continuation of bulbous MBA forms, which continue to be manufactured in parts of the Levant into the LBA/Iron transition (particularly at Tell Kazel), and the second being the diagnostic conical forms first produced in the LBA and similarly continuing into the Iron I. The latter carinated/conical forms being prominent in the cargo of the Uluburun shipwreck, these diagnostic jars have been identified as among the earliest plausible ‘purpose-built’ MTCs, exhibiting some degree of standardization for international markets and significantly displaying continued production in the Iron Age at some of the same sites along the coast of Phoenicia and prominent Phoenician city-states like Sarepta and Dor (discussed further below).

Beyond the morphological variation witnessed in the corpus of Canaanite jars during the LBA, it is also significant that there is a likely shift in their contents. For the corpus of MBA jars, wine is often suggested as among the most common product imported (Knapp and Demesticha 2016: 68; McGovern et al. 1997; 2000), however the main contents of LBA Canaanite Jars from Memphis and Amarna were apparently oils and resins (Bourriau et al. 2001; Serpico et al. 2003; Smith et al. 2004). Bourriau (2004: 85, 90) attributes this change to an increased local production of wine, recalled also in some Egyptian iconography but further supported by the large-scale production of Egyptian Jars that are functionally comparable and also produced in specialized workshops (Knapp and Demesticha 2016: 68, Fig. 12; Bourriau et al. 2000). However, we 49 presently lack residue analysis to demonstrate a shift in the contents, an issue also clouded by potential reuse of jars.

3.2.4 LBA: Pedrazzi Type 4 (Bulbous) (Figure 2: LBA:A/IA:A/ Appendix I: Pl. 10)

Figure 10: Late Bronze Age / Iron I - Pedrazzi Type 4 (Ovoid / Bulbous) i) From Tell Kazel (after Pedrazzi 2007: Fig. 3.16:a) ii) Exported to Maa-Palaeokastro, Cyprus (after Karageorghis and Demas 1988: Pls. 194:319).

The most commonly exported LBA/EIA Levantine MTCs found on Cyprus initially correspond to variants of Pedrazzi’s Type 4 (Pedrazzi 2007: 65-70, 368), a high-rimmed container with a light shoulder carination and a rounded belly. Although no provenance data is available, it is assumed that Type 4 vessels originated in the northern Levant (from coastal Syria to southern Anatolia) during the LBA II–Iron I periods (Pedrazzi 2007: 368; 2010: 54). Preserved forms of this type are most common in the Levant at Tell Kazel, although there are multiple regional and exported variants, all of which decline rapidly after the transition to the Iron Age I. This type is not an unprecedented innovation of the LBA, but rather a continued development of forms manufactured and exported in the MBA termed ‘Canaanite Jar’ (MTC #2 discussed above), retaining the conspicuous bulbous morphology and only subtle changes to the articulation of the walls and base that likely made this more parabolic form (see Chapter 7) stronger (see Figure 3 for comparison with other MTC morphologies). 50

Pedrazzi records two main exported types, Type 4.1 (LBII/Iron Age I) and Type 4.2 (mainly LBA II, but also occurring in earlier contexts). She suggests that these jars functioned within “a more local network, in a northern Levantine trade circuit, from coastal Syria to Cyprus and Cilicia, with the possible minor involvement on the part of Egypt and some Palestinian sites, such as Tell Keisan” (Pedrazzi 2010: 55). Although these Type 4 jars provide some evidence for continued production and export in Early Iron Age trade, Gilboa et al. (2015) now assert that by the early Iron Age, Syria and northern Lebanon were no longer exporting ceramics to Cyprus.

3.2.5 MTC #3: LBA, Pedrazzi Type 5.4 (Conical / Carinated) (Figures 11; 26: A-C / Appendix I: Pls. 4-6)

Figure 11: MTC #3 / LBA Pedrazzi Type 5.4 ‘Canaanite Jar’ from the Uluburun (after Pulak 1997: 241)

MTC #3 is the most morphologically and chronologically diagnostic of the so-called ‘Canaanite Jar’ types of the Bronze Age, and it is classified among Pedrazzi’s Type 5.4 (2008: 75-77): a wheel thrown carinated jar with a conical morphology, angular shoulders, and stump base.14 This distinctive type emerges from a family of carinated-conical jars produced during the LBA and is an innovation specific to this period, representing a third type in this typology and possibly the first purpose-built Maritime Transport Container from the Levant. Some examples

14 See Knapp and Demesticha (2016); Martin (2016b); Cline (1991: 170; catalogue number 303).

51 may bridge the gap to the Iron I when this jar type ultimately disappears from the archaeological record. MTC #3 has a predominant chronological distribution in the LBA II, and are known from comparable levels in Syria-Palestine (Tyre, Sarepta, Dor, etc.), Egypt and Nubia (especially along the Nile: Amarna, Saqqara, Elephantine, etc.), Cyprus (Myrtou-Pighades, Enkomi), Crete at Kommos and the Aegean mainland (Pylos, Tiryns, Mycenae, Menidi, etc), as well as dominating the ceramic repertoire of the LBA shipwreck at Uluburun and also present in the cargo of the Cape Gelidonya (Bass et al. 1976; Pedrazzi 2008: 75; Martin 2016b).

In her analysis of the southern Levant, Killebrew termed this jar type CA22, which she dates to ‘the fourteenth-twelfth centuries BCE’ (2007: 172-173; Fig. 4.6). These MTCs are often isolated in discussion of LBA international maritime commerce and shipping (Amiran 1970; Raban 1980; Bevan 2014; Knapp and Demesticha 2016; Martin 2016b), with several variants, volumes, and sub-types (Pedrazzi 2007: 75-77). MTC #3 / Pedrazzi’s Type 5.4 is a distinctive form with an angular or carinated shoulder, tapering into a pointed or stump-like base, representing the Canaanite Jar that developed over the course of the LBA into a more distinctive parabolic and conical form, with a pointed or stump base (Leonard 1996: 237, Figs. 15-2-15.3). With a basic volume of about 10-11 liters (Martin 2016b), at least three main values have been recognized in terms of capacity (see Chapter 7; Figure 66), In examining the 149 conical MTC #3 (Type 5.4) jars on the Uluburun, the largest examples held about 26.7 litres while the smallest ones, representing about 75% of the total, held an average of only 6.7 litres (Serpico 2003: 225). A medium jar size approximating 10-14 liters is noted, while some describe the larger size as typically ranging from 18-22 litres (see Pedrazzi 2016 for additional discussion).

It should be stressed once more that deposition of this form is thought to extend somewhat beyond the LBA and into the Iron I, at which time its production and use appears to rapidly dissipate (Pedrazzi 2007: Appendix 3: 11-13). However, this latter prospect remains speculative and difficult to discern archaeologically based on the available excavation reports, and it is certainly appropriate to regard this type as an artifact of the Late Bronze Age, especially the LBA IIB. Though much of the exported material is fragmentary, we can still identify this type based on rim fragments and comparison with type sites in the Levant, such as Tyre, where it is described as having a 2.5YR 5/6 red fabric and often with a grey core (Bikai 1978: Pl. XLIX.9-10; Ownby 2010: 252). 52

Figure 12: LBA I-IIA storage jar rims from Tyre (Bikai 1978: Pl. XLIX: 9-10) compared with Memphis (Ownby 2010: 252)

Regarding the fabric of the corpus of exported LBA Canaanite Jars excavated in Egypt under examination, Ownby observes that earlier provenance analysis of samples of LBA Canaanite Jars excavated at Memphis concluded that specific Levantine regions were responsible for the bulk of this exported material (McGovern 2000; Smith et al. 2000; Bourriau et al. 2001; Serpico et al. 2003; Smith et al. 2004), and an attempt should be made to compare the LBA data to that of the MBA in order to identify any continuity or change. Chapter 6 will investigate this in greater detail and attempt to correlate these groups with distinct morphological types and MTCs included in the present typology. In total, Ownby (2010: 213-21) identifies 6 distinct LBA Groups: LBA Group 1 - Haifa Bay, LBA Group 2 – Northern Coastal Palestine, LBA Group 3- Akkar Plain, LBA Group 4 – North-West Syria, LBA Group 5 – Coastal Lebanon, LBA Group 6 – Southern Cyprus. In particular, Group 1 and 2 will be essential to the in-depth discussion of MTC provenance that will be undertaken after MTC distribution is examined in Chapter 5. Figure 13 illustrates the proposed provenance assignments for both the MBA and LBA Canaanite jar petrographic groups as reviewed and elucidated by Ownby (2010: Figs 7.1 and 7.2), which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6’s diachronic overview of the available provenance data for all MTC types.

Figure 13: Maps of proposed provenance assignments for MBA/LBA Canaanite jar petrographic groups (Ownby 2010: Figs. 7.1 and 7.2)

LBA Group 1 – “Haifa Bay” (Ownby 2010: 213): Consisting of Hamra clay, with inclusions of quartz (between fine and medium), bioclasts (similar in size and relative amount as quartz): Amphiroa algae clasts, limestone, chalk, and chert. Weathered basalt fragments being present but less common, along with feldspars and heavy minerals. The temper must have derived from a coastal sand based upon these well-sorted inclusions, with most samples indicating a firing temperature of 700-800°C. Haifa Bay in northern Palestine provides the best comparative body for this, with coastal sands denoting similar amounts of quartz, bioclasts, volcanic rock fragments, and quartz from the Nile carried north by sea currents (see Sivan et al. 1999: 283), a phenomenon creating rounded grains and similar frequencies of quartz/bioclasts in the sand of Haifa Bay. Similarly, the basalt fragments present are a product of local geology and hydrology, originating from the Jezreel Valley’s ancient volcanic outcrops (draining into the Qishon River). In terms of a likely site for the production of these jars, the port at Tell Abu Hawam, which functioned by ca. 1450 BCE until the end of the LBA, provides an attractive candidate (see Fig. 7.1; Artzy 2007), however, Akko is another important port city that was active in contemporary maritime networks and sometimes mentioned in texts from this period (Heltzer 1978: 151; Dothan 1993).

Group 2 – “North Coastal Palestine” (Ownby 2010: 214-15; Fig. 7.4): Samples are similar in appearance to those in LBA Group 1, but with less basalt and more quartz fragments (Bourriau et al. 2001: 121-125, 140; Smith et al. 2004: 58, 60, 63-64). Typically Hamra clay, with some probable rendzina, the inclusions range from bioclasts, chalk, kurkar, feldspars to chert (usually coarse-sized and rounded with poor sorting), and some samples made using rendzina were mixed with Terra Rossa. Except for three samples, the firing temperature did not exceed 800°C. The copious large quartz grains/ infrequent bioclasts support a production along the central to northern Palestinian coast, also supported by the lack of Amphiroa algae clasts and the presence of kurkar (Buchbinder 1975: 45-46; Sneh et al. 1998). Several sites make plausible candidates for LBA production of these jars, including Jaffa, Dor and Tel Nami East (Artzy 1993; Kaplan and Ritter-Kaplan 1993; Stern 1993).

Group 3 – “Akkar Plain” (Ownby 2010: 216-17): Samples are composed of either a Neogene marl clay (Group 3a) or a more calcareous clay (Group 3b). Some Neogene clay samples also contained Terra Rossa. The dominant inclusions are hypocrystalline alkali olivine basalt, but some display limestone, chalk, quartz, chert, chalcedony, chalcedonic quartz, serpentine, as well as rare bioclasts. Firing temperature for this group ranged from 700- 800°C, however Group 3b had been fired to higher temperatures. The general composition and characteristics of this group suggest the Akkar Plain, which has the necessary volcanic and sedimentary drainage, with Neogene marls (Dubertret 1974: 383-386; Beydoun 1976: 321). The similarity of samples to the Amarna Letters originating at Tell Arqa (see Goren et al. 2004: 108, 114, 189-190) suggests Arqa may have been a production centre for some jars, however Tell Kazel (Badre et al. 1994: 310-346; Badre and Gubel 1999-2000: 136- 179, 197-200) also provides a plausible candidate for production (Badre et al. 2005: 20-23).

Group 4 – “North-west Syria” (Ownby 2010: 217-18; Fig. 7.6): This group displays volcanic rock fragments, iron-stained radiolarian chert, and limestone in a marl clay matrix (Bourriau et al. 2001: 127-132, 142-143; Smith et al. 2004: 61- 62, 65-66), with other inclusions consisting primarily of quartz, replacement chert, chalcedony, and serpentine. These suggest the addition of a temper with volcanic/sedimentary inclusions, and an origin for the materials from a water source, perhaps a river. The firing temperature was more variable between samples, some lower while others were above 850°C. Radiolarian chert fragments/ alternating volcanic inclusions indicate the role of an ophiolite complex (Whitechurch 55 et al. 1984), which along with the prevalence of iron-stained radiolarian chert, indicates that Syria is a likely place of production. This prospect is further supported by comparison with thin section samples from Ugarit where a large emporia housing Canaanite Jars existed, as well as comparing well with analysis of Amarna Letters derived from the city (Smith et al. 2000; Goren et al. 2004: 88-90, 186; Smith et al. 2004: 61).

Figure 14: LBA Canaanite jars from Egypt, fabrics P31 and P70 assigned to Northern Coastal Palestine (Aston 1996: Pl.10; Rose 2007: 292-4; See Ownby 2010: Fig. 7.44)

Group 5 – “Coastal Lebanon” (Ownby 2010: 219; Fig. 7.7): These samples were produced from a rendzina, usually mixed with Terra Rossa, with inclusions largely of bioclasts (Amphiroa algae clasts), with lesser quantities of limestone, chalk, quartz, chert, chalcedony, and geode quartz (Bourriau et al. 2001: 132-135, 143; Smith et al. 56

2004: 62-63, 71, 73), and the firing temperature was below 850°C. This group likely a product of coastal Lebanon (Dubertret 1962; Buchbinder 1975: 45-46), where beach sands denote bioclasts in quantity, along with Amphiroa clasts and lesser quantities of the aforementioned inclusions (quartz, geode quartz, chalcedony, chert). The apparent variability in some of the samples may suggest multiple sites of production, and one might look to Tyre, Sidon or Beirut in the production of these jars (Bikai 1978: 43-50, 72-73; Badre 1997; Doumet-Serhal 2008).

Group 6 – “Southern Cyprus” (Ownby 2010: 220-21): Group 6 clays are calcareous/iron-rich, displaying various fine inclusions that are often poorly sorted, with a firing temperature of 800-900°C. The combination of inclusions from an ophiolite complex with some geology that had become metamorphosed, but lacking radiolarian chert, suggests the Troodos complex in southern Cyprus (Ownby 2010:219; Gass et al. 1994).

3.2.6 MTC #4: Iron I, Pedrazzi Type 5.2 (Conical / Carinated) (Figures 15; 22:C-C2 / Appendix I: Pl. 9)

Figure 15: Iron Age I MTC #4 / Pedrazzi Type 5.2 i) From Palaepaphos-Skales (after Bikai 1983: 397, T83/40) ii) From Palaepaphos-Skales (after Bikai 1983: 397, T80/46) iii) From Dor Harbour Wreck 13 (after Kingsley and Raveh 1996: Fig. 38:PW1)

These unique jars (Pedrazzi 2007: 72-73) are likely transitional between the terminal LBA-EIA, but become dominant during the Iron Age I. Some early examples of Type 5.2 (MTC #4) are so similar to LBA Type 5.4 (MTC #3) that it is difficult to distinguish in Egyptian iconography (Figure 17). They have a limited distribution and appear predominantly along the 57 coast at sites like Tell Dor and in exported maritime trading contexts. They may well be the one Early Iron Age MTC that can be connected to production centers, namely the elaborate pottery workshops and Kiln G at Sarepta (Anderson 1987: 43-44), but more certainly in the region of Dor (Chapter 6). Their general absence from hinterland sites with numerous preserved commercial jars, together with the presence of Type 5.2 in the Dor harbour wreck deposit (see Figure 15: iii) and other coastal contexts, suggest that this jar was associated specifically with maritime networks. The dissertation of Waiman-Barak (2016: 86) notes that Raban and Raveh (in a rescue dive in the waters off Dor during the early 1980s), “discovered a wreck with a cargo full of these jars... They extracted a few of them and brought them to the glass house museum at Kibbutz Nahsholim... The complete wreck was lost back at sea never to be found again.”

Anderson (1987: 44) regarded this type as indicative of continuity in LBA pottery production at Sarepta, and, in general, the form seems to represent a transitional EIA type, amongst the earliest displaying a vestigial/reduced neck. The work of Gilboa et al. (2008: Figs. 9, 13) helps to elucidate the earliest appearance and development of this commercial container (their Type C), highlighting its prominence during what they term Stage 2 (Iron IB). This type is often very thick and heavy and never decorated (Martin 2016a: 111). We as yet lack robust fabric descriptions for this type. The most detailed information can be found in the dissertation of Paula Waiman-Barak (2016: 28), who reviews examples including the aforementioned Type 5.2 MTCs retrieved from Dor harbour (see example 4 below in Figure 16, compare with 5-6), wherein she describes examples with a volume of approximately 30 litres with fabric typical of vessels found underwater (grey colour - though once pink as shown in terrestrial excavation at Sarepta), with the Dor examples exhibiting inclusions of quartz and coralline algae.

This Type was so common in the excavations at Dor (Figure 16) that the team lovingly came to call them ‘Avner Jars’, after the late Avner Raban, who was among the first to describe the so called commercial jars of the Levant diachronically (Raban 1980). Based upon their unique morphology, limited distribution and weight, Bikai (1983: 396) had already speculated that Type 5.2 might have been manufactured at a single workshop, and in her view, parallels from both Tyre and Sarepta “must be the products of the same workshop.” She further speculated based upon their unique morphology and extremely limited distribution (and weight) that they may have been manufactured for use in transporting a specialized cargo (1983: 396).

Figure 16: MTC #4 / Type 5.2 also known as “Avner Jars” (Waiman-Barak 2016: 28)

4) waters off Dor, (5) found at Qasile, of Haifa Bay / Akko production. (6) found at Tanis15

Figure 17: TT 217 (Ipuy) from the 19th Dynasty (Ramses II). Scene of Type 5.4 amphorae (MTC #3) or very early examples of Type 5.2 (MTC #4) being used as a shaduf

Source: Davies 1927: Pl.XXVIII

Having recovered variants of this type from Shipwreck 13 at Dor, Kingsley and Raveh (1996: 57–58) postulated that the thickness of these vessels may have required their transport by sea while limiting breakage (Martin 2016: 112). MTC #4 / Pedrazzi Type 5.2 enables us to

15 This amphora (number 6) was found at Daphnae (Tell Defenneh), not Tanis- according to the UCL catalogue. The sites are not far apart, and Petrie published material from both in Tanis II, hence the confusion in Waiman- Barak (2016: 28). 59 define the unique features of what would become typical of Iron Age carinated shoulder jars. It has a generally conical profile and a nearly flat, horizontal shoulder, with a marked angular shape in the transition to the belly. The reduced neck becomes vestigial at the rim, which is full or thickened and set directly on the shoulder, with an abrupt and internally angular joint. Apart from the reduced neck, the proportions, thickness and morphology of this type would seem to be a continuation of specific variants of LBA Canaanite Jars, especially the LBA II angular- shouldered examples (MTC #3 / Type 5.4 / Killebrew form CA 22). This suggestion is also supported by volumetric analysis of Type 5.2 from Palaepaphos-Skales (T.83/40), which according to Pedrazzi (2007: 239) held some 18.2 litres (l) (her second group of Type 5.4 had similar capacities, ranging from 18–22 l; Pedrazzi 2010: 54). Volumetric analysis of Type 5.2 examples from Tyre and Tell es-Sa’idiyeh in Jordan had capacities of 9.5 and 10.4 l, roughly half the volume of the larger variant. Recent volumetric analyses of MTC #4 indicate similar capacities of 11.9–18.9 l (Knapp and Demesticha 2016: Appendix, Table A1: nos. 21–22).

3.2.7 Iron I: Type 5.5 (Conical / Carinated) (Figures 18; 22: B-B1 / Appendix I: Pl. 11)

Figure 18: Iron I, Pedrazzi Type 5.5 variants i) from Tell Keisan (after Pedrazzi 2007: Fig. 3.27:b) ii) from Palaepaphos-Skales (after Bikai 1983: 397, T44/134) iii) from Palaepaphos-Skales (after Karageorghis 1983: Fig. CLIV:1)

The available evidence is insufficient and variable enough that this type is not included as an exemplar in the present MTC Typology. However, the notable export of variants to Cyprus and Crete and the morphology of Type 5.5 demand that it is noted and discussed as a plausible 60

Levantine MTC, which may rather have played a more general role in terrestrial and maritime networks as a commercial jar. Production in the region of Keisan is plausible, with available samples revealing coastal alluvium (Waiman-Barak and Gilboa 2016: 173), with examples known from sites more directly along the Phoenician coast, such as Tyre. Sub-types and variants of Type 5.5 (Pedrazzi 2007: 77-84) are typically associated with the central or southern coastal Levant, with intact examples most common at Tel Keisan (Briend and Humbert 1980: Pl. 59: 1,- 3, Pl. 60:1 and 3). This container has a moderately high rim, but a longer body than Type 4, and has multiple regional and exported variants that can be divided into two groups, one with a knobbed base (Type 5.5.1, a Phoenician tradition), the other with a rounded base (Type 5.5.4, a Philistine tradition). Variants of this commercial jar flourished during Iron Age I, and while common at coastal Levantine sites this type is also common to hinterland site (Pedrazzi 2007: 78-81). Type 5.5 warrants inclusion as an exported type of interest, but numerically, in terms of complete vessels evidencing exported deposition, it is rivalled by its contemporary Type 5.2 (MTC #4), which conversely appears to have travelled primarily if not exclusively via maritime networks. Therefore, although a necessary inclusion in this discussion of prospective, dominant, MTC types, type 5.5 may perhaps provide better evidence for a storage and transport jar that was not uncommonly exported in a variety of sub-types (see Figure 18). The very fragmentary (possibly) Iron Age I Phoenician commercial jars excavated at Kommos on Crete and reconstructed in Figure 19 (below) may however be of this type. Bikai (2000) provides discussion of this fragmentary material. 16

16 Given the complexity of possible parallels, and the wide diversity in dates assigned to the Phoenician jars excavated on Cyprus and in the Levant, Bikai (2000: 310) suggested that the Kommos jar fragments should perhaps be dated primarily on the basis of their excavated context at the site (a range closer to the Iron II). She speculated that this material might represent a single shipment, dated contextually to c.920/880 BC. Gilboa et al. (2008: 190, n. 261), note the problematic nature of this dating and determinations, with more recent petrographic and chemical analyses of their fabric indicating that most of the jars are from southern coastal Lebanon (Gilboa et al. 2015). Bikai (2000: 302) observes: “… on the basis of ware, 339 sherds were determined to be Phoenician, but with a total of 30 fabric groups, 25 of which consisted of storage jar sherds.” Based upon measurement of the sherds, 308 (91%) belonged to storage jars, and of these 266 were body sherds. 68% of the sherds had ferrous inclusions, considered a marker of the Phoenician coast, to which the majority of the sherds were assigned based upon fabric. Chemical analysis subsequently also assigned the sherds to the central Levant, noting that the “best comparanda seem to be with the chemical Group A” of the imported Canaanite Jars from Maa-Paleokastro in Cyprus (Jones 2000:332). Interestingly, Bikai noted 23 sherds, which were apparently of the ‘crisp ware’ (discussed below under the Iron II) fabric (2000:302), which interestingly did not stand apart chemically (Jones 2000:332). All of the fragmentary Kommos rim examples were said to be of the same type as SJ 9 from Tyre, which Bikai identified as the dominant Iron I Phoenician storage jar type that occurs between the disappearance of the earliest high rimmed types, and the eventual pre-eminence of the Iron II crisp ware or torpedo storage jars that began mass production in the late ninth or early eighth century. However, given the morphological variation within the preserved forms of SJ9 at Tyre, “by 61

Figure 19: Reconstructed Iron I MTC (Kommos, Crete)

Source: after Shaw and Shaw 2006, Vol.2: Pl.4.63

Recent examination of Phoenician ceramics in the Early Iron Age has provided us with the first real fabric and petrofabric descriptions for this type of carinated commercial jar, common to most sites along the Phoenician coast and most predominant at Keisan, at which most examples display petrofabric A2. This is a locally produced fabric, essentially of a coastal alluvium and non-calcareous clay mixture, with terra rossa soil and limestone inclusions – deriving from the Haifa Bay/ Akko coast (Waiman-Barak and Gilboa 2016: Table 1: 36-38; Fig. 2; 176-77). Waiman-Barak and Gilboa (2016) note that the bulk fabric is argillaceous in nature, a non-carbonatic, dark brown in PPL (plain polarized light), with density, about 15% silt containing mostly limestone, well-sorted angular quartz and some bioclasts. About 35% of a- plastic components consists mainly of different calcareous matter: poorly-sorted chalcocite (nari), limestones (10-20%), microfossils and algal (~5%). Some spherical iron concretions

far the most common in the excavation”, with over 3000 rim fragments (Bikai 1978: 45-46), it is best conceived of as a rim type, as opposed to a distinct and consistent jar form. Bikai (2000:310) notes that at Tyre SJ 9 rims appear to occur with base Type 20 (see Bikai 1978:46), which is a slightly articulated bulb akin to some of the examples from Skales on Cyprus, to which one fragment of this base type can be added from Kommos. Because these Kommos rim fragments are similar, but seldom identical, they might indicate production in smaller, household workshops (Bikai 2000: 310). Bikai compares the Kommos material with examples from Skales Tombs 44, 58, and 49 (Cypro-Geometric I: 1050-950 B.C.) and Tomb 80 (Cypro-Geometric II (950-850 B.C.), as well as somewhat later examples from Kition and Salamis, Sarepta and Keisan (Bikai 2000:310). The parallel from tomb 80 at Skales (Pedrazzi variant 5-5-2-1) is, however, exceptional, in that it is smaller but morphologically comparable to the one heavily reconstructed jar from Kommos, Rim 2 (Shaw and Shaw 2000b: Pl.4.63:2). Bikai (2000: 309) suggested that the Kommos jars may have come from Sarepta, particularly given the extent of the specialized pottery manufacturing area excavated there (for detailed discussion see Anderson (1987:41-66; 1989: 197-215). 62 occurred, associated with silty quartz inclusions (~3%), as well as angular chert / sub-angular well-sorted quartz, with examples showing fragments igneous rocks, like basalt and Microcline.

3.2.8 Iron I: Type 5.7 (Conical / Carinated - Transitional Type?) (Figures 20; 22: E; Appendix I: Pl. 12)

Figure 20: Iron I, Type 5.7 i) from Tyre (after Bikai 1978: Pl.41.5); ii) from Deir el-Medina, Egypt (after Nagel 1938: Fig. 101.8); iii) from Sarepta (after Pritchard 1975: Fig. 43.3)

In terms of its morphology, Type 5.7 falls somewhere between Type 5.5, with rounded and carinated shoulder, and Type 5.2, with a more tapered and narrower bottom. Pedrazzi (2007: 86) thus suggests that Type 5.7 may be transitional and represent a prototype or key shape anticipating the so-called ‘torpedo’ (or ‘sausage’) types of Iron Age II, with a more elongated profile (as is evident in the few published examples of complete vessels available). There is presently an absence of analytical or provenance data relating to the manufacture of this type, with most complete vessels found at coastal sites like Tyre and Sarepta or in an exported international context like that of Deir El-Medina, Egypt (Martin 2016a: 114). Apart from Type 5.2, Type 5.7 is morphologically among the most plausibly adapted MTCs of the Early Iron Age, with consistent deposition at coastal centres per se. At Tyre, the fabric of this type is described as 2.5YR 6/8 light red, with a grey core (Bikai 1978: Pl. 41.5). We have no analytical data regarding the petrofabric of this form. Despite its coastal distribution and a handful of exported examples, this transitional type does not provide us with enough data to suggest it was a dominant MTC within the early Iron Age ceramic corpus of the coastal Levant. New excavations and the revelation of new material may well change this. 63

3.2.9 Iron I: Type 16 (Ovoid / Bulbous) (Figures 21; 22: D1/Appendix I: Pl. 14)

Figure 21: Compare exported Iron I Type 16 from Cyprus / Egypt i) from Palaepaphos-Skales (after Pedrazzi 2007: Fig. 3.79:b) ii) from (Iron Age) Amarna River Temple (after Peet and Woolley 1923: Pl. LIII:LX/82)

There is significant morphological variation within Pedrazzi’s Type 16, said to derive from her Type 5.5, however it retains aspects of MBA (MTC #2) and Early Iron Age ovoid forms and may represent the Iron Age evolution of this morphology into a more bag-shaped type, with a lowered maximum diameter (see also Iron II Aznar Type 9A: Appendix I: Pl.15). Pedrazzi identified two main groups, with examples morphologically midway between types (2007: 130). Type 16 often has an elongated, pear-shaped profile, with the maximum diameter typically in the lower half of the body. Some variants have a ‘bulb’ base and/or a carinated shoulder (16.3, 16.4, 16.6), and others (16.1, 16.5) have a shoulder connected to the belly in a relatively continuous curve. At Tyre (Bikai 1978: Pl.XXI) and in exported context at Palaepaphos-Skales (Karageorghis 1983) this type is described as a store jar with a fabric of reddish yellow, with a grey core. The earliest examples of Pedrazzi Type 16, from Palaepaphos-Skales, provide a date no earlier than Cypro-Geometric I (ca. 1050-950 BCE), although the forms continue to occur in tombs dated throughout Cypro-Geometric II-III (ca. 950-750 BCE). Specifically, at the port of Tyre, where this type was classed among “Store Jar 9”, excavators note several examples displaying a reddish yellow fabric specifically, and 7.5YR 8/6 in the case of the most precise parallel (Bikai 1978: Pl.XXI: 13). Although commonly produced and with appreciable evidence for export to Cyprus (and to a lesser extent Egypt) during the Early Iron Age, Type 16 and its 64 sub-types, akin to other prospective MTCs like type 5.5, cannot be exclusively or especially tied to coastal maritime networks, like the contemporary type 5.2 (MTC #4), the predominant MTC of the Iron Age I.

Figure 22: Iron Age I Exported Levantine Commercial Jars and Maritime Transport Containers

3.2.10 MTC #5: Iron Age II, Aznar Type 9.B1 (Cylindrical / Conical) (Figures 23; 29 / Appendix I: Pls. 16 and 21)

Figure 23: Iron II MTC #5 (Aznar Type 9.B1) Phoenician MTCs i) from Elissa shipwreck (after Ballard et al. 2002: 160. Fig. 9.5) ii) ‘miniature’ Type 9.B1 from Elissa shipwreck (after Ballard et al. 2002: 160. Fig. 9.4) iii) ‘miniature’ Type 9.B1 from Pithekoussai (after Buchner 1982: Fig. 4d)

Type 9.B1 is a very diagnostic form, commonly known as the ‘torpedo’ jar, vessels that were thrown on the fast wheel and are composed of at least 3 separate pieces (the main cylinder being approx. 48 cm high) joined with “seams at the shoulder and above the pointed base” (Stager 2003:239). The ‘crisp ware’ core is nearly fully oxidized (Osborne 2011: 94-95), and thus Bikai (1982) gave it this name, as oppose to paying homage to its characteristic shape. These elongated cylindrical storage jars stand about 60–70 cm high. Apart from their distinctive metallic fabric, these highly fired, and appreciably standardized jars carry forward the conical shape and the concentration of increasingly vestigial handles at the rim (presumably designed exclusively for ropes, as argued by Stager 2003: 241; Fig. 7).

At Tell Tayinat (Osborne 2011: Pl. 22: 14- 16), which was likely utilizing Al Mina as its coastal entrepot, in analyzing the imported Phoenician ‘torpedo’ jars in the Amuq, Osborne (2011: 94-95) notes specific parallels from Al Mina VI/V (Lehmann 2005: Fig. 9:1); Tyre II 66

(Bikai 1978: Pl. III:1-5), VIII (Bikai 1978: Pl. XXI:5), IX (Bikai 1978: Pl. XXI:1), and describes these highly distinctive vessels in form and fabric:

Rims are short and not very wide (all diameters are between 9 – 11 cm), but the wide shallow shoulders increase the width of the jar substantially before angling downwards sharply. The fabric is bright orange (5YR 6/6 reddish yellow) that’s almost fully oxidized (core: 7.5YR 6/4 light brown), with many rather large white, gray, black, and grog inclusions. Handles, when present, consist of loop handles placed vertically at the top of the body where it meets the shoulder (Osborne 2011: 94-95).

Regev (2004) suggests that by the eighth century BCE, this ‘Crisp Ware Torpedo Jar’ had become the predominant type of Phoenician transport vessel, as well as the most common type found (and imitated) on Phoenician sites in the western Mediterranean (Regev 2004). Differences in the rim type appear to distinguish between coastal Phoenician and hinterland traditions (Gilboa et al. 2004; Aznar 2005). Bikai (1978: 310) noted that such vessels may have been ‘mass produced’, a possibility also suggested by some of examples from the Iron II shipwrecks (see Figures 41, 59, also see Appendix I: Pl. 16), and the level of standardization found in the volumetric analyses conducted by Finkelstein et al. (2011: 257–258; and Knapp and Demesticha 2016: Appendix). In Bikai’s view (2000: 310), the uniformity in rim types not only made them easy to classify but also may have implications for identifying production centers (see also Gilboa et al. 2004). 17 Significantly, stratum II at Tyre contained “a large number of storage jar kiln wasters”, which obviously strongly suggests that local production of this vessel type was occurring there (Bikai 1978: 13, 47, Pl. III:7), as does the plethora of preserved examples of this type from Iron II strata. Given the established role of the port city, especially moving into the Iron Age, it is plausible that the family of Type 9.B MTCs were manufactured at this coastal emporium and subsequently distributed through Phoenician trading networks. Examples are known from Egypt, Cyprus and the western Mediterranean (see Chapter 5).

17 Amongst several of the Kommos storage jar handles (see Figure 19 above), one had a finger impression at its base, a well attested feature of early Phoenician jars (Bikai 2000: 308). Although she could not determine the shape of this jar, Bikai (2000: 308) pointed to possible parallels from Tyre Stratum XIV (1200-1075/50 BC) and from Skales Tomb 49 (1050-950 BC) (for Tyre, Bikai 1978: Pl. 41.5; for Skales, Bikai 1987: 594). Eight rim fragments of the Kommos vessels had distinctive ridges or grooves (termed ‘incisions’) on the upper part of the shoulder, all of the same fabric (K), and Bikai (2000: 309) noted that most rims showed similar treatment. According to Anderson (in Bikai 2000:309), who undertook ceramic analysis at Sarepta’s Area II, LBA-IA strata, these ridges are possibly ‘marks from the chuck on which the jar was placed upside down so that the potter could finish the vessel’, noting that such marks (though closer to the edge of the shoulder) were so common on the Iron Age II torpedo jar forms excavated at both Tyre and Sarepta that they were initially disregarded.. 67

Nevertheless, apart from ‘crisp ware’ sherd material deposited at Kommos, Crete (see Bikai 2000: 302; Martin 2016a: 108), which we can only speculate correspond to Type 9.B1 and/or 9.B2, it appears that these Iron II MTCs largely bypassed the Aegean. The presence of a miniature 9.B1 form at Pithekoussai off the coast of Italy (see above Figure 23: iii) and a miniature 9.B2 at Cumae in coastal Italy (see Appendix 1, Pl. 18: H, Figure 29 below) suggests that despite limited preservation of this material in the central Mediterranean region in tombs, that some degree of Phoenician and incipient Punic maritime trading activities in MTCs had reached the Italian coast. Regarding Egypt, perhaps the most longstanding recipient of exported Levantine MTCs, Bourriau (2004: 92) described “the ubiquitous Phoenician wine amphorae” from the Third Intermediate Period at Buto, where their fabric stood apart, and overwhelmed the number of locally produced examples. Given the deposition of hundreds of Type 9.B1 jars in the Tanit and Elissa wrecks, it is clear this form was heavily involved in long-distance maritime trade of bulk liquid staples like wine being exported internationally to markets in Egypt or Carthage (Martin 2016a: 126). Figure 25 (below) provides a broader overview of Iron II Phoenician commercial jars and MTCs.

3.2.11 MTC #6: Iron Age II, Aznar Type 9.B2 (Cylindrical/ Conical / Pyriform / Parabolic) (Figures 24; 29 / Appendix I: Pls. 17 and 21)

Figure 24: Iron II MTC #6 (Aznar Type 9.B2) Phoenician MTCs i) from Tyre (after Bikai 1978: Pl. III:7) ii) from the sea, off southern Levantine coast (after Zemer 1977: 17, Pl. 4 no. 11) 68

Type 9.B2 continues a tendency to lower the vessel’s maximum diameter and the later the manufacture the more pointed and curved (as opposed to straight-sided) their bottom tends to be in the case of both 9.B1 and 9.B2 variants. Evidence for maritime export is somewhat limited in the case of 9.B2, with some deposition on Cyprus (Sagona 1982: 95–96) and off the coast of Italy (Gàbrice 1913: 245; Fig. 84; Martin 2016a: 125; also see Chapter 6 below). There is insufficient data on this type to conduct comparable distribution / provenance analysis, however, it has been included in the present typology because of the significance of this later MTC / morphological type.

Figure 25: Iron Age II Phoenician Commercial Jars and Maritime Transport Containers

3.2.12 Maritime Transport Container Typology

The following MTC exemplars have been selected from those reviewed here. These will be isolated for spatial distribution analysis based upon their incidence of export (the number of vessels found in exported contexts) as well as their presence within contemporary shipwreck deposits (including the LBA Uluburun and Cape Gelidonya, and the Iron Age II Tanit/Elissa), as well as port sites and/or retrieval from the sea (see especially Zemer 1977). The archaeological footprint of these vessel types suggests their role within maritime trade and international networks, and their morphological/volumetric and overall physical development over time displays plausible relationships between certain forms, even when examined over millennia, as their use within maritime activities continues and arguably increases with a resurgence of commercial activity of scale by the Iron Age II.

Figure 26: Diachronic overview of dominant MTCs (EBA III-Iron II)

The dominant MTC types by chronological period are as follows, beginning with MTC #1, the obvious forerunner to later Canaanite/Phoenician transport ceramics and prototypical Canaanite Jar of the Early Bronze Age, most commonly referred to as EBA ‘Combed Ware’ Jars. These vessels are most commonly utilized beginning in the EBA II-III, and although various exported examples can be found it is in particular the Levantine coastal variants exported to 70

Egypt that make the best candidates for the EBA prototype of the MBA Canaanite Jar, if not purpose-built MTCs from this formative period (Martin 2016b: 114). This seems evident stylistically in the containers themselves, but also based upon their chronology and geography of their apparent production, deposition, use and contents. The exported EBA examples are sometimes given surface treatments beyond the distinctive combing patterns, such as a white / lime slip or cream wash (Sowada 2009: 157), which along with the presence of handles may signal a more distinctive ceramic tradition more directly associated with contemporary Levantine coastal emporia. The appearance of these ceramic traditions in EBA, MBA are clearly linked with expanding urbanization, growth and international trade, particularly with Egypt.18

MTC #2 is of course the distinctive MBA ‘Canaanite Jar’, most commonly produced in the Levant during the MBA II and akin to EBA Combed Ware, primarily exported to Egyptian markets. Nevertheless, there is a dramatic increase in scale of export during the MBA II by comparison to the aforementioned EBA predecessor. It is estimated that millions of such vessels made their way to the powerful Delta emporia at Tell el-Dabʿa, an unprecedented volume of material, which although not exclusively Levantine was primarily a product exported from coastal Levantine centers delivered by shipborne trade (Bietak 1996: 20; McGovern and Harbottle 1997: 145). These MTCs comprise the largest class of imported ceramics at the site, an astonishing estimate of 15–20% of the vessels in the entire assemblage (Bader 2011: 139, Fig. 1). Despite similarity in morphology and the “overall shape and rim/base profiles” (Knapp and Demesticha 2016: 49), the capacities ranged somewhat akin to what we will see in the case of the LBA Canaanite Jars, with samples from this exported MBA corpus ranging from approximately 14-25 litres (Thalmann 2007: 437, Fig. 7).19

18 An example of locally produced or imitated EBA Combed Ware is known from Egypt at Giza. Although this is the only example I am aware of, Sowada notes that Egyptian imitations of foreign ceramic forms (either pottery or stone) are documented from as early as the late Predynastic period and that even throughout the Dynastic age, local copies of certain types continued in production, which during the Old Kingdom was a flat-based Combed Ware jar with two handles. These imitations of foreign exotica were easily recognisable symbols of power and access to distant regions like the Levant. This example, an imitation Combed jar in the Museum of Fine Arts at Boston (MFA 20.1914), derives from the Giza tomb of an official and dated to the late 4th-early 5th Dynasty. Manufactured in Egypt this artifact imitates an imported Levantine jar, serving as a status marker in court, while also enabling the provision of an imported luxury product for the deceased in death. However, most combed ware excavated in Egypt that has been subjected to analysis has revealed a Levantine origin.

19 Analysis of ~20 of these Canaanite Jars from the site of Tell el-Dabʿa suggested a variable capacity lacking obvious standardization, with a range of ~14–25 litres (Thalmann 2007: 437, Fig. 7). 71

MTC #3 reflects the next obvious innovation visible in the morphology of the Canaanite Jar. During the LBA we see two predominant types, the first being a bulbous continuation of MBA forms that may continue into the Iron I (Pedrazzi Type 4), and the second being the most conspicuous LBA form, carinated and conical in morphology, appearing as a wheel-thrown cone, finished with a plate, but maintaining the high neck common to Canaanite jars of the MBA and Combed Ware of the EBA (this is plausibly due to Egyptian influence and contemporary sealing practices). MTC #3 is commonly cited as disappearing with the transition to the Early Iron Age (Pedrazzi 2007: 76-77), however, the vessel shape and conical morphology continues in the Phoenician MTCs of the Iron I (MTC #4 / Type 5.2), which is similar save a conspicuous reduction in the neck (see Figures 26-27).

The transition from MTC #3 to MTC #4 is visible in the stratigraphy at the coastal emporia at Dor (Raban 2000: 334, nos.7, 18, 19, 20). With the transition to the Iron Age occurs the proliferation of MTC #4, a conical carinated form, carrying on many aspects of its’ LBA predecessors. Although there are a number of exported jars that are included in this analysis (Pedrazzi Type 5.5, 5.7 and 16), it is clearly her Type 5.2 that is the Iron Age version of the Canaanite Jar, and carries on the distinctive MTC attributes that culminated in the LBA and MTC #3. This form is likewise the most commonly exported to Egypt (see Chapter 5) and the only Iron Age I type found within a plausible wreck (in Dor Harbour), discussed in more detail below. MTC #5-6 similarly appear to carry forward several features common to their carinated and conical predecessors. By the Iron Age II exported Phoenician Jars of Aznar Type 9.B.1 and 9.B2 are the amphorae of choice and clearly making their way into Mediterranean maritime networks. Although Aznar Type 9 – the ‘Elongated cylindrical storage jar family’ denotes several forms, it is 9.B1 which is deposited in quantity amid two Phoenician wrecks dating to the Iron II, and 9.B2, which makes it way so far west as to be deposited in Italy. These important contexts will be expanded upon below and in Chapter 8.

3.3 Summary and Conclusions

From the survey of exported types and plausible MTC exemplars reviewed in this Chapter, the most representative samples have been isolated in forming my MTC Typology (Figure 26 above), largely based on the quantity of vessels that were exported, evidence for production at coastal centers and deposition in wrecks or the Mediterranean Sea. Although a few other notable 72 candidates have been reviewed in this typological analysis (e.g., Type 4, 5.5, 5.7, 16), the available data in terms of numerical presence (See Chapter 5) in exported contexts/wrecks and production at coastal sites, these types represent the most commonly exported MTCs of the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age, and the ceramic forms most commonly and at times exclusively derived from contemporary shipwrecks as discussed in Chapter 4 (The LBA Uluburun and Cape Gelidonya, the Iron I wreck deposit at Dor harbor and the twin Iron II Phoenician wrecks: Tanit and Elissa). Based on the available archaeological data, it seems clear that we can look to MTC #3 (Type 5.4) as the hallmark of LBA Maritime trade, and that moving into the Iron I, MTC #4 (Type 5.2) becomes the dominant exported type and MTC exemplar, descending directly from the LBA Type 5.4 (see Figure 27 below), but without the high Egyptian style neck characteristic of the LBA MTCs, and plausibly reflecting not only a change in market forces but also of sealing and/or production practices (drying/firing).

Figure 27: LBA Type 5.4 (A-C)/ compare to Iron I Type 5.2 (D-F) Figure 28: Compare 5.4 and 5.2 at Dor20

*Source: See Appendix I: Pl. 20

20 At Tell Dor, one of the known regions of manufacture for Type 5.2 (MTC #4) and possibly also 5.4 (MTC #3), the evolution from LBA Type 5.4 to Iron Age Type 5.2 (from MTC #3 to MTC #4) is observable in the transitional LBA / Iron Age I stratigraphy (Raban 2000: 334. numbers.7.18.19.20). 73

Certainly, by the time of the Iron Age II, we have more definitive archaeological data from multiple shipwrecks that were intensely surveyed and mapped, it appears that Type 9.B1 is the exemplar MTC, which like the LBA Type 5.4 and Iron I Type 5.2, displays the greatest geographic distribution of any other contemporary prospect produced during the Iron II (see distribution analysis in Chapter 5). Similarly, this type is also numerically dominant and the most frequently deposited in such contexts and in wrecks (akin to Type 5.4 in the LBA and Type 5.2 in the Iron Age I). To a lesser extent Type 9.B2 also deserves inclusion in this MTC typology due to very distant and unique exported contexts, as well as its clear morphological relationship with later MTCs and ultimately the amphorae of the Classical periods.

Figure 29: Exported Iron II MTC #5-6 / Type 9.B1-9.B2 (see Appendix 1: Pl.21 / Table 12: Pl.21)

A: Elissa Shipwreck B. Elissa Shipwreck C. Pithekoussai Tomb (Italy)

D. Tyre

E. Recovered from Mediterranean Sea

F1. Cumae Tomb (Italy)

F2. Phoenician Coast

An important consideration is the distinction between the morphological features that developed due to a need for standardization specifically, as oppose to other functional requirements like nesting / stacking / strength, etc. For example, was the conical morphology of the appreciably standardized, mass produced, wheel thrown vessels manufactured during the LBA II and the Iron Age I-II a function of maritime adaptation intended to enhance maritime 74 transport and associated processes (stacking on the non-horizontal surface such as the hull of a ship, and in intercalated layers therein), or does it explicitly reflect the need to control vessel volume during increasingly standardized production? Or both?

Stacking in kilns is another important consideration, as suggested by Anderson (1989: 203-204) at LBA/Iron I Sarepta. These functional necessities of production, transport and use and their underlying morphological characteristics are significant. The stacking/nesting abilities of MTCs (Chapter 7) contrast the evidence for terrestrial storage jars per se, which even in the LBA retain flatter bases, larger bodies and morphologies that are designed for dedicated storage (Fortin and Cooper 2013: Figs. 7-10). MTCs and their unique features may relate equally to a need for standardization as well as the necessary durability/adaptation to shipborne trade, and we must keep in mind that such characteristics are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The diagnostic conical morphology of the LBA, particularly MTC #3 (Pedrazzi Type 5.4) (Appendix I: Pl. 4-7), vestiges of which can be seen again in the Iron Age I (MTC #4/ Pedrazzi Type 5.2, but also 5.5 and 5.7; Appendix I: Pl. 9, 11-12) and the conical/cylindrical/bulbous types of the late Iron II (MTC #5-6/Aznar Types 9.B1-2; Appendix I: Pls. 16-17), typically (and historically) associated with maritime utility, can also equally be related to the potters need to standardize such containers and to produce them in quantity and with consistency (Chapter 7). By controlling the height and circumference of the regular conical profile, potters could control the volume of the finished product (Bevan 2014: 391; Martin 2016b: 119).

By utilizing regular measurements in production one can guarantee a more consistent volume, a technique known to have been implemented in the manufacture of Levantine MTCs by the eighth century (see Chapter 7 below in discussion of MTC #5-6/ Aznar Type 9.B1-2). By the Iron Age II we have archaeological remains for two Phoenician wrecks with a homogenous cargo of MTCs approx. 800 jars (standardized to an Egyptian measure), sailing from the Phoenician coast to Egypt (Finkelstein et al. 2011). Although the degree of standardization in the Iron II MTC #5 surpasses what we see in the LBA MTC #3, the fact that this standardization is in both cases plausibly linked to international markets is significant, and it is clear that the vector for trade of scale was increasingly dependent upon shipborne commerce.

The available data from the LBA II and Iron Age II is strong, despite the limited number of wreck exposures from which we have to judge. The MTC cargo derived from these wrecks 75 obviously represents the strongest evidence for MTC exemplars, and they reinforce the suggestion that standardized conical forms were linked to international markets during their production and use. The changes visible in this corpus of containers (Table 2) reflects some degree of specialization as a commercial jar and MTC, the refinement of which appears to be linked closely to the transport of bulk liquid staples (oils, resins, and wine). It seems likely that the distribution of specific types of Levantine MTC types reflects expansions and contractions in long-distance trade during the Bronze and Iron Ages, a phenomenon that will be better evaluated in Chapters 5-7.

Table 2: MTC Exemplars #1-6 (Features and Typological Correlations) MTC Date Typological Shape Other Diagnostic # correlations (Pedrazzi / Morphological features Aznar, etc.) 1 Ovoid Body / Flat-based High Maximum Diameter. Surface treatment common: EBA ‘Combed Ware Jar’ Combing, white slip, etc. Coil built construction. 2 Ovoid Body /More High Maximum Diameter. Rounded Base Surface treatment uncommon. MBA ‘Canaanite Jar’ Wheel thrown. 3 Conical Body / Carinated Stump base common to small- medium size jars. Wheel LBA Pedrazzi Type 5.4 thrown (Fast wheel?)

4 Conical Body / Carinated Removal / Reduction of neck. Flattening of top. Wheel IRON I Pedrazzi Type 5.2 thrown.

Cylindrical body / Small vestigial handles. Conical base. Highly fired. IRON II Aznar Type 9.B1 5 Conical body, with Small vestigial handles. parabolic / pyriform Highly fired. IRON II- Aznar Type 9.B2 features. 6 III

Levantine MTCs in the Archaeological Record 4.1 Introduction

This chapter on source materials will further examine the ceramic corpus and archaeological data discussed in Chapters 1-3, which will later be analyzed spatially to reconstruct maritime trade patterns, in conjunction with provenance data (Chapters 5-6). Relevant data on the contents of these MTCs and volumetric analyses will be included but see Chapter 6 for full discussion of MTC provenance and additional, related data on MTC contents. What follows will begin with the available lines of evidence from the EBA and the development of prototypical MTC #1 in the form of large Combed Ware jars exported to Egypt. Secondly, this chapter will examine similar processes occurring in the MBA, when we see trade of scale involving the classic MBA Canaanite Jar (MTC #2), once again focused on Egypt. Investigating the Late Bronze Age, it appears that under the auspices of Egyptian Hegemony long-distance maritime trade reached new heights and MTC #3 represents some innovation. These containers become not only more standardized, but undergo further morphological development into the carinated, conical forms associated directly with maritime trade and contemporary LBA shipwrecks. The Iron Age I Phoenicians and the continued production and development of Levantine MTC #3 (Type 5.4) in the descendant MTC #4 (Type 5.2) will be further elucidated. Lastly, the evidence from twin Iron II Phoenician wrecks loaded with MTCs (MTC #5 / Type 9.B1) will be examined, along with data regarding the western Mediterranean export of Levantine MTCs, which will be recalled in Punic ceramics but also ultimately the Classical era amphorae of later periods (Chapter 8).

4.2 Early Bronze Age ‘Combed Ware’ Jars (MTC #1)

The EBA II-III ‘Combed Ware’ jars (Figure 3: EBA; Appendix I: Pl.1) are among the earliest ceramic transport containers produced in the Levant and exported to Egypt, and certainly the largest. The diffusion of Combed Jars from Syria-Palestine is apparent (Mazzoni 1987), but they are most common at EBA sites in the Levant and by no means restricted to the coast (Greenberg and Porat 1996; Thalmann and Sowada 2014). Nevertheless, they do appear in quantity along the Levantine coast, and at most EBA sites like Ugarit, Tell Arqa, Byblos, Tyre, Sidon, and Ashkelon (Sowada 2009: 155). Stager (1992: 39, 41) maintained that the morphology of EBA III Combed Ware vessels exported to Egypt might also be related to maritime utility and transport; 77 he suggested that Ashkelon, where EBA II-III Combed Ware sherds were excavated, was part of a Levantine coastal network.

As mentioned in Chapter 3, during the Early Dynastic in Egypt, variations of Abydos Ware jugs were the most commonly imported ceramics (containing coniferous resins and oils). However, with the appearance of large Combed Ware jars in the 4th Dynasty there is a coincident disappearance of these small jugs, which are eclipsed by the importation of the larger ceramics containing these same commodities, especially during the 4th-6th Dynasty (Sowada 2009: 179). In Sowada’s view, however, we should be careful not to ascribe this change to a shift to maritime trade at the time, because “the north-south maritime route to coastal Lebanon was already well established”, and thus it is more likely that what we are observing is the innovation of larger containers to transport greater quantities of certain desired commodities (2009: 179).

The late EBA oil processing installations at Ugarit and Beth Yerah yielded many Combed Ware sherds, but generally these containers are thought to have carried a variety of liquid commodities, with resin also identified in a handful of examples exported to Egypt (Sowada 2009: 161). Despite Stager’s (1985: 175) suggestion that wine was commonly imported in jars, Sowada notes that “this has yet to be scientifically demonstrated” and that no evidence exists that can confirm wine as an import from Canaan during the Old Kingdom (2009:193).21 Despite the olive oil press found associated with Combed Ware sherds at Ras Shamra (Esse 1991: 121-4), we as yet lack residue analysis to confirm that the ware often contained olive oil. Certainly, the method of sealing Combed Ware jars with plaster or mud stoppers suggests liquid contents requiring this impermeable seal (Reisner and Smith 1955: 75; Sowada 2009: 193, Pls. 5- 6 #47, 49, 52). At present, like wine, no available residue analysis of jars exported to Egypt during these early phases can confirm the importation of olive oil in Combed Ware jars. However, some early analysis has detected resin (Hassan 1936: 145-7; Reisner and Smith 1955: 75; Sowada 2009: 161, 198-99).

21 Botanical remnants in the imported Canaanite jars at Abydos in tomb U-j demonstrate that wine was being imported from Canaan on appreciable scale by around the Naqada IIIA2 (Dreyer et al.. 1998: 92; Finkelstein and Gophna 1993: 12-5; Hartung 2001; 2002; Sowada 2009: 156). Nevertheless, exports from the Levant possibly included wine and special vintages as documented in the later New Kingdom (Stager 1985: 179-80; Bavay et al. 2000a: 83-4, see Ch. 7.2.5-6; Sowada 2009: 161). 78

In her discussion of these imported ceramics and their distribution in Egypt, Sowada notes that the “largest quantity of jars comes from 4th Dynasty cemeteries with royal burials: Meydum, Dashur and Giza”, with nearly half the total number deriving from Giza and the important centre for royal administration that existed there (2009: 163-65). This suggests that “the jars and their products did not filter beyond the court during the early OK. Egyptian elites, who controlled the means of importation and distribution, evidently regulated access to luxury goods” (Sowada 2009: 165), as has already been suggested by earlier scholarship (Ward 1963: 54; Marfoe 1987: 27; Sherratt and Sherratt 1991). 22

Certainly, the majority of Combed Ware derives from cemetery contexts, with only a small number of sherds that can be ascribed to settlement deposits at Elephantine and Giza (Sowada 2009: 180). Examining the distribution patterns of imported Combed Ware in Egypt (Sowada 2009: Table 8, also see Sowada et al. 2019: Fig. 1), Sowada records a minimum number of eighty-seven complete vessels in the distribution of imported pottery (Helck’s Type 1 and 2), save one reconstructed from sherds, however, this typology includes both Combed Ware jars and one handled jugs and jars (Sowada 1999: 158). Giza accounts for the majority recorded in the early 4th Dynasty and indeed the bulk of the total number of vessels derived from this site with consistent deposition from Dynasty 4-6, with Abusir producing the second highest, with a total of twelve, followed by Saqqara with four. More recently Sowada et al. (2019) undertook review of all of the distribution and petrography of all imported Levantine Combed vessels from early Old Kingdom Giza. This included pots, with distribution patterns comparable to those examined here in Chapter 5 when mapping Combed Ware jars specifically, and significantly undertaking a provenance analysis that reflected active trade with Lebanon region (also important as a source of cedar) and no fabrics from the Southern Levant identified (see Chapter 7 on provenance).

As mentioned above, these Combed Ware jars were not the first ceramic containers from Syria-Palestine to be exported to Egypt, and these developments can be traced back to EBA I and Pre-Dynastic Egypt, with the importation of Levantine store jars that were deposited in quantity in tombs of Abydos (Sowada 2009: 155). The appearance and predominance of these larger

22 On this topic, see also Bettina Bader’s Egypt and the Bronze Age Mediterranean (2015). 79 vessels by EBA III continues to be associated not only with increased supply and demand, particularly from Old Kingdom Egypt, but perhaps also with a changing mechanism of transport, from donkey caravan to ship-borne trade (Esse 1991: 115-116), despite Sowada’s caution regarding that interpretation. In any case, the change in the nature of the pottery types from primarily ‘Abydos Ware’ in EBA II to ‘Combed Ware’ in EBA III (Old Kingdom in Egypt) may represent a geographical shift in commodity acquisition during the EBA III, when exports of ‘Abydos Ware’ appear to have been supplanted by these larger, two-handled, coil-built containers (Sowada 2009: 156).

Figure 30: Metallic Ware ‘Donkey’ Transporting Pithoi? (Greenburg and Porat 1996: Fig. 4)

The occurrence of handles and specific surface treatments are among the few characteristics that may set certain coastal examples apart from others more common to the hinterland, but this remains unclear. Treatment of the exterior surface of some jars with a white plaster is not uncommon and may have served to increase the reflectivity of vessels being transported down river systems from hinterland production centres, to the coastal Levant, where they would subsequently be transported to other markets, Egypt being the most powerful external economic influence at this time. If rafting large pithoi down the Nile or wadi systems or shipping containers on decks at any point, increasing the reflective properties of the vessel would have had significant benefits and prevented the denaturing of the sealed products inside, maintaining a 80 lower internal temperature despite the no doubt powerful impact that sitting in the Mediterranean sun would have on ceramics. This would certainly have been a factor if these containers were rafted into the Egyptian interior, but also any transport mechanism exposing them to sunlight.

Early on, Esse and Hopke (1986) attempted to isolate this conspicuous transport tradition at sites like Giza (Egypt) in an attempt to further understanding of third millennium BCE Egypto-Levantine trade. Sowada’s more recent and comprehensive analysis of imported Combed Ware jars from Giza identified similar parallels for a ‘cream wash’ or ‘lime slip’ on Combed Ware pithoi at Byblos (Sowada 2009: 157). Combed Ware sherds with a white slip or coat were also excavated at the large EBA III olive oil processing installation at Ugarit (Courtois 1962: 418 Fig. 3, 420-429). Whilst various surface treatments have been ascribed to different Levantine regions, such as Byblos or southern Canaan, more petrographic and elemental analyses are needed to determine from which specific workshops the Giza corpus and others might have stemmed (Sowada 2009: 157). Although exterior combing is a common feature on a number of vessels exported to Egypt (Sowada et al. 2019), in the case of these EBA MTCs some are only lightly combed, and some not at all, whilst other uncombed vessels are now recognized as Egyptian imitations of foreign shapes (Sowada 2011: 886). In Sowada’s view, the shape of Combed Ware vessels varied little over the course of the Old Kingdom, but one can see some general trends, such as an increase in vessel size and variation in rims, as well as a decline in combed surface treatment by the very end of the period (discussed further in Thalmann and Sowada 2014).

When it comes to the contents of the imported Combed Ware vessels in Old Kingdom Egypt, the general consensus tends to be oil, and to a lesser extent also wine and coniferous resins used in mummification, thus reflecting high status acquisition, and indeed Sowada (1999: 161) notes that some of the precursor Abydos Ware imports containing coniferous resins occur along with early attestations of mummification. Nevertheless, much residue analysis on Combed Ware jars has been inconclusive, with a resin like material being identified in one Fifth Dynasty vessel (Sowada 1999: 161), and at present scholars will have to await forthcoming archaeometric and chemical analyses.

As is the case in later periods, the ceramics imported into Egypt, especially complete vessels, are known predominantly from cemeteries and tombs (the Giza tombs have the largest 81 quantity in Dynasty Four), with only a small quantity of sherds known from settlements (Elephantine and Giza). At this time (EBA III), Egypt fostered strong ties with Byblos, and increased demand for foreign timber and commodities may have accelerated a shift to maritime trade, with its increased speed and capacity (Marfoe 1987: 26-28; Bader 2015: 1-32). It can be said that Fourth and Fifth Dynasty vessels are more clearly connected to Egyptian officials and the elite, for example at Giza, Dahshur, and Abusir (Sowada 2009: 179-182; Knoblauch 2010), with elite acquisition continuing into the Sixth Dynasty. The expansion of trade and commercial opportunity during EBA II-III was significant, a process that enhanced the development of maritime seaborne trade and promoted the economic integration of hinterland production centres with coastal emporia and a pattern of dendritic settlement, a phenomenon that became characteristic of the Levantine littoral (Stager 2001). Combed Ware was imported most extensively between Dynasties 4–6 in Egypt (EBA III-IV in the southern Levant) and there has been much discussion regarding the association this trend, beginning in Dynasty 4, with the expansion of maritime networks (Stager 1992: 39; Sowada 2009: 162). Figure 31 shows a relief from the temple of Sahure dated to the Old Kingdom, Fifth Dynasty (2400 BCE), depicting a Sea Ship with a West Semitic crew. It should be noted that there is earlier evidence for such networks in the coniferous timbers that were acquired for tomb construction during the First and Second Dynasties of Egypt (Sowada 2009: 37-38); this (presumably) maritime acquisition continues during the Old Kingdom, but with a wider reach to the north. Given that the demand is so heavily oriented toward Egypt, the question of whether or not such patterns reflect a complex network or rather a specific trade route, remains to be answered.

Figure 31: Sea Ship with a West Semitic crew, from the relief of the temple of Sahure, Old Kingdom, Fifth Dynasty (c. 2400 BCE)

Source: Sowada 1999: Fig. 43 82

In terms of provenance, which will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6, Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) and Proton Induced X-Ray Emissions (PIXE) as well as Gamma Ray PIGME analyses give some support to the Byblos region as one of the primary exporters of EBA Combed Ware jars from the Levant. The results also reveal, however, that there was a range of sources for these Old Kingdom imports. Chemical and petrographic analyses alike indicate that the fabric groups are Levantine, with a corpus of more than 50 EBA II-III jars sourced, primarily to the Byblos region (Sowada 2009: 167-182; see also Greenberg and Porat 1996; Wodzinska and Ownby 2011). In turn, some of the best parallels for the imported Giza Combed Ware jars are found at northern Levantine coastal sites, especially Byblos and Tell Arqa (Sowada 2009: 157).

The often combed ‘Metallic Ware’ jars of the EBA were probably manufactured in northern inland and coastal centres in the Levant; Greenberg and Porat (1996) suggested initial production in the upper Jordan Valley, whilst somewhat more recent analyses points to workshops that emerged along the central Levantine coast (Thalmann and Sowada 2014). Significantly, van den Brink and Braun (2003) developed a four-part hierarchical model to explain the early interaction between Egypt and the southern Levant, which included important nodes along the Mediterranean coast in the EBA I and II. Tell es-Sakan (on the ‘Ways of Horus’) was an important site that was geographically close to EBA maritime routes that ran parallel to the coast.

Notably, the differences among sites with lots of Egyptian imports and local imitations, versus sites with only some such products or without them, suggests trade involving local intermediaries and without direct contact between Egypt and certain sites. Not surprisingly, it is suggested that with this interaction we see evidence for increasingly developed social stratification facilitated on both sides by imported exotica and luxury items that effectively become elite material culture. Figure 32 illustrates a representation of foreign pottery from the Old Kingdom tomb of Ptah-Hotep, which may possibly represent Combed Ware jars (Sowada 2009: Fig. 37).

Figure 32: Representation of foreign pottery, possibly Combed Ware, in Old Kingdom tomb of Ptah-Hotep (Sowada 2009: Fig. 37).

4.3 Middle Bronze Age ‘Canaanite Jars’ (MTC #2)

Marcus (2006; 2007: 137) provides comprehensive background on the development of maritime networks between Egypt and Syria-Palestine during the Old and Middle Kingdoms (EBA-MBA Levant), including what may be an early cargo manifest and its implications for seaborne expeditions in the early Twelfth Dynasty (MBA Levant). The Middle Kingdom in Egypt was a prosperous period that began with the reunification undertaken by the Theban king Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II (Callendar 2002), after the so called ‘First Intermediate Period’ when the country was ruled by regional nomarchs and kings at both Heracleopolis and Thebes. With a strong line of Twelfth Dynasty kings it is believed that contacts and commerce with the Levantine city- states was renewed (von Beckerath 1984: 82-87; Franke 1988; Grajetzki 2006; Schneider 2006: 170-175; Ownby 2010: 13; Bader 2015). With the resurgence of maritime connectivity and expanding urbanization during this time, we again find evidence for the export of large ceramic containers to Egypt, but now of larger volume and on a much greater scale, also witnessing the establishment of a permanent Levantine trade hub in the Nile Delta at Tell el-Dabʿa, soon to be Avaris. This important site was the Hyksos capital during the Second Intermediate Period when Egypt would be dominated by West Semitic infiltration. There is ample evidence to suggest Tell el-Dabʿa was an active participant of international trade and diplomacy in the MBA, ranging from imported ceramics and early diplomatic texts to the later production of Minoan-style 84 frescoes using a specialized technology, appearing also at several sites along the Levantine coast by the transition to the LBA (Cline 2015: 14-18).

Figure 33: MTC #2 / MBA Canaanite Jar from Tel el-Dab’a (Egypt)

Source: after McGovern and Harbottle 1997:142

The proliferation of the ‘Canaanite jar’ (Figure 1: MBA; Figure 33; Appendix I: Pl.2) seems to have taken place in parallel with the gradual expansion of Middle Bronze Age II West Semitic cultures. Moreover, the movement of these ceramic transport vessels was linked to regional and interregional trade networks of an increasingly maritime nature, particularly along the eastern Mediterranean littoral and the Nile (Stager 2001; Ownby 2010; Martin 2016b). With the resurgence of urbanization and population expansion in Syria-Palestine during the MBA, commercial jar production reached new heights, and so too did the maritime networks that served to deliver them abroad. Although many of the underlying processes and stimulus during the MBA appear to be the same as those which occurred during the preceding urbanization of the EBA, it is important to emphasize that, during the MBA, the number of Canaanite jars reaching Egypt was unprecedented (Bietak 1996: 20); many of them may have contained olive oil (Doumet-Serhal 2013: 134), however at present we lack analytical data for much of this corpus (see full discussion in Chapter 6). Certainly, wine and olive oil, if not resin, are common attributions (Knapp and Demesticha 2016: 51), with some organic residue analysis (ORA) showing tartaric acid (or calcium tartrate), suggesting wine and terebinth resin was contained in examples exported to Egypt (McGovern 2000: 75–77), as well as wine mixed with various spices such as cinnamon and mint and also an extensive use of honey (Yasur-Landau et al. 2012; Koh 85 et al. 2014). Residue analysis conducted on a large pithoi from a wine cellar found at a Middle Bronze Age Canaanite palace at Kabri, indicated that these vessels contained wine mixed with various spices (cinnamon and mint) and also honey (Yasur-Landau et al. 2012; Koh et al. 2014).

Ownby’s (2010: 90) analysis of the distribution of MBA Canaanite Jars in Egypt includes 8 sites: Tell el-Dabʿa, Tell Hebwa, Tell el-Maskhuta, Memphis, Dashur, Lisht, Riqqeh and Buhen, while the apparent absence of this imported vessel in Theban occupied Egypt (and yet present in Nubia) was possibly a reflection of the socio-political situation and regional conflict at the time, exemplified in the Hyksos phenomenon (see Chapter 5). A significant aspect of intensified MBA trade was the prominence of the Nile Delta port at Tell el-Dabʿa (Marcus 2006, 2007). Surprisingly, despite the importation of thousands of Canaanite Jars to this major Delta emporia, when it came under Hyksos control during the Second Intermediate Period (c. 1640- 1540 BCE) (Bietak 1996; Stager 2001: 634), the occurrence of imported Levantine jars in settlement contexts declined sharply in the Fifteenth Dynasty (Bader 2015: 12), perhaps due to conflict and disruption in Egyptian commerce: “Quantitative analysis of the large transport containers used to import commodities such as resin, vegetable oils, and wine shows very clearly that the amount of the jars found in settlement areas drops considerably from about 25% of the whole ceramic repertoire in the late 12th and early to mid-13th Dynasty to around 10% in the early part of the Second Intermediate Period, and finally to below 5% and less in the later Second Intermediate Period” (Bader 2015: 12). Nevertheless, during the MBA Canaanite jars reached the Red Sea facility at Wadi Gawassis (Bard and Fattovich 2009: 47, 51, Fig. 27), perhaps clarifying how they made it to Buhen in Nubia if they did not travel down the Nile (Ownby 2010: 89-90). One of the most interesting features of this distribution is that it may reflect contemporary conflict and alliances in Egypt, if Canaanite jars are absent from Theban-controlled Upper Egypt, but present in Nubia, with which it has been observed the Hyksos formed some manner of loose alliances or mercenary import prior to their expulsion (Ownby 2010: Fig. 3.39).

Moreover, for the first time, there is some evidence to suggest that MBA Canaanite jars made their way to Cyprus, though apparently not in great quantity. Raban (1980: 4) noted two examples of such imports on Cyprus, one found at Bellapais Vounos (Merrillees 1974: 75-76) and another from Arpera dating to MBA IIC (Merrillees 1974: Fig. 35; 59), but only the Arpera example is illustrated and can therefore be confirmed. Canaanite jars were also reported off the southern coast of Cyprus, in the underwater survey at Maroni Tsaroukkas (Manning et al. 2002). 86

However, these are fragmentary and may rather be of an LBA date. The deposition of MBA Canaanite jar material at Kinet Höyük hints at the movement of commodities along the southern Anatolia coast (Akar 2006: 17), however, no such vessels are preserved at Tarsus prior to the LBA (Goldman 1963: Fig. 387.1215).

On Crete, Canaanite jars are found in domestic as well as commercial contexts, but curiously they are not well documented in tombs (Leonard 1996: 248). Reviewing the pottery from the Old Palace period (MBA in the Levant) at Knossos, MacGillivray (1998: 90) described the fragmentary remains of Canaanite jars, with “incisions near the handles… reminiscent of those on similar jars found at the Royal tombs of Byblos.” The context suggests that these were imported in either late MM IIB or early in MM IIIA, when there is some evidence for Minoan pottery and artefacts in the Levant (Sidon, Ashkelon, etc) and Egypt at Tell el-Dabʿa (Macgillivray 2013: 222-23). Macgillivray concludes, however, that the fragmentary remains are unlikely to have come from the more ‘angular forms’ more typical of the LBA (e.g., MTC #3 / Pedrazzi Type 5.4, discussed below).

The available provenance data for the MBA corpus of exported Canaanite jars continues to suggest production along the coast of Syria-Palestine (Knapp and Demesticha 2016), while petrographic analyses indicate that coastal Lebanon, rather than the southernmost Levant, was preeminent (McGovern and Harbottle 1997; Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004). Ownby’s work suggests that “the areas exporting jars to Tell el-Dabʿa were likely the same as those producing jars found at Memphis”, most predominantly the Akkar Plain, inland and coastal Lebanon, and northern coastal Palestine (2010: 207).

Regarding the volume of such MTCs imported to Egypt (at Tell el-Dabʿa) during the MBA, we can now observe that this corpus does show some degree of standardization, contrary to the earlier work of Thalmann (2007: 437, and Fig. 7) that was limited to examining around 20 vessels from the (MBA) IIA–IIB levels. In a larger analysis, Cateloy more recently compared a larger corpus of Canaanite jars from the site, including the capacity with the height and maximal diameter ratio (H/D ratio), while considering the morphological groups at the same time (Cateloy 2019: Table 1). 46 of 56 vessels (82%) fell within the H/D ratio 1.7–2, which tends to show a great uniformity in the container proportions (Cateloy 2019: 295-6): “We can also notice that most amphorae with a ratio between 1.7 and 2 show a capacity of 15–25 litres, while the others 87 that are mostly not assigned to any morphological group rather display a volume greater than 25 litres. Vessels with such capacities below 25 litres might have been the most convenient for a single person to carry and manipulate, as well as large enough to store a reasonable amount of commodities for exchange” (Cateloy 2019: 296). To summarize, Cateloy (2019) found that during the MBA II these amphorae could contain about 15–20 litres (19 out of 21 examined). In the subsequent MBA IIA–B, the carrying capacity already indicates some growth, with most vessels within the volume class of 17–22 litres (7 out of 8). During MBA IIB, jar volume continued to increase and interestingly the largest capacities imported to Tell el-Dabʿa earlier became the smallest, and thereafter the most common volumes are 22–27 litres (10 vessels out of 13 fall within this range). There is a paucity of examples from the MBA IIB–C transition phase and MBA IIC, of 11 vessels from these periods in her study that were complete, 4 are miniatures and ergo not representative, with a possible capacity range of 20–26 litres for vessels of regular size (6 out of 7 available). Even though the exchanges between the Levantine coast and Tell el- Dabʿa seem to have decreased in number during the MBA IIB, the imported amphorae displayed greater capacities than earlier examples (Cateloy 2019: 296).

4.4 Late Bronze Age ‘Canaanite Jars’ (Pedrazzi Type 4, but especially MTC #3 / Pedrazzi Type 5.4)

The ‘classic’ Canaanite Jar is sometimes referred to, a familiar ovoid morphological type that was perhaps ~50 cm in height, that developed over the course of the LBA into a more distinctive conical form, with lower body profile and a pointed or stump base (Leonard 1996: 237, Figs. 15- 2-15.3). Certainly, with the rise of Egyptian hegemony after the expulsion of the Hyksos from the Nile Delta, we once again witness the permeation of Egypt with imported Canaanite Jars documented at many sites throughout Egypt (see Chapter 5: Figures 45-46). Textual evidence reveals that the southern Levant was under Egyptian control at this time and had to send tribute, in addition to the booty extracted during the campaigns of Kamose or Thutmosis III (Cline 2015: 14). Figure 34 (below) illustrates a scene depicted in Tomb 162 at Thebes, showing Syro- Canaanite merchants delivering a cargo of MTCs. The Canaanite Amphorae Project23 contains detailed analysis of the fabrics and contents of the LBA Canaanite jars from Memphis and

23 https://www.amarnaproject.com/pages/recent_projects/material_culture/canaanite.shtml 88

Amarna, including ORA and analysis of the inscribed labels (both of which provide indications of the contents, including oil, resin, and honey), with some evidence to suggest correlations between contents and place of manufacture of the vessels (see Chapter 6).

Figure 34: Syrian Merchant Ships from Tomb 162 (Thebes)

Source: Davies and Faulkner 1947: Pl. VIII

As Parr has observed, the pointed or ‘stump’ base of LBA Canaanite jars (Figure 1: LBA.B-C, and see Appendix I: Pl. 4-7) is often associated with a change in function, which he related to the superiority of this form as a ‘means of conveyance, as distinct from stationary storage’; in other words, transport (1973: 176). The weakness of the earlier, flat-based form was the junction between the base and the walls, which is particularly vulnerable to internal stress due to the internal compression (weight and force) of the container’s contents (Parr 1973: 176- 77; Leonard 1996: 239). This suggestion appeared supported by some depictions from Egypt (Figure 34). In the context of transport/manoeuvring, the precursors to the LBA conical forms were also more sensitive to external damage, while the union of the base and the walls into a regular profile reduced this risk, ensuring a more uniform distribution of weight, and better allowing the vessels to be nested and stacked against and upon one another, a practice that continued into the Iron Age (Anderson 1989: 203-204; Ballard et al. 2002: 106; Martin 2016a). Moreover, the stump base is thought to increase stability on non-horizontal surfaces like the hull of a ship (Leonard 1996: 237; Lin 2003: 190), where vessels were stacked one against another (Figure 37), a prospect that will be examined more closely utilizing basic physics and geometry in Chapter 7. 89

Figure 35: Postulated LBA Morphological Development of the ‘Canaanite Jar’ (after Leonard Jr. 1996) a) Megiddo Tomb 3028, b) Tel Abu Hawam Stratum V c) Megiddo Stratum VIIB

Certainly, by the LBA trade involving Canaanite Jars had more obviously permeated all of Egypt and more of the greater eastern Mediterranean, including Cyprus and the Aegean. Ownby’s (2010: 92) distribution of LBA Canaanite jars in Egypt records 14 major sites that unlike the patterns revealed in the MBA now run the length of the Nile and clearly implicate sites in Upper Egypt. Reviewing Leonard’s work (Leonard 1995: 248, Map 15.3) she includes another 15 sites on Cyprus that received these LBA forms (the distribution for the Aegean will also be fully examined in Chapter 5). Nevertheless, extensive review by Knapp and Demesticha (2016) and especially the commercial jar typology developed by Pedrazzi (2007), upon which this thesis relies, suggests matters are more complicated, with a greater diversity of forms than the aforementioned evolution outlined by Leonard implies (see Figure 35). Pedrazzi’s 2007 analysis defines 30 different storage and transport jar ‘forms’ in the Levant (ca. 1400-900 BCE), each with variants. However, for the purposes of isolating the preeminent MTC, this analysis has focused on her Type 5.4 (MTC #3), a distinctive form with an angular or carinated shoulder, tapering into a pointed or stump-like base. Canaanite Jars of MBA date found in exported contexts, like Egypt, showed quite variable production techniques, however, those found in LBA contexts tend to be more consistently manufactured, and as we will see, Type 5.4 abounds. The photograph below (Figure 36), shows a large quantity of MTC #3 stacked in layers, presumably in a warehouse (Sauvage 2006: 5).24 See Sauvage (2015) for more discussion on this important context.

24 Beyond Minet el-Beida, new data is emerging from Tell Tweini (ancient Gibala), located in the Syrian coastal plain and representing the southernmost harbour of the Ugaritic Kingdom in the LBA. This is one of the few sites in the Northern Levant with a continuous archaeological sequence spanning the Early Bronze Age IV (ca. 2400 BCE) up to the Iron Age III period (ca. 500 BCE), with Field A appearing critical to the study of the LBA/Iron transition. However, the yearly missions at the site have halted since 2011 (Bretschneider et al.. 2019). 90

Figure 36: “Deposit of 80 jars,” Minet el-Beida, excavations 1931 (Schaeffer 1939: 31; Pl.9)

The LBA is widely regarded as the zenith of eastern Mediterranean maritime connectivity prior to the later Iron Age, and the widespread distribution of Canaanite jars and fragments certainly reflects long-distance maritime activities in the eastern Mediterranean (Leonard 1996: 247-248; Ownby 2010: 88, 92, 93). Given the diversity of Canaanite-style commercial jars produced and traded throughout this period, however, such a representation is misleading if all this evidence is viewed as a discrete corpus. Even by isolating specific forms more directly associated with coastal networks and maritime trade, the limited typological distinctions and available provenance data also make any interpretation tentative at best (but cf. Sugerman 2000; Serpico et al. 2003; Bourriau et al. 2004; Killebrew 2007; and see Pedrazzi 2007). Using Pedrazzi’s (2007) classification system, we can begin to separate more distinct morphological types from the larger LBA commercial jar corpus and discuss their distribution and provenance independently. Type 5.4 (MTC #3) jars are perhaps the most chronologically diagnostic of the LBA, predominantly distributed in LBA II levels (Pedrazzi 2007: 75). These are among the conical MTCs isolated by Bevan (2014) in the context of international maritime shipping, but it must be noted that there are several variants and sub-types (Pedrazzi 2007: 75-77). Pedrazzi (2010: 53) recognized two main values of capacity: a group of specimens with an internal volume of about 10-14 litres and a second group with a volume of 18-22 litres. The capacities of MTC #3 / Type 5.4 were likely standardized, with at least three basic volumes. Some may correspond to the term kd, the kadu jar25, in Ugaritic texts (see Monroe 2016: 83).

25 There must have been at least two types of shipping jar, one for liquids (ug. {kd}, that Zamora in his book on wine has defined as a Canaanite jar (containing about 11 litres), another for grains (Ug. {dd}), as yet to be archaeologically identified, that, according to Liverani, would have contained about 50 dry litres. Since it is quite 91

Figure 37: Uluburun Cargo/ Exported Levantine Jars of MTC #3 / Pedrazzi Type 5.4 Reconstructed (Shih- Han Samuel Lin 2003: 191)

Examining exported containers, including those from the LBA shipwreck at Uluburun (Bass 1986: 277, Fig. 7; Pulak 1997: 241; Fig. 3.A here), as well as those excavated in the largest contemporary terrestrial deposit (some 80 examples) at Ugarit’s port of Minet-el Beidha (Schaeffer 1932: 3, Pl. III.3; See one example in Fig. 38 below), we are probably safe to assert that these served primarily maritime purposes. The Uluburun shipwreck, off the coast of Turkey, dated to ca. 1300 BCE, held 149 Type 5.4 Canaanite jars in three different sizes that suggest some degree of standardization (Bass 1986: 277-279; Pulak 1997: 240). These vessels contained nearly one ton of pistacia spp resin, providing firm evidence for the large-scale trade in resin from the areas along the northern coast of Palestine, where the jars probably originated, to various centres in the eastern Mediterranean. See Chapter 6 for discussion of provenance for LBA Cananaite Jars compared to their residues (Table 11). Many New Kingdom Egyptian

clear that Ugaritians (and surely others) were towards the end of the LBA shipping grain north from Egypt whenever the grain supply ran short in northern Syria and Anatolia; see the very brief commentary to my COS III translation of RS 18.031 (D. Pardee, personal communication, 2016).

92 inscriptions document the importation of incense, snTr, and oil, nḥḥ, from the Levant, and analysis of a corpus of jars with these labels via Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry identified pistacia resin, probably utilized as incense. Similar studies undertaken on jars labelled nḥḥ but of a different fabric (than those carrying incense), revealed that these contained oil (Serpico et al. 2003), discussed below in Chapter 6.

The basic morphology of Type 5.4 relates to some standardization in production methods and associated volumes, with potters controlling the height and circumference while throwing a ‘rough cone’ on the potter’s wheel (Bevan 2014: 391). Åkerström (1975: 188) found the height of such jars to be remarkably consistent, noting 55 cm on average when examining six examples exported to Mycenae and Menidi, and this trend is also true of examples from the late 14th century wreck at Uluburun and from the cache at the port of Ugarit (see Figure 38.A-C; this size made up approximately 75% of the 149 Type 5.4 jars in the cargo). Such regular measurements help to guarantee regular volumes, a technique known to have been a tool in standardization of similar exported Levantine containers by the 8th century (see below).

There is limited evidence for the deposition of this type after the transition to the Iron Age I, and an apparent decline in the production of MTC #3 / Type 5.4 jars might plausibly be regarded as approximately coincident with the fall of Ugarit. It was their prominence and unparalleled deposition at this Syrian coastal port that led Grace (1979: Figs. 14-15) to suggest that these ‘angular’ jars were products of the northern Levant. Amiran (1970: 142, Pl. 43:11-12) highlighted similar examples in her early typology of ‘commercial jars’, relating changes in form to expanding international commerce, with examples from as far abroad as Mycenae and Menidi. She also emphasized that the most ‘angular’ examples were diagnostic of the latest Bronze Age development of the Canaanite jar form. Although Amiran’s proposed evolution may be challenged today (e.g., Killebrew 2007), it is clear that conical, angular shouldered jars proliferated toward the end of the LBA, even if they never supplanted the production and use of ovoid forms in maritime networks, some of which continued in use into the Iron Age and also appear to be linked to trade with Cyprus and Tell Kazel (Pedrazzi 2007: 368; 2010: 54).

The distribution of MTC #3 (see Chapter 5) represents the maximum geographic distribution of any Levantine commercial jar or MTC prior to the Phoenician activities at Carthage in the Iron II. In terms of numbers, the quantity of exported MTC #3 dramatically 93 exceeds all other types during both the Late Bronze Age and the Iron I-II periods. Beyond the Levant, it appears that Egypt was the main recipient of exported Type 5.4 LBA Canaanite jars. Although a number of these vessels are preserved in tombs on the Greek mainland, largely dated to LBA IIB / LHIII B (Åkerström 1975: 188-192; Lambrou-Phillipson 1990: 282-283, 352-353).

Figure 38: MTC #3 (Type 5.4) from Uluburun shipwreck and the port of Ugarit (Pulak1997:241, no.KW612) compared with 2924 (Mycenae). *Note that B-C are drawn from museum photographs; rim thickness is hypothetical.

A. Uluburun (LBA Shipwreck) (after Pulak 1997:241, no.KW612)

B. Mycenae no.2924 (Greece) (adapted from Xenakē-Sakellariou 1985: Pl.78.2924)

C. Minet el-Beida (The port of Ugarit: 1 jar from the cache of 80): (adapted from Yon 2006: 30)

The proportion of MTC #3 in Egypt and Nubia is significant even when compared to all other exported contexts in the LBA eastern Mediterranean. We have complete forms that have been analyzed petrographically, deposited at major sites along the Nile such as Saqqara, Qantir, Elephantine, and Amarna (Smith et al. 2004; Ownby 2010: 253-255). Outside of Egypt, one of the largest groups of complete exported MTC #3 / Type 5.4 jars comes from Nubia, where four 19th Dynasty rock-cut tombs at Hillat el-Arab contained eight complete vessels (Vincentelli 2006: 14-16, 77, 82, 125, 129, 139, 151). Ownby (2010: 93) observes that “this is the farthest south that LBA Canaanite jars have been discovered”, and that in contrast to the MBA Canaanite jar, the discovery of LBA Canaanite jars at so many sites along the length of the Nile Valley suggests that they were a common import. Ownby’s (2010: 252-257) review of examples of 94

LBA Canaanite Jar exports to Egypt suggest that most examples originated from the northern Palestinian coast, Lebanon, and perhaps coastal Syria.

Interestingly, MTC #3 / Type 5.4 is not well documented on Cyprus during the LBA, where Pedrazzi (2010: 53) recorded only one example at Myrtou-Pighades, with one more known from Enkomi (Cateloy 2019: 295). This might say something about the role certain types of commercial jars played in different interregional trade networks. If Type 5.4 was being produced in large workshops under Egyptian hegemony during the LBA II, it may be that their contents were destined for specific long-distance networks that catered more specifically to elite contacts in Egypt, Nubia and the Aegean. The Canaanite jars from Cyprus appear to derive largely from more local interactions and networks, having more in common with the bulbous type known from the nearby Syrian coast and documented in quantity at Tell Kazel (Martin 2016). Whatever the case, this observation is contrasted by the preserved examples of Type 5.4 in tombs throughout mainland Greece, e.g., at Menidi (4 examples), Mycenae (4 examples) and Pylos (1 example) (Knapp and Demesticha 2016; see also Pedrazzi 2016b), with abundant sherds of unknown vessel count also reflecting this distinctive angular form’s deposition in the Aegean (Cline 1991; Rutter 2013).

Such a pattern may indicate variable preservation, archaeological visibility (nearly all come from tombs), or even the more restricted lifetime of Type 5.4’s production during the LBA. Certainly, its limited presence on Cyprus may have some significance, but we can only speculate whether this may be linked to the transmission of Type 5.4 through specific coastal networks. At least one example of Type 5.4 is documented at Kommos (Watrous 1992: Fig. 71.946; Fig. 72.1951), where it appears that LBA Canaanite jars were imported in appreciable numbers, and whilst the remains are often very fragmentary, petrographic work on this material identified areas of export similar to those for the jars in Egypt (Day et al. 2011: 511-58). Along the Libyan coast of North Africa, similar fragmentary Canaanite jars are found at Mersa Matruh, whilst at the neighbouring site of Zawiyet Umm el-Rakham there are at least four complete examples of Type 5.4 (Snape and Wilson 2007: 64-65).

Regarding size and volume, it is an oversimplification to say that three distinct size categories existed, as once thought, and according to Cemal Pulak (personal communication, 2016): “We've measured the capacity of each jar and I now realize that while there are different 95 sizes of jars, they do not all neatly fall into distinct "small", "medium", and "large" sizes that I had previously observed based on the examination of a rather limited number of jars that had survived intact. There is, however, a very rough concordance to these size groups, including the possibility of a few jars being of a "very large" size group.” The largest examples held about 26.7 litres while the smallest ones, representing about 75% of the total, held an average of only 6.7 litres (Serpico 2003: 225). Significantly, more recent volumetric analysis of 34 examples of MTC #3 was undertaken revealing 3 general classes ranging from about 5 to 25 litres and revealing that this family of jars displays the most restricted volumes, compared with earlier MTCs (Cateloy 2016: 49; Fig. 5).

While we await the full publication of the corpus from the Uluburun and representative volumes, we as yet have some additional individual measurements from the so called “small” and “medium” jars from the Uluburun: KW612 measuring approximately 7.5 litres, and KW214, being closer to 12.5 litres (Knapp and Demesticha 2016: Table A: pp.177). Referring again to the more recent volumetric study of Cateloy (2019), she noted that during the New Kingdom, vessels with the same volumes ranges were still exchanged, with three examples dated to this period having a volume of about 20–24 litres (296). Discussing MTC #3 specifically, she notes that although incomplete, both carinated amphorae of this type found at Tell el-Dabʿa clearly exhibit distinct sizes: “Amphora 7544F may belong to a medium-sized vessel class (about 12 litres) while Amphora 8204D seems to be part of a large vessel class (about 17 litres)” (295).

Regarding contents, oil and incense are common attributions based on available ORA but also textual and iconographic attestations, see especially references to Canaanite jars labelled snTr (incense) or nḥḥ (oil) or b3q oil. See also jrp, translated as wine (Ownby 2010: 77-83). GC- MS analysis of LBA Canaanite jars from Egypt labelled snTr (incense) are confirmed to contain pistacia spp resin (Serpico 1999: 271; Ownby 2010: 82), and GC-MS analysis of residues on jars labelled nḥḥ (oil) confirms they contained oil (Serpico et al. 2003). ORA analysis also found pistacia resin on 5 examples of MTC #3 from the Uluburun shipwreck (Ownby 2010: 83). Labels from Deir el-Medina confirmed that imported LBA Canaanite jars contained oil and incense, and jar sealings there, produced of a non-Egyptian clay, attached to vessel necks of imported fabrics, confirmed that b3q and nḥḥ oil were exported from the Levant (Tallet 2003: 497). 96

MTC #3 / Type 5.4 may have followed maritime networks around the east Mediterranean coast, with an appreciable distribution throughout Egypt, along the Nile into Nubia, and as far west as coastal Libya and mainland Greece. Certainly, the presence of similar vessels on the LBA shipwreck at Cape Gelidonya and the predominance of Type 5.4 on the Uluburun wreck (some 149 examples) is significant (Pulak 1997: 233-241). Such archaeological data supports textual references from LBA Ugarit to expanding trade in the eastern Mediterranean served by maritime networks (Bevan 2007: 36-37). Based upon analyses of the jars from the Uluburun shipwreck, it may be that the primary cargo was resin (Pulak 1997: 240), or resinated wine (Table 4), although several contained olives, and one glass beads; all of this highlights the ad hoc nature of commercial use and reuse (for comprehensive discussion of the contents of LBA Canaanite jars, see Serpico and White 2000; Stern et al. 2003; Knapp and Demesticha 2016).

4.5 Iron Age I: Phoenician Maritime Transport Containers (MTC #4 / Pedrazzi Type 5.2)

Despite the transformative effects of the LBA-Early Iron Age transition in the Levant, the production and use of MTCs continued into the Iron Age. These vessel types are most often termed ‘Phoenician’ (mainly a geographic but also a chronological distinction from ‘Canaanite’). The ‘Phoenicians’ of the Iron Age carried on the tradition of carinated amphorae production and distribution (Martin 2016a). There is less published Iron I material compared to that of the LBA, and significantly fewer complete exported vessels (most come from Cypriot or Egyptian tombs). Such evidence suggests a contraction in trade networks and some regionalization in commercial jar production. One diagnostic indicator of the transition to the Iron Age is a reduction in neck height. This is possibly due to new sealing practices and a shift in Egyptian hegemony; high necks are a hallmark of Egyptian jars manufactured in the LBA, necessitating specific sealing practices, and Canaanite Jars exported there were apparently sealed in accordance with such practices during the LBA (Amiran 1970:141; Photo 131). Type 5.2 may also have been manufactured in this way, with a reduced or absent neck, so that the conical jars could be fired or dried easily, as upside down they rest flat. In the Iron I period there is also a continuing trajectory of conical vessel morphology.

Several Iron I commercial types were exported (Type 16, 5.5, 5.7, etc.) but the only one that recalls both the shape and the broad distribution of MTC #3 is MTC #4 / Type 5.2 (Figure 2: 97

IA I.B); this is the best example of a purpose-built Phoenician MTC from the early Iron Age. The distribution of this form is appreciable along the Levantine coast, such as at Tyre Stratum XIII-I (Bikai 1978: Pl. XXXV), Sarepta Stratum V (Pritchard 1975), Dor Phase G, Stata 7A?-C and Keisan Level 9A, whilst rims of this type have been documented at Tarsus in Anatolia, and nearly identical examples from Cyprus, the Amarna River Temple in Egypt, and a reconstructed jar from ‘Shipwreck 13’ at the Phoenician coastal harbour at Dor (Martin 2016a). The dissertation of Waiman-Barak (2016: 86) discusses a rescue dive in the waters off Dor that discovered a wreck with a cargo full of these jars, but the complete wreck was lost at sea. Aston (1996: 86, Figs. 64:400, 110: XLIII/105, 168: J, 234: d) describes MTC #4 / Type 5.2 as a “vessel often found in Egypt with examples known from Thebes, Memphis, Amarna and Medinet Habu” (see Chapter 5). In sum, a number of examples are known from sites along the Nile as far south as the funerary Temple of Ramses III at Medinet Habu (West-Thebes), but none have been excavated in Nubia.

Figure 39: MTC #4 (Type 5.2) from Palaepaphos-Skales, Tyre and Sarepta (Bell 2006: 98)

Figure 40: MTC #4 found near kiln G at Sarepta (Pritchard 1978: 121)

After the discovery of Type 5.2 (MTC #4) vessels in Cypriot tombs at the incredibly important Early Iron Age site of Palaepaphos-Skales, Bikai (1983: 396) identified these well- made and heavy jars as the “Iron Age version of the Canaanite jar”.26 This Iron I commercial jar

26 In addition to its important EIA Phoenician trade context on southeastern Cyprus (the site is situated approximately 26 km south of Maa-Palaekastro), the imported corpus of Phoenician jars from the tombs at 98 type appears to have been closely associated with maritime and coastal networks, and indeed represents the Iron I Phoenician MTC par excellence. Gilboa et al. (2008: 152, Fig. 9) provide a basic chronology for the earliest appearance and later development of this type. Anderson (1987: 44) suggested production in the Kiln G complex at Sarepta in Lebanon (see here Fig. 39), where hundreds of jars, stacked in intercalated layers, could have been fired at the same time (Anderson 1989: 203-204). Aston (1996: 86) describes the fabric of the latter of the two chronologically diagnostic forms (here Fig. 2: IAI.B1) as ‘Levantine in origin’, whilst analyses suggest production in the region of Dor and Keisan (Waiman-Barak 2016: Fig. 60; Martin 2016: 112). During the early Iron Age, carinated jars were produced in a range of capacities, based on the analysis of Waiman-Barak (2016: 191) mainly 5, 15, 18, 23, and 30 liters, with a 30 litre capacity jar becoming standardized and extensively used during the Ir1b–Ir2a period. These 30 litre jars (of Type 5.2 / MTC #4) were produced in two main types – wide and narrow, the narrow type referred to as the 'Avner jar' after Raban (1980), being the most common form found offshore at Dor and Qasile (Waiman-Barak 2016: Fig. 139).

Waiman-Barak (2016: 190-91) postulated that most of the carinated jars were used for the transportation of “foodstuff including liquids, such as olive oil and wine”, but notes that it is probable once delivered from hinterland to coastal centres, these products underwent some additional processing - perhaps mixing different types of wine and/or mixing honey with the wine (Hamilakis and Sherratt 2012: 199), adding spices such as cinnamon (Namdar and Gilboa 2013; 2015). This tradition has already been established by residue analysis conducted on LBA Canaanite jars from the Uluburun shipwreck and Egypt (Bourriau, Serpico 2001; Serpico et al.

Palaepaphos-Skales is exceptional for the preservation of complete Iron I vessels. The identification of types and morphologically distinct variants can be extremely difficult in the absence of preserved vessels, especially given the relative uniformity of Phoenician jar rim types (for example, those classed as SJ9 at Tyre). Although the MTCs were of various Pedrazzi types (5.2, 5.5, 16), there were three examples of type 5.2 (MTC #4) of three different sizes, similar to what is observed for MTC #3 (Type 5.4) in the LBA II. Karageorghis observed (1983: 371-372) that the discovery of 12 ‘amphorae’, along with other Levantine pottery types, was unprecedented at other early Cypro- Geometric (i.e. early Iron Age) sites on the island. He concluded that either Palaepaphos-Skales was the most important trading centre on early Iron Age Cyprus, or else the Phoenicians began their westward expansion earlier than previously thought and used the site as a trading base linked with likely maritime routes to the Aegean (Bell 2006: 90-91; also Bikai in Karageorghis 1983: 405). The latter prospect was eventually reinforced by the subsequent discovery of Phoenician ‘storage jars’ at Kommos on Crete (Bikai 2000), although these are dated much closer to the terminal Iron Age I (Iron Age IC, approximately 950 BC). 99

2003). Her research suggested that these containers had a dual function in transporting the liquid while simultaneously fermenting wines and reducing the acidity levels (ceramic jars, unlike glass, allow oxygen to permeate the jar’s walls). Analysis carried out in her study on carinated jars showed an inorganic lining of calcium carbonate preserved mainly inside the rims of the jars examined – a substance still used to reduce the level of acidity in wine before fermentation (Mattick et al. 1980). Ergo she suggests that this "white lining" is “an intentional technological application”, and that wines may have required rebottling at major Phoenician coastal centres in specially prepared jars before shipment. Her analysis of the volume of examples from an Iron Ib(?) MTC #4 ‘Avner jar’ from Dor (55-Dor jr44) suggested a capacity of ~30 litres (Waiman- Barak 2016: Fig. 60), while Knapp and Demesticha found examples from Cyprus at Palaepaphos-Skales to be ~12 litres (T80-46) and ~19 litres (T83-40), respectively.

4.6 Iron Age II: Phoenician Maritime Transport Containers (MTC #5-6 / Aznar Type 9.B1-9.B2)

By Iron II, there is arguably more production of certain commercial jar types throughout the Levant (for example Tyre on the coast (stratum 2), or Hazor in the interior both denoting ceramic production and use of large quantities of type 9.B1/2 forms (MTC #5 and 6), but less available evidence for the international export of these Phoenician MTCs. Aznar (2005: vi, 56) refers to the ‘cylindrical storage jar family’ also termed Type 9.A (not considered here, see Appendix I: Pl.15) and Types 9.B1-2 which have been isolated here as MTC #5-6 (see Fig. 2: IA II.A-C). MTC #5/Type 9.B1 is commonly known as the ‘torpedo’ jar, and MTC #6/Type 9.B2 is often described as ‘wasp waisted’ or ‘s’ shaped, heralding the shapes of some Iron III types that would carry on into the Persian period (Martin 2016a).

Two 8th century Phoenician wrecks carried approximately 800 of these ‘purpose built marine containers’ (Ballard et al. 2002: 159), more recently defined as vessels ‘primarily made for marine transportation’ (Finkelstein et al. 2011: 257). The cylindrical morphology of these vessels may relate to their standardized production, yet they still preserve a conical base, accompanied by a lowering of the vessel’s maximum diameter (especially type 9.B2, here Fig. 2: IA II.C); the handles at the rim become vestigial, perhaps designed for ropes (Stager 2003: 241; Fig. 7). Type 9.B1 forms the focus here, not least because of the substantial evidence for them from Iron II shipwreck remains (see also discussion in Chapter 2: 29-33). The large 100 consignments on these ships, the Tanit and Elissa, perhaps bound for Egypt (or possibly Carthage), may have carried wine (based upon residue analysis—Stager 2003: 241). The jars from the shipwrecks have been sourced petrographically to the Phoenician coast, with production postulated at Tyre, where kiln wasters are found (Bikai 1978: 13; Aznar 2005). Finkelstein et al. (2011: 258) suggest that these jars represent a standardised form manufactured in specialised pottery production centres, and that they served mainly for the maritime transport of liquids.

Figure 41: Mosaic of Tanit shipwreck, approx. ca. 750 B.C

Image Courtesy and Permission of Ashkelon excavations, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), Institution for Exploration (IFE)

Given the long history of Egyptian contacts with the Levant, Finkelstein et al. (2011: 255-257) also posit that they conform to an Egyptian standard for liquids, namely 4 hekats, approximately 18 litres. One of the important determinations of this study was that simple outer measurements of the circumference and height of the vessels could help to guarantee a volume, apparently based on an Egyptian standard (Finkelstein et al. 2011: 255-257). Of 16 total originally sampled from the two Phoenician wrecks, an average estimated volume of 17.8 litres was suggested (Ballard et al. 2002: 160, Fig. 9.5); (Martin 2016a: 119), with additional volumetric study undertaken on one example from the Elissa approximating 14 litres (Knapp and 101

Demesticha 2016: Table A: pp.179). Examples of Type 9.B.1 forms, paralleling those retrieved from the wrecks, are common but not exclusive to the Levantine coast (see especially Tyre but also Sarepta, Byblos, Ashkelon, Arqa, etc), and Stager et al. (2003: 161; Fig.10) records evidence of exports to Cyprus (Kition) and North Africa (Carthage), with complete examples also documented in Egypt (Martin 2016a: 121-25).

Figure 42: Stager’s distribution map for MTC #5 (Type 9.B1)

Source: Stager et al. 2003:163

Although Raban (1980: 11) observed that this type remains to be identified in the Aegean, recent fabric analyses have shed light upon the fragmentary Phoenician commercial jar material from late Iron I and Iron II at Kommos on Crete (Gilboa et al. 2015). Finally, the presence of a miniature Type 9.B.1 example at Pithekoussai (off the Italian coast near Naples), together with the discovery of a miniature 9.B.2 example in an Iron II tomb at nearby Cumae (see Chapter 5 for full distribution analysis), may point to Phoenician trade westward (Martin 2016a: 101). 102

4.7 Summary and Conclusions

Having reviewed the source material necessary to conduct this analysis, it is clear that some chronological periods (for example the LBA) provide us with significantly more data than others (like the Iron Age I-II) and certainly, a better picture of contemporary developments in the production and shipborne trade of Levantine MTCs. By the LBA we see the mass manufacturing of purpose-built MTCs at important sites along the Levantine coast, and featured in multiple contemporary shipwrecks wherein they were clearly an important cargo, and one of scale. Despite an obvious contraction in maritime trade networks during the Iron Age I, production of descendent types continues along the Phoenician coast, however, it is not until the Iron II that we again have strong evidence for the role of appreciably standardized Levantine MTCs in shipments of scale, destined for international markets. Table 3, below, diachronically reviews the available volumetric data for all types reviewed here, suggesting that there was at least episodic standardization in MTCs beginning in the MBA with MTC #2, again in the LBA II with MTC #3, but perhaps most profoundly in the Iron Age II corpus of MTC #5 jars that were actually retrieved from shipwrecks in the Mediterranean (despite limited sample size). In all cases, more analytical data is needed.

Table 3: Volumetric Data from EBA-Iron II for MTC #1-5 Time Period / Volumetric Data Source Region of Deposition MTC Type EBA *High Variability with little to no Combed Ware definitive volumetric data. (MTC #1) EBA II-III Metallic Ware Jar from Knapp and Demesticha (2016: Levant (Tell Dan) Dan had a volume of around 10 litres. Table A: pp. 176). MBA MB II: 15–20 litres Cateloy (2019: 296). Egypt (Tell el-Dabʿa) Canaanite Jar (MTC #2) MB IIA–B: 17–22 litres Cateloy (2019: 296). Egypt (Tell el-Dabʿa)

MB IIB: 22–27 litres Cateloy (2019: 296). Egypt (Tell el-Dabʿa)

MB IIB–C: 20–26 litres Cateloy (2019: 296). Egypt (Tell el-Dabʿa)

(MB) IIA–IIB: 14–25 litres Thalmann (2007: 437, Fig. 7). Egypt (Tell el-Dabʿa) LBA Canaanite The largest examples held about 26.7 (Serpico 2003: 225). Uluburun Shipwreck Jar litres while the smallest ones, (MTC #3) representing about 75% of the total, Type 5.4 held an average of only 6.7 litres.

LBII (KW214): ~12.5 litres Knapp and Demesticha (2016: Uluburun Shipwreck Table A: pp.177). LBII (KW612): ~7.5 litres Uluburun Shipwreck 103

Amphora 7544F may belong to a Cateloy (2019: 295). Egypt (Tell el-Dabʿa) medium-sized vessel class (~ 12 litres). Amphora 8204D may be part of a large vessel class (~ 17 litres)

34 examples from Levantine / Cateloy (2016: Fig. 5) Sites throughout the exported contexts, showing 3 eastern Mediterranean / volumetric classes (ranging from ~5 Uluburun. to 25 liters), denoting the most restricted volumes of MTCs analyzed Iron I Iron I (T80-46) ‘Avner jar’: 12 litres. Cyprus: P-Skales (MTC #4) Knapp and Demesticha (2016: Type 5.2 Iron I (T83-40): ~19 litres. Table A: 178). Cyprus: P-Skales

Iron Ib? MTC #4 ‘Avner jar’ (55-Dor Waiman-Barak (2016: 190). Levant: Dor Harbour jr44): ~30 litres.

Range of capacities, mainly 5, 15, 18, Waiman-Barak (2016: Fig. Dor 23, and 30 liters, with a 30 litres 60). becoming standardized during the Ir1b–Ir2a period Iron II 16 total sampled from two Ballard et al. (2002:160, Fig. Tanit and Elissa (MTC #5) Phoenician wrecks: Average 9.5); Martin (2016a: 119). See Shipwrecks Type 9.B1 estimated volume of 17.8 litres also Finkelstein et al. (2011). Knapp and Demesticha (2016: 1 example from Elissa: ~14 litres 179, Table A). Elissa Shipwreck

Significantly, the role of Egyptian economic stimulus and demand for the contents of these MTCs remained consistent, though the scale of this commercial activity appears to fluctuate along with the success/ regional hegemony of the Egyptian state. Moreover, the demand (of elite Egyptians) and the necessary resources to procure the contents of these containers was a large factor. Like the EBA, in the Egyptian contexts of the LBA, many of the imported MTCs derive from elite tombs, suggesting that the state was not the only consumer of the products they held and appetites were more broadly distributed throughout society. This represents another aspect of socio-economic force and selective pressure on Syria-Palestine. Perhaps then, it is no surprise that, insofar as the contents of these containers are concerned, a great deal of the available residue analysis and textual or iconographic sources that provide these details derive from Egypt also. Table 4 provides a brief diachronic summary of the available data reviewed here, and although more work is needed, it is possible to suggest that oils and wine were consistently being exported from the Levant. In general, the contents of MTCs are usually characterized as wine, oils, and resins in texts, with mention of other commodities found in isolated examples (like beads). Honey might also be an imported commodity transported to Egypt in MTCs as suggested by labels from sites like Amarna, however, the proportion of MTCs 104 containing honey appears to have been low as compared to the evidence for oil or wine (Table 4). The suggestion that the sociocultural significance of wine production and consumption in the Mediterranean cannot be overstated (Deitler 1990), meshes well with the early and near continuous data we have for the export of Levantine MTCs (presumably) carrying such viscous staples and frequently being deposited in elite burials in Egypt, but also regions like the Aegean and mainland Greece during the LBA. Organic goods were commonly exported (Knapp 1991).

Table 4: Contents of MTCs Time Period / Suggested Contents or textual Residue analyses Region of MTC Type attestations Deposition EBA Imported olive oil, wine, coniferous Resin (Hassan 1936: 145-7). Egypt Combed Ware resins (Sowada 2009: 160-62). Coniferous resin or resonated jar for (MTC #1) wine (Lucas and Harris 1989: 320). MBA Wine and olive oil, if not resin ORA showing tartaric acid (or calcium Egypt Canaanite Jar (Knapp and Demesticha 2016: 51). tartrate) = wine and terebinth resin MTC #2 (McGovern 2000: 75–77).

Wine mixed with various spices such Levant (Kabri) as cinnamon and mint and also an extensive use of honey (Yasur-Landau et al. 2012; Koh et al. 2014) LBA Oil and incense (Ownby 2010: 77- GC-MS analysis of Canaanite jars Egypt Canaanite 83), see especially references to Labelled snTr (incense) confirmed to Jar Canaanite jars labelled snTr contain pistacia spp resin (Serpico (including but (incense) or nḥḥ (oil) or 1999: 271; Ownby 2010: 82). Egypt not limited to) b3q oil. See also jrp, translated as GC-MS analysis of residues on jars MTC #3 / wine. labelled nḥḥ (oil) confirms they Type 5.4 b3q and nḥḥ oil exported from the contained oil (Serpico et al. 2003). Egypt Levant (Tallet 2003: 497).

Terebinth resin (Stern et al. 2008). ORA analysis finds pistacia resin on 5 Uluburun jars (Ownby 2010: 83). Shipwreck Resin or resonated wine or both ORA suggesting wine (McGovern and Uluburun (Monroe 2016: 89-91). Hall (2015). Shipwreck Iron I Observation of stained royal purple Coastal MTC #4 / interiors suggests Murex dye? Levant Type 5.2 (Kingsley and Raveh (Dor Harbour) (1996: 57–58; McGovern and Michel 1990: 72). Iron II Infrared spectrometry, liquid Tanit and MTC #5 / chromatography / wet chemical Elissa Type 9.B1 analyses indicate tartaric acid and Shipwrecks products such as wine (McGovern, in Ballard et al. 2002: 160–161).

In general, there does appear to be some evidence for certain MTC types carrying specific commodities, particularly in the context of the LBA and MTC #3, which will be discussed more below in Chapter 6 on provenance (see Table 13). Serpico et al. (2003) compare LBA Canaanite jar petrographic groups with identified residues, including pistacia spp resin for 105

Haifa Bay and Northern Coastal Palestine (MTC #3), but also oil, possibly olive oil, in the case of the petrographic groups associated with Coastal Lebanon and Syria. Nevertheless, in the Levant there is a general paucity of preserved labels and MTCs seals, stoppers or evidence we might look to in understanding more about this practice during the production and sealing of MTCs during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. There are possible jar sealings from the Uluburun shipwreck that are discussed by Sauvage (2012: 97, note 549), who provides additional references regarding sealings in the Near East. The bulk of preserved evidence comes from Egypt, where labels for jars and amphorae were often made with black ink indicating the contents and sometimes also the origin, kind or quality thereof (Alba Gómez 2017: 30). Many of the preserved labels mention nḥḥ, which as aforementioned is a term used in ancient Egypt that has been translated by most of scholars as indicating olive oil. Alba Gómez (2017: 9-30) provides discussion about labels and stamps mentioning such commodities, especially olive oil, examining evidence primarily dating to the Eighteenth Dynasty.

Assembling the available data and viewing it diachronically provides some important insight into these complex processes, some of which clearly lack archaeological visibility. To place this data within the framework of this thesis, Chapter 5 will conduct a distribution analysis of Levantine MTCs, followed by a review of all available provenance data for these types, ultimately enabling the creation of a synthesis and conclusions regarding the exemplar MTCs isolated here and the maritime trade networks their continued production and distribution reveals.

106

Spatial Distribution of MTC Types

5.1 Introduction

This chapter will examine the spatial distribution of the dominant MTC types isolated in Chapter 3’s typology, setting the stage for Chapter 6 and the utilization of provenance data and residue analyses to demonstrate the Levantine origins of production for these exported vessel types. These distribution patterns will be reviewed and their relationship with contemporary maritime networks interpreted and elucidated, suggesting the role of Canaanite and Phoenician style MTCs as a viable index for the reconstruction of ancient maritime networks connecting disparate geographical regions and sociopolitical entities (states, city-states, etc.). Figure 26 (above) illustrates what appear to be the dominant Levantine MTC types of both the Bronze and Iron Age, typified by a growing production of conical forms, and ultimately the more parabolic, yet still conical, types of the Iron II. These forms that have been reviewed according to typological frameworks will now have their geographic distribution examined before comparison with the available provenance data from each chronological period (Chapter 6). Beginning with MTC #1 originating in the EBA (Combed Ware), followed by the MBA Canaanite Jar (MTC #2), the LBA (for all types and then specifically for Type 5.4 / MTC #3), the Iron Age I Type 5.2 (MTC #4) and concluding with Type 9.B1 and 9.B2 of the Iron II (MTC #5-6) .

5.2 Methodology

Utilizing the MTC exemplars outlined in Chapters 2 and 3, the distribution of complete vessels and available diagnostic fragments will be plotted spatially (geographic location at deposition, either at a terrestrial site or a shipwreck) and diachronically (by time period: EBA-Iron II), providing a visual mapping of the known geographic extent of these jars from the Early Bronze Age, down through to the Iron Age II. Utilizing available data regarding the petrographic and chemical analysis of this corpus, this visual mapping of the distribution of these vessels can then be compared with known points of origin and MTC production centers in Syria-Palestine, where the overwhelming majority of these ceramics were manufactured prior to shipment of bulk 107 staples to local and international markets (or subsequent reuse of the jars before their final deposition).

5.3 Distribution Data and Analysis

Utilizing geospatial software (ArcGIS) the following sections of Chapter 5 will plot the distribution of each MTC exemplar isolated in the MTC Typology explored in Chapter 3, outlining the sites at which these jars are deposited (Tables 5-10). For all periods under investigation, the sites denoting the most significant deposition of Levantine MTCs will be noted in the discussion, like for example Giza in the EBA or Tell el-Dabʿa in the MBA, however, for the LBA – Iron II, which is a focus of this thesis, tables will include additional data on the minimum number of complete jars deposited at each site. Rim fragments will be included in Table 10 for the Iron II.

5.3.1 Early Bronze Age ‘Combed Ware’ Distribution (MTC #1) (Appendix I: Pl. 1)

Complete Combed Ware vessels are uncommon in the Levant (Hennessy 1967: 72; Sowada 2009: 155), however, Combed Ware sherds are common to nearly every EBA III site in the southern and littoral northern Levant (Sowada 2009: 155), as well as southern and northern Canaan (Greenberg and Porat 1996). Esse notes that the first “metallic ware” group found at sites like Abydos features a “deep lattice burnish” (common to the Northern Levant, coastal and inland Syria, as well as the Amuq) and was found in 1st Dynasty contexts (Esse and Hopke 1986: 333). Recognizing a (visually) more or less consistent fabric and morphology in the imported Combed Ware jars, the surface treatments allowed him to further distinguish prospective groups for archaeometric analysis (Esse and Hopke 1986:332). The second metallic ware group Esse (1986) identifies featured a pattern combed exterior and, like Sowada (1999), he further notes that many of the vessels had been treated with a coat of lime plaster (Esse and Hopke 1986: 333). Esse (1986) notes parallels to this variant at the site of Byblos and coastal Syria, as well as at several southern Levantine sites, particularly Tell el-Hesi, but also Tell Yarmuth, with one example known from as far inland as Lachish and Beth Yerah (Esse 1991: 110). Sowada’s 1999 analysis of imported Combed Ware jars from Giza similarly identifies parallels for the white plaster coated Combed Ware pithoi at Byblos (155), but also in the Arqa region (K. Sowada, personal communication, 2012). Moreover, at Ugarit to the north, in the context of a large EBA 108

III oilery (Courtois 1962: 418 Fig. 3, 420–429) denoting large pithoi, in red pottery, with white slip or coat, with a scrabbled surface decoration. The appearance of these ‘white slipped’ vessels is not as widespread as combed vessels without slip (Esse 1991, Sowada 1999). However, arguments linking them to specific regional workshops are weakened by an “absence of detailed petrographic and elemental analysis” (Sowada 1999: 157). Ownby (2012: 24) reviews petrographic analyses of ‘Metallic Ware’ and Red Polished vessels found in tombs near Memphis (Helwan), and EBA III Combed Ware sherds from the Giza necropolis, suggesting production in Lebanon for the Combed Ware, but the northern Levantine coast, along the Akkar Plain near Arqa and Byblos for the Red Polished and ‘Metallic Ware’.

With regard to all other variants of Combed Ware in Egypt, they are similarly known from the Giza Necropolis, Abydos, Naqada, and Matmar, with the greatest number of vessels dating to the 4-5th Dynasty and later (Esse 1991, Sowada 1999). In terms of Combed Ware pithoi featuring a manner of white slip, such as the Egyptian corpus examined by Sowada (1999), examples are also known from Byblos and coastal Syria (Esse and Hopke 1986: 333). In the southern Levant at Tell el-Hesi, but also Tell Yarmuth, with other examples known from as far inland as Lachish and Beth Yerah (Esse 1991: 110). Sowada (1999: 155) similarly identifies parallels from the Byblos-Arqa region, Tell Sukas, and possibly Sidon (Doumet Serhal 2006: 74.21). Sherds are found in Ras Shamra Phase III A1 (de Contenson 1989: 320-1, Fig. 4), with at least one complete example deriving from the site (Schaeffer 1939: 137). Elsewhere in coastal Syria-Palestine they have been excavated from the EBA II-III levels at Arqa (Thalmann, J.-P. 2006), Byblos (Dunand 1958: 745-5, Pls. 82.14750, 112.15835), Stratum VI at Sidon (Doumet Serhal 2006: 74.193), Stratum XX at Tyre (Bikai 1978: 69), EBA levels at Kabri (Kempinski 2002: 103), and sherd scatters known from Ashkelon, where ongoing excavations have yet to achieve significant EBA exposure.

The form is as yet conspicuously absent from Kinet Hoyuk to the extreme north, which becomes a prominent interregional port of trade by the MBA (M.H. Gates, personal communication, 2012). Regarding the Cilician (south Anatolian) ports, only Tarsus provides some tantalizing evidence, in that Goldman (1963) provides an identification of imported “metallic ware” with Syrian fabric, and a wall fragment of what is termed “Syrian Comb-Faced Ware”, with a light orange fabric, which is itself compared to Combed Ware from Byblos (163). Cyprus does not appear to evidence deposition of imported combed pithoi during the EBA, a 109 significant indication of the nature of this nascent international maritime commerce and the connections it depended upon. It is not until the subsequent Middle Bronze Age that we see evidence for Levantine MTCs being deposited in tombs on Cyprus (discussed further below).

Approaching western Syria, the vessels are also known in quantity from Ebla (Mazzoni 1985: 257), Hama J4 (Bikai 1978: 69), Tell Tayinat (Braidwood 1940: 203), Tell Simiriyan (Braidwood 1940: 216), Qal’at er-Rus, and Tell Sukas (Esse 1991: 113). However, Palestine appears to evidence the greatest concentration of sites with combed Metallic Ware pithoi, including, but not limited to: Tell el Hesi (Fargo 1979: 146-147), Hazor, Tell Beit Mirsim (Flender 2000: 297-298), Lachish (Tufnell 1958: 296, Pl. 62), beginning in Stratum XVIII at Megiddo, (Loud 1948: 10-11), Beth Yerah (Amiran 1970: 59), Lebea, Rosh HaNiqra, and Tabat el Hammam (Esse 1991: 110-113).

Moreover, it is significant to note that in Palestine the distribution clusters intensify in the region of Tell Dan, and Flender (2000: 297) identifies combed Metallic Ware pithoi bearing cylinder seal impressions from Dan, Ain Quniye, Tell en Na’ama, Shamir, Qasr-el ‘Atra, Ain Aqqar, Tel el-Oreme, Lawiyeh, Ain Shahal, Arub ez-Zahar, Rugm el Gadi, Rugm Sa’ab, Khirbet el-Zeraqon, Khirbet Ain Hur, Khirbet el Muserife, Beth Ha Emeq, Gebel el-Ain, Tell Qashish, Tel Yoqne’am, Har Harurim, Qabr el-Faras, and Tell Ta’aanek. This apparent administration/branding being a well-established indicator of sociopolitical complexity.

In Egypt, Sowada (2009: 86-89) records nearly 40 complete vessels excavated at Giza Necropolis, as well as 15 jar fragments and some Combed Ware sherds. The next largest quantity of complete jars is known from Abusir with approximately a dozen Combed Ware jars, followed by at least four from Saqqara. Two examples are known from Edfu and one from Ballas, with a Combed Ware jar sherd found at Elephantine. In general, these imports display a restricted distribution and appear to be connected to the Dynastic elite (Sowada 2009: 163-67). Helck (1971: 33) compiled a table to display the distribution of Combed Ware (his type 1) as well as One-handled jugs and jars, which Sowada (2009: Table 8) revisited and attempted to clarify in terms of dating. Her summary of imported material (Sowada 2009: Table 4) is very useful and notes whether the Combed Ware jars were complete, fragmented, the context/site and the approximate dates. Significantly the largest quantity of jars comes from 4th Dynasty cemeteries 110 with Royal burials, with little material from settlements and the biggest group, nearly half the number found in Egypt, coming from Giza.

Figure 43: Early Bronze Age ‘Combed Ware’ Jar Distribution (MTC #1)

111

Table 5: Archaeological Sites in Early Bronze Age Distribution (MTC #1) 27

Region Site Site # Anatolia Tarsus 1 Syria-Palestine Tayinat 1 Syria-Palestine Ebla 2 Syria-Palestine Ras Shamra 3 Syria-Palestine Tell Sukas 4 Syria-Palestine Hama 5 Syria-Palestine Tell 'Arqa 6 Syria-Palestine Byblos 7 Syria-Palestine Biqa Survey 8 Syria-Palestine Sidon 9 Syria-Palestine Tyre 10 Syria-Palestine Tell Dan 11 Syria-Palestine Hazor 12 Syria-Palestine Kabri 13 Syria-Palestine Ta'anakh 14 Syria-Palestine Megiddo 15 Syria-Palestine Ashkelon 16 Syria-Palestine Tell el-Hesi 17 Syria-Palestine Lachish 18 Syria-Palestine Tell Beit-Mirsim 19 Syria-Palestine Khirbet Kerak 20 Egypt Giza Necropolis 1 Egypt Matmar 2 Egypt Abydos 3 Egypt Naqada 4 Egypt Elephantine 5 Egypt Saqqara 6 Egypt Abusir 7 Egypt Ballas 8 Egypt Edfu 9

27 Sowada (2009: 164-65) notes that the largest quantity of imported potter, including Combed Ware jars, was excavated at Giza, largely in 4th Dynasty cemeteries, with very little coming from settlements. Nearly half the total number in Egypt (minimum number of 87 vessels), were found at Giza, however this includes both combed ware jars and one handled jars, with no separate tabulation being made (see Sowada 2009: Table 8). Sowada (2009: Pl. 1- 6) document a minimum of 14 complete or near complete combed wear jars from Giza. 112

5.3.2 Middle Bronze Age ‘Canaanite Jar’ Distribution (MTC #2) (Appendix I: Pl. 2)

I was able to identify the presence of the Canaanite Jar at numerous Middle Bronze Age sites in the Levant and Egypt, with some limited evidence for deposition on Cyprus. Only a few MBA Canaanite Jars are possibly known from Cyprus, a single complete vessel from Arpera (see Figure 6 above) and another example suggested to derive from that cannot be definitively catalogued (Merrillees 1974: Fig. 35; 59; Raban 1980: 5). Beginning with coastal Anatolia and the Levant /coast of Syria-Palestine: Kinet Hoyuk (Akar 2006: 17), Ugarit (Leonard Jr. 1996: 238), Minet el-Beda (Schaeffer 1949: 209), Byblos (Jidejian 1971: 38), Tel Kabri (Kempinski 2002: 115-116, Figs. 5.28), Tel Nami (Marcus 1995: 596, Fig. 1), Tel Aviv (Kaplan 1955: 1-4, 8, Fig. 1 and Pl. II), Ashkelon (Stager 2002: 353-355; Stager et al. 2008:431), Tell el-Ajjul (Tufnell 1962: 9-35, 1980: 37, 42).

Moving to the interior of Syria-Palestine, MBA Canaanite Jars were also revealed at Shechem (Cole 1984: 73, Pl. 35a), Gezer (Macalister 1912:159, Pl. LXI; Dever et al. 1970: Pl. 30), Tell Beit Mirsim (Ben-Arieh 2004: 12, 14, 16, 29), Lachish (Tufnell 1958: 220-224, Pl. 8; Singer-Avitz 2004: 904, 914, 918), Megiddo yielded many complete vessels (see Strata XII- XIII, XI, X, and IX) (Loud 1948: 5, 87-92, Pl. 16, 18, 27, 35, 42, 51, 52, 117, 118, and 128), Tel Aphek (Beck 1975, 1985), Shiloh (Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: 91, 100-101, 103-104, 106, 115-117, 120-121, 123).

In Egypt the most pronounced deposition occurred at the port city of Tel el-Dab’a (Bietak 1991; McGovern and Harbottle 1997: 143, Czerny 1999; Fuscaldo 2000; Aston 2002, 2004; Hein and Jánosi 2004; Müller 2008; Forstner-Müller 2008).28 Further to the interior following wadi systems it is also found in quantity at Tell el-Muskhuta (Redmount 1995: 185, 188, 1995b: 77, Fig. 7, 1993: 4, 14, Fig. 3; Holladay 1999: 195) and further still towards the Red Sea at the Mersa/Wadi Gawasis, a site providing very early evidence for maritime activity and ships (Bard

28 Like Giza in the EBA, the site of Tell el-Dabʿa provided the largest number of imported Levantine MTCs during the MBA, with excavators estimating some two million jars (Bietak 1996: 20). 113 et al. 2010; 2015).29 Tell Hebwa (Abd el-Maqsoud 1998: 239-45), the eastern Nile Delta (van den Brink et. al 1987: 14), Memphis (Bourriau 1987: 11), Dahshur (Arnold 1982: 41-42), Lisht (Arnold et al. 1993: 20-29) Riqqeh (Engelbach 1915: 10, 21, Pl. XXXVII and XLIV), and Nubia at Buhen (Randall-Maciver and Woolley 1911: 185-186, 195-196, Pl. 94). Copious Canaanite jar sherds were documented during a survey of the Sinai (Oren 1997: 279).

In sum, during the MBA the Canaanite Jar was found as far south as Wadi Gawasis on the Red Sea and perhaps even so far south as Buhen (Nubia) as far north as Ugarit and Kinet Hoyuk and at least some evidence of deposition on Cyprus. In Ownby’s (2010: 85) view despite the extensive distribution of Canaanite jars in the Levant, it is the conspicuous presence of jars at large coastal sites, particularly during the MBA when they become more common, which provides clear evidence for their use in maritime trade. Outside of the Egyptian Delta regions, MBA Canaanite jars are not as common, possibly due to limited archaeological visibility of settlements given that apart from Tell el-Dabʿa in the Delta, there are relatively few excavated Middle Kingdom settlements, save the mortuary temple of Senwosret III at Abydos, Lisht North, Edfu, the Nubian fortresses, and Wadi el-Hudi.

Regarding the lone form from Nubia at Buhen, it has been suggested that this example may have arrived at the site due to royal acquisition of imported goods (Ownby 2010: 89), but this jar may simply represent vestiges of typical administration of the Middle Kingdom fortress at the site. In any case, it is possible that a Red Sea route also existed at this time, perhaps even during the Hyksos period, though the Nile remains the most probable mechanism by which the site of Buhen would be reached (see Figure 44, below).

29 It is important to consider emergent Old Kingdom /EBA evidence in this context of early evidence for maritime activity on the Red Sea and how this relates to the later Middle Kingdom trade networks under discussion. This evidence comes specifically from Khufu's reign in the Fourth Dynasty. The site discovered at Wadi al-Jarf was an important harbor complex from the OK, situated along the Egyptian shore of the Red Sea, providing maritime access to the Sinai Peninsula for “royal expeditions to the copper and turquoise mining areas located on the opposite side of the Gulf of Suez” (Tallet and Marouard 2014: 4). This site can now be considered the oldest harbor in the world and was occupied exclusively during the beginning of the 4th Dynasty. 114

Figure 44: Middle Bronze Age ‘Canaanite Jar’ Distribution (MTC #2)

115

Table 6. Archaeological Sites in Middle Bronze Age Distribution (MTC #2)

Region Site Site # Anatolia Kinet Hoyuk 1 Cyprus Arpera 1 Cyprus Vounos 2 Egypt Tell el-Dabʿa 1 Egypt Tell Hebwa 2 Egypt Tell el-Maskhuta 3 Egypt Memphis 4 Egypt Dashur 5 Egypt Lisht 6 Egypt Riqqueh 7 Egypt Mersa/Wadi Gawasis 8 Egypt Buhen (Nubia) 9 Syria-Palestine Tell Atchana 1 Syria-Palestine Ebla 2 Syria-Palestine Ugarit 3 Syria-Palestine Minet el-Beida 4 Syria-Palestine Qatna 5 Syria-Palestine Tell Nebi Mend 6 Syria-Palestine Tell Arqa 7 Syria-Palestine Byblos 8 Syria-Palestine Beirut 9 Syria-Palestine Kamid el-Loz 10 Syria-Palestine Sidon 11 Syria-Palestine Ruweise 12 Syria-Palestine Tyre 13 Syria-Palestine Tel Kabri 14 Syria-Palestine Hazor 15 Syria-Palestine Tel Nami 16 Syria-Palestine Megiddo 17 Syria-Palestine Tell Aphek 18 Syria-Palestine Schechem 19 Syria-Palestine Tel Aviv 20 Syria-Palestine Shiloh 21 Syria-Palestine Gezer 22 Syria-Palestine Ashkelon 23 Syria-Palestine Lachish 24 Syria-Palestine Tell el-Ajjul 25 Syria-Palestine Tell Beit Mirsim 26

116

5.3.3 Late Bronze Age ‘Canaanite Jar’ Distribution (all types)

Significantly, many of the same sites noted in the distribution of MBA Canaanite Jars in Syria- Palestine also reveal the deposition of LBA forms, “illustrating continuity in production and trade” (Ownby 2010: 88, Fig. 3.38). Although a coastal distribution is still apparent in Figure 45, by the time of the LBA, there is clearly a more profound permeation of the Mediterranean and hinterland regions. I was able to document over 80 LBA sites in the eastern Mediterranean which evidence LBA Canaanite Jars, including Kition (Karageorghis 1974: 86) and 16 sites on Cyprus (Leonard Jr. 1996: 248).

As discussed in Chapter 4 (see Figure 36 above), at the port of Ugarit (Minet el-Beida) a store room was excavated that was filled with LBA Canaanite jars (Type 5.4) providing a clear indicator of their importance in eastern Mediterranean trade (see also Schaeffer 1932: 3-4, Pl. III.3, 1939: 30, Pl. IX), with more examples excavated along or near the coast at Minet el-Beida and Ugarit (Ras Shamra) (Schaeffer 1949: 150-151, 184-185, 190-191), Tell Atchana/Alalakh (Woolley 1955: 318-319, 326, 335, 387, 399, Pl. CXVI), Tell Kazel (Badre and Gubel 1999- 2000: 152, 166, 172, 174-175, Figs. 26 and 32), Tyre (Bikai 1978: 43-46, 48, Pl. XXVI, XLIX and XIV), Sarepta (Pritchard 1978:80), Sidon (Doumet-Serhal et al. 2008: 24), Byblos (Montet 1928: 199-200), Ashkelon (Stager et al. 2008: 436), Abu Hawam (Anati 1959: 96-97, 100 Fig. 7; Sugerman 2000: 160), tombs near Akko (Ben-Arieh and Edelstein 1977: 16-17, 22 Fig. 10) and Tell el-Ajjul (Petrie 1932: Pl. XXXIII), Ashdod and Tel Miqne (Sugerman 2000: 160)

Further to the Levantine interior at Hazor (Ben-Tor 1989: 237, 286, Pl. CCLXVI and CCXC), Lachish (Yannai 2004: 1038, 1042, 1044, 1048, 1053; Tufnell 1958: 224, Pl. 8), Gezer (Macalister 1912: Pl. XXVI, XXXIII, XXXVII, and LXXXIII; (J.S. Holladay Jr., personal communication, 2009), Deir el-Balah, Tel Batash (Sugerman 2000: 160), Tell Beit Mirsim (Ben- Arieh 2004: 18-19, 27, 33), Megiddo Strata VIII and VII (Loud 1948: Pl. 59 and 64; Amiran 1970: 138), some rims at Shiloh (Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: 132, Fig. 6.37), Dan, Hazor, Ta’anach, Megadim, Nami, (Sugerman 2000: 160), Beth-Shean (Mazar 2006: 120-22). Lastly, Canaanite Jars of LBA date were not uncommon at the site of Madaba in Jordan (S. Klassen, personal communication, 2010).

117

Early publications surveying Egypt likewise revealed deposition of LBA Canaanite Jar forms at numerous sites, notably Thebes (Amiran 1970: 141) and Amarna (Amiran 1970: 138), but also throughout the region. Unlike the more limited MBA Canaanite jar distribution patterns, the fact that we see examples deriving from many sites along the extent of the Nile, suggests that during the LBA they were “a common import and their contents had a broad distribution” (Ownby 2010: 93).

Beginning with the areas connecting Egypt with Palestine via the northern Sinai, LBA Canaanite jar where material has been documented (Oren 1987: 83-84, 95, 103, 1993b: 1389, 1391), as well as at Serabit el-Khadim further south (Bourriau 1996: 28-29). Ownby (2010: Fig. 3.40) fastidiously records not only the presence of Canaanite Jar material dating to this period, but also detailed information regarding context and comparative dating in many cases, noting that in the New Kingdom, these vessels are documented at numerous sites throughout Egypt, including settlements: On the western side of the Delta approaching Libya at the coastal emporia of Mersa Matruh (Hulin 2002: 39-42; White 2003), with another 15 nearly complete examples excavated at Zawiyet Umm el-Rakham to the west (Snape 2000, 2003; Thomas 2003: 524-525; Snape and Wilson 2007: 58-60, 64-65). 18th Dynasty tombs at Tell Hebwa IV in the Delta region (Aston 1996: 186, 196), Ezbet Helmi also dated to the 18th Dynasty (Aston 2004b: 176- 178; Fuscaldo 2001: 158) Piramesses/Qantir in levels dated to the 19th to 20th Dynasty (Aston 1998: 69-72, 627-677), 18th Dynasty Saqqara (Mastaba 3507) had one vessel (Bourriau 1991: 136-139, Fig. 6), but examples were also found in 19th Dynasty elite tombs (Bourriau et al. 2005: 72-75; Aston 1997: 93-94, Pl. 122; Aston 1991: 49, 53; Aston, B. 2005: 97-99, 117, 127; Aston and Aston 2001: 52-53, 56, 60; Bourriau and Aston 1985: 40, 47, 49) and Memphis (Bourriau 1990a).

In Middle Egypt, Ownby identifies jars found in the late 18th to early 19th Dynasty contexts at Gurob (Petrie 1890: 32-34, Pl. XX), and Amarna, also dated to the 18th Dynasty (Rose 2007: 147-149, 292-294; Nicholson and Rose 1985: 139-140, 147-148), 18th Dynasty Abydos (Petrie 1904: 37-38, 54, Pl. LX), Ahmose Pyramid Complex (Budka 2006: 97-98, 100, 104, 115), and some fragments from Deir el-Ballas (Bourriau 1990b: 22). Surveying Upper Egypt she further records Canaanite jars found at Karnak (Hein 2004), Luxor (Aston et al. 1998: 142-144), Qurna (Seiler 1996: 225-8), Deir el-Medineh (Nagel 1938: 4, 24-25, 122), at Malkata (Hope 1978: 75, 1989: 90) and further south at Elephantine (Aston 1999: 7, 23, Pl. 3). 118

Unlike the preceding MBA it’s clear that by the Late Bronze Age, trade involving Canaanite Jars has permeated parts of Nubia (Ownby 2010: Fig. 3.41; Holthoer 1977: 97-99), with two examples from Qustul dated to the time of Tuthmosis III (Williams 1992: 18, 43, 73, 87, 286-288), but with numerous jars now deposited at Buhen (Serpico 1999; Randall-Maciver and Woolley 1911: Pl. 38, 39, and 45; Emery et al. 1979: 161, Pl. 60), one from Askut (Smith 1995: 164), Aksha in a rock-cut tomb from mid-18th Dynasty (Vercoutter 1962: 115, Pl. XXXVII), two jars from a tomb at Soleb also dated to the mid-18th Dynasty (Giorgini 1971: 240, Pl. XV), and the furthest south of all we find the largest number of jars deposited in this region in the 19th Dynasty rock-cut tombs at Hillat el-Arab revealing eight jars, distributed evenly between four tombs (Vincentelli 2006: 14-16, 77, 82, 125, 129, 139, 151).

Certainly, the deposition of Canaanite jars discovered in several LBA shipwrecks is perhaps the most significant exported context reviewed here, not only confirming their movement throughout the eastern Mediterranean (Ownby 2010: 97), but also being present on both of the only available shipwrecks. The Cape Gelidonya (off the coast of Anatolia / modern Turkey), which fates to around 1200 BCE, produced many sherds (Hennessy and Plat Taylor 1967: Fig. 132, Nos. 2 and 3; Bass 1973: 34), as well as some complete vessels, including a fragmentary angular form (see discussion below under Type 5.4). However, the Uluburun/Kaş shipwreck discovered in the same approximate region, dated to ca. 1300 BCE, held about 149 Canaanite jars in three different sizes all of the angular type 5.4 (Bass 1986: 277-279; Pulak 1997: 240).

By the LBA Cyprus also received much greater quantities of Canaanite jar forms, first documented by Leonard (1995: Map 15.3, 248) and revisited by Ownby (2010: Fig. 3.42)30: At Kition (Karageorghis and Demas 1985: 57, 64, 73, 75, 227, 241), Arpera (Ownby 2010: 95-96), Enkomi31 (LBA I; Courtois 1981: 37-38; Dikaios 1969: 248, 280, Pl. 65, 77, 120, 125, and 297), Pyla-Kokkinokremos (Karageorghis and Demas 1984: 40-48, 51, Pl. XXIII and XXXVIII), Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios (South et al. 1989: 107, Fig. 14), Hala Sultan Tekke (Åström 1986:

30 Hadjicosti (1988: 341) notes a gap in the appearance of LBA Canaanite Jars from Late Cypriot IB - Late Cypriot IIB (ca. 1300-1400 BCE), commonly found in Late Cypriot IIC - Late Cypriot III contexts (ca. 1300-1050 BCE).

31 LBA Canaanite jars from the site of Maa-Palaeokastro were examined macroscopically by Hadjicosti (1988: 340- 363), determining that some were imported and some were likely local Cypriot productions (See Chapter 6). 119

1991a, 1991b), Alassa Palita (Hadjisavvas 1986: 67), and Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios (South et al. 1989: 10, 134, 146, Fig. 29, Pl. V; Heuck 1981: 66, 75, 77), and an LBII form at Myrtou- Pighades32 (du Plat Taylor 1957: 53-55).

From the Aegean, Cline’s catalogue records a great deal of Canaanite Jar material dated to the LBA (Cline 1991: 95-97, 168- 179, Table 60), but the distribution mapping of this material was first undertaken by Leonard (1996: Map 15.2, 247). Akin to Egypt and Cyprus, most of the Aegean examples were recovered from tombs. Many Canaanite jars of LBA type were found at the emporia of Kommos (Watrous 1992: 159-161, Figs. 71-72, Pl. 53), as well as Koukaki, Pseira, Mycenae, Menidi, Argos, Athens, Argos, Asine, Menidi, Mycenae, Pylos33 (Leonard 1996: 243-248), Tiryns (Kilian 1988: 121, 128-129), Thebes, (Symeonoglou 1985: 289)34, Kato Zakros (French 1990: 73), Knossos and Khania (Leonard 1996: 248). Also notably at Thera (Akrotiri), which was an important island trading node (Marinatos 1976: 15, 30, Pl. 69b).

32 This example was the only complete MTC #3 LBA Canaanite jar (angular form) documented on Cyprus (Pedrazzi 2007: Appendix 3: Type 5.4), prior to Cateloy (2019: 295) noting an unpublished example from Enkomi.

33 See further discussion of these examples in Åkerström (1975).

34 This example is the furthest inland an LBA Canaanite Jar form has been found in the region (Ownby 2010: 97). 120

Figure 45: Late Bronze Age Distribution of ‘Canaanite Jars’

121

Table 7: Archaeological Sites in Late Bronze Age Distribution for all Canaanite Jar Types

Site Region Site # Aegean Thera 1 Aegean Kato Zagros 2 Aegean Pseira 3 Aegean Knossos 4 Aegean Kommos 5 Aegean Khania 6 Aegean Athens 7 Aegean Thebes 8 Aegean Menidi 9 Aegean Koukaki 10 Aegean Mycenae 11 Aegean Argos 12 Aegean Tiryns 13 Aegean Asine 14 Aegean Pylos 15 Anatolia Tarsus 1 Cyprus Enkomi 1 Cyprus Sinda 2 Cyprus Kalopsidha 3 Cyprus Pyla Kokkinokremos 4 Cyprus Pyla Verghi 5 Cyprus Hala Sultan Tekke 6 Cyprus Kition 7 Cyprus Arpera 8 Cyprus Maroni 9 Cyprus Kalvassos 10 Cyprus Alassa 11 Cyprus Kourion 12 Cyprus Kouklia 13 Cyprus Maa-Palaikastro 14 Cyprus Ayia Irini 15 Cyprus Myrtou-Pighades 16 Egypt Serabit el-Khadim 1 Egypt 'Ezbit Helmi 2 Egypt Tell Hebwa 3 Egypt Qantir 4 Egypt Saqqara 5 Egypt Gurob 6 Egypt Memphis 7 Egypt Abydos 9 Egypt Gebel Roma / Wadi-el-Hol 10 Egypt Deir el-Ballas 11 Egypt Luxor 12 Egypt Karnak 13 Egypt V. of Kings/ Qurna / Deir el-Medineh 14 Egypt Thebes 15 Egypt Elephantine 16 Egypt Zawiyet Umm el-Rakham 17 Egypt Mersa Matruh 18 Egypt Tundaba 19 Mediterranean Sea Uluburun 1 Mediterranean Sea Cape Gelidonya 2 Nubia Qustul 1 Nubia Buhen 2 Nubia Askut 3 Nubia Aksha 4 Nubia Soleb 5 122

Nubia Hillat el-Arab 6 Syria-Palestine Deir el Balah 1 Syria-Palestine Ashkelon 2 Syria-Palestine Ashdod 3 Syria-Palestine Tell Miqne / Ekron 4 Syria-Palestine Gezer 5 Syria-Palestine Tell Batash 6 Syria-Palestine Lachish 7 Syria-Palestine Madaba 8 Syria-Palestine Ta'anach 9 Syria-Palestine Beth Shean 10 Syria-Palestine Tell Abu Hawam 11 Syria-Palestine Tell Nami 12 Syria-Palestine Hazor 13 Syria-Palestine Akko 14 Syria-Palestine Megiddo 15 Syria-Palestine Dan 16 Syria-Palestine Tyre 17 Syria-Palestine Sarepta 18 Syria-Palestine Sidon 19 Syria-Palestine Beirut 20 Syria-Palestine Byblos 21 Syria-Palestine Ugarit 22 Syria-Palestine Minet-el-Beida 23 Syria-Palestine Tell 'Atchana 24

123

5.3.4 Late Bronze Age MTC #3 Distribution (Pedrazzi Type 5.4) (Appendix I: Pls. 4-7)

The distribution of MTC #3 / Type 5.4 (Figure 47) represents the maximum geographic distribution of any Levantine commercial jar or MTC. Beyond the Levant, it appears that Egypt was the main recipient of exported Type 5.4 LBA Canaanite jars. Although a number of these vessels are preserved in tombs on the Greek mainland, largely dated LBA IIB / LHIII B (Åkerström 1975: 188-192; Lambrou-Phillipson 1990: 282-283, 352-353), the proportion of Type 5.4 vessels in Egypt and even Nubia is somewhat greater, with complete forms (analyzed petrographically) stemming from major sites along the Nile such as Saqqara, Qantir, Elephantine and Amarna (Smith et al. 2004; Ownby 2010: 253-255). Outside of Egypt, one of the largest caches of complete exported Type 5.4 jars comes from Nubia, where four 19th Dynasty rock-cut tombs at Hillat el-Arab contained eight complete vessels that probably belonged to local elites (Vincentelli 2006: 14-16, 77, 82, 125, 129, 139, 151). Ownby (2010: 93) observes that ‘this is the farthest south that LBA Canaanite jars have been discovered’ and that in contrast to the MBA Canaanite jar, the discovery of LBA Canaanite jars at so many sites along the length of the Nile Valley suggests that they were a common import. Ownby’s (2010: 252-257) analyses of some examples of Type 5.4 exports to Egypt suggest that most examples originated from the northern Palestinian coast, Lebanon and perhaps coastal Syria.

MTC #3 is not well documented on Cyprus during the LBA, where Pedrazzi (2010: Appendix 3: Type 5.4) records only one example at Myrtou-Pighades, however, an example from Enkomi is now also documented (Cateloy 2016: 49). 35 This might say something about the role certain types of commercial jar played in different interregional trade networks. The majority Canaanite jars from Cyprus certainly appear to have more in common with the bulbous type known on the Syrian coast and documented in quantity at Tell Kazel (Martin 2016a: Figure 34), however local Cypriot production of similar bulbous types is also a factor. Whatever the case, this observation is contrasted by the preserved examples of Type 5.4 in tombs throughout mainland Greece, e.g., at Menidi (4 examples), Mycenae (4 examples) and Pylos (1 example) (Knapp and Demesticha 2016: Figure 7; see also Pedrazzi 2007: 76-77). Cateloy mentions an

35 See also Cateloy (2016: Fig. 5) for the volume of this example and others of this type (her Type A3). 124 example from Troy (2019: 295).36 At least one complete example of Type 5.4 is documented at Kommos (Watrous 1992: Fig. 71.946; Fig. 72.1951), where it appears LBA Canaanite jars were imported, and whilst the remains are often very fragmentary, petrographic analysis has identified areas of export similar to those for the jars in Egypt (Day et al. 2011).

Along the Libyan coast of north Africa, similar fragmentary Canaanite jars are found at Marsa Matruh, whilst at the neighbouring site of Zawiyet Umm el-Rakham (a 13th century fortress along western Egypt’s coast), there are at least four complete examples of Type 5.4, mainly in ‘temples’ and ‘chapels’, not storage magazines (Snape 2003: 67; Snape and Wilson 2007: 58–68). Thus, Type 5.4 may have followed maritime networks around the east Mediterranean coast, with an appreciable distribution throughout Egypt, along the Nile into Nubia, and as far west as coastal Libya and mainland Greece. Certainly, the presence of similar vessels on the LBA shipwreck at Cape Gelidonya and the predominance of Type 5.4 on the Uluburun wreck (nearly 150 examples) is significant (Pulak 1997: 233-241). Such archaeological data support textual references from LBA Ugarit to expanding maritime trade in the eastern Mediterranean (Bevan 2007: 36-37). Compare examples with 3 nearly identical jars from Mycenae (Åkerström 1975: Figs. 11-13).

Figure 46: Examples of MTC #3 exported to the Aegean at Menidi (Åkerström 1975: Figs. 8-10).

36 Cateloy (2016: 49-50) notes an unpublished example from Dimini in Thessaly (not shown in Figure 46), which is identical in every way, including volume, to the smallest examples from the Uluburun wreck (she notes two other examples from that site which may be local imitations). 125

Figure 47: LBA Distribution of MTC #3 (Pedrazzi Type 5.4)

126

Table 8: Archaeological Sites in Late Bronze Age Distribution of MTC #3 (Pedrazzi Type 5.4) Region Site Site # # of Complete Vessels Aegean Kommos 1 At least 1 Aegean Pylos 2 At least 1 Aegean Tiryns 3 At least 1 Aegean Mycenae 4 At least 4 Aegean Menidi 5 At least 4 Aegean Troy 6 At least 1 Cyprus Myrtou-Pighades 1 1 (Fragmentary) Cyprus Enkomi 2 At least 1 Egypt Qantir 1 At least 1 Egypt Saqqara 2 > 1 Egypt Amarna 3 At least 1 Egypt Elephantine 4 At least 1 Egypt Zawiyet Umm el-Rakham 5 At least 4 LBA Shipwreck Uluburun 1 149 LBA Shipwreck Cape Gelidonya 2 1 (Fragmentary) Nubia Hillat al-Arab 1 At least 8 Syria-Palestine Deir el Balah 1 At least 1 Syria-Palestine Ajjul / Gaza 2 At least 1 Syria-Palestine Beth-Shean 3 At least 3 Syria-Palestine Lachish 4 At least 1 Syria-Palestine Gezer 5 At least 1 Syria-Palestine Beth Shean 6 At least 3 Syria-Palestine Megiddo 7 At least 14 Syria-Palestine Tel Zeror 8 At least 1 Syria-Palestine Dor 9 At least 1 (Fragmentary) Syria-Palestine Tell Abu Hawam 10 At least 1 Syria-Palestine Hazor 11 At least 1 Syria-Palestine Tyre 12 At least 1 Syria-Palestine Sarepta 13 At least 1 Syria-Palestine Sidon 14 At least 2 Syria-Palestine Minet-el-Beida 15 At least 80 (?) Syria-Palestine Ugarit 16 At least 1 Syria-Palestine Ras Ibn Hani 17 At least 1

127

5.3.5 Iron Age I MTC #4 Distribution (Pedrazzi Type 5.2) (Appendix I: Pl. 9)

This Iron Age version of the Canaanite Jar is found predominantly in the Levant at coastal sites like Tyre, Sarepta, Qasile, Tell Abu Hawam (Hamilton 1935: Pl. XXXVI:99) and especially Dor where several examples have been retrieved from the sea and many from the site itself (Martin 2016: 111; Raban 2000: Fig. 9.24:7,18,19; Waiman-Barak 2016: 86). The earliest known examples are very similar to vessel T.83/40 from Palaepaphos-Skales on Cyprus, with other variants found in early Iron Age levels at Tell Dor where the transition from LBA Type 5.4 to Iron Age Type 5.2 is documented (Raban 2000: 334. numbers.7.18.19.20).

The total number of complete vessels here is uncertain, but Dor appears to have the highest vessel count of any site apart from the Dor Harbour Wreck (see Waiman-Barek 2016) for full discussion of fragmentary examples. For more examples from Dor also see Gilboa et al. 2008: Fig. 9:8-9; Raban 1995: Fig. 9.24:7,18,19, and ‘Shipwreck 13’ at Dor (Kingsley and Raveh 1996: Fig. 38.PW1). Waiman-Barak (2016: 86) notes that our only Iron I shipwreck, located in Dor harbour but now lost at sea, was loaded with these MTCs: “Avner Raban and Kurt Raveh in a rescue dive at the waters off Dor during the early 1980' discovered a wreck with a cargo full of these jars (Raveh, personal communication). They extracted a few of them and brought them to the glass house museum at Kibbutz Nahsholim...” The complete wreck was lost back at sea never to be found again.

Rims of this type were also documented at Tarsus in Cilicia (Hanfmann 1963: Fig.119, no. 252). The mid capacity examples of this type are thought to represent the next morphological manifestation of Type 5.2 (Gilboa et al. 2008: 152, and Fig. 13.8, Type C) and corresponds to a variant of those found at Palaepaphos-Skales on Cyprus with a nearly identical example was found in Egypt at the Amarna River Temple (Peet and Woolley 1923: Pl. LI:XLIII/105). Palaepaphos-Skales on Cyprus provides the largest number of complete exported examples, representing at least three volumes, which is akin to suggestions regarding the basic representative capacities during the LBA.

The examples that were excavated at Tyre (Bikai 1978: Pl. 35:12), and at Sarepta (Anderson 1988: 623, Pl. 32.7) are thought to date to the Iron Age I, with a single, somewhat unique example from Sarepta suggested to be occurring as early as the LBA II (Pritchard 1988: 128

Fig. 43.6). It was for this reason, and an example with poor context at Amarna, that Pedrazzi (2007: 73) suggested that this Iron I type occurred both in the LBA and Early Iron Age.37 Several other examples can be found in Egypt where Aston (1996: 86, Fig. 234d) describes this type as a ‘vessel often found in Egypt’ with examples documented from Memphis, Amarna and Medinet Habu, and notably with the fabric of the Amarna examples being Levantine in origin. The ‘Phoenician amphorae’ that Regev (2004: 341) noted from Heracleopolis Magna are of this same type (Padró 1991: 1104-1110; Fig. 4.c-d).

The best preserved, complete, exported examples of this type also derive from the most secure contexts with the most reliable dating, which are Early Iron Age tombs on Cyprus at Palaepaphos-Skales (Bikai 1983: 397), where 3 main capacities seem evident in keeping with the presumed forerunner (MTC #3) of this Early Iron Age type, MTC #4 (see comparison in Appendix 1: Pl. 20).

37 A smaller example excavated in Jordan in a tomb (101) at Tell es-Sa’idiyeh (Pritchard 1980: Fig. 3.1) was also given a suggested date occurring in the LBA. Pritchard (1980:14) suggested that this form originated outside of Palestine and made a comparison with a parallel from Amarna, Egypt (Woolley 1923: Pl. LI:XLIII/105) attributed to the Amarna period or later. An example from Sarepta Kiln G was initially given a 13th century date based upon an associated c14 date. It is for these reasons that Pedrazzi (2007) assigned a chronological distribution for this jar type to the Iron I, but with sporadic examples from the LBA II. However, the collapsed tomb in Jordan had a limited ceramic repertoire (5 vessels), and Pritchard (1980: 14) notes “are common in contexts ranging from the end of the LBA into the Iron Age”, with the exception of the angular shouldered jar in question, which he felt belonged to the LBA period. Yet, even Woolley (1923: 136) states that the parallel from Amarna was from the River Temple and therefore could occur both in the Akhenaten period and later; later being probable given that excavations at Amarna indicated that a stone structure built there during the reign of Ramesses III (1186–1155 BC) served as a quarry for the later River Temple (Aston 1996: 43) . 129

Figure 48: Iron Age I Distribution of MTC #4 (Pedrazzi 5.2)

Table 9: Archaeological Sites in Early Iron Age Distribution of MTC #4 (Type 5.2) Region Site Site # # of Complete Vessels Anatolia Tarsus 1 Sherds Cyprus Palaepaphos-Skales 2 3 Egypt Memphis 3 1 Egypt Heracleopolis Magna 4 1 Egypt Amarna River Temple 5 1 Egypt Medinet Habu 6 1 Syria-Palestine Sarepta 7 2 Syria-Palestine Tyre 8 1 Syria-Palestine Dor 9 >3 Syria-Palestine Dor Harbour wreck 10 >? (full cargo) 130

5.3.6 Iron Age II MTC #5-6 Distribution (Aznar Type 9.B1 / 9.B2) (Appendix I: Pls. 16-17)

Stager (in Ballard et al. 2002: 161-162) published a preliminary distribution of Crisp Ware Torpedo Jars (Figure 42 above), which revealed a strong coastal pattern in the central and southern Levant. Examples from the northern Levant occur at Al Mina (Lehmann 2005: Fig. 9:1) and Tell Tayinat (Osborne 2011: Pl. 22:14-16), which may have used Al Mina as its coastal port. Bikai (1987: Pl. XXIII, no. 588) recorded a late eighth century BCE example of MTC #5, the Crisp Ware Torpedo Jar (Aznar Type 9.B1) at Kition on Cyprus. Sagona (1982: 95) noted two examples of the same type (his Type 2) in Cypriot tombs at Aphendrika and Tsambres, and his Type 3 (MTC #6) turns up at tombs at Kition, Marion and Tsambres (Sagona 1982: 96). One further example of Aznar Type 9.B2 (Sagona Type 3) was catalogued in a survey of jars retrieved off the coast of Israel, near Dor (Sagona 1982: 96).

Regev (2004) identified examples of ‘torpedo’ vessels in the west Mediterranean from the eighth century BCE onwards. Given its wide Mediterranean distribution (Figure 49), this Iron Age II Levantine jar would seem to have been nearly as widely traded as the most prominent LBA Canaanite Jar type, MTC #3 (Killebrew CA 22; Pedrazzi Type 5.4). Raban (1980: 11), however, observed that not a single example of this type has turned up in the Aegean; a picture that persists even today despite the discovery of Phoenician material at Lefkandi (Chapter 8).

In Egypt, the Twenty-second Dynasty (c.943–716 BCE) cemetery at Qurneh revealed both Aznar Type 9.A and 9.B1 examples (Petrie 1909: Pls. L:794, 795). Aston (1996: 85) noted that imported transport amphorae “… are not uncommon at tombs in Saqqara, Lahun and Thebes, and seem to belong to Sagona’s (1982) type 2 or 7b, which first appeared in the ninth century and continues down to the sixth century.” Cylindrical torpedo amphorae are known from Memphis, Amarna, and Medinet Habu, and the fabric of the Amarna jars has been sourced to the Levant generally (Aston 1996: 86, Fig. 234.d). Bourriau (2004: 92) described “the ubiquitous Phoenician wine amphorae” from the Third Intermediate Period at Buto, where their fabric stood apart and overshadowed the number of locally produced amphorae. Singer-Avitz (2010: 188- 190, Fig. 1:1–5) published an updated corpus of Crisp Ware Torpedo Jars, notably 20 complete jars and many partly preserved examples and fragments from Tel Beersheba Stratum II (Iron IIB) in Israel. Reviewing the Iron I-II Phoenician material from Kommos, Bikai (2000: 302) also 131 noted 23 sherds of apparent ‘crisp ware’ fabric, which we cannot definitively attribute to any morphological type.

Figure 49: Iron Age II Distribution of MTC #5 (Aznar Type 9.B1)

132

Table 10. Archaeological Sites in Iron Age II Distribution of MTC #5 (After Ballard et al. 2002: Table 3)

Region Site Site # # of Complete Vessels Rim Fragments Mediterranean Sea Tanit Shipwreck 1 ~ 385 Mediterranean Sea Elissa Shipwreck 2 ~ 396 Syria-Palestine Tyre 1 >1 300 Syria-Palestine Sarepta 2 >1 258 Syria-Palestine Hazor 3 61+ Syria-Palestine Horvat Rosh Zayit 4 3 >25 Syria-Palestine Megiddo 5 169 Syria-Palestine Byblos 6 <10 Syria-Palestine Beth-Shean 7 3 Syria-Palestine Samaria 8 6-7 Syria-Palestine Gezer 9 Present Syria-Palestine Ashdod 10 4 Syria-Palestine Ashkelon 11 >1 Syria-Palestine Gaza 12 Present Syria-Palestine Ruqeish 13 2 Syria-Palestine Arqa 14 Present Syria-Palestine Rass al-Bassit 15 Present Cyprus Kition 1 Present North Africa Carthage 1 Present 30+ Egypt Qurneh 1 At least 1 Italy Pithekoussai 1 1

Examples of Type 9.B.1 forms, paralleling those retrieved from the wrecks, are common but not exclusive to the Levantine coast, and Stager (2003: 161; Fig.10) records evidence of exports to Cyprus (Kition) and north Africa (Carthage), with complete examples also documented in Egypt (Martin 2016a: 124-125). Although Raban (1980: 11) observed that the torpedo jars (MTC #5) remain to be identified in the Aegean, recent fabric analyses have shed light upon the fragmentary Phoenician commercial jar remains from late Iron I and Iron II at Kommos on Crete, demonstrating a Phoenician origin (Gilboa et al. 2015).

Finally, the presence of a miniature Type 9.B.1 (see Appendix I: Pl. 16.E) example at Pithekoussai (off the Italian coast near Naples), together with the discovery of a miniature 9.B.2 example in an Iron II tomb at nearby Cumae (see Figure 29 / Appendix I: Pl. 21), may point to Phoenician trade westward (Martin 2016a: Fig. 41). This plausibly exported Levantine corpus deposited in the western Mediterranean, however, desperately needs to be analysed petrographically and chemically to demonstrate that these fabrics derive from the Levant and Phoenician coast, as oppose to representing production elsewhere or perhaps even very early Punic imitations.

133

5.4 Summary and Conclusion

During the EBA the distribution patterns for exported Combed Ware jars (MTC #1) follow the Nile and clearly reflect the demand of Egyptian elite for the bulk viscous staples of Syria- Palestine. Giza is the primary recipient and area of deposition, representing over half of the complete vessel count with (at least) almost 40 jars and many more fragments. Abusir also has a dozen complete jars and a few more deposited in the tombs at Saqqara (Sowada 2009: Table 4).

By the MBA, Cyprus now provides some evidence for the importation of Canaanite Jars and generally speaking, it appears that the maritime networks underlying the distribution of the MTC #2 have expanded. It is significant that MTC #2 is exported in mass quantities to Egypt (some two million suggested by excavators at the Delta site of Tell el-Dabʿa). While the distribution in Egypt may reflect the contemporary socio-political realities in apparently bypassing the diminished Egyptian state in Upper Egypt, while still reaching Nubia (via the Red Sea?), it is perhaps more likely that this lone example from Buhen was delivered via the Nile. Buhen is not very accessible via the Red Sea, being on the Nile at the first cataract, and there is also evidence of significant contact between the late Middle Kingdom state and Syria-Palestine in the form of sealings from Edfu - a site in southern Egypt on the Nile (Moeller 2012: 116-24).38 Generally this MBA pattern does not necessarily indicate a predominance of maritime trade as opposed to overland routes. Although emporia in the Delta seem to have been a primary focus for imported MTCs from the Levant, there are examples of Canaanite Jars from Memphis, Tell el-Dabʿa, the eastern Nile Delta, Tell el-Maskhuta, the Sinai, and a number of sites clustering around the MK capital. This pattern may also support the prospect of overland trade mechanisms, rather than the primacy of maritime transport.

During the LBA with the expulsion of the Hyksos and the expansion of the Egyptian empire, we see a dramatic increase in the distribution of all jars termed Canaanite, but also specifically with LBA II Type 5.4 (MTC #3), which now reaches the Aegean mainland as well and nearly so far as coastal Libya. Moreover, this type is deposited in two contemporary shipwrecks, especially the Uluburun, reflecting trade of scale in MTC #3. In terms of terrestrial

38 The significant numbers of 'anra' sealings recovered there provide a strong indication of ongoing contact and trade in imported material from Syria-Palestine, where these seals were made (Moeller 2012: 116-24). 134 finds, the port of Ugarit, Minet-el-Beida, is definitely exceptional with the 80 jars excavated in the warehouse there. This equates to half the MTC #3 cargo of the Uluburun shipwreck, which with nearly 150 jars sailing west toward the Aegean, providing tantalizing hints as to scale of exports of this type during the LBA II.

Despite some contraction during the LBA/Iron transition, the distribution of the Iron I Type 5.2 (MTC #4) reveals that some trade with both Cyprus and Egypt is maintained or renewed, while the Aegean appears to no longer be a recipient of Levantine MTCs and their contents. Palaepaphos-Skales on Cyprus denotes the most complete examples of this type from several tombs there, but the total number of vessels imported to Egypt is comparable to that of Cyprus, and even somewhat greater. Of all the periods so far examined, it is possible that the Early Iron Age has some of the most limited archaeological visibility, in addition to contractions in trade that occurred during this transitional period. Nevertheless, we see a concentration of MTC #3 along the Phoenician coast and at Phoenician emporia where it is very likely that this type was manufactured (see Chapter 6).

Finally, with the Iron II, we have the best evidence for renewed export of large scale involving sophisticated MTCs that are standardized for international markets, most notably Egypt, which remains a powerful economic and selective force in the development and growth we see in this ceramic tradition. Deposition within contemporary Phoenician wrecks is profound when compared to that of the LBA, with multiple ships carrying a cargo of exclusively MTCs, numbering in the hundreds (approximately 400 on each ship) and bound for distant markets. Although at this time the distribution patterns of Type 9.B1 (MTC #5), found on the twin wrecks (Tanit / Elissa), reaches the maximum geographic extent of any preceding MTC, it is clear that maritime trade patterns have shifted to a central and west Mediterranean focus, with the colonization of Carthage and north Africa being a probable factor, and the apparent bypassing of mainland Greece.

Already in the EBA, we can see that Egypt was the primary recipient of exported Levantine MTCs. This pattern persists into the MBA and is also visible in the LBA despite an appreciable permeation of the eastern Mediterranean, and again in the Iron I, when quantitatively the MTC vessel counts are dramatically reduced, but the majority of exported MTCs are still making their way to Egypt. By the Iron Age II it appears that the Phoenicians have focused 135 activities outside the Levantine littoral on the west, however, if the Tanit and Elissa wrecks were indeed bound for Egypt, then this would correlate well with the data from all other periods, revealing that the Egyptian state and market forces were among the most powerful selective pressures being exerted on the Levantine coastal centres and their hinterland counterparts. In any case, the role of Egypt is still preeminent in that scholars suggest these later MTCs are standardized to Egyptian units of measure, discussed below in Chapter 7.

These distribution patterns, in all cases, appear to reflect the co-occurring evolution of settlement patterns in these regions, and in some cases, the dendritic nature of trade networks connecting coastal emporia to hinterland production and markets. This is perhaps most evident in the LBA of Syria-Palestine, however, the organic efficiency of this structure and organization may have ensured the development of similar networks around the eastern Mediterranean, and ultimately informed the Phoenician colonization of the western Mediterranean, discussed below in Chapter 8 (Stager 2001: 635).

136

Provenance Studies and Data 6.1 Introduction

The following Chapter will outline the available provenance data for Canaanite and Phoenician MTCs vis-a-vis the aforementioned dominant types utilized for the distribution and spatial analysis undertaken in Chapter 5. As elsewhere, particular focus and attention will be paid to the Late Bronze Age, Iron I and Iron II forms, but an attempt will be made to review all relevant provenance data for each type diachronically, so that patterns in production can be broadly observed, compared and discussed. An emphasis will be placed on petrofabric (petrography) analysis, however, other existing sourcing data (INAA, XRF, etc.) will be included. Discussion will begin with the EBA and Combed Ware jars (MTC #1), followed by MBA and the classic Canaanite jar (MTC #2), the LBA Type 5.4 (MTC #3), the descendant Iron I Type 5.2 (MTC #4), and finally the Iron II MTC par excellence, Type 9.B1 (MTC #5).

6.2 Provenance Data by Chronological Period / MTC Type

Beginning with the earliest MTC form identified in this typology, Early Bronze Age Combed Ware jars (MTC #1), this discussion will move chronologically through all subsequent MTC types highlighted in Chapter 3’s typology, specifically the Middle Bronze Age Canaanite Jar (MTC #2), LBA Type 5.4 (MTC #3), Iron I Type 5.2 (MTC #4), Iron II Type 9.B1 and to a lesser extent, 9.B2 (MTCs #5-6).

6.2.1 Early Bronze Age ‘Combed Ware’ Jars (MTC #1)

As outlined in Chapters 1-4, the large Combed Ware jars (Figure 50) being exported to Egypt during the Old Kingdom provide evidence for the production and use of what may be the earliest Levantine MTC prototype. Fortunately, this large corpus of sherds (Figure 51) and complete and exported jars, have been the subject of both provenience and residue analysis to determine the origin of production and in some cases the identity of the contents (Esse and Hopke 1986; Esse 1991; Greenburg and Porat 1996; Sowada 2009; Wodzinska and Ownby 2011). During this formative period, Egypt exemplified external market forces and was perhaps the singular, most powerful selective force acting on the littoral of Syria-Palestine and the development / formative socio-economic structuring of this region; even settlement patterns (discussed in Chapter 8), which appear to follow dendritic systems connecting hinterland production to coastal emporia 137

(Stager 2001). Indeed, the interests of the more developed Egyptian state played a significant role in focusing production on particular resources and industries in the Levant, as well as the raw materials, commodities and containers that were processed and shipped.

Figure 50: EBA II-III Combed Ware (MTC #1)

Sources: (A): Sowada 2009: Pl. 1.14 (B): Knoblauch 2010:249

Figure 51: Levantine Combed Ware Fabrics, Giza (Wodzinska and Ownby 2011:299)

138

Not only did the developing Egyptian state need timber for construction, but there was also an increasing appetite for bulk viscous staples. The presence of imported ceramic containers testify to this even during the Predynastic, but gradually in greater and greater quantity at important Old Kingdom sites such as Giza in Egypt (Sowada et al. 2019: 1). These elite mortuary contexts, tombs and mastabas, are associated with the importation of oil, resin, and wine, reflecting a prominent role within long-distance trade during the EBA (Reisner 1942, Sowada 2009, Knoblauch 2010). The internment of boats and boats graves associated directly with elite mortuary in Egypt at this time (Abydos and Saqqara, for example) and in subsequent periods (at Giza), suggests that access to maritime transportation and the luxury goods/ exotica it provided was regarded as important and necessary in the afterlife (O’Connor 1991). Moreover, from textual sources we know that the expression jmw n kȝp[ny] or "Byblos-style" ships (Figure 31) is well attested in Egypt, referred to with the technical term kbnt that is first attested in the Old Kingdom, deriving from kbn, the name of Byblos. The term kbnt may have originally meant ships from Byblos or ships trading on the Byblos route, but may have later eventually assumed a more general meaning as a “Byblos style” ship, not necessarily a “Byblian ship” (Kilani 2016: 141).

Turning to the corpus of imported EBA Canaanite Jars, commonly referred to as ‘Combed Ware’ (MTC #1), this prospect is further supported by chemical and petrographic analysis, which indicates that the fabric groups of the jars are Levantine; with more than 50 jars from the EBA II-III recently being examined and sourced primarily but not exclusively to the Byblos region of the central Levant (Sowada 2009: 167). The very early interaction between the port center of Byblos and Egypt is well documented, as is the influence of Egyptian culture and diplomacy on the inhabitants there (Rowlands et al. 1987: 25), and as we will see, there is some consistency in MTC production along the Levantine littoral throughout the Bronze Age, which continues in some regions even into the Iron I-II (Knapp and Demesticha 2016: 45; Martin 2016b: 115-21). A recent petrographic study of imported combed pottery from the Levant, largely dated to the 4th Dynasty, included 36 samples of imported EBA Combed vessels from Giza, Egypt (albeit fragmentary pots), partly from early Old Kingdom tombs of high officials but also the settlement for workers at Heit el-Ghurab. The analysis suggests that there was a primary fabric signature with only some slight variations and indicating production close to Cretaceous formations outcropping in Central Lebanon, Beirut and Tripoli, with no fabrics from the southern 139

Levant identified. The contemporary maritime trade in these ceramics and production centres along the central Levantine coast are thought to reflect the simultaneous need in Egypt for the acquisition of coniferous timbers and more direct connections and routes that appear to have “largely supplanted the diffuse networks of the Early Dynastic period” (Sowada et al. 2019: 1). Thin-section petrography of combed jars in general reinforces the established role of the central Levant as a primary source of such containers during the early Old Kingdom.39

Nevertheless, it is important to note that additional typological, petrographic, and provenance analysis of metallic Combed Ware jars in Northern Israel and adjacent regions suggests that a distinction should be made between the Canaanite Metallic Ware assemblage appearing from Sidon north, as far as Ras Shamra and Sukas: “The latter, while they share many traits... appear as a component of a different assemblage with distinctive non-Canaanite traits, and are similarly made of a different fabric, though of similar quality” (Greenberg and Porat 1996: 12). Similar to the analysis of a corpus of Giza jars by Sowada (2009), this study suggests that some variation in production centers is likely, but with dominant regions being apparent in the petrographic and chemical analysis. In the case of the ‘southern’ Metallic Ware of the region of Palestine, provenience as well as abundance and variation in forms in this ceramic tradition is thought to denote an epicenter in the region of Tell Dan, which is the largest site north of Bet Yerah and the metropolis of the north Jordon Valley. Indeed, the site of Tell Dan reveals the greatest diversity of forms and in the production of these wares (Esse 1991), and hence, it is identified as the likely nexus from which this southern Levantine tradition radiated.

In terms of the corpus of jars exported to Egypt, there is some variation based on physical characteristics, impressions, and surface treatment. While Mazzoni (1985) has argued for a Byblite origin, neutron activation analysis and Proton Induced X-ray and Proton Induced Gamma Emission (PIXE / PIGE) results as yet only partially support this conclusion along with petrographic analysis and some residue analysis of resins (Sowada 1999). Similar to early archaeometric analysis undertaken by Esse and Hopke (1986), there was some clustering in the region of Palestine, but the Byblos region provided the strongest chemical association with the corpus. Correspondingly, the best parallels of the imported Giza Combed Ware jars are found at

39 See also Ownby 2012: 24; Wodzińska and Ownby 2011: 287–293; Köhler and Ownby 2011: 43. 140

Northern Levantine littoral sites, especially at Byblos and Tell Arqa, with the latter now providing evidence for continuity in MTC production and elaborate installations being excavated in recent decades (Thalmann 2010).

Sowada (1999: 167-182) provides the most comprehensive discussion of the Levantine provenance of exported Combed Ware jars and their fabric groups. The results of provenance studies by INAA and PIXE-PIGE for Old Kingdom imported ceramics (Sowada 2009: 178) point to the Byblos region as one major center in the production of exported EBA Combed Ware and the contents of these MTC forerunners. This is perhaps unsurprising based on various lines of archaeological evidence: from iconography (for example, the scenes depicted in Egypt such as Sahure’s Mortuary Temple) to residue analysis revealing fragrant coniferous resins, many of the available indicators support a Byblite origin. Moreover, Neutron Activation Analysis confirmed that the vessel denoting these residues clustered most closely with the Combed Ware sherd material from Byblos (Sowada 2009: 181). Many of the imports subjected to INAA or PIXE- PIGME also clustered congruously among the Byblite comparanda, despite the fact that some EBA Combed Ware was also revealed to have been imported from the southern and central Levant (Sowada 2009: 182).

In Sowada’s view the results, when viewed as a whole suggest that Old Kingdom Egypt sourced imported ceramics from several regions in the Levant, with primary links at Byblos, with connection to northern Israel and the Lebanon persisting.40 Recent analysis of the fabric from more diverse combed ceramics exported from the Levant supports this connection with the central Levant and Lebanon, with no samples being sourced to the southern Levant (Sowada et al. 2019: 11-17). It is probable that the Old Kingdom Egyptian state did the importing, but their interest was of course in the contents of these jars, not the ceramics themselves, which nevertheless also came to embody meaning over time.

40 Genz et al. (2010) have now demonstrated a somewhat wider north Levantine distribution based upon petrography.

141

6.2.2 Middle Bronze Age Canaanite Jar (MTC #2)

The characteristics of the classic Canaanite Jar known from the MBA (Knapp and Demesticha 2016:47; Marcus 2002: 410; Marcus 1995: 601; Raban 1980: 1-8; Parr 1973: 177; Grace 1956) include the most functional attributes of these containers, a simple morphology and design, but strong construction that approached some degree of standardization already during the MBA. Nevertheless, the exported corpus of jars, especially to Egypt, does exhibit some variation and also the quantities deposited during the MBA dramatically overshadow anything witnessed during the EBA’s shipment of Combed Ware jars to Egyptian elite. Particularly at the Delta site of Tell el-Dabʿa, with estimates that sherds from MBA Canaanite Jars number in the millions (Bietak 1996: 20; McGovern and Harbottle 1997: 145). Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis conducted by McGovern (1997) on the MBA Canaanite amphorae from Syria-Palestine and Tell el-Dabʿa, initially suggests a direct connection between MBA Egypt and the “Gaza group of Middle Bronze Age sites” (McGovern 1997: 144), in other words: the southern Levant. However, the petrographic analysis more recently reviewed by Ownby (2012) suggests a much stronger connection to the Byblos region and the Lebanese coast, concluding, based on petrography, that more trade in Canaanite jars occurred with Lebanon than Palestine. Earlier analysis undertaken by Goren reached similar conclusions (Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004).

Indeed, although the INAA analysis assigned the corpus of jars at Tell el-Dabʿa generally to southern Palestine, later petrographic study that included 70 of these same jars examined by McGovern and Harbottle (1997) revealed 11 fabric groups, which actually extended from the southern Levant to the north Syrian coast (Griffiths 2011-12: 160), suggesting that ‘Group B’ jars derived from the coastal plain of Lebanon, and revealing a northern Levantine origin for much of the corpus exported to Egypt (see also Goren 2003). Ownby (2012: 26) also notes 22 Canaanite Jars from Khom el-Khigan (northeastern Delta site near Tell el-Dabʿa) that were analyzed petrographically, with results indicating these vessels were produced in the region of coastal centers ranging from north Syria to a few other possible production centers to the south.

Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission (ICP-AES) and Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectroscopy (ICP-MS) of sherds from the Kom Rabia Canaanite Jars have identified four distinct groups among 56 sample sherds, these distinctive compositions are correlated with the coastal plain around Tell Arqa and Tell Kazel, (north-central Levant), inland 142

Lebanon (possibly Byblos), the littoral region stretching from Akko to Sidon, and lastly, the Carmel coast and the important coastal production center around Tel Dor (Ownby 2010: 178; Ownby and Bourriau 2009: 177-181; Ownby and Smith 2011).

Figure 52: Ownby (2010: Fig.7.2) Map of interpreted provenance areas for major Petrographic Groups 1 through 4

Presently therefore it appears that the majority of Canaanite Jars produced along the Syrian coast did not make their way to the Memphis area, and that jars derived from this region have a conspicuous tendency to be deposited at sites in the northeastern Delta (Ownby 2010: 26; 179-207). Interestingly, there is evidence for some fabrics being represented at both sites, while some of those used at Tell el-Dabʿa were not present at all in the analyzed material from 143

Memphis. Among the more unique fabrics from Tell el-Dabʿa, ‘Group A’41 and ‘Group F’42, were completely absent from the samples from Memphis (Ownby and Bourriau 2009: 182). Some fabrics from Tell el-Dabʿa that were unattested in the Memphite material appear to have been used exclusively in the manufacture of Canaanite Jars, these would include ‘Group C’ from the coastal area around Byblos and ‘Group H’ from the inland of the southern Levant (Cohen- Weinberger and Cohen 2004: 74-75, 78).

The analysis of residues from MBA Canaanite jars from the site of Tell el-Dabʿa that was conducted revealed evidence of wine/grapes in the form of tartaric acid and calcium tartrate, conspicuous chemical signatures found in nearly half of the dozen samples that were tested (McGovern 2000: 74-77). Furthermore, and perhaps not surprisingly based on extant residue analysis from other Canaanite Jar forms, the residues in the same vessels had signatures for pistacia resin, which has of course been speculated as more evidence for the addition of resin to wine to control fermentation and the taste, a key consideration for wine shipped in such ceramic containers (McGovern 2000: 74-77).43 Neutron Activation Analysis undertaken produced controversial results suggesting that some of the vessels with wine residue were manufactured specifically in southern Palestine, as well as Egypt, however, due to problems with the comparanda the region of production was not satisfactorily resolved by this analysis and required petrographic analysis that would not be undertaken until later by Cohen-Weinberger and Goren (2004).

The later work of Cohen-Weinberger and Goren (2004) effectively discounted McGovern’s earlier analysis suggesting the primacy of Southern Palestine in the production of these MTCS, indicating instead that most of the MBA II Canaanite Jars excavated in Egypt derive from a rather elaborate network of Levantine coastal sites (see Figure 53, below), and are by no means relegated to the areas suggested by McGovern. However, as Ownby and Bourriau (2009: 183-184) have suggested, this imported corpus may very well primarily derive from the

41 Group A is thought to originate in northern coastal Syria (see Cohen-Weinberger and Cohen 2004: 71-73).

42 Group F is associated with the Mount Carmel region (Haifa).

43 The re-use of Canaanite jars has also been documented in a number of cases and it remains possible that these vessels originally carried a cargo of resin specifically and were later re-used to transport wine (Ownby 2010: 84). 144 north-central Levant. In sum, Ownby’s review and petrographic / chemical analyses of Canaanite jar samples allowed the majority to be assigned to four likely regions of production: including the Akkar Plain (northern Lebanon) to the coast of northern Palestine (see Figure 52, above; Ownby 2010: Fig.7.2). Nevertheless, petrographic analysis also revealed outlier samples that could only be assigned generally to the Levant. The petrographic results were supported by the compositional data and statistical analysis, but variability in the samples was noted, possibly attributable to chronological factors and/or subtle differences in location of manufacturing centres within a given region, as well as some variability in methods of production.

Figure 53: Map of provenances for petrographic groups A-K (Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004: Fig. 1).

For the purposes of this thesis, the most problematic issues relate to making legitimate correlations between specific MTC forms and regions of production, which can only be very tentatively suggested for a few samples at present (like MTC #3 / Type 5.4, discussed below). Nevertheless, Ownby’s results support that the coastal / central Levant was a primary producer of MBA Canaanite jars, with the majority of samples deriving from Coastal Lebanon, further supporting the conclusions of Cohen-Weinberger and Goren (2004) regarding the origins of the 145 imported ceramics at Tell el-Dabʿa, as opposed to the aforementioned analysis conducted by McGovern (2000). In concluding, Ownby (2010: 256-7) observes that the comparison of MBA and LBA Canaanite jars from Memphis by both petrographic and compositional means, revealed similarities but also differences. Petrographic similarities were observed within some of the MBA and LBA corpus, being assigned to the regions of the Akkar Plain, coastal Lebanon, Haifa Bay, and northern coastal Palestine. Nevertheless, samples within the groups were not all comparable, suggesting that changes occurred in the materials utilized, for example with the LBA Haifa Bay samples produced with Hamra, a material as yet undocumented within the MBA samples. Furthermore, the characteristics of the basalt inclusions and some of the clays were different between the MBA and LBA MTCs attributed to production around the Akkar Plain. ICP and NAA data from both the MBA and LBA groups helped to elucidate some of this variation, confirming that the Akkar Plain groups displayed different resources/combinations, which may be attributable to changes in the site of production for these vessels. Similarly, the samples assigned to northern coastal Palestine showed distinct groups, however, less differences occurred between the MBA/LBA samples attributed to coastal Lebanon. This may suggest more continuity in production and material acquisition in this region. In sum, microscopic data suggest some changes in raw materials occurred between the MBA/LBA.

Interestingly, inland Lebanon and Southern Palestine were not identified in the LBA samples, suggesting that after the MBA these production areas ceased export of MTCs to Memphis. However, it is possible that these shipments simply went elsewhere in the Egyptian state. Areas that had not begun production of MTCs during the MBA appear to have included North-west Syria and Southern Cyprus, both restricted to the LBA.44 In terms of rim forms that could also be assigned to regions of production, there were general similarities in form between samples attributed to the Akkar Plain, coastal Lebanon, and Haifa Bay, while the rim types of Northern Coastal Palestine appeared unique. Apart from the Akkar Plain and Haifa Bay groups, the production of varying rim forms suggests several potters and pottery workshops producing jars within each of the regions. Over time it appears that the MBA rims were simplified and became straighter. Ownby also notes that changes may reflect socio-political developments

44 Examples of MBA Canaanite jars from Tell el-Dabʿa of distinct morphology were sourced to north-west Syria/Cilicia (Cohen-Weinberger & Goren 2004: 71-73). 146 during these periods, some of which had far reaching implications (e.g., the expulsion of Hyksos, Egyptian empire expansion and the colonization of coastal Palestine).

6.2.3 Late Bronze Age / Pedrazzi Type 5.4 (MTC #3)

While MTC #3 (Pedrazzi Type 5.4), the angular-shouldered Canaanite Jar (Killebrew Form CA 22) apparently ceased production amid the population movements and changes that occurred during the twelfth century BCE, the Phoenicians continued to produce their own MTCs in similar fashion with the transition to the Iron Age. Interestingly, we also see some continuity in some production centers along the coast (discussed further below). Nevertheless, given its deposition within two LBA Shipwrecks and the broad distribution of Type 5.4 during the LBA, in many ways this type represents our MTC par excellence of the Bronze Age. It comes as no surprise that very early on, scholars were anxious to demonstrate a more direct connection between LBA Canaanite Jars found around the Mediterranean and the Levant.

Reviewing the available analyses on the LBA corpus of Canaanite Jars, one finds that Raban (1980) was among the first to connect the dots, with the use of Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis. Some ten Canaanite Jars were sampled from Argos, Athens, Menidi, Mycenae, and Pylos, and just as the petrographic analysis of the jars excavated on Crete, the results in each case indicated clay sources in the littoral regions of Syria-Palestine (Raban 1980). Three regions have been indicated specifically: the coastal region between Byblos and Philistia, Akko to Ugarit, and “South Palestine” (Jones 1986: 572).

Gunneweg et al. (1987) carried out NAA and suggested that a Canaanite Jar from Enkomi originated in the southern Levant (perhaps the region of Ashdod), while the combined petrographic analyses and NAA conducted by Goldberg et al. (1986) on sherds from Deir el- Balah that included four Canaanite Jar fragments – suggested that samples were local or made with clays deriving from the southern Levant. This suggestion is at least partly corroborated by the later petrographic analysis undertaken by Sugerman (2000: 143- 144). The petrographic analysis on a corpus of LBA Canaanite Jars from some 11 Levantine sites in the Harvard PhD dissertation of Michael Sugerman (2000) “supports a model of dendritic trade networks linked to port centers in this region during the LBA” and moreover, he stresses the fundamental role of the Canaanite Jar as a transport vessel (Sugerman 2000: 149). 147

Figure 54: Map of proposed assignment for LBA Canaanite Jar petrographic groups based on Smith et al. 2004: Figs. 4.17 and 4.18 (Ownby 2010: 210).

Based upon the much more recent and as yet unpublished petrographic analysis conducted by Ownby (in press) on the corpus of Type 5.4 jars from the Aegean, including Athens Museum no.2925, from the same tomb and of the same type as no.2924 – these jars source to the clay of northern Palestine, near Haifa Bay and Tell Abu Hawam, where a large pottery workshop may have existed under the auspices of Egyptian imperial administration: “For the larger group of samples this may have been the coastal area of northern Palestine, possibly in the area of Haifa Bay, which was the main exporter of amphorae to Memphis in Egypt during the LBA (Ownby 2010: 264-265). The uniformity of the fabrics suggests a specialized workshop, which is characteristic for LBA amphorae (Ownby 2010: 264). In fact, this composition was identified for the majority of the amphorae found in the Uluburun shipwreck, located off the coast of southern Turkey and dating towards the end of the LBA (Ownby 2010: 137, 140; Pulak 1997). Vessels on this ship also derived from Coastal Lebanon and may suggest a link between 148 these amphorae and EAM 5661 that would require petrographic verification. For EAM 2017 its source is unclear and more analysis of LBA amphorae from other parts of the eastern Mediterranean, including southern Palestine, Northern Cyprus and Turkey, may assist in identifying its provenance. Likewise, for all of the eight amphorae from Greece, comparison to other samples is important to establish any connections between jars from various sites and, although kiln material is rare, evaluation of such samples would be necessary to confirm production locations” (M.F. Ownby, personal Communication, 2016). Ownby’s published (2010: 252-257) analyses of examples of Type 5.4 exports to Egypt suggest that most examples originated from the northern Palestinian coast, Lebanon, and perhaps coastal Syria. Having moved well beyond Raban’s (1980) early reports on NAA of Canaanite Jars found in the Aegean, indicating three distinct clay sources along the Levantine coast generally, from Ugarit to ‘south Palestine’ (Raban 1980: 5-6; Jones 1986: 572), this suggestion is now further brought into focus by the work of Smith et al. (2004) and especially Ownby (2010). Indeed, the petrographic and chemical analyses carried out in the past decades all generally point toward the Levantine littoral, with certain coastal regions in the Lebanon and northern Israel being implicated. Ownby (2010: 214-15) notes several plausible candidates for LBA production of Group 2 Canaanite jars from “North Coastal Palestine”, including Jaffa, Dor and Tel Nami East (see also Artzy 1993; Kaplan and Ritter-Kaplan 1993; Stern 1993).

When the distribution is examined for the LBA jars for which the provenance can be established based on the fabric classification of Bourriau (1990b) and the petrographic study of Smith et al. (2004), some interesting patterns are revealed (see Table 11, below). The most common fabric, P11, was found at the majority of sites and with an extensive distribution along the Nile. Also probably manufactured in the Haifa Bay region, fabric P30, is likewise present at many sites throughout Egypt, with fabrics P16 and P40 being the next most frequently identified. Interestingly the rarest of all the fabrics (P31 and P33) appears to derive from the region of coastal northern Palestine and Lebanon. In sum, and as we will see in the case of some other Levantine MTCs, production centers in the Haifa Bay region appear to have been predominant in terms of export. Samples deriving from the area of Haifa Bay (Group 1) were generally of fabrics P11 and P30, and when not just rims but whole vessels are shown, many of the P11 Haifa Bay examples are clearly of Type 5.4 carinated conical forms, or MTC #3 (Ownby 2010: 253; Fig. 7.43) 149

Table 11: LBA Canaanite jars found in Egypt by fabric and provenance and sites (after Ownby Table 3.5) Fabric Provenance Sites P11 Haifa Bay (Group 1) Tell Hebwa IV, Qantir, Memphis, Saqqara (Tombs of Tia and Tia, Horemheb, Pay and Raia, Ramose, and tomb-chapels of Paser and Ra’ia), Amarna, Karnak North, Malkata, Qurna, VofK, Elephantine

P16 Akkar Plain (Group 3) Qantir, Memphis, Saqqara (Tomb of Horemheb), Deir el-Ballas, Amarna, Karnak North, Malkata?, Valley of the Kings, Elephantine

P30 Haifa Bay (Group 1) Qantir, Memphis, Saqqara (Tombs of Iurudef?, Ramose and Pay and Raia), Amarna, Karnak North, Qurna, VofK, Buhen, Serabit el-Khadim

P31 Northern Coastal Palestine Tell Hebwa IV, Qantir, Memphis, Amarna, Karnak North (Group 2) P33 Coastal Lebanon (Group 5) Qantir, Memphis, Karnak North, VofK

P40 Syria and Cyprus (Groups 4 Qantir, Ezbet Helmi, Memphis, Saqqara (Tombs of Tia and Tia, and and 6) Horemheb), Amarna, Karnak North, Luxor, VofK, Buhen

Table 12: New Kingdom Canaanite jars found in Egypt; site, date, context, and fabrics (after Ownby Table 3.6) Site Date/Context Fabrics Tell Hebwa IV Mid-18th Dynasty (funerary) P11, P31 Qantir 19th-20th Dynasty (settlement) P11, P16, P23, P30, P31, P33, P40 Ezbet Helmi Early 18th Dynasty (settlement) P40 Tomb of Horemheb Late 18th Dynasty (funerary) P11, P16, P40 Tomb of Tia and Tia 19th Dynasty (funerary) P11, P23, P40 Tomb of Iurudef 19th Dynasty (funerary) P30, intact so not certain Tomb of Pay and Raia 19th Dynasty (funerary) P11, P30 Tomb of Ramose New Kingdom (funerary) P11, P30 Tomb-chapels of Paser and Raia 19th Dynasty (funerary) P11 Memphis New Kingdom (settlement) P11, P16, P23, P30, P31, P33, P40 Deir el-Ballas Late SIP to early 18th Dynasty P16, P23 (settlement/funerary) Amarna Late 18th Dynasty (settlement) P11, P16, P23, P30, P31, P40 Karnak North New Kingdom (funerary) P11, P16, P23, P30, P31, P33, P40 Malkata 18th Dynasty (settlement) P11, P16? Qurna 19th Dynasty (funerary) P11, P30 Valley Kings 19th – 20th Dynasties (funerary) P11, P16, P30, P33, P40 Elephantine 19th Dynasty (settlement) P11, P16 Buhen New Kingdom (settlement) P30, P40

Regarding the appearance of fabrics at different sites when the context is considered such as settlement, tomb (funerary), etc., the diversity of fabrics appears to be somewhat greater in the case of settlements, apart from Karnak North. Ownby (2010) took this to suggest that the 150 primary purpose of the jar’s contents was for use in everyday life, while the inclusion of such vessels in tombs and funerary contexts was a secondary occurrence. Chronological patterning is difficult to discern, but scholarship has nonetheless attempted to assess the presence of the different fabrics over time (Aston 2004a): Fabrics P31 and P33 are said to appear early in the 18th Dynasty, becoming less common in the later 18th Dynasty, after which time the prevalence of P11, P16, P30, and P40 is apparent; fabrics that continue to appear throughout the 19th Dynasty. Ownby (2010: 94) observes that Canaanite jars dated to the 20th Dynasty in Egypt are much less common, and this change reflects a general decline in importation of Levantine goods, likely symptomatic of increased political instability during the terminal LBA. It should be noted, however, that less pottery is dated to the 20th Dynasty than the 18th or 19th Dynasties in general, reflecting our poor understanding of changes that took place at that time. However, Ownby et al. (2014: 11) undertook analysis of material at Qantir, to clarify the origins of imported Canaanite Jars, revealing similar fabric groups and suggesting that trading partners did not change from the 18th-19th Dynasty. Moreover, specific fabric groups are similar to Group 2 “from the northern coast of Palestine as seen in the LBA Canaanite jars from Memphis and Amarna” (Ownby et al. 2014: 16). Table 13 below compares petrographic groups with identified residues.

Knapp and Demesticha (2016) review a further petrographic analyses of 11 Canaanite Jars from Deir el-Balah that indicated “eight examples (fabric group DB-A1) were locally produced, while the provenance of the other three (fabric group DB-C) could not be identified, even though they “resembled” Egyptian imports (Killebrew 2007: 175-176). Sugerman termed this local fabric (DB-A1) “Group 6”, with Jars of this petrofabric being identified from Deir el- Balah, Ashdod, Lachish, Tel Batash, Tel Miqne and Tel Abu Hawam (Sugerman 2000: 105- 106). Five fabric groups were identified at Tel Miqne (Ekron), three of which were deemed either local or at least regional and were used to manufacture Canaanite Jars analyzed from the site (Killebrew 2007: 176-177), with fabric ME-E from appearing similar to Group 5 discussed by Sugerman, identified in Canaanite Jars from both Tel Miqne and Tel Batash (Sugerman 2000: 104-105). Killebrew’s (2007: 179-180) petrographic analysis of jars from Tel Beth-Shan (2) and Giloh (3) similarly suggested production was local.

Reviewing the LBA data excavated on Cyprus and the origins of Canaanite Jar production there, it appears that type 5.4 was uncommon to Cypriot markets (Figure 47). Pedrazzi (2010: 53) records only one example at Myrtou-Pighades, with another example 151 recently noted from Enkomi (Cateloy 2016: Fig. 5). Conversely, it is the globular types which predominate on Cyprus (Pedrazzi Type 4), which may in some cases have been produced locally and not exclusively imported from the Syrian-Lebanese coast. Knapp and Demesticha (2016: 69- 70) summarize provenance data from the Cypriot corpus of Canaanite MTCs, which are predominantly not of Type 5.4 (MTC #3).45 Regarding jars exported to Egypt, petrography conducted on 52 samples of LBA Canaanite Jars from Memphis and Amarna revealed six different groups (Smith et al. 2004), with additional examples now added by Ownby et al. (2014). Analysis revealed that five distinct groups are consistent with production in the regions stretching from Ugarit (Ras Shamra) in northern Syria, south, to the region around Tel Dor.46

Table 13: LBA Canaanite jar petrographic groups, provenance / identified residues (after Serpico et al. 2003). Group Provenance Residue 1 Haifa Bay Pistacia spp resin

2 Northern Coastal Palestine Pistacia spp resin

3 Akkar Plain Not analyzed

4 Syria Oil, possibly olive oil

5 Coastal Lebanon Oil, possibly olive oil

6 Cyprus Not analyzed

In terms of residue analysis and contents, it is fortunate that many New Kingdom inscriptions document the importation of incense, snṯr, and oil, nḥḥ, from Syria-Palestine, and Serpico (1999: 271) analyzed a corpus of jars with these labels via Gas Chromatography-Mass

45 Though difficult to make typological attributions in all cases, dozens of Canaanite jars have been excavated at Maa Palaeokastro (Hadjicosti 1988), over 84 according to Knapp and Demesticha (2016: 58). Of these, 26 examples were examined chemically and petrographically (Jones and Vaughan 1988: 393), with seven attributed to local production on Cyprus. A similar quantity was excavated at Pyla Kokkinokremos, with analysis suggesting that some of these vessels may be local in production (Georgiou 2014: 176, 186). In Knapp and Demesticha’s (2016: 58) view, “this possibility gains further interest in light of Sherratt’s (1998: 300-301 n. 15, 305) suggestion that some of the oil from the pressing installations known at several Late Cypriot sites, in particular Kalavasos Ayios Dhimitrios and Alassa Pano Mandilares (Hadjisavvas 1992: 21-25) but also Maroni Vournes, Enkomi, Kition and Hala Sultan Tekke, may have been exported in locally-made Canaanite Jars or perhaps even in Group II or IB1 Cypriot pithoi”. Renewed excavations at Hala Sultan Tekke (Fischer and Bürge 2017) and Pyla-Kokkinokremos (Bretschneider et al. 2018) may provide new data and the current picture of MTC data from Cyprus may change, but generally the LBA Canaanite Jars circulating on Cyprus are like those of Tell Kazel: bulbous, Pedrazzi Type 4 (Pedrazzi (2007: 65-70).

46 One group may derive from southern Cyprus (Ownby and Smith 2011: 273-277). 152

Spectrometry (GC-MS), identifying pistacia resin, confirming the importation of this material, utilized as incense.47 Significantly, residue analysis undertaken on objects found in mortuary contexts, mummies and tombs and further suggests that the resin was used in such environments and an important component of burial (Serpico and White 2001; Serpico and White 1998). The same manner of analysis (GC-MS) conducted on the residues in jars (labelled nḥḥ) but of a different fabric from those carrying incense, revealed that these contained oil (Serpico et al. 2003).

When comparing this residue analysis to the petrography data (Table 13), it is suggested that jars sourced to the region along the northern coast of Palestine were among those exporting pistacia spp resin, while the regions of Syria and Lebanon were associated with the export of oil (Table 13, above). This is not surprising, given that the LBA Canaanite jars from the Uluburun shipwreck revealed residues of pistacia resin and were similar in fabric to those found at the site of Amarna that were identified as containing resin (Mills and White 1989; Stern et al. 2008). Importantly, the data appears to suggest a link in some cases, between regions of MTC jar production and the jar’s contents. Some of the jars produced along coastal Palestine were similarly labelled with nḥḥ and the word for honey, bjt (Serpico et al. 2003: 373). Nevertheless, while a certain areas may have focused on exporting a specific commodity, jars of the same type were occasionally used to transport various contents, with reuse also being a consideration.

Of Sixty-eight Canaanite Jars excavated at Kommos on Crete, some good examples have been analyzed (Watrous 1992: 159-161; Rutter 2006: 577-578, 649-653), with approximately half being assigned to five out of the six petrographic groups identified at Memphis and Amarna in Egypt (Smith et al. 2000; Bourriau et al. 2001: 140-144, Figs. 7.9-7.10; Serpico et al. 2003: 368-372; Smith et al. 2004); indicating production along the Levantine coast.48 Another, more recent study utilizing 34 of 68 Canaanite jars from Crete, at Kommos, revealed petrographic and chemical (INAA) profiles associated with production in these same Levantine coastal areas, akin to the majority of vessels exported to Memphis and Amarna (Egypt): (1) the northwestern Jezreel valley; (2) the coast of Israel/south of Haifa; (3) north, between Akko/Sidon on coastal Lebanon;

47 The identification of such pistacia resin in Nile clay bowls near the Great Aten Temple reinforces the conclusion that this imported material was utilized in applicable religious contexts (Stern et al. 2003).

48 An example may have produced in southern Cyprus, or in northwest Syria or Cilicia (Rutter 2006: 652). 153

(4) northern Syrian coast, near Ras Shamra/Ugarit; and finally (5) two samples that may derive from Cyprus’s southern coast (Day et al. 2011: 549 Fig. 11:b, 551, 553). The LBA jars from Kommos form a reasonably heterogeneous corpus, a prospect reinforced by the available Neutron Activation Analysis from Kommos (C7639), which could not be matched to known Levantine groups, despite being identified as derived from Syria-Palestine (Tomlinson et al. 2010: 214, and n. 29).

Moving on to what is perhaps the most important corpus of MTCs, analyses of the nearly 150 Canaanite Jars from the Uluburun shipwreck suggest that ~82% were manufactured with sediments typical of Israel’s Carmel coast (Haifa Bay). A second grouping that comprises ~14% suggests production centers somewhere to the north, along the Lebanese littoral perhaps between Tyre and Sidon (Pulak 2008: 317-318, n. 5; Goren 2013: 57).49 Interestingly, some of the clays used to make the Canaanite Jars from the Uluburun shipwreck appear to match the Fabric Group 1 Canaanite Jars from Egypt at Amarna (Smith et al. 2000; Bourriau et al. 2001). These common sources are suggested to be found in the region of Haifa Bay, perhaps Tel Abu Hawam and Tel Nami (Serpico et al. 2003: 369, 373; Pulak 2008: 319-320, and n. 5).

Reviewing the available provenance data for Pedrazzi’s Type 5.4 reveals there were likely numerous production centers from which this type originated, running almost the full extent of the Syro-Palestinian littoral (Raban 1980; Serpico et al. 2003; Serpico 2005; Killebrew 2007: 173), however, some regions, like that around Haifa Bay, remain consistently present in descendent MTCs as we move into the Iron Age I and the rise of the more explicitly articulated Phoenician MTC #4 (Pedrazzi Type 5.2). In Ownby’s (2010: 98) view, while many excavators and ceramists have studied Canaanite jars from several areas of the eastern Mediterranean, and their utilization for transporting commodities is fairly certain, these vessels still represent an enigma in terms of the exact sites and areas specifically producing them. Their form and distribution argue for a primary place of manufacture in the Levant; supported by the types of commodities they carried that are produced in this region. The few studies of their raw materials

49 Five of the Canaanite Jar fragments (base fragments, perhaps used as lids) were made of a fabric similar to pottery and cuneiform tablets derived from excavations at Ugarit (Goren 2013: 57-58).

154 confirm this impression and have begun to reveal those areas involved in their manufacture (Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004, Smith et al. 2004).

6.2.4 Iron Age I: Pedrazzi Type 5.2 (MTC #4)

Apart from the likelihood of Tel Keisan, in the case of Pedrazzi’s Type 5.5, in the past it has been difficult to identify specific production centres due to a paucity of petrographic and chemical analyses. However, this is no longer the case, with emergent petrographic data from the Haifa–Akko Bay area and sites like Dor, Keisan and Qasile revealing these regions are among the production centres for Type 5.2 (Waiman-Barak 2016: 98; 151; 166; 178), the dominant exported Levantine MTC of the Iron I. Furthermore, the transition between these forms is visible in the stratigraphy at Dor (see Figure 27; Raban 2000: 334. numbers.7.18.19.20). Carinated jars of this type are common to Dor, and also known to be produced in the Akko Bay area and imported from the Carmel Coast (Waiman-Barak 2016: 178). The 30 litre jars were produced in two main types – wide and narrow, the narrow type, referred to as the 'Avner jar', is the most prevalent form found offshore at Dor and Qasile (Waiman-Barak 2016: 190; Fig. 139).

Figure 55: MTC #4 (Type 5.2) Analysis (Waiman-Barak 2016: Fig. 60). Dor find from the lagoon, Carinated Jar of approximately 30 litres capacity, imported from the Haifa–Akko Bay Area ('Avner Jars').

Waiman-Barek (2016: 103) notes that in the Ir1b – Ir2a horizon, carinated jars, largely of this type, continued to be manufactured at Dor. Elsewhere on the Phoenician coast, it is almost 155 certain that this distinct descendent of the LBA MTC #3 (Type 5.4) was also manufactured at Sarepta’s extensive production centre as theorized during its excavation (Anderson 1987: 43-44). Anderson (1987: 44) suggested production in the Kiln G complex at Sarepta in Lebanon, where hundreds of jars, stacked in intercalated layers, could have been fired at the same time (Anderson 1989: 203-204). Aston (1996: 86) describes the fabric of the latter of the two chronologically diagnostic forms as “Levantine in origin”, whilst analyses suggest production in the region of Dor and Keisan (Paula Waiman-Barak 2016: Fig. 60; Martin 2016: 112). In discussing several examples of exported type 5.2 jars found in Egypt, Aston (1996: 86, Fig. 234d) describes the fabric of the Amarna examples and shows them to have been produced in the Levant.

It is worthwhile taking note of Bettles’ (2003b: 73) petrographic analyses of 30 “carinated-shoulder amphora” sherds from Sarepta. These vessels, dating from the Late Iron Age to the Persian period (ca. 1000-332 BCE), as well as similar examples from 21 southern Levantine coastal sites, suggest that MTC production indeed took place at Sarepta. According to Anderson (1989: 199), the ceramic industry at Sarepta operated without disruption for over a millennium, covering an area of some 3000 m2, with more than one hundred kilns. All this lends weight to his conviction (Anderson 1987: 43-44) that MTC #4 jars were produced at Sarepta during the transition to the Iron Age. Nevertheless, because the relationship between specific morphological types or variants and their production centres remains uncertain, at present Dor and Sarepta remain among the best candidates along the Phoenician coast. Bettles’ (2003b) petrographic study suggests that carinated shoulder amphorae were continually produced at Sarepta, while Aznar’s (2015) thesis traces two jars of the carinated Type 5.5 to Keisan.

MTC #4 (Type 5.2) is a coastal form from the Levant, not found at hinterland sites (Figure 48), which in particular shows the strongest continuity in maritime trade connections, being found at Iron I Tarsus in coastal Anatolia (Cilicia), Palaepaphos-Skales on Cyprus – where tombs boast some of the largest quantities of complete Phoenician MTCs deposited during the Iron I, and throughout Egypt in various elite contexts like Amarna, which actually displays continuity in the importation of LBA and Iron I Levantine MTCs (Type 5.4 – Type 5.2).50 The

50 This example found in the early excavations at Amarna may appear to signal an LBA form due to the chronology and LBA occupation of the site, however, Woolley (1923:136) states that the parallel from Amarna was from the River Temple and therefore could occur both in the Akhenaten period and later; later being highly probable given 156 contemporary Type 5.7, for which we have no provenance data, also suggests similar patterns and continuity in Egyptian trade, as the only complete exported example was excavated at Deir el-Medina, identical to examples from the Levant, where this type is clearly a coastal tradition like type 5.2, found at Tyre and Sarepta. These two types are also among the primary candidates for morphological and technological continuity in MTC production in the Levant from the LBA into the Iron I, with descendent conical forms carrying on into the Iron II and Iron III periods.

6.2.5 Iron Age II / Aznar Type 9.B1 (MTC #5)

That two 8th century Phoenician wrecks carried approximately 800 of these “purpose built marine containers” (Ballard et al. 2002: 159), more recently defined as vessels “primarily made for marine transportation” (Finkelstein et al. 2011: 257), should signal their pre-eminence as an MTC and their role within international markets. The production of some MTC forms has been associated, by means of petrography, with specific coastal centres such as Tel Keisan, Sarepta, and Tyre, the latter providing kiln wasters of this type. Aznar’s (2005) work indeed suggests that her Type 9.B1 (variants 2-3) was made at Sarepta, with variants 4a-c made at Tyre; the former is the same type as the vessels recovered from the Iron II Phoenician wrecks (Ballard et al. 2002; Stager 2003). Petrographic analyses have demonstrated that three of these vessels are compatible with the ferruginous clays of the Lebanese coast (Goren and Halperin 2004: table 36.4:8–10).

The distribution of Phoenician style, if not Phoenician MTCs in the west, albeit limited, supports this suggestion, with such sherds found at the emporia of Kommos, dated to not before 875 BCE, that have now been definitively sources to the Levant and Phoenicia (Gilboa et al. 2015). The compositional data indicate that most of the jars are from Lebanon, specifically from the southern coast (Gilboa et al. 2016). Reviewing the Iron I-II Phoenician material from Kommos, Bikai (2000: 302) was the first to note 23 sherds of apparent “crisp ware” fabric, which did not stand apart chemically from the rest of the Phoenician material there, now definitively sourced to the Phoenician coast, with petrographic and chemical analyses indicating

that excavations at Amarna indicated that a stone structure built there during the reign of Ramesses III (1186–1155 BC) served as a quarry for the later River Temple (Aston 1996: 43). 157 that most of the jars are from southern coastal Lebanon, e.g., in the area between Tyre and Sidon (Gilboa et al. 2015).

MTC #5-6 (Type 9.B1 / 9.B2) are also found in western Punic colonies like Pithekoussai off the coast of Italy and even in elite tombs at Cumae, a distribution that clearly points to Phoenician westward activities, if not an expansion. However, we still need clay analysis to be undertaken upon that roughly contemporary material.

6.3 Summary and Conclusions

In keeping with Stager’s concept of port power (discussed below in Chapter 8), which has proven relevant to the settlement patterns of this region throughout the Bronze and Iron Age, highlighting the connection between coastal emporia and their hinterland production centres (or MTC distribution in the context of export), we should anticipate increasing evidence for distinctive production centres for these jars along both the coast and in the interior agricultural regions wherein the contents (Table 4), the bulk viscous staples like wine, oil, resin, etc., were derived, before being transported to the coast and perhaps decanted further into vessels more suitable for maritime shipment in the hull. This prospect becomes increasingly well evidenced as we approach the LBA and the proliferation of conical forms, with known production tied to the coast, and eventually at centres with large kiln complexes like that at Sarepta (Anderson 1987: 44; 1989: 203-204).

Table 14 below, summarizes much of the available petrographic data, beginning with the EBA material, wherein these nascent processes first began. The EBA evidence is more complicated, but existing scholarship supports a production region for the southern Levantine metallic Combed Ware tradition in the region of Tell Dan, while also recognizing that other centres along the Lebanese and Syrian coast played a role in producing these jars (Porat and Greenberg 1996). Though the available analysis of the earliest exported Combed Ware jar forms reveal some fabric groups originating from the littoral of Syria-Palestine, the EBA data does not as yet reveal any singular or definitive production centres along the coast, though certainly in reconstructing their manufacture and export, several sites are implicated and make attractive candidates, particularly those like Ras Shamra (Ugarit), with abundant deposition in the context of a large oilery (Schaeffer 1939: Fig. 3), and Arqa, with many complete vessels now documented (Thalmann 2010: 90, Fig. 7). 158

Certainly, by the time of the MBA (MTC #2) we see some more consistency in petrographic data from the corpus exported to and deposited in Egypt, which nevertheless also reflects production extending from the southern Levantine coast, north to Syria. It is not really until the Late Bronze Age, with the emergence of Type 5.4 (MTC #3), that we see the most telling maritime distribution (also present in quantity on both contemporary shipwrecks). The available data, although suggesting some heterogeneity, begins to point to major production centres in the region of coastal Lebanon / Israel, with the Carmel coast, Haifa Bay, and perhaps the site of Tell-Abu-Hawam specifically hosting a large production center during the time of Egyptian imperialism and hegemony (M.F. Ownby, personal communication, 2017).

Moving to the Iron Age and the rise of the Phoenician city-states, despite the events of the LBA/Iron transition which caused some change and disruption to international trade, the dominant production regions for MTCs in the LBA, clays of the Lebanese coast and those of coastal northern Palestine (Haifa Bay), remain largely reflected in exported MTC exemplars of the Iron Age I. This is despite some regionalization in the production of certain types (globular forms continuing to be produced along the northern Syrian Coast and angular, carinated forms throughout coastal Phoenicia). Type 5.2 (MTC #4), which effectively evolves from 5.4 (MTC #3), is similarly thought to have been produced along the Levantine coast, but now concentrated in Phoenician city-states like Dor, where complete examples have been found in the harbour and in an Iron I wreck deposited there, and Sarepta where excavators theorized mass production of this type in the elaborate kiln complex. In essence, this diagnostic Iron I form is simply a more Phoenician version of the carinated and conical LBA Canaanite jar, with little difference save for the lowering of the neck, while retaining the basic conical morphology. Significantly, the distribution is exclusively littoral, save for a single example from Jordan (Pritchard 1980: Fig. 3:1). Analysis of the fabric of this type suggests some local production in the region of Dor, where our only known Iron I wreck also carried this MTC.

By the time of the Iron II, evidence from underwater archaeology and the twin Phoenician wrecks, suggests that Type 9.B1 (MTC #5), the so called ‘crisp ware’ or ‘torpedo jars’, have come to predominate in what appears to be similar respects as type 5.4 during the LBA (deposited in the LBA Uluburun and Geledonya wrecks). Similarly, these Iron II jars from the 8th century Phoenician wrecks were also sourced petrographically to the Phoenician coast. However, despite production postulated at Tyre, where kiln wasters are found (Bikai 1978: 13; 159

Aznar 2005), it is clear that examples of this morphological type were also manufactured at other sites and traded widely, suggesting that coastal emporia either decanted or in the least also produced their own jars for export onto international markets via maritime trade, as first suggested by Raban (1980: 9). Based upon diachronic review of the petrographic and chemical sourcing data available, the limited shipwreck data available, as well as the general distribution of these later types and their apparent standardization – the evolution of these MTCs appears to have been a technological, economic and commercial effort that played a role in the development of settlement patterns throughout Syria-Palestine. These MTCs were ultimately destined for and driven by regional and international markets, such as Egypt, with which connections remained strong despite the events of the terminal LBA and the restructuring of regional power, economic interests and maritime activities. This continuity is further supported by the standardization of MTCs bound for such markets by the time of the Iron II, a standard which was apparently Egyptian (Finkelstein et al. 2011), a region which continues to be a prominent destination of export, sourced to production centres along the Phoenician coast.

Table 14: Summary of Provenance Data Time period / MTC Suggested provenance Study Sources EBA Predominantly Byblos region, to NAA and PIXE-PIGME Sowada (2009: 173- 182; MTC #1 a lesser extent Syria-Palestine Table 10) also cf. Esse and Hopke (1986) Northern Levant Petrography Genz et al. (2010) Locally produced Sixth Dyn. Egyptian imitations (Abusir) Petrography Barta (2009) MBA Coastal / central Levant region / Petrography Ownby (2010) MTC #2 Lebanon Cohen-Weinberger and Goren (2004) South /coastal Palestine INAA McGovern (2000) LBA Northern Palestine, near Haifa Petrography Ownby and Cateloy MTC #3 Bay and Tell Abu Hawam (unpublished) Goren (2013) Israel’s Carmel coast (Bay of Petrography Pulak (2008) Haifa) Bourriau et al. (2001) Coastal regions in the Lebanon Petrography Smith et al. (2000) and northern Israel, Haifa Bay

‘Ugarit to south Palestine’ NAA Raban (1980) Iron I Akko Bay Area – Carmel Coast. Petrography Waiman-Barak (2016) MTC #4 Dor Qasile and Keisan? - Sarepta kiln G Anderson (1987) Iron II Sarepta / Tyre Petrography Aznar (2005) MTC #5-6 Lebanese coast (ferruginous Petrography Goren and Halperin clays) (2004) 160

Physical Mechanics and Strength: MTC Morphology and Shape 7.1 Introduction

This chapter will use basic mathematics (calculus and geometry) to describe and explain the changing morphology of Levantine MTCs, especially as it relates to their function. Over time, we see a trajectory away from more structurally vulnerable and geometrically crude, flat-based forms, toward MTCs displaying a pyriform / conical base. This occurs first as a small feature or stub during the Bronze Age, but ultimately in well-articulated cones with parabolic features by the LBA II. By the Iron II, beyond the cylindrical MTC #5 (9.B1) that is a very specialized form for specific voyages / environments, there is also a frequent lowering of the maximum diameter, most apparent in the morphology of MTC #5 (9.B2). This trajectory is already visible in the larger corpus of Phoenician commercial jars during the Iron I (especially Type 16, see Pl. 14: A- C).

These changes relate to several things: 1. Production in sophisticated workshops and kilns. 2) The increasing need for standardization for regional and international markets. 3) The physical properties of the vessel structure and the ability of cylindrical, conical, parabolic forms to better distribute weight and vertical load (like an arch), but also the physical force (any force acting on the entire cargo, for example choppy seas), especially when nested. 4) To maximize the volume of cargo that can be transported in a given shipment while minimizing breakage and losses. Indeed, the function of these ceramic vessels is revealed by important changes in their morphology, which can be viewed over time (see full discussion below).

7.2 The evolution of the MTC: Reliability as an index of maritime trade and function revealed by changing morphology

The Typology outlined in Chapter 3 reveals the diachronic evolution of Canaanite and Phoenician style MTCs, from the Early Bronze Age, down through the Iron I-II, with some evidence as to the continued production and development of descendent and related forms by Mediterranean societies into the Iron III, Classical and Roman periods (see Figure 26 / Appendix I and compare with Figure 68, below). This continuity raises many issues, most recently reviewed by Leidwanger and Knappett (2018), posing the question of how can there be such 161 continuity when the underlying trade networks are surely very different in EBA III and the later Iron Age?

As discussed in the history of scholarship (Chapters 1-2) this potential relationship, this continuity, was theorized by Grace (1956; 1961; 1979) long ago when comparing Phoenician and Canaanite amphorae with later Classical material, later profoundly impacted by the work of Raban (1980) on the so called ‘commercial jar’ in the Near East. The latter thesis began to add substantively to burgeoning typological distinctions, more precise assessment of distribution patterns and finally the incorporation of chemical analysis and some provenance data. The discourse on Mediterranean containerization benefitted greatly from the diachronic overview undertaken by Raban. Decades later, this early diachronic overview has been thoughtfully and illustratively expanded upon by Bevan (2014) in his review of Mediterranean containerization from the Bronze to the Iron Age and even contrasted with the wholly modern phenomenon of container ships (see also Levinson 2006). The past two decades of scholarship have begun to see such “commercial jars” isolated as something more than transport or storage amphorae, per se, and described as explicitly articulated “purpose-built marine containers” (Ballard et al. 2002: 159) or as vessels “primarily made for marine transportation” (Finkelstein et al. 2011: 257), with Martin (2016a: 119-29 and 2016b: 121-23) elucidating specific continuities in forms and function, further expanded on below.

Generally, we see a trend toward conical vessels and bases that could properly distribute the weight, force and a vertical load of such cargos (see discussion of parabolic forms below), with controlled firing technologies and novel construction methods (MTC #5), and gradually often featuring an apparent lowering of the maximum diameter (MTC #6). These innovations helped to create shipping containers capable of transporting bulk staples (particularly heavy liquids) over great distances and in unprecedented shipments of scale, reflecting some degree of standardization to international markets (Egyptian) by the Iron II (see Finkelstein et al. 2011).

Early flat bottomed prototypes manufactured during the EBA period would have focused the load on the bottom edge of the ceramic and made this a likely fracture point, while in conical MTCs #3-4 (Type 5.4 and 5.2) and cylindrical/conical MTC #5-6 (Type 9.B1-2) we can observe morphological changes that have a basis in physics and geometry, which help to characterize the 162 properties that make these shapes and their parabolic profiles so useful in engineering and architecture (Stewart et al. 2011: 761), not just volumetric standardization.

Figure 56: A. Graphic representation of Parabola (after Vince 2019: Fig. 10.8) B. Conic Section showing Parabola (after Davis 2012: Fig. 10.4.1) C. Approximation of Parabola within a 3-Dimensional conical form (MTC base)

-Drawings by the author

Figure 56 helps clarify how a parabola is generated and the basic form it takes. Conic sections (B) are defined by these curves (these parabola), which intersect a plane and a right circular cone. Interestingly, conic sections were studied by the Greeks in antiquity and Apollonius of Perga wrote On Conics (volumes I-III) in the 2-3rd Centuries BCE (Densmore 1998). Conic sections are the nondegenerate curves produced by the intersections of a plane with one or two nappes of a cone. In the context of these fired ceramics, the curve produced would be classified as either an ellipse or a parabola, while the curve produced by a plane intersecting both nappes is a hyperbola, which displays similar properties while being oriented differently within a conical form (Hilbert 1999: 8-9). Parabolas can be described mathematically (Vince 2019: 175- 6), and material surfaces defined by this geometry will possess the increased strength that potters, engineers or architects had to achieve.

In terms of basic geometry, the MTC #2 (MBA) was ovoid and had some parabolic elements to its rounded form (akin to graphic representation in Figure 56: A), while MTC #3 (LBA) was even more so in that it was conical or conical and ovoid when larger volume. MTC #4 continued this basic morphology into the Iron I and by the Iron II we see MTC #5 (9.B1) with its cylindrical form and arched conical base. Finally, MTC #6 (9.B2), lowers the maximum diameter to produce a shape that is conical, but composed of essentially a more rounded 163

(parabolic) cone (see Figure 56: C, which approximates this shape). In sum, this parabolic geometry can exist within / help strengthen a number of forms, but the most highly parabolic - the shape composed of the most parabola, would be the rounded conical form of MTC #6 (Type 9.B2). This shape would also allow the potter to achieve significant vessel strength without the addition of more material, as it is not simply by virtue of the amount of clay used that these pots were strong, but rather their essential morphology and the firing technologies utilized. Apart from the increasing significance of high firing temperatures in a controlled kiln environment, it is likely this parabolic, conical morphology that was most essential to the physics of MTC vessel strength and durability.

These kinds of shapes and structures featuring parabolic elements or morphology are still prominent in architecture and even containers in the modern day (especially in the storage and transport of liquids), increasing strength through appropriate distribution of weight and force (see below). These arches, arched cylinders and conic sections, better diffuse impacts and external force, but are generally going to be stronger than shapes built with a simpler geometry. The parabolic/ conical structure of jars, like an arch of a Roman aqueduct, is better designed to carry a load. In the context of amphorae and their precursors, these shapes diminish the risk of fracture and breakage, while allowing for more complex nesting and stacking formations, which is also essential. Maritime transport presents unique environs and conditions, and thus we see that these morphologies lend themselves to stacking within the hulls of ships as implied by existing archaeological data (discussed in Chapter 5, see Figures 37 and 41), as well as kilns during mass firing as suggested by Anderson at LBA-Iron I Sarepta (Anderson 1989: 203-204), or in shipping yards as at LBA Ugarit (Figure 36).

7.2.1 Ceramic Materials and Physics: Weight versus Stress (Stress = Force/Area)

Weight always acts downward, so the angle the surface makes with the fluid will affect how it counteracts the weight and stresses the structure. If the bottom is flat, then the force acts completely perpendicular to the surface and is equal to the force of the weight. If it is at an angle, there’s two components: 1) perpendicular to the surface 2) along the surface. These sum together to equal the downward force. In this case, both counteracting forces are always perpendicular to each other, making a right triangle. So, the sum of the squares of the components counter-acting 164 the downward force are equal to the square of the downward force. In this way, you reduce the component acting perpendicular to the surface, and this reduces the compression stress on the MTC. Following this, the bulbs or point is at the base, where we might predict - as this is exactly perpendicular to the force of the weight. Also, since it is in the middle, it will have the highest amount of weight/force acting on it, therefore it would also have to be the thickest part of the vessel (which is often the case for the LBA. EIA and Iron II), to withstand the weight. The base at the middle is often made extra thick to act against that larger stress on the center component but is able to get thinner as you move up the wall of the jars. Assuming shear stress is not an issue and that the actual weight of the fluid (or contents) inside the MTC is significant enough, the aforementioned physics should apply.51

Figure 57: Sketch of reduced force / physical stress / compression in parabolic MTC forms

-Drawing by the author

Weight, however, is different than force, and this is perhaps why we have both the cylindrical MTC #5 (9.B1) and the more parabolic MTC #6 (9.B2). In the context of rough seas, in order to absorb force, something needs to happen to the structure of the entire load (in this case, the MTC cargo in the hull of a ship). If the MTCs cannot deflect or yield (the force), the

51 The other component of physics acting in this context is shear stress, that describes how a material substance behaves when parallel internal surfaces slide past one another, for which this sketch does not account. It’s difficult to say how well ceramics act in shear. Ceramics are very strong in compression and in terms of material sciences most common failure would probably result from a form being too thinly walled. 165 only possible outcome is fracture. So, what is necessary in this instance, for successful shipment of large quantities of MTCs, is the ability of that cargo to act as a unit and transfer load (like the cylindrical MTC #5). So, as they are nested/stacked into groups, the jars on top will transfer their load to the jars below. Of course, as the height of the stacked MTCs increases, as must have been the case in the 400 MTCs in each of the Tanit and Elissa shipwrecks - the jars below would be sequentially supporting more load. If the surface in contact is small, then the load is being focused on a small point, which increases stress (stress = force/area). If the point is too small, like say the walls of bulbous jars coming into contact at a single point (see the hypothetical reconstruction of this in Figure 61 below) - it will likely fracture the jar beneath it. Or if there is a section in the jar that is too thin walled, the same applies (fracture in a small section). In this context, the strength is derived from there being large surfaces in contact with each other, under which circumstances it is MTC #5 or Type 9.B1 that would function optimally.

Figure 58: MTC #5 (Aznar Type 9.B1) Figure 59: Reconstruction of stacking

Source: Ballard et al. 2002: 160 Source: Stager 2003: 241

Figure 60: MTC #6 (Aznar 9.B2) Figure 61: Reconstruction of hypothetical stacking

166

Both shapes are still suitable for the use of nets to carry amphorae individually or for nesting the MTCs into sand or other ballast in the hulls of ships. Nesting refers to fitting shapes within shapes, so not simply securing a foundation in some substrate, but the intercalated layers of stacked jars are essentially nested. The same applies to vertical stacking during production (firing), storage or transport. The transition from the LBA forms like MTC #3 (Type 5.4) with its tall neck, to the reduced, vestigial neck on forms of the early Iron Age (MTC #4) and Iron II may have assisted with this but must also signal some change in sealing practices after the LBA and could also be a reflection of the stored products revolution of the first millennium BCE / efforts to reduce oxidation (Bevan 2019: 136). The question of why we see both the dedicated cylindrical morphology present in MTC #5 and the more parabolic conical shape of MTC #6 suggest they are designed for somewhat different conditions, which in the case of the relatively short-lived MTC #5 seems to have been facilitating unprecedentedly large homogenous shipments of scale, traveling great distances on the open sea. Conversely, MTC #6 may have functioned more broadly as later amphorae did, hence why many of the same features continue to be recalled in later examples (compare Figure 60 with 62-63).

Figure 62: “Greek form of pithos” (Tarsus) Figure 63: Button shaped amphorae base (Rhodian)

-6th Century BCE -1st or 2nd Century BCE.

Source: (Goldman 1963: Ill 1280) Source: (Tsatsaki and Nodarouf 2014: Fig. 16-17)

7.2.2 Ceramic Materials and Physics: Nesting

Nesting refers to putting shapes into shapes, which in this context, as it applies to MTCs, refers to the ability to stack them on one another and to form a foundational layer at the base (in this case the hull / non-horizontal surface), upon which more MTCs can be set and layered in intercalated stacks. Ceramics have specific properties that can change with thickness, 167

morphological variation or the degree of firing, however any movement of MTCs is an opportunity for fracture and generally speaking, ceramics do not handle impact well. If the jars are not held tight (see Figure 59, above), they will shake in place as the ship lists and rolls, possibly causing fracture, certainly scratching and chipping. In this scenario, the load is transferred to the bottom layer of jars and increases with each layer of MTCs. Ergo, if you can fit more in each layer of the stack (compare Figure 59 to 61), you might be able to remove an upper layer and still ship the same volume, while reducing the stress of the load on the bottom most layer. Surely these are the kinds of considerations faced by those shipping MTCs around the Mediterranean in antiquity: To load as much cargo as possible, but not too much…

As aforementioned, the earliest EBA MTC prototypes, with their flat bottoms and handles at the sides, would not have lent themselves to stacking or nesting and would have been more prone to breakage (sheering off the flat bottom). The MBA Canaanite jar’s more bulbous morphology corrects this propensity. The handles remain, but gradually move from the middle in the EBA and MBA, to the top over the course of the Bronze -Iron Age, and by the time of the Iron I we see they are positioned at the top of the MTC, where they will remain (Figure 2). By the Iron II, MTC handles ultimately become vestigial and probably represent design elements directed at the use of ropes, unlike for example, the large handles that are highly functional in LBA MTCs or later Classical era amphorae (though they do remain located at the top of the vessel). But why this trajectory toward conical and cylindrical morphologies? The answer to this question lay not simply in the strength of these ceramic containers, but in the predictable mathematical relationship between these three-dimensional shapes and their volume.

7.2.3 Standardization or Strength? Examining the prevalence of conical and cylindrical MTC morphology

One of the primary questions put forth in my earlier works (Martin 2016a; 2016b) was whether or not the evolution of conical and cylindrical MTCs related to standardization or vessel strength/ MTC adaptation (Martin 2016a: 120), for which I surmised it was multi-factorial. However, in this chapter I will move beyond this unanswered question and provide very compelling evidence that although the desired attributes of a durable and practical MTC were important, this trajectory towards conical and cylindrical forms, beginning in the LBA II and continuing throughout the Iron Age, has a fundamental basis in mathematics and must reflect the increasing 168 need for some degree of standardization. Especially as the scale of shipments continued to increase, along with the economic force of regional and international markets. In short, using basic geometry, one can infer that even in antiquity, it was known that there was a predictable relationship between diameter (width) / height of cylindrical and conical forms and their resulting volume. Even if the potters in a highly specialized workshop did not apply ancient calculus – the general relationship between cones and cylinders may have been known, as well as the predictable volumetric effect that modifying the MTC’s diameter or radius would have – if height remained constant, or vice versa (discussed below).

7.2.4 Predicting the volume of conical and cylindrical MTCs in Ancient Canaan / Egypt

What’s interesting about both of these three-dimensional forms, a cone and a cylinder, is that the formula to predict and calculate their volumes is very basic and very similar. The volume of a cylinder is (pi) x (radius squared) x (height) or (π × r2 × h), while the volume of a cone is: (1/3) π × r2 × h. Basically the volume of the cone is 1/3 of a bounding cylinder, shown below in Figures 64-65 below. The first calculation of π was thought to have been done by Archimedes of Syracuse (287–212 BCE), by approximating the area of a circle and reaching a close approximation to π. However, the Rhind Papyrus (ca.1650 B.C.E.) reveals that by the Middle- Late Bronze Age, and during the time that these conical MTCs began to be produced, the Egyptians had already calculated the area of a circle by using a formula that similarly gave the approximate value of π (Clagett 1989). Moreover, in this ancient document, it is clear that the Egyptians knew how to calculate the volume of certain shapes, like a cylinder (grain silos). Apart from the textual evidence supporting the application of this kind of mathematics by the time of the mid-late Bronze Age, it seems very likely that already in the Old Kingdom, the Egyptians knew how to calculate or approximate the volume of a pyramidal structure, which is simply: Volume = (1/3) Length x Width, or Length X width / 3.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that ancient Canaanites knew the precise formula for calculating the volume of a cone: (1/3) π × r2 × h, but, like Archimedes’ later approximation, they may have known how to approximate (as the Egyptians did with π), and therefore how to generally standardize the volume of conical forms by controlling the height and/or the diameter/circumference (Martin 2016b: 119). It’s possible that in large pottery workshops that 169 emerged during the New Kingdom, if not earlier, it was known that the volume of a conical MTC would be about 1/3 the area of a circle x Diameter (of the cone) x Height (of the cone), but as we will see below, all the potter really needed to know was that if the height of the rough cones being thrown on the wheel is constant, the volume of the container could be increased in a predictable manner by increasing the diameter by 50% or by doubling it. This may be why, especially amongst large shipments or deposits of the conical LBII MTC #3, it is often noted that the height of these vessels is very consistent, frequently around 55cm (see Monroe 2016: Fig. 4).

Figure 64: Calculating the volume of a conical form (1/3) π × r2 × h

Figure 65: Calculating the volume of a cylinder (π × r2 × h)

-Drawings by the author

Early attempts to standardize conical or cylindrical forms into basic volumes that could be consistently reproduced would have benefited from the basic geometry demonstrated in the 170

MBA Rhind papyrus, but required at a bare minimum only that you know the height and diameter (or radius) of the cone, to begin to anticipate, for example, a minimum doubling or quadrupling of volume with some degree of accuracy. This would not have been wholly precise, but it would have allowed for containers to be mass produced that the potter could at least say guaranteed a certain minimum volume. The smaller the container, the less that subtle differences in the conical body would impact volume, so in this way we should expect more uniformity in smaller conical forms and less apparent standardization in the much larger containers, which is exactly what we see: “the smallest jars show the greatest consistency in their capacity” (Monroe 2016: 88). It is likely that in a large, specialized, LBA Egypto-Canaanite pottery workshop, that Egyptian geometry was utilized to manufacture standardized containers for shipments of scale and organized resource extraction, but more certainly, we can say that by this time it must have been known that the conical container’s volume would be a predictable function of the cone’s diameter (width) and height and that this principle would have allowed for MTCs of different minimum volumes to be produced and replicated, even in the absence of precise mathematics.

7.2.5 Predicting volume based on manipulation of height and or radius/diameter in cylinders: π × r2 × h

This section is very relevant to the manufacture of MTC #5 (9.B1), which was made in cylindrical sections and is represented in twin Phoenician shipwrecks transporting mass shipments (probably of wine) and in MTCs that approach appreciable standardization in form and volume. As aforementioned, in order to calculate the volume of a cylinder, you would use the formula (Volume = π × r2 × h). In the formula, the radius is being squared. Nevertheless, it’s more likely that in antiquity, such concepts were communicated using something like diameter or width, and perhaps not explicitly formulaic. The potter could understand or discover that if you increased the diameter of these shapes in a specific manner, there would be an accompanying, predictable increase in volume that could be replicated in the production of increasingly standardized MTCs of this shape.

7.2.6 Predicting volume based on manipulation of height and/or radius/diameter in Cones: (1/3) π × r2 × h

For the cone, the same applies. Therefore, in a conical or cylindrical form potters likely knew that controlling the radius (or diameter) was a very precise and powerful mechanism for 171 controlling the volume at predictable ratios. The volume increases/decreases by the square of the radius and linearly with the height. For example, if they wanted at least double the volume, they just needed to increase the radius by half (50%). The radius is raised to the power of two, so when the radius is doubled, the value / volume is quadrupled. Similarly, and more likely, if you increase the diameter by 50%, say from 20cm to 30cm, you are guaranteed a volumetric increase of approximately double. The ratio is quite close, and potters may have known that to generally double their volume, they needed only increase the “width” of the top by half to guarantee a doubling of volume, or if they doubled the width of the top (diameter) that this would result in a pot with quadruple the volume. Despite the possibility that the basic mathematics for determining conical volumes could have been applied and even measured out in a sophisticated pottery workshop, it is possible that this relationship was simply known by skilled potters and communicated to those in a large pottery workshop making the conical bodies. Again, this does not necessitate that potters in LBA Canaan knew how to calculate volume like the Egyptians, or that they used diameter or radius per se, but rather that potters could simply be told that if you double the width of the base of the cone thrown on the wheel, you at least quadruple the volume, or 50% more width (diameter) means at least 225% more volume, roughly more than double - but predictable and guaranteed. A potter could say to others in a workshop to "keep the jars the same height (X) and just increase the width in your next pot by half and you will always get at least double the volume", or quadruple if you double it, even in the absence of geometry.

Figure 66: Three different sizes of conical Canaanite Jars (MTC #3) from the Uluburun Wreck, inverted to better illustrate the parabolic morphology (arched features) of the cone and the wheel-thrown conical body, from which the volume could be predicted.

Adapted from Samuel Lin 2003: 187 172

Interestingly, in examining the 149 conical MTC #3 (Type 5.4) jars on the Uluburun, for example, the largest examples held about 26.7 litres while the smallest ones, representing about 75% of the total, held an average of only 6.7 litres (Serpico 2003: 225). This is almost a perfect ratio of 4 -1, suggesting a plausible doubling of the diameter that guaranteed a minimum volume of quadruple the smaller jars. Moreover, this ratio of 1-2-4 that can be achieved by increasing the diameter by half or doubling it, is exactly what Zamora observed in the Uluburun cargo (in small, medium and large jars), a roughly 1-2-4 ratio among the jar sizes. Monroe (2016: 87) correctly suggests this would be important for standardization and “calculability” (see also Monroe 2009). This kind of control of height and diameter is exactly what is suggested for the later (Iron II), cylindrical MTC #5, which Finkelstein et al. (2011: 256, also see Figure 67 below) argued could guarantee a minimum volume, while helping to facilitate mass production and standardization for according to Egyptian units of measure. This would seem to indicate the role of Egyptian market forces, but we have relatively poor archaeological visibility in Egypt for this type during the Third Intermediate Period (Figure 49).

Figure 67: MTC #5 compared with breakdown of linear measurements illustrating cylindrical sections that compose the body and by which the volume could be predicted using (π × r2 × h)

Source: Finkelstein et al. (2011: Fig. 8)

As noted, like the torpedo shaped MTC #5, the height is often relatively consistent amongst MTC #3 vessels from the LBA, which appear to be the earliest examples of such appreciable standardization in MTCs. The conical forms retrieved from the Uluburun often measured approximately 54cm (Knapp and Demesticha 2016: 47), with the smaller jars tending to cluster closer to 50cm in height (Monroe 2016: 87), perhaps supporting the likelihood that 173 manipulation of diameter (width) was the essential mechanism for standardizing volume. This prospect is further suggested by the consistency in height amongst these LBII conical forms from the Aegean, where similarly the average was 55cm (Åkerström 1975: 188). At Ugarit’s port of Minet el- Beida, Zamora (2000: 351) noted the 80 jars found stacked in a storeroom were around 55cm, and those outside the storeroom around 57cm tall (Monroe 2016: Fig. 4). An average of 50cm was suggested for those more broadly distributed around the eastern Mediterranean (Leonard 1996: 237, Figs. 15.2–15.3). This uniformity in height, especially amongst individual shipments, would also assist when nesting and stacking (see below).

So, even without formulae, through trial and error, the potter would be aware that an increase in diameter or radius or width (however, conceived), was reflected in the volume of the MTC in a predictable manner (if height is more or less constant). If nothing else, once a prototype of small, medium or large MTC was made, the volumes could be refined by simply adjusting the diameter or the height, and this could be established prior to mass production using those specifications. Moreover, we might imagine that if a potter took two different pots of unknown volumes, filled them up and emptied them into a pail one at a time, they could appraise differences in volume. If the potter wanted to know how much playing with radius/ diameter impacted the volume, they could simply make three different pots with the same height but different radii (width or diameter) and perform this experiment, noticing how the changes affected volume. Even without knowing the formula, it would be evident that adjusting the radius or diameter had a bigger and predictable impact on volumes than the height, and that this was replicable, resulting in some degree of consistency and standardization.

It cannot be mere coincidence that there is a predictable mathematical relationship (regarding the proportions and volumetric outcomes), between conical and cylindrical ceramic containers, given that these two morphologies are clearly the dominant MTC morphology produced and exported during the LBA and Iron Age. Surely the contemporary prevalence of these two shapes in MTCs produced for export must have some meaning, and it very likely relates to the need for standardization / mass production in sophisticated pottery workshops. The parabolic features added strength and stackability to these geometric shapes (e.g., the curve of the cones, the arches we see in these forms) relate to enhancing the vessels integrity, while the basic conical or cylindrical shape could help guarantee a regular volume. 174

7.2.7 Nesting Revisited

Another important consideration when deciding on an appropriate morphology is of course nesting, and the ability to rest shapes within shapes, and not just to maximize MTC shipment. It is also important to note that shifting of cargo is a major danger for ships that can contribute to capsizing. The nesting process, through which vessels are joined through surface contact (friction) minimizes shifting, so would securing nested MTC cargos with ropes, as suggested for the cargos of the Tanit and Elissa (Figure 59). As much as the morphology and manufacture of individual MTCs was important for their ability to survive and function, so too was their collective behavior when nested in the hull, so as to stabilize not only the cargo - but the ships themselves.

If you nest ceramic jars and stack them in such a way that the overall height is lower, then you move the center of gravity down, so virtually all subsequent forms have obvious advantages over the earlier flatter bases like that of the EBA (MTC #1), which would not have been functionally stackable without increased breakage and loss. As far as strength of the shape, a conical shape (first rendered in the LBA) is going to make the fluid contents reside deeper in the middle of the vessel, rather than the outside edges. This would put more stress in the base at the center, compared to the outside edges, which formerly would been a predominant point of fracture after the dissolution of flat-based forms for more rounded types in the MBA. The diagnostic LBA stump or bulb base (somewhat similar to the Iron II beak base) was made thicker for this reason, because in a conical form this is the location where you need more ceramic material to handle the stress. At first glance it might appear that this was done so the jar could be set down if necessary, but any significant impact at the base would very likely lead to fracture of the MTC, as the bases are not meant to handle such a force. These ceramic vessels are meant to be nested during transport, likely in ballast (sand) at the base. MTC #3, like those after it, could also be placed in a stand or slung in a rope / suspended. In examining the comparative strength of the various morphologies of Levantine MTCS, #1) flat-based, #2) ovoid / rounded, #3-4) conical, #5) cylindrical /conical, #6 pyriform / conical / highly parabolic (Figure 26, above), one must consider the point of contact (with the hull/floor and with other MTCs if stacked or nested), and then consider how a given shape decreases stress at that location. A flat bottom would act directly against the weight of the fluid since the weight in that case is perpendicular to the base. When the base is at an angle, the force acts at an angle, which means there is a component 175 perpendicular to the surface (bending stress) and a component acting along the surface (sheer stress), so each morphology results in differential weight, stress/force distribution.

In discussing the morphology, context/function is key. To begin, the pointed bases in conical bases of LBA/Iron MTCs #3-4, or Iron II MTCs #5-6 (9.B1 or 9.B2) allow them to fit in between other MTCs and to be set into ballast in the hull of ships (probably sand). By fitting the jars on top into the ones on the bottom, it prevents them from moving, while increasing the number of jars that can be transported. Also, because the bottom has more weight (especially if the MTCs are filled with heavy viscous staples), this moves the center of gravity downward, making it less likely to tip over once nested or stacked, so this is another reason to lower the maximum diameter as much as possible, a tendency that begins in the Iron Age (see Martin 2016a: 114), is displayed in both these Iron II types but significantly more so in the parabolic body of MTC #6 (9.B2). In MTC #5 (9.B1) the intention, the function, appears to lay elsewhere, with a cylindrical morphology allowing for greater surface contact in a packed, ship’s hull. In any case, both forms are at least slightly bigger at the bottom rather than the top and funnel the weight to the base, while the handles remain at the top, consistent with earlier developments in Levantine MTCs (see Figure 2).

7.2.8 MTC Morphological Variation: The question of why conical, cylindrical (MTC #5 / 9.B1) or pyriform / parabolic (MTC #6 / 9.B2)?

Ceramic melting points are extremely high, and they can handle high temperature with a very small coefficient of thermal expansion (e.g., they don’t grow or shrink with temperature) compared to the material properties of different things. With the highly fired torpedo jars of ‘crisp ware’ fabric, these vessels were fired to the point of near vitrification, which provided greater strength, however the cylindrical morphology of 9.B1 was also an essential feature because this allows the MTC to be packed tightly together (as evidenced in the Elissa and Tanit wrecks), and to distribute the load and any force effectively, whether from rough seas or the weight of the contents/vertical stacking. The only other way to improve strength is thickness, such as certain examples of MTC #4 (Type 5.2) in the early Iron Age, but this of course limitations and makes them heavier. So, and perhaps to our surprise, the function and intended use of Iron II MTC #5 (9.B1) must have been to get these MTCs touching each other on as much surface area as possible, keeping them tight (hence the handles are more designed for ropes), 176 stacked vessel wall against vessel wall, forming a larger structural unit. The load inside individual jars, the weight of the wine or whatever the contents in the MTC itself, is actually not the main consideration in this later context. The important factor is the behavior of the hundreds of ceramic containers as a unit when packed tightly into the hold of a ship like the Tanit or Elissa. It was the ability to distribute weight but especially force amongst the entire cargo hold that was key in terms of physics and geometry. This was the factor that would most profoundly affect the force in this scenario and ultimately the survival of the MTCs. The prospect that these MTCs could perform as a singular unit while occupying the entire hold of ships seems demonstrable, as even though the Iron II Phoenician wrecks sunk, the MTCs stood up to the force of this destruction and are even deposited rather uniformly, reflecting their original positioning, nested and stacked against one another in intercalated layers, buttressed one against another (see Figure 41). The only way the potters could really improve the morphology (the strength) of MTCs in this context, was by increasing the contact surface area, reducing point loading and decreasing the overall stress. This makes sense especially with ceramics in terms of physics because they cannot deflect at all to relieve stress, the MTCs would either transfer it to another contacting surface or they would fracture. Hence, MTC #5 (9.B1) was able to transfer stress amongst relatively strong contact surfaces (hundreds of highly fired cylinders).

But was this morphological type (MTC #5 / 9.B1) more vulnerable / less functional in other ways due to this unique morphology? Certainly, individual jars would have been prone to tipping over, perhaps even when nested (unlike MTC #6 / 9.B2), which would nest better individually. By moving the maximum diameter and the center of gravity as low as possible MTC #6 is a more stable form in this respect, but we do see some of this in the base of MTC #5 in the subtle parabolic morphology of the beaked base. Were 9.B1 jars used specifically for ship transport, packed tightly against one another, as evidenced by the twin Iron II wrecks, while rounder forms were more commonly for shipments of lesser scale, shorter distance, terrestrial transport/use or individual transport in a variety of contexts? Was 9.B2 designed to have a more multi-purpose function / amphorae type use, while 9.B1 was a more specialized MTC designed for long-distance shipments of large scale? We can say that the properties required for long- distance maritime transport were quite different than those of other more localized networks. Surely, the economic incentive for large loads increased over distance, and the need to distribute the weight and pressure evenly amongst such a cargo meant that Aznar Type 9.B1 (MTC #5) 177 was functionally the ultimate long-distance MTC, which is why we see a homogenous cargo of about 400 of these forms in each Iron II Phoenician shipwrecks, stacked in intercalated layers, as they might have appeared in the hull (albeit missing ropes and ballast of a probable sand base).

So, in answering the question of why 9.B1 or 9.B2, the answer lay in the physics of each morphology, but also the contemporary necessities for which they were manufactured – their function. MTC #6 (9.B2) with its more parabolic/conical form and rounded base with low maximum diameter, is more typical of later amphorae. Perhaps this type is also easier to manufacture and throw on a fast wheel (not made in individual cylindrical sections that must be methodically pieced together before it could be fired at extremely high temperatures). Certainly, both can be slung in rope or a net, though the more bulbous morphology of 9.B2 does suggest it is more suitable for being placed in a stand (less likely to tip over than its more cylindrical counterpart 9.B1. MTC #5 (9.B1) seems a more intensive, costly, specialized technology, with the cylinder built in several parts and then fired at such temperature as to nearly vitrify the ceramic, and most importantly, a morphology such that allowed hundreds of vessels to be buttressed up against one another, maximizing the volume of cargo and the surface contact, while evenly distributing the load and any external force acting on it. Ergo, MTC #5 was likely made specifically for long maritime voyages on rough seas and in this context is the superior morphological type based on the material composition (the behavior of ceramic in this context).

Perhaps at this time (the eighth century) each form had a different utility and function, while both were involved in maritime activities and networks. It’s not that 9.B2 was not strong morphologically, its parabolic form and low center of gravity make it strong and this shape allows it to distribute vertical force and the weight of contents well. However, if you exert force on the vessel walls when stacked they cannot distribute the force evenly across large surfaces in the same manner as 9.B1 and would break more readily in that context. So, maybe 9.B2 needed to be used in a variety of contexts, not just maritime transport, but terrestrially, functioning in other ways, and somewhat less a purpose-built MTC and more of a multi-purpose container like the Canaanite Jars of the MBA and LBA and amphorae of the later Iron Age. 9.B1 as a purpose- built MTC, was pieced together to form a highly fired cylinder designed specifically for long- distance shipment and transport of heavy liquid cargoes (wine, in the very least). It is possible that the short-lived life of 9.B1 saw it utilized in such a manner during Phoenician colonization of North Africa, while other more parabolic forms eventually proliferated in general use, as trade 178 networks became more regional but interconnected, with less extreme long-distance shipment necessary or economically viable amid patterns of elaborate network exchange more akin to that of the later Roman and Classical periods.

7.3 Summary and Conclusions

It cannot be coincidence that there is a predictable mathematical relationship (regarding the proportions and volumetric outcomes, between conical and cylindrical ceramic containers, given that these two morphologies are clearly the dominant MTC morphology produced and exported during the LBA and Iron Age, and the fact that during these periods we see increasing evidence for MTC standardization, especially in the context of shipwrecks. Surely the prevalence of these two shapes in MTCs relates to the need for effective production in large pottery workshops and increasing volumetric standardization for regional and international markets. The parabolic features added to these geometric shapes, e.g., the curve of the cones, the arches we see in these forms, relate to strengthening the vessels integrity, while the basic conical / cylindrical shape could also help to ensure a regular volume. The gradual standardization of forms would have been essential for international markets and commerce of scale. One should also consider the importance over time that the MTC’s shape and appearance would come to have as a container for commodities. The branding/recognition of containers, their contents and of volumes is a phenomenon that is not unique to modernity (Wengrow 2008; Bevan and Wengrow 2010), and Sherratt (2010: 119) discusses how not only Phoenician traders, but the goods they traded, were perceived by those they came into contact with in the early first millennium BCE.

In a conical or cylindrical form, potters must have known that controlling the radius (or more likely thought of as the diameter) was a very precise and powerful mechanism for controlling the volume at predictable ratios. It is possible the basic geometry for determining conical volumes could have been applied and even measured out in a sophisticated pottery workshop, or that this relationship was simply known by skilled potters and communicated to those throwing the conical bodies on a wheel. This does not mean they knew diameter was the same as radius squared, or thought of radius or diameter (I would suggest that more commonly people though in terms of diameter or “width” in antiquity), but - potters could simply be told that if you double the diameter (the width of the base of the cone thrown on the wheel) you at least quadruple the volume, or 50% more diameter means at least 225% more volume, so 179 roughly more than double, but predictable and guaranteed. A potter could say to others in a workshop to "keep the jars the same height (X) and just increase the width in your next pot by half and you will always get at least double the volume", or quadruple, even in the absence of specific measurement. In examining the many conical Type MTC #3 jars on the Uluburun we see this general ratio of 4 -1, suggesting a plausible doubling of the diameter that guaranteed a minimum volume of quadruple the smaller jar. This ratio of 1-2-4 is exactly what Zamora (2000) observed in the Uluburun cargo, which Monroe (2016: 87) correctly suggests would be important for standardization and “calculability”. This kind of control of height and diameter is also exactly what is suggested for the later (Iron II), cylindrical MTC #5, which Finkelstein et al (2011: 256) argued could guarantee a minimum volume while helping to facilitate mass production and standardization.

A strong case can be made that the Egypto-Canaanites of the LBA knew how to calculate the volume of conical and cylindrical forms already in the Bronze Age, but – even if they did not, because of the predictable relationship between these forms and volume, potters would have known from experience that increasing the diameter by half, or doubling it would predictably result in at least double, and quadruple the volume. The question of standardization becomes clearer when we understand that even if this is taking place based on early mathematics, if the potter makes a conical form even one centimeter larger in diameter, this will have a significant impact on volume. It’s not surprising that the least amount of volumetric variation and height/diameter ratio exists in the smaller jars (Cateloy 2016), and that the larger jars exhibit the greatest variation (Monroe 2016: 88), which should be expected as they are being thrown on a wheel and not manufactured in a 3D printer. The larger the vessel, the more subtle variations in size and measurements can occur, and this will result in appreciable volumetric differences. We should not expect LBA standardization of these forms to result in wholly modern, precise volumetric outcomes down to individual litres. If most of the larger jars are within a few litres of one another, this strongly suggests standardization. It is also possible that MTCs are standardized to a fractional volume and that this has complicated interpretations.

Akin to conical MTC #3 in the LBA and conical MTC #4 in the Iron I, MTC #5 (9.B1) and its conspicuous cylindrical morphology likely represent the ‘MTC par excellence’ of the Iron II, at least in the context of long-distance shipping of bulk viscous staples, as suggested by the evidence from underwater archaeology. The twin wrecks with hundreds of such MTCs show 180 that despite morphological variation in jar types used in other contexts, this type was, at least in some cases, manufactured for large shipments and maritime transport, to stack as many jars as close together as possible and effectively distribute the load, vessel wall against vessel wall. For this reason and in the context of the hull of a ship on rough seas over long distances, this highly fired cylinder of specialized manufacture, with subtle parabolic features in the base – was best suited to be transported / shipped in this manner, with maximum distribution of force and pressure amongst the contents of the ship’s hold. Numerically we have more examples of MTC #5 (9.B1) than all other prospective MTCs combined from any context. This is a specialized form as evidenced by the homogenous cargo in these Iron II shipwrecks and may have, due to the relatively brief interlude during which this form is prevalent within the archeological record, been a type manufactured specifically for long-distance shipments of large scale, and not a diverse cargo like the context of the LBA Uluburun, but rather exclusively composed of MTCs.

One might further speculate that the period of use for this specific form coincided with the Phoenician western expansion and the colonization of north Africa / foundation of Punic civilization, declining with the proliferation and rise of central Mediterranean city-states in the Iron III (see more discussion of comparative ceramics from the central Mediterranean below). 9.B1 was probably purpose-built to ship valuable liquid staples over long distances, like wine, but perhaps also oil, resins or murex dye (the miniature examples make attractive candidates for murex). It would have taken time to transplant wine production (viticulture) to north Africa and similarly for the adoption and development of olive cultivation in areas where olive trees were not native, such as Egypt (Newton et al. 2014: 568). In any case, we have evidence for the mass shipment of wine in these MTCs from two Phoenician wrecks. 9.B1’s unique morphology makes it the only MTC form suitable for such a long voyage on the rough sea, if you wanted to deliver a shipment of large scale over such a distance, which was apparently necessary and of economic value. The morphology of these MTCs must be considered from the context of use, a full hold meant maximum economic return, but also maximum distribution of the weight and less breakage, therefore the containers needed to be buttressed one against another in a much more sophisticated fashion than that suggested for the LBA Uluburun and MTC #3 (Chapter 4).

It may be that by the time of the Iron II or even the LBA, ceramic manufacturing and firing techniques were sufficiently advanced that given the limited size/volume/weight of most MTCs, the biggest consideration was not really the strength of individual containers, as most 181 shapes were strong enough to survive once the vessel was fired, but rather use and function. When viewed individually, amphorae were functional jars at market and needed to be carried off or suspended in a net or by a rope, they also needed to hold sufficient quantities of the product. The parabolic forms that remain more bag shaped / pyriform achieve this, while keeping the center of gravity low and are resistant to stress/weight of their contents in this basic morphology which continues to appear throughout the Classical era and Roman periods. The more dedicated cylindrical form of 9.B1 reflects a specialized, purpose-built MTC, designed to distribute the load and any external force acting on it in this large scale/tightly packed context– maximizing the volume of material being transported, while better enabling MTC survival during long- distance maritime shipments on the rough seas. This form would also minimize shifting in the ship’s hold and therefore would also contribute to the survival of the ship itself. The basic morphological characteristics of both 9.B1 and 9.B2 (MTCs #5-6) are recalled in the manufacture of Persian, Greek and Roman period amphorae (Figure 68).

Figure 68: Continuity in later Roman Period morphological types

Source: Bevan (2014: Fig. 4) 182

In conclusion, it appears that although we have EBA (MTC #1) and MBA (MTC #2) prototypes, which developed a set of distinctive amphorae-like characters by the MBA, it is really not until the LBA that we see what is perhaps the first genuine purpose-built Maritime Transport Containers in the standardized and mass produced conical MTC #3 of the LBA II period. MTC #4 clearly carries many of these same attributes into the Iron Age I, but it is not until the Iron Age II that we again see similar phenomenon occurring in production and distribution of MTC #5, with a suite of specialized characteristics that make it a highly specialized MTC, which was likewise appreciably standardized and mass produced for international markets. It is significant that Egyptian hegemony appears to have played a role in the production and distribution in both cases, MTC #3 in the LBA and MTC #5 in the Iron II. Future scholarship should compare the chronological emergence of MTC #3 in the LBA with conical New Kingdom Egyptian MTCs, as well as their height / Diameter ratios, as some plausible relationship might exist (see examples in Knapp and Demesticha 2016: Figs. 10-11). This may reinforce the suggestion made here regarding Egyptian or Egypto-Canaanite influence on the development and proliferation of LBA Levantine conical MTCs. Future investigations of changing MTC morphology may benefit from a comparison of the evolution of ships and hulls, for which we have a paucity of data from these early periods (Casson 1995: 214). However, one might speculate that if anything the MTCs would be modified in keeping with the ship (Samuel Lin 2003: 187), not the other way around, and that the ships morphology continued to be dictated by the necessary attributes of sailing and performing effectively on the open sea.52

52 The Kyrenia, a small, Greek merchant vessel that sunk in the 4th century BC with a cargo of amphorae stacked in intercalated layers, provides for a hull reconstruction and examines manufacturing methods and morphology (Steffy 1985:81; Ill. 6). It is difficult to make any suggestions regarding changes in hull construction that may have occurred between the deposition of the 8th century Phoenician wrecks and this later vessel because the hulls of the Tanit and Elissa wrecks are completely gone and can only be estimated (Ballard and Stager 2002: 157). 183

Synthesis and Conclusions

8.1 Introduction

This concluding chapter represents a synthesis of the discussion and data laid out in Chapters 1- 7, beginning with the proposed evolution of the Canaanite and Phoenician MTCs outlined in Chapter 3. Secondly, this synthesis will likewise conclude an evaluation of the archaeological evidence reviewed in Chapters 4-7 and return to the argument as to why this corpus of ceramics should be utilized as a strong archaeological indicator of ancient maritime trade, and what the distribution patterns suggest about the potential structure and constitution of Bronze and Iron Age maritime networks. Although the focus here has not been on network reconstruction explicitly, the spatial distribution analyses of Levantine MTCs undertaken in Chapter 5 provides the necessary data and representative nodes for future network analysis to be undertaken, which could render these implicit links into regional and interregional maritime networks more clearly; especially where quantitative and qualitative data is available to extrapolate (like MTC vessel count and provenance data). The patterns reconstructed and discussed in Chapter 5 would be appropriate for conducting further Spatial Network Analysis, which could be usefully applied to other archaeological data / material culture like the MTC corpus examined here in the context of the eastern / central Mediterranean (Mills 2017: 379-97).

Reviewing the distribution patterns examined in Chapter 5, in conjunction with the provenance data in Chapter 6, it is significant that this data allows for a diachronic overview of postulated maritime interaction patterns, revealing their general orientation and extent and contrasting early periods characterized by more simple route patterns like that of the EBA, with more obvious network patterns like that witnessed in the LBA, for example. This spatial distribution analysis reveals periods of both expansion and contraction, correlating well with available textual data and what is known about the socio-political realities of the eastern Mediterranean throughout these seminal periods (from the EBA through to the Iron Age II), particularly with regard to the events of the LBA/Iron transition and the apparent contraction which occurs, with some evidence for continuity amid the change. 184

Lastly, and in terms of explanatory models that help elucidate these patterns, this synthesis will consider the powerful and formative role played by ports of trade in these early societies (Polanyi 1963: 33-34) and apply Stager’s (2001) theory of ‘port power’ in the Near East. This relates not only to the development and proliferation of the aforementioned ceramic technologies and MTC networks, but also more broadly to the settlement patterns and economic development of coastal Syria-Palestine during the Bronze Age. Moreover, as suggested by Stager (2001: 635), this model can also be applied to certain regions of the Mediterranean and perhaps with some aspects of the Phoenician westward colonization, trade and expansion that occurred during the Iron Age I-II. In viewing the greater Mediterranean as a complex unit, driven in large part by maritime connectivity and economies, these later Iron Age patterns appear relevant not only to Stager’s model of dendritic trade - integrating the production of interior regions with maritime networks accessible via the coast, but also Broodbank (2013) in the context of this larger phenomenon and how Mediterranean societies, cultures and economies were stimulated and developed, and how technologies and peoples were transmitted. Certainly, these processes, which originated well before 500 BCE, are reflected in both the development and spread of MTCs reviewed here, but also in the patterns displayed in their distribution / contexts.

8.2 MTC distribution and reconstructing maritime trade networks spatially/ diachronically

As outlined in Chapter 5, the distribution of the exported MTCs can be viewed diachronically and mapped to observe changes in the pattern and extent of the maritime trading activities by which their contents were transported. Certainly, we have limited archaeological visibility, but apart from a handful of shipwrecks, there is perhaps no better indicator we could look to in the reconstruction of such activities than the early MTCs of coastal Syria-Palestine. As reviewed in Chapters 2-4, during the EBA, it is clear that regional hegemony and selective pressure from the more developed Egyptian state was driving urbanization and socio-economic complexity in regions of the Levant, and elite Egyptian sites are the recipient of the overwhelming majority of exported Combed Ware jars (MTC #1) in the EBA. This is true also for the exported Canaanite Jars in the MBA (MTC #2), Type 5.4 Jars (MTC #3) in the LBA, Type 5.2 (MTC #4) in the Iron I, and Type 9.B1 (MTC #5) in the Iron II. This is also the case with the earlier ceramic traditions that made their way to Egypt during the earliest stages of the EBA, principally the so called ‘Abydos Ware’ discussed in Chapters 3-4, which often carried wine (see discussion of analysis 185 in Chapter 3.1.2). It seems probable that along with a shift in modes of transport, there is a transition away from small jars and pack animals to a more organized system utilizing larger Combed Ware jars and shipping. Advancements in the volume, scale and frequency of trade depended on maritime networks and routes operating at appreciably long-distances, and likely at the expense of terrestrial caravan routes as this trend continued throughout the Bronze Age.

As reviewed in Chapter 5’s diachronic overview of MTC distribution patterns, the chronological and geographic extent of this ceramic tradition is in general agreement with the development and expansion of maritime networks in the Near East (as outlined by De Miroschedji 2002: Fig. 2.4), beginning in the EBA, but becoming pronounced in the EBA II-III (De Miroschedji 2002: Fig. 2.5) when Combed Ware (especially pithoi) becomes a dominant ceramic residue in Syria-Palestine and is the most quantitatively abundant ceramic import at Old Kingdom centers of royal power in Egypt, particularly Giza. Sowada’s (2009: Figs. 45, 47) review of imported ceramic in Egypt and evaluation of trade in the east Mediterranean during the Old Kingdom likewise supports this. Although this is also the case during the MBA, with Egypt being the recipient of most documented exported Canaanite Jars, it is also at this time that we begin to find evidence for Levantine MTC export to Cyprus and Crete, though in limited quantity. By the time of the LBA, and again under the auspices of pronounced Egyptian power and hegemony in the region, the export of MTCs reaches a maximum extent and unprecedented volumes are delivered to disparate regions like the Aegean, where jars reach not only Crete, but Troy and most prominent mainland centres in Greece, often deposited in elite tombs (mirroring consumption in Egypt during earlier periods). Similarly, we find evidence for elite consumption of these imports in the tombs of distant Nubia and deposition of MTC #3 at strategic outposts so far as coastal Libya at Mersa Matruh.

Though we witness some reduction in the distribution of MTC types during the Iron I, which appears to underlie maritime network contraction and reconfiguration, the export of Levantine MTCs continues to reach parts of Cyprus and Egypt – mirroring patterns displayed earlier in the MBA. An interesting feature of this contraction is that it appears to return to earlier distribution patterns and network structure, as opposed to collapsing as has often been suggested for the transition to the Iron Age (Cline 2014). Finally, with the rise of the Assyrian threat and Phoenician westward expansion, and as reviewed in the MTC distribution data outlined in Chapter 5, by the time of the Iron II there is evidence for Levantine MTCs being exported to 186

Punic North Africa, coastal Italy (Cumae tombs), and nearby trading hubs (Pithekoussai tombs). In these contexts, as witnessed elsewhere in earlier periods, such as Egypt in the EBA-MBA or the Aegean in the LBA, it appears that elite consumption remained a factor continuously highlighted in mortuary deposition of these exported MTCs and their valued contents. Indeed, for nearly all periods - in the absence of tombs, we have limited archaeological visibility of Levantine MTCs in exported contexts.

8.3 Port Power in the Near East and the greater Mediterranean

In reconstructing the development of maritime commerce and networks, it is dendritic networks that have most readily been applied to the available settlement pattern data (Johnson 1970; Smith 1976; Fargo 1979; Sugerman 2000), particularly with regard to the Levantine littoral. Large components of these dendritic links are terrestrial but still maritime in that they are often comprised of wadi systems linking the interior to coastal emporia. In the distribution analysis undertaken here, it was clear that littoral distribution patterns were significant, highlighting the growth of maritime networks and the importance of coastal emporia, but also the dendritic trade linking these nodes to interior regions. ‘Dendritic’ meaning connections that were structured like branches, similar to dendrites, but in this case applied to the configuration of settlement patterns often dictated by environmental features like rivers or wadi systems and the development of which is closely related to socio-economic processes, and early manifestations of supply and demand, etc.

These branches of dendritic networks (see Figures 69-70 below), often running along existing environmental features such as waterways utilized in transport, connected these important coastal sites to hinterland production. As outlined in the dissertation of Sugerman (2000) and expanded upon in the port power theory devised by Stager (2001: 625-35), these paths of least resistance made the most economical transportation route and effectively connected production to distribution, or in the context of international export, they similarly connected imported goods to hinterland / down the line markets. According to Stager (2000: 630), Fargo (1979) was the first to recognize this settlement pattern occurring along the transport and drainage systems that was consistent with dendritic markets observed elsewhere by Johnson (1970) and Smith (1976), and by ranking sites Fargo was able to infer a catchment center for EBIII Wadi systems, hypothesizing the Seaport at Ashkelon. These coastal nodes were likewise 187 connected with disparate regional nodes (other distant sites) by maritime commercial activities. All this of course raises many questions about each component of these complex interconnections, and exactly how these networks in the hinterland emerge to interact with broader economies, a phenomenon which appears to become characteristic of the Mediterranean into the later Iron Age, Hellenistic and Roman periods.

Figure 69: Principal Sites Sampled Figure 70: Idealized Model of dendritic trade networks

Source: Sugerman 2000: 159 Source: Sugerman 2000: 155

In examining the formative processes that led to the development and innovations that occurred in the Levant during the EBA, the economic impact, appetites and activities of the Old Kingdom Egyptian elite cannot be overstated. There is of course also some evidence for trade with the southern and central regions of Palestine, however, during the 4-6th Dynasty (EBA III) Egypt maintained strong commercial ties to the Byblos region. This early interaction may extend even further back into the EBA with evidence for contacts in the 3rd Dynasty (Saghieh 1975), and continuity of contacts with Egypt eliminating the apparent gap between the Early Dynastic period and the later Old Kingdom. The evidence suggests that the imported Combed Ware vessels from Egypt contained goods (olive oil, wine, and more certainly coniferous resins), which made them highly desirable and “high status markers” (Sowada 2009: 249). The importation of such vessels during the 4thand 5th Dynasty was clearly connected to the Egyptian 188 elite, especially those of higher officials of the Royal court: Giza, Dahshur, and Abusir (Sowada 2009: 249-255, Wodzinska 2010: 294). Increased demand for foreign commodities and a shift to a focus on long-distance maritime technologies and trade seems to have occurred, achieving an unprecedented connectivity, speed, and capacity – especially when compared to earlier terrestrial modes via pack animal (Figure 30).

The EBA saw a number of important developments in the Near East, especially in technologies and trends toward a more developed urban trajectory. Economic benefits of surplus production led to particular adaptive strategies, and the development and integration of new technologies clearly also enhanced these benefits, with greater efficiency, capacity, and a growing standardization (Phillip 2000). The expansion of trade and commercial opportunities during the EBII-III period was significant, a process which seems to relate to the continued development of maritime, sea-based exchange networks.

This process fostered the economic integration of hinterland production centres with coastal emporia and a system of dendritic settlement patterns: a phenomenon which became characteristic in the settlement patterns of the Levantine Bronze Age (see Figure 71; Stager 2001: 628). Occurring more or less contemporaneously seems to be the southern diffusion, migration or widespread adoption of a highly controlled firing technology and the associated widespread production of metallic ware (or metallic Combed Ware). In quantitative terms metallic ware pithoi outnumber all other impressed vessels, and as discussed in Chapter 4, these are often excavated in association with the large-scale production of liquid commodities like oil (e.g., Beth Yerah, Tell Dan, Ras Shamra, Ebla, etc.). One might further suggest that although this economy was highly focused on oil (outside of coniferous bearing regions), it also included viticulture, which is another technology suggested to be diffusing on a regional level at this time (Batiuk 2005), with less evidence of production but with abundant evidence for the emergence of goblets and drinking vessels, which may reflect the gradual spread of wine consumption (McGovern 2009). We have strong evidence for the importation of Levantine ceramics and wine to Egypt at tomb U-j already during the Protodynastic and Early Bronze Age I, where at the royal cemetery at Abydos, some 200 stacked wine jars were deposited in chambers, with evidence for more (Hartung 2002: 437–443, Figs. 27.2–27.6; Watrin 2002: 453–455, Figs. 28.3–28.4). Many held grape pits, while other jars contained preserved grapes and sliced figs. Organic residue analysis suggested that some of these jars could have held terebinth-infused and fig-flavoured 189 wine at one time or another (McGovern et al. 1997; McGovern 1998: 29–30; Stager 2001: 630– 631).

Figure 71: Map of Port Power Networks in EBA (Stager 2001:626)

In general, there was a trend towards urbanization with staple surplus being converted into wealth and apparent economic motivation for bulk production, storage, and transport relating to emergent concepts of “supply and demand” (Harrison 2000: 360). The ceramics of the EBA become more standardized, a phenomenon not just suggested by Combed Ware pithoi (Esse 1990, Flenders 2000).53 The accelerated speed and reciprocity with which these nascent exchange networks operated also likely had an impact on the development of a growing socio- political complexity. In other words, in the same way that urbanization processes apparently accelerate the development of human societies, so too was this increased internationalism, connectivity, speed, and reciprocity likely to have accelerated urbanization, economic growth, and social complexity in Syria-Palestine during the EBA and subsequent periods. Just one

53 There is a clear “tendency toward specialized, regional sealing practice” which finds evidence in the EBA III of Palestine (Flenders 2000: 304). 190 powerful city-state like third millennium Ebla could have a significant influence on the development of its peripheries. The larger and more developed Egyptian state similarly became a powerful selective force in the economic and socio-political development of Syria-Palestine, especially along the littoral and in terms of how these coastal regions would interact with and socio-economically stimulate the interior sites and hinterland production (Rowlands et al. 1987).

The emergent transport traditions and commercial jars of the Bronze Age are an important indicator of these processes. Nevertheless, the Combed Ware pottery from many of the sites examined in Chapter 5 really needs to be more intensely compared chemically and petrographically in the context of Syria-Palestine, but also with regard to the imported wares of Egypt. Some new material from Giza is currently being subjected to petrography and Sowada (1999) is confident this will conclusively demonstrate a direct link between Egypt and the central / north Levantine coast (especially Byblos and Tell Arqa). With regard to the role of Egypt, the emergent data also seems to support a conclusion that among the geographic foci required to access the production of the Levant and various trade goods / raw materials, the Levantine coast provided the most effective mechanism by way of shipborne trade and exchange at port centers, especially in the context of the central or northern Levant- such as Byblos and Ugarit. As an explanatory mechanism, this prospect meshes well with the concept of port power and the crucial relationship between hinterland centres of production and coastal emporia during the Bronze Age of the Levant. The conspicuous use of white plaster on the exterior of imported Combed Ware jars (first discussed in Chapter 3), but absent in later periods, may signal changes in the mechanism of transport and shipping, with such reflective surface treatments presumably being applied to diminish the impact of the sun on jars being rafted down the Nile.

Certainly, based upon the distribution of exported EBA Combed Ware (MTC #1) examined in Chapter 5 (see Figure 43), the role of maritime trade in bringing products from emporia along the Levantine coastal route, to the elite in Egypt, appears manifest. It is also supported by existing provenance analysis as well as epigraphic, iconographic, and mortuary evidence from Egypt, and corresponding Egyptian material at strategic sites like Byblos (Marcus 2007). It is during the EBA that the Levant’s network of coastal emporia would rise to prominence, and during which a system of dendritic trade linking these ports with hinterland production would also proliferate economically and otherwise. 191

8.3.1 Middle Bronze Age II ‘Port Power’ and Maritime Trade

The distribution of MTC #2, exported Canaanite jars of the MBA (Figure 44) dramatically surpasses any activity witnessed during the EBA in terms of both volume and geographic extent (Chapter 5). For the first time Levantine MTCs are found on Cyprus and as far west as Kommos, Crete, a strategic emporium which displays continuity in Levantine imports even into the Iron Age II. As discussed in Chapter 5, Canaanite jars may have been delivered as far south as Nubia, with stronger evidence for deposition at the Red Sea coast. In Egypt, the maritime export of MTC #2 to the major Delta port at Avaris was profound, provisioning the population and elite there with the produce of the Levant, akin to processes that occurred during the EBA.

According to Stager (2001: 633), during the Bronze Age, maritime activity enriched long-distance trade and a “communication system” developed which was both rapid and extensive enough to relate to supply and demand – empowered by the control of goods and information. In the late 12th or early 13th Dynasty in Egypt (1786-1640 B.C.E.), trade continued with port centres like Byblos, Arqa, Sidon, and Ashkelon and large consignments of wine and olive oil were being sent to the prosperous seaport of Tel el-Dab’a (Avaris) in Egypt. By the time of the earliest MBIIA (2000-1800/1750 B.C.E.) strata at Tel el-Dab’a, which corresponds to the same strata at sites in Syria-Palestine, the Canaanite Jar is present in quantity. Parallels of these early forms are also known from nearby Tell el-Maskhuta (Holladay 1999: 188), Wadi Gawasis (Bard and Fattovich 2009: 47, 51, Fig. 27), and at sites in the Levant such as Ashkelon (Stager et al. 2008: 431) and Byblos (Ownby 2010: 86). The West Semitic peoples of Palestine, now Canaan during the “latter half of the twentieth century B.C.”, had begun to establish lucrative emporia and seaports from Akko to Ashkelon (Stager 2001: 625), and Levantine coastal cities developed “a distinctive set of characteristics when linked to long-distance maritime commerce” as “integration of the interior regions” occurred, connecting hinterland production with “overseas emporia” (Stager 2001: 625). In his seminal piece on the nature of Early and Middle Bronze Age “port power”, Stager (2001) illustrates the nature of expanding BA commerce and the increasing significance of maritime trade. Figure 71 reflects the Early Bronze relationship between the port centres of Byblos and Ashkelon with Egypt. Utilizing the exemplar Canaanite port of Ashkelon, Stager describes a pattern of MBA dendritic trade linking hinterland regions to such powerful port centres (Figure 72). 192

Figure 72: Map of Port Power Networks in MBA II (After Stager 2001: 628)

In Stager’s view, as an economic and political power, Canaan reached its zenith by the 17th century B.C.E. and masses of Canaanites moved into the Egyptian Delta, at Avaris. Here they came to be known as the Hyksos (Bietak 1986), dominating Egypt between 1640 and 1540 B.C.E. (Stager 2001: 634). International trade is thought to account for the prosperity of sites in the eastern Nile Delta at this time, and excavators estimate that some two million Canaanite jars arrived at Avaris during the MBII period (Bietak 1996: 20). “With this volume of exports from the Levant, it is no wonder that port power played a dominant role in the configuration of settlement patterns and economic networks from the lowlands to the uplands of Canaan” (Stager 2001: 635). Tell el-Dabʿa became a major port of trade, rivaled only by its presumed “mother city” of Byblos (Holladay 1999: 209). Nevertheless, during the MBA, Tell el-Dabʿa would emerge as a major trading partner with Southwestern Palestinian sites, boasting hundreds of ships involved in international commerce by the time of the Hyksos expulsion (Holladay 1999). Despite the presence of overland caravan routes, it is likely that large quantities of Canaanite Jars from Syria-Palestine arrived “in the course of long-distance shipborne trade” (Holladay 1999: 205). 193

The MBA distribution of exported Canaanite Jars (MTC #2) reflects a significant expansion of maritime trade linking Egypt and the Levant, Cyprus and Crete. Despite the limited quantities often being excavated in these exported contexts, in all cases, the role of prominent coastal emporia is evident, in the Delta at Avaris, on Cyprus at Arpera (Mosphilos) and, especially moving into the LBA, Kommos on Crete, one of the most prominent and enduring gateways to the Aegean. Like the EBA, the distribution of MBA jars in Egypt is also clearly connected elite centers, though indicative of trade of a profoundly intensified volume and scale. The absence of these vessels in Theban Egypt also may reveal something about the socio- political situation at the time in Egypt, with one MBA jar at Buhen that may or may not provide evidence for contacts with Nubian elite beyond Upper Egypt. The patterns displayed for this period are strongly littoral in distribution along the wadi systems, Delta region, Nile or Red Sea. Nevertheless, other distribution networks must have existed, as the importation of Cypriot ceramics for example, into Egypt, conversely reaches the Nile Valley (Maguire 1990).

Any conclusions drawn from the data presented in Chapter 5 regarding the geographical distribution of the Canaanite Jar during the MBA, however, must recognize that this pattern does not necessarily confirm the predominance of maritime trade as opposed to overland routes. It is rather more likely that both mechanisms still played a role, while emporia in the Delta seem to have been a primary focus for imported MTCs from the Levant. In Egypt there are examples of Canaanite Jars from Memphis, Tell el-Dabʿa, the eastern Nile Delta, Tell el-Maskhuta, the Sinai, and a number of sites clustering around the MK capital in the Fayum, namely Riqqeh, Harageh, and Lisht. In some respects, such a pattern might actually suggest overland trade rather than maritime transport, since there would seem to be geographical clustering of findspots around the eastern Delta and Wadi Tumilat, which was a major overland trade route to the Egyptian Delta, then by river along the Pelusiac branch to Memphis and along the Nile to the Middle Kingdom capital at Itj-tawy (probably modern Lisht). It may also be significant that the MTCs do not seem to occur at the sites located at terminus of the main routes to the Nile from the Red Sea, but more archaeological data is needed. 194

8.3.2 Late Bronze Age Maritime Trade and Eastern Mediterranean Port Power

Some of the earliest LBA forms managed to permeate the Aegean and even the emporia of Thera in the Cyclades, however, these bulbous types appear to reflect repurposed commercial jars as opposed to purpose-built MTCs per se. However, by the 14-13th century (LBA IIB), the littoral distribution of MTC #3 (type 5.4) is exceptionally profound, and this type clearly represents an appreciably standardized MTC designed specifically for the maritime export of bulk viscous staples from Syria-Palestine, to which the jars are consistently sourced (Chapter 6). In the Levant we see a strong littoral distribution with limited permeation of the hinterland (see Figure 47), while there is an increase in the incidence of exported contexts at individual eastern Mediterranean sites by many orders of magnitude. This tradition is connected with the elite in Egypt, where it is found in quantity along the Nile and at major sites all the way to Nubia, Cyprus, where it is found on the coast (Enkomi, with another example from Myrtou-Pighades), Crete at Kommos, Troy and coastal Greece at the emporia of Pylos and Tiryns, also reaching Mycenae and Menidi. Not to mention the large cache deposited in the Uluburun and to a lesser extent the Cape Gelidonya shipwreck.

Based upon the aforementioned unpublished petrographic analysis conducted by Ownby on the corpus of MTC #3 (Type 5.4), jars from the Aegean and Egypt source to the clay of northern Palestine, near Haifa Bay and Tell Abu Hawam, where large pottery workshops may have existed under the auspices of Egyptian imperial administration. Such a prospect meshes well with the evidence for standardization examined in Chapter 7. It is likely that the activities of the New Kingdom Egyptian Empire in Palestine played a large selective role in the proliferation of this trade that brought hinterland production to the coast, where it was then exported to Egypt and distant markets via LBA maritime networks. Despite a larger variety of depositional contexts suggesting use by various socio-economic classes, elite consumption is still reflected in the prevalence of MTC #3 in the tombs of Greece, Nubia and Egypt. Certainly, wine and oil being produced regionally, we can only speculate that there may have existed a market for exotic Canaanite wine, a prospect that has been suggested in the context of a proposed LBA Aegeo/Levantine wine trade (Leonard Jr. 1996). Linear B tablets indicate that wine was an important commodity to Mycenaean Palace economies (Palmer 1994), however, a variety of other commodities and staples appear to have been transported in MTCs, as suggested by 195 residues of resins, olives, or the presence of glass beads in MTC #3/Type 5.4 jars that sunk with the Uluburun, while probably on route to the Aegean, possibly as a diplomatic vessel (Bachhuber 2006). This shipwreck provides our best window into LBAII maritime capabilities and cargos but must be at least to some degree unique in that only a substantial private enterprise, wealthy merchant or “state organization, could have engaged in the level of (elite) connectivity (‘grand cabotage’) that financed the kind of cargo that filled the Uluburun ship” (Knapp and Demesticha 2016: 30-31; see also Pulak 2008). It must be significant that it is the MTC #3 conical forms with which the Uluburun was loaded, and that this represents the largest excavated quantity of such forms during the Bronze Age. Moreover, the distribution of these MTCs in the Aegean during the LBA suggests not just isolated contact at specific port centers, but rather at numerous port sites (Chapter 5) suggesting a sustained period of contacts and redistribution to important interior sites like Mycenae, where these jars end up in elite tombs. This manner of consumption and presence in mortuary provisions mirrors the same processes that occurred somewhat earlier in Egypt, which was the predominant consumer of Levantine MTCs throughout the Bronze Age.

In the context of Egyptian markets, it has been noted that this region initially lacked olive production and therefore relied upon the Levantine export of this staple as well as coniferous resins (Amiran 1970: 140). It would have taken time to transplant wine production (viticulture) and olive cultivation to new regions, like for example Egypt, where olives were probably not produced prior to the New Kingdom, perhaps beginning in the Amarna period (Newton et al. 2014: 568).54

At least to some degree, MTC #3 appears standardized for international markets, as testified by their export and prominence in the cargo of the Uluburun where 3 general sizes predominate (see Figures 27, 47 and 66). Beyond the prospect of standardization using Egyptian mathematics and units of measure discussed in Chapter 7, it is likely that Egyptian hegemony played a role in the organization and stability that fostered long-distance maritime connections. No doubt the activities of New Kingdom Egypt along the Levantine coast were a significant force in the extraction of hinterland resources for international export via coastal emporia, some of which like Tell Abu Hawam were likely under direct imperial control, if not essentially

54 See also Terral et al. (2009), Terral et al. (2015) and Besnard et al. (2018) for full discussion of olive domestication in the Mediterranean. 196 maintaining dedicated status as strategic coastal vassals before the events of the terminal Late Bronze Age.

8.3.3 Iron Age I: Phoenician Port Power and Maritime Trade

Despite the decline in international trade networks tied to a palatial elite in the eastern Mediterranean, it is evident that Levantine MTC production and export continues and that specific dendritic trade connections were maintained both in the Levant and in Egypt. There is continuity in MTC production in Phoenicia at coastal emporia like Sarepta, Tyre, and Dor, and the ceramic repertoire show strong continuity with the MTCs of the LBA, despite the disappearance of MTC #3 (Type 5.4), linked directly with long-distance (Egypto-Canaanite?) maritime shipping activities. We see production of descendent forms continue in Phoenicia with Type 5.2 (MTC #4) and 5.7, however, which also maintain ties to Egypt and Cyprus, to which these MTCs continue to be exported on a reduced scale (compare the LBA / Iron I distribution in Figures 47 and 48).

Type 5.2 (MTC #4) is the Phoenician continuation of Type 5.4 (MTC #3), almost identical save for a reduction of the neck which becomes almost vestigial and may signal a difference in sealing practices (a high neck being a hallmark of Egyptian and Canaanite amphorae during the LBA). Type 5.2 is a coastal form from the Levant, not usually found at hinterland sites (Figure 48), revealing some continuity in maritime trade connections, being found at Iron I Tarsus in coastal Anatolia (Cilicia), Palaepaphos-Skales on Cyprus, and also found throughout Egypt in various elite contexts like Amarna – which actually displays continuity in the importation of LBA and Iron I Levantine MTCs #3 and #4 (Type 5.4 – Type 5.2). MTC #4 is also noted as the homogenous cargo of the only Iron I wreck we might refer to, discussed in the dissertation of Waiman-Barak (2016: 86) “a rescue dive at the waters off Dor” that discovered a wreck with a cargo full of these jars… The complete wreck was lost back at sea never to be found again.” Type 5.7 similarly hints at continuity in Egyptian trade, with the only complete exported example being excavated at Deir el-Medina, identical to contemporary forms from the Levant where this type is clearly a coastal tradition like type 5.2, most common to Tyre and Sarepta. These two types are also among the primary candidates for morphological and technological continuity in MTC production in the Levant from the LBA into the Iron Age I, with descendent conical forms carrying on into the Iron II and Iron III periods (see Appendix I). 197

During the Iron I, we see both continuity in production and even a rise to power and pre- eminence for many of the coastal Phoenician coastal emporia, no doubt based upon their important role in maintaining connections between hinterland production in the Levant with eastern Mediterranean markets, and corresponding emporia on Cyprus and in Egypt. The Iron Age Levant witnesses a pattern of trade in MTCs that in many ways appears to radiate from these surviving Canaanite and Phoenician costal city-states and their hinterland counterparts, a trajectory that will only build momentum with the rise of Assyria and Neo-Assyrian Hegemony in the Iron Age II-III.

8.3.4 Iron Age II: Phoenician Port Power in the Greater Mediterranean

During the Iron II, there is continuity in trade with Cyprus and Egypt, but in addition to the twin Phoenician wrecks carrying hundreds of these MTCs, the distribution of these shipping containers suggests that the westward activities of the Phoenicians were becoming significant. Raban suggests that a shift occurred at this time in the production of commercial jars and the process by which their contents were stored and shipped with a more streamlined process:

Instead of filling the portable containers near the vat, soon after pressing and allowing the wine to ferment inside, the mature wine was transferred over-land from the wine producing regions top the Emporia of the Phoenicians coast, and only then was the final bottling done, into jars fashioned specifically for maritime voyage (Raban 1980: 11).

Based upon the analysis of the jars from the twin Phoenician wrecks, which source to the Phoenician coast and emporia like Tyre, this suggestion is plausible, if not correct. Beyond their continuing conical / parabolic bases, the firing technology by which these newer, innovative forms were produced also gifted them with additional strength so that vessels could be stacked and shipped on large scale without breakage. The observation by Finkelstein et al. (2010) that that these torpedo jars are standardized to an Egyptian measure is supported by the analysis undertaken here in Chapter 7, as well as the continued export of MTC #5 to that region, with some suggestion that the Phoenician wrecks may have been on route to Egypt when they sunk (Ballard et al. 2002: 163).

“Regarding the Phoenicians' expansion in the Iron Age, controversy continues over chronology, areas affected, scale of migration, organization of trade, modes of interaction 198 between Phoenician traders/colonists and the respective indigenous populations and means of maintaining contact and of transmitting information between ‘colonial’ settlements and the mother cities in the Levant” (Sommer 2007: 97). Even so, the maritime activities of the Phoenician were clearly pushing westward at this time, along the coast of North Africa, with ties to Cyprus and Egypt evidenced by MTC deposition akin to the Iron I data. Stager (2001: 625) proposed that his model of port power and dendritic trade linked to coastal Emporia was a large part of the Phoenician strategy for western exploitation, with nodal colonies on Cyprus, Crete, North Africa, and the western Mediterranean (Aubet 2001). The distribution of Phoenician style, if not Phoenician MTCs in the west, albeit limited, supports this suggestion, with sherds found yet again at the emporia of Kommos, but now also found as far west as Carthage, and with complete vessels from Pithekoussai, and Cumae in Italy. That type 9.B1 and 9.B2 are found in western Punic colonies like Pithekoussai off the coast of Italy and even in elite tombs at Cumae is significant. This distribution clearly points to Phoenician westward activities, if not an expansion, though we do need clay analysis for that material. However, the roughly contemporary or slightly later material at Kommos has now been definitively sourced to the Levant and Phoenicia (Gilboa et al. 2015).

Shipments of a scale like the Tanit and Elissa, in deep water, heading west, have been suggested bound for north Africa, perhaps Carthage, if not Egypt, carrying a homogenous cargo of standardized MTCs sourced to the Phoenician coast. The continuity in the sourcing of MTCs to north-coastal Palestine in the LBA MTC #3 (type 5.4) and again in the Iron II, regarding the Phoenician MTC material at Kommos, also speaks to the maintenance of specific production regions or centers in the Levant and connected to coastal emporia. Stager’s port power model may indeed be applicable to the colonial activities of Phoenician seafarers in the west Mediterranean, “where they went in search of precious metals and other resources but settled mainly on the seacoasts. Only very rarely do we find traces of Phoenician material culture beyond the seacoast, leading into the hinterland to the mining and other resource areas. They realized that port power - control over export abroad - was sufficient for the economic goals they had” (2001: 635). 199

8.3.5 The Socio-economic Framework of Maritime Networks: Applying Port Power Theory

Maritime technologies and adaptation were essential to early coastal and island populations in the eastern Mediterranean (Broodbank 2013; Knapp 2016), and by the Early Bronze Age there is evidence for the maritime transport, rafts, boats, and eventually seagoing and sailing ships. The preservation of ships in royal burials in Egypt during the development of the complex state there, as well as the early imported MTC prototypes from Syria-Palestine are a testament to these processes, which developed in concert with socio-economic and cultural factors that remain somewhat difficult to access and interpret archaeologically. Certainly, Egypt seems to provide good evidence for how the elite there viewed maritime technology and how such innovations became ideologically charged with meaning and commanded not simply economic, but sociopolitical power – even in the afterlife. The nascent networks and routes of the Bronze Age no doubt required the participation of a variety of groups and social/economic units, but the seminal role that the Egyptian state had on the development of the coast of Syria-Palestine and its relationship with hinterland production is evident. The concept of purposive voyaging, and the desire for not only exotic goods and wealth, but also the concept of glory is recalled in later Homeric epics centered in the Mediterranean, but this idea and such stories were to some degree already being produced in Egypt during the Bronze Age, like for example that of the Shipwrecked Sailor, or the later tale of Wenamun – but also generally in the narratives and depictions we often find in elite tombs there throughout various periods. That such activities became ideologically powerful and of cultural and socio-economic necessity, appears manifest.

This section will briefly attempt to provide a clearer sense of how networks are situated within a kind (or kinds of) economy, and how Stager’s model of ‘port power’ applies to the apparent structure and character of Bronze and Iron Age trade in Levantine MTCs. Indeed, there appears to have been a special kind of connectivity enjoyed by coastal and island populations (Horden and Purcell 2000: 224–230), much of which was environmentally determined but nonetheless it is these states and city-states which ultimately came to characterize the mosaic of maritime routes and interconnections that developed during the Bronze and Iron Ages. In the context of the Levant, one can imagine that very early on the Syro-Canaanites of the Bronze Age were involved in a growing trade, this “cabotage”, which is essentially defined as smaller-scale trade that is oriented along coasts and characterized by shorter port to port activities (Horden and 200

Purcell 2000: 365, 368–369). Sherratt and Sherratt (1993) discuss the development of Iron Age trading systems in the Mediterranean and although they contrast the social organization of Bronze Age trade with that of the first millennium trade, they identify continuities in the patterns of growth and expansion. The sustained stimulus role of Egypt in the development of the emergent economies of the Levant is evident, with simple reciprocal trade and outright military domination historically being among the most common explanatory mechanisms (Harrison 1993: 81).

Nevertheless, some variation existed in underlying economies that functioned across the eastern Mediterranean, a prospect highlighted in the prevalence of various products being shipped, some that represented ‘cultural’ commodities rather than strictly ‘commercial’ goods, like those we often associate with Levantine MTCs. Generally, along with a trend towards urbanization and increasing complexity during the Bronze Age, the emergent economies of the Levant were characterized by agricultural production and surplus being converted into wealth. What kind of wealth? Certainly, staple wealth, but over time it appears to have been metals that provided an opportunity for stored and accumulated wealth (Marfoe 1987), which agricultural production alone could not achieve. One might speculate that even before the advent of coinage in the Iron Age, that metals and precious metals formed a powerful economic unit that was highly valued not simply for its properties as transferable stored wealth and ability to take action at a distance, but as necessary raw materials for the production of all manner of craft specialization and utilitarian tools. In the Levant, apart from copper, there was a paucity of important metals like tin (essential for the creation of Bronze), gold and silver. These had to be imported from surrounding regions like Anatolia (silver), Egypt (gold) and Afghanistan via Mesopotamia (tin). Instead, in Syria-Palestine we see Bronze Age economies emerge that were focused on bulk production, storage, and transport of agricultural staples (some of which were likewise absent from surrounding regions and therefore offered incentives), but still essentially related to market forces and economic concepts such as “supply and demand” (Harrison 2000: 360). In considering the development of the Levant, this periphery in the centre, a model like Algaze’s (1993) The Uruk World System may be appropriate for reconstructing the foundation and inherent dynamics of this region’s early production, economies and trade.

However, the kind or market forces and economy driving the shipment of large homogeneous cargos of MTCs by the Iron Age II must have differed somewhat in character from 201 say that of the EBA, which carried a limited number of MTC prototypes to a restricted number of Egyptian elite. Indeed, throughout the Bronze Age there occurred changes in the scale, distance and speed at which trade networks and especially maritime networks could operate. It is useful to consider that different socio-economic units and economies were participating in these networks and that this variation might be signaled or identified in the prominence of trade and exchange in other goods. In terms of ceramics, those which are less utilitarian, such as Red Lustrous Wheel- made ware, Base Ring ware or Stirrup Jars differ greatly from the corpus of Levantine MTCs examined here, and were presumably a) not carrying products in bulk, b) not especially well designed for maritime transport (even though they functioned as containers, evidently, to some degree), and c) carrying value-added products (e.g., perfumed oils). One can make a case for a different kind of economy here (or a different sector of the economy) but clarifying the structure and character of these tiers or sectors largely remains beyond the scope of the present study.

Examining the history and development of the Levantine littoral during the Bronze Age, and the contemporary development of maritime technologies and networks that accompanied urbanization processes there, it appears as though a large component of this economy, even into the Iron Age, was focused on bringing bulk agricultural production to regional and foreign markets. In the case of the Levant, these were frequently viscous staples (oil, wine, resin, etc.). The essential relationship that developed in Syria-Palestine, along with settlement patterns and urbanization processes, was one that connected hinterland production in certain staples with coastal emporia, where they could be transported to regional and foreign markets like Egypt.

Stager (2001: 628) identified these patterns as dendritic, often running along wadi systems and waterways, but this was not always the case across the eastern Mediterranean, where nonetheless it is clear that geography and local environment (rivers, mountains, the coast) influenced, if not dictated, network structures and settlement patterns. Nevertheless, that port power was very real and had significant economic force should be clear in the rise of and sustained prominence of coastal centers in the Levant and around the Mediterranean for millennia to come. Whether Byblos in the Old Kingdom / EBA or Tell el-Dabʿa in the MBA, Ugarit in the LBA or the Phoenician city-states of the Iron Age, this pattern persists, though over time the shipment of bulk agricultural staples was only one important element of the many trade goods and specialized production that provided powerful economic incentives for those participating in regional and international networks of trade and exchange. This phenomenon, 202 particularly apparent in the Mediterranean region, was by no means restricted to the Middle Sea, and long before Stager had considered the underlying mechanisms and structure of this economy, Polanyi (1963: 30) penned what he termed a study intended to confirm the “global presence of the economic institution to which, for want of a better word, we have given the name port of trade”. Whatever the precise economic underpinnings were in each region of the Mediterranean, it is apparent that the necessity, prominence and prosperity of port centers was characteristic of the later Iron Age, Classical and Roman periods, functioning as essential infrastructure and economic units responsible for both import and export. The patterns connecting ports of trade with the economies and production in the interior was not inherently dendritic in any given environment, but in the case of the littoral of Syria-Palestine this pattern persisted throughout antiquity and may be applicable to other areas.

8.4 The potential role of Trade Diaspora

In terms of parallels we might look to, one might begin to imagine the emergent eastern Mediterranean shipping routes and networks as functioning and displaying similar patterns to that of earlier, albeit terrestrial, trade networks of the of Assyrian commercial system (The Assyrian network of trade in Anatolia, ca. 1880 BCE), which has been called “perhaps the best- documented example of a long-distance trade network surviving from the ancient world” (Barjamovic 2018: 113). This phenomenon provides significant insight into commercial networks of infrastructure and trade for the period between 1950– 1750 BCE, akin to the manner in which commercial texts from the later LBA archive at Ugarit do for the terminal LBA and contemporary maritime exchange, albeit more long-lived in the case of the former. Although the Ugaritic archive contained thousands of tablets and revealed the cosmopolitan nature of international trade at the time and even specific details about merchants, shipments and trade (Zamora 2004), it is overshadowed by the astonishing 23,500 merchant records written on clay tablets found at Kültepe documenting the Old Assyrian commercial system and the network of ties it had across a very expansive geographic region (Barjamovic 2018: Fig. 5.1). Engaged in “an extensive overland trade in raw metals, wool, and textiles… This colony was the main hub for some three-dozen other Assyrian trading settlements, spread across central and southern Anatolia”, to the home of the traders some 950 km to the south at Assur (Northern Iraq). It’s possible that early Canaanite and later Phoenician maritime ‘trade diaspora’ (see Curtin 1984 for full discussion of this terminology) in the Mediterranean functioned similarly, with nodes being 203 largely comprised of strategic coastal sites or emporia. This prospect may be reinforced by the colonial and economic/commercial activities of the Phoenician city-states (Sagona 2008), especially in north Africa and to the west, typified by the foundation of Carthage and the emergent network of Punic city-states (Aubet 2001: 3).

The concept of trading diasporas was popularized by Curtin in Cross Cultural Trade in World History (1984). Long-distance trade often required the stationing of colonial trading centres or “diaspora” established by “expatriate members of some trading entity…who might live for generations in communities and travel widely in support of trade” (Holladay 1999: 202). This phenomenon would have allowed for some level of cultural integration and a much broader exchange of resources and ideas. In the case of the Bronze Age Canaanite diaspora, it is possible that alphabetic writing both developed, and more certainly, was subsequently disseminated in such a context. “Presently, the Phoenicians represent the most proximate, best model for our newly hypothesized second millennium Canaanite (in the fullest trade related sense of the term) trade diaspora” (Holladay 1999: 209).

It is known that a Cypriot diaspora was actually residing at Ugarit. Excavations reveal documents which suggest trade connection to numerous surrounding regions, and indeed, Cypriot merchants were not the only community from other polities residing there. In her discussion of Cypriot merchants living at Ugarit, Bell (2006) notes that the majority of Cypro- Minoan tablets were excavated in this context – thus providing a fortuitous example of what might be as a Cypriot trading diaspora settled at Ugarit and illustrating the complex nature and implications of LBA long-distance maritime trade. Curtin’s concept of a trade Diaspora resonates with evidence for the activities of the Bronze Age Canaanites and Cypriots, but also the Iron Age Phoenicians in the context of the greater Mediterranean. Beginning with the MBA Canaanites, particularly in the context of Tell el-Dabʿa, which showed gradual West Semitic infiltration during the MBA and was rivaled only by its presumed “mother city” of Byblos (Holladay 1999: 209). This important Delta site became an incredibly powerful major port of trade denoting the largest deposition of Canaanite Jars of any site – ever or since, if the excavators estimates of two million examples at the site are correct (Bietak 1996: 20; McGovern and Harbottle 1997: 145). As noted by Knapp and Demesticha (2016), these MTCs represented the largest group of imported pottery at Tell el-Dabʿa, an impressive 15–20% of the estimated vessels in the entire assemblage (Bader 2011: 139, Fig. 1). Avaris may represent “the most 204 important external trading node in the proto-Phoenician Canaanite’ trading diaspora” (Holladay 1999: 203).

8.5 Levantine MTCs and their distribution patterns

Reviewing this diachronic analysis of Canaanite and Phoenician MTCs from the EBA-Iron Age II and the associated distribution patterns reveals some significant structural variation between periods, but also some parallels. There is evidence for growth from the EBA to the MBA, when the distribution of MTCs begin to deviate from what appears to be a very strict coastal route, primarily to Egypt. This impressive expansion of MTC distribution in the MBA displays evidence for deposition along coastal Anatolia, on Cyprus and more profoundly in Egypt, particularly the Delta region and reaching the Red Sea. With the expulsion of the Hyksos and expansion of Egyptian Hegemony during the LBA, we see a dramatic expansion of these MTC distribution patterns and perhaps several centuries of stability during which Type 5.4 appears to proliferate during the LBII, when international trade and commerce flourished in the eastern Mediterranean based on archaeological data and textual sources (Cline 2014: 43-139). Despite some commercial depositional contexts suggesting use by various socio-economic classes, elite consumption is still largely reflected in the prevalence of MTC #3 in the tombs of Greece, mirroring evidence from Egypt and Nubia. Given the events that follow the LBA in the eastern Mediterranean, it seems significant that a similar pattern is visible in the EBA – MBA, when the more developed Egyptian state is ultimately invaded / experiences population movements from the secondary states it had been stimulating the development of and interacting with. Does something similar to the MBA Hyksos phenomenon occur in the Aegean with the emergence of the Bronze Age Myceneans that displace the Minoans, and similarly in the larger LBA Sea Peoples phenomenon? The warrior burials would seem to reflect similar trajectories in the development of culture and social complexity and in both cases these population movements (MBA and LBA) were preceded by periods of increasing stimulation and interaction with other, more advanced Mediterranean societies. Though the population movements of the LBA were more diverse in their origins than the MBA Hyksos, it does appear the Sea Peoples emerged from peripheries like the Aegean following the prosperity of the LBA (Cline 2014).

Whatever the case with these parallels, the economic growth and sustained prosperity enjoyed during the LBA by bourgeoning empires and powerful city-states was of course 205 followed by the turbulent events of the LBA/Iron transition, including large population movements and in some cases urban destruction / collapse that characterized this phenomenon in parts of the eastern Mediterranean (Cline 2014: 102-170). In the context of the littoral of Syria- Palestine we find evidence of these events primarily outside of Phoenicia, in coastal Canaan (Philistia) and significantly at Ugarit, where occurred the destruction of the prosperous emporia, with a textual archive there preserved by the conflagration and discussing these catastrophic events. Unsurprisingly, the Levantine MTC distribution patterns reviewed here reflect a contraction during this LBA/Iron Age I transition.

Nevertheless, along with these changes, there was also continuity, and in the Iron Age I we see a return to patterns similar to that of the MBA, with Egypt being the primary recipient of exported types and some deposition on Cyprus. This probable return to earlier routes as reflected in these patterns is significant and must also reflect structural changes that occurred in response to the socio-political changes occurring at this time and dramatic shifts in regional hegemons, market forces (supply and demand) and complicated factors relating to the aforementioned population movements / some degree of urban collapse witnessed in parts of coastal Syria- Palestine approaching and during the LBA / Iron Age transition. It is interesting that Phoenicia (coastal Lebanon) does not provide such evidence and shows stratigraphic continuity in the city- states there, and not surprisingly it is these Phoenician city-states that provide evidence for continuity in the production and use of the Levantine MTCs characteristic of the LBA (for more discussion of the transition from MTC #3-4 / Type 5.4 to 5.2, see Chapter 3). Although we no longer have the site, ‘Shipwreck 13’ discovered at Dor (Kingsley and Raveh 1996: Fig. 38.PW1) provided evidence for the Iron I Levantine MTC ‘par excellence’, and the dissertation of Waiman-Barak (2016: 86) notes that Avner Raban and Kurt Raveh discovered a wreck with a cargo full of these jars there (MTC #4 / Type 5.2). It is significant that this Iron I type also proved to be predominant in exported contexts like Cyprus and Egypt during this transitional period in the eastern Mediterranean.

Interestingly, like the MBA/LBA, the apparent restructuring and maritime network contraction in the Iron I is eventually followed by expansion in the Iron II. Though not as profound nor confined to the eastern Mediterranean, the Iron II distribution patterns of Levantine MTCs reflects movement westward into the central Mediterranean. This growth and westward expansion is akin to that witnessed during the LBA, however, during the Iron II these patterns 206 conspicuously appear to bypass the Aegean (save at Kommos) and connect more directly to Punic North Africa, with some evidence for plausible trade with elite along the Italian coast at Cumae and Pithekoussai. This is likely because of the same maritime and commercial activities being mediated by the emergent and powerful Greek city-states and competition from Aegean market forces, and/or this may just reflect limited archaeological visibility.

From the EBA – MBA – LBA, we see evidence for maritime network growth and expansion, especially westward to Cyprus and the Aegean, and southward into Egypt, Nubia and the Red Sea during the MBA-LBA. The MBA patterns are typified by an expansion of networks into the east Mediterranean, including Cyprus. The LBA reveals further expansion of these networks into the Aegean and so far south as Nubia, while the distribution patterns we see in the transition from the LBA to the Iron suggest that with this contraction and restructuring, there is some return to maritime trade patterns like that of the MBA, extending no further than Cyprus and focused intensely on Egypt. Iron I contraction and continuity is ultimately punctuated by the extreme westward expansion of the Phoenicians during the Iron II, which despite largely bypassing the Aegean, represents the greatest geographic extent of all distribution patterns examined, stretching to Punic North Africa and the Italian coast, also supported by the contemporary deposition of Phoenician ships (loaded with cargos exclusively comprised of these same MTCs manufactured along the Phoenician coast). In the central Mediterranean, beyond Carthage, it is once again elite tomb contexts, on the coast of Italy and Pithekoussai, which provide evidence for the deposition of Levantine MTCs (see Figures 73-74 below). It can be no coincidence that the best parallels for this material are examples from the Phoenician Elissa shipwreck and the Phoenician coast (see Appendix I: Pl.16, 17 and 21).

Figure 73: Miniature MTC #6 (Type 9.B2) from Cumae (Italy), not far from Pithekoussai (Tyrrhenian Sea)

Source: Gàbrice 1913: 245, Fig. 84 207

Source: Buchner 1982: Fig. 4c-d

In sum then, it appears that the dominant pattern is one of limited routes during the EBA- MBA, with the LBA seeing more of a network pattern. Following the transition to the Iron Age I the appearance of a more route-based pattern is reflected in the MTC distribution data, which eventually becomes more network-like in IA II (Chapter 5). The expansion of MTC distribution patterns and associated maritime routes and networks that occurs during the Iron II must have required some gradual restructuring and probable colonization in the form of Phoenician trade diaspora, a phenomenon already suggested to be occurring by the Eighth Century BCE (Aubet 2001: 3). When compared to that of the Bronze Age, although we see trade patterns pushing west in the Mediterranean, unlike the LBA, in the Iron I-II this is clearly focused most intensely on the southern Mediterranean coast, from Egypt to Carthage and now including Cumae (Figure 73, below) on the Italian coast and Pithekoussai, a strategic node in the Tyrrhenian Sea, within tombs preserving these MTCs as valued grave goods. This was often the case in other early exported contexts in Egypt and Greece (Compare Appendix I: Pl. 17.H ‘miniature’ 9.B.2 from Cumae with Pl. 17.G, a similar from the coastal Levant, also see Figure 29 in Chapter 3).

This pattern is significant as it reveals a clear trajectory or route focused on North Africa, as opposed to showing renewed MTC trade with the mainland Aegean, presumably dominated by the emergent competitors of the Greek city-states; despite evidence for continued exchange with the southern coast of Crete, at Kommos, and the Phoenician material from tomb 79 at 208

Lefkandi, Euboea, dated around 900 BCE (Nijboer 2008).55 That the available data that we have on these ceramics continues to source them to the Phoenician coast, along with the foundation of Carthage in North Africa, supports the notion that the far flung deposition of these diagnostic MTCs may well represent Phoenician maritime trading activities and not the foreign imitation of the ceramics or production technologies. Such conclusions must await petrographic and chemical analysis on MTCs from Pithekoussai and Cumae (Italy), yet it seems plausible that, like the postulated origins of similar Iron II material identified at Kommos (Bikai first examined sherds of MTC #5 or 6 / Type 9.B1 or 9.B2) and now confirmed to be Phoenician (Gilboa et al. 2015), that this central Mediterranean material will likewise be sourced to the Phoenician coast.

The presence of these Phoenician style MTCs in the tombs of coastal Italy at Pithekoussai (Buchner 1982: Fig. 4c-d), in the Tyrrhenian Sea no less, suggest plausible contact between Levantine Phoenician city-states or perhaps more likely with Phoenician diaspora / Punic settlement in North Africa, where the MTC assemblage is conspicuously mirrored at Carthage. At Carthage it is compared by excavators to similar MTCs from Syria-Palestine (Aznar Type 9.A), from which these larger Punic MTC forms are thought to derive (Chelbi 1991: 715-18); (compare Appendix I: Pl. 15.A from Tyre, with F from Pithekoussai/Carthage). Significantly, at Carthage the form was the earliest and first in their type series of Archaic Amphorae, with one example tentatively dated to the very early 7th century, but excavators suggesting that this type (at Carthage) appears probably in the first half of the 8th century and the translated text reveals that: This amphora is akin to a series of commercial vases, called "sausage shaped-jars" which appeared in the Orient with the Iron Age, towards the beginning of the first millennium BCE. But some morphological traits are said to make it different from the oriental amphorae; for instance, the marked bulging of the shoulder and the modelling of the lip (Chelbi 1991: 715-16). It is suggested that this amphora is without doubt the "main fossil" of the Phoenician presence in this area which it is widely spread; it often is the indicator, in the stratigraphy, of the point of impact of Phoenician colonization (Chelbi 1991: 715-19). As noted, we must await the necessary analytical data to make definitive attributions regarding the origins of this material in the central

55 Kourou (2008: 305-313) discusses the difficulties with identifying Phoenician presence and chronology in the Iron Age in the Aegean, but also in dating Greek ceramic material at Carthage. In the central and western Mediterranean context, it is significant to note that the Town Deposit at Huelva (Spain) reveals Phoenician occupation with an average radiocarbon date from 930 to 830 BC (see Nijboer 2008 for full discussion). 209

Mediterranean, as was the case of the Iron II “Phoenician” MTC sherds excavated at Kommos, now sourced to the Lebanese coast, but the appearance in both fabric and form of the central Mediterranean examples suggest intriguing possibilities for the prospects of Phoenician maritime activity in the Tyrrhenian sea at this time. Certainly, one can imagine that ships such as the Tanit and Elissa may have been bound for Carthage (not far from Pithekoussai), the alternative destination proposed by Stager for these Iron II Phoenician wrecks, beyond the obvious prospect of Egyptian markets (Ballard et al. 2002: 163, 160 Fig. 9.1).

Whatever the precise articulation of these low (archaeological) visibility Iron II events may be, it remains clear that the evolution of Canaanite and Phoenician style MTCs took place over a period of millennia and that despite the disruptions of the Late Bronze Age /Iron transition, the production of this technology continued in Phoenicia, and the distribution of these vessels continued to underlie contemporary maritime trading activities, sea routes and burgeoning network formation. The importance of these Bronze and Iron Age MTCs and their precious cargos, as well as the coastal emporia from which they were shipped, is demonstrable; visible not only in the available settlement pattern data that may reflect models such as ‘port power’, but also in the basic structure and function of local economies, material culture, texts and Mediterranean iconography.

Of all the influences that the Near East had on Mediterranean civilization, it is perhaps the outcomes of this maritime commerce and connectivity that was the most formative in the development of the greater region. The transmission of technologies (such as alphabetic writing), knowledge and culture at such great distances was perhaps unprecedented. The tantalizing hints of early contacts with Canaanite and Phoenician mariners, before the known Punic colonization of the western Mediterranean, will only be further elucidated as underwater archaeology continues to slowly reveal the myriad ships and MTCs deposited in the depths of the Mediterranean Sea. Each new discovery truly has the potential to reshape our understanding of these formative periods.

8.5.1 MTC Distribution Data, Networks and Future Scholarship

The MTC distribution data gathered here and outlined in Chapter 5 can be usefully employed by scholars conducting network analysis, especially in conjunction with the provenance data laid out in Chapter 6 indicating the origin of production for MTCs #1-5. The kinds of network 210 analysis that would be most effectively employed is focused on material networks (Mills 2017: 379-97), and because Spatial Network Analysis can be applied to different kinds of material culture, including these ceramics, based on presence/absence data and frequency at sites, these reconstructed patterns could enable future scholarship to address several questions regarding the development of the eastern Mediterranean during the Bronze and Early Iron Age. In particular, the diffusion/transmission of certain technological innovations (Mills 2017: 387), like for example alphabetic writing systems and Early Alphabetic Writing. It is likely that the spatial distribution analysis of MTCs undertaken here is especially relevant to this process because of the agents involved (BA Canaanite and IA Phoenicians) and the time periods that align perfectly with the use and lifetime of this technology in the Near East and greater Mediterranean. Other technologies may also be relevant, such as bronze metallurgy, the diffusion of painted plaster in the Bronze Age (Brysbaert 2008), the westward diffusion of olive varieties (Newton 2014), or of viticulture in the Iron Age. Moreover, these reconstructions will likewise be useful in understanding more about how maritime networks became a vehicle in the movement of not only goods, but also populations, ideologies, religion and cultural phenomenon that remain difficult to access archaeologically.

8.6 The Periphery in the center and the making of the Middle Sea

As briefly discussed in Chapter 1, there has been a historical tendency within scholarship to view archaic Mediterranean societies, especially those not directly connected, in isolation. We see early and extensive discourse on Egypt and the Levant, or on the greater Aegean, etc., but it was not until the past few decades of scholarship that much larger socio-economic and cultural units, like the Mediterranean itself, came to be increasingly viewed as a viable and meaningful unit of study. This thesis, like the seminal work of Broodbank (2013) seeks to move beyond a regional or isolationist approach to a holistic view of the Mediterranean and the formative processes that shaped it and the early human societies populating this geographically vast, yet economically, culturally and technologically interconnected region.

When we talk about the movement of goods, of people, of technologies and ideas, these are understood as phenomenon characteristic of the Mediterranean even before the Classical period (in the Bronze and Early Iron Age), and the explanatory mechanism for this has often been and to a large extent still remains, the sea. But the question of how we go about 211 reconstructing these disparate connections and complex interactions has been more complicated, especially in the absence of writing and historical sources or with limited archaeological visibility in many regions. How do we begin to attach these regional Hegemons, powerful city- states, these early complex societies, to a coherent chronology and make legitimate inference about their timing and activities in the context of the EBA, MBA, LBA or the Early Iron Age?

This distribution analysis of contemporary MTC types, originating in the Levant, but ultimately permeating the eastern and central Mediterranean, provides one basis for reconstructing such patterns of maritime activity and connectivity across a larger geographic unit than the Near East or eastern Mediterranean. Furthermore, it also offers some of the raw data necessary for the undertaking of network analysis in the context of this larger socio-economic and cultural unit. Using the presence/absence data provided in this study, coupled with additional quantitative data (such as vessel counts), we could begin to assign weight to sites featured in this MTC distribution based on MTC presence and deposition, or better still, apply a more complex network theory that attributes primacy to specific sites based on a variety of criteria. Moreover, as discussed above, these reconstructed patterns should also enable future scholarship to utilize this spatial distribution analysis to address a number of questions, including the dissemination of technological innovations like alphabetic writing and other phenomena that came to characterize the greater Mediterranean. Furthermore, the MTC distribution patterns reflected here by these chronologically diagnostic Levantine ceramics could be usefully compared with the contemporary distribution of other exported ceramic corpuses or MTCs that are diagnostic and have likewise been subjected to appreciable provenance studies/chemical analysis to determine their source, contents and centres of production. In the context of the LBA/EIA and east/west interactions, Mycenaean wares may provide prospective candidates for such comparanda.

Despite the problem of archaeological visibility and the limitations of the present study as it pertains to Levantine MTCs, these patterns are still significant, but should by no means taken as inherently reflective of the activities of ethnically Canaanite and Phoenician mariners exclusively. Rather, especially in the context of the LBA when network patterns are more apparent, these no doubt reflect the participation of a much broader mosaic of Mediterranean societies in maritime networks of both short and long-distance. However, this not to say that the presence of Phoenician style MTCs in the tombs of coastal Italy at Pithekoussai and Cumae 212 cannot (especially in the presence of more analytical data) be interpreted as plausible contact with Phoenicians, or their activities in the west / Punic settlement in North Africa.

In terms of attributing specific cultural influences in the formation of the Classical Mediterranean, this holistic approach helps to avoid a one-sided interpretation of this evolution, which at one time was viewed from an Orientalist perspective that saw the overwhelming majority of the features of the Mediterranean cultural toolkit as radiating from the Near and Middle East. Although in some cases this study does point to specific Levantine influences that may have played a formative role in the later manufacture of Classical era MTCs and the amphora (functionally or stylistically)– there is likewise evidence for such stimulus from other regions, like the Aegean, perhaps as early as the EBA, when EBA II Minoan MTC prototypes appear to predate or be contemporary with the production and use of the comparable Combed Ware tradition (MTC #1) along the Levantine coast (see Appendix I: Pl.3). Nevertheless, these Minoan ceramics, associated with the earliest vestiges of an amphorae occur somewhat later than the EBA I jars imported from Palestine to Egypt. These archetypal ‘Abydos ware’ containers were already delivering some of the same viscous staples (Figure 4) to Egyptian elite and are the most likely and proximate prototypes for later EBA III Combed Ware jars / MTC #1 (Figure 3).

Despite the appreciable support this study lends to the seminal maritime activities of the Bronze Age Canaanites and the Iron Age Phoenicians, its real value is not in a singular cultural attribution for the spread and distribution of Levantine MTCs or the later proliferation of these same shapes recalled in Classical and Roman period amphorae, but rather in helping to envision contemporary patterns of maritime routes and elusive networks that connected early societies inhabiting the east Mediterranean and ultimately the Middle Sea.

213

Bibliography

Abdelhamid, S. 2013 Against the throw-away-mentality: the reuse of amphoras in ancient maritime transport. In H.P. Hahn and H. Weiss (eds.), Mobility, Meaning and the Transformations of Things, 91- 106. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Abd el-Maqsoud, M. 1998 Tell Heboua (1981-1991): Enquête archéologique sur la Deuxième Période Intermédiaire et le Nouvel Empire à l’extrémité orientale du Delta. Paris: Ministére des affairs étrangéres, Editions Recherche sur les civilizations.

Akar, M. 2006 The MBII Building at Kinet Hoyuk: The Levantine Palace Tradition in Eastern Cilicia. Unpublished MA dissertation, Graduate School of Social Sciences, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.

Åkerström, A. 1975 More Canaanite jars from Greece. Opuscula Atheniensia 11: 185-192.

Alba Gómez, J.M. 2017 Breve Resena Sobre las Etiquetas de Aceite nhh en la Dinastia XVIII. Revista de ideas y formas políticas de la Antigüedad. Polis 29: 9-30.

Algaze, G. 1993 The Uruk world system: the dynamics of expansion of early Mesopotamian civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Amiran, R. 1970 Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Anati, E. 1959 Excavations at the Cemetery of Tell Abu Hawam (1952). Atiqot 2: 89-101.

Anderson, W. P. 1987 The kilns and workshops of Sarepta (Sarafand), Lebanon. Berytus 35: 41-66.

1988 Sarepta 1. The Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata of Area II, Y. Beirut: Département des publications de l’Université libanaise.

1989 The pottery industry at Phoenician Sarepta (Sarafand, Lebanon), with parallels to kilns from other East Mediterranean sites. In P.E. McGovern, M.D. Notis and W.D. Kingery (eds.), Cross-Craft and Cross-Cultural Interactions in Ceramics. Ceramics and Civilization 4: 197-215. Westerville, Ohio: American Ceramic Society.

Arnold, Do. 1982 Keramikbearbeitung in Dahschur 1976-1981. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 38: 25-65. 214

Arnold, Do., F. Arnold and S. Allen 1993 Canaanite Imports at Lisht, The Middle Kingdom Capital of Egypt. Ägypten und Levante V: 13-32.

Artzy, M. 1993 Tel Nami. In E. Stern, A. Lewison-Gilboa and J. Aviram, (eds.). The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 3: 1095-1098. London: Simon and Schuster.

2007 Tell Abu Hawam: News from the Late Bronze Age. In M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. III. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th of May – 1st of June 2003, 357-366. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Aston, B.G. 2005 The Pottery. In M.J. Raven (ed.), The tomb of Pay and Raia at Saqqara, 94-128. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Aston, D.A. 1991 The Pottery. In M.J. Raven (ed.), The tomb of Iurudef: a memphite official in the reign of Ramesses II, 47-54. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

1996 Egyptian Pottery of the Late New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (Twelfth- Seventh Centuries BC): Tentative Footsteps in a Forbidding Terrain. Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 13. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag.

1997 The Pottery. In G.T. Martin (ed.), The Tomb of Tia and Tia, 83-102. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

1998 Qantir I. Die Keramik des Grabungsplatzes Q1. Teil 1. Corpus of Fabrics, Wares, and Shapes. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Phillip von Zabern.

1999 Pottery from the late New Kingdom to the Early Ptolemaic Period. Elephantine XIX. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Abteilung Kairo. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 95. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Phillip von Zabern.

2002 Ceramic Imports at Tell el-Dabʿa during the Middle Bronze IIA. In M. Bietak (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant, Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24-26th of January 2001, 3: 43-87. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

2004a Tell el-Dabʿa XII: A Corpus of Late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period pottery. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

2004b Amphorae in New Kingdom Egypt. Ägypten und Levante XIV: 175-213.

215

Aston, D.A. and Aston, B.G. 2001 The Pottery. In G.T. Martin (ed.), The tombs of three Memphite officials. Ramose, Khay and Pabes, 50-61. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Aston, D.A., B.G. Aston and E.C. Brock 1998 Pottery from the Valley of the Kings – Tombs of Merenptah, Ramesses III, Ramesses IV, Ramesses VI and Ramesses VII. Ägypten und Levante VIII: 137-214.

Åström, P. 1986 Hala Sultan Tekke and its Foreign Relations. In V. Karageorghis (ed.), Acts of the International Archaeology Symposium “Cyprus between the Orient and the Occident”, 63- 68. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

1991a Canaanite Jars from Hala Sultan Tekke. In N.H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 90: 149-151. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag.

1991b Problems of Definition of Local and Imported Fabrics of Late Cypriot “Canaanite” Ware. In J.A. Barlow, D. Bolger, and B. Kling (eds.), Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record. University Museum Monograph 74: 67-72. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.

Aubet, M. 2001 The Phoenicians and the West. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Aznar, C. 2005 Exchange Networks in the Southern Levant during the Iron Age II: A Study of Pottery Origin and Distribution. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Program in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Bader, B. 2011 Traces of foreign settlers in the archaeological record of Tell el-Dabʿa. In K. Duistermaat and I. Regulski (eds.), Intercultural Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 202: 137–158. Louvain: Peeters.

2015 Egypt and the Bronze Age Mediterranean: The Archaeological Evidence. Oxford Handbooks online. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Badre, L., M.-C. Boileau, R. Jung and H. Mommsen 2005 The Provenance of Aegean- and Syrian-Type Pottery Found at Tell Kazel (Syria). Ägypten und Levante XV: 15-47.

Badre, L. 1997 Preliminary Report: Excavations of the American University of Beirut Museum 1993-1996. Bulletin d'archéologie et d'architecture libanaises 2: 6-94.

216

Badre, L. and É. Gubel 1999-2000 Tell Kazel, Syria. Excavations of the AUB Museum, 1993-1998. Third Preliminary Report. Berytus 44: 123-203.

Bachhuber, C. 2006 Aegean interest on the Uluburun ship. American Journal of Archaeology 110: 345-363.

Bachhuber, C. and R.G. Roberts 2009 Forces of transformation: the end of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean: proceedings of an international symposium held at St. John's College, University of Oxford, 25-6th March, 2006. British Association for Near Eastern Archaeology. Oxford, London: Oxbow Books.

Ballard, R.D., L.E. Stager, D. Master, D. Yoerger, D. Mindell, L.L. Whitcomb, H. Singh and D. Piechota 2002 Iron Age shipwrecks in deep water off Ashkelon, Israel. American Journal of Archaeology 106: 151-168.

Barako, T. 2008 Amphoras through the ages. In L.E. Stager, J.D. Schloen and D.M. Master (eds.), Ashkelon 1: Introduction and Overview (1985–2006), 429-461. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

Bard, K.A. and R. Fattovich 2009 Mersa/Wadi Gawasis, Mission 2007-2008. Internet Edition: www.archeogate.org.

2010 Spatial use of the Twelfth Dynasty harbor at Mersa/Wadi Gawasis for the seafaring expeditions to Punt. Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 2 (3): 1-13.

2015 Mersa/Wadi Gawasis and ancient Egyptian maritime trade in the Red Sea. Near Eastern Archaeology 78: 4-11.

Barjamovic, G. 2018 Interlocking Commercial Networks and the Infrastructure of Trade in Western Asia during the Bronze Age. In Kristian Kristiansen (eds.), Trade and Civilization: Economic Networks and Cultural Ties, From Prehistory to the Early Modern Era, 113-142. Göteborgs Universitet, Sweden: Cambridge University Press.

Bass, G. F. 1967 Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 57.8. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.

1973 Cape Gelidonya and Bronze Age Maritime Trade. In H. A. Hoffner (ed.), Orient and Occident: Essays presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, 29-38. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker.

1986 The Bronze Age shipwreck at Ulu Burun: 1984 campaign. American Journal of Archaeology 90: 269-296.

217

1987 Oldest Known Shipwreck Reveals Splendors of the Bronze Age. National Geographic 172 (6): 692-733.

Bass, G.F and C. Pulak 1989 The Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun: 1986 Campaign. I. Excavations at Ulu Burun in 1986. American Journal of Archaeology 93: 1-29.

Bass, G., P. Throckmorton, J. Du Plat Taylor, J. Hennessy, A. Shulman and H. Buchholz 1967 Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 57(8): 1-177.

Batiuk, S. 2005 Migration Theory and the Distribution of the Early Transcaucasian Culture. Published PhD dissertation, Program in Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.

Beck, P. 1975 The Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age IIA at Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 2: 45-85.

1985 The Middle Bronze Age IIA Pottery from Aphek, 1972-1984; First Summary. Tel Aviv 12: 181-203.

2000 Area B: Pottery (Ch. 8) and Area A: Middle Bronze IIA Pottery (Ch. 10). In M. Kochavi, P. Beck, and E. Yadin (eds.), Aphek-Antipatris I. Excavation of Areas A and B. The 1972- 1976 Seasons, 93-133 and 173-238. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

Bell, C. 2006 The Evolution of Long-Distance Trading Relationships across the LBA/Iron Age Transition on the Northern Levantine Coast: Crisis, Continuity and Change. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1574. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Ben-Arieh, S. 2004 Grave Goods and Chronology. In S. Ben-Arieh (ed.), Bronze and Iron Age Tombs at Tell Beit Mirsim. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 23: 11-122. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Ben-Arieh, S. and G. Edelstein 1977 Akko: Tombs near the Persian Garden. The Tombs and their Contents. Atiqot: 12, 1-44.

Ben-Shlomo, D. 2006 Decorated Philistine Pottery: An Archaeological and Archaeometric Study. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1541. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Ben-Tor, A. 1989 Hazor III-IV: The James A. de Rothschild Expadition to Hazor. An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavations 1957–1958. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

218

Ben Tor, A., A. Zarzecki-Peleg and S. Cohen-Anidjar 2005 Yoqne’am II: The Iron Age and Persian Period. Qedem Reports 6. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Besnard, G., Terral, J.-F. and A. Cornille 2018 On the origins and domestication of the olive: a review and perspectives. Annals of Botany 121 (3): 16: 385–403.

Bettles, E. A. 2003a Phoenician Amphora Production and Distribution in the Southern Levant: A Multi- Disciplinary Investigation into Carinated-Shoulder Amphorae of the Persian Period (539-332 BC), Volume 1. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1183. Oxford: Archaeopress.

2003b Carinated-shoulder amphorae from Sarepta, Lebanon: a Phoenician commodity and its intra-regional distribution. Archaeology and History in Lebanon 17: 60-79.

Bernstein, W. J. 2008 A splendid exchange: how trade shaped the world. New York: Grove Press.

Bevan, A. 2007 Stone Vessels and Values in the Bronze Age Mediterranean. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

2014 Mediterranean containerization. Current Anthropology 55: 387-418.

2019 A Stored-Products Revolution in the 1st Millennium BC. Archaeology International 22 (1): 127–144.

Bevan, A. and D. Wengrow 2010 Cultures of Commodity Branding. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press.

Beydoun, Z.R. 1976 Observations on Geomorphology, Transportation and Distribution of Sediments in Western Lebanon and its Continental Shelf and Slope Regions. Marine Geology 21: 311-324.

Bietak, M. 1986 Tell el-Dabʿa. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

1991 Tell el-Dabʿa V: ein Friedhofsbezirk der Mittleren Bronzezeitkultur mit Totentempel und Siedlungsschichten. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

1996 Avaris: The Capital of the Hyksos. Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dabʿa. London: British Museum Press for the Trustees of the British Museum.

Bikai, P.M. 1978 The Pottery of Tyre. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.

219

1983 The imports from the east. In V. Karageorghis (ed.), Palaepaphos-Skales: An Iron Age Cemetery in Cyprus. Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos auf Cypern 3: 396-406. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz.

1987 The Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus. Nicosia: Leventis Foundation.

2000 Phoenician ceramics from the Greek sanctuary. In J. Shaw and M. Shaw (eds.), Kommos IV: The Greek Sanctuary, 302-335. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bourriau, J. 1987 Kôm Rabî’a, Memphis (Egypt Exploration Society). Bulletin de Liaison due Groupe International d‟Étude de la Céramique Égyptienne XII: 10-11.

1990a Canaanite Jars from New Kingdom Deposits at Memphis, Kôm Rabî’a. Eretz-Israel 21: 18-26.

1990b The Pottery. In P. Lacovara (ed.), Deir el-Ballas. Preliminary Report on the Deir el- Ballas Expedition, 1980-1986. ARCE Reports 12: 15-22. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns for the American Research Center in Egypt.

1991 Relations between Egypt and Kerma during the Middle and New Kingdoms. In W. Davies, (ed.), Egypt and Africa: Nubia from Prehistory to Islam, 129-144. London: British Museum Press.

1996 Observation of the Pottery from Serabit el-Khadim. Cahiers de recherches de l’institut de Papyrologie et d’Egyptologie de Lille 18: 19-32.

2004 The beginnings of amphora production in Egypt. In J. Bourriau and J. Phillips (eds.), Invention and Innovation: The Social Context of Technological Change II, Egypt, the Aegean and the Near East, 1650-1150 B.C. Oxford: Oxbow.

Bourriau, J. and D. Aston 1985 Pottery. In G.T. Martin (ed.), The Tomb Chapels of Paser and Ra‟ia at Saqqara, 32-55. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Bourriau, J., D. Aston, M.J. Raven and R. Van Walsem 2005 The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, Commander-in-Chief of Tutankhamun III. The New Kingdom Pottery. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Bourriau, J., L.M.V. Smith and M. Serpico 2001 The Provenance of Canaanite Amphorae found at Memphis and Amarna in the New Kingdom. In A. Shortland (ed.), The Social Context of Technological Change. Egypt and the Near East, 1650-1550 B.C., 113-146. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Braidwood, R. 1940 Report on Two Sondages on the Coast of Syria, South of Tartous. Syria: 21: 183-226.

220

Braun, E. 2011 Early Interaction between Peoples of the Nile Valley and the Southern Levant. In E. Teeter (ed.), Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization. Oriental Institute Museum Publications 33: 105-22. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Braun, E. and E. C. M. van den Brink 2008 Appraising South Levantine-Egyptian Interaction: Recent Discoveries from Israel and Egypt. In B. Midant-Reynes and Y. Tristan (eds.), Egypt at Its Origins 2. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 172: 642–675. Leuven, Dudley, MA: Peeters.

Bretschneider J., A. Kanta and J. Driessen 2018 Pyla-Kokkinokremos. Preliminary Report on the 2015-2016 Excavations. In K. Bergerhoff, M. Dietrich and O. Loretz (eds.), Ugarit- Forschungen. Internationales Jahrbuch für die Altertumskunde Syriens-Palästinas 48: 35-120. Münster: Verlag.

Bretschneider, J., G. Jans, C. Baeteman, V. Boschloos, B. De Cupere, P. Degryse and H. Hameeuw 2019 About Tell Tweini (Syria): artefacts, ecofacts and landscape: research results of the Belgian mission. Leuven: Peeters.

Briend, J. and J.-B. Humbert 1980 Tell Keisan (1971-1976): Une Cité Phénicienne en Galilée. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 1. Freiburg, Gӧttingen: Freibourg University Press, Vandenhoeck and Reprecht.

Broodbank, C. 2000 An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2006 The origins and development of Mediterranean maritime activity. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 19: 199–230.

2010 Ships a-sail from over the rim of the sea: voyaging, sailing and the making of Mediterranean societies c. 3500-800 BC. In A. Anderson, J. Barrett and K. Boyle (eds.), The Global Origins and Development of Seafaring, 249-264. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

2013 The Making of the Middle Sea: A History of the Mediterranean From the Beginning to the Formation of the Classical World (2 million to 500 BC). London: Thames and Hudson.

Brysbaert, A. 2008 The power of technology in the Bronze Age eastern Mediterranean: the case of the painted plaster. London: Equinox Publishing.

Buchbinder, B. 1975 Stratigraphic significance of the alga Amphiroa in Neogene-Quaternary bioclastic sediments from Israel. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 24: 44-48.

221

Buchner, G. 1982 Die Kolonie Pithekoussai und der Nordwestsemitische Raum. In Hans Georg Niemeyer (ed.), Phönizier im Westen: die Beiträge des Internationalen Symposiums über "Die phönizische Expansion im westlichen Mittelmeerraum in Köln vom 24. bis 27, April 1979, 277-306. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

Budka, J. 2006 The Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos 2002-2004: The New Kingdom Pottery. Ägypten und Levante XVI: 83-120.

Bunimovitz, S. and I. Finkelstein 1993 Pottery. In I. Finkelstein, S. Bunimovitz and Z. Lederman (eds.), Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site, 81-195. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

Casson, L. 1995 Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Cateloy., C. 2016 Trade and capacity studies in the eastern Mediterranean: the first Levantine trade amphorae. In A.B. Knapp and S. Demesticha (eds.), Maritime Transport Containers in the Bronze-Iron Age Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, 39-55. Göteborg, Sweden: P. Åström's Förlag.

2019 Imported Levantine Amphorae at Tell el-Dabʿa: A Volumetric Approach to Reconsidering the Maritime Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. In Manfred Bietak and Silvia Prell (eds.), The Enigma of the Hyksos, Volume I: 277-304. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Chelbi, F. 1991 À Propos des Amphores Archaïques de Carthage. In E. Acquaro, P. Bartoloni, M. Teresa Francisi, L-I Manfredi, F. Maza, G. Montalto, G. Petruccioli, S. Ribichini, G. Scandone, P. Xella (eds.), Atti del II Congresso internazionale di studi fenici e punici: Roma, 9-14 Novembre 1987, Volume 2: 715-732. Roma: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche.

Clagett, M. 1989 Ancient Egyptian science: a source book. Volume III: Ancient Egyptian mathematics. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.

Cline, E. 1991 Orientalia in the Late Bronze Age Aegean: A catalogue and analysis of trade and contacts between the Aegean and Egypt, Anatolia and the Near East. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Program in the Department of History, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

2014 1177 B.C. The year civilization collapsed. Princeton: University Press, Princeton.

222

Cohen-Weinberger, A., and Y. Goren 2004 Levantine-Egyptian interactions during the 12th to the 15th dynasties based on the petrography of Canaanite pottery from Tell el-Dabʿa. Ägypten und Levante 14: 69-100.

Cole, D.P. 1984 Shechem I: The Middle Bronze IIB Pottery. American Schools of Oriental Research Excavation Reports. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

Courtois, J.-C. 1962 Contribution a l’étude des civilizations du Bronze Ancien a Ras Shamra-Ugarit. In C.F.A. Schaeffer, Ugaritica 4 (Mission de Ras Shamra 15, Bibliiotheque Archeologique et Historique 74): 415-475. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.

1981 Alasia II. Les Tombes d’Enkomi, le Mobilier Funéraire (Fouilles C.F.-A. Schaeffer 1947- 1965). Paris: Mission Archeologique d’Alasia.

Cross, F.M. 1989 The invention and development of the alphabet. In W.M. Senner (ed.), The Origin of Writing, 79-90. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Curtin, P. 1984 Cross-cultural Trade in World History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Czerny, E. 1999 Tell el-Dabʿa IX. Eine Plansiedlung des frühen Mittleren Reiches. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Davies, N. De G. 1927 Two Ramesside Tombs at Thebes. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Davies, N. De G. and R. Faulkner 1947 A Syrian Trading Venture to Egypt. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 33: 40-46.

Davis, A.B. 2012 Calculus:early transcendentals. 10th Edition. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.

Day, P.M. and D.E. Wilson 2016 Dawn of the amphora: the emergence of Maritime Transport Containers in the Early Bronze Age Aegean. In B.K. Knapp and S. Demesticha (eds.), Maritime Transport Containers in the Bronze-Iron Age Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, 17-37. Göteborg, Sweden: P. Åström's Förlag.

Day, P.M., J.B. Rutter, P.S. Quinn and V. Kilikoglou 2011 A world of goods: transport jars and commodity exchange at the Late Bronze Age harbor of Kommos, Crete. Hesperia 80: 511–558.

223 de Miroschedji, P. 2002 The socio-political dynamics of Egyptian-Canaanite interaction in the Early Bronze Age. In E. C. M. van den Brink and T. E. Levy (eds.), Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium BCE, 39-57. London: Leicester University Press.

Deitler, M. 1990 Driven by drink: the role of drinking in the political economy and the case of Early Iron Age France. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 352-406.

Densmore, D. 1998 Conics Books I-III – by Apollonius Of Perga. Trans. R. Catesby Taliaferro. Santa Fe, N.M.: Green Lion Press.

Dever, W.G., Lance, H.D. and G.E. Wright 1970 Gezer I: preliminary report of the 1964-66 seasons. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College Biblical and Archaeological School.

Dikaios, P. 1969-71 Enkomi, Excavations 1948-1958. Volumes I-IIIA. Mainz: von Zabern.

Dothan, M. 1993 Tel Acco. In E. Stern, A. Lewison-Gilboa and J. Aviram (eds.), The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 1: 17-23. London: Simon and Schuster.

Dothan, T. 1979 Excavations at the Cemetery of Deir El-Balah. Qedem 10. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University.

Doumet-Serhal, C. 2006 Eighth and Ninth Seasons of Excavation (2006–2007) at Sidon, Preliminary Report. Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 10: 131–165.

2008 Networking patterns of the Bronze and Iron Age Levant: the Lebanon and its Mediterranean connections. London: Lebanese British Friends of the National Museum.

2013 Tracing Sidon’s Mediterranean networks in the second millennium BC: receiving, transmitting, and assimilating. Twelve years of British Museum excavations. In J. Aruz, S.B. Graf and Y. Rakic (eds.), Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC, 132-141. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Dubertret, L. 1962 Liban, Syrie et bordure des pays voisins. Paris: l’Institut Géographique.

1974 Introduction a la Carte Géologique a 1/50,000e du Liban. Notes et memoires sur le Moyen- Orient: 13, 345-403.

224

Du Plat Taylor, J. 1957 Myrtou-Pighades: A Late Bronze Age Sanctuary in Cyprus. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum.

Dunand, M. 1937 Fouilles de Byblos. Paris: P. Geuthner.

Duncan, J.G. 1930 Corpus of Palestinian Pottery. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt.

Emery, W.B., H.S. Smith and A. Millard 1979 The fortress of Buhen: the archaeological report. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Engelbach, R. 1915 Riqqeh and Memphis VI. London: School of Archaeology in Egypt, University College.

Esse, D. 1991 Subsistence, Trade, and Social Change in Early Bronze Age Palestine. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 50. Chicago, Illinois: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Esse, D. and P.K. Hopke 1986 Levantine trade in the Early Bronze Age: from pots to people. In J.S. Olin and M.J. Blackman (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th International Archaeometry Symposium, 327- 339. Washington DC: Elsevier.

Fargo, V. 1979 Settlement in Southern Palestine during the Early Bronze III. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Program in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, University of Chicago, Chicago Illonois.

Finkelstein , I., E. Zapassky, Y. Gadot, D.M. Master, L.E. Stager and I. Benenson 2011 Phoenician ‘torpedo’ amphoras and Egypt: standardization of volume based on linear dimensions, Ägypten und Levante 21: 249–259.

Fischer, P. and T. Bürge 2017 Tombs and Offering Pits at the Late Bronze Age Metropolis of Hala Sultan Tekke, Cyprus. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 377: 161-218.

Flender, M. 2000 Cylinder seal impressed vessels of the Early Bronze Age III in northern Palestine. In G. Philip and D. Baird (eds.), Ceramics and change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant, 295-313. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Fortin M. and L. Cooper 2013 Shedding new Light on the Elusive Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages at Tell ‘Acharneh (Syria). In A. Yener (ed.), Across the Border. Late Bronze-Iron Age Relationships between Syria and Anatolia. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series 42: 149-173. Louvain: Peeters.

225

Forstner-Müller, I. 2008 Tell el-Dabʿa XVI: die Gräber des Areals A/II von Tell el-Dabʿa. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Franke, D. 1988 Zur Chronologie des Mittleren Reiches (12.–18. Dynastie). Teil I: Die 12. Dynastie. Orientalia 57: 113-138.

French, E.B. 1990 Archaeology in Greece 1989-1990. Archaeological Reports for 1989-1990, 36: 3-82.

Fuscaldo, P. 2000 Tell el-Dabʿa X. The Palace District of Avaris. The Pottery of the Hyksos Period and the New Kingdom (Areas H/III and H/VI). Part I: Locus 66. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

2001 Preliminary report on the 18th Dynasty pottery from ‛Ezbet Helmi, Area H/III-t-u/17 (the bathroom). Ägypten und Levante XI: 149-166.

Gàbrice, E. 1913 Cuma. Monumenti Antichi 22: Part 1. Milano: Libraio della Real Casa e della Reale Accademia dei Lincei.

Gass, I.G., C.J. MacLeod, B.J. Murton, A. Panayiotou, K.O. Simonian, and C. Xenophontos 1994 The Geology of the Southern Troodos Transform Fault Zone. Cyprus Geological Survey Department Memoir No. 9. Nicosia: Geological Survey Department.

Gerstenblith, P. 1983 The Levant at the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Geva, S. 1982 Archaeological evidence for the trade between Israel and Tyre. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 248: 69–72.

Gilboa, A. 1995 The typology and chronology of the Iron Age pottery and the chronology of Iron Age assemblages. In E. Stern (ed.), Excavations at Dor: Final Report. Volume I: Areas A and C: The Finds. Qedem Report 2: 1-49. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Israel Exploration Society.

1998 Iron I-IIA pottery evolution at Dor: regional contexts and the Cypriot connection. In S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern (eds.), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE, 413-425. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

2005 Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the southern Phoenician coast—a reconciliation: an interpretation of Sikila (SKL) material culture. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 337: 47–78. 226

Gilboa, A., and I. Sharon 2003 An archaeological contribution to the early Iron Age chronological debate: alternative chronologies for Phoenicia and their effects on the Levant, Cyprus, and Greece. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 323: 7-80.

Gilboa, A., A. Karasik, I. Sharon and U. Smilansky 2004 Toward computerized typology and classification of ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 681–694.

Gilboa, A., I. Sharon and E. Boaretto 2008 Tel Dor and the chronology of Phoenician ‘pre-colonization stages’. In C. Sagona (ed.), Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 28: 113-204. Leuven: Peeters.

Gilboa, A., P. Waiman-Barak and R. Jones 2015 On the Origin of Iron Age Phoenician Ceramics at Kommos, Crete: Regional and Diachronic Perspectives across the Bronze to Iron Age Transition, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 374: 75-102.

Giorgini, M.S. 1971 Soleb II, Les Nécropoles. Firenze: Sansoni.

Goldberg, P., B. Gould, A. Killebrew and J. Yellin 1986 Comparison of neutron activation and thin-section analyses on Late Bronze Age ceramics from Deir el-Balah. In J. Olin and M.J. Blackman (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th International Archaeometry Symposium: 341–351. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute.

Goldman, H. 1963 Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, 1881-1972. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Goren, Y. 2003 Review of P.E. McGovern, The Foreign Relations of the ‘Hyksos’: A Neutron Activation study of Middle Bronze Age Pottery from the Eastern Mediterranean. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 888, Bibliotheca Orientalis 60: 105–110. Oxford: Archaeopress.

2013 International exchange during the late second millennium bc: microarchaeological study of finds from the Uluburun ship. In J. Aruz, S.B. Graf and Y. Rakic (eds.), Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium bc, 54–61. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Goren, Y. and N. Halperin 2004 Petrographic analysis: selected cases. In D. Ussishkin (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994). Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22: 2553-2568. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.

227

Grace, V. 1956 The Canaanite jar. In S. Weinberg (ed), The Aegean and the Near East: Studies Presented to Hetty Goldman, 80-109. New York: J.J. Augustin.

1961 Amphoras and the Ancient Wine Trade. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

1979 Amphoras and the Ancient Wine Trade. Excavations of the Athenian Agora, Picture Book 6, Revised edition. Princeton, New Jersey: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Grajetzki, W. 2006 The Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt. London: Duckworth.

Gray, A. 1997 Modern Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces with Mathematica, 2nd ed. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.

Greenberg, R. and N. Porat 1996 A third millennium Levantine pottery production center: typology, petrography, and provenance of the Metallic Ware of northern Israel and adjacent regions. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 301: 5-24.

Griffiths, D. 2011–12 Petrographic analysis of Tell el-Yahudiyeh ceramics. Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 34–35: 154–162.

Haber, M., C. Doumet-Serhal, C. Scheib, Y. Xue, P. Danecek, M. Mezzavilla, S. Youhanna, R. Martiniano, J. Prado-Martinez, M. Szpak, E. Matisoo-Smith, H. Schutkowski, R. Mikulski, P. Zalloua, T. Kivisild and C. Tyler-Smith. 2017 Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History from Ancient Canaanite and Present-Day Lebanese Genome Sequences. The American Journal of Human Genetics 101: 274–282.

Hadjicosti, M. 1988 Part 1: ‘Canaanite’ jars from Maa-Palaeokastro. In V. Karageorghis and M. Demas (eds.), Excavations at Maa-Palaeokastro 1979-1986, 340-386. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

Hadjisavvas, S. 1986 Alassa: A New Late Cypriote Site. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus, 44- 59. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

1992 Olive Oil Processing in Cyprus. From the Bronze Age to the Byzantine Period. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 99. Jonsered, Sweden: P. Åström’s Förlag.

Hamilton, R.W. 1935 Excavations at Tell Abu Hawam. London: Oxford University Press. 228

Hanfmann, G.M.A. 1963 The Iron Age. In H. Goldman (ed.), Excavations at Gozlu Kule: Tarsus III: 18-332. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

1983 Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

2008 North Syria and Cilicia, c.1200 – 330 BCE. In C. Sagona (ed.), Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 28: 205- 246. Leuven: Peeters.

Harrison, T. P. 1993 Economics with an Entrepreneurial Spirit: Early Bronze Trade with Late Predynastic Egypt. Biblical Archaeologist 56: 81-93.

2000 The Early Bronze III Ceramic Horizon for Highland Central Jordon. In Philip, G. and D. Baird (eds.), Ceramics and change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant, 191- 196. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press.

2009 Lifting the veil on a ‘Dark Age’: Ta'yinat and the North Orontes Valley during the Early Iron Age. In J.D. Schloen (ed.), Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, 171-184. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

Hartung, U. 2002 Imported jars from Cemetery U at Abydos and the relations between Egypt and Canaan in predynastic times. In E.C.M. van den Brink and T. E. Levy (eds.), Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the early 3rd Millennium BC, 437-449. London: Leicester University Press.

Hartung, U., Köhler, E., Müller, V., and M. Ownby 2015 Imported pottery from Abydos: A new petrographic perspective. Ägypten Und Levante / Egypt and the Levant, 25: 295-333.

Hein, I. 2004 Palestinian Imports at Karnak North. Bulletin de Liaison due Groupe International d’Étude de la Céramique Égyptienne, XXII: 49-53.

Helck, W. 1971 Die Beziehungen zu vorderasien im 3. Und 2. Jahrausend v. Chr., 2nd edn. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Heltzer, M. 1978 Goods, Prices, and the Organization of Trade in Ugarit. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.

229

Hennessy, J.B. and J. du Plat Taylor 1967 The pottery. In G. F. Bass (ed.) Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 57 (part 8): 122-125. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society.

Herodotus 1920 Histories. With an English translation by A.D. Godley. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Hilbert, D. 1999 Geometry and the Imagination. Providence, Rhode Island: American Mathematical Society, Chelsea Publishing.

Hirsch, A. 2013 Ancient Egyptian Cubits – Origin and Evolution. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Program in Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.

Holladay, J.S. 1999 The Eastern Nile Delta During the Hyksos and Pre-Hyksos Periods: Toward a Systematic /Socioeconomic Understanding. In E.D. Oren (ed.), The Hyksos: new historical and archaeological perspectives, University Museum monograph 96: 183-222. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

Holthoer, R. 1977 New kingdom pharaonic sites: The pottery. Stockholm, Sweden: Esselte Studium.

Hope, C. 1978 Malkata and the Birket Habu 1971-1974. Jar Sealings and Amphorae of the 18th Dynasty: A Technological Study. Warminster: Aris and Phillips Ltd.

Horden, P. and N. Purcell 2000 The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hulin, L. 2002 Chapter 8: Bronze Age Plain Pottery: Egyptian, Canaanite and Cypriot. In D. White (ed.), Marsa Matruh: the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology’s excavations on Bates’s Island, Marsa Matruh, Egypt 1985-1989, 17-45. Philadelphia: Institute for Aegean Prehistory Academic Press.

Iacovou, M. 2008 ‘The Palaepaphos Urban Landscape Project’: theoretical background and preliminary report 2006-2007. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 263-289. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

2014 ‘Working with the shadows’: in search of the myriad forms of social complexity. In Y. Galanakis, T. Wilkinson and J. Bennet (eds), Critical Essays on the Archaeology of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honour of E. Susan Sherratt, 117-126. Oxford: Archaeopress.

230

Jidejian, N. 1971 Byblos Through the Ages. 2nd edn. Beirut: Dar el-Machreq Publishers.

Joffe, A. H. 2002 The rise of secondary states in the Iron Age Levant. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 45: 425-467.

Jones, R.E. 2000 Chemical analyses of Phoenician imports at Kommos. In J.W. Shaw and M.C. Shaw (eds.), Kommos: An Excavation on the South Coast of Crete. Kommos IV: The Greek Sanctuary, 331-332. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Jones, R.E. and S.J. Vaughn 1988 A study of some Canaanite jar fragments from Maa-Palaeokastro by petrographic and chemical analysis. In V. Karageorghis and M. Demas (eds.), Excavations at Maa- Palaeokastro 1979-1986, 386-98. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

Kaplan, J. 1955 A Cemetery of the Bronze Age Discovered near Tel Aviv Harbour.‛Atiqot 1: 1-12.

Kaplan, J. and H. Ritter-Kaplan 1993 Jaffa. In E. Stern, A. Lewison-Gilboa and J. Aviram (eds.), The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 2: 655-659. London: Simon and Schuster.

Karageorghis, V. 1974 Salamis Volume 5. Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis III. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

1983 Palaepaphos-Skales: An Iron Age Cemetery in Cyprus. Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos auf Cypern 3: 396-406. Konstanz: Universitatsverlag Konstanz.

Karageorghis, V. and M. Demas 1984 Pyla-Kokkinokremos: A Late 13th Century B.C. Fortified Settlement in Cyprus. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

1985 Excavations at Kition V. The Pre-Phoenician Levels (Plates). Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

1988 Excavations at Maa-Palaeokastro 1979-1986. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.

Karr, R., M. Massey and D. Gustafson 2015 Beginning and Intermediate Algebra: A Guided Approach. Toronto, Ontario: Nelson Education.

231

Kempinski, A. 2002 Tel Kabri: The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons. Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 20. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

Kilani, M. 2016 Byblos in the Late Bronze Age: Interactions between the Levantine and Egyptian Worlds. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Program in Classical Archaeology, University of Oxford, Oxford.

Killebrew, A. 2007 The Canaanite storage jar revisited. In S.W. Crawford, A. Ben-Tor, J.P. Dessel, W.G. Dever, A. Mazar and J. Aviram (eds.), "Up to the gates of Ekron": Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin, 166- 188. Jerusalem: Albright institute of Archaeological Research, Israel Exploration Society.

2018 “From ‘global’ to ‘glocal’: cultural connectivity and interactions between Cyprus and the southern Levant during the Transitional Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages” in L. Niesiolowski-Spano and M. Mecowski (eds.), Change, Continuity and Connectivity. North-Eastern Mediteranean at the turn of the Bronze Age and in the early Iron Age, 81- 94. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Kilian, K. 1988 Ausgrabungen in Tiryns, 1932/1983, Bericht zu den Grabungen. Archäologischer Anzeiger, 105-51.

Kingsley, S.A. and K. Raveh 1996 The Ancient Harbor and Anchorage at Dor, Israel: Results of the Underwater Surveys, 1976-1991. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 626. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.

Knapp, A.B. 1991 Spice, drugs, grain and grog: organic goods in Bronze Age eastern Mediterranean trade. In N.H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 90: 21-68. Göteborg, Sweden: P. Åström's Förlag.

Knapp, A.B. and S. Demesticha 2016 Mediterranean Connections: Maritime Transport Containers and Seaborne Trade in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages of the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, New York

Knappett, C. 2013 Network Analysis in Archaeology: New Approaches to Regional Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Knappett, C. T. Evans and R. Rivers 2008 Modelling Maritime Interaction in the Aegean Bronze Age. Antiquity 82: 1009-1024.

232

2011 The Theran eruption and Minoan palatial collapse: new interpretations gained from modelling the maritime network. Antiquity 85: 1008-1023.

Knoblauch, C. 2010 Preliminary report on the Early Bronze Age III Pottery from contexts of the 6th Dynasty in the Abydos Middle Cemetery. Ägypten und Levante 20: 243-261.

Kopetzky, K. 2004 Statistische Auswertung der Siedlungskeramik vom Planquadrat p/19. In I. Hein and P. Jánosi, (eds.) Tell el-Dabʿa. XI, Areal A/V siedlungsrelikte der späten 2: Zwischenzeit: 237-336. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Krahmalkov, C.R. 2000 A Phoenician-Punic grammar. Boston: Brill.

Kourou, N. 2008 The Evidence from the Aegean. In C. Sagona (ed.), Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 28: 305-364. Leuven: Peeters.

Lambrou-Phillipson, C. 1990 Hellenorientalia: The Near Eastern Presence in the Bronze Age Aegean, ca. 3000-1000 B.C. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature, Pocket-book 95. Göteborg: P. Åströms Förlag.

Lamon, R.S. and Geoffrey M. Shipton 1939 Megiddo 1. Seasons of 1925-34: Strata I-V. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lawall, M. 2011 Imitative amphoras in the Greek world. In M. Lawall and P. van Alfen (eds.), Caveat Emptor: A Collection of Papers on Imitations in Ancient Greco-Roman Commerce. Marburger Beiträge zur Antiken Handels-, Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte 28: 45-88. Rahden/Westfallen: Verlag Marie Leidorf.

Lehmann, G. 1998 Trends in the local pottery development of the late Iron Age and Persian period in Syria and Lebanon, ca. 700 to 300 B.C. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 311: 7–37.

2005 Al Mina and the east: a report on research in progress. In A. Villing (ed.), The Greeks in the East, 61-92. London: British Museum.

2008 North Syria and Cilicia, c. 1200-330 BCE. In C. Sagona (ed.), Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 28: 205- 246. Leuven: Peeters.

233

Leidwanger, J. and C. Knappett 2018 Maritime Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean World. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Levinson, M. 2006 The Box: How the shipping container made the world smaller and the world economy bigger. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Leonard, A., Jr. 1996 Canaanite Jars and the Late Bronze Age Aegeo-Levantine Wine Trade. In P. McGovern, S. Fleming and S. Katz (eds), The Origins and History of Wine Trade, 223-254. Luxembourg: Gordon and Breach Publishers.

Lin, S.H. 2003 Lading of the Late Bronze Age Ship at Uluburun. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Program in Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.

Lipinski, E. 1995 The Phoenicians. In J. M. Sasson (ed.) Civilizations of the Ancient Near East 2: 1321– 1333. New York: Scribner.

2004 Itineraria Phoenicia. Studia Phoenicia 18. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 127. Leuven: Peeters.

Loud, G. 1948 Megiddo II: seasons of 1935-39. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Macalister, R.A.S. 1912 The excavations of Gezer, 1902-1905 and 1907-1909. London: Published for the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund by J. Murray.

MacGillivray, J.A. 1998 Knossos: Pottery Groups of the Old Palace Period. London: British School at Athens.

2013 Absolute Middle Minoan III — the bigger picture: early Neopalatial Crete's relations with the ancient Orient in the mid-second millennium BC. British School at Athens Studies 21: 221-224.

Maguire, L.C. 1990 The Circulation of Cypriot Pottery in the Middle Bronze Age. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Program in the School of History, Classics and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.

Maier, F.-G. 1999 Palaipaphos and the transition to the early Iron Age: continuities, discontinuities and location shifts. In M. Iacovou and D. Michaelides (eds), Cyprus: The Historicity of the Geometric Horizon, 79–93. Nicosia: Archaeological Research Unit, University of Cyprus; Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation; Ministry of Education and Culture. 234

Manning, S.W., D. Sewell and E. Herscher 2002 Late Cypriot IA maritime trade in action: underwater survey at Maroni Tsarroukkas and the contemporary east Mediterranean trading system. Annual of the British School at Athens 97: 97-162.

Marcus, E. 1995 A petrographic analysis of storage jars from Tel Nami, Israel: ceramic production and trade networks of the Middle Bronze Age II period (ca. 2000–1750 bc). In P.B. Vandiver, J.R. Druzik, J.L. Gavin Madrid, I. Freestone and G.S. Wheeler (eds), Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology 4. Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings 352: 597–604. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Materials Research Society.

2002 Early seafaring and maritime activity in the southern Levant from prehistory through the third millennium BCE, in E.C.M. van den Brink and T. E. Levy (eds), Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the early 3rd Millennium BC, 403-417. London: Leicester University Press.

2006 Venice on the Nile? On the maritime character of Tell el-Dabʿa/Avaris, in E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman and A. Schwab (eds), Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak 2 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149.2), 187-190. Leuven, Paris

2007 Amenemhet II and the sea: maritime aspects of the Mit Rahina (Memphis) inscription, Ägypten und Levante 17: 137-190.

Marfoe, L. 1987 Cedar forest to silver mountain: social change and the development of long-distance trade in early Near Eastern societies, in M. Rowlands, M. Larsen and K. Kristiansen (eds.), Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, 25-35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marinatos, S. 1976 Excavations at Thera VII: (1973 season). Athens: Hēen Athēnais Archaiologikē Hetaireia.

Martin, R.J. 2016a Maritime transport containers: into the Iron Age. In A.B. Knapp and S. Demesticha (eds.), Mediterranean Connections: Maritime Transport Containers and Seaborne Trade in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages of the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, 102-130. London: Routledge.

2016b The development of Canaanite and Phoenician style Maritime Transport Containers and their role in reconstructing maritime exchange networks. In A.B. Knapp and S. Demesticha (eds.), Maritime Transport Containers in the Bronze-Iron Age Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, 111-28. Göteborg, Sweden: P. Åström's Förlag.

Master, D. 2009 The renewal of trade at Iron 1 Ashkelon. Eretz Israel 29: 111-122. 235

Mazar, A. 1985 Excavations at Tell Qasile II. The Philistine Sanctuary. Various Finds, the Pottery, Conclusions, Appendixes. Qedem 20. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

2006 Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989 -1996, Volume I. From the Late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Mazzoni, S. 1985 Giza ed una produzione vascolare di Biblio. In S.F. Bondi, S. Pergnigotti, F. Serra, and A. Vivian (eds.), Studi in Onore di Edda Bresciani, 317-35. Pisa: Giardini.

1987 The Diffusion of Palestinian Combed Jars. In Studies in the History and the Archaeology of Palestine, Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Palestine Antiquities 2: 145-58. Damascus: Aleppo University Press.

2000 Syria and the periodization of the Iron Age: a cross-cultural perspective. In G. Bunnens (ed.), Essays on Syria in the Iron Age. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 7: 31-59. Louvain: Peeters.

McGovern, P.E. 2009 Uncorking the Past: The Quest for Wine, Beer, and Other Alcoholic Beverages. Berkeley: University of California Press.

McGovern, P.E. and G. Harbottle 1997 ‘Hyksos’ trade connections between Tell el-Dabʿa (Avaris) and the Levant: a Neutron Activation study of the Canaanite jar. In E.D. Oren (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives. University Museum Monograph 96, University Museum Symposium Series 8: 141–157. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

McGovern, P.E. and R.H. Michel 1990 Royal purple dye: the chemical reconstruction of the ancient Mediterranean industry. Accounts of Chemical Research 23: 152-158.

Merrillees, R.S. 1974 Trade and Transcendance in the Bronze Age Levant (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 39), Göteborg.

Mills, B.J. 2017 Social Network Analysis in Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 46:1, 379-397.

Mills, J.S. and R. White 1989 The identity of the resins from the Late Bronze Age shipwreck at Ulu Burun (Kaş). Archaeometry: 31(1), 37-44.

236

Moeller, N. 2012 Unsealing Tell Edfu, Egypt: Who Was a Local Official and Who Was Not? Near Eastern Archaeology 75(2), 116-125.

Monchambert, J.-Y. 2004 La ceramique d’Ugarit, Campagnes de fouilles 1975 et 1976, Ras Shamra-Ougarit XV. Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, Paris.

Monroe, C. 2009 Scales of Fate: Trade, Tradition, and Transformation in the Eastern Mediterranean. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 357. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

2016 Measure for ‘measure’: connecting text to material through Late Bronze Age shipping jars. In A.B. Knapp and S. Demesticha (eds.), Maritime Transport Containers in the Bronze- Iron Age Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, 79-96. Göteborg, Sweden: P. Åström's Förlag.

Montet, P. 1928 Byblos Et L'Egypte; Quatre Campagnes De Fouilles a Gebeil, 1921-1922-1923-1924. Paris: Paul Geuthner.

Müller, V. 2008 Tell el-Dabʿa XVII: Opferdeponierungen in der Hyksoshauptstadt Auaris (Tell el-Dabʿa) vom späten Mittleren Reich bis zum Frühen Neuen Reich. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Nagel, G. 1938 La céramique du nouvel empire à Deir el Médineh. Caire: Impr. de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale.

Nicholson, P. and P.J. Rose 1985 Pottery Fabrics and Ware Groups at el-Amarna. In B. J. Kemp (ed.) Amarna Reports II: 133-74. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Newton, C., Lorre, C., Sauvage, C., Ivorra, S. and J.-F. Terral 2014 On the origins and spread of Olea europaea L. (olive) domestication: evidence for shape variation of olive stones at Ugarit, Late Bronze Age, Syria; a window on the Mediterranean Basin and on the westward diffusion of olive varieties. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 23(5): 567–575.

Nijboer, A.J. 2008 A Phoenician family tomb, Lefkandi, Huelva and the tenth century BC in the Mediterranean. In C. Sagona (ed.), Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 28: 365-378. Leuven: Peeters.

Ӧbrink, U. 1979 Excavations in Area 22, 1971–1973 and 1975–1978. Hala Sultan Tekke 5. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 45.5. Göteborg: P. Åström’s Förlag. 237

O'Connor, D. 1991 "Boat Graves and Pyramid Origins”, Expedition Magazine 33.3: n. pag. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

Ohata, K. 1970 Tell Zeror III. Tokyo: The Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan.

Olivier, J.P. 1988 Tirynthian graffiti: Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1982-83. New York: W. de Gruyter.

Oren, E.D. 1987 The “Ways of Horus” in North Sinai. In A.F. Rainey (ed.), Egypt, Israel, Sinai: Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the Biblical Period, 69-120. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

1997 The Kingdom of Sharuhen and the Hyksos Kingdom. In E.D. Oren, (ed.) The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, 253-84. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.

Osborne, J.F. 2011 Spatial Analysis and Political Authority in the Iron Age Kingdom of Patina, Turkey. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Program in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Ownby, M.F. 2010 Canaanite Jars from Memphis as Evidence for Trade and Political Relationships in the Middle Bronze Age. Unpublished PhD thesis, Program in the Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge.

2012 The importance of imports: petrographic analysis of Levantine pottery jars in Egypt. Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 3(4): 23–29.

Ownby, M.F. and J. Bourriau 2009 The movement of Middle Bronze Age transport jars: a provenance study based on petrographic and chemical analysis of Canaanite jars from Memphis, Egypt. In P.S. Quinn (ed.), Interpreting Silent Artefacts: Petrographic Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics, 173–188. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Ownby, M.F. and M.V. Smith 2011 The impact of changing political situations on trade between Egypt and the Near East: a provenance study of Canaanite jars from Memphis, Egypt. In K. Duistermaat and I. Regulski (eds.), Intercultural Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 202: 267–284. Louvain: Peeters.

Ownby, M., Franzmeier, H., Laemmel, S. and E. Pusch 2014 Late Bronze Age Imports at Qantir: Petrographic and Contextual Analysis of Fabric Groups. Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 6.3: 11-21.

238

Padró, J. 1991 Découverte de Céramiques Phéniciennes À Héracléopolis Magna (Égypte). In Enrico Acquaro, Piero Bartoloni, Maria Teresa Francisi, Lorenz-Ilia Manfredi, Federico Maza, Giovanni Montalto, Gesualdo Petruccioli, Sergio Ribichini, Gabriella Scandone, Paolo Xella (eds.), Atti del II Congresso internazionale di studi fenici e punici: Roma, 9-14 Novembre 1987, Volume 3: 1103-1108. Roma: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche.

Parr, P.J. 1973 The origin of the Canaanite jar, in D.E. Strong (ed.), Archaeologial Theory and Practice: Festschrift W.F. Grimes, 173-181. London: Seminar Press.

Palmer, R. 1994 Wine in the Mycenaean Palace Economy. Aegaeum 10. Liège, Belgium: Histoire de l'art et archeélogie de la Grece antique, Universite de Liège.

Pedrazzi, T. 2007 Le giare da conservazione e trasporto del Levante : uno studio archeologico dell'economia fra Bronzo Tardo II e Ferro I (ca.1400-900 a.C.). Pisa: Edizioni ETS.

2010 Globalization versus regionalism: LBII/Iron I transition in coastal Syria from the storage jars point of view. In F.Venturi (ed.), Societies in Transition. Evolutionary Processes in the Northern Levant between Late Bronze Age II and Early Iron Age, 53-64. Bologna: Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice Bologna.

Peeples, M.A. 2019 Finding a Place for Networks in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 27: 451–499.

Peet, T.E. and C.L. Woolley 1923 The City of Akhenaten, Part 1. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Petrie, W.M.F. 1890 Kahun, Gurob, and Hawara. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, and Co.

1904 Abydos, Part 3. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

1909 Qurneh. British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account, Fifteenth Year, 1909. London: School of Archaeology in Egypt; Bernard Quaritch.

1931 Ancient Gaza I: Tell el Ajjul. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, University College.

1932 Ancient Gaza II: Tell el Ajjul. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, University College.

Polanyi, K. 1963 Ports of Trade in Early Societies. The Journal of Economic History 23(1): 30-45.

239

Pritchard, J.B. 1975 Sarepta: A Preliminary Report on the Iron Age: Excavations of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, 1970-72. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

1978 Recovering Sarepta, A Phoenician City. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

1980 The Cemetery at Tell es-Sa’idiyeh, Jordan. University Museum Monograph 41. Philedelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

1988 Sarepta IV: The Objects from Area II, X. The University of Pennsylvania Excavations at Sarafand, Lebanon. Beirut: Département des publications de l’Université Libanais.

Pulak, C. 1997 The Uluburun shipwreck. In S. Swiny, R. L. Hohlfelder and H. W. Swiny (eds.), Res Maritimae: Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity. Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute, Monograph 1: 233-262. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press.

2008 The Uluburun shipwreck and Late Bronze Age trade. In J. Aruz, K. Benzel and J.M. Evans (eds.), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium bc, 289– 310, 313–314. New York, New Haven and London: Metropolitan Museum of Art, Yale University Press.

Raban, A. 1980 The Commercial Jar in the Ancient Near East: Its Evidence for Interconnections amongst the Biblical Lands. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

1995 Dor-Yam: maritime and coastal installations at Dor in their geomorphological and stratigraphic context. In E. Stern (ed.), Excavations at Dor, Final Report, 285-354. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University.

Randall-Maciver, D. and C.L. Woolley 1911 Buhen: text and plates. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Museum.

Redmount, C.A. 1995 Ethnicity, Pottery, and the Hyksos at Tell el-Maskhuta in the Egyptian Delta. Biblical Archaeologist 58(4): 181-190.

Regev, D. 2004 Transport amphorae and trade in the east Mediterranean. In J. Eiring and J. Lund (eds.), Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Monographs of the Danish Institute of Archaeology 5: 337-352. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

Reisner, G.A. 1942 The History of the Giza Necropolis, I. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

240

Reisner, G.A. and W.S. Smith 1955 The History of the Giza Necropolis, II. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Rose, P.J. 2007 The Eighteenth Dynasty Pottery Corpus from Amarna. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Rowlands, M., Larsen, M. and K. Kristiansen 1987 Centre and periphery in the ancient world. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rutter, J.B. 2006 Ceramic imports of the Neopalatial and later Bronze Age eras. In J.W. Shaw and M.C. Shaw (eds.), Kommos V: The Monumental Minoan Buildings at Kommos, 646–688, 712– 715. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

2013 Aegean elements in the earliest Philistine ceramics assemblage: a view from the west. In A. Killebrew and G. Lehmann (eds.), The Philistines and Other ‘Sea Peoples’ in Text and Archaeology. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 15: 543–561. Atlanta, Georgia: Society of Biblical Literature.

Saghieh, MS. 1975 Byblos in the Third Millennium: A Reconstruction of the Stratigraphy and a Study of the Cultural Connections. Doctoral thesis, University of London.

Sagona, A.G. 1982 Levantine storage jars of the 13th to the 14th Century B.C. Opuscula Atheniensia 14: 73- 110.

Sagona, C. 2008 Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 28. Leuven: Peeters.

Saideh, R. 2004 Sidon et la Phénicie Méridionale au Bronze Récent : à propos des tombes de Dakerman. Beyrouth: Institut français du Proche-Orient.

Sauvage, C. 2006 Warehouses and the Economic System of the City of Ugarit. The Example of the 80 Jar Deposit and Deposit 213 from Minet el-Beida. Ugarit-Forschungen 38: 617-629.

2012 Routes maritimes et systèmes d’échanges internationaux au Bronze récent en Méditerranée orientale. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 61. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée – Jean Pouilloux.

2015 Nouvelle réflexion sur le dépôt aux 80 jarres de Minet el-Beida, in M. Al-Maqdissi, B. Geyer and V. Matoïan, De l’île d’Aphrodite au Paradis perdu, itinéraire d’un gentilhomme lyonnais, en hommage à Yves Calvet, RSO XXII, 63-76. Leuven: Peeters.

241

2017 The development of Bronze Age Maritime Exchanges in the Eastern Mediterranean. In P. De Souza (ed.), The Sea in History – The Ancient World, 151-164. Suffolk: Boydell and Brewer.

Schaeffer, C.F-A. 1932 Les Fouilles de Minet-el-Beida et de Ras-Shamra. Syria 13: 1-27.

1939 Ugaritica I, Paris: Librairie Orentaliste Paul Geuthner.

1949 Ugaritica II, Paris: Librairie Orentaliste Paul Geuthner.

1978 Ugaritica IV, Paris: Librairie Orentaliste Paul Geuthner.

Schneider, T. 2006 The Relative Chronology of the Middle Kingdom and the Hyksos Period (Dyns. 12-17). In E. Hornung, R. Krauss and D. Warburton (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Chronology: 168–96. Leiden: Brill.

Seiler, A. 1996 Keramik. In H. Jaritz, B. Dominicus, U. Minuth, W. Niederburger and A. Seiler (eds.) Der Totentemple des Merenptah in Qurna 3. Grabungsbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 52: 201-232.

Serpico, M. 1999 New Kingdom Canaanite Amphorae Fragments from Buhen. In A. Leahy and J. Tait (eds.), Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honour of H.S. Smith, 267-272. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Serpico, M., J. Bourriau, L. Smith, Y. Goren, B. Stern and C. Heron 2003 Commodities and containers: a project to study Canaanite amphorae imported into Egypt during the New Kingdom, in M. Bietak (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilsations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC 2 (Denkschrfiten der Gesamtakademie 29, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 4), 365-375, Vienna.

Serpico, M. and R. White 2000 The botanical identity and transport of incense during the Egyptian New Kingdom, Antiquity 74/286: 884-897

Sharon, I. 2013 The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: c. 8000-332 BCE, Ann E. Killebrew and Margreet Steiner (eds.), Oxford University Press, London.

Shaw, J.W. and M.C. Shaw 2000 Kommos: An Excavation on the South Coast of Crete. Kommos IV: The Greek Sanctuary. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

242

2006 Kommos V: The Monumental Minoan Buildings at Kommos. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Sherratt, S. 2010 Greeks and Phoenicians: perceptions of trade and traders in the early first millennium BC. In A.A. Bauer and A.S. Agbe-Davies (eds.), Social Archaeologies of Trade and Exchange, 119-142. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press.

Sherratt, S. and A. Sherratt 1991 From luxuries to commodities: the nature of Mediterranean Bronze Age trading systems. In N.H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 90: 351–386. Göteborg, Sweden: P. Åström’s Förlag.

1993 The growth of the Mediterranean economy in the first millennium B.C. World Archaeology 22: 361-378.

Singer-Avitz, L. 2010 A group of Phoenician vessels from Tel Beersheba. Tel Aviv 37: 188–199.

Sivan, D., Gvirtzman, G. and E. Sass 1999 Quaternary Stratigraphy and Paleogeography of the Galilee Coastal Plain, Israel. Quaternary Research 51: 280-94.

Smith, S.T. 1995 Askut in Nubia: the economics and ideology of Egyptian imperialism in the second millennium B.C. London: Kegan Paul International.

Smith, L.M.V., J. Bourriau, Y. Goren, M. J. Hughes and M. Serpico 2004 The provenance of Canaanite amphorae found at Memphis and Amarna in the New Kingdom: results 2000-2002, in J. Bourriau and J. Phillips (eds.), Invention and Innovation: The Social Context of Technological Change 2: Egypt, the Aegean, and the Near East, 1650–1150 BC, 55-77. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Smith, L.M.V., Bourriau, J. and M. Serpico 2000 The provenance of Late Bronze Age transport amphorae found in Egypt. Internet Archaeology 9. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.9.6

Snape, S. 2000 Imported Pottery at Zawiyet Umm el-Rakhma, Preliminary Report. Bulletin de Liaison due Groupe International d‟Étude de la Céramique Égyptienne XXI: 17-20.

2003 Zawiyet Umm el-Rakham and Egyptian Foreign Trade in the 13th Century BC. In N. Chr. Stampolidis and V. Karageorghis (eds.), Sea Routes . . . Interconnections in the Mediterranean 16th-6th c. BC. Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Rethymnon, Crete, September 29th – October 2nd, 2002, 63-70. Athens: University of Crete and Leventis Foundation.

243

Snape, S.R., and P. Wilson 2007 Zawiyet Umm el-Rakham 1: Temples and Chapels. Bolton England: Rutherford Press.

Sommer, M. 2007 Networks of commerce and knowledge in the Iron Age: the case of the Phoenicians. Mediterranean Historical Review 22(1): 97-111.

South, A.K., Russell, P. and P. Schuster Keswani 1989 Vasilikos Valley Project 3: Kalavassos-Ayios Dhimitrios II: Ceramics, Objects, Tombs, Specialist Studies. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag.

Sowada, K. N. 2009 Egypt in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Old Kingdom: An Archaeological Perspective (Oriens Biblicus et Orientalis 237). Fribourg: Göttingen.

2011 An Egyptian imitation of an imported two-handled jar from the Levant. In D. Aston, B. Bader, C. Gallorini, P. Nicholson and S. Buckingham (eds.), Under The Potter’s Tree: Studies on Ancient Egypt Presented to Janine Bourriau on the Occasion of her 70th Birthday, 885-893. Paris: Peeters.

2018 Fake it till you make it: an imitation combed jar from Old Kingdom Giza. Bulletin de liaison de la céramique égyptienne 28: 117-122.

Sowada, K.N., Mary Ownby and Anna Wodzińska 2019 The petrography of imported Levantine Combed vessels from early Old Kingdom Giza, Levant. Levant, Vol. ahead-of-print: 1-19.

Stager, L.E. 1985 The first fruits of civilization. In J. Tubb (ed.), Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell (University of London, Institute of Archaeology, Occasional Paper 11), 172-187. New York, New York: Routledge.

1992 The periodization of Palestine from Neolithic through Early Bronze Age times. In R.W. Enrich (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 22-41. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

1995 The impact of the Sea Peoples on Canaan. In T. E. Levy (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, 32-49. London: Leicester University Press.

2001 Port power in the Early and Middle Bronze Ages: the organization of maritime trade and hinterland production. In S.R. Wolff (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 59), 625-638. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

2002 The MB IIA Ceramic Sequence at Tel Ashkelon and Its Implications for the “Port Power” Model of Trade. In M. Bietak (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant, Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24-26th of January 2001, 353-362. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 244

2003 Phoenician shipwrecks in the deep sea. In N.C. Stampolidis and V. Karageorghis (eds.), Πλόες.. . Sea Routes...: Interconnections in the Mediterranean, 16th-6th c. BC, 233-248. Athens: University of Crete, Leventis Foundation.

Stager, L.E., J. D. Schloen and D. M. Master 2008 Ashkelon I: Introduction and Overview (1985–2006). Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

2011 Ashkelon 3: The Seventh Century. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

Steffy, J. 1985 The Kyrenia Ship: An Interim Report on Its Hull Construction. American Journal of Archaeology 89 (1): 71-101.

Stern, B., C. Heron, L. Corr, M. Serpico and J. Bourriau 2003 Compositional variations in aged and heated pistacia resin found in Late Bronze Age Canaanite amphorae and bowls from Amarna, Egypt. Archaeometry 45: 457-469.

Stern, B., C.T. Heron, T. Tellefsen and M. Serpico 2008 New investigations into the Uluburun resin cargo. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 2188-2203.

Stern, E. 1993 Tel Dor. In E. Stern, A. Lewison-Gilboa, A. and J. Aviram, (eds.) The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 1: 357-368. London: Simon and Schuster.

Stewart, J., Redlin, L. and S. Watson. 2011 Algebra and Geometry. Toronto, Ontario: Nelson Education.

Stieglitz, R. 1990 The geopolitics of the Phoenician littoral in the Early Iron Age. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 279: 9-12.

Sugerman, M. 2000 Webs of Commerce: The Archaeology of Ordinary Things in Late Bronze Age Israel and Palestine. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Symeonoglou, S. 1985 The Topography of Thebes from the Bronze Age to Modern Times. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Tallet, P. 2003 New Jar Labels from Deir al-Medina. In Z. Hawass (ed.), Egyptology at the Dawn of the 21st Century, Proceedings of the Eight International Congress of Egyptologists, Cairo 2000, Vol. I (Archaeology): 495-498. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press.

245

Tallet, P. and G. Marouard. 2014 The Harbour of Khufu on the Red Sea Coast at Wadi al-Jarf, Egypt. Near Eastern Archaeology 77(1): 4-14.

Terral, J.-F., A. Durand, C. Newton and S. Ivorra, 2009 Archéo-biologie de la domestication de l'olivier en Méditerranée occidentale: de la remise en cause d'une histoire dogmatique à la révélation de son irrigation médiévale. Études héraultaises 233: 13-25.

Terral, J.-F., C. Newton, A. Durand, L. Bouby and S. Ivorra 2012 La domestication de l’olivier en Méditerranée nord-occidentale révélée par l’archéobiologie. In Catherine Breton, André Bervillé (eds.), Histoire de l’Olivier, 73-87. Versailles: Éditions Quae.

Thalmann, J.P. 2002 Pottery of the Early Middle Bronze Age at Tell Arqa and in the Northern Levant. In M. Bietak (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant, Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24-26th of January 2001, 363-377. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

2007 A Seldom Used Parameter in Pottery Studies: The Capacity of Pottery Vessels. In M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds.), The Synchronization of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millenium B.C. III. Denschrfiten der Gesamtakademie 37. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 9: 431–438. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

2010 Tell Arqa: A Prosperous City during the Bronze Age. Near Eastern Archaeology 73(2/3): 86-101.

Thalmann, J. P. and K. Sowada 2014 Levantine ‘combed ware’. In M. Lebeau (ed.), Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East (ARCANE) Interregional Volume 1: Ceramics, 355–378. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols.

Thomas, S. 2003 Imports at Zawiyet Umm al-Rakham. In Z. Hawass (ed.), Egyptology at the Turn of the Twenty-first Century. Proceedings of the Eight International Congress of Egyptologists, Cairo 2000, I. Archaeology, 522-529. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press.

Tomlinson, J.E., J. B. Rutter and S.M.A. Hoffman 2010 Mycenaean and Cypriot Late Bronze Age ceramic imports to Kommos: an investigation by Neutron Activation Analysis. Hesperia 79: 191–231.

Tsatsaki, N. and E. Nodarou 2014 A new Hellenistic amphora production centre in West Crete (Loutra, Rethymnon): Study and Petrographic analysis of the pottery assemblage. The Annual of the British School at Athens, 109 (1): 287-315.

246

Tufnell, O. 1953 Lachish III. The Iron Age. London: Oxford University Press.

1958 Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir): The Bronze Age. Vol. 4. London: Oxford University Press.

1962 The Courtyard Cemetery at Tell el-Ajjul, Palestine. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 3: 1-37. van den Brink, E., B. van Wesemael and P. Dirksz 1987 A Geo-Archaeological Survey in the North-Eastern Nile Delta, Egypt; the First Two Seasons, a Preliminary Report. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 43: 7-15. van den Brink, E. and E. Braun 2003 Egyptian Elements and Influence on the Early Bronze Age I of the Southern Levant, Recent Excavations, Research and Publications. Archéo-Nil 13: 77–91.

Vercoutter, J. 1962 Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Aksha by the Franco-Argentine Archaeological Expedition. Kush 10: 109-116.

Vince, J. 2019 Calculus for Computer Graphics. London: Springer International Publishing.

Vincentelli, I. 2006 Hillat el-Arab: The Joint Sudanese-Italian Expedition in the Napatan Region. Oxford, England: Archaeopress.

Waiman-Barak, P. 2016 The circulation of Early Iron Age Goods: Phoenician and Egyptian Ceramics in the Early Iron Age ̶ An Optical Mineralogy Perspective. PhD Dissertation, University of Haifa, Israel.

Waiman-Barak, P. and A. Gilboa 2016 Maritime Transport Containers: the view from Phoenician Tell Keisan (Israel) in the Early Iron Age. In A.B. Knapp and S. Demesticha (eds.), Maritime Transport Containers in the Bronze-Iron Age Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, 169-193. Göteborg, Sweden: P. Åström's Förlag.

Ward, W. 1963 Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean from Predynastic Times to the End of the Old Kingdom. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 6: 1-57.

Watrous, L.V. 1992 Kommos III. The Late Bronze Age Pottery. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Wengrow, D. 2008 Prehistories of Commodity Branding. Current Anthropology 49.1: 7-34. 247

White, D. 2003 Multum in Parvo: Bate’s Island on the NW Coast of Egypt. In N. Chr. Stampolidis and V. Karageorghis (eds.), Sea Routes . . . Interconnections in the Mediterranean 16th-6th c. BC. Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Rethymnon, Crete, September 29th – October 2nd, 2002, 71-81. Athens: University of Crete and Leventis Foundation.

Whitechurch, H., T. Juteau and R. Montigny 1984 Role of Eastern Mediterranean ophiolites (Turkey, Syria, Cyprus) in the history of the Neo- Tethys. In J.E. Dixon and A.H.F. Robertson (eds.), The Geological Evolution of the Eastern Mediterranean, 301-317. Oxford: London Geological Society Publishing House.

Williams, B.B. 1992 Excavations between Abu Simbel and the Sudan Frontier, Part 6: New Kingdom Remains from Cemeteries R, V, S, and W at Qustul and Cemetery K at Adindan. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Wodzińska, A., and M. Ownby 2011 Tentative remarks on Levantine combed ware from Heit el-Ghurab, Giza, in J. Mynárová (ed.), Egypt and the Near East—The Crossroads, 285-295. Prague: Charles University, Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts.

Woolley, C.L. 1955 Alalakh. An account of the excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937-1949. Oxford: O.U.P. for the Society of Antiquaries.

Xenakē-Sakellariou, A. 1985 Hoi thalamōtoi taphoi tōn Mykēnōn: anaskaphēs Ch. Tsounta (1887-1898) = Les tombes a chambre de Mycènes: fouilles de Chr. Tsountas (1887-1898). Paris: Diffusion de Boccard.

Yannai, E. 2004 The Late Bronze Age Pottery from Area S. In D. Ussishkin (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994), Vol. III, 1032-1146. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

Yon, M. 2006 The city of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra. New York: Eisenbrauns.

Yon, M., A. Caubet, J. Mallet, P. Lombard, C. Doumet and P. Desfarges 1983 Fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ougarit 1981-1983 (41e, 42e et 43e campagnes). Syria. 60: 201- 224.

Zamora, J.-A. 2000 La Vid y el Vino en Ugarit. Banco de Datos Filologicos Semiticos Noroccidentales, Monografias 6. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas.

248

2004 Anforas y tablillas: el ánfora cananea y el kd ugáritico. In A. González Blanco, G. Matilla Séiquer and A. Egea Vivancos (eds.), El mundo punico. Religión, antropología y cultura material. Actas II Congresso Internacional del mundo punico (Cartagena, 6-9 de abril de 2000), 389-407. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia, Area de Historia Antigua.

Zapassky, E., I. Finkelstein and I. Benenson 2009 Computing abilities in antiquity: the royal Judahite storage jars as a case-study. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 16: 51–67. Zemer, A. 1977 Storage Jars in Ancient Sea Trade. Ḥaifa: Ḳeren ha Muzeʻon ha-yami ha-leʻumi.

249

Appendix I: Pottery Plates

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

Table 15: KEY TO APPENDIX 1

Plate 1: Early Bronze Age (EBA) MTC #1

Site Source Date Levels

A Tyre Bikai 1978: Pl. LVI.22 EBA III Stratum XX

B Arqa Thalmann 2010: 90.Fig.7 EBA III Phase S

C Abydos (Egypt) Knoblauch 2010: Fig.7.a EBA III / OK Tomb of Idi

D Sidon Doumet-Serhal 2006: EBA III Stratum 6 Pl.109.1

G Ugarit Schaeffer 1978: V.4. EBA III 3e Fig.99.7

H Byblos Stager 1992: Fig.15.6 EBA II-II I Giza (Egypt) Stager 1992: Fig.14.6 EBA III / OK

Plate 2: Middle Bronze Age (MBA) MTC #2

Site Source Date Levels

A Gaza Petrie 1931: V.1: Pl. MBA XLVI.F4

B Arpera (Cyprus) Merrillees 1974: Fig. 35; 59 MBA II C

C Tell el-Dabʿa Aston 2004a: 2179a MBA II B-C

D Gaza Petrie 1931: V.1: Pl. MBA XLVI.D3

G Tell el-Dabʿa McGovern and Harbottle MBA II 1997:142/Aston 2004a: Pl. 169 274

Plate 3: Early Bronze II Cretan MTC Prototype: “Red Brown Ware”

Site Source Date Levels

A Ayia Irini Day and Wilson 2016: 23; II-196 EBA II Ayia Irini II– 196

Plate 4: Late Bronze Age (LBA) MTC #3 (Pedrazzi Type 5.4) – Variant 1

Site Source Date Levels

A Uluburun Shipwreck Pulak 1997: 241 LBA IIB N/A

B Mycenae (Greece) Xenakē-Sakellariou LH III B/ LBA 1985: Pl.78.2924 II B

C Minet el-Beida (Ugarit) Yon 2006: 30 1177 BCE +/- Terminal LBA Destruction

D Mediterranean Sea Zemer 1977: Pl.1:2 - -

E Menidi Åkerström 1975: Fig.8- 13th Century Tholos Tomb 10

F Myrtou-Pighades DuPlat.Taylor 1957: LBA IIB Compartment 6 (Cyprus) Fig.23.318

G Sidon Saidah 2004: Fig.13.23 LBA II Tomb 5

H Uluburun Shipwreck Bass 1986: 277, Ill. 7 LBA IIB Shipwreck

I i Cape Gelidonya Bass 1967: Fig.132.4 LBA IIB Shipwreck Shipwreck

I Tiryns (Greece) Killian 1988: Fig.25. LBAIIB - ii number 12

Plate 4.1: Late Bronze Age (LBA) MTC #3 (Pedrazzi Type 5.4) – Variant 1 cont’d

Site Source Date Levels

A Mycenae Cline 1991: Pl.10.34 LBA IIB House of the Oil Merchant

275

Plate 5: Late Bronze Age (LBA) MTC #3 (Pedrazzi Type 5.4) – Variant 2

Site Source Date Levels

A Uluburun Pulak 1997: 241, no. LBIIB - KW214

B Tell el-Farah Duncan 1930: LXXXVI:H6 LBA IIB – Iron I Tomb 532 (Egypt)

C Zawiyet Umm al Snape and Wilson 2007: 64: Ramesside The Temple and Rakham, no.C3.3 Chapels

D Hillat el-Arab Vincentelli 2006: Fig.2.50: LBA II – Iron I Tomb 13: 295 Chamber B

E i Hillat el-Arab Vincentelli 2006: Fig.2.80: LBA II – Iron I Chamber B 516

E Hillat el-Arab Vincentelli 2006: Fig.2.50: LBA II – Iron I Chamber B ii 296

F Hillat el-Arab Vincentelli 2006: Fig.2.95: LBA II – Iron I Chamber B 600

G Saqqara Aston 1991: pi. 53. LBA IIB Tomb of Iurudef

H Beth Pelet. Tel Petrie 1930: Ramesses II Tomb Fara (S) Pl.LXXXVI.962

I Gurob Petrie 1890: Pl.XX.13 LBA II Tomb

Plate 6: Late Bronze Age (LBA) MTC #3 (Pedrazzi Type 5.4) – Variant 3

Site Source Date Levels

A Mediterranean Sea Zemer 1977: Pl.1:3 - -

Bi Kommos Watrous 1992: Fig.72.1951 LBA II Deposit 52

Bii Tiryns Killian 1988: Fig. 24.7 LBA II -

C Malkata Aston 2004b: Fig.2:a Amenophis III Tomb

D Sidon Saidah 2004 Figs.34:40/16 LBA II Tomb 16

E Asine (Greece) Akerstrom 1975: Fig.3 LBA II Tomb 276

F Uluburun Unpublished (Cemal Pulak) LBAII Shipwreck Shipwreck

G Sidon Saidah 2004: Fig.16.31 LBA II Tomb

H Pylos (Greece) Akerstrom 1975: Fig.4 LBA II Tholos Tomb 3

Plate 7: Late Bronze Age (LBA) MTC #3 (Pedrazzi Type 5.4) – Variant 4

Site Source Date Levels

A Tell Abu-Hawam Amiran 1969: Pl.43.5 LBA IIA

B Zawiyet Umm al Aston 2004b: Fig. 3: c Early Ram. II Tomb? Rakham,

C Saqqara Aston 2001: 187 Horemheb Tomb of Maya

Di Sarepta Anderson 1988: Pl.31.6 LBA II – Iron I Stratum E

Dii Megiddo Amiran 1969: Pl.43.9 LBII VII B, locus 2041

E Hillat el-Arab Vincentelli 2006: Fig.2.4: LBA II – Iron I Chamber B 54

F Hillat el-Arab Vincentelli 2006: Fig.2.5: LBA II – Iron I Chamber B 55

G Qantir Aston 2004b: Fig.12: a Ram. II

H Hillat el-Arab Vincentelli 2006: Fig.2.8: LBA II – Iron I ARA 18 515

I Amarna Aston 2004b: Fig.3.A Akhenaten

Plate 7.1: Late Bronze Age (LBA) MTC #3 (Pedrazzi Type 5.4) – Variant 4 cont’d

Site Source Date Levels A Tel.Zeror. Ohata 1970: Pl.LIX.8 LBA II

277

Plate 8: LBA Misc.

Site Source Date Levels

A Deir el-Balah Aston 2004b: Fig. 2.c Ram. II

B Ashdod Aston 2004b: Fig. 2.d Terminal LBA stratum XIII,

C Amarna Amiran 1969: Pl.43.7 LBA Stratum 5

D Megiddo Amiran 1969: Pl. 43.2 LBA II IX

E Kalavasos (Cyprus) In Annual RDACyprus 1985 LBA Tomb 51 Ill. 75: (Kalavasos t.51.)

F Thera Marinatos.1976: Pl.49.2 LBA

G Tarsus Goldman 1963: 387:no. LBII - 1215

H Cape Gelidonya Bass 1967: Fig.132: 2 LBA Shipwreck

I Pyla Karageorghis 1984: LBA Tomb Kokkinokremos Pl.XXXVII:111

Plate 9: Iron Age I MTC #4 (Pedrazzi Type 5.2)

Site Source Date Levels

A Sarepta Pritchard 1988: Fig. 43.6 LBA II 6

B P-Skales (Cyprus) Karageorghis 1983: Fig. Iron Age IC Tomb 83 CLXVI: 40

C Tell Dor Raban 2000: Fig.9.24: Iron I Locus 57-58 7,18,19

Variant 2 (Type 5.2)

D P-Skales (Cyprus) Karageorghis 1983: Fig. Iron Age I Tomb 80 CLIV: 46

E Tell Dor Harbor Kingsley and Raveh 1996: Iron I Sea (Dor Wreck) Fig.38:PW1)

F Amarna (Egypt) Peet and Woolley 1923: Pl. *Iron Age River Temple LI:XLIII/105 Occupation 278

G Tyre Bikai 1978: Pl.35:12 Iron I B Str. XIII-1

Variant 3 (Type 5.2) – miniature ¼ amphorae

H Tell Abu Hawam Hamilton 1935: Pl. Iron IIA? Str. III XXXVI:99

Plate 10: Iron Age I (Pedrazzi Type 4)

Site Source Date Levels

A Tell Kazel Pedrazzi 2007: LBA II - Iron I Area II / level 4 Fig.3.16:a

B Maa Palaikastro Karageorghis and Demas Iron I Floor II, room (Cyprus) 1988: Pls.194;319 76

Plate 11: Iron Age I (Pedrazzi Type 5.5)

Site Source Date Levels

A Tell Keisan Pedrazzi 2007: Fig. Iron I Level 9 3.27:b

B P-Skales (Cyprus) Bikai 1983: 397- Iron I Tomb 44 Τ44/134

D Tell Abu Hawam Hamilton 1935: 174, Iron I - Pl.XXXVI.

G P-Skales (Cyprus) Karageorghis 1983: Fig. Iron I Tomb 80 CLIV:1)

279

Plate 12: Iron I (Pedrazzi Type 5.7)

Site Source Date Levels

A Tyre Bikai 1978: Pl.41.5 Iron I A-B Str. XIV

B Deir el-Medina Nagel 1938: Fig.101.8 Iron I -

C Sarepta Pritchard 1988: Fig.43:11 Iron I-II 5-4

Plate 13 Iron I (Pedrazzi Type 5.3)

Site Source Date Levels

A Tell Qasile Mazar 1985: Fig.48.1 Iron I C Str. X

B Amarna (Egypt) Peet and Woolley 1923: LBA II A - Pl. LI:XLIII/246

Plate 14: Iron I (Pedrazzi Type 16)

Site Source Date Levels

A P-Skales (Cyprus) Karageorghis 1983: Iron IB Tomb 49 Fig.LXXXVI.79

B Amarna (Egypt) Peet and Woolley 1923: Pl. Iron I River Temple? LIII:LX/82

C P-Skales (Cyprus) Karageorghis 1983: Iron I Tomb 74 Fig.CXXXVII.20

Plate 15: Iron II (Aznar Type 9.A)

Site Source Date Levels

A Tyre Bikai 1978: Pl.21.13 Iron II

B Saqqara (Egypt) Aston 1996: 35, Fig.72.2 Iron II-III Disturbed tomb

C Cyprus Bikai 1987: Pl.XXII.603 Iron I-II

D Hazor Amiran 1970: Pl.81.5 Iron II 280

E H.R. Zayit Aznar 2004: 67 (9A) Iron II

F Pithekoussai (Italy) Buchner 1982: Fig. 4c Late 8th Century Archaic Tomb

G Egypt Aston 1996: Fig.72.1 Late Period

H Egypt Aston 1996: Fig.234.c Late Period

I Qurneh Aston 1996: Fig.140.795 Late Period

Plate 16: Iron II MTC #5 (Aznar Type 9.B1)

Site Source Date Levels

A Elissa Shipwreck Ballard et al. 2002: 160, Late 8th Century N/A Fig. 9.5

B Kition Bikai 1987: Pl.XXII.603 Late 8th Century Kition Horizon

D Elissa Shipwreck Ballard et al. 2002:160, Late 8th Century N/A Fig. 9.4

E Pithekoussai (Italy) Buchner 1982: Fig.4d Late 8th Century Archaic Tomb

Plate 17: Iron II MTC #6 (Aznar Type 9.B2)

Site Source Date Levels

A Tyre Bikai 1978: Pl.III:7 Iron II (late) Stratum II

D Mediterranean Zemer 1977: 17, Pl.4 no. 11 Iron II N/A Sea

G Cumae (Italy) Gàbrice 1913: 245; Fig.84 Late 8th Century Tomb 281

Plate 18: Iron III (Misc)

Site Source Date Levels

A Salamis Karageorghis 1974: Iron III - Pl.XXXI.V

D Salamis Bikai 1987: Pl.XXIII.589 Iron III Amathus Horizon

G Ashkelon Barako 2008: 437-438 Iron III -

Plate 19: LBA (Misc)

Site Source Date Levels

A Kouklia, Kaminia Jones 1986: Pl.7.16 LBA -

D Tiryns Killian 1988: Fig.25: 13 LBA -

E Tiryns Olivier 1988: 258: Fig.2: nos.13, LBA - 29, 30, 31.

Plate 20: LBA (MTC #3) -Iron I (MTC #4) Exemplars

Site Source Date Levels

A Uluburun Pulak 1998: 201, no. KW214 LBA Uluburun shipwreck

B Uluburun Pulak 1997: 241, no. KW612 LBA Uluburun shipwreck 282

C Uluburun KW 5921 (Amp 143): C. Pulak, LBA Uluburun shipwreck personal communication, 2016)

D P-Skales Karageorghis 1983: Fig.CXIV: 2 Iron I 58

E P-Skales Karageorghis 1983: Fig.CLXVI: 46 Iron I Tomb 80

F P-Skales Karageorghis 1983: Fig.CLIV: 40 Iron I 83

G Tyre Bikai1978: Pl.41.5 Iron I Str. XIV A-B

Plate 21: Iron II MTC #5-6 Exemplars

Site Source Date Levels

A Elissa Shipwreck after Ballard et al. 2002: 160. Iron II - Fig.9.5

B Elissa Shipwreck after Ballard et al. 2002: 160. Iron II - Fig.9.4

C Pithekoussai after Buchner 1982: Fig.4d Iron II Tomb

D Tyre after Bikai 1978: Pl.III:7 Iron II Stratum II

E Mediterranean after Zemer 1977: 17, Pl.4 no. Iron II - Sea 11

F Cumae (Italy) After Gàbrice 1913.245.Fig. Iron II Tomb 84

G Beirut BAAL, 1997: Vol 2: Fig.44.6 Iron II Storage room

1. Figure 41 (page 100) Mosaic of Tanit shipwreck, approx. ca. 750 B.C. Image Courtesy and Permission of Ashkelon excavations, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), Institution for Exploration (IFE).