Two Cypriot Pithoi from Late Bronze Age Tel Burna

Tel Aviv Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University ISSN: 0334-4355 (Print) 2040-4786 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ytav20 Two Cypriot Pithoi from Late Bronze Age Tel Burna Itzhaq Shai, Chris McKinny, Matthew Spigelman, David Ben Shlomo, Avshalom Karasik, Dvory Namdar & Joe Uziel To cite this article: Itzhaq Shai, Chris McKinny, Matthew Spigelman, David Ben Shlomo, Avshalom Karasik, Dvory Namdar & Joe Uziel (2019) Two Cypriot Pithoi from Late Bronze Age Tel Burna, Tel Aviv, 46:1, 65-82, DOI: 10.1080/03344355.2019.1586384 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03344355.2019.1586384 Published online: 01 May 2019. Submit your article to this journal View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ytav20 TEL AVIV Vol. 46, 2019, 65–82 Two Cypriot Pithoi from Late Bronze Age Tel Burna Itzhaq Shai1, Chris McKinny2, Matthew Spigelman3, David Ben Shlomo1, Avshalom Karasik4, Dvory Namdar5 and Joe Uziel4 1 Ariel University, 2Texas A&M University Corpus Christi, 3ACME Heritage Consultants, 4Israel Antiquities Authority, 5Independent Scholar Bronze Age trade in the Eastern Mediterranean is well attested in south Levantine archaeological research, with imported vessels generally playing a significant role in the ceramic assemblage. While the majority of these vessels are found repeatedly at many different sites, there are cases where a rare find sheds new light on the way in which trade patterns are perceived. Such is the case with two fully restored pithoi found in a Late Bronze IIB building at Tel Burna. This paper presents the context in which the pithoi were uncovered, followed by a study of the vessels themselves, including their typology, provenance, volume and contents, as well as the nature of Late Bronze Age trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. Keywords Late Bronze Age, Cypriot imports, Tel Burna, Trade, Provenance The excavations at Tel Burna1 have provided new data on the site’s settlement history and its place in the regional system of the Shephelah (Fig. 1). Four areas are currently under investigation (Fig. 2), exposing layers dating from the LB II to the Persian period (Shai et al. 2014; Cassuto, Koch and Shai 2015; Riehl and Shai 2015). The excavations in Area B1 have uncovered three sides of a large public building (Building 29305, Fig. 3) just beneath the surface. The building was constructed on bedrock. It features a 256 sq m (to perhaps as much as 460 sq m) central courtyard surrounded by rooms (for a detailed discussion of the building, see Shai, McKinny and Uziel 2015). An assemblage of cultic 1 During the first five seasons, the Tel Burna project was affiliated with the Institute of Archaeology of Bar-Ilan University and since then with the Institute of Archaeology of Ariel University. Until 2012 it was directed by I. Shai and J. Uziel and since then solely by I. Shai. Funding for the project was provided by the Ministry of Justice’s Legacies Fund and Ariel University, as well as by private donors. © The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 2019 DOI 10.1080/03344355.2019.1586384 66 SHAI, MCKINNY, SPIGELMAN, BEN SHLOMO, KARASIK, NAMDAR AND UZIEL Figure 1 Location of Tel Burna, with neighboring Late Bronze Age sites (prepared by J. Rosenberg). Figure 2 Topographic map of Tel Burna, showing excavation areas. The dashes indicate the contour of the fortification that enclosed the upper mound (prepared by J. Rosenberg). objects was found in the western sector of the complex, hinting at the building’s use. The pottery, well-dated to the 13th century BCE, is similar to assemblages uncovered at other sites in the region, such as Tell es-Safi/Gath Stratum E4 (Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Uziel 2012), Tel Batash Stratum VI (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2006) and Lachish Level VII (Clamer 2004; Yannai 2004). TWO CYPRIOT PITHOI FROM LATE BRONZE AGE TEL BURNA 67 Figure 3 Aerial view of Building 29305, with find spots of the two pithoi (prepared by J. Rosenberg). The pithoi (Fig. 4) Among the vessels uncovered in the courtyard of Building 29305 were two complete pithoi that had been recessed into the flat bedrock.2 In this portion of Building 29305, the flat bedrock was used as a courtyard surface. It seems that the pithoi were placed in a slightly lower depression in the bedrock while much of the cultic material was found directly on the courtyard in immediate proximity. The upper portions of the pithoi were found smashed in the debris atop the courtyard floor, but the bottom portions were found in situ with the bases sitting inside a natural fissure in the bedrock, ca. 20 cm below the courtyard floor. Fragments of at least two other Wavy-Band style pithoi were found in close proximity, in Squares NN6 and PP9. . The two pithoi were made of a fine yellowish fabric. While they vary in shape and certain physical attributes, they seemingly belong to the same general pithos type, featuring a flat base, globular body, tall, wide neck and everted rim. Pithos 432000 (Fig. 4, top) is decorated with a wavy band incision on its shoulder. Pithos 332081 (Fig. 4, bottom) has a more sharply carinated shoulder and two flanged handles extending from the shoulder to the mid-neck. The flanged handles have an additional portion that swoops upward. This handle type is common in Cypriot vessels (e.g., Keswani 2009: Fig. 1, g), but is never seen in Levantine containers. The pithoi were 3D scanned in collaboration with the National Laboratory for Digital Documentation and Research in Archaeology at the Israel Antiquities Authority (see Karasik et al. 2014). A comparison of the sections of the two vessels (Fig. 5) accentuates their similar, though not identical, form. The lower parts of the bodies have the same 2 We would like to thank Yirmi Saznton, who restored the pithoi. 68 SHAI, MCKINNY, SPIGELMAN, BEN SHLOMO, KARASIK, NAMDAR AND UZIEL Figure 4 Imported Cypriot pithoi (prepared by A. Karasik). TWO CYPRIOT PITHOI FROM LATE BRONZE AGE TEL BURNA 69 Figure 5 Comparison of shapes of the Tel Burna pithoi (repared by A. Karasik). shape, although with varying thickness of the walls. The shoulders vary, but the neck begins at the same point on each vessel at a height of approximately 80 cm, which creates an almost exactly equivalent capacity for filling the pithoi with commodities. Based on the 3D model, the volumes of the pithoi were estimated at between 189–197 litres, with a 5% deviation due to portions of the vessel not being perfectly symmetrical (see Table 1). The almost identical volumes of the vessels indicate that despite the slight variations in shoulder form, the pithoi were designed to contain a specific volume. This volume would have been familiar to the potters who created the vessels and to those using them. The volume of the vessels may be linked to the metrological system that was used in Ugarit—the kd (e.g., Heltzer 1989; Monroe 2016). Heltzer (1989: 201) proposed that each kd is equal to 22 litres, meaning that the volume of the vessels from Burna fit a multiple of 9 kd.3 The two jars from Tel Burna, in addition to Cypriot pithoi presented by 3 For further discussion of the kd, see Heltzer 1989; Lipschits et al. 2010: 468; Monroe 2016. 70 SHAI, MCKINNY, SPIGELMAN, BEN SHLOMO, KARASIK, NAMDAR AND UZIEL TABLE 1 The volume of the two Burna pithoi Internal volume up to the neck of vessel Internal volume up to rim of vessel Volume of clay External volume (including vessel volume and clay) Pithos 432000 189 197 39 236 Pithos 332081 197 207 31 238 TABLE 2 Categories of Cypriot pithoi Category Height Maximum diameter (cm) Volume (litres) Pithoi Small (Keswani 1989: Group II, Size 1) 80 60 100–120 Ugarit 01 (Schaeffer 1949: Fig. 86: 21) Ugarit 02 (Schaeffer 1949: Fig. 86: 25) Medium (Keswani 100–120 1989: Group II, Size 2) 70–80 190–230 Burna 01 Burna 02 Ugarit 03 (Schaeffer 1949: Fig. 86: 28) Minet el-Beida 01 (Schaeffer 1949: Fig. 86: 22) Minet el-Beida 04 (Schaeffer 1949: Fig. 86: 29) Large (Keswani 1989: Group II, Size 3) 120–130 80–90 270–400 Uluburun (Pulak 1998: Fig. 17) Cyprus 03 Athienou (Dothan and BenTor 1983: Fig. 52: 2) Minet el-Beida 02 (Schaeffer 1949: Fig. 86: 23) Minet el-Beida 03 (Schaeffer 1949: Fig. 86: 27) Extra Large (Keswani 1989: Group II, Size 4) 140–170 90–110 600+ Cyprus 01, Toumba tou Skourou (Vermeule and Wolsky1990: 393) ‘Cyprus 02’, Athienou (Dothan and BenTor 1983: Fig. 52: 1) Keswani (1989; 2009), seem to indicate standardization of volume for Cypriot imported pithoi (Keswani 1989; 2009). In order to further emphasize the similarity of the two pithoi from Burna, their profiles were compared to drawings of pithoi from other locations in the Eastern Mediterranean. Fig. 6 shows the profiles of 13 pithoi, coloured according to their excavation site. Their volumes were estimated based on the drawn profiles, assuming rotational symmetry around their axis (Karasik and Smilansky 2006). Although many of the pithoi have a clear similarity in globular shapes and decorative elements, there is great variability in their size and proportions. A careful examination of the profiles and the corresponding volumes indicates that there are four categories of size for these pithoi (Table 2; see also Keswani 1989; 2009). The Tel Burna pithoi belong to the Medium category, together with one example from Ugarit and two from Minet el-Beida (Schaeffer 1933; 1937; 1949; Kewasni 2009: Group II). According to Kewasni (ibid.: 111), this type was used to store products for long periods of time. TWO CYPRIOT PITHOI FROM LATE BRONZE AGE TEL BURNA 71 Figure 6 Overlapping profiles of 13 complete pithoi, coloured according to sites (Cypriot 01 originated from Toumba tou Skourou; Cypriot 02 and Cypriot 03 originated from Athienou) (prepared by A. Karasik). In order to determine their content, the pithoi were subjected to organic residue analysis. Method-blanks were routinely run with each batch of extraction.4 The extraction of lipids from the pithoi yielded no preserved compounds. This was in contrast to results from other Area B1 vessel types from which well-preserved organic compounds, including indicative biomarkers, were identified—suggesting that the immediate deposition environment had not been exposed to high temperatures. We were thus able to assume that the lack of absorbed organic residue in the pithoi was not an issue of preservation due to the deposition environment. We examined the fabric of the vessels petrographically in 4 The method used here follows Evershed, Heron and Goad 1990 and Charters et al. 1993. For full details of the method, see Namdar et al. 2013. 72 SHAI, MCKINNY, SPIGELMAN, BEN SHLOMO, KARASIK, NAMDAR AND UZIEL order to determine whether they had been heated to a point where they could no longer absorb substances within their walls. The analysis showed this was not the case (see below). In order to eliminate the possibility that the vessels were incapable of absorbing residues, olive oil was placed on sherds from the pithoi and subsequently extracted by the previously described method; this showed that they did in fact absorb the oil. It seems therefore that the vessels held contents which, when drained, left no traces. Such usage is known, for example, for pithoi found on the Uluburun shipwreck, some of which were filled with smaller vessels which had been packed for transit inside the pithoi (Bass 1986: 279–281; Pulak 1998: 203–204, Fig. 17). Alternatively, they could have been used for storing water or grain. Petrographic and Neutron Activation analyses were conducted in order to determine the provenance of the pithoi as well as to further our understanding of how they were manufactured and of their fabric and provenance.5 The petrographic analysis indicated that the pithoi were made from different fabrics. Pithos 432000 was probably made of clay derived from alluvial soil. The matrix was brown under plain polarized light (Fig. 7B) and dark with crossed polarized light (Fig. 7A). Silt fraction makes up 10% of the slide area and voids are 10%. Coarse fraction includes medium, sand-sized rounded and angular quartz (30% of slide area, up to 0.56 mm in size; Fig. 7A, denoted QZ) and limestone (15% of slide area, up to 0.35 mm in size; Fig. 7A, denoted LS); rarer opaque minerals (denoted OP, Fig. 7B) and plagioclase/feldspar. Micro-fossil fragments are also present (5% of slide area; Fig. 7B, denoted FR) with rarer appearances of amphora algae. The firing temperature estimate according to the optical activity of the matrix and condition of the calcareous inclusions is medium-high (probably under 850 degrees due to the fact that most calcareous inclusions were well-preserved). The rounded quartz and limestone sand indicates that the clay may have originated in a coastal region. Such a composition is not singularly indicative in the Eastern Mediterranean; it may fit the region of the eastern coast of Cyprus, as well as other regions, such as the Sharon and Carmel coasts (see, e.g., Cypriot-style pithoi from Dor [Weiman-Barak 2015: 70, Group C2] and jars from Tell Keisan [Weiman-Barak and Gilboa 2016: 179–180, Group C, Fig. 5]). Several Canaanite jars analyzed from Hala Sultan Tekke on the southeastern coast of Cyprus were made of a somewhat similar clay and were also grouped together according to lead-isotope analysis (yet, not fitting any of the local clay sources—see Renson et al. 2014: Group 4, 261–262, Figs. 3, 4b). In Pithos 332081, the matrix is dark red under plain polarized light (Fig. 7C) and opaque under crossed polarized light (Fig. 7D). Silt fraction makes up 15% of the slide area and voids are 15%. The main non-plastics are silt-sized to sand-sized limestone (10% of the slide area, up to 0.65 mm), calcareous concentrations, quartz, serpentine (3% of the slide area; denoted SP in the photo, up to 0.45 mm), mica (2% of slide area, up to 0.15 mm, denoted MC) and basalt, as well as large sand-sized fragments 5 The analysis was carried out at the Hebrew University by Ben-Shlomo; the thin sections are stored at Ariel University. TWO CYPRIOT PITHOI FROM LATE BRONZE AGE TEL BURNA 73 Figure 7 Petrographic sections of the Burna pithoi (photographs by D. Ben-Shlomo). of minerals derived from igneous rocks including olivine (5% of the slide area, up to 0.8 mm; Fig. 7D, denoted OL) as well as rarer basalt and pyroxene. Estimated firing temperature may be higher than the previous example (roughly 850 degrees or higher). This clay clearly derives from a region with igneous and volcanic rocks, and cannot be attributed to any area in the southern Levant. It is possible that the clay could have come from southwestern Cyprus (Troodos Terrane Ophiolite area), or several other regions with volcanic soils in the Aegean/Eastern Mediterranean. Although a large number of petrographic studies were carried out on pottery from Cyprus, including on Cypriot pithoi (Xenophontos, Pilides and Malpas 2000), no exact match to this fabric can be found (see also Keswani 2009: 113). In addition to petrographic analysis, the two vessels were tested by Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) at the Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR).6 Data for the two Burna pithoi are interpreted here through comparison to the large scale study of Bronze Age Cypriot ceramics conducted by Bryan et al. (1997). Comparisons are also made 6 For the standard protocols of the lab, see Glascock 1992. 74 SHAI, MCKINNY, SPIGELMAN, BEN SHLOMO, KARASIK, NAMDAR AND UZIEL between the Tel Burna pithoi and the Cypriot pithoi found at Kommos on Crete that were analyzed by Tomlinson, Rutter and Hoffmann (2010).7 Pithos 432000 was analysed as sample MDS239. It has a calcareous fabric, as shown by its high calcium concentration and enrichment in Rare Earth Elements (REEs). It is most closely related to Bryan et al.’s Group 13, described together with Groups 14 and 15, as ‘the Enkomi groups’ (1997: 38). These groups contain samples with calcareous fabrics, excluding the non-calcareous White Slip and Base Ring fabric samples also collected from Enkomi. Due to a lack of samples from elsewhere in this geological region, it is only possible to argue that Group 13 and Pithos 432000 (MDS239) were produced from the calcareous clays of the Mesaoria Plain, or similar deposits from elsewhere in the Circum Troodos Sedimentary Sequence (Constantinou 1995). Of the pithoi studied from Kommos on Crete, Tomlinson et al. (2010: Table 5) assign Pithos C9013 to Bryan et al.’s Group 15, another of the ‘Enkomi groups’. Pithos C9013, like Pithos 432000 (MDS239), has a wavy line incised around the shoulder, however, it is smaller in size (Tomlinson, Rutter and Hoffmann 2010: Fig. 5). The two vessels have broadly similar compositional profiles, both with high calcium content and enriched REEs (Fig. 8). The petrographic analysis raised the possibility that Pithos 432000 (MDS239) was produced from calcareous clays in the coastal Levant, rather than on the island of Cyprus (see above). Bryan et al.’s database contains few samples from the Levant with which to test this possibility; however, they do publish two groups, Groups 1 and 19, which they describe as containing Canaanite Jars and suggest that “the most likely origin of these jars is the southern Levant” (Bryan et al. 1997: 36). The compositions of these Levantine groups are, however, different from both the Enkomi groups and from Pithos 432000 (MDS239). This distinction argues against a Levantine source for Pithos 432000 (MDS239) but does not rule out that possibility. As was the case with Pithos 432000 (MDS239), Pithos 332081 (MDS240) has a calcareous fabric. Yet, it has relatively lower REEs values, which can be explained by the presence of ultra-basic rock inclusions in the fabric, such as those of the Troodos ophiolites, which are depleted in REEs (Constantinou 1995; Gomez et al. 1995). This pithos clusters with Bryan et al.’s Group 10, described, together with Groups 8 and 9, as “related mixed ware groups, dominated by sherds from the sites of the Limassol region of the island” (1997: 38). Based on its diffuse chemistry (Tomlinson, Rutter and Hoffmann 2010: Table B) and the dispersed findspots of the samples, Group 10 likely represents a broad region circling the Troodos Massif, where a fabric composed of calcareous paste (derived from the Circum Troodos Sedimentary Sequence) and igneous inclusions (derived from the ophiolites of the Troodos Massif) could be most easily assembled (Constantinou 1995). Here, too, Tomlinson, Rutter and Hoffmann’s (2010: Table 5) analysis of the pithoi found at Kommos brings a close comparison, both compositionally and stylistically to 7 Data from Bryan et al. 1997 and Tomlinson, Rutter and Hoffmann 2010 are available for download from MURR (http://archaeometry.missouri.edu/datasets/uman/). Data from the Manchester Laboratory (Bryan et al. 1997; Tomlinson, Rutter and Hoffmann 2010) and MURR (this study) are converted here based on published comparisons to the Berkeley standard; see Boulanger and Glascock 2009. TWO CYPRIOT PITHOI FROM LATE BRONZE AGE TEL BURNA 75 1000000 100000 10000 MDS239_Man 1000 C9013_avg 100 10 1 Na Al K Ca Sc Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Rb Cs La Ce Sm Eu Dy Hf Th 1000000 100000 10000 1000 100 MDS240_Man C3171_avg 10 1 0.1 Na Al K Ca Sc Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Rb Cs La Ce Sm Eu Dy Hf Th Figure 8 Compositional profiles for Tel Burna pithoi (MDS239=Pithos 432000; MDS240=Pithos 332081), compared with compositionally and stylistically similar pithoi from Kommos (C9013, C3171) (prepared by M. Spigelman). Pithos 332081, assigning Pithos C3171 from Kommos to Bryan et al.’s Group 10. The two pithoi have similar compositional profiles (Fig. 8) and fabrics, with “many small dark inclusions” (Watrous 1992: 158), a description consistent with igneous inclusions. Again, stylistically the two are quite alike, with overhanging rims and flanged handles on their necks (see Watrous 1992: Pl. 52). Pithoi in Cyprus Pithoi are common in Cyprus throughout much of the Bronze Age, with the form gaining prominence during the Late Cypriot IIC, ca. 1340–1200 BCE, and continuing into the subsequent Late Cypriot IIIA (e.g., Keswani 2009). Late Cypriot IIC and IIIA pithoi have been studied by Keswani (1989; 2009: 107–109, Fig. 1; see also Catling 1957; Pilides 1996: 111; 2000: Fig. 2), who presents a typology of three primary morphological categories, with a number of subcategories based on size and stylistic details. The LC IIC–IIIA pithoi illustrate a standardization of decorative techniques and motifs that contrast markedly with the diversity of the preceding period .8 Many of the LC IIC–IIIA pithoi carry horizontal and/or wavy bands of embossed or incised decoration. The complex political structure of Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age was (inter alia) predicated on the accumulation and mobilization of agricultural surplus, with large scale storage utilizing pithoi evidenced at a number of sites (see Keswani 1993, 1996, 8 For a catalogue of the diverse motifs of the preceding period, see Åström 1966: Figs. 209–212; see also J.S. Smith 2005: Figs. 22–24. 76 SHAI, MCKINNY, SPIGELMAN, BEN SHLOMO, KARASIK, NAMDAR AND UZIEL 2009; Knapp 1993, 1997; Webb and Frankel 1994).9 The purpose of these efforts was to facilitate the large scale production of commoditized goods and materials, most notably copper but also ceramics and organic goods (Knapp 1991). The mercantile element of Late Bronze Age Cypriot society has been well noted by archaeologists since the early 20th century, largely as a result of the spectacular finds at Enkomi (Murray, Smith and Walters 1900; Schaeffer 1936; Crewe 2004: 16–25). These finds were linked to those discovered elsewhere in the Eastern Mediterranean, particularly at Ras Shamra, ancient Ugarit, and its port, Minet el-Beida (e.g., Schaeffer 1933; Yon 1997). The archaeological evidence together with the Amarna letters (if Cyprus is to be equated with Alashiya – e.g., Goren, Finkelstein and Naʼaman 2004) demonstrates that Cyprus was an integral part of the Late Bronze Age international world. Keswani (1996) noted, however, that large scale storage in pithoi is absent from many of these coastal sites. This suggests that the production, storage and mobilization of agricultural surplus on Cyprus was somewhat separated from mercantile engagement in foreign trade (e.g., Manning and De Mita 1997). Smith (2007; 2012) showed that at the coastal site of Episkopi-Bamboula, one area contains pithoi and lacks imported goods, while another area contains foreign goods but no pithoi. It is therefore likely that surplus agricultural and craft products were produced within Cyprus by established elites and packaged in pithoi for shipment abroad. This packaging called for a standardized volume and protection against breakage during transport. Pithoi in the context of Late Bronze Age maritime trade Cypriot pithoi were a key component of the Late Bronze Age maritime assemblage, as evidenced by the shipwrecks at Cape Gelidonya (Day 1999), Uluburun (Pulak 1998) and Point Iria (Pilides 2000). The evidence from the shipwrecks suggests that pithoi served a diverse set of roles aboard ships, including protecting both organic and inorganic fragile cargo. Additionally, they may have been used to hold water or other rations for the ship’s crew. The Cape Gelidonya (off the south coast of Turkey) shipwreck dates to around 1200 BCE and while no pithoi were published in the original report (Bass 1967), subsequent work at the site has shown that they were present on the ship (Day 1999: 61; see now also Hirschfeld and Bass 2013). The Uluburun (off the coast of southwestern Turkey) shipwreck provides the most compelling evidence for the diverse roles pithoi played in Late Bronze Age seafaring. The wreck contained ten Cypriot pithoi (see Pulak 1998: Fig. 4 for a plan, and Fig. 17 for a drawing of Pithos KW255; see also Hirschfeld 2011), of which three were used to protect cargo of smaller Cypriot ceramic vessels packed within them (Bass 1986: 279–281; Pulak 1998: 204). One pithos contained whole pomegranates and a folding wax surface writing board (Pulak 1998: 216; Hirschfeld 2011). Another (KW 251) contained Cypriot pottery, as well as small fragments of tin ingots (Bass 1986: 295). 9 For the complexity of this society and a view of the role of rural settlements, see recently Andreou 2016; see also Peltenburg 2012. TWO CYPRIOT PITHOI FROM LATE BRONZE AGE TEL BURNA 77 The Point Iria (off the coast of Greece) shipwreck contained five pithoi. The four recovered pithoi are both stylistically (Pilides 2000: 48–49) and petrographically (Day 1999: 61–63) attributed to Cyprus. They were found empty (Lolos 1995: 73). This may suggest that they were used to transport perishable or liquid cargo, or were shipped empty as trade objects (Pilides 2000: 48). The extensively excavated site of Ugarit and the associated port site of Minet el-Beida have both produced a number of Cypriot Pithoi.10 At Ugarit, beneath an open area to the south of the palace, a pithos was found packed with smaller vessels (Schaeffer 1962: 119, Figs. 83–84, foldout I), presumably the vessel and its contents were obtained by and/or destined for transport by sea. Pulak (1998 : 218) noted the similarities between the contents of the Uluburun shipwreck pithoi and the finds at Ugarit, specifically the large number of oil lamps. Similarly, Tomlinson, Rutter and Hoffmann (2010) noted that Cypriot pithoi appear at Kommos on Crete at the same time as a large influx of White Slip II vessels, which they speculate were packed in pithoi for transport. Groups of Cypriot pithoi were found in ground floor rooms, which were understood by the excavator as storage areas, at both Ugarit (where a group of eight vessels were found [Schaeffer 1937: 128, Pl. XX.3; 1949: 208, Fig. 86, Pl. XXXI]) and Minet el-Beida (where numerous examples were found, two of which are published [Schaeffer 1949: 208, NaN-24]). The evidence from Cyprus and the Northern Levant thereby suggests a complex system of large scale trade, with pithoi playing a central role in transporting commodities and temporary storage in ports of trade. Other than the examples cited above, Cypriot pithoi are quite rare in the southern Levant, with only a few known fragmentary examples possibly originating from the island (Ara – Yannai 2014: 168, fig. 6.20: 2; Ashdod – Dothan and Porath 1993: Figs. 34: 3; 41: 12; Tel Batash; Azekah11 and Lachish12 – Yannai 2004: 19.20: 8).13 Some sherds of such pithoi were found at Carmel coast sites, alongside locally produced pithoi (Artzy 2006: 52–54). These vessels primarily date to the 13th century BCE (see Mazar and PanitzCohen 2006: 90), although they continue to appear until the 11th century BCE (Gilboa 2001). Yannai (2014: 168) stressed that none of the identified vessels have been securely attributed to a Cypriot origin. Furthermore, several supposed examples were found to 10 Due to the large number of such pithoi found at Ugarit, Keswani (1989) suggested that they were locally made. 11 The recent material from Azekah includes the following: One large item in a LB II context (fill below floor) in Area S2 (a petrographic sample shows similarity to Burna Pithos 332081), one fragment in a LB fill in Area T2, and one fragment unstratified in Area E3. All three items show the same greenish fabric and have the same wavy line (S. Kleiman, personal communication). 12 Two fragments of pithoi of this type were also found in Area S at Lachish in Level VII (Goren and Halperin 2004: 22561–22562). Petrographic analysis was carried out on these fragments and it appears that they were likely produced in the same area as Pithos 332081 from Tel Burna. We would like to thank S. Kleiman for sharing these observations with us. 13 For additional pithoi in the Levant, mostly from the Iron I, see Gilboa 2001: 163–164. 78 SHAI, MCKINNY, SPIGELMAN, BEN SHLOMO, KARASIK, NAMDAR AND UZIEL be locally made.14 It has been suggested that while some of the vessels were imported, others may have been locally made by itinerant potters (Gilboa 2001: 164; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2006: 90). This is interesting, since pithoi and other large storage vessels typologically foreign to the Levant are assumed to indicate trade in commodities (e.g., the Minoan large coarse stirrup jars, dated mostly to the 14th century BCE – Ben-Shlomo, Nodarou and Rutter 2011). Possibly, local ‘imitations’ of such vessels could have been related to storage or inland transport. Discussion and conclusions The two Tel Burna pithoi are a rare find in the southern Levant.15 Their shape, decoration and provenance analysis (petrographic and NAA) are consistent with Cypriot origin16 The volume of the Tel Burna pithoi is ca. 200 litres; based on the 3D scanning we assume that both were produced with the intention of reaching a specified volume, likely linked to a known ancient measurement. This is not surprising, considering that trade reached one of its historical peaks in the ancient Near East in the Late Bronze Age (e.g., Sauvage 2017), with Cypriot containers, including pithoi, reaching inland south Levantine sites, and as far west as Italy (Schiappelli 2015). Interestingly, both vessels presented here belong to the same size category, as opposed to other sites (e.g., Ugarit) where a more diverse assemblage of Cypriot pithoi was found. On the other hand, the two vessels were made in different workshops, as indicated by the provenance analyses. The different size categories of Cypriot pithoi presented above (Table 2; following Keswani 1989) may indicate differences in the commodities placed in them. For example, the largest category (Keswani 1989: Group II, Size 4), comprising the extra-large containers, was not transported at all. The smallest pithoi (Keswani 1989: Group II, Size 1), not found in the southern Levant, likely carried a liquid commodity. As these pithoi were small, their weight would not have been too heavy to carry, as opposed to the medium (Keswani 1989: Group II, Size 2) and large pithoi (Keswani 1989: Group II, Size 3), which were likely filled with commodities that would not have weighed as much as liquid. Yet, each container may have carried a different commodity. That may be the reason why only medium-sized pithoi reached the secondary markets of the southern Levant. The idea that the containers were filled with smaller Cypriot vessels which were then sold along the coast—particularly in light of the Uluburun and Ugarit pithoi—seems a likely possibility. Organic residue analysis carried out on the two Tel Burna pithoi supports this assumption. The results show that the commodity placed in these pithoi did not leave a 14 For example, Tel Batash (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2006: 90). The Iron Age examples that were analysed were produced on the mainland as seen in Gilboa (2001: 164–165). 15 For a pithos found in Jaffa, see Burke et al. (2017: Fig. 10). As this site was a major port and an Egyptian administrative centre during the 13th century BCE, the presence of such a vessel is not as surprising as the presence of two items at Tel Burna, located ca. 30 km away from the nearest ports of Ashdod and Ashkelon. 16 While a Cypriot source is likely, for one of the pithoi, No. 43200, both petrography and NAA cannot completely rule out a Levantine (possibly Carmel coast) source. TWO CYPRIOT PITHOI FROM LATE BRONZE AGE TEL BURNA 79 traceable biomarker—neither from their original transport, nor from their final deposition in Area B1 at Tel Burna. This may be due to the fact that the vessels were used to store water or grain, materials that would have left no absorbed organic residues behind. Another possible explanation is that they were used as containers for smaller imported ceramic vessels, preserving them during maritime shipment. Since Tel Burna is not located along the Mediterranean coast and was clearly not an important land trade centre, it seems unlikely that such large and heavy vessels were initially intended to be brought all the way to the summit of this third-scale town (see Uziel, Shai and Cassuto 2014). The transport of small vessels within the pithoi would have likely led to their cracking and breaking along the bumpy roads leading to the inland site. Indeed, imported commodities were brought to central ports and from there were usually distributed in smaller vessels with a sustainable shape (Gilboa and Namdar 2015). Hence, the reason why the two Cypriot pithoi were sent to Tel Burna remains an enigma. In any event, they were placed in a public building where cultic activity took place (Shai, McKinny and Uziel 2015). Thus, even if the two pithoi were originally used to transport vessels on sea voyages, in their find spot they were probably used for a different purpose, such as containers for water or grain. References Andreou, G.M. 2016. Understanding the Rural Economy of Late Bronze Age Cyprus: A Diachronic Perspective from the Vasilikos Valley. JMA 29: 143–172. Artzy, M. 2006. The Carmel Coast during the Second Part of the Late Bronze Age: A Center for Eastern Mediterranean Transshipping. BASOR 343: 45–64. Åström, P. 1966. Excavations at Kalopsidha and Ayios Iakovos in Cyprus. Lund. Bass, G.F. 1967. Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck. Philadelphia. Bass, G.F. 1986. A Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun (Kaş): 1984 Campaign. AJA 90: 269–296. Ben-Shlomo, D., Nodarou, E. and Rutter, J.B. 2011. Transport Stirrup Jars from the Southern Levant: New Light on Commodity Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean. AJA 115: 329–353. Boulanger, M. and Glascock, M.D. 2009. Salvage Archaeometry: Rescue, Preservation, and Dissemination of Geochemical Data. In: Society for American Archaeology 74th Annual Meeting. Atlanta. https://www.academia.edu/1656771/Salvage_Archaeometry_Rescue_ Preservation_and_Dissemination_of_Geochemical_Data. Bryan, N.D., French, E.B., Hoffman, S.M.A. and Robinson, V.J. 1997. Pottery Sources in Bronze Age Cyprus: A Provenance Study by Neutron Activation. Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus: 31–64. Burke, A.A., Peilstöcker, M., Karoll, A., Pierce, G.A., Kowalski, K., Ben-Marzouk, N., Damm, J.C., Danielson, A.J., Fessler, H.D., Kaufman, B., Pierce, K.V.L., Höflmayer, F., Damiata, B.N. and Dee, M. 2017. Excavations of the New Kingdom Fortress in Jaffa, 2011–2014: Traces of Resistance to Egyptian Rule in Canaan. AJA 121: 85–133. Cassuto, D.R., Koch, I. and Shai, I. 2015. A Note on an Amenhotep III Plaque from Tel Burna. Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 7: 21–26. Catling, H.W. 1957. The Bronze Age Pottery. In: du Plat Taylor, J., ed. Myrtou-Pigadhes: A Late Bronze Age Sanctuary in Cyprus. Oxford: 26–59. Charters, S., Evershed, R.P., Goad, L.J., Leyden, A., Blinkhorn, P.W. and Denham, V. 1993. Quantification and Distribution of Lipid in Archaeological Ceramics: Implications for Sampling Potsherds for Organic Residue Analysis and the Classification of Vessel Use. Archaeometry 35: 211–223. Clamer, C. 2004. The Pottery from Levels P-2 and P-1 in Area P. In: Ussishkin, D., ed.The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 22). Tel Aviv: 1155–1234. 80 SHAI, MCKINNY, SPIGELMAN, BEN SHLOMO, KARASIK, NAMDAR AND UZIEL Constantinou, G. 1995. Geological Map of Cyprus. Cyprus. Crewe, L.A. 2004. Social Complexity and Ceramic Technology on Late Bronze Age Cyprus: The New Evidence from Enkomi (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh). Edinburgh. Day, P.M. 1999. Petrographic Analysis of Ceramics from the Shipwreck at Point Iria. In: Vēchos, G., Lólos, Y. and Phelps, W.W., eds. The Point Iria Wreck: Interconnections in the Mediterranean, ca. 1200 BC: Proceedings of the International Conference, Island of Spetses, 19 September 1998. Athens: 59–75. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/004172944. Dothan, M. and Porath, Y. 1993. Ashdod V: Excavations of Area G: The Fourth–Sixth Seasons of Excavations 1968–1970. ʿAtiqot 23. Evershed, R.P., Heron, C. and Goad, L.J. 1990. Analysis of Organic Residues of Archaeological Origin by High-Temperature Gas Chromatography and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry. Analyst 115: 1339–1342. Gadot, Y., Yasur-Landau, A. and Uziel, J. 2012. The Late Bronze Age Pottery. In: Maeir, A.M., ed. Tell es-Safi/Gath I: Report on the 1996–2005 Seasons. Wiesbaden: 241–264. Gilboa, A. 2001. The Significance of Iron Age ‘Wavy-Band’ Pithoi Along Syro-Palestinian Littoral, with Reference to Tel Dor Pithoi. In: Wolff, S.R., ed., Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands: In Memory of Douglas L. Esse. Chicago: 163–173. Gilboa, A. and Namdar, D. 2015. On the Beginnings of South Asian Spice Trade with the Mediterranean Region: A Review. Radiocarbon 57: 265–283. Glascock, M.D. 1992. Characterization of Archaeological Ceramics at MURR by Neutron Activation Analysis and Multivariate Statistics. In: Neff, H., ed. Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology. Madison: 11–26. Gomez, B., Rautman, M.L., Neff, H. and Glascock, M.D. 1995. Clays Related to the Production of White Slip Ware. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus: 113–118. Goren, Y., Finkelstein, I. and Naʼaman, N. 2004. Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Amarna Tablets and Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 23). Tel Aviv. Goren, Y. and Halperin, N. 2004. Section B: Selected Petrographic Analyses. In: Ussishkin, D. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 22). Tel Aviv: 2553–2568. Heltzer, M. 1989. Some Questions of the Ugaritic Metrology and Its Parallels in Judah, Phoenicia, Mesopotamia and Greece. UF 21: 195–208. Hirschfeld, N. 2011. The Cypriot Ceramic Cargo of the Uluburun Shipwreck. In: Gauß, W., Lindblom, A., Smith, R.A.K. and Wright, J.C., eds. Our Cups Are Full, Studies Presented to Jeremy Rutter. Oxford: 115–120. Hirschfeld, N. and Bass, G. 2013. Return to Cape Gelidonya. Pasiphae: Rivista di Filogia e Antichità Egee VII: 99–104. Karasik, A., Greenhut, Z., Uziel, J., Szanton, N., Grosman, L., Zandbank, I. and Smilansky, U. 2014. Documentation and Analyses on the National Scale at the Israel Antiquities Authority: The Story of One (Broken) Sherd. NEA 77: 209–213. Karasik, A. and Smilansky, U. 2006. Computation of the Capacity of Pottery Vessels Based on Drawn Profiles—Appendix 1A to Chapter 12. In: Mazar, A., ed. Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Vol. I: From the Late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period. Jerusalem: 392–394. Keswani, P.S. 1989. Dimensions of Social Hierarchy in Late Bronze Age Cyprus: An Analysis of the Mortuary Data from Enkomi. JMA 2: 49–86. Keswani, P.S. 1993. Models of Local Exchange in Late Bronze Age Cyprus. BASOR 292: 73–83. Keswani, P.S. 1996. Hierarchies, Heterarchies and Urbanization Processes: The View from Bronze Age Cyprus. JMA 9: 211–250. Keswani, P.S. 2009. Exploring Regional Variation in Late Cypriot II–III Pithoi: Perspectives from Alassa ans Kalavasos. In: Hein, I., ed. Formation of Cyprus in the 2nd Millennium B.C.: Studies in Regionalism During the Middle and Later Bronze Age. Vienna: 107–126. Knapp, A.B. 1991. Spice, Drugs, Grain and Grog: Organic Goods in Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean Trade. In: Gale, N.H., ed. Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean: Papers Presented at the Conference Held at Rewley House, Oxford, in December 1989 (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology). Uppsala: 21–68. TWO CYPRIOT PITHOI FROM LATE BRONZE AGE TEL BURNA 81 Knapp, A.B. 1993. Social Complexity: Incipience, Emergence, and Development on Prehistoric Cyprus. BASOR 292: 85–106. Knapp, A.B. 1997. The Archaeology of Late Bronze Age Cypriot Society: The Study of Settlement, Survey and Landscape. Glasgow. Lipschits, O., Koch, I., Shaus, A. and Guil, S. 2010. The Enigma of the Biblical ‘Bath’ and the System of Liquid Volume Measurement during the First Temple Period. UF 42: 453–478. Lolos, Y.G. 1995. Late Cypro-Mycenaean Sea-Faring: New Evidence from Sites in the Saronic and the Argolic Gulfs. In: Karageorghis, V. and Michaēlidēs, D., eds. Proceedings of the International Symposium Cyprus and the Sea. Nicosia: 65–87. Manning, S.W. and De Mita, Jr., F.A. 1997. Cyprus, the Aegean, and Maroni-Tsaroukkas. Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Cyprus and the Aegean in Antiquity from the Prehistoric Period to the 7th century A.D., Nicosia 8–10 December 1995. Nicosia: 103–141. Mazar, A. and Panitz-Cohen, N. 2006. Timnah (Tel Batash) III: The Finds from the Second Millennium BCE (Qedem 45). Jerusalem. Monroe, C. 2016. Measure for ‘Measure’: Connecting Text to Material Culture Through Late Bronze Age Shipping Jars. In: Demesticha, S. and Knapp, A.B., eds. Maritime Transport Containers in the Bronze–Iron Age Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature 183). Uppsala: 79–96. Murray, A.S., Smith, A.H. and Walters, H.B. 1900. Excavations in Cyprus (Bequest of Miss E. T. Turner to the British Museum). London. Namdar, D., Gilboa, A., Neumann, R., Finkelstein, I. and Weiner, S. 2013. Cinnamaldehyde in Early Iron Age Phoenician Flasks Raises the Possibility of Levantine Trade with South East Asia. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 13: 1–19. Peltenburg, E.J. 2012. King Kushmeshusha and the Decentralised Political Structure of Late Bronze Age Cyprus. In: Cadogan, G., Iacovou, M., Kopaka, K. and Whitley, J., eds. Parallel Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus (British School at Athens Studies 20). London: 345–351. Pilides, D. 1996. Storage Jars as Evidence of Economy of Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age. In: Karageorghis, V. and Michaēlidēs, D., eds. The Development of the Cypriot Economy: From the Prehistoric Period to the Present Day. Nicosia: 107–126. Pilides, D. 2000. Pithoi of the Late Bronze Age in Cyprus: Types from the Major Sites of the Period. Cyprus. Pulak, C. 1998. The Uluburun Shipwreck: An Overview. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 27: 188–224. Renson, V., Ben-Shlomo, D., Coenaerts, J., Charbit-Nataf, K., Samaes, M., Mattielli, N., Nys, K. and Claeys, P. 2014. Coupling Lead Isotope Analysis and Petrography to Characterize Fabrics of Storage and Trade Containers from Hala Sultan Tekke (Cyprus). Archaeometry 56: 261–78. Riehl, S. and Shai, I. 2015. Supra-regional Trade Networks and the Economic Potential of Iron Age II Sites in the Southern Levant. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports 3: 525–533. Sauvage, C. 2017. The Development of Bronze Age Maritime Exchanges in the Eastern Mediterranean. In: De Souza, P., ed. The Sea in History—The Ancient World. Suffolk: 151–164. Schaeffer, C.F.A. 1933. Les fouilles de Minet el-Beida et de Ras-Shamra: Quatrième campagne (printemps 1932): Rapport sommaire. Syria 14: 93–127. Schaeffer, C.F.A. 1936. Missions en Chypre 1932–1935. Paris. Schaeffer, C.F.A. 1937. Les fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit huitième campagne (printemps 1936): Rapport sommaire. Syria 18: 125–154. Schaeffer, C.F.A. 1949. Ugaritica II. Paris. Schaeffer, C.F.A., ed. 1962. Fouilles et découvertes des xviiie et xixe campagnes 1954–1955 (Ugaritica IV). Paris. Schiappelli, A. 2015. Along the Routes of Pithoi in the Late Bronze Age. In: Babbi, A., Bubenheimer-Erhart, F., Marín-Aguilera, B. and Mühl, S., ed. The Mediterranean Mirror: Cultural Contacts in the Mediterranean Sea between 1200 and 750 BC. Heidelberg: 231–244. Shai, I., Dagan, A., Riehl, S., Orendi, A., Uziel, J. and Suriano, M. 2014. A Private Stamped Seal Handle from Tel Burna, Israel. ZDPV 130: 121–137. 82 SHAI, MCKINNY, SPIGELMAN, BEN SHLOMO, KARASIK, NAMDAR AND UZIEL Shai, I., McKinny, C. and Uziel, J. 2015. Late Bronze Age Cultic Activity in Ancient Canaan: A View from Tel Burna. BASOR 374: 115–133. Smith, J.S. 2005. Guide to Phlamoudhi. New York. Smith, J.S. 2007. Theme and Style in Cypriot Wooden Roller Impressions. Cahier du Centre d’Études chypriotes 37: 339–366. Smith, J.S. 2012. Seals, Scripts, and Politics at Late Bronze Age Kourion. AJA 116: 39–103. Tomlinson, J.E., Rutter, J.B. and Hoffmann, S.M.A. 2010. Mycenaean and Cypriot Late Bronze Ceramic Imports to Kommos: An Investigation by Neutron Activation Analysis. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 79: 191–231. Uziel, J., Shai, I. and Cassuto, D. 2014. The Ups and Downs of Settlement Patterns: Why Sites Fluctuate. In: Spencer, J.R., Mullins, R.A. and Brody, A., eds. Material Culture Matters: Essays on the Archaeology of the Southern Levant in Honor of Seymour Gitin. Winona Lake: 295–308. Watrous, L.V. 1992. Kommos III: The Late Bronze Age Pottery. Princeton. Webb, J. and Frankel, D. 1994. Making an Impression: Storage and Surplus Finance in Late Bronze Age Cyprus. JMA 7: 5–26. Weiman-Barak, P. 2015. Circulation of Early Iron Age Goods: Phoenician and Egyptian Ceramics in the Early Iron Age—An Optical Mineralogy Perspective (Ph.D. dissertation, Haifa University). Haifa. Waiman-Barak, P. and Gilboa, A. 2016. Maritime Transport Containers: The View from Phoenician Tell Keisan (Israel) in the Iron Age. In: Demesticha, S. and Knapp, A.B., eds., Maritime Transport Containers in the Bronze–Iron Age Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. Upsala: 169–194. Xenophontos, C., Pilides, D. and Malpas, J.G. 2000. Petrographic Analysis of Late Bronze Age Pithoi from Cyprus: Appendix I. In: Pilides, D. Pithoi of the Late Bronze Age in Cyprus: Types from Major Sites of the Period. Nicosia: 167–182. Yannai, E. 2004. The Late Bronze Age Pottery from Area S. In: Ussishkin, D., The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 22). Tel Aviv: 1032–1146. Yannai, E. 2014. The Imported Vessels. In: Gadot, Y., ed. The Bronze Age Cemetery at >Ara (Salvage Excavation Reports 8). Tel Aviv: 129–181. Yon, M. 1997. Ougarit et le port do Mahadou/Minet el-Beida. In: Swiny, S. Hohlfelder, R.L. and Swiny, H.W., eds. Res Maritimae: Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory through the Roman Period (Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute, Monograph 1). Atlanta: 357–369.