by kind permission of the ETANA team, search the ABZU database:
 |
Home
Periods
Sites
People
papers
projects
Resources
for Study
RESOURCES BY COUNTRY
TECHNIQUES
site map
by kind permission of the ETANA team, search the ABZU database:
|
Consiglio Nationale delle Ricerche,
Istituto per gli
Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici, via Giano della Bella 18,
00162 ROMA ITALIA
The three LBA shipwrecks
known up to now in the Mediterranean — Uluburun, Cape Gelidonya and Point
Iria — offer an unprecedented vivid image of what could be called “the
archeology of trade” in a time span that roughly encompasses hundred
years, from the late 14th century to ca. 1200 BC. Although the three groups
are located in the eastern Mediterranean and in the Aegean, they undoubtedly
offer some hints for a better understanding of the evidence for long-distance
Mediterranean trade that also extends to the central Mediterranean, i.e. southern
Italy, Sicily and Sardinia, with possible occasional voyages further West.
The direct evidence is limited: the Uluburun cargo contains a sword that the
present speaker has compared with well known examples, of the so-called Thapsos-Pertosa
type (fig. 1), which are ubiquitous in Sicily and in Southern Italy (Vagnetti
& Lo Schiavo 1989, 222, fig. 28.2). Amber beads also have a western origin,
specifically in the Baltic, possibly distributed through the Adriatic and,
ultimately, along Mediterranean sea-routes, calling at Apulian ports (Harding
& Hughes-Brock 1974).
As is well known, the interconnections of southern Italy, Sicily and Sardinia
with the Aegean, go back to the transition between the Middle Helladic and
Late Helladic period (Vagnetti 1982; 1991; 1993; Re forthcoming). The related
archaeological evidence is well known through primary publications and interpretations
at various levels and there is no need to enter into details. Here I would
like rather to focus on some aspects of the evidence specifically related
to the 13th and 12th centuries, a period when Mycenaean and Cypriot material
is often found together in central Mediterranean contexts, as in the cargoes
of the three wrecks just mentioned. In particular, I am going to discuss some
classes of finds that match the range of objects and goods carried aboard
the sunken vessels.
ANCHORS
Twenty-four stone anchors are surely associated with the Uluburun shipwreck
(Pulak 1997, fig. 20), only two with that of Point Iria (Vichos 1996, figs.
1-3; Vichos & Lolos 1997, fig. 17; Iria Exhibition 1998, fig. 33),
while a pierced stone found near the Cape Gelidonya cargo has eventually been
disregarded by the excavator (Bass 1967, 45; contra McCaslin 1980, 31, fig.
18). The typology of stone anchors was first elaborated by Honor Frost (1970;
1973) on whose work other more recent contributions have been built (McCaslin
1980; Wachsman, Haldane 1997; Wachsmann 1998, 255-294 and forthcoming). The
contrasting evidence of a large number of items from the eastern Mediterranean
(especially Cyprus, Israel, Byblos and Ugarit) and the limited finds from
the Aegean has been stressed, giving rise to the suggestion that the Aegeans,
rather than using the single-hole weight anchor or the three-hole composite
anchor, very common in Cyprus and in the Levant, were probably more familiar
with a type of device, called a “killik”, in which an unworked stone
of the appropriate weight, was added to a sort of wooden cage whose remains
(i. e. the stone) would go unnoticed in archaeological contexts (Wachsmann
1998).
In view of this, the items found in the central Mediterranean — if they are really attributable to the Bronze Age — seem to point towards a connection with Cyprus and the Levant, rather than with the Aegean. The evidence was first summarized by Quilici (1971) who published a stone anchor of the composite type found in the Tyrrhenian sea, ca 10 kms south of the mouth of the Tiber (fig. 2:a). The anchor is of local stone (tufo) and has no association with wreck material or with archeological coastal sites of the Bronze Age. Quilici also lists several other stone anchors (all stray finds from the sea) from the Gulf of Naples, Sicily and the southern Adriatic coast. Some very welcome additions to Quilici’s list come from Sardinia where both types — with one or three holes — have been found. Some of the items from northern Sardinia were collected and illustrated by Fulvia Lo Schiavo (1995a; 1995b; 1997), who also lists some pieces from the south of the island. The only vague association available refers to a large anchor with a single hole, more than 70 kilos in weight (fig. 2b); it was found on the sea-bed in a small cove under a promontory where remains of a nuraghe are still visible. The lack of real archeological association for all the items and the long lived shape (see recently Grossmann & Kingsley 1996) call for great caution in accepting the stone anchors as evidence per se of Bronze Age connections with the eastern Mediterranean; however, when looked at in the context of other archaeological evidence, they may acquire some relevance to the discussion.
INGOTS
According to the most recent estimation the Uluburun shipwreck contained ca
10 tons of copper and one ton of tin (Pulak 1997, 235). Copper was shipped
in two main forms: oxhide ingots and plano-convex or bun ingots, both of which
are known in large number in the Central Mediterranean. Fragments of oxhide
ingots are known from Sicily (Cannatello and Thapsos), the Aeolian islands
(Lipari) and twenty-six sites in Sardinia. Four items, three from Serra Ilixi
and one from S. Antioco di Bisarcio are complete and also carry incised marks
similar to Aegean and Cypriot scripts (fig. 3). In most cases, however, they
were found in fragmentary condition and in hoards also containing bun ingots
as well as complete and fragmentary tools and weapons (Lo Schiavo 1998 and
forthcoming). One should stress the fact that the distribution of oxhide
ingots is centred in certain specific points in the Mediterranean and that
the highest concentration of find spots on land is in Cyprus and Sardinia.
A recent thorough study of the Nuragic pottery containers inside which the
metal hoards were found and of the associated metal items has allowed a better
chronological attribution of the deposits which, in most cases, should be
referred to the Nuragic Late and Final Bronze Age, i.e. the 13th, 12th and
11th centuries BC (Lo Schiavo 1998 and forthcoming; Campus-Leonelli forthcoming).
[1] PITHOI
Thanks again to the Uluburun wreck we have also acquired a better understanding
of the use of pithoi as large transport containers, not only for water or
food, but also for manufactured objects such as pottery (Bass 1986; Pulak
1997). A number of pithoi of Cypriot type and manufacture were also found
in the Iria wreck (Lolos 1995; 1996; Iria Exhibition 1998, figs. 13,
21); a largeneck fragment of a similar pithos comes from Kommos (Watrous 1992,
fig. 70). In the central Mediterranean we know of two fragmentary examples
of the same origin: the sherds of a Cypriot pithos from Antigori in southern
Sardinia (fig.4) have been known for long time and their Cypriot origin has
also been confirmed by archaeometric analyses (Ferrarese Ceruti, Vagnetti
& Lo Schiavo 1987, fig. 2.5; Jones & Day 1987, 262, sample 62); the
recent find of a similar pithos at Cannatello, in Sicily has been illustrated
and discussed in preliminary publications (Karageorghis 1993, 584, fig. 3;
Deorsola 1996, 1037, pl. VI,a). Lolos (1996, 19) emphasises the very good
quality of the Cypriot pithoi in comparison with the average quality of Creto-Mycenaean
pithoi of the Late Bronze Age. One wonders if Cypriot potters had developed
a high technological level for the production of these containers, which may
have become a sort of “quality item”, particularly suitable for
long distance transport of goods. A situation that can to some extent be compared
— on an ethnographic basis — with the fortune and distribution of
the very strong pithoi produced in the 19th and early 20th century AD at Koroni
in Messenia — the well known “Koroneika” — thoroughly
studied by Harriet Blitzer (1990). An interesting evaluation of the use of
big containers in trade also emerges from some recent studies of collared-rim
jars in the Late Bronze Age Levant (Artzy 1994; 1997; Wengrow 1996), where
they are linked with areas such as Tel Nami, where sea-born trade converged
with land communication routes, along which dromedaries seem to have been
already in use in the Late Bronze Age (Arzy 1994). This specific point cannot
be extended to the Aegean or to the Central Mediterranean, but could have
encouraged technological improvement in the production of large containers
in Cyprus, from where some items found at Ugarit and elsewhere in the Levant
originated (Åström 1972, 259-64, fig. LXXII:6; Yon, Lombard & Renisio
1987, fig. 27:79/955).
OTHER CYPRIOT POTTERY
Cypriot pottery other than pithoi, although not particularly frequent, has
been recognized in various Italian Late Bronze Age contexts, always associated
with Mycenaean pottery of late LH IIIA or IIIB (Lo Schiavo, Macnamara &
Vagnetti 1985). Complete examples of White Shaved flasks have been found
at Thapsos in Sicily, together with juglets of Base-Ring shape, but of as
yet unidentified fabric (Lo Schiavo, Macnamara & Vagnetti 1985, fig. 2:1-3;
Karageorghis 1995). Recent excavations at Cannatello have brought to light
sherds of a White Slip bowl.[2] A rude-style sherd was found in Campania
at Eboli (Vagnetti & Lo Schiavo 1989, 219, fig. 28.1c). In comparison
with Cypriot pottery, Mycenaean and LM III pottery were definitely favoured
by the central Mediterranean groups, as the very wide distribution of the
finds immeditely shows. There are specific types of Mycenaean and LM pottery,
such as the coarse ware stirrup jars of Cretan manufacture, associated with
trade and specifically with Cyprus, that have also been found in Italy. There
are examples from the sea near Filicudi in the Aeolian Islands (Vagnetti
1991, pl. IX:7) and from Antigori in Sardinia (Ferrarese Ceruti, Vagnetti
& Lo Schiavo 1987, 2.4:3). Part of a handle belonging to an imported plain
stirrup jar is also among the Broglio di Trebisacce finds (Vagnetti &
Panichelli 1994, pls. 75:11; 80:3c).Three handles of stirrup jars from
Cannatello in Sicily display incised potter’s marks which seem to be
close to the Cypriot repertoire (De Miro 1996, 1004, pl. VII, lower row).
I have not personally inspected the pieces and I cannot say if the marks are
incised after firing as, according to N. Hirschfeld (1992; 1993; 1996), who
is studying the corpus of this kind of marks, is customary in examples found
in Cyprus and in the Aegean. In any case it is interesting to point out that
the distribution of these marks outside Cyprus is always related to contexts
where other evidence of Cypriot connections has been found, as in the case
of Cannatello.
IVORY
Semi-worked elephant and hippopotamus ivory found at Uluburun has shed new
light on the mode of circulation of this precious raw material. Late Bronze
Age ivory objects are rare in the central Mediterranean, but one should also
stress that no thorough research on this subject has yet been attempted. A
fragment of an imported Mycenaean warrior head with a boar-tusk helmet comes
from southern Sardinia (Ferrarese Ceruti, Vagnetti & Lo Schiavo 1987,
2.3:2, a-c), but from sites in peninsular Italy there is also evidence for
local working of the material. The case of Frattesina, where waste material
and finished objects (mostly combs) were found together, is already known
(Bietti Sestieri 1981; 1997). One comb of Frattesina type was also found at
Enkomi, indicating an interesting pattern of circulation of raw material from
East to West and of finished products in the opposite direction (Vagnetti
1986). This type of comb, in horn or bone and more rarely in ivory, is also
known from several other sites in peninsular Italy (Cassola Guida forthcoming).
An example in elephant ivory from Torre Mordillo in Southern Italy (fig. 5),
is a recent addition to the corpus. At the same site, where Mycenaean pottery
is also well represented, a second fragment of elephant ivory, most likely
a waste piece, was also found, showing that ivory working was practiced there
also (Arancio, Buffa, Damiani, Tagliacozzo, Trucco & Vagnetti 1995, fig.
1:7).
[3] GLASS
The presence of glass ingots in the Uluburun shipwreck also shed new light
on the circulation of this material. In fact the ingots represent a sort of
semi-worked state of the material, which could have been remelted at any site
with sufficient pyrotechnological skill, in order to produce small objects
on the spot (Rehren & Pusch 1997; Nicholson, Jackson & Trott 1997).
Frattesina in northern Italy, where evidence for such a production is represented
by a large number of glass beads as well as by crucibles with remains of glass,
is again a candidate for such an activity (Bietti Sestieri 1997).
METALWORK
Fulvia Lo Schiavo, Ellen Macnamara and the present speaker have tried, jointly
and individually, to collect the evidence for Cypriot metalwork imported to
the central Mediterranean and for its impact on local craftmanship, especially
on Sardinia (Macnamara, Ridgway & Ridgway 1984; Lo Schiavo, Macnamara
& Vagnetti 1985; Vagnetti 1986; Vagnetti & Lo Schiavo 1989). Several
connections have been identified, in most cases related to the sphere of tools
used for metalwork, such as heavy double axes and hammers, tongs and charcoal
shovels. Tripods of Cypriot type are both imported and locally imitated in
Sardinia, as well as some type of metal vessels found in Sicily (Vagnetti
1968; La Rosa, forthcoming).
FINAL REMARKS
This brief survey shows clearly how the central Mediterranean finds match
many classes and specific types of objects of Cypriot and Mycenaean origin
included in the cargoes that we have been discussing. The evidence is supplemented
by what has been found at some harbour sites in Cyprus and in the Aegean,
in particular at Kommos, where some sherds of hand-made burnished pottery
which in preliminary publications (Watrous 1989; 1992) went under the general
label of “Italian”, are typologically and — as far as has been
said in anticipation — also archaeometrically characterized as Nuragic
(Jones & Vagnetti 1991, 134). But what was the impact of such a trade
on the central Mediterranean terminals? Without analysing in detail the
various aspects of the Aegean and Cypriot connections with local societies,
we may emphasise a few points.
Traded objects found in
the central Mediterranean are always inserted in local contexts, in sites
already established, that in several cases survived the end of the systematic
trade, which had its climax in LH IIIA and IIIB; imported LH IIIC material
exists, but is very scanty (Vagnetti & Panichelli 1994). What emerges
from the data is that the circulation of finished products, such as pottery
and metalwork, and of semi-worked raw materials, such as ivory, glass and
possibly oxhide ingots[4],
gave an impetus to the establishment of local workshops producing a variety
of artifacts of specialized technology. To the already mentioned ivory and
glass working, particularly flourishing at Frattesina in the Po valley, but
also known elsewhere, one should of course add the numerous local workshops
producing wheel-made pottery of levigated clay in LH and LM IIIB style, with
a continuity until IIIC, located at various sites in southern Italy
and Sardinia and identified thanks to the combined effort of archaeology and
archaeometry (Jones 1986; 1993, forthcoming; Jones & Day 1987; Jones &
Vagnetti 1991; 1992; Jones, Lazzarini, Mariottini & Orvini 1994; Vagnetti
& Jones 1988; Vagnetti 1994).
The Cypriot pithoi that arrived at Italian coastal sites in the 13th century
may have stimulated the production of similar containers, decorated with raised
bands and group of grooves on the shoulder and body (fig. 6), known at several
sites in Southern Italy, with a high concentration in the Sibaritide area
in Northern Calabria (Bergonzi 1985; Tenaglia 1994; Levi 1995; Bianco &
Orlando 1995; Levi, Jones, Lazzarini, Sonnino & Vagnetti 1998; Guglielmino
forthcoming). While pottery, with the exception of big storage jars, seems
to be under the predominat influence of the Mycenaean tradition, metalwork,
especially in Sardinia, owes much more to Cypriot influence. In both cases
the working hypothesis, on which one may try to build up a convincing pattern,
is that potters from the Aegean and bronzesmiths from Cyprus regularly visited
the central Mediterranean, possibly on a seasonal basis and following, at
least at the beginning, the main stream of long-distance trade (Lo Schiavo,
Macnamara & Vagnetti 1985; Vagnetti & Lo Schiavo 1989; Jones &
Vagnetti 1991; Vagnetti forthcoming b).
The fall of the Mycenaean palace system and the consequent disruption of a
well established trade network, may even have encouraged some of them to migrate
and give birth to stable workshops operating in a new environment and in a
different economic reality. However, the circulation of craftsmen does not
seem to have been exclusively from East to West; the well known mould for
a winged axe of a type common in LBA peninsular Italy, found in the House
of the Oil Merchant at Mycenae, is just one of the many indications of feedback,
which represent another fascinating chapter of Mediterranean interconnections
and which we are not going to discuss here (Matthäus 1980; Bettelli 1995 and
forthcoming).
reproduced, by permission, from:
The Point Iria Wreck: Interconnections in the Mediterranean ca. 1200 BC
Proceedings of the International Conference. Island of Spetses, 19 September
1998. Ed. William Phelps, Yannos Lolos, Yannis Vichos. Athens 1999.
Pp. 268. ISBN 960-86282-1-0
| Please
send any comments or suggestions for the project or website to
Co-ordinator@ancientcyprus.ac.uk |
 |
The Ancient Cyprus Web Project is affiliated to the Council for British Research in the Levant |
Technical note: this site is best viewed using Internet Explorer. Visitors
using other browsers, for example Netscape, may experience some difficulties
on certain pages of this site. We are working to address these difficulties.
|
|
|||
