Two Cypriot Pithoi from Late Bronze Age Tel Burna

Abstract

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

Notes

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.

2 We would like to thank Yirmi Saznton, who restored the pithoi.

3 For further discussion of the kd, see Heltzer 1989; Lipschits et al. 2010: 468; Monroe 2016.

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.

5 The analysis was carried out at the Hebrew University by Ben-Shlomo; the thin sections are stored at Ariel University.

6 For the standard protocols of the lab, see Glascock 1992.

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.

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.

9 For the complexity of this society and a view of the role of rural settlements, see recently Andreou 2016; see also Peltenburg 2012.

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.

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.