Marsa Matruh II: The Objects (Prehistory Monographs) 1931534012, 9781931534017

Citation preview

MARSA MATRUH II THE OBJECTS

Marsa Matruh II the Objects

Marsa Matruh II the Objects the university of Pennsylvania Museum of archaeology and anthropology’s excavations on bates’s Island, Marsa Matruh, egypt 1985–1989

donald White

with chapters and shorter contributions by

donald bailey, brigit crowell, Ibrahim el-garf, rita gardner, Mohamad nabil el-hadidi, Linda hulin, david Killick, Murray Mcclellan, Vincent Pigott, david s. reese, Mark j. rose, Pamela russell, james thorn, and nahed M. Waly PrehIstOry MOnOgraPhs 2

Published by the InstItute fOr aegean PrehIstOry acadeMIc Press 2002

design and Production the Institute for aegean Prehistory academic Press Printing sun Printing co., Philadelphia binding hoster bindery, Philadelphia

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data White, Donald, 1935Marsa Matruh II : the objects / by Donald White. p. cm. -- (Prehistory monographs ; 2) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-931534-01-2 (v. 1 : alk. paper) 1. Marsâa Maòtråuòh (Egypt)--Antiquities. I. Title. II. Series. DT73.M254 W46 2002 932--dc21 2002011144

copyright © 2002 the InstItute fOr aegean PrehIstOry acadeMIc Press Philadelphia all rights reserved Printed in the united states of america

In MeMOry Of

LIdIanO bacchIeLI, cLaudIO frIgerO, and jOhn LLOyd and In resPectfuL hOMage tO

OrIc bates

time, like an ever-rolling stream bears all its sons away.

tabLe Of cOntents LIst Of fIgures In the text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix LIst Of PLans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi LIst Of PLates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Preface tO VOLuMe II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv bIbLIOgraPhIcaL abbreVIatIOns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii MInOr abbreVIatIOns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxv chaPter 7. aegean Pottery and selected cypriot Pottery, Pamela russell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 chaPter 8. bronze age Plain Pottery: egyptian, canaanite, and cypriot, Linda hulin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 chaPter 9. Late bronze age Implements and Other Miscellaneous Objects, donald White with contributions by brigit crowell, david Killick, and Vincent Pigott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 chaPter 10. Organic finds from the Island and adjacent areas, david s. reese and Mark j. rose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 chaPter 11. the archaeobotany of bates’s Island and its Lagoon, Mohamad nabil el-hadidi, with contributions by Ibrahim el-garf and nahed M. Waly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 chaPter 12. Pottery of the greek and roman Periods, donald bailey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 chaPter 13. Post-bronze age artifacts, donald White with contributions by Murray Mcclellan, William Metcalf and joyce reynolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 chaPter 14. Ottoman era Local and Imported Pottery, james thorn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 chaPter 15. a final summary of the evidence, Linda hulin and donald White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

viii

tabLe Of cOntents

aPPendIx I. Masca analysis of crucibles and Lump of Ore, donald White, stuart j. fleming, david Killick, Vincent c. Pigott, and charles P. swann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 aPPendIx II. Late bronze age sherds context List, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 PLans PLates

ix

LIst Of fIgures In the text figure 7:1. Late bronze age aegean Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 figure 7:2. cypriot White slip Wares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 figure 7:3. cypriot base ring Ware and Other cypriot Wares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 figure 8:1. Late bronze age Lamps and canaanite jar handle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 figure 8:2. Pot Marks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 figure 8:3. egyptian Wares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 figure 8:4. egyptian Wares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 figure 8:5. egyptian Wares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 figure 8:6. cypriot coarse Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 figure 8:7. cypriot coarse Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 figure 8:8. cypriot coarse Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 figure 8:9. cypriot coarse Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 figure 8:10. cypriot coarse Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 figure 8:11. cypriot coarse Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 figure 8:12. canaanite Wares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 figure 8:13. canaanite Wares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 figure 8:14. canaanite Wares and anatolian Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 figure 8:15. bronze age Plain Pottery Puzzles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 figure 9:1. Late bronze age flaked stones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118 figure 12:1. greek and hellenistic fine Wares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118 figure 12:2. greek and hellenistic fine Wares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120 figure 12:3. egyptian, greek, and Ptolemaic coarse Wares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122 figure 12:4. transport amphorae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124 figure 12:5. transport amphorae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126 figure 12:6. roman fine Wares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127 figure 12:7. roman and unidentified coarse Wares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129

x

LIst Of fIgures In the text

figure 12:8. roman and unidentified coarse Wares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 figure 12:9. roman and unidentified coarse Wares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131 figure 12:10. roman amphorae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133 figure 12:11. roman amphorae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134 figure 12:12. greek and roman Lamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135 figure 12:13. greek or hellenistic Pottery and african red slip Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136 figure 12:14. Phocaean red slip Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137 figure 12:15. coastal fine Ware and coastal coarse Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138 figure 12:16. coastal coarse Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139 figure 12:17. coastal coarse Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140 figure 12:18. coastal coarse Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141 figure 12:19. coastal coarse Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142 figure 12:20. coastal amphorae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 figure 12:21. coastal amphorae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145 figure 12:22. Imported amphorae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146 figure 12:23. Imported amphorae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147 figure 12:24. Imported amphorae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .148 figure 12:25. Imported amphorae and glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149 figure 14:1. Ottoman era Painted Wares and tin-glazed Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162 figure 14:2. Ottoman era sgraffito Wares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163 figure 14:3. Ottoman era Marbled Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164 figure 14:4. Ottoman era slipped Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164 figure 14:5. Ottoman era solid glazed Wares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165

xi

LIst Of PLans Plan 1. topographic plan of bates’s Island showing location of excavated walls and structures. Plan 2. Plan of bates’s Island showing location of excavated trenches. Plan 3. Map of the eastern end of the east Lagoon showing relationship of bates’s Island (area I) to adjacent shores features (areas II, III, and V). Plan 4. redrawing, with additions, of 1938/1941 1:25,000 scale plan (dept. of surveys and Mines, sheet no. 2) of Matruh harbor and lagoons east to râs alam el-rûm, locating areas I-Ix. area IV, umm el-rakham area, and the ridge south of umm el-rakham and west of Wadi el-samad all lie west of the mapped area.

LIst Of PLates Plate 1. Late bronze age aegean Pottery. Plate 2. cypriot White slip Wares. Plate 3. cypriot White slip Wares and cypriot base ring Ware. Plate 4. cypriot base ring Ware and Other cypriot Wares. Plate 5. Other cypriot Wares. Plate 6. Peabody Museum sherds; Late bronze age Lamps; Pot Marks; and egyptian Wares. Plate 7. egyptian Wares; cypriot coarse Pottery. Plate 8. cypriot coarse Pottery; and bronze age Plain Pottery Puzzles. Plate 9. bronze age Plain Pottery Puzzles; Metal and Metallurgical artifacts. Plate 10. Metal and Metallurgical artifacts; Late bronze age stone and Other Miscellaneous artifacts. Plate 11. Late bronze age stone and Other Miscellaneous artifacts; Ostrich eggshells; and greek and hellenistic fine Wares. Plate 12. greek and hellenistic fine Wares; egyptian, greek, and Ptolemaic coarse Wares; transport amphorae; roman fine Wares; greek and roman Lamps; and Post-bronze age Metals. Plate 13. Post-bronze age Metals. Plate 14. Post-bronze age Metals; and Post-bronze age stone. Plate 15. Post-bronze age stone. Plate 16. Post-bronze age stone. Plate 17. Post-bronze age stone; Post-bronze age glass and faience; Post-bronze age terracotta and Plaster. Plate 18. Post-bronze age terracotta and Plaster; and Ottoman era Painted Ware and sgraffito Ware. Plate 19. Ottoman era Marbled Ware and slipped Ware. Plate 20. Ottoman era solid glazed Ware.

Preface tO VOLuMe tWO the present volume brings to the reader the various classes of artifacts found during the university of Pennsylvania Museum of archaeology and anthropology’s seasons of excavation on bates’s Island. It also contains a small collection of sherds found by bates himself during his 1913/14 winter stay at Matruh. the latter finds—cypriot White slip published in chapter 7 along with discussion of the island’s imported fine wares—were shipped by bates to harvard university’s Peabody Museum some time before his death in 1918. We are particularly grateful to the Peabody Museum authorities for allowing us to include them here. since I have already mentioned the various contributors to the study of the site’s artifacts in the preface to the first volume, all that remains here is to alert the reader to the fact that it proved unfeasible for most of my colleagues to examine their material at first-hand for more than a single study season. the expedition lasted too short a time to justify establishing a permanent storage facility that would have permitted off-season study visits. We had to rely, instead, on the generosity of our egyptian antiquities service colleagues to preserve our artifacts at considerable inconvenience to themselves in their already seriously over-crowded storage facility in Marsa Matruh. a second factor bearing on the study of the objects has to do with the fact that the egyptian authorities found themselves obliged by legislation, passed after the project had been initiated, to restrict the export of objects and organic samples from egypt for scientific analysis. happily, an exception was granted to us on a one-time basis, which allowed the work to go forward, although not on the basis originally contemplated. as project director I want to restate my gratitude to the many members of the egyptian antiquities Organization as well as my egyptian, british, and american colleagues and fellow-contributors for their flexibility, forbearance, and understanding in making this publication possible. donald White

bIbLIOgraPhIcaL abbreVIatIOns this study adopts throughout the standard abbreviations used by the american journal of archaeology 95 (1991) 3–16 and Lexicon der Ägyptologie IV (Wiesbaden 1982) ix–xiii, with the former taking precedence over the latter in the case of overlapping titles. the works listed below are supplementary.

african studies

O. bates, “excavations at Marsa Matruh,” harvard african studies 8 (1927) 124–200.

agora 12

b.a. sparks and L. talcott, the athenian agora 12: black and Plain Pottery (Princeton 1970).

afula

M. dothan, “the excavations at afula,” atiqot I (jerusalem 1955) 19–70.

alasia II

j.c. courtois, alasia II: Les tombes d’enkomi. Le mobilier funéraire (fouilles c.f.-a. schaeffer 1947–1965) (Paris 1981).

apis

d. White, “apis,” the archaeology of ancient egypt: an encyclopedia (London 1999) 141–143.

ar I

P. rose, “the Pottery distribution analysis,” in b.j. Kemp, ed., amarna reports I (London 1984) 133–153.

ashdod I

M. dothan and d.n. freedman, ashdod I (jerusalem 1967).

aston 1996a

d.a. aston, “tell hebwa IV—Preliminary report on the Pottery,” Ägypten und Levante 6 (1996) 179–197.

aston 1996b

d.a. aston, “Pottery of the Late new Kingdom and third Intermediate Period (twelfth-seventh centuries b.c.). tentative footsteps in a forbidding terrain.” studien zur archäologie und geschichte altägypten 13 (heidelberg 1996).

xviii

bIbLIOgraPhIcaL abbreVIatIOns

aston 1998

d.a. aston, e. aston, and c. brock, “Pottery from the Valley of the Kings—tombs of Merenptah, ramesses II, ramesses IV, ramesses VI and ramesses VII,” Ägypten und Levante 8 (1998) 137–214.

bass, ulu burun 1986

g. bass, Ç. Pulak, d. collon, and j. Weinstein, “the bronze age shipwreck at ulu burun: 1986 campaign,” aja 93 (1989) 1–29.

bates, Pottery

O. bates, “semitic traces in Marmarica,” Psba 37 (1915) 201–207.

berenice II

g. barker et al., supplements to Libya antiqua V: excavations at sidi Khrebish, benghazi (berenice) II (tripoli 1979).

blitzer, Kommos I

h. blitzer, “Minoan Implements and Industries,” in j.W. shaw and M.c. shaw, eds., Kommos I (Princeton 1995) 405–535.

boyce, faience

a. boyce, “reports on the excavation of house P46.33. the finds,” in b. Kemp, ed., amarna reports VI (London 1995) 75–82.

catling, cypriot bronzework

h.W. catling, cypriot bronzework in the Mycenaean World (Oxford 1964).

catling, Mansion

h.W. and e. catling, “the bronzes and Metalworking equipment,” in M. Popham, ed., the Minoan unexplored Mansion at Knossos (athens 1984) 203–222.

coa I

t.e. Peet and c.L. Woolley, city of akhenaten I: excavations of 1921 and 1922 (London 1923).

conwell, Ostrich eggs

d. conwell, “On Ostrich eggs and Libyans. traces of a bronze age People from bates’s Island, egypt,” expedition 29, no. 3 (1987) 25–34.

deir el-balah.

t. dothan, excavations at the cemetery of deir el-balah. (jerusalem 1979).

di sandro

n. di sandro, Le anfore arcaiche dallo scarico gosetti, Pithecusa (naples 1986)

dever 1993

W. dever, “cultural continuity, ethnicity in the archaeological record, and the Question of Israelite Origins,” eretz Israel 24 (1993) 22–33.

bIbLIOgraPhIcaL abbreVIatIOns

xix

ega

egypt’s golden age: the art of Living in the new Kingdom: 1558–1085. exhibition catalogue (boston 1982).

eastern Libyans

O. bates, the eastern Libyans (London 1914).

evely, Mansion

d. evely, “the Other finds of stone, clay, Ivory, faience, Lead etc.,” in M. Popham, ed., the Minoan unexplored Mansion at Knossos (athens 1984) 223–260.

furumark

a. furumark, the Mycenaean Pottery, analysis and classification (stockholm 1941).

gelidonya

g. bass, cape gelidonya: a bronze age shipwreck (Philadelphia 1967).

ghirza

O. brogan and d.j. smith, ghirza, a Libyan settlement in the roman Period (tripoli 1984).

habachi, Military Posts

L. habachi, “the Military Posts of ramesses II on the coastal road and the Western Part of the delta,” bIfaO 80 (1980) 12–30.

hankey

V. hankey, “the aegean deposit at el amarna,” acts of the International archaeological symposium: the Mycenaeans in the eastern Mediterranean (nicosia 1973) 128–136.

hazor

y. yadin et al., hazor III–IV: an account of the third and fourth seasons of excavations, 1957–1958 (jerusalem 1961).

haua fteah

c.b.M. Mcburney, the haua fteah (cyrenaica) and the stone-age of the south-east Mediterranean (cambridge 1967).

hester and hobler, Patterns

j. hester and P. hobler, university of utah anthropological Papers: 92, no. 4: Prehistoric settlement Patterns in the Libyan desert (salt Lake city 1969).

hirschfeld 1999

n. hirschfeld, Potmarks of the Late bronze age Mediterranean (Ph. d. dissertation, university of texas, austin 1999).

houlihan, birds

P.f. houlihan, the birds of ancient egypt (Warminster 1986).

holthoer 1977

r. holthoer, “new Kingdom Pharaonic sites. the Pottery,” in säve-södeburgh, ed., sje 5:1 (stockholm 1977).

xx

bIbLIOgraPhIcaL abbreVIatIOns

hulin 1984

L.c. hulin, “Pottery cult Vessels from the Workmen’s Village,” in b.j. Kemp, ed., amarna reports I (London 1984) 154–164.

james

f. james, the Iron age at beth shean: a study of Levels VI–IV (Philadelphia 1966).

Karageorghis and demas

V. Karageorghis and M. demas, Pyla-Kokkinokremos. a Late 13th century b.c. settlement in cyprus (nicosia 1984).

Keswani

P.s. Keswani, “the Pithoi and Other Plain Ware Vessels,” in a. south, P. russell, and P.s. Keswani, Vasilikos Valley Project, 3: Kalavasos ayios dhimitrios II: ceramics, Objects, tombs, specialist studies (göteborg 1989) 12–21.

Kharga

g. caton-thompson, Kharga Oasis in Prehistory (London 1952).

Knapp and cherry

a.b. Knapp and j. cherry, Provenience studies and bronze age cyprus. Production, exchange and Politicoeconomic change (sheffield 1994).

Kommos III

L.V. Watrous, Kommos III: the Late bronze age Pottery (Princeton 1992).

Lachish II

O. tufnell et al., Lachish II: the fosse temple (London 1949).

Lachish IV

O. tufnell, Lachish IV: the bronze age (London 1958).

Laufer, Ostrich eggs

b. Laufer, “Ostrich egg-shell cups of Mesopotamia and the Ostrich in ancient and Modern times,” field Museum of natural history, anthropology Leaflet no. 23 (chicago 1926).

Lolos 1995

y.g. Lolos, “Late cypro-Mycenaean seafaring. new evidence from sites in the saronic and the argolic gulfs,” in V. Karageorghis and d. Michaelides, eds., cyprus and the sea (nicosia 1995) 61–64.

Marsa Matruh

d. White, “Marsa Matruh,” the archaeology of ancient egypt: an encyclopedia (London 1999) 469–473.

Mchugh, gilf Kebir

W. Mchugh, “some archaeological results of the bagnoldMond expedition to the gilf Kebir and gebel cuweinat, southern Libyan desert,” jnes 34, no. 1 (1975) 31–62.

bIbLIOgraPhIcaL abbreVIatIOns

xxi

Mégara hyblaea

g. Vallet and f. Villard, Mégara hyblaea II: La céramique archaïque (Paris 1964).

Megiddo II

g. Loud, Megiddo II: seasons of 1935–1939 (chicago 1948).

Mee

c. Mee, rhodes in the bronze age: an archaeological survey (Warminster 1982).

Merrillees

r.s. Merrillees, the cypriot bronze age Pottery found in egypt (Lund 1968).

Moritz, grain-Mills

L.a. Moritz, grain-Mills and flour in classical antiquity (reprint, new york 1979).

Mountjoy, decorated Pottery

P. Mountjoy, Mycenaean decorated Pottery: a guide to Identification (göteborg 1986).

O’connor, new Kingdom

d. O’connor, “new Kingdom and third Intermediate Period, 1552–664 b.c.,” in b. trigger et al., ancient egypt: a social history (cambridge 1983) 272–231.

O’connor, nature of tjemhu

d. O’connor, “the nature of tjemhu (Libyan) society in the Later new Kingdom,” in a. Leahy, ed., Libya and egypt c1300–750 bc (London 1990) 29–114.

Oren

e.d. Oren, “cypriot Imports in the Palestinian Late bronze age I context,” Opath 9 (1969) 127–150.

Petrie, tools and Weapons

W.M.f. Petrie, tools and Weapons, bsae 30 (London 1917).

Petrie and brunton

W.M.f. Petrie and g.s. brunton, sedment (London 1924).

Provisional evidence

d. White, “Provisional evidence for the seasonal Occupation of the Marsa Matruh area by Late bronze age Libyans,” in a. Leahy, ed., Libya and egypt c. 1300–750 b.c. (London 1990) 1–14.

rast, taanach

W.e. rast, taanach I: studies in the Iron age Pottery (cambridge 1978).

reese 1995a

d. reese, “Introduction and Methodology; the Larger Mammals; the bird remains; the Marine Invertebrates; Land snails and Insects; the fish remains,” in j.W. shaw and M.c. shaw, eds., Kommos I: the Kommos region, ecology, and Minoan Industries (Princeton l995) 163–294.

xxii

bIbLIOgraPhIcaL abbreVIatIOns

res Maritimae

s. swiny, r.L. hohlfelder, and h.W. swiny, eds., res Maritimae: cyprus and the eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late antiquity. Proceedings of the second International symposium “cities on the sea,” nicosia, cyprus, October 18–22, 1994 (atlanta, georgia 1997).

resurfacing of Paraetonium

d. White, “the resurfacing of ancient Paraetonium and its Ongoing reburial,” archaeological research in roman egypt. jra archaeological supplement 19 (1996) 61–81.

rowe, aegypto-cyrenean relations

a. rowe, new Light on aegypto-cyrenean relations, suppl. asae 12 (cairo 1948).

rowe, contributions II

a. rowe, “a contribution to the archaeology of the Western desert: II,” brL 36, no. 2 (1954) 484–500.

russell 1986

P.j. russell, the Pottery from the Late cypriot IIc settlement at dhimitrios, cyprus: the 1979–1984 excavation seasons (Ph.d. dissertation, university of Pennsylvania 1986).

russell 1989

P.j. russell, “the fine Ware ceramics: the settlement deposits in the West, central, east and south-east areas,” in a. south, P. russell, and P.s. Keswani, Vasilikos Valley Project 3: Kalavasos ayios dhimitrios II: ceramics, Objects, tombs, specialist studies (göteborg 1989) 1–11.

russell 1991

P.j. russell, “the Pot calls the Kettle reddish brown (5yr 3/4): distinguishing among Late cypriot Monochrome Wares,” in j. barlow et al., eds., cypriot ceramics: reading the Prehistoric record (Philadelphia 1991) 131–137.

samos

e. Walter-Karydi, samos VI, 1, samische gefässe der 6. jahrhunderts v. chr. (bonn 1973).

sce IV:1c

P. Åström, the swedish cyprus expedition, the Late cypriote bronze age IV:1c: architecture and Pottery (Lund 1972).

sce IV:1d

P. and L. Åström, the swedish cyprus expedition, the Late cypriote bronze age IV:1d: Other arts and crafts, relative and absolute chronology (Lund 1972).

schaeffer

c.f. schaeffer, ugaritica II (Paris 1949).

bIbLIOgraPhIcaL abbreVIatIOns

xxiii

sea Peoples

M.M. Voigt and r.c. henrickson, “the early Iron age at gordion: the evidence from the yassihöyük stratigraphic sequence,” in e. Oren, ed., the sea Peoples and their World: a reassessment (Philadelphia 2000) 327–360.

sherratt 1994

e. sherratt, “commerce, Iron and Ideology: Metallurgical Innovation in 12th–11th century cyprus,” in V. Karageorghis, ed., cyprus in the 11th century b.c. Proceedings of the International symposium Organized by the archaeological research unit of the university of cyprus and the a.g. Leventis foundation, nicosia. October 1993 (nicosia 1994) 59–107.

sherratt 1999

s. sherratt, “e pur si muove: Pots, Markets and Values in the second Millennium Mediterranean,” in j.P. crielaard, V. stissi, and g.j. van Wijngaarden, eds., the complex Past of Pottery Production, circulation and the consumption of Mycenaean and greek Pottery (sixteenth to fifth centuries b.c.) (amsterdam 1999) 163–195.

south et al. 1989

a. south, P. russell, and P.s. Keswani, Kalavassos-ayios dhimitrios II: ceramics, Objects, tombs, specialist studies, Vasilikos Valley Project 3 (göteborg 1989).

taylor

j. du Plat taylor, Myrtou-Pigadhes. a Late bronze age sanctuary in cyprus (London 1957).

tubb 1988

j.n. tubb, “tell es-sacidiyeh: Preliminary report on the first three seasons of renewed excavations,” Levant 20 (1988) 23–88.

tubb 1998

j. tubb, canaanites. Peoples of the Past (London 1998).

tylecote, Metallurgy

r.f. tylecote, a history of Metallurgy (2nd ed. London 1992).

Vagnetti and Lo schiavo

L. Vagnetti and f. Lo schiavo, “Late bronze age distance trade in the Mediterranean: the role of cyprus,” in e. Peltenburg, ed., early society in cyprus (edinburgh 1989) 217–243.

von beckerath 1997

j. von beckerath, chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten: die Zeirbestimmung der ägyptischen geschichte von der Vorzeit bis 332 v. chr. (Mainz am rhein 1997).

xxiv

bIbLIOgraPhIcaL abbreVIatIOns

Warren and hankey

P. Warren and V. hankey, aegean bronze age chronology (bristol 1989).

White, before the greeks came

d. White, “before the greeks came: a survey of the current archaeological evidence for the Pre-greek Libyans,” sLs 25 (1994) 31–44.

White, coastal survey

a.P. and d. White, “coastal sites of northeast africa: the case against bronze age Ports,” jarce 33 (1996) 11–30.

White, Water, Wood

d. White, “Water, Wood, dung and eggs; reciprocity in trade along the Lba Marmarican coast,” in P.P. betancourt et al., eds., MeLeteMata, studies in aegean archaeology Presented to Malcolm Wiener as he enters his 65th year III (Liège 1999) 931–936.

yadin and geva

y. yadin and s. geva, “Investigations at beth shean. the early Iron age strata,” Qedem 23 (1986).

1987 Pottery

L. hulin, “Marsa Matruh 1987, Preliminary ceramic report,” jarce 26 (1989) 115–126.

1985 report

d. White, “1985 excavations on bates’s Island, Marsa Matruh,” jarce 23 (1986) 51–84.

1987 report

d. White, “1987 excavations on bates’s Island, Marsa Matruh. second Preliminary report,” jarce 26 (1989) 87–114.

xxv

MInOr abbreVIatIOns acc. no. br c. ca. cm. d. diag. dp dW e epiph. esa est. ext. f fM frag. fs h. hor. kg. km. L Lba Lb Lc Lh LM m. M max. min.

accession number base ring Ware century circa centimeter diameter diagonal deciduous premolar donald White east epiphysis egyptian siltware a estimated exterior fused furumark motif fragment furumark shape height horizontal kilogram kilometer left Late bronze age Late bronze Late cypriot Late helladic Late Minoan meter molar maximum minimum

mm. MnI mod. mos. n ne not ill. not inv. nW obv. pres. quad. r rest. rev. s se sect. sq. strat. loc. sW uf th. vert. W w. Ws yr(s). + -/-

millimeter Minimum number of Individuals modern months north northeast not illustrated not inventoried northwest obverse preserved quadrant right restored reverse south southeast section square stratigraphic location southwest unfused thickness vertical west width White slip Ware year(s) over under complete/fragment(s)

1

Chapter 7

AEGEAN POTTERY AND SELECTED CYPRIOT POTTERY Pamela Russell This section includes the Aegean and some of the Cypriot pottery recovered from Bates’s Island at Marsa Matruh, and discusses the significance of this imported material on the North African

coast. The Cypriot wares are mainly White Slip and Base Ring Wares, with small amounts of Monochrome, White Shaved, Red Lustrous, and Bichrome Wheelmade Ware.*

Aegean Pottery (Fig. 7:1, Pl. 1, nos. 7.1–7.17) The excavations on Bates’s Island produced only very small quantities of Late Bronze Age Aegean pottery. The seventeen fragments presented in the catalog represent virtually all of the Aegean ceramic material that was found (another five or six small sherds were recorded). These sherds, however, assume an importance disproportionate to their number because, potentially, they are the most sensitive for determining chronology. Only a few of the sherds are stylistically diagnostic, but those that are present yield a reasonably consistent picture. They mostly belong to the Late Helladic IIIA period (LH IIIA). Open shapes are represented by an incomplete miniature bowl (7.1), fragments of three cups (7.2–7.4), and an open vessel (7.5). Sherds from

closed shapes are more numerous (7.6–7.17), although they are not very helpful for dating. Of interest are four groups of sherds deemed to be from transport stirrup jars (7.14–7.17). The Aegean material seems to be all of Mycenaean manufacture, either from mainland Greece or from some other center, such as Rhodes. In an early phase of the study, the stirrup jar fragments were considered Minoan,1 but that designation is questioned below. Nonetheless, the more equivocal designation “Aegean” has been selected for this section, in part to express the uncertainty of the source of some of this pottery. The miniature bowl (7.1) is a curiosity that is difficult to date. It has a simple, wheelmade body with convex profile and a small, flaring rim. As

* As is the case with Chapters 8 and 12, time and circumstances did not permit the author of this chapter to make a full analysis of every sherd from each deposit. The following reflects, instead, her analysis of a broad, representative

sample. Where Bronze Age Pottery not included here or in Chapter 8 is noted in the deposit entries discussed in the chapters on the island’s architecture published in Marsa Matruh I, it is designated as “uncatalogued” [Ed.].

2

MARSA MATRuH

Mountjoy has pointed out, the shape is not well documented. Examples listed by Mountjoy are ascribed to a LH IIB date.2 The simple decorative scheme of 7.1, consisting of concentric horizontal banding, is harmonious with those illustrated by Mountjoy. A series of LH IIIB handmade miniature vessels that typically have vertical schemes of painted decoration do not seem to be related to the example from Bates’s Island.3 The function of this tiny vessel can only be imagined. It was neither a transport container nor an everyday utilitarian vessel. Its impractical shape hints at a possibly ritual use. A cup (7.2, FS 219 or 220) is decorated with a deep wavy band (FM 53.5), a motif typical of the LH IIIA:2 period.4 Of the same date, or possibly slightly earlier, is cup 7.3 (also FS 219), decorated with the chronologically diagnostic stipple pattern (FM 77). The stipple pattern is characteristic of the LH IIIA:1 and early LH IIIA:2 periods.5 Cup 7.3 offers the most secure stylistic date of all the Aegean sherds from Marsa Matruh. Worthy of note is the anomalous handle of cup 7.4. While the cup’s decoration of simple banding is of little interest, the V-shaped handle with an applied knob is very unusual. The form, with its sharply bent shape and button, suggests a prototype in metal. It is also reminiscent of wishbone handles on Cypriot White Slip or Base Ring bowls (e.g., handles 7.40 and 7.83). Conical bowls with knobbed handles are known, but these handles rise vertically above the rim and do not extend horizontally as on this cup. Direct imitations of Cypriot wishbone handles also occur in Mycenaean pottery, but, again, the forms are not close to this example.6 The possibility that these fragments are not of Bronze Age date must also be raised, but no closer parallels have

been found among later Greek ceramic types. Of the closed vessel fragments, only jars 7.7, 7.8, and 7.9 preserve elements of decoration more elaborate than plain banding. Jars 7.7 and 7.9 have spirals, while 7.8 has a version of a net pattern. The shape of 7.7 is problematic; few jars bear decoration so far down on the body, so the placement seems more appropriate for a cup. In any case, the depressed globular form argues for a LH IIIA:2 date. The linear pattern on jar 7.8 is presumably a variant of the scale pattern or tri-curved arch (FM 62), also of the LH III A:2 period. Jars 7.14–7.17 are distinguished by their somewhat coarser fabric, containing significant amounts of dark grits. Fragment 7.15 preserves part of a strap handle and false neck, providing the best evidence for the identification of these vessels as stirrup jars. Correspondence with Prof. Halford Haskell suggests that these fragments may all be of Greek manufacture. In particular, the ring base of jar 7.14 (a rare feature on transport stirrup jars) and the combination of thick and thin banding on jar 7.16 appear to be features more at home in mainland Greece than in Minoan Crete. Transport stirrup jars were in circulation throughout the LH IIIA and LH IIIB periods, so these jars could be contemporary with the LH IIIA decorated Mycenaean pottery from the site. Haskell informally comments, “. . .with respect to dating, trade of transport [stirrup jars] begins in IIIA. How early trade begins is a little difficult, since we lack many IIIA domestic deposits in the Aegean, and the IIIA:2 end date for the House of the Wine Merchant at Mycenae is our earliest dated collection. The transport [stirrup jars] at Troy are probably IIIA.”7

Cypriot White Slip Wares (Fig. 7:2, Pls. 2, 3, 5, 6, nos. 7.18–7.42, 7.79–7.98) Cypriot White Slip pottery is the most plentiful of the imported fine wares encountered in Area I. With one exception, 7.42 (a larger open

vessel, perhaps a krater), all of the fragments of White Slip pottery from Bates’s Island are from hemispherical bowls.

AEGEAN POTTERY AND SELECTED CYPRIOT POTTERY

A range of motifs is represented, including single and double crosshatched lozenges (7.18–7.21, 7.86, 7.96), lozenge chains (7.22–7.26, 7.90–7.93), and dotted rows (7.27, 7.31, 7.32). The stylistically earliest fragment remains one discovered by Oric Bates, bowl 7.80, now housed in the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard university.8 It is late White Slip I (WS I) or transitional WS I–II. The oblique hatching of the vertical lines, the curved dotted element below the rim, and the wavy line between the horizontal bands are all features of this early style.9 In Cypriot terms, this fragment belongs to the end of Late Cypriot IB (LC IB) or the very beginning of LC IIA, a phase considered contemporary with the start of LH IIIA:1.10 The bowl sherds with neatly double crosshatched lozenges (7.18–7.20, 7.86) are characteristic of the earliest phase of WS II.11 This style belongs to the LC IIA period in Cyprus, approximately contemporary with LH IIIA:1 and the earlier part of LH IIIA:2.12 The hooked lozenge chain, the most common motif found at Marsa Matruh (here represented by bowls 7.22–7.26 and 7.91–7.93) is characteristic of WS II “normal,” which belongs to the LC IIB period, contemporary with the latter part of LH IIIA:2. The dotted row (fragments 7.27, 7.31, and 7.32) is also typical of this phase. In 1987, two small fragments of the so-called WS IIA style were catalogued (bowls 7.29 and 7.30). Both fragments exhibit the “palm-tree” motif, or hastily executed overlapping vertical zigzags, that is a distinctive design of the style.13 The chronology of this White Slip stylistic variant is

3

poorly understood, but I have argued that its period of greatest popularity was LC IIB.14 In 1989, an example of another White Slip variant was excavated, bowl 7.28. The parallel banding is typical of a variant that I have termed the Parallel Line Style.15 While bearing some relation to WS IIA, it is distinguished by its more open, less fussy decoration, and the absence of the palm-tree motif. Crosshatched lozenges are the most characteristic motif of this style that seems to reach its highest popularity in the LC IIC period. Bowls with dotted scallop or zigzag patterns, like that on 7.28, however, may belong to an earlier period.16 A bowl with this pattern was found in a tomb dated securely to LC IIB at Ayios Iakovos, Cyprus.17 Most relevant for the Marsa Matruh example is a White Slip bowl fragment from el-Amarna decorated in a similar manner with parallel bands and a dotted zigzag.18 Two incised White Slip II wishbone handles were recovered at Marsa Matruh, one by Oric Bates and the other by the new project. The example found by Bates (7.83) is the better preserved piece, with a cross visible on the underside of the handle’s tip.19 The small handle found more recently (7.41) preserves only part of a pot mark (now resembling an “N”) on the underside of one of the handle struts. Both marks were incised after firing. All of the White Slip sherd material is stylistically compatible with either a LC IIA or LC IIB date in Cypriot terms, or LH IIIA:1 and LH IIIA:2 in mainland Greek terms. There are no examples of the latest White Slip II, characterized by brownish slip and careless lattice patterns, typical of the LC IIC (LH IIIB) period.

Cypriot Base Ring Ware (Fig. 7:3, Pls. 3, 4, nos. 7.43–7.64) Three shapes are represented among the plentiful sherd material of Cypriot Base Ring Ware: the carinated, or Y-shaped cup, the small jug, and the flask. Base Ring I (BR I), transitional Base Ring I–II, and Base Ring II are present. Four Base Ring I cups (7.43–7.46) have been included in the catalog. They are distinguished by their lustrous

slips and the sharply articulated, recessed zones beneath the lip. Cup 7.47 is notable for the decorative oblique lines in matte white paint, a feature of Base Ring II. The remaining cataloged cups (7.48–7.57) are typical of the Base Ring II phase, having a matte slip and less articulated rims than those of Base Ring I. The one exception is 7.50,

4

MARSA MATRuH

which preserves a decorative raised rib, more typical of transitional Base Ring I–II. An uncataloged wishbone cup handle bears an incised cross on the underside of the handle tip (E4 center, 1.1). This pot mark is very similar to the one on the White Slip II handle discovered by Bates.20 Two jug handles feature decorative incision, also characteristic of transitional Base Ring I–II (7.62– 7.63). The small 7.64 may come from a lentoid flask, perhaps of Base Ring I.21

Base Ring I in Cyprus spans the periods LC IA to LC IIA, while Base Ring II occurs from LC IIA to LC IIC.22 The presence of the early forms of Base Ring along with Base Ring II from Bates’s Island suggests that the sherd material belongs to a transitional phase when both types were current, a period equivalent to LC IIA or into LC IIB. Merrillees placed the time of Base Ring I and II overlap in Egypt in the 18th Dynasty, in particular the reigns of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III.23

Other Cypriot Wares (Fig. 7:3, Pls. 4, 5, nos. 7.65–7.78) Monochrome (7.65–7.68) Four small fragments of Monochrome cups (7.65–7.68) are included in the catalog; one preserves a wishbone handle. “Monochrome” as a ceramic designation has, unfortunately, been used in Cypriot archaeology as a catchall category for a variety of different wares. Several scholars have attempted to untangle the various types included under this undiagnostic heading. I have distinguished at least three variants, and the sherds from Marsa Matruh very clearly fall into my designation of “Monochrome A.”24 The clay is buff or reddish in color, not gray, and shapes are related to those of Base Ring I and Base Ring II, in particular the carinated cup with wishbone handle. The ware, dated primarily by tomb groups at the Cypriot site of Enkomi, belongs to the LC I and LC IIA periods. Cups of this fabric were exported in number to SyroPalestinian sites.25

White Shaved (7.69–7.74) The six cataloged White Shaved Ware sherds (7.69–7.74) probably are all from juglets with pointed bases, the typical White Shaved shape.26 Only juglet 7.69 preserves a significant amount of the vessel’s shape. These six examples represent almost the totality of White Shaved sherds.

Since the pale, soft fabric is so distinctive, this ware is easy to spot in the sherd material. White Shaved Ware is most popular in the LC IB to LC IIB periods.27

Red Lustrous (7.75 and 7.76) Less than half a dozen fragments from Red Lustrous vessels have been found at Marsa Matruh. Fragment 7.75 is the shoulder of a tall spindle bottle, while fragment 7.76 may be from a flask. uncatalogued sherds from the body of another spindle bottle were found in 1987 (H5II 4.1, 4.4, 5.1, and 5.2). No evidence of potmarks, so common on Red Lustrous vessels, was found. Red Lustrous belongs to the same chronological phase as Monochrome A, which is LC IB to LC IIA. Merrillees has noted that while Red Lustrous spindle bottles are found at many sites in the Nile Valley, only two come from settlement sites, while the rest are from tombs. He also suggests that Red Lustrous bottles are not found in the Nile Valley after the reign of Thutmose IV.28

Bichrome Wheelmade (7.77 and 7.78) Two sherds of Cypriot Bichrome Wheelmade have been cataloged, presumably both from closed vessels (7.77–7.78). Both have banding in

AEGEAN POTTERY AND SELECTED CYPRIOT POTTERY

black and red; on 7.77, some of the banding is at an oblique angle.29 Although so few in number, the sherds are of significant chronological interest because Bichrome Wheelmade, a ware with

5

Middle Bronze Age antecedents, is typical of the LC I period and disappeared after LC IB.30 These sherds, therefore, are among the very earliest Cypriot imports.

Discussion The corpus of Aegean and Cypriot wares discovered in excavations at Marsa Matruh contributes important new evidence for the understanding of Late Bronze Age trade and interactions in the eastern Mediterranean. The size of the assemblage and its variety argues that the nature of contact was far more than sporadic. In particular, the large amount of Cypriot White Slip and Base Ring wares from deposits at Marsa Matruh represent the densest concentrations of these wares at any settlement site west of Cyprus. The shapes represented seem appropriate for domestic activities, primarily eating and drinking, rather than exclusively for storage and transport. Open, “non-container” shapes predominate. The coarse ware stirrup jars and Base Ring juglets are among the few vessels to be associated more closely with trade and transport. In fact, the assemblage of Cypriot pottery recovered at Marsa Matruh would appear to differ quite dramatically from the repertoire of Cypriot types studied previously from the Nile Valley proper. According to Merrillees, White Slip II bowls are rare along the Nile, occurring at only two sites, elRataba and el-Amarna,31 but they are the most common Cypriot type at Marsa Matruh. Similarly, Base Ring cups are uncommon, outnumbered by the Base Ring juglet in the Nile Valley; however, at Marsa Matruh, cups predominate.

Chronology Most of the imported ceramic material from Marsa Matruh quite consistently suggests a date in the LH IIIA period, ca. 15th and early 14th century B.C. The Mycenaean pottery is particularly sensitive, and all of the stylistically diagnostic material, which is admittedly sparse, is in agreement with this conclusion.

The Cypriot material falls into the LC IIA and LC IIB periods, with some wares being most at home in the earlier of the two phases (Base Ring I, White Shaved, and Red Lustrous), or even LC I (Bichrome Wheelmade). A LH IIIA date for the material is compatible with the current understanding of the expansion of eastern Mediterranean trade just at this time. Evidence from Rhodes is particularly helpful.

Absolute Dates “New” High Chronology (preferred in this section)

Mainland Sequence

Date

LH IIB LH IIIA:1 LH IIIA:2

1550–1490 B.C. 1490–1430 B.C. 1430–1365 B.C.

LH IIIB

1365–1200 B.C.

Cypriot Sequence LC IIA:1 LC IIA:2, LC IIB LC IIC

“Traditional” Chronology (Warren and Hankey) LH IIIA:1 LH IIIA:2

1400–1385/70 B.C. 1385/70–1350/25 B.C.

The Ialysos cemetery gives the impression of growing prosperity during the LH IIIA:2 period, and there is ample evidence for active trade with the eastern Mediterranean at this time. Imports from Cyprus to Rhodes increase during the LH IIIA period, and it has been suggested that two of the Ialysos tombs actually belonged to Cypriots. The Rhodian evidence suggests that the islanders were key participants in the export of LH IIIA pottery to Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. Whether the Mycenaean pottery traveling east is of Rhodian or Peloponnesian manufacture is diffi-

6

MARSA MATRuH

cult to determine, but scientific analyses point to the Peloponnese.32 Although the Aegean and Cypriot ceramics from the Bronze Age shipwreck at uluburun are not fully published, a few thoughts on their relation to those from Marsa Matruh are in order. Stylistically, the uluburun material seems, for the most part, slightly later in date than that from Bates’s Island. LH IIIA:2 early beaked jugs and a kylix have been identified among the artifacts from the shipwreck.33 Several Aegean vases from the LH IIIA:2 late phase have been illustrated on a web page of the Institute of Nautical Archae-

ology of the Texas A & M university.34 The Cypriot White Slip bowls illustrated at the same internet site with simple lattice patterns are also stylistically later than those found at Marsa Matruh, which often bear more complex designs. A far larger collection of Aegean ceramics, more than 1500 sherds, was found at el-Amarna. This material belongs to the LH IIIA:2 phase with perhaps some elements of LH IIIB apparent.35 The Matruh material is not closely comparable to the el-Amarna assemblage, but it may overlap with it in date at the earlier end of the time span.

Catalog Aegean Pottery (Fig. 7:1, Pl. 1, nos. 7.1–7.17) 7.1 Miniature Bowl Fig. 7:1; Pl. 1 85I-P-8 E4-III, 2.1. H. 2.2; d. of rim ca. 5; wall th. 0.3. Two joining fragments preserving complete profile. Hemispherical bowl with slightly everted rim. Fine buff fabric. Lustrous dark brown paint on buff slip. Four concentric circles at base, band at rim. Mycenaean. 7.2 Cup Pl. 1 87I-P-70. H5-II, 3.1. H. 4.3; length 4.1; d. of rim ca. 10; wall th. 0.5. Rim sherd. Cup with convex body and everted rim. Fine buff fabric. Lustrous brown paint on buff slip. Wavy line on body (FM 53:5), exterior of rim painted, line on interior near lip. Mycenaean. 7.3 Cup Fig. 7:1; Pl. 1 85I-P-68. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. h. 1.7; length 4.3; d. of rim ca. 10.5; wall th. 0.2. Rim sherd. Cup with convex body and everted rim. Fine buff fabric. Lustrous reddish brown paint on buff slip. Band at rim on exterior and interior, stippling on body (FM 77). Mycenaean. 7.4 Cup Pl. 1 85I-P-97. F4-III, 3/4.4. Pres. h. 1.8; pres. w. 4.1; d. of rim ca. 10; wall th. 0.25. Two joining fragments and one associated body sherd. Cup with square lip and horizontal handle attached just below and rising slightly above rim. Handle, roughly oval in section, has applied knob of clay at tip. Fine buff fabric. Lustrous black paint on

buff slip. Body has two concentric thin bands on interior. Band on interior of rim extending 0.9 (?) below lip. Handle bases, exterior of handles, and knob painted. Mycenaean. For an alternate opinion, see 12.6. 7.5 Open Vessel Pl. 1 87I-P-31. I6-I-II, sect. 3, 2.1. Pres. h. 3.7; pres. w. 4.6; wall th. 0.4. Body sherd, open shape. Fine buff fabric. Reddish brown paint on buff slip. Two horizontal bands on exterior, one on interior. Mycenaean. 7.6 Jar Pl. 1 87I-P-46. E4-II/E, 1.1. Pres. h. 4.4; pres. w. 3.8; d. of rim ca. 10; wall th. 0.6. Rim and neck fragment. Jar with cylindrical neck and everted rim. Fine buff fabric. Lustrous black paint on buff slip. Band at lip. Mycenaean. 7.7 Jar Fig. 7:1; Pl. 1 87I-P-60. E4-Center, 1.1. Pres. h. 5.2; d. of base 3.1; wall th. 0.4. Lower body fragment. Jar with depressed globular body and low ring base. Fine buff fabric. Lustrous red-brown paint on buff slip. Six parallel bands on lower body, top band thicker. Traces of running spiral (FM 46) above. Mycenaean (LH IIIA:1). 7.8 Jar (?) Fig. 7:1; Pl. 1 85I-P-13. F4-III, 2.2. Pres. length 3.5; pres. w. 2.8; wall th. 0.6. Body fragment, closed shape (depressed globular). Fine buff fabric. Lustrous reddish brown paint on buff slip. Net pattern with wavy lines (perhaps related to FM 62, tricurved arch). Mycenaean.

AEGEAN POTTERY AND SELECTED CYPRIOT POTTERY

7

Fig. 7:1. Late Bronze Age Aegean pottery.

7.9 Jar (?) Fig. 7:1; Pl. 1 87I-P-43. F5-I/II, 2.1. Fragment A: pres. length 5.4; pres. w. 2.6; wall th. 1.0. Fragment B: pres. length 4.0; pres. w. 2.6; wall th. 1.0. Two non-joining fragments, closed shape. Fine buff fabric. Lustrous brown paint on buff slip. Fragment A preserves half a spiral (FM 52?). Fragment B preserves traces of painted decoration. Mycenaean. 7.10 Closed Vessel Pl. 1 85I-P-16. Sponge-Divers House (S101) S. wall, 1.1. Pres. length 4.5; pres. w. 2.5; wall th. 0.4. Body sherd, closed vessel. Fine buff fabric. Part of band preserved. Mycenaean. 7.11

Closed Vessel

87I-P-45.

Fig. 7:1; Pl. 1

E4-II/E, 1.1.

Pres. length 5.3; pres. w. 3.8; wall th. 0.4. Body sherd, closed shape. Fine buff fabric. Reddish brown paint on buff slip. Traces of two bands. 7.12 Closed Vessel Pl. 1 87I-P-40. F5-I/II, 2.1. Pres. length 2.5; pres. w. 3.3; wall th. 0.4. Body sherd. Fine buff fabric. Dark brown paint on buff slip. Two parallel bands. Mycenaean.

7.13 Closed Vessel Not ill. 87I-P-72. H5-II, 3.1. Pres. length. 5.2; pres. w. 4.2; wall th. 0.7. Body sherd, closed shape. Grayish buff fabric with black grits. Reddish brown paint on buff slip. Traces of horizontal banding. Mycenaean. 7.14 Stirrup Jar Fig. 7:1; Pl. 1 85I-P-76. F4-III, 3.2. Pres. h. 10.7; d. of base ca. 12.5–13; wall th. 0.8. Single fragment preserving one-third of base and part of lower body wall. Jar with ovoid body and low, slightly flaring ring base. Hard, reddish yellow fabric with medium grit inclusions and flecks of mica. Reddish brown paint on matt pinkish buff slip. Horizontal band on exterior of base; one thick band on lower body, two thinner bands higher up on body. Mycenaean. 7.15 Stirrup Jar Pl. 1 85I-P-50. Sponge-Divers House (S101), 1.1. Pres. length 4.35; pres. w. 3.9; wall th. 1.6. Single fragment of stirrup jar handle and disk. Buff fabric with small to medium grit inclusions. Matt brown paint on buff slip. Circle painted around disk, oblique line on top of handle. Mycenaean.

8

MARSA MATRuH

7.16 Stirrup Jar Pl. 1 89I-P-31. H5-III, 3.1. Pres. length of largest fragment 5.7; pres. w. 5.4; wall th. 0.7. Seven fragments from closed vessel. Pinkish buff fabric with black grits. Brownish black paint on buff slip. Thick and thin banding. Mycenaean. 7.17 Stirrup Jar (?) Pl. 1 85I-P-51. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. length 3.4; pres. w. 2.8; wall th. 0.6–0.9. Body sherd, closed vessel. Deep buff fabric with brown and white grit inclusions. Matt brown paint on buff slip. Single band preserved. Mycenaean.

White Slip II Ware (Fig. 7:2, Pls. 2, 3, nos. 7.18–7.42) 7.18 Bowl Pl. 2 85I-P-87. H4-III, 1.1. Pres. h. 5.4; pres. w. 4.3; d. of rim ca. 20; wall th. 0.3. Rim sherd, hemispherical bowl. Fabric gray at interior, redder at exterior; small black and white inclusions. Dark brown paint on white slip. Dots at rim. Chain of neat double cross-hatched lozenges framed by ladder. Vertical ladder frames frieze. Pendent vertical lozenges. 7.19 Bowl Fig. 7:2; Pl. 2 85I-P-33. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. h. 2.9; pres. w. 2.4; d. of rim ca. 20; wall th. 0.35. Rim sherd, hemispherical bowl. Gray fabric, reddish brown at exterior Brown paint on cream slip. Neat horizontal ladder patterns framing double crosshatched lozenge chain. 7.20 Bowl Pl. 2 85I-P-31. F4-III, 2.2. Pres. h. 4.5; pres. w. 3.6; d. of rim ca. 18; wall th. 0.5. Rim sherd, hemispherical bowl. Grayish brown fabric with reddish core. Brown paint on grayish white slip. Dots at rim. Horizontal ladder pattern below rim; pendent ladder and double cross-hatched lozenges framed by vertical lines. 7.21 Bowl Pl. 2 85I-P-88. H5-III, 1.1. Pres. h. 3.5; pres. w. 4.5; d. of rim ca. 17; wall th. 0.5. Rim sherd, hemispherical bowl. Gray fabric, reddish brown at exterior. Dark brown paint on white slip. Dots at rim, horizontal ladder beneath. Horizontal lozenge chain framed by ladder below.

Vertical ladder bounds frieze. Pendent lozenges and vertical cross-hatched pendent lozenges framed by bands. 7.22 Bowl Fig. 7:2; Pl. 2 85I-P-29. E4-III, 1.1 and 2.4. Pres. h. 6.3; pres. w. 9.0; d. of rim ca. 20; wall th. 0.3. Rim sherd. Gray fabric, brownish at exterior, some grit inclusions. Brown paint on grayish slip. Horizontal ladder patterns framing hooked lozenge chain below rim. Pendent hatched parallel lines and a vertical dotted row. 7.23 Bowl Pl. 2 87I-P-51. I6-I/II, 2.3. Pres. h. 6.2; pres. w. 5.4; d. of rim ca. 20; wall th. 0.4. Rim sherd with handle base, hemispherical bowl. Reddish brown fabric with some grit inclusions. Brown paint on grayish white slip. Dots at rim. Hooked lozenge chain framed by horizontal ladders. 7.24 Bowl Pl. 2 85I-P-28. E4-III, 1.1. Pres. h. 4.3; pres. w. 3.5; d. of rim 19; wall th. 0.5. Rim sherd, hemispherical bowl. Reddish brown fabric with some grit inclusions. Brown paint on grayish white slip. Dots at rim. Hooked lozenge chain framed by horizontal ladders. 7.25 Bowl Pl. 2 85I-P-32. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. h. 3.6; pres. w. 3.7; d. of rim ca. 20; wall th. 0.6. Rim sherd, hemispherical bowl. Gray fabric, redder at exterior. Brown paint on white slip. Dots at lip. Hooked lozenge chain framed by horizontal ladders. 7.26 Bowl Fig. 7:2; Pl. 2 87I-P-54. E4-II/E, 1.1. Pres. h. 3.6; pres. w. 3.1; d. of rim ca. 20; wall th. 0.4. Rim sherd, hemispherical bowl. Brown paint on white slip. Dots at rim, horizontal ladder pattern below. Two rows of vertical hooked lozenge chain pendent. 7.27 Bowl Pl. 2 85I-P-27. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. h. 5.6; pres. w. 4.1; d. of rim ca. 21; wall th. 0.35. Rim sherd, hemispherical bowl. Dark gray fabric. Brown paint on gray slip. Dots at rim, horizontal ladder pattern below with pendent dotted row and vertical ladder pattern.

AEGEAN POTTERY AND SELECTED CYPRIOT POTTERY

9

Fig. 7:2. Cypriot White Slip II Ware.

7.28 Bowl Fragments Pl. 2 89I-P-32. H5-III/SW, 2.1 and 3.1. Pres. h. of largest fragment 12.5; pres. w. 9.8; wall th. 0.3. Two rim and four body sherds, all non-joining. Dotted scallop at rim between two groups of horizontal parallel bands. Four vertical parallel bands pendent. 7.29 Bowl Fig. 7:2; Pl. 3 87I-P-50. I6-I/I, 2.3. Pres. h. 2.5; pres. w. 2.4; wall th. 0.2. Body sherd, hemispherical bowl. Standard WS fabric. Brown paint on white slip. Two fringed wavy bands (“palm tree” of WS IIA).

7.30 Bowl Fig. 7:2; Pl. 3 87I-P-27. H5-I, 2.1. Pres. h. 3.1; pres. w. 2.8; wall; th. 0.2. Body sherd, hemispherical bowl. Standard WS fabric. Dark brown paint on white. Two fringed wavy bands (“palm tree” of WS IIA). 7.31 Bowl Pl. 3 85I-P-30. E4-III, 1.1. Pres. h. 5.8; pres. w. 5.2; wall th. 0.45. Body sherd, hemispherical bowl. Gray fabric, light brown on exterior. Brown paint on grayish slip. Horizontal ladder pattern, hatched parallel lines, dotted row pendent from ladder, and horizontal band below.

10

MARSA MATRuH

7.32 Bowl Pl. 3 85I-P-34. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. h. 5.4; pres. w. 4,4; wall th. 0.4. Body sherd, hemispherical bowl. Gray fabric. Brown paint on grayish white slip. Vertical ladder pattern with horizontal bands and end of vertical dotted row and hatched parallel bands. 7.33 Bowl Fig. 7:2; Pl. 3 87I-P-53. E4-II/E, 1.1. Pres. h. 12.1; d. of rim ca. 14. One-quarter of bowl pres., from rim to near base and including handle. Hemispherical bowl with horizontal wishbone handle. Standard WS fabric. Brown paint on white slip. Horizontal ladder pattern at rim with pendent ladder and hatched parallel lines.Vertical ladder patterns beneath handle bases and hatched parallel lines between. Top of handle decorated with groups of four lines, outer bands thicker; bands tracing handle edge below. 7.34 Bowl Pl. 3 85I-P-15. E4-III, 1.1 and 2.1. Pres. h. 7.7; d. of rim ca. 18; handle length 6.7. One-third of rim and complete handle, hemispherical bowl with horizontal wishbone handle. Gray fabric with black and a few white inclusions. Brown paint on grayish buff slip. Ladder pattern at rim with pendent hatched parallel lines. Below handle, two ladder patterns with central hatched parallel lines. Top of handle decorated with groups of four lines, outer bands thicker; bands tracing handle edge below. 7.35 Bowl Pl. 3 87I-P-64. H5-II, 4.4. Pres. h. 6.8; pres. w. 4.4; wall th. 0.6. Rim sherd, hemispherical bowl. Small hole pierced 2.4 cm. below rim. Dark brown paint on pale brown slip. Horizontal ladder pattern below rim, vertical ladder pattern pendent. 7.36 Bowl Fig. 7:2; Pl. 3 87I-P-15. H5-I, 1.1. Pres. h. 2.3; pres. w. 4.4; wall th. 0.6. Rim sherd, hemispherical bowl. Horizontal ladder pattern below rim; vertical band pendent. 7.37 Bowl Pl. 3 87I-P-16. H5-I, 1.1. Pres. h. 3.3; pres. w. 3.2; wall th. 0.3. Rim sherd, hemispherical bowl. Horizontal pattern at rim.

7.38 Bowl Pl. 3 87I-P-26. H5-I, 2.1. Pres. h. 1.8; pres. w. 3.0; d. of rim ca. 20; wall th. 0.3. Rim sherd, hemispherical bowl. Standard WS fabric. Dark brown paint on white slip. Horizontal ladder pattern at rim. 7.39 Bowl Fig. 7:2; Pl. 3 87I-P-37. I6-I/II, 2.1. Pres. h. 1.8; pres. w. 1.5; wall th. 0.5. Rim sherd, hemispherical bowl. Standard WS fabric. Dark brown paint on white slip. Dots at rim, horizontal band beneath with ladder below. 7.40 Bowl Pl. 3 85I-P-10. Sponge-Divers House (S101), SW corner exterior, 1.1. Pres. length 5.7; max. th. 1.4. Wishbone handle with small double tip. Gray fabric, browner at exterior. Dark brown paint on cream slip. Four groups of four parallel bands; outer bands thicker, with interspersed dots. Beneath, single bands intersecting at tip. 7.41 Bowl Pl. 3 85I-P-5. H3-III/H4-IV (Bates’s dump), 1.1. Pres. length 2.8; max. w. 1.4. Small piece of wishbone handle strut. N-like mark incised on underside after firing. Hard, red fabric with some dark grit inclusions. Very dark brown paint on yellowish slip. Groups of thick and thin oblique lines on top, band below. 7.42 Bowl or Krater Pl. 3 87I-P-28. H5-I, 2.1. Pres. length 2.4; pres. w. 4.0; wall th. 0.4. Body sherd with handle, large bowl or krater. Standard WS fabric. Dark brown paint on white slip. Band encircling handle base. Dots at “corners” of handle base.

Base Ring Ware (Fig. 7:3, Pls. 3, 4, nos. 7.43–7.64) 7.43 Cup Pl. 3 85I-P-4. H3-III/H4-IV (Bates’s dump), 1.1. Pres. h. 1.9; d. of base 5.5; wall th. 0.2. Open vessel, probably a cup. One-half base, small part of body wall. Flaring base ring with thin groove on underside of foot. Gray fabric with tiny voids. Lustrous slip, mottled dark gray to reddish brown. Base Ring I.

AEGEAN POTTERY AND SELECTED CYPRIOT POTTERY

11

Fig. 7:3. Cypriot Base Ring Ware and other Cypriot wares (Monochrome, Red Lustrous, and Bichrome). 7.44 Cup Pl. 3 85I-P-36. E4-III, 1.1 and 2.5. Pres. h. 3.1; pres. length 7.9; wall th. 0.2. Cup with small convex shoulder. Tall recessed band below rim; flat, slightly everted lip. Grayish brown fabric. Red to dark gray lustrous slip. Base Ring I. 7.45 Cup Pl. 4 85I-P-69. E4-III, 2.4. Pres. h. 2.5; pres. length 9.6; d. of rim ca. 16; wall th. 0.2. Cup with recessed band below slightly everted rim. Light brown fabric. Reddish brown to gray slip. Base Ring I (?) 7.46 Cup Pl. 4 85I-P-70. E4-III, 3.2. Pres. h. 2.3; pres. length 12.0; d. of base ca. 15; wall th. 0.2. Joining rim sherds, cup with round shoulder. Recessed band below slightly everted rim. Gray fabric, reddish yellow near exterior. Lustrous black slip. Base Ring I.

7.47 Cup Pl. 4 85I-P-12. F4-III, 2.2. Pres. h. 4.15; d. of rim ca. 11.5; d. of base ca. 5.5; wall th. 0.3. Two joining sherds preserving complete profile of cup with straight flaring walls; splaying ring base with bevelled edge. Vertical rim with slight groove on exterior below lip. Gray fabric. Faintly lustrous orange slip, dark gray at rim exterior White paint: horizontal bands at rim, four oblique lines on wall. Base Ring II. 7.48 Cup Fig. 7:3; Pl. 4 85I-P-35. E4-III, 1.1. Pres. h. 1.7; d. of base 6.7. Splaying base of rather large cup. Light brown fabric. Matt brown to dark brown slip; very black interior. Base Ring II. 7.49 Cup Pl. 4 85I-P-37. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. h. 3.0; pres. length 6.5; wall th. 0.2. Cup with flaring walls, vertical rim and rounded straight lip. Gray fabric, more orange at surfaces. Matt orange to brown slip. Base Ring II.

12

MARSA MATRuH

7.50 Cup Pl. 4 85I-P-38. E4-III, 1.1. Pres. h. 3.2; pres. w. 2.9; wall th. 0.2. Body sherd, open vessel (cup?) with rib on exterior. Grayish brown fabric, lighter brown at exterior surface. Matt black slip. Transitional Base Ring I-II. 7.51 Cup Handle Pl. 4 85I-P-39. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. length 3.0; pres. h. 1.0. Small wishbone handle fragment, with pinched tip. Light brown fabric. Reddish brown slip. Base Ring II. 7.52 Cup Fig. 7:3; Pl. 4 85I-P-40. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. h. 3.2; pres. length 4.4; d. of rim ca. 17; wall th. 0.3. Rim sherd, cup with sharply sloping walls. Small shoulder; vertical rim with slightly everted lip. Fine grayish brown fabric. Matt orange to gray slip. Base Ring II. 7.53 Cup Pl. 4 85I-P-41. E4-III, 2.5. Pres. h. 1.8; pres. length 5.3; d. of rim ca. 11.5; wall th. 0.2. Rim sherd, cup with sharply sloping walls, small rounded shoulder, and vertical rim with slightly everted lip. Gray fabric, light brown at exterior. Blackish brown slip. Base Ring II.

7.57 Cup Pl. 4 87I-P-38. F5-I/II, 2.1. Pres. h. 1.8; pres. w. 2.4; wall th. 0.2. Rim sherd, cup with recessed band below lip. Standard Base Ring fabric and slip. Base Ring II. 7.58 Juglet Handle Pl. 4 85I-P-73. F4-III, 5.1. Pres. h. 3.8; pres. w. 4.7; w. of handle 1.0. Body sherd with lower part of handle. Juglet sherds with base of vertical thrust handle. Gray fabric, yellowish red at exterior. Brown to gray slip. Base Ring II 7.59 Juglet Not ill. 87I-P-49. E4-II/E, 1.1. Pres. h. 2.0; pres. w. 2.0; wall th. 0.2. Body sherd, two parallel bands. Standard Base Ring fabric and slip. Base Ring I-II. 7.60 Juglet Pl. 4 85I-P-6. H3-III/H4-IV (Bates’s dump), 1.1. Pres. length 2.9; pres. w. 3.2; wall th. 02. Body sherd preserving base of thrust handle. Gray fabric with tiny voids, fabric reddish at exterior surface. Faintly lustrous gray slip. Base Ring II. 7.61 Juglet Pl. 4 87I-P-19. I6-I/II, 1.1. Pres. h. 3.0; pres. length 2.5; d. of rim ca. 5; wall th. 0.3. Everted rim sherd from large jug. Standard Base Ring fabric and slip. Base Ring I-II

7.54 Cup Pl. 4 85I-P-42. E4-III, 1.1. Pres. h. 2.1; pres. length 4.7; d. of rim ca. 12; wall th. 0.3. Cup with incurving rim, flat lip with slight groove. Grayish brown fabric, light brown at exterior. Matt gray slip. Base Ring II.

7.62 Juglet Pl. 4 87I-P-20. I6-I/II, 1.1. Pres. length 3.3; pres. w. 2.2; wall th. 0.4. Vertical strap handle fragment with two parallel vertical Grooves on top side. Standard Base Ring fabric and worn slip. Base Ring I-II

7.55 Cup Pl. 4 85I-P-44. E4-III, 2.4. Pres. h. 1.8; pres. length 4.3; d. of rim ca. 12; wall th. 0.1. Rim sherd, cup with small rounded shoulder. Vertical rim with flat, slightly everted lip. Gray fabric, more reddish yellow at exterior. Matt grayish brown slip. Base Ring II.

7.63 Juglet Pl. 4 87I-P-21. I6-I/II. 1.1. Pres. length 7.4; pres. w. 2.4. Handle fragment with part of vessel’s shoulder. Vertical thrust handle with two parallel vertical grooves on top side, with short incised line near shoulder join. Standard Base Ring fabric and worn slip. Base Ring I-II.

7.56 Cup Pl. 4 85I-P-77. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. h. 1.0; d. of base 6.7. Complete base, open vessel with low ring base. Gray fabric, reddish yellow at exterior. Streaky orange to gray slip. Base Ring II.

7.64 Flask (?) Pl. 4 85I-P-43. E4-III, 1.1. Pres. length. 3.8; pres. w. 1.1. Body sherd. Curved with pronounced rib, possibly the edge of a pilgrim flask. Dark gray fabric. Matt grayish brown slip. Base Ring I-II.

AEGEAN POTTERY AND SELECTED CYPRIOT POTTERY

Monochrome (Fig. 7:3, Pl. 4, nos. 7.65–7.68) 7.65 Cup Pl. 4 85I-P-113. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. h. 2.7; pres. w. 4.3; d. of rim ca. 12. Cup rim sherd with handle base. Slight carination below rim; horizontal handle. Reddish brown fabric. Streaky yellowish brown slip. 7.66 Cup Pl. 4 85I-P-114. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. h. 3.6; pres. w. 5.5; d. of rim ca. 11; wall th. 0.3. Cup rim sherd with slight carination below rim. Yellowish red fabric. Gray to reddish brown slip. 7.67 Cup Fig. 7:3 87I-P-25. H5-I, 2.1. Pres. h. 3.2; pres. w. 4.2; d. of rim ca. 10; wall th. 0.3. Cup rim sherd with slight carination below rim. Standard Base Ring fabric and slip. 7.68 Cup Pl. 4 85I-P-7. F4-III, 1.1. Pres. length 2.5; th. 1.0. Wishbone handle fragment with pinched tip. Reddish brown fabric. Dark gray slip.

White Shaved Ware (Pls. 4 and 5, nos. 7.69–7.74) 7.69 Juglet Pl. 4 85I-P-104. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. h. 10.7; wall th. 0.5. Joining fragments preserving upper body, handle, neck, and rim of flask with rounded shoulder. Slight groove at base of neck; concave neck. Round lip, perhaps trefoil mouth. Soft reddish yellow fabric. 7.70 Juglet Pl. 5 87I-P-30. H5-I, 2.1. Pres. h. 1.2; pres. w. 1.7; wall th. 0.3. Juglet rim sherd, round lip. Standard white shaved fabric. 7.71 Juglet Pl. 5 85I-P-105. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. h. 8.4; pres. w. 6.2; wall th. 0.4. Several joining fragments preserving lower body of flask, contracting to pointed base. Soft light reddish yellow fabric.

13

7.72 Juglet Pl. 5 87I-P-44. E4-II/E, 1.1. Pres. h. 5.0; pres. w. 3.8; wall th. 0.2–0.6. Pointed base of juglet. Standard white shaved fabric. 7.73 Juglet Pl. 5 85I-P-81. E4-III, 4.2 (changed from 3.4 by DW). Pres. h. 4.1; w. 3.4; wall th. 0.4. Body sherd. Sloping shoulder with start of vertical neck. Soft yellowish red fabric. 7.74 Juglet Pl. 5 85I-P-58. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. h. 3.7; pres. w. 3.6; wall th. 0.4. Body sherd, vertical paring on exterior. Soft yellowish red fabric.

Red Lustrous Pottery (Fig. 7:3, Pl. 5, nos. 7.75, 7.76) 7.75 Bottle Pl. 5 85I-P-60. E4-III, 1.1. Pres. h. 6.0; wall th. 0.6. Body sherd preserving shoulder, neck and lower part of handle. Bottle shape with rounded shoulder, tapering neck, and vertical handle rising from shoulder. Red fabric with small grit inclusions. Lustrous red slip. 7.76 Flask Fig. 7:3; Pl. 5 85I-P-59. E4-III, 3.2. Pres. h. 3.5; d. of base 2.0. Small flask (?) with body contracting to small base (complete), slightly convex. Red fabric with small to medium white grit inclusions. Worn red slip.

Bichrome Pottery (Fig. 7:3, Pl. 5, nos. 7.77–7.78) 7.77 Closed Vessel Fig. 7:3; Pl. 5 87I-P-79. H5-II, 6.1. Pres. h. 4.8; pres. w. 10.8; wall th. 0.6. Sloping shoulder. Buff fabric with black grit inclusions. Standard bichrome fabric and white slip. Two horizontal bands, upper red and lower black, with three oblique lines between, outer ones black and middle one red.

14

MARSA MATRuH

7.78 Closed Vessel Fig. 7:3; Pl. 5 87I-P-82. H5-II, 5.3. Pres. h. 12.8; pres. w. 16.2; wall th. 0.6. Sloping shoulder. Buff fabric with black grit inclusions. Four horizontal bands, alternating black and red.

Marsa Matruh: Peabody Museum Sherds (Pls. 5 and 6, nos. 7.79–7.98) The nineteen sherds cataloged below were excavated by Bates during his winter 1913–14 stay on the island and brought back to Harvard university’s Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography. The Bates’s figure numbers refer to his numbered drawings that make up plates xx–xxv of his “Semitic Traces in Marmarica,” PSBA (1915), 201ff, in which he perceptively identifies the collection as Cypriot pottery dating to 1500–1200 B.C. (here abbreviated Bates, Pottery). I am grateful to the director of the Peabody Museum for granting me permission to republish the sherds. 7.79 Bowl (?) Pl. 5 Peabody Museum acc. no. 46-4-40/5917 (2). Pres. h. 4.2; pres. w. 3.3; wall th. 0.4–0.5. Body sherd. Light gray to brownish gray fabric. Wide, pale brown vertical bands on grayish white slip. White Slip. Bates, Pottery, figs. 22, 23. 7.80 Bowl Pl. 5 Peabody Museum acc. no. 46-4-40/5917 (4). Pres. h. 7.3; pres. w. 8.1; d. of rim ca. 18; wall th. 0.35. Rim sherd of hemispherical bowl. Reddish brown fabric, grayer at interior. Two parallel bands below lip, three sets of vertical, obliquely latticed parallel bands. Dotted arched horns rise from middle bands. Dot rosette beneath break in horizontal parallel bands below lip. Near lower break, wavy line within horizontal parallel bands. Sharp line of demarcation on slip due to firing; paint much redder below. White Slip I. Bates, Pottery, fig. 3. 7.81 Bowl Pl. 5 Peabody Museum acc. no. 46-4-40/5917 (3). Pres. h. 4.8; pres. w. 8.0; d. of rim ca. 17; wall th. 0.3. Rim sherd of hemispherical bowl. Reddish brown fabric. Dark brown paint on white slip. Dots at rim, ladder pattern at rim, pendent vertical ladder, hatched

parallel vertical bands with small circle to either side. White Slip II. Bates, Pottery, fig. 2. 7.82 Bowl Pl. 5 Peabody Museum acc. no. 46-4-40/5917 (5). Pres. h. 4.9; pres. w. 4.3; d. of rim ca. 19; wall th. 0.45. Rim sherd of hemispherical bowl. Reddish fabric, grayer at interior. Dark brown paint on light gray slip. Ladder pattern below rim, vertical hatched parallel bands. White Slip II. Bates, Pottery, fig. 4. 7.83 Bowl Handle Pl. 5 Peabody Museum acc. no. 46-4-40/5917 (6). Pres. length 7.4. Wishbone handle with potmark underneath tip, incised after firing. Reddish brown fabric, grayer near surfaces. Dark brown paint on white slip. Handle bases encircled, groups of four parallel bands, outer bands thicker, on top of handle. Small part of circle pres. at handle tip. White Slip II. Bates, Pottery, fig. 5. 7.84 Bowl Pl. 5 Peabody Museum acc. no. 46-4-40/5917 (7). Pres. length 6.0; pres. w. 4.0; wall th. 0.55. Body sherd of a bowl. Reddish brown fabric with gray core. Dark brown paint on white slip. Tails of two parallel bands. White Slip II. Bates, Pottery, fig. 6. 7.85 Bowl Pl. 5 Peabody Museum acc. no. 46-4-40/5917 (8). Pres. h. 3.4; pres. w. 5.2; d. of rim ca. 15; wall th. 0.4. Rim sherd of a hemispherical bowl. Reddish fabric with gray core, white inclusions. Dark brown paint on white slip. Dots at rim, neat ladder pattern below rim, vertical ladder pattern and trace of vertical element at left. Red stain on much of bowl interior and small part of exterior. White Slip II. Bates, Pottery, fig. 7. 7.86 Bowl Pl. 6 Peabody Museum acc. no. 46-4-40/5917 (9). Pres. h. 3.5; pres. w. 2.8; d. of rim ca. 13–14; wall th. 0.35. Rim sherd of hemispherical bowl. Dark brown paint on bright white slip. Small dots at lip, horizontal ladder pattern below rim. Vertical pattern of double crosshatched lozenges framed by parallel bands. White Slip II. Bates, Pottery, fig. 8. 7.87 Bowl Pl. 6 Peabody Museum acc. no. 46-4-40/5917 (10). Pres. h. 4.3; pres. w. 2.5; wall th. 0.5. Rim sherd of hemispherical bowl. Dark brown paint on white slip. Dots at rim, horizontal ladder pat-

AEGEAN POTTERY AND SELECTED CYPRIOT POTTERY

tern below, traces of vertical lines at left and right. White Slip II. Bates, Pottery, fig. 9. 7.88 Bowl Not ill. Peabody Museum acc. no. 46-4-40/5917 (11). Pres. h. 3.0; pres. w. 2.9; wall th. 0.5. Rim sherd of hemispherical bowl. Slight carination below rim. Dark brown paint on bright white slip. Dots at rim, horizontal ladder pattern below lip. White Slip II. Bates, Pottery, fig. 10. 7.89 Bowl Pl. 6 Peabody Museum acc. no. 46-4-40/5917 (12). Pres. h. 4.5; pres. w. 4.2; wall th. 0.35. Body sherd. Dark brown paint on white slip. Part of vertical ladder pattern. White Slip II. Bates, Pottery, fig. 11. 7.90 Bowl Pl. 6 Peabody Museum acc. no. 46-4-40/5917 (13). Pres. h. 5.7; pres. w. 3.6; wall th. 0.4. Body sherd. Dark brown paint on white slip. Trace of horizontal band at top, vertical hatched parallel bands with small pendent lozenges to either side. White Slip II. Bates, Pottery, fig. 12. 7.91 Bowl Not ill. Peabody Museum acc. no. 46-4-40/5917 (14). Pres. h. 4.7; pres w. 4.8; wall th. 0.35. Body sherd. Dark brown paint on white slip. Neat hooked lozenge chain framed by horizontal ladder patterns. Trace of vertical element at lower right. White Slip II. Bates, Pottery, fig. 13. 7.92 Bowl Pl. 6 Peabody Museum acc. no. 46-4-40/5917 (15A & B). Pres. h. 4.8; pres. w. 4.6; d. of rim ca. 18; wall th. 0.4. Two joining rim sherds from a hemispherical bowl. Dark brown paint on brownish white slip. Hooked lozenge chain framed by horizontal ladders. White Slip II. Bates, Pottery, fig. 14.

15

7.93 Bowl Pl. 6 Peabody Museum acc. no. 46-4-40/5917 (16). Pres. h. 3.9; pres. w. 3.5; wall th. 0.6. Rim sherd of a hemispherical bowl. Dots at rim, sloppy hooked lozenge chain framed by horizontal ladders. White Slip II. Bates, Pottery, fig. 15. 7.94 Bowl Pl. 6 Peabody Museum acc. no. 46-4-40/5917 (17). Pres. h. 4.4; pres. w. 2.8. Body sherd. Dark brown paint on white slip. Vertical and horizontal ladder patterns with trace of a horizontal element (lozenges?) at top right. White Slip II. Bates, Pottery, fig. 16. 7.95 Bowl Pl. 6 Peabody Museum acc. no. 46-4-40/5917 (20). Pres. h. 4.9; pres. w. 3.9; wall th. 0.4. Body sherd. Dark brown paint on white slip. Vertical ladder pattern. Line of demarcation on slip due to firing. White Slip II. Bates, Pottery, fig. 19. 7.96 Bowl Pl. 6 Peabody Museum acc. no. 46-4-40/5917 (21). Pres. h. 3.5; pres. w. 4.4; wall th. 0.3. Body sherd. Sherd is burned. Dark brown paint on white slip. Horizontal ladder pattern and two vertical crosshatched lozenges framed by vertical bands. White Slip II. Bates, Pottery, fig. 20. 7.97 Bowl Pl. 6 Peabody Museum acc. no. 46-4-40/5917 (22). Pres. h. 3.3; pres. w. 3.8; wall th. 0.4. Body sherd. Dark brown paint on white slip. Ladder pattern and end of two parallel bands. White Slip II. Bates, Pottery, fig. 21. 7.98 Bowl Pl. 6 Peabody Museum acc. no. 46-4-40/5917 (23). Pres. h. 5.1; pres. w. 4.1; wall th. 0.4. Body sherd. Dark brown paint on white slip. End of vertical ladder pattern. White Slip II. Bates, Pottery, fig. 22.

16

MARSA MATRuH

Chapter 7 Notes 1. 1985 Report, 77. 2. Mountjoy, Decorated Pottery, 50. 3. Mountjoy, Decorated Pottery, 101, 103. 4. Mountjoy, Decorated Pottery, 68, fig. 77:23. 5. For examples from a cemetery at Ialysos on Rhodes that also produced Cypriot imports, see Mee, pls. 2.3 and 18.3. 6. Furumark, 94–95. 7. Haskell, personal communication, April 2, 1991. 8. Bates, Pottery, 203, pl. 21:3, 3a; 1985 Report, 77, fig. 28. 9. Compare SCE IV:1C, fig. 82:5. 10. SCE IV:1D, 760. 11. Compare SCE IV:1C, 449, fig. 53. 12. SCE IV:1D, 760. 13. See M. Popham in SCE IV:1C, 445–447; P. Russell in South et al. 1989, 2–3. 14. Russell 1986, 48. 15. Russell in South et al. 1989, 2–3; Russell 1986, 44–53.

16. 50–51. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

For the chronological argument, see Russell 1986,

SCE IV:1D, 702–703. Merrillees, 82, no. 91, pl. 26:1. Bates, Pottery, 203, pl. 22:5a–c. See 7.83, Pl. 5. Compare SCE IV:1C, fig. 51:1–3. SCE IV:1D, 700–701. Merrillees, 198, n. 77. Russell 1991, 134. Oren, 140–142. SCE IV:1C, 221–224. SCE IV:1D, 701. Merrillees, 169–175, 199. Compare SCE IV:1C, fig. 44:1, 2. SCE IV:1D, 700. Merrillees, 81–86. Mee, 85–86. Bass, ulu Burun 1986, 12. http://www.nautarch.tamu.edu/INA/ub-ceramics.htm. Hankey, 129.

Chapter 8

BRONZE AGE PLAIN POTTERY: EGYPTIAN, CANAANITE, AND CYPRIOT Linda Hulin

Catalog The Lamps (Fig. 8:1, Pl. 6, nos. 8.1–8.7) Seven Late Bronze Age lamps were recovered from Bates’s Island.1 As might be expected, they all display clear signs of use. Only one, 8.1, comes from a secure context architecturally: the lower phase of the hearth in the northeast corner of Room S119, but it is noteworthy that 8.4 and 8.6 both derive from deposits rich in fish and animal bones; 8.7 was found in association with quantities of snails, limpets and other edible marine shells; 8.2 and 8.3 were found in a surface context.* 8.1 Lamp Fig. 8:1; Pl. 6 87I-P-67. D4-I/II, 3.2. Pres. length 5.0; w. 5.5; h. 3.5; wall th. 1.1. Nozzle fragment from lamp. Wide flaring shape. Tan clay with large white inclusions. Traces of scorching on exterior and around nozzle. Dark sooty stain down one side of interior. Canaanite?

As is the case with Chapters 7 and 12, time and circumstances did not permit the author of this chapter to make a full analysis of every sherd from each deposit. The following reflects, instead, her analysis of a broad, representative sample. Given the lack of distinctive surface decoration, photo*

8.2 Lamp Fig. 8:1; Pl. 6 89I-P-28. E4-II/E, 1.1. Pres. length 3.5; pres. w. 6.3; wall th. 0.6. Rim fragment from lamp. Pointed rim with external smoothing and S-shaped body. Some blackening from wick. Soft cream fabric, well-levigated, some chaff temper, few tiny black grits. Cypriot. Compare SCE IV:1D, 586. 8.3 Lamp Fig. 8:1 85I-P-20. E4-III, 1.1. Pres. length 5.3; pres. w. 3.5; wall th. 0.6. Single fragment broken all around, preserving rounded base and part of pinched wall. Gray fabric and surface, small grit inclusions. Wheelmade, slipped. Fabric: 10YR 6/1; Surface: 10YR 6/3. Canaanite? Compare Lachish II, pl. 45: 1094. 8.4 Lamp Fig. 8:1 85I-P-19. E4-III, 2.3. Pres. h. 3.8; pres. w. 5.3; wall th. 1.65. Fragment of lamp nozzle. Open lamp with pinched nozzle. Blackened area from burning at rim and on interior. Pale orange fabric with gray inclusions and gray

graphic illustrations have been kept to the minimum. Where Bronze Age plain pottery not included here was noted in the deposit entries discussed in the chapters on the island’s architecture, it was designated as “uncataloged” [Ed.].

18

MARSA MATRuH

Fig. 8:1. Late Bronze Age lamps. core. Slipped. Fabric: 10YR 6/2 (core) near 5YR 7/6 (surface). Canaanite. 8.5 Lamp Fig. 8:1 87I-P-68. H5-II, 4.2. Length 5.6; w. 4.8; wall th. 1.1. Fragment of pinched nozzle of open lamp. Blackened area from burning at rim interior and exterior. Coarse pale brown clay with numerous black inclusions. Canaanite. 8.6 Lamp Pl. 6 85I-P-49. E4-III, 2.1. H. 5. 8 cm; wall th. 1.1. Nearly complete lamp with part of one side and back missing. Open lamp with pinched sides. Nozzle much blackened from burning. Pinkish orange fabric with many medium-to-large gray grit inclusions. Matt pink orange slip. Wheelmade. Fabric: near 5YR 7/6. Canaanite. Compare Lachish II, pl. 45: 1094. 8.7 Lamp Fig. 8:1; Pl. 6 89I-P-14. H5-III/W, 4.2. Pres. length 11.9; wall th. max. 1.4, min. 0.7.

Lamp fragment, just over half of the vessel present. Shallow body with folded over rim and pronounced pinch to spout. Pale creamish green fabric, with numerous tiny black grits. Blackening at spout. Cypriot.

Jar Stoppers (Nos. 8.8–8.15) The Late Bronze Age deposits on the island yielded eight jar stoppers (8.8–8.15), cut from body sherds of storage vessels. It is perhaps not surprising that all were found in the storage area to the northeast of the Sponge-Divers House, since it may be supposed that they served as temporary jar covers. Number 8.8 came from a deposit to the west of the stone scatter S128 that contained burned material. The remainder (8.9–8.15) derive from the deposit underneath S128, which also contained burned matter, as well as shells (although the latter were concentrated in an adjacent deposit [H5-III/W, 4.2] to the west), Egyptian

BRONZE AGE PLAIN POTTERY: EGYPTIAN, CANAANITE, AND CYPRIOT

19

pottery, and one Cypriot pithos sherd (below). Four of the stoppers were cut from Cypriot fabrics: 8.9, 8.11 and 8.12 from Plain White Ware, and 8.14 from a White Painted vessel. It was not possible to identify the coarse wares from which 8.8, 8.10, and 8.15 were cut. 8.8 Jar Stopper Not ill. 89I-P-9. H5-III/W, 3.2. Pres. length 7; pres. w. 4.3; wall th. 0.6. unidentified sherd of coarse fabric, recut as a jar stopper. Broken. 8.9 Jar Stopper Not ill. 89I-P-16. H5-III/W, 4.4. Pres. length 2.5; pres. w. 4.2; wall th. 0.5. Sherd from a Plain White closed shape, recut as a jar stopper. Broken. 8.10 Jar stopper Not ill. 89I-P-17. H5-III/W, 4.4. Pres. length 6.6; w. 3.8; wall th. 1.0. unidentified sherd of coarse fabric, recut as a jar stopper. Broken. 8.11 Jar Stopper Not ill. 89I-P-18. H5-III/W, 4.4. Length 5.2; w. 3.5; wall th. 0.4. Sherd from a Plain White closed shape, recut as a jar stopper. Complete: roughly oval, with one short straight side and one pointed end. 8.12 Jar Stopper Not ill. 89-P-19. H5-III/W, 4.4. Pres. length 3.1; pres. w. 2.7; wall th. 0.5. Sherd from a Plain White closed shape, recut as a jar stopper. Broken. 8.13 Jar Stopper Not ill. 89I-P-20. H5-III/W, 4.4. Pres. length 4.8; pres. w. 3.1; wall th. 0.7. Canaanite jar sherd, recut as jar stopper. Broken. 8.14 Jar Stopper Not ill. 89I-P-21. H5-III/W, 4.4. Pres. length 4.6; pres. w. 2.8; wall th. 0.5. Plain White sherd with traces of painted decoration (no clear design), recut as jar stopper. Broken. 8.15 Jar Stopper Not ill. 89I-P-22. H5-III/W, 4.4. Pres. length 6.1; pres. w. 4.1; wall th. 0.5. unidentified sherd of coarse fabric, recut as a jar stopper. Broken.

Fig. 8:2. Pot marks.

The Pot Marks (Fig. 8:2, Pl. 6, nos. 8.16–8.20) Eight different pot marks were found at Marsa Matruh, a surprisingly high number given the smallness of the site. Two occur on White Slip Ware (7.81 from Bates’s expedition and 7.41 found by the modern project). Of the remaining six, all but one (8.20) were found in the Southern Cluster: 8.16 in a windblown fill area in the S119 workshop, 8.17 in surface material above the middle section of ramp S122, and 8.18 and 8.19 in occupational debris belonging to S107. Number 8.20 was found during balk cleaning. Three of the pot marks occur on Canaanite jar handles (8.16, 8.18, and 8.20); that on 8.16 occurs most commonly on Cypriot or Mycenaean pottery, although an example on a Canaanite jar is known from Tel Nami. The sign on 8.18 is common on Canaanite jars. Numbers 8.17 and 8.19 are Cypriot Plain White vessels; the sign on 8.17 is typical of those found on Cypriot and Mycenaean pottery; that on 8.19 is unusual in that it is incised upon the body of the vessel, not the handle, but such a position is a hallmark of signs on Cypriot pottery. The pot marks from Marsa Matruh have been briefly studied by N. Hirschfeld in her as yet unpublished Ph.D. thesis.2 After reviewing the evidence for Egypt in general, Hirschfeld concludes that the marked Aegean (including Cypriot) pottery was incised on Cyprus. Thus, she

20

MARSA MATRuH

regards the marked pottery from Egypt (and Matruh) as supporting her argument that Cypriot traders became increasingly important to Mediterranean trade networks as both instigators and middlemen, a role totally in sympathy with the interpretation of the site (see Chapter 15).

8.20 Handle Fig. 8:2 87I-P-80. H5-II, Balk Cleaning. Pres. length 7.8; body w. 7.0; handle d. 3.2 upper part of handle from Canaanite jar. Orange fabric, gray core, large white grits, chaff temper. Complex incised mark.

8.16 Handle Pl. 6 87I-P-77. D4-I/II, N. Balk, 2.1. Length 6.0; body w. 8.2; th. 0.7; handle length 5.2; d. of handle 2.6. Lower part of handle from Canaanite jar. Orange fabric with gray core, some white inclusions, and chaff temper. Incised vertical line, intersecting with two diagonal lines near top. Sign = Linear A/E 20; cf. Cl. III se (usually painted on jars) and C.15b/SM.XV in J.F. Daniel, “Prolegomena to the Cypro-Minoan Script,” AJA 45 (1941) 281; no. 6104 from el-Amarna, Hirschfeld 1999, table 6.3.

The Egyptian Wares (Figs. 8:3–8:5, Pls. 6, 7, nos. 8.21–8.83)

8.17 Handle Not ill. 87I-P-61. E4-Center 1.1. Length 7.8; body w. 7.3; wall th. 0.7; handle length 5; handle w. 3.3; handle th. 1.8. Lower part of handle from Cypriot Plain White vessel. Incised with two vertical and one horizontal line. Very common on Cypriot pottery, cf. South et al. 1989, K-AD 134, 234 and 619, fig. 29. 8.18 Handle Fig. 8:2, Pl. 6 85I-P-56. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. h. 6.5; handle w. 3.3. Single fragment of body wall and upper part of handle from Canaanite jar. Oval vertical handle with three parallel horizontal bands incised on top of handle before firing. Orange fabric with thick gray core, many white grit inclusions, and burned organic material. Fabric: 10YR 4/1 (core); surface 7.5YR 6/4 5YR 6/6. 8.19 Body Fragment Not ill. Not inv. F4-III, 3.1. Dimensions not available. Body sherd from Cypriot Plain White vessel. Orange fabric, numerous black and some white inclusions; chaff temper. Fabric: 10YR 8/3 (core) 10YR 4/1. Incised with two sets of parallel lines, making rough square. Sign = CM 68. Compare South et al. 1989, K-AD 619 and K-AD 720, fig. 29; 2 examples from Enkomi; Hirschfeld 1999, table 4.5; 1 example from Maison E at ugarit in M. Yon et al., Le centre de la ville: 38e-44e campagnes (1978-1984). (Paris, 1987), 83, fig. 88, no. 81/635; Hirschfeld 1999, table 2 Minet el-Beidha p.t.1: tomb 1.

Egyptian pottery was found in significant amounts on Bates’s Island, accounting for roughly 17% of the island’s total pottery (for a discussion of the implications of this situation, see Chapter 15). By far the most frequent fabric found on the site is a limestone-tempered siltware with abundant white (limestone) grits and large (up to 3 mm.) ocher inclusions.3 The ware appears in two variants. The most common (A) is pinkish buff (5YR 5/4–7.5YR 5/4), frequently with a pinkish (5YR 7/4) cream self-slip, pock marked where the limestone burned off during firing. The most common shape is a simple flaring bowl with a flat (e.g., 8.35) or gently curved base (e.g., 8.37), with straight (e.g., 8.37) or gently curving walls and a plain or a vertical rim. The estimated diameter of the bowls varies from 10–25 cm. with the majority being around 15 cm.; 8.32 is an unusually large example. Decoration, where present, is simple: pale red to red paint used either as a wash on one or both surfaces (e.g., 8.23), or swirled on the inside of the bowls (e.g., 8.37), or painted along the rim (e.g., 8.57). The general scheme of a redslipped siltware with painted rim is well-known in the Nile Valley for an extended period (e.g. Aston 1996b, figs. 187, 206). Bowls dominate the limestone siltware A repertoire on Bates’s Island, and it is of note that the other shapes in the ware are unusual or unique. Jars 8.49, 8.63, 8.67, and 8.72 are not sufficiently preserved to comment on, but jars 8.28, 8.74, and 8.75 are unique shapes. Number 8.47 is an unusual double-pierced lug handle from a bowl. Juglet 8.70 (handle 8.76, and pithos 8.79) may well be imitations of a Cypriot types; number 8.56, a shallow, handled cup, also seems to echo Aegean examples.

BRONZE AGE PLAIN POTTERY: EGYPTIAN, CANAANITE, AND CYPRIOT

The less common limestone tempered siltware, variant B (six examples are included: 8.36, 8.41– 8.43, 8.50, and 8.81) is dark gray to black, frequently with a thick cream slip. It seems to have been used for heavier, closed forms. Wall thickness is 2–3 times greater than that found in type A. Although closed forms predominate, for type B one large bowl is present (8.36). Number 8.48 is a related fabric, mixed with marl, but the shape is not readily identifiable. Limestone siltware A and B are peculiar to Bates’s Island and do not occur, as might have been expected, at nearby Zawiyet umm el-Rakham. A small rim sherd from a bowl was found on survey, however, along with other Egyptian fabrics,4 and another bowl rim from the fortress itself presents, from the point of view of its inclusions, a bridge between the two fabrics.5 Clearly the inhabitants of Matruh made much of their own pottery; this was not the case with pottery from the fortress at Zawiyet umm el-Rakham where virtually all of the ceramics were imported from the Nile Valley. There, the pattern reflects that noted by Bourriau for Nubia, where the commonest of drinking cups were imported from Egypt proper;6 Matruh reflects a pattern similar to the one found by Oren in Horuba, north Sinai, opposite where a kiln site was uncovered, which clearly was used for the manufacture of Egyptian shapes in local fabric for the chain of local fortresses.7 Finally, other marls and marl/silt mixes are present, but as very few or single examples: slab 8.48; open vessels 8.60 and 8.61; jars 8.62, 8.68, and 8.69; and bowls 8.73 and 8.75. Given the preponderance of bowls on the island, it is not particularly useful to plot the distribution of individual shapes. It is interesting to note, however, that Egyptian wares occur both in E4-Center, F4-III, (Rooms S102, S107, and S120) and in the storage area in the Northern Cluster between walls S118 and S121 (in the latter in unit H5-II 3.1). The majority of the bowls (and thus most of the Egyptian wares) occur in the upper levels of Room S119 in association with metalworking activity. That same association occurs in the Northern Cluster. Insofar as the occupation levels on the island can be separated into phases, there is a clear bias in the distribution of Egyptian wares across the site.

21

Egyptian sherds dominate the upper levels of Room S119 but are absent from the lower phase. They are entirely absent from the lower levels of Room S120, and a mere handful of examples come from Rooms S107, S125, and S136. A surprisingly large percentage of sherds in the collapse layers of S102 are Egyptian (38%), but only 5 sherds come from the secure levels of that room. In the Northern Cluster, Egyptian wares accounted for 7% of the material from the upper levels of the area between S118 and S121, 5% from the lower levels, and 5% of the sherds from between S121 and S126a and b. Thus, it would appear that Egyptian pottery has its closest association with the site’s metalworking and its least association with the site’s occupation (see Chapter 15). 8.21 Bowl Not ill. Not inv. D4-I/II, 1.1. Dimensions not available. Plain rim sherd from simple flaring limestone tempered siltware A bowl. 8.22 Bowl Not ill. Not inv. D4-I/II, 1.1. Dimensions not available. Plain rim sherd from flaring limestone tempered siltware. Traces of pink wash on interior surface. 8.23 Bowl Not ill. Not inv. D4-I/II, 3.1. Dimensions not available. Limestone tempered siltware A bowl. Plain rim, gently curving sides. Base missing. Red wash on interior and exterior surfaces. 8.24 Bowl Fig. 8:3 Not inv. E4-Center, 1.1. Pres. length 3.5; wall th. 0.6; rest. rim d. 21.5. Plain rim sherd from deep straight-sided limestone tempered siltware A bowl. Simple bowls, plain, or with black or red bands along the rim, are common throughout the New Kingdom. Relevant to the dating of Bates’s Island are parallels from Amenophis III (Aston 1996A, pl. 2:7), Akhenaten (AR I, fig. 10.1/5), and Merenptah (Aston 1998, pl. 5:47). 8.25 Bowl Fig. 8:3 Not inv. E4-Center, 1.1. Pres. length 8.4; pres. h. 5.3; wall th. 1.0; rest. rim d. 18. Profile of large bowl. Flaring everted rim, flaring sides, ring base. Limestone tempered siltware A.

22

MARSA MATRuH

Fig. 8:3. Egyptian wares.

BRONZE AGE PLAIN POTTERY: EGYPTIAN, CANAANITE, AND CYPRIOT

Compare Aston 1996A, 1, a Nile B2 uncoated example dating to Tuthmosis IV or Amenophis III; the shape continues into the 19th Dynasty; cf. Aston 1998, 68, 72, dating to Merenptah. 8.26 Bowl Fig. 8:3 Not inv. E4-Center, 1.1. Pres. length 11.0; wall th. 1.1; d. of rim 43.8. Everted rim, carinated body (flaring collar rimmed bowl). Coarse marl fabric, red with a faint grayish core and chaff temper. Wheelmade. Red band on exterior rim, two more on interior body. Pairs of transverse black lines at rim. This type of bowl appears in a variety of fabrics in the New Kingdom, with various combinations of red bands, black bands, and horizontal ticks. For the Amarna period cf. CoA I, types V.1, VI.8, IX.14, and AR I, type 7. For the 19th Dynasty, see Aston 1998, no. 43. 8.27 Bowl Fig. 8:3 Not inv. E4-II/E, 1.1. Pres. length 5.5; wall th. 0.6; d. 18.7. Rim sherd from bowl. Everted rim, carinated body. Compare 8.26. 8.28 Jar Pl. 6 87I-P-81. E4-Center, 2.1. Pres. length 11.9; pres. w. 9.5; wall th. 1.1. Near profile of jar. Plain flaring rim, slight thickening on inner surface; sharply rounded belly. Rounded base missing. Pink slip, blackened on lower outer surface. Limestone tempered siltware A. 8.29 Jar Fig. 8:3 87I-P-44A. E4-II/E, 1.1. Pres length 3.0; pres. w. 4.3; wall th. 0.7; d. of rim ca. 16. Rim sherd from a storage jar. Pinkish buff fabric. Wheelmade. Squared grooved rim on slightly flared neck. Two horizontal bands of black paint running around neck area. 18th Dynasty. Compare Petrie and Brunton, pl. 60:24. 8.30 Bowl Fig. 8:3 Not inv. E4-II/E, 1.1. Pres. length 7; wall th. 0.3; rest. d. 12.0. Plain rim sherd from limestone tempered siltware A bowl. Fine ware, pink wash. The slight ring base on this piece is unusual, but cf. CoA I, XLVIII: IX/5. 8.31 Bowl Not ill. Not inv. E4-II/E, 1.1. Dimensions not available. Two body sherds of small bowl. Limestone tempered siltware A.

23

8.32 Bowl Fig. 8:3 Not inv. E4-II/E, 1.1. Th. 1.2; d. of rim 34.5. Slightly inverted rim sherd from large limestone tempered A siltware bowl. Traces of pink slip along rim. 8.33 Bowl Not ill. Not inv. E4II/E, 1.1. Plain rim sherd from bowl. Int. decorated with pink lines on pink slip. Limestone tempered siltware A. Compare 8.24. 8.34 Bowl Not ill. Not inv. E4-II/E, 1.1. Dimensions not available. Plain rim sherd from bowl. Traces of pink lines on exterior rim; interior surface eroded. Limestone tempered siltware A. Compare 8.24. 8.35 Bowl Fig. 8:3 Not inv. E4-II/E, 1.1. Pres. length 14.8; wall th. 0.5; d. of rim 25. Profile of large bowl with visible ocher inclusions. Plain rim, straightened on exterior, flaring walls, flattened base. Exterior surface eroded. Limestone tempered siltware A. Compare Aston 1996A, cat. no. 29 (18th Dynasty); Aston 1998, 70, 71 (19th Dynasty). 8.36 Bowl Fig. 8:4 Not inv. E4-III, W. Balk, 2.1. D. of bowl 37.5; wall th. 1.4. Near profile of wide bowl. Plain rim with groove around top. Limestone tempered siltware B. 8.37 Bowl Fig. 8:4; Pl. 6 85I-P-107. E4-III, 2.3. Pres. length 10.2; wall th. 08; pres. h. 5.7; d. of rim ca. 19. Several joining frags. preserving over one-third of vessel and complete profile of shallow hemispherical bowl. Round base, vertical rim with round lip, smoothed on exterior. Pinkish buff slip with streaks of red slip or paint with concentration on interior at bottom. Black from burning along small stretch of rim. Limestone tempered siltware A. Compare 8.24. 8.38 Bowl Fig. 8:4 Not inv. E4-II/E, 2.1. Pres. length 4.9; pres. w. 3.0; wall th. 0.5; d. of rim ca. 18. Plain rim sherd from bowl. Ext. surface eroded. Limestone tempered siltware A. Compare 8.24.

24

MARSA MATRuH

Fig. 8:4. Egyptian wares.

BRONZE AGE PLAIN POTTERY: EGYPTIAN, CANAANITE, AND CYPRIOT

8.39 Bowl Not ill. Not inv. E4-II/E, 2.1. Pres. length 3.4; pres. w. 2.0; wall th. 0.7; d. of rim 23. Plain rim from bowl; some large (up to 0.3 cm) ocher temper. Pock-marked white slip on interior and exterior surfaces. Limestone tempered siltware A. Compare 8.24. 8.40 Bowl Fig. 8:4 Not inv. E4-II/E, 2.1. Pres. length 3.8; pres. w. 3.0; wall th. 0.4–0.6. Flat base from bowl. Pinkish buff slip on interior and exterior surfaces. Limestone tempered siltware A. 8.41 Closed Vessel Not ill. Not inv. E4-II/E, 2.1. Pres. length 4.5; pres. w. 1.8; wall th. 1.0. Body sherd from closed vessel. unevenly fired. Limestone tempered siltware B.

25

8.47 Tab-Handled Bowl Pl. 6 85I-P-53. E4-III, 2.4. Handle length 2.8; handle w. 3.1; wall th. 1.0; d. of rim ca. 25. Single fragment preserving small part of rim and complete handle of bowl. Horizontal tab handle at lip: rounded, pierced twice. Limestone tempered siltware. Appears to be a unique piece. 8.48 Slab Pl. 6 85I-P-52. E4-III, 2.4. Pres. length 7.4; pres. w. 3.6; wall th. 1.6. Two joining fragments. Ceramic slab with two pointed ends, one wider than the other. Handle fragment (?). Deep reddish brown (2.5YR 3/4.) marl/silt mix with many small white inclusions. Handmade. It is difficult to determine the shape of the vessel to which such a fragment belongs.

8.42 Open Vessel Not ill. Not inv. E4-II/E, 2.1. Pres. length 5.1; pres. w. 3.5; wall th. 0.8. Body sherd from large open vessel. Limestone tempered siltware B.

8.49 Jar Not ill. Not inv. E4-III, 2.5. Pres. length 6.1; pres. w. 5.3; wall th. 0.7. Body sherd from shoulder of jar. White slip on exterior surface. Limestone tempered siltware A. One of the few jars in this fabric found on the island. See also 8.71, 8.72.

8.43 Open Vessel Not ill. Not inv. E4-II/E, 2.1. Pres. length 10.2; pres. w. 10.2; wall th. 0.9. Body sherd from open vessel. Large red ocher grits (up to 3.8 cm). Limestone tempered siltware B.

8.50 Closed Vessel Not ill. Not inv. E4-III, 2.5. Pres. length 3.3; pres. w. 5.3; wall th. 1.5 Body sherd from closed vessel. Cream slip on exterior surface. Limestone tempered siltware B.

8.44 Bowl Not ill. Not inv. E4-II/E, 2.1. Pres. length 1.9; pres. w. 2.0; wall th. 0.5; d. of rim 14. Plain rim sherd from bowl. Traces of pinkish slip on interior. Limestone tempered siltware A. Compare 8.24.

8.51 Bowl Not ill. Not inv. E4-III, 2.6. Pres. length 3.8; pres. w. 2.8; wall th. 0.5; d. of rim 25. Plain, inward sloping rim from bowl. Traces of pock-marked white slip on interior and exterior surfaces. Limestone tempered siltware A.

8.45 Bowl Not ill. Not inv. E4II-E, 2.4. Pres. length 1.3; pres. w. 1.7; wall th. 0.4. Plain rim sherd from bowl. Traces of red slip on interior and exterior surfaces. Limestone tempered siltware A. Compare 8.24. 8.46 Bowl Not ill. Not inv. E4-II/E, 2.1. Pres. length 2.3; pres. w. 1.9; wall th. 0.5. Plain rim from bowl. Traces of red slip on interior and exterior surfaces. Limestone tempered siltware A. Compare 8.24.

8.52 Open Vessel Not ill. Not inv. E4-III, 2.6. Pres. length 4.5; pres. w. 3.3; wall th. 1.5. Body sherd from large open vessel. White slip on interior and exterior surfaces. Limestone tempered siltware A. An unusually large bowl in the Bates’s Island repertoire. 8.53 Closed Vessel Not ill. Not inv. E4-III, 2.6. Pres. length 6.7; pres. w. 5.4; wall th. 0.8. Body sherd from large closed vessel. Slip on exterior, one large (1.0 cm) ocher grit showing through.

26

MARSA MATRuH

Incised horizontal line on exterior surface: string-line from construction process? Limestone tempered siltware A. 8.54 Bowl Not ill. Not inv. E4-III, 3.3. Pres. length 3.9; pres. w. 2.8; wall th. 0.3; d. of rim 14. Plain rim from bowl. Pinkish slip on exterior and interior surfaces. Limestone tempered siltware A. Compare 8.24, above. 8.55 Bowl Not ill. Not inv. E4-III, 3.3. Pres. length 3.7; pres. w. 1.9; wall th. 0.4; d. of rim 15. Plain rim from bowl. Pinkish slip on exterior and interior surfaces. Limestone tempered siltware A. Compare 8.24, above. 8.56 Cup Fig. 8:4 Not inv. F4-III, 2.2. Pres. length 5.3; pres. w. 4.0; wall th. 0.3; d. of rim 10. Two joining rim frags. from shallow cup with flat vertical strap handle (stump at top extant). Traces of white slip on exterior and exterior surfaces. Limestone tempered siltware A. Not a usual shape in the Egyptian repertoire, but echoes Aegean shapes, cf. Mountjoy Decorated Pottery, 62, types 112 and 113 (but here shallower). 8.57 Bowl Not ill. 85I-P-75. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. length 5.8; pres. w. 5.5; wall th. 0.7; d. of rim ca. 18. Single rim fragment from a shallow bowl with slightly incurving rim, rounded lip. Matt red band at rim, extending 0.8 cm. into interior and 0.4 cm. onto exterior Fabric: 5YR 5/6; slip: 7.5YR 8/2; paint 10R 5/6. Limestone tempered siltware A. 8.58 Bowl Fig. 8:4; Pl. 7 85I-P-109. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. length 3.8; wall th. 0.4; d. of rim ca. 10. Two joining rim frags. from a bowl with convex walls and small everted offset rim. Black from burning along one stretch of rim. Pink pocked slip. Fabric: 2.5YR 6/6; slip: 5YR 8/4. Limestone tempered siltware A. Compare Aston 1996a, cat. no. 22 (18th Dynasty). 8.59 Bowl Not ill. 85I-P-110. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. length 5.8; wall th. 0.4; d. of rim ca. 11. Complete profile of a bowl with conical base, flaring walls, convex upper body, and small everted off-

set rim. Fabric: 5YR 6/4; slip 5YR 8/4. Limestone tempered siltware A. Compare 8.58. 8.60 Open Vessel Not ill. 87I-P-2. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. length 3.6; pres. w. 5.7; wall th. 1.1. Body fragment from an open vessel. Hard-fired fabric, relatively fine. Dark brick red on black to dark charcoal gray core. Fine creamy white inclusions along with fine large black inclusions. Int. darkened by fire (?). Nile B2 uncoated. 8.61 Open Vessel Not ill. Not inv. F4-III, 1.1 Pres. length 1.8; pres. w. 2.1; wall th. 1.2. Body fragment from an open vessel. Fabric hard fired. Light reddish brown, with pale white on exterior. Red core with white inclusions, some chaff temper. Marl D. 8.62 Jug/Jar Pl. 7 87I-P-3. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. length 3.4; pres. w. 4.3; wall th. 0.6. Rim of open vessel, either jug or jar. Relatively fine fabric, hard-fired. Outturned rim. Pink to red fabric with grayish core. Some dark and light inclusions, chaff temper. 0.3 cm. wide dark brown painted band 2 cm. below rim on exterior. 8.63 Closed Vessel Not ill. Not inv. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. length 3.4; pres. w. 5.1; wall th. 0.8. Body sherd from large closed vessel, white slip on exterior surface. Limestone tempered siltware A. 8.64 Open Vessel Not ill. Not inv. F4-III 3.1. Pres. length 4.2; pres. w. 4.1; wall th. 0.9. Flat base fragment from large open vessel. Limestone tempered siltware A. 8.65 Bowl Not ill. Not inv. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. length 3.8; pres. w. 3.1; wall th. 0.4. Flat base from bowl. Traces of white slip on exterior and interior surfaces. Limestone tempered siltware A. 8.66 Bowl Not ill. Not inv. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. length 3.7; pres. w. 2.9; wall th. 0.5; d. of rim 2.5. Plain rim sherd from bowl. Traces of red slip on interior surface. Limestone tempered siltware A. Compare 8.24.

BRONZE AGE PLAIN POTTERY: EGYPTIAN, CANAANITE, AND CYPRIOT

8.67 Jar (?) Not ill. Not inv. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. length. 2.1; pres. w. 2.3; wall th. 0.4; d. of rim ca. 3. Plain rim from jar. Limestone tempered siltware A. Numbers 8.68 and 8.69 represent fairly coarse examples of a painted jar with bichrome motif. This ware was influenced by the Bichrome Wares of Cyprus and Palestine and has a long history in Egypt throughout the New Kingdom as a more refined type of tableware. Compare EGA, cat. no. 55 for a much finer example from the early New Kingdom. 8.68 Jar Pl. 7 85I-P-108. F4-III, 3.2. Pres. length 6.1; wall th. 0.75; d. of rim ca. 15. Single rim fragment from a jar with cylindrical neck and everted convex rim. Orange-buff slip, dark brown paint on rim. Orange fabric with voids and grit inclusions. Fabric: 5YR 7/6; slip: 5YR 7/6; paint: 5YR 3/2 to 2.5YR 3/2. 8.69 Jar Pl. 7 87I-P-11. F4-III, 3.2. Pres. length 6.5; pres. w. 13.1; d. of rim 12. Single rim fragment from a jar with cylindrical neck with everted convex rim. Paint on rim. 8.70 Juglet Fig. 8:4; Pl. 7 85I-P-65. F4-III, 5.1. Pres. length 2.7; wall th. 0.35; d. of rim 3.7; handle th. 1.0. Single fragment preserving complete mouth and part of handle. Pinched rim, vertical handle from just below lip. Fabric: 5YR 7/3–7/4; surface: 10YR 8/3 (slip). Limestone tempered siltware A. This type of juglet is unusual in the repertoire, and suggests Aegean shapes, cf. 7.69–7.74, the White Shaved juglets. 8.71 Bowl Not ill. Not inv. F5-I/W, 2.1. Dimensions not available. Plain rim fragment from a bowl. Pink wash on interior and exterior surfaces. Limestone tempered siltware A. Compare 8.24. 8.72 Jar Not ill. Not inv. Sponge-Divers House interior, 1.1. Pres. length 6.2; pres. w. 7.0; wall th. 0.5. Body fragment from shoulder of a jar. White slip on exterior surface. Limestone tempered siltware A. 8.73 Bowl Fig. 8:4; Pl. 7 87I-P-24. H5-I, 2.1. Pres. length 3.2; pres. w. 5.6; wall th. 0.4; d. of rim 15. Plain, slightly everted rim sherd from carinated bowl. Orange-buff marl fabric, well-levigated, no dis-

27

cernable grits. Thick cream slip on exterior. New Kingdom (?). 8.74 Cooking/Storage Jar Fig. 8:4 Not inv. H5-II, 3.1. Length 5.6; d. of rim 14.3. Plain rim and upper body from flaring jar. Horizontal ridge below exterior rim (for lid?). Pinkish wash on exterior. Limestone tempered siltware A. An extremely unusual shape in the repertoire. 8.75 Jar Fig. 8:4 Not inv. 5-II, 3.1. Length 6.0; d. of neck 12.0. Shoulder from a one-or two-handled jar. Straight neck, vertical handle scar. Pink wash on exterior. Limestone tempered siltware A. Compare Petrie and Brunton, pl. 62.3 29/30. 8.76 Vessel (Juglet?) Fig. 8:4 Not inv. H5-II, 3.1. Length 3.3; d. of handle 1.4. Cylindrical handle from a vessel. Pinkish wash. Limestone tempered siltware A. Size and shape of this handle suggests that it may come from a small juglet. See also 8.70. 8.77 Bowl Not ill. Not inv. H5-II, 3.1. Dimensions not available. Rim fragment from small bowl. Cream slip on reddish buff marl fabric, gray core; tiny white grits. 8.78 Bowl Not ill. Not inv. H5-II, 3.1. Dimensions not available. Flat base of large bowl. Thick cream slip with pinkish tinge on interior and exterior. Limestone tempered siltware A. 8.79 Pithos Fig. 8:5 Not inv. H5-II, 3.1. Length 6.0; wall. th. 1.5; d. of base 11.5. Flat base fragment from pithos. Limestone siltware A. This fragment, despite being of local fabric, clearly recalls the Cypriot pithos bases so numerous in the area where this sherd was found. While flat-based storage jars are not usual in the Egyptian repertoire, they are not unknown. For a similar flat base, but in Nile D uncoated, see Aston 1998, cat. nos. 256 and 364, both dating to Ramesses IV.

28

MARSA MATRuH

Fig. 8:5. Egyptian wares. 8.80 Bowl Fig. 8:5 Not inv. H5-II, 5.2. Pres. length 5; wall th. 0.7; d. of rim 19. Plain rim sherd from a bowl, pink wash on interior and exterior. Red band at rim. Compare 8.24. 8.81 Storage Vessel Fig. 8:5 Not inv. H5-III/ W, 4.4. Pres. length 8.4; pres. w. 3.6; wall th. 1.1. Body fragment from storage vessel. Limestone tempered siltware B. New Kingdom. 8.82 Bowl Pl. 7 87I-P-12. I6-I/II, sect. 4, 1.1. a. Rim to base profile: sherd length 4; pres. w: 4.8; vessel pres. h. 1.8; d. of rim 14; wall th. 0.5. b. Base fragment Pres. length 2.2; pres. w. 2.7; wall th. 0.5. c. Base fragment Pres. length 3.5; pres. w. 3.2; wall th. 0.5. d. Body fragment Pres. length 2.4; pres. w. 2.5: wall th. 0.5. e. Body fragment Pres. length 1.5; pres. w. 3.5; wall th. 0.5. Five non-joining fragments from a shallow bowl. Traces of pinkish slip on interior and exterior. Stone tempered siltware A. Compare 8.24. 8.83 Bowl Fig. 8:5 Not inv. I6-I/II, sect. 4, 1.1. Length 12.5; wall th. 1.3; d. of rim ca. 35. Rim fragment from bowl. Squared-off rim, three rows of rope decoration below exterior rim. Exterior

dark grayish black; interior dark grayish black to reddish yellow (5YR 6/6), Nile B2 uncoated. Large bowls of this type are known from the 18th Dynasty and continue into the 19th Dynasty. Generic parallels occur at Amarna (CoA I, pl. 67.4, VI/1007.B) and a closer parallel was found at the fortress at Zawiyet umm-el Rakham (Ramesses II/Merenptah year 5) (Snape, personal communication). An exact parallel, in terms of shape, was found outside the tomb of Ramesses IV (KV 2) (Aston 1998, 111).

The Cypriot Coarse Pottery (Figs. 8:6–8:11, Pls. 7, 8, nos. 8.84–8.148) Bates’s Island is in no small measure defined by the dominant presence of Cypriot coarse wares— jars, storage vessels and pithoi—found there. The vast majority occur in what must be termed the main storage area to the northwest of Bates’s Dump; Cypriot coarse wares comprise 81% of the pottery from the upper levels between S118 and S121, and 78% of the lower levels; 84% of the pottery from the upper levels of the area between S121 and S126a and b, and 100% of the lower. All the pithoi come from this area; although it is not surprising that this shape should be clustered, there would be no need to manhandle such an unwieldy shape to other locations on such a small site. The less bulky storage vessels are to be found

BRONZE AGE PLAIN POTTERY: EGYPTIAN, CANAANITE, AND CYPRIOT

in Room S119, where Cypriot wares account for 28% of the sherds in the upper levels (Egyptian wares predominate) but 84% in the lower levels. They occur to a lesser extent in Room S102, appearing in roughly equal measure with Egyptian and Canaanite wares in the collapse levels, and in the majority of the few sherds found in the lower levels of S102 and in S125. As might be expected, Cypriot sherds predominate (8.101–8.110) in the main area of shelter, Rooms S107 and S120; in the latter, Cypriot wares account for 71% of the sherds from the upper levels and 100% from the lower. Thus, Cypriot coarse wares predominate in the Northern Cluster, the main storage area, the living area, and the lower levels of the metalworking area. The most common fabric is Plain Ware, an overarching term used by Keswani8 to embrace fabric colors that range from pale yellowish brown to pinkish buff and even red, often with a buff or white slip and always with numerous black and often white, red, and chaff inclusions. The most common shape is the jar, generally flat-based (excepting the disc-based 8.93, and the ring-based 8.129 and 8.143) and both handmade and wheelmade. No trefoil rims have survived, but the poor state of rim preservation makes it impossible to identify exact rim type. The predominance of these jars is surprising. They were found on the Cape Gelidonya9 and Ayia Irini10 shipwrecks, but in small numbers. They are found at ugarit,11 always in small numbers, and they seem to be entirely absent from Kommos. They have the widest distribution across the site of all the Plain Ware shapes, but whether this is due to their greater numbers or wider utilitarian nature, it is impossible to judge. Painted jars are represented by 8.104–8.110, probably comprising one or two vessels at most. The pithoi, inasmuch as they can be typed (after Keswani’s groundbreaking study), fall with one exception (8.99, a Group II example) into Keswani’s Group I. Within that classification, the most common type is Group IB1 (8.98, 8.100, 8.115, 8.126, 8.136), itself the most frequent type within that group, a medium-sized pithos that represented the best compromise between portability and volume. It is difficult to gauge the significance of this. A crucial typological difference between

29

Keswani’s Groups I and II was the height and diameter of the neck.12 She argued that the former, being shorter, facilitated frequent access via scooping and dipping, whereas the latter were more likely to have been used for long-term storage. One might well expect more Group I vessels on a site that should probably be viewed as a land annex of a maritime site. The evidence from shipwrecks suggests that as well as serving as containers for agricultural produce (e.g., olives and fruit), they were also used as repositories for other items of trade (e.g., milk bowls),13 and thus the more easily accessible types would have been preferred. The Cape Gelidonya and uluburun wrecks held a mixture of the two types, whereas the few pithoi found 14 on the much smaller Ayia Irini shipwreck appear to belong solely to Keswani’s Group II. Of the land sites where Cypriot pithoi are to be found, ugarit15 yielded both Groups I and II, although the latter predominate, and the few pieces found at Kommos appear to belong to Group II.16 Examples from Sicily and Sardinia are fragmentary but seem to be of both types.17 Thus, the ceramic record at Bates’s Island appears to favor Group I pithoi more than one might expect, although this may be a false picture due to the size of the sample and, not least, to the site’s unknown relationship to the ships that called there (and their cargoes). The range of shapes found on Bates’s Island is, as one might expect, highly biased in favor of transport shapes. Nevertheless, the inclusion of more unusual shapes (e.g., 8.123, 8.145), together with cooking vessels, suggests an additional repertoire, perhaps personal to the mariners. For example, the burning noticeable on stand 8.145 suggests a functional use, rather than a pristine trade item. Most of the few White Painted storage vessel pieces found also come from the main area of shelter and may have been for personal use. These pieces, and the dominance of Group I pithoi, may further support a contention that the main character of the island was Cypriot. 8.84 Cooking Pot Not ill. Not inv. D4-I/II N. Balk, 2.1. Dimensions not available. Body fragment from a carinated cooking vessel. Dark red brown fabric, gray/black core, smoke-blackened exterior; tiny white stone grits. Wheelmade.

30

MARSA MATRuH

Fig. 8:6. Cypriot coarse pottery. 8.85 Storage Vessel Fig. 8:6 Not inv. D4-I/II, 3.1. Pres. h. 2.2; wall th. 0.5; d. of rim 8.6. Rim fragment from Plain Ware storage vessel. Handmade. 8.86 Jar Fig. 8:6 Not inv. D4-I/II, 3.1. Pres. h. 2.6; wall th. 0.4; d. of rim 9.1. Rim fragment from a Plain Ware jar. Stump of handle at rim. Handmade. Compare SCE IV:1C, LXVIII: 2 (Plain White Wheelmade I).

8.87 Jar Fig. 8:6 Not inv. D4-I/II, 3.1. Pres. h. 2.7; wall th. 0.6; d. of rim 9.3. Rim fragment from Plain Ware storage jar. Part of handle preserved at rim. Handmade. Compare Alasia II, fig. 119: 203. 8.88 Storage Vessel Fig. 8:6 Not inv. D4-I/II, 4.1. Pres. h. 8.2; wall th. 0.8; d. of base 11.4. Base from Plain Ware storage vessel, probably a jar. Handmade.

BRONZE AGE PLAIN POTTERY: EGYPTIAN, CANAANITE, AND CYPRIOT

8.89 Storage Vessel Not ill. Not inv. D4-I/II, 4.1. Dimensions not available. Base of large Plain Ware vessel. Buff fabric with slightly reddish patches, tiny black grits and chaff holes. Very gritty basee. Handmade. 8.90 Bowl Fig. 8:6 Not inv. E4-II/E, 1.1. Pres. h. 4.7; wall th. 1.0; d. of rim ca. 35. Square rim with inner ledge from large Plain Ware bowl. Pinkish fabric, numerous black grits. Compare Keswani, fig. 20:11; Lolos 1995, 73. 8.91 Storage Vessel Not ill. Not inv. E4-II/E, 1.1. Dimensions not available. Handle and part of body from Plain Ware jar. Slip 7.5YR 7/6–6/6, a reddish yellow, with fabric slightly darker. Numerous tiny black grits. 8.92 Storage Vessel Not ill. Not inv. E4-II/E, 1.1. Dimensions not available. Handle from Plain Ware storage vessel. Handmade. 8.93 Storage Jar Fig. 8:6 Not inv. E4-II/E, 1.1. Length 8.5; pres. h. 3.2; d. of base 10.4. Disc base from large Plain Ware storage jar. Ext. surface 7.5YR 7/6–6/6, fabric slightly darker, numerous tiny black grits. Wheelmade. Compare SCE IV:1C, LXIX: 7, Plain White Wheelmade I-II. 8.94 Cooking Pot Not ill. Not inv. E4-II/E, 3.1. Dimensions not available. Rim fragment from cooking pot. Orange clay; wheelmade; large white and some black grits; handmade. 8.95 Storage Vessel Fig. 8:6 Not inv. E4-II/E, 3.1. Pres. h. 7.4; max. handle d. 4.8; min. handle d. 2.8. Handle from large Plain Ware storage jar with thumb impression. 8.96 Cooking Vessel Not ill. 85I-P-21. E4-III, 1.1. Pres. h. 5.5; pres. w. 4.5; wall th. 0.6. Lower body fragment from cooking vessel. Hard dark gray fabric (10YR 5/1) with grit inclusions. Ext. rough and pocked. Smoothing marks on interior. Applied low rib preserved.

31

8.97 Pithos Not ill. 85I-P-106. E4-III, 2.3. Pres. h. 12.5; wall th. 1.9–2.2; d. of base ca. 25. Frag. base and lower body of large pithos with flat base and flaring walls. Light brown fabric (7.5YR 7/6) with yellowish buff slip (10YR 8/4) and many small black inclusions. Bottom of base very gritty. 8.98 Pithos Fig. 8:7 Not inv. E4-Center, 2.1. Pres. h. 10; wall th. 1.8; d. of rim 33.0. Rim sherd from Plain Ware large storage vessel. Orange/pink fabric; handmade. Compare Keswani, 15–17, fig. 16. This belongs to Keswani’s Group IB1 pithoi, probably in the lower end of the height range (56–80 cm.). They are found throughout Cyprus but are more common in the central and southeastern areas (e.g., Taylor, 372, 374, fig. 24; Karageorghis and Demas, 26, 87, pl. 39). Examples have been found in ugarit (Schaeffer, 12, 18, fig. 86). 8.99 Pithos Fig. 8:7 Not inv. E4-Center, 2.1. Pres. h. 11.5; wall th. 2.0; d. of rim 33.5. Rim fragment from, pithos with straight neck and everted rim. Pithos ware. Handmade. This belongs to Keswani’s Group II, a class defined by its tall, relatively constricted neck. The wall thickness and estimated rim diameter of this piece suggest that it belongs to the Size 1 subcategory, i.e., one under 70 cm. (cf. Keswani, fig. 17: 1–8), or less likely, to the smaller range of Size 2 (Keswani, fig. 17: 9–18). Size 1 pithoi seem to be largely confined to the southeast of Cyprus, while Size 2 have been found throughout the island. Both occur at ugarit (Schaeffer, 86: 6, 13, 19, 24, 25). 8.100 Pithos Pl. 7 85I-P-57. E4-III, 2.4. Pres. length 9.5; pres. w. 5.5; wall th. 1.3. Single fragment from pithos. Ext. treated with thin matt buff slip. Incised wavy line framed by straight horizontal bands. Yellowish gray fabric with many small grit inclusions. Fabric: 10YR 7/4; slip: 2.5Y 7/2. Handmade. Compare Keswani, K-AD fig. 16:21–23, Group IB1; Schaeffer, 86: 24, from Minet el-Beida. 8.101 Storage Vessel Pl. 7 85I-P-93. F4-III, 1.1. Pres. h. 9.1; pres. w. 10.4; wall th. 1.1–1.5. Body fragment from a medium-walled vessel. Light brown fabric (5YR 6/4–6/6) with small dark inclusions and a few small pebbles (up to 0.5 cm). Decoration incised before firing: a wavy line framed by horizontal lines.

32

MARSA MATRuH

Fig. 8:7. Cypriot coarse pottery. 8.102 Cooking Vessel Pl. 7 85I-P-64. F4-III, 2.2/3.1. a. Rim: pres. h. 5.0; pres. w. 13.7; wall th. 1.3; d. of rim ca. 23. b. Handle: pres. h. 12.4; pres. w. 15.0; wall th. 1.5; handle th. 3.4. Rim, handle, and numerous non-joining body frags. from cooking pot. Coarse, friable gray fabric (2.5Y N4/), light reddish brown at surface (5YR 6/4–6/6), many inclusions. Light brown slip (10YR 7/3), roughly smoothed. Sharply everted rim with round lip on rounded shoulder. Horizontal loop handle, round in section. Compare Russell 1989, K-AD 980–988. 8.103 Jar Pl. 8 85I-P-101. F4-III, 3.1. Pres. h. 9.1; wall th. 1.1; d. of base 7.5. Base and lower wall fragment from jar with flaring walls and slightly convex base. Light gray fabric (2.5Y 7/2) and grayish buff slip (2.5Y 8/2) with many black and white inclusions. Wheelmade. 8.104 Handled Jar Not ill. 85I-P-94. F4-III, 3.2. Pres. h. 8.3; wall th. 0.8; handle th. 4.0; d. of rim ca. 14. Single rim fragment from jar with convex rim, cylindrical neck and vertical handle attached to neck. Light

orange buff slip, rim painted dark reddish brown. Orange-brown fabric, many dark grit inclusions. Fabric: 5YR 6/6; slip: 5YR 7/6; paint: 5YR 3/3. Wheelmade. Compare Alasia II, fig. 115:1. 8.105 Storage Vessel (?) Not ill. a. 87I-P-8. F4-III, 3.2. b. Not inv.; F4-III 2.2. Dimensions not available. Rim, neck, and shoulder frags (not joining) from storage vessel. Everted rim, straight, slightly flaring neck, round shoulder. Thin cream slip. Two reddish black bands at rim, one (extant) at shoulder. Wheel-made. 8.106 Storage Jar Pl. 8 85I-P-78. F4-III, 3.2. Pres. h. 11.2; pres. w. 13.5; wall th. 0.9. Single shoulder fragment from a storage jar. Sloping shoulder with start of vertical neck. Pinkish buff slip; wide streaky red band on shoulder. Pale orange fabric with medium grit inclusions. Wheelmade. Fabric: 5YR 6/6; slip: near 5YR 6/4; paint: 2.5YR 5/6.

BRONZE AGE PLAIN POTTERY: EGYPTIAN, CANAANITE, AND CYPRIOT

8.107 Storage Vessel Fig. 8:8 87I-P-9. F4-III, 3.2. Pres. h. 9.1; pres. w. 7.8; wall th. 0.7. Body fragment from White Painted storage vessel. Cream slip, much eroded. Traces of at least two horizontal black bands. Wheelmade. 8.108 Storage Vessel Fig. 8:8 87I-P-10. F4-III, 3.2. Pres. h. 11.2; pres. w. 14.1; wall th. 0.6. Body fragment from White Painted storage vessel. Cream slip, much eroded. Traces of horizontal black bands. Wheelmade. Compare 8.107. 8.109 Storage Vessel Pl. 8 87I-P-5. F4-III, 3.2/4.4. Pres. h. 5.9; pres. w. 10.7; wall th. 0.8. Body fragment from White Painted storage vessel. Cream slip, much eroded. Traces of two wide (1.6–1.8 cm) horizontal brown/black bands. Wheelmade. 8.110 Storage Vessel Not ill. 87I-P-4. F4-III, 4.4. Pres. h. 5.8; pres. w. 6.9; wall th. 0.7. Body fragment from White Painted storage vessel. Cream slip, much eroded. Traces of two horizontal brown/black bands intersected by vertical black band. Wheelmade. 8.111 Jar Fig. 8:8 Not inv. F5-I/W, 2.1. Pres. h. 2.8; wall th. 0.7; d. of rim 13.8. Plain rim fragment of slightly flaring neck of storage jar. Plain Ware, black inclusions. Handmade. 8.112 Storage Vessel Not ill. Not inv. F5-I/W, 2.1. Dimensions not available. Body fragment from Plain Ware vessel. Same as 8.111. 8.113 Bowl Not ill. Not inv. H5-I, 2.1. Dimensions not available. Plain rim fragment from open bowl of Plain Ware. Fine cream fabric, tiny black grits. Handmade. 8.114 Jug Fig. 8:8 Not inv. H5-II, 3.1. Pres. h. 3; wall th. 0.7; d. of rim 14.5. Everted rim from Plain Ware jug. Light orange fabric, slightly grayer core; tiny black and white grits. Small jar, with an undifferentiated, i.e., unpinched rim. A common type, cf. Keswani, 19:1.

33

8.115 Pithos Fig. 8:8 Not inv. H5-II, 3.1. Pres. h. 11.0; wall th. 1.5; d. of rim 37. Rim fragment from pithos. Pinkish gray fabric, barely discernable core; numerous chaff holes, tiny white grits. Handmade. Slightly unusual pithos rim, but its general dimensions suggest that it belongs to Keswani’s group IB1. 8.116 Jar Not ill. Not inv. H5-II, 3.1. Dimensions not available. Rim fragment from Plain Ware jar. Well-levigated orange fabric (brick-like), cream surface; black and white grits. 8.117 Storage Jar Not ill. Not inv. H5-II, 3.1. Dimensions not available. Rim fragment from storage jar. Gray fabric with dark cream surface; chaff temper and large white grits, tiny black grits. 8.118 Storage Jar Not ill. Not inv. H5-II, 3.1. Dimensions not available. Handle and body fragment from storage jar. Plain Ware. Orange fabric, gray core; numerous chaff lines and black and white grits. 8.119 Pithos Not ill. Not inv. H5-II, 3.1. Dimensions not available. Handle from pithos. Two ridges on outer surface. 8.120 Pithos Fig. 8:9 Not inv. H5-II, 3.1. Pres. h. 10.3; pres. w. 7.6; wall th. 1.6. Rilled body sherd from pithos. Pinkish gray fabric, barely discernable core; numerous chaff holes, tiny white grits. Could belong to either Keswani’s Group IA or Group II pithoi (Keswani, 14, 16). Compare Keswani, 13, Group IA pithos. 8.121 Pithos Fig. 8:9 Not inv. H5-II, 3.1. Pres. h. 10.5; pres. w. 7.7; wall th. 1.4. Body sherd with handle stump from pithos. Pinkish gray fabric, barely discernable gray core; numerous chaff holes, tiny white grits. Part of wavy line decoration and rilling. Compare Keswani, 13, Group IA. Like 8.120, this could belong to Keswani’s Group IA or Group II, but most probably the former.

34

MARSA MATRuH

Fig. 8:8. Cypriot coarse pottery.

8.122 Storage Vessel Not inv. H5-II, 3.2. Pres. h. 10.5; pres. w. 7.8. Handle from Plain Ware storage vessel.

Fig. 8:9

8.123 Spouted Bowl Figs. 8:8 Not inv. H5-II, 4.1. Pres. h. 7.5; wall th. 1.2; d. of rim 29.7; spout d. ca. 3.9. Spouted rim from large coarse ware vessel. Orange red fabric, gray core; large black and white grits, some chaff temper. Wheelmade. Compare Keswani, fig. 20:30, but with a less round body here.

8.124 Pithos Fig. 8:9 Not inv. H5-II, 4.1. Pres. h. 4.8; wall th. 0.8; d. of rim 24. Rim fragment from Plain Ware pithos. Green cream fabric; black grits. Handmade. Compare Keswani, fig. 16:26; a Group IB2 pithos. 8.125 Pithos Fig. 8:9 Not inv. H5-II, 4.1. Pres. h. 19; wall th. 1.6; d. of rim 41.0. Rim and body fragment from pithos. Orange pink fabric, lighter core; black and brown grits, chaff temper. Rilled upper body. Compare Keswani, 14, fig. 16; group IA pithos.

BRONZE AGE PLAIN POTTERY: EGYPTIAN, CANAANITE, AND CYPRIOT

Fig. 8:9. Cypriot coarse pottery.

35

36

MARSA MATRuH

8.126 Pithos Fig. 8:10 Not inv. H5-II, 4.1. Length 10.2; max. pres. h. 9.8; wall th. 1.7; d. of rim ca. 33. Rim fragment from large pithos. Orange surface, gray core; few discernable grits, but many temper holes. Compare Keswani, fig. 16:17, a group IB1 pithos. 8.127 Cooking Vessel Fig. 8:10 Not inv. H5-II, 4.1. Length 6.8; wall th. 1.0; d. of rim ca. 42. Rim and handle from a large cooking vessel. Red brown fabric, slightly lighter core; numerous black and mica grits, some chaff temper. Compare Keswani, fig. 10: K-AD 996. This vessel is not commonly found outside Cyprus. 8.128 Storage Vessel Not ill. Not inv. H5-II, 4.1. Dimensions not available. Flat base of Plain Ware storage vessel. Cream fabric with light gray interior; tiny black and white grits, large temper holes in interior. Handmade. 8.129 Storage Jar or Krater Fig. 8:10 Not inv. H5-II, 4.1. Pres. h. 10.4; wall th. 0.7–1.5; d. of base 14.3. Ring base from storage jar or krater. Orange/buff fabric, gray core; black, gray and white grits, many tiny temper holes. Wheelmade. Compare SCE IV:1C, figs. 61, 63. 8.130 Storage Vessel Not ill. Not inv. H5II, 4.2. Dimensions not available. Rim sherd from Plain Ware storage vessel. Pink fabric, black grits. 8.131 Cooking Pot Fig. 8:10 Not inv. H5II, 4.2. Pres. h. 2.3; wall th. 0.5; d. of rim 17.5. Everted rim fragment from cooking pot. Gray brown fabric, mottled surface, some grit inclusion. Compare Russell 1989, K-AD 990 and 994, fig. 10. 8.132 Pithos (?) Not ill. Not inv. H5-II, 4.3. Dimensions not available. Handle and body fragment from pithos? Thin orange surface, light gray core; tiny black grits and chaff holes.

8.133 Pithos Fig. 8:10 Not inv. H5-II, 4.3. Pres. h. 5.3; wall th. 1.0; d. of base 16.0. Flat base fragment from pithos. Cream slip on pinkish fabric, gray core; numerous chaff holes. 8.134 Storage Vessel Not ill. Not inv. H5-II, 4.4. Dimensions not available. Rim fragment from Plain Ware storage vessel. Dark red fabric, black core; black and white grits, some chaff temper. 8.135 Storage Jar Not ill. Not inv. H5-II, 4.4. Dimensions not available. Disk base from Plain Ware storage jar. Orange fabric, lighter orange core; very well-levigated; tiny black and white grits and temper holes. Handmade. 8.136 Pithos Fig. 8:10 Not inv. H5-II, 5.1. Length 10; pres. h. 10; wall th. 1.5; d. of rim 37.4 Squared rim fragment from pithos. Dark red fabric; chaff and black grit inclusions. Handmade. Compare Keswani, fig. 16:15, 22; Group IB1. 8.137 Bowl Fig. 8:10 Not inv. H5-II, 5.1. Length 4.0; wall th. 0.7; d. of rim 23.4. Plain, slightly lipped rim from plain ware bowl. Buff orange fabric, gray core. Compare Keswani, fig. 20:10–12. 8.138 Storage Vessel Not ill. Not inv. H5-II, 5.2. Dimensions not available. Handle and body fragment from large storage vessel. Red brown fabric, unevenly fired on outer surface, gray core; some large limestone grits, many tiny chaff holes and long straw lines. Handmade. 8.139 Storage Vessel Not ill. Not inv. H5-II, 5.2. Dimensions not available. Base from large Plain Ware storage vessel. Orange fabric, well fired, cream gray surface; tiny black and white grits; occasional limestone grits.

BRONZE AGE PLAIN POTTERY: EGYPTIAN, CANAANITE, AND CYPRIOT

Fig. 8:10. Cypriot coarse pottery.

37

38

MARSA MATRuH

Fig. 8:11. Cypriot coarse pottery.

8.140 Storage Jar Not ill. Not inv. H5-II, 5.2 Dimensions not available. Ring base from storage jar. Orange fabric, numerous black, white and yellow grits. 8.141 Storage Jar Not ill. Not inv. H5-II, 5.2. Dimensions not available. Button base from Plain Ware storage jar. Gray fabric, well-levigated, cream surface; numerous tiny black grits. 8.142 Storage Vessel Fig. 8:11 Not inv. H5-II, 5.3. Pres. h. 5.0; wall th. 1.1; d. of base ca. 17.3. Flat base from storage vessel. Cream gray fabric, dense. 8.143 Jar Fig. 8:11 Not inv. H5-II, 5.3. Pres. h. 2.8; wall th. 0.5; d. of base 6. Ring base from Plain Ware jar. Orange fabric, numerous black, white and yellow grits. Wheelmade. Compare SCE IV:1C, pl. LXIX. 8.144 Pithos Not ill. Not inv. H5-II, 5.4. Pres. length 1.9; d. of rim ca. 20. Rim fragment from pithos. Orange red surface, gray core; black and white grits. It is not clear to which of Keswani’s types this fragment belongs.

8.145 Stand Fig. 8:11 Not inv. H5-II, 5.4. Pres. length 6.3; max. pres. h. 3.6; wall th. 1.1. Base fragment from Plain Ware stand. Buff fabric, gray core, numerous small white grits and chaff temper. Burning on inner surface. Compare Keswani, fig. 18:12 (K-AD 419). This is not a common shape but is known at Myrtou Pighades (cf. Taylor, 329–335, fig. 23); described as offering stands. Although this identification is not certain, vessels of similar shape occur throughout Egypt and the Levant (e.g., Hulin 1984). 8.146 Storage Vessel Not ill. Not inv. H5-II, 6.1. Dimensions not available. Base from large storage vessel. Original coils still visible. Deep orange fabric, gray core, some uneven yellowish tinge to outer surface; dense fabric, welllevigated; numerous tiny black grits, occasional large limestone grits. 8.147 Storage Vessel Not ill. Not inv. H5-II, 6.1. Dimensions not available. Body fragment from White Painted vessel. Painted brown band. 8.148 Jar Not ill. Not inv. H5-II, 6.1. Dimensions not available. Body fragment from White Painted jar. Broad painted brown band.

BRONZE AGE PLAIN POTTERY: EGYPTIAN, CANAANITE, AND CYPRIOT

39

Fig. 8:12. Canaanite wares.

The Canaanite Wares (Figs. 8:12–8:14, nos. 8.149–8.173) The Canaanite wares have a very limited distribution on the site. They comprise 47% of the sherds from the collapse levels from S102, although they are absent from the occupation levels. In the Southern Cluster, they account for only 6% of material from the upper levels, and they are absent from the lower strata. As might be expected, they occur most frequently in the storage areas in the Northern Cluster. Other pieces from this region include 8.1, 8.3–8.5 (lamps) and 8.16 and 8.20 (handles from jars with pot marks). 8.149 Cooking Pot Fig. 8:12 Not inv. D4-I/II, N. Balk, 2.1. Pres. length 4.6; wall th. 0.3; d. of rim ca. 26. Rim fragment from cooking pot. Brown fabric, large white grits (visible on drawing). Vertical triangular rim on short neck, sharply carinated body. Compare pieces from Late Bronze IIB (Giloh, Shiloh, Tel en-Nasbeh and Gibeah in the central hill country and Tel Masos in the Beersheba valley, Dever 1993, 27–30) and into Iron I. 8.150 Canaanite Jar Not inv. D4-I/II, 3.1. Pres. h. 3.9; wall th. 0.5; d. of rim 11.5. Rim fragment from Canaanite jar.

Fig. 8:12

8.151 Canaanite Jar Fig. 8:12 Not inv. D4-I/II, 3.1. Pres. h. 10; wall th. 0.6; handle w. 3.5. Body and handle fragment from Canaanite jar. 8.152 Canaanite Jar Not inv. D4-I/II, 3.1. Pres. h. 5.5; wall th. 1.7; d. of base 7.0. Base fragment from Canaanite jar.

Fig. 8:12

8.153 Canaanite Jar Fig. 8:13 Not inv. E4-II/E, 1.1. Pres. length 16.8; wall th. 0.5; handle h. 2.2; handle w. 3.6. Body and handle fragment from Canaanite jar. 8.154 Cooking Pot Not ill. Not inv. F4-III, 3.1. Rim fragment of heavy cooking pot. Compare Ashdod I, 19:4, I, Area B, Stratum 2; Hazor, 3–6, pl. 127: 1, where it occurs with White Shaved, White Slip, and a Mycenaean stirrup jar, and is dated to the second half of the 14th century to first part of the 13th century. At Afula, it occurs with WS II and BR II and is dated to the last quarter of the 13th century (cf. Afula, 46, pl. 17: 3). 8.155 Canaanite Jar Fig. 8:13 Not inv. F4-II, 3.1. Pres. h. 7.5; pres. w. 11.5; wall th. 0.7; handle h. 2.8; handle w. 3.6. Handle and body fragment from Canaanite jar.

40

MARSA MATRuH

Fig. 8:13. Canaanite wares. 8.156 Canaanite Jaar Not inv. H5-I, 3.1. Length 1.4; d. of rim ca. 7. Rim fragment from Canaanite jar.

Fig. 8:13

8.157 Cooking Pot Fig. 8:13 Not inv. H5-II, 3.1. Pres. h. 2.6; wall th. 0.7; d. of rim 20.2. Rim fragment from cooking pot. LB II: cf. Lachish IV, pl. 78.801; Iron IA: cf. Rast, Taanach, fig. 2.2. 8.158 Canaanite Jar Fig. 8:13 Not inv. H5-II, 3.1. Pres. length 2.1; wall th. 0.4; d. of rim 14. Sherd from Canaanite jar. Compare Deir el-Balah, Tombs 114, 116 and 118; Lachish IV, pl. 187: 1020–1021, second half of the 13th century B.C. (19th Dynasty). 8.159 Canaanite Jar Fig. 8:13 Not inv. H5-II, 3.1. Pres. length 4.3; wall th. 7; d. of rim ca. 11.5. Rim fragment from Canaanite jar.

8.160 Canaanite Jar Fig. 8:13 Not inv. H5-II, 5.1. Pres. length 4.5; wall th. 0.5; d. of rim ca. 18.8. Rim fragment from Canaanite jar. Orange buff fabric, light gray core; fine black and white grits, some large white grits. 8.161 Canaanite Jar Not ill. Not inv. H5-II, 5.1. Dimensions not available. Rim fragment, well fired; buff orange fabric, gray core; chaff temper. 8.162 Canaanite Jar Not ill. Not inv. H5-II, 5.1. Dimensions not available. Shoulder and lower handle from storage vessel. 8.163 Storage Jar Not ill. Not inv. H5-II, 5.2. Dimensions not available. Rim fragment from storage jar. Orange fabric, beige core; well-levigated; cream surface; some chaff holes, large white grits. Wheelmade.

BRONZE AGE PLAIN POTTERY: EGYPTIAN, CANAANITE, AND CYPRIOT

41

Fig. 8:14. Canaanite wares and Anatolian pottery. 8.164 Canaanite Jar Not ill. Not inv. H 5-II, 5.2. Dimensions not available. Base from storage jar. Gray fabric, dense, well fired; very tiny temper holes.

8.165 Canaanite Jar Not ill. Not inv. H5-II, 5.2. Dimensions not available. Button base from storage vessel. Cream/gray surface, gray core; black and white grits; chaff temper. Wheelmade.

42

MARSA MATRuH

8.166 Canaanite Jar Fig. 8:14 Not inv. H5-II, 5.3. Pres. length 3.09; wall th. 1.0; d. of rim ca. 13.8. Rim fragment from Canaanite jar. 8.167 Canaanite Jar Fig. 8:14 Not inv. H5-II, 5.3. Pres. h. 14; wall th. 0.7; handle h. 2.5; handle w. 3.2. Handle and body fragment from Canaanite jar. 8.168 Canaanite Jar Fig. 8:14 Not inv. H5-II, 5.4. Pres. length 2.9; wall th. 0.6; d. of rim ca. 13. Rim fragment from Canaanite jar. 8.169 Canaanite Jar Fig. 8:14 Not inv. H5-II, 5.4. Pres. length 2.6; wall th. 0.6; d. of rim ca. 13. Rim fragment from Canaanite jar. 8.170 Canaanite Jar Fig. 8:14 Not inv. H5-II, 5.4. Pres. length 5.5; wall th. 0.6; d. of rim ca. 10.2. Rim fragment from Canaanite jar. 8.171 Cooking Pot Fig. 8:14 Not inv. H5-II, 5.4. Pres. h. 3.1; wall th. 0.4; d. of rim 29.4. Everted triangular rim from cooking pot. Compare LB IIA (Megiddo II, pl. 61:27), but continues into LB IIB (Lachish IV, pl. 78:801). 8.172 Canaanite Jar Not ill. Not inv. H5-II 6.1. Dimensions not available. Handle from storage jar. Orange surface, gray core, traces of cream slip; much chaff temper, occasional white grits. Wheelmade. 8.173 Canaanite Jar Not inv. H5-II, 6.1. Pres. length 9.0; pres. h. 5.3; wall th. 1.1. Base fragment from Canaanite jar.

Fig. 8:14

Anatolian Pottery (Fig. 8:14, no. 8.174) 8.174 Widemouth Pot Fig. 8:14 Not inv. I6-I/II, 2.3. Pres. length 4.6; wall th. 1; d. of rim ca. 21.5. Rim fragment from widemouth pot. Dark coarse fabric. Handmade. Compare Sea Peoples, 13, fig. 17, from Gordion, dated to ca. 1100 B.C.

Puzzles (Fig. 8:15, Pls. 8, 9, nos. 8.175–8.180) 8.175 Painted Jar Fig. 8:15; Pl. 8 85I-P-61A, B. E4-III, 2.3. a. Pres. h. 12.0; pres. w. 15.0; wall th. 0.8. b. Pres. h. 16.5; pres. w. 16.1. Two non-joining frags. from large jar. Orange fabric with grit inclusions. Matt reddish brown paint (5YR 4/3–5/6) on reddish buff slip. Painted decoration: wavy band framed by solid area above and single band below. From a mixed context. Possibly a wide mouthed carinated jar, cf. Holthoer 1977:144, pl. 13. 8.176 Bowl Pl. 9 87I-P-47. F4-III, 1.1. a. Rim: pres. h. 4.4; pres. w. 21.7; wall th. 0.6; d. of rim 22. b. Base: pres. h. 11.8; pres. w. 8.1; wall th. 0.7; d. of base 7. Base and rim frags. from open bowl. Red orange fabric with gray core, white grits. Faded black and white banding along rim on inner surface, and traces of a white spiral (which ran) at the bottom of the bowl. Black and white bands on outer surface. Wheelmade. 8.177 Carinated Bowl Fig. 8:15; Pl. 9 85I-P-98. F4-III, 3.2. Pres. h. 5.6; rim d. 12.5; wall th. 0.6–0.9 d. of base ca. 6. Single fragment preserving complete profile and almost half of a bowl with a flat base, thick bottom, flaring lower body walls, carinated shoulder, and flaring offset rim with rounded lip. Pierced through base, slightly off-center, after firing. Hard, grayish buff fabric (10YR 5/2) with sandy texture, buff slip (2.5Y 8/2). Wheelmade (?). From a mixed and thus undateable context. 8.178 Bowl Fig. 8:15 87I-P-83. H5-I, 4.1. Pres. length 7.04; pres. h. 1.4; wall th. 0.3. Base fragment from finely made open bowl with concave base. Orange fabric, black slip. Traces of three diag. rows of circles made by removing the slip with cloth or vegetable matter while still wet to allow the fabric color to show through. From a secure LB context. 8.179 Krater (?) Fig. 8:15; Pl. 9 87I-P-78. H5-II, 3.1. Pres. length 10.4; pres. body w. 18.2; wall th. 1.5; handle length 5.7; d. of handle 2.9. Part of shoulder and upper handle from large storage vessel. Gray fabric with red-brown surfaces; well

BRONZE AGE PLAIN POTTERY: EGYPTIAN, CANAANITE, AND CYPRIOT

Fig. 8:15. Bronze Age plain pottery puzzles.

43

44

MARSA MATRuH

fired, chaff temper. Decoration in brown paint: 3 horizontal lines under shoulder, with groups of 3 or 4 vertical lines running from it at intervals. From a secure LB context. Possibly a Canaanite biconical krater, or an Egyptian imitation of it; such imitations enjoyed a long history.

8.180 Holemouth Jar Fig. 8:15 Not inv. H5-II, 3.1. Pres. h. 3.4; pres. w. 4.6; wall th. 0.5. Rim fragment from holemouth jar. Gray fabric, white grits. Ext. finger-smoothed. Handmade. From a secure LB deposit. This fabric is similar in treatment to Libyan wares from the historic levels at Haua Fteah (cf. pl. IX nos. 1-5) and from the vicinity of Zur (Hulin 2000).

Chronological Summary Any attempt to date the Bronze Age ceramics from Bates’s Island becomes, inevitably, entangled in the interpretation of the material record (see, Chapter 15). The Aegean vases are dated to the 15th/14th century B.C., i.e., the LH IIIA–LC IIA/B Early–Late Bronze IIA horizon. That was the period of active international trade with Egypt before its collapse at the end of the Amarna period. Taken by themselves, however, the non-Aegean ceramics are either generic to the entire period or conform to a reasonably consistent LH IIIA:2–LH IIIB/LC IIA/C–Late Bronze IIB/late 18th–early 19th Dynasty horizon. This is after the heyday of direct trade with Egypt, but when trade with Palestine was still vigorously undertaken, and the Egyptians were expanding along the Marmaric coast. Thus, the simple type of bowl that predominates on Bates’s Island is a feature of the entire New Kingdom in Egypt (see 8.24 and 8.35). In Canaan, such bowls appear in both Late Bronze IIA and B and even early Iron I contexts. Because there they are a feature of garrisons (e.g., Megiddo VIIB–VIIA,18 doubtless connected in some way with the apportioning of rations), 8.83 belongs best in the 19th Dynasty, but does occur earlier, in the 18th Dynasty. Similarly, the Cypriot vessels in coarse fabrics belong to an extended period, although 8.86 favors an earlier date. The pithoi are particularly at home in the LC IIB and even the LC IIC period. The Canaanite wares present a similarly mixed picture. Of particular interest are the four cooking pots. Although 8.171, taken alone, accords well with the earlier date, it is not unknown in the Late Bronze IIB period. Numbers 8.154 and 8.157

occur in Late Bronze IIA levels, although they are more common in Late Bronze IIB. Number 8.149 is definitely a product of the later period, even continuing into Iron I. The Canaanite jars are difficult to date, but their elongated necks suggest a Late Bronze IIB date; if they are early, 8.158 is a particularly late example. The Egyptian bowl 8.83, the Canaanite cooking pots 8.149, 8.154, and 8.157 indicate an extension of activity into the end of the Late Bronze IIB period. Indeed, the late date of 8. 83 and 8.149 is further supported by 8.174, an Anatolian wide-mouth pot from the later Iron I period. For the most part, these later pieces occur in surface or disturbed contexts and may be viewed as a typical presence on the island well after their use had disappeared from the region even though the Egyptians continued to be active at Zawiyet umm el-Rakham. It is clear that, allowing for the differential distribution of wares across the site referred to at the beginning of each class of pottery, there is no clear stratigraphic separation between the Aegean wares and all other material. Certainly, the Canaanite cooking pot 8.149 occurs with Egyptian material in the upper layers of D4-I/II 1.1, but an uncatalogued White Slip body sherd, showing part of a horizontal and vertical ladder pattern, was found in locus D4-I/II 4.1. Similarly, the secure Late Bronze levels across the site reveal a mix of all classes of pottery (e.g., F4-III). Even the specialized storage area in the Northern Cluster yielded a less carefully executed repertoire of White Slip milk bowls (e.g., 7.35). It is perhaps worthy of note that, while twenty-five years ago Gittlen19 had argued that all Cypriot imports to Palestine had

BRONZE AGE PLAIN POTTERY: EGYPTIAN, CANAANITE, AND CYPRIOT

ceased during Late Bronze IIB, this is now held to be an extreme view.20 Certainly parallels to cooking pot 8.154 occur at Ashdod alongside White Slip II and Base Ring II, and good Base Ring II ceramics have been found in the Ramesses II fort of Zawiyet umm el-Rakham.21

45

While the stratigraphy of the site does not appear to favor a clear separation into chronologically significant phases, it is evident that activity took place for an extended period during the Late Bronze Age.

Chapter 8 Notes 1. I wish to thank Don Bailey for sharing with me his observations on the island’s early lamps. 2. Hirschfeld 1999. 3. Published by me as a marl in 1987 Pottery, 123-124. 4. See L. Hulin, “Marmaric Wares: New Kingdom and Later Examples, SLS 32 (2001), 75, fig. 8, MDS 59/13. 5. Hulin (see n. 4) S11/36. 6. Personal communication. 7. E. Oren, “The ‘Ways of Horus’ in North Sinai,” in A.F. Rainey, ed., Egypt, Israel, Sinai. Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the Biblical Period (Tel Aviv 1987) 69-120. 8. Compare Keswani, 12, nn. 3-5 for a justification and discussion of the terminology. 9. Gelidonya, 14-16, fig. 132.

10. Lolos 1995, fig. 17. 11. For example, Schaeffer, 51: 5; 52: 31-33. 12. Keswani, 13. 13. Bass, ulu Burun 1986, 279-282. 14. Lolos 1995, 73, fig. 16. 15. Schaeffer, fig. 86; see refs. below. 16. Kommos III, 846, fig. 70: 846. 17. Vagnetti and Lo Schiavo, fig. 2.5. 18. Compare Megiddo II, pl. 65:16; James, figs. 55:1, 57:1; Tubb 1998, 105, and fig. 69. 19. B. Gittlen, Studies in Late Cypriote Pottery found in Palestine, 1998. Ph.D. dissertation, university of Michigan. 20. For example, A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible (New York 1990) 293, n. 26. 21. S. Snape, personal communication.

47

chapter 9

lAte bronze Age iMPleMents AnD other MiscellAneous objects Donald White

Metal and Metallurgical Artifacts (Pls. 9 and 10, nos. 9.1–9.50) Donald White with contributions by

David Killick and Vincent Pigott the following cataloged objects were excavated from either purely late bronze Age deposits or from deposits that contained largely late bronze Age material invaded with small quantities of later intrusive items that should not detract from their presumptive bronze Age origin. objects from clearly later (i.e., post-bronze Age) contexts that, as artifacts, parallel similar objects found in reliably early deposits are cataloged as postbronze Age metal finds, but they have been designated as possible survivals from the late bronze Age. An asterisk (*) following an entry’s trench coordinates and deposit numbers indicates that it comes from a post-bronze Age mixed context, whereas a “surface” or “1.1” designation means that the entry has no stratigraphic value. An “s” feature indicates with what architectural element the object was most closely associated. For practical purposes of the present discus-

sion, metal means copper or bronze. nothing made of pure silver, gold, or any other metallic substance was recovered from bronze Age levels. the six recorded instances of iron or iron ore 1 which appear to be from bronze Age deposits can either be best understood as accidental intrusions, given the ubiquity of World War ii shrapnel, or were introduced for reasons that remain unclear (e.g., 9.50). Although the repertory of objects is limited to a meager and almost certainly not fully representative range of implements (weapons, points, blade, chisel, pins, nails (?), awl (?), needle, and fishhooks), by way of contrast, the evidence for metal working activity on the island seems relatively plentiful. even though ingots, molds, and bellows2 are absent, the evidence includes a respectable number of crucible fragments, bits of slag or waste detritus left over from casting activities, several hearth sites and

48

MArsA MAtruh

probable above-ground furnaces,3 and possibly a metal workshop. room s119 at the southern end of the island appears certain to have been used for casting operations that may have, in turn, involved producing at least some of the simple metal implements and tools found scattered through the island’s bronze Age levels. the ground later occupied by the sponge-Divers house and h5-i/ii/iii to its north as well as some of the adjacent small room units also may have been employed for the same purpose.

Weapons, Knives, and other cutting tools (Pl. 9, nos. 9.1–9.4) 9.1 barbless Arrow head Pl. 9 85i-M-1. e4-iii, 2.3 (s102). length 8.4; max. w. 1.5; max. th. 0.2. three joining frags. preserving a nearly complete leaf-shaped point. narrows to a squared tang, now bent near its top. Although marginally longer than most of his examples, 9.1 falls squarely into catling’s class of l.c. sub-elliptical, barbless arrow-heads. compare catling, cypriot bronzework, 130–131, nos. 1–7, fig. 16, pl. 16 where it is suggested that the type reached cyprus from the near east not long after 1400 b.c. compare also, bass, ulu burun 1986, 24, fig. 24a, for KW 572, which, at 9.6 cm., exceeds length of 9.1. 9.2 barbless Arrow head (?) Pl. 9 87i-M-9. h5-ii, 5.3 (s121). length 6.7; max. w. 1.4; max. th. 0.4; d. of tang 0.4. elongated, oval point that tapers to a nearly round tang. Although badly corroded, it is unlikely that the object ever possessed longitudinal spines; thicker than catling’s class of barbless arrow-heads cited under 9.1. the use of a tang instead of a socket should rule out its use as a javelin point or “stubby spike, of dubious offensive use,” for which see catling, cypriot bronzework, 133–134. 9.3 chisel Pl. 9 85i-M-42. F4-iii, 3.1 (s107). length 8.3; max. w. 0.9; max. th. 0.8. nearly complete, narrow chisel, tapering to a blunt, squared-off edge at one end and broken at the other. rectangular in section. For Aegean chisels, see K. branigan, Aegean Metalwork of the early and Middle bronze Age (oxford 1974) 168–170. For the near east, see j. Deshayes, les outils de bronze, de l’indus au Danube (Paris 1960) 39–50. compare the MM iii

to lM iiiA:2 chisels at Kommos (blitzer, Kommos i, M 61, M 97, M 147, and M 150; pp. 511, 513, 516; pls. 8.83, 8.87, and 8.108). Also catling, Mansion, 213, fig. 196a, pl. 201, 1, 2, in which c1 (= M 9) measures an impressive 42.5 cm. both date to the lM period. the bare metal, handleless chisel is Flinders-Petrie’s earliest type and in egypt is said to go back to PreDynastic times as well as remaining long in use. compare Petrie, tools and Weapons, 19–20, pl. 22, nos. 49–51, 59, 60 (el-Amarna, 19th Dynasty). catling restores wooden handles to a small group of rather similar early cypriot and Middle cypriot chisels from the lapithos cemetery. bass also suggests a wooden handle for the one chisel from the gelidonya wreck that approximates 9.3. compare gelidonya, b 130, p. 100, figs. 112, 113. 9.4 Flat blade Pl. 9 90i-M-6. h5-ii, 4.4. length 5.9; w. 0.6; th. 0.2. bent; the tapered point resulted from breakage during excavation.

nails, needles, and Pins (Pls. 9, 10, nos. 9.5–9.23) What are listed here as pins (i.e., thin lengths of finished metal without traces of either heads or hooks) could be described as fragments of wire or even broken fishhooks.4 Without heads, their identity as nails, which are reported at Kommos5 and other sites, as well as perhaps from the cape gelidonya wreck,6 is problematic. the single large bodkin or needle, 9.23, may be paralleled by a similarly large needle or awl found in a postbronze Age deposit.7 both could have been used for stitching sails, which egyptian tomb paintings depicting syrian merchant ships indicate were used for ships like the cape gelidonya wreck.8 oversized needles would have been useful items on board ship or in port, whether the sails were made of cloth or from hides. 9.5 Pin Pl. 9 90i-M-8. h5-ii, 4.2 (s121). length 2.1; d. 0.3. Fragment of shaft, broken at both ends. round in section. 9.6 Pin 85i-M-18a.

F4-iii, 4.1 (s107).

Pl. 9

lAte bronze Age iMPleMents AnD other MiscellAneous objects

combined length 1.9; max. d. 0.2. two unjoined frags. of pin or needle, round in section. 9.7 Pin Pl. 9 85i-M-23. F4-iii, 3.1 (s107). length 1.5; d. 0.4. Fragment of shaft, broken at both ends. round in section. 9.8 Pin not ill. 85i-M-24. F4-iii, 2.2* (s107). length 1.6; d. 0.25. Fragment of shaft, broken at both ends. round in section. 9.9 Pin Pl. 9 85i-M-33. e4-iii, 3.2 (s102). length 1.8; d. 0.35. Fragment of shaft, broken at both ends. round in section. 9.10 Pin Pl. 9 85i-M-41. F4-iii, 3.1 (s107). length 4.5; d. 0.3. Fragment of shaft, broken at both ends. round in section. 9.11 Pin Pl. 9 85i-M-43. F4-iii, 3.1 (s107). length 5.7; max. d. 0.65. A largely complete shape, pointed at one end and folded over at the other. 9.12 Pin Pl. 9 85i-M-18b. F4-iii, 4.1 (s107). length 1.0; max. d. 0.4. Fragment of pin or needle, round in section. A portion of head may be preserved at the thickened end. 9.13 Pin or Awl Pl. 9 89i-M-3. h5-iii, 3.1* (s130, s132, s134a, b). length 6.3; w. at flat end 0.7; d. at rounded end 0.4; max d. 0.5. complete but mended from two pieces and now bent. Flattened at one end and pointed at the other. compare blitzer, Kommos i, 516, M 160, pl. 8.108. 9.14 Pin or nail Pl. 9 85i-M-52. F4-iii, 4.1 (s107). length 1.7; d. 0.5. short fragment of shaft, broken at both ends, round in section.

49

9.15 Pin or nail Pl. 9 90i-M-3a. h5-ii, 6.1 (s121). length 3.0; d. 0.6. Fragment of shaft, broken at both ends but slightly tapering toward a point. round in section. 9.16 Pin or nail Pl. 9 90i-M-3b. h5-ii, 6.1 (s121). length 3.1; d. 0.7. Fragment of shaft, broken at both ends but tapering toward a point. round in section. 9.17 Pin or nail Pl. 9 90i-M-3c. h5-ii, 6.1 (s121). length 2.0; d. 0.6. Fragment of shaft, broken at both ends. round in section. 9.18 Pin or nail Pl. 9 90i-M-3d. h5-ii, 6.1 (s121). length 3.5; d. 0.7. Fragment of shaft, broken at both ends. round in section. 9.19 Pin or nail not ill. 90i-M-3e. h5-ii, 6.1 (s121). length 2.6; d. 0.8. Fragment of shaft, broken at both ends. round in section. 9.20 Pin or nail Pl. 9 90i-M-2. h5-ii, 5.3 (s121). length 2.4; d. 0.5. Fragment of shaft, broken at both ends. round in section. 9.21 nail or small Pointed blade Pl. 9 90i-M-4. e4-iii, W. balk, 3.1 (s102a, s124). length 3.9; w. 0.5; th. 0.29. oval in section but perhaps originally given a sharpened edge, now corroded away. tapers at one end, broken at other end. 9.22 nail or small Pointed blade Pl. 9 90i-M-1. h5-ii, 5.3 (s121). length 3.5; w. 1.0; th. 0.5. oval in section, edges now much corroded. tapers at one end, broken at other end. An apparently separate piece of corroded metal is cemented parallel to the broken end, creating the appearance of an offset tang or raised cutting edge.

50

MArsA MAtruh

9.23 needle Pl. 10 87i-M-8. D4-i/ii, 3.1 (s119). length 19.4; w. at eye 1.0; max d. 0.6. large (sailcloth?) needle or bodkin, mended from three pieces and complete. one end terminates in a pierced or cut-out eye, the other in a sharp point. Petrie says that copper needles appear in egypt in PreDynastic times, but what he terms “great coarse needles or bodkins,” similar to 9.23, are later. compare Petrie, tools and Weapons, 53, no. 89 from the ramesseum, made of bronze and dated ca. 800 b.c. A better parallel is with a lM iiiA example at Kommos (blitzer, Kommos i, 515, M 141, pls. 8.87D, 8.108). catling says that late cypriot needles have a poor record of preservation on cyprus. unlike our example, the eyes of his type b, thought to be late bronze Age in date, are formed by bending over the end and hammering the flanges around the needle’s tip. the largest one in nicosia measures 21 cm., which is not far off from our 9.23. compare catling, cypriot bronzework, 104–105, fig. 10, nos. 14–19.

Fishhooks (Pl. 10, nos. 9.24–9.26) Many of the pins were likely sections of fishhooks minus their identifying bent ends.9 bates illustrates three bronze fishhooks from his “site 400 A” that are undoubtedly post-bronze Age but look similar to the examples below; one may be barbed (African studies, 179–184, pl. 64, no. 10). According to Petrie, the earliest fishhooks in egypt go back to the 1st Dynasty, while those with barbs begin in the 18th or 19th Dynasties.10 A number of examples have been reported from Kommos and other Aegean sites, and barbed fishhooks of a quite sophisticated or finished appearance were found on the uluburun wreck.11 9.24 Fishhook Pl. 10 87i-M-10. D4-i/ii, 4.1 (s119). length 5.1; w. across hook 2.1; d. 0.5. hooked point with possible indications of a barb;12 broken at other end. this parallels finds from Minoan levels at Kommos (blitzer, Kommos i, 511–517, M 60, M 69–72, M 93, M 106, M 127, M 142, M 145). 9.25 Fishhook Pl. 10 87i-M-11. h5-ii, 3.1*. length 4.0; d. 0.3. Mended from two pieces but complete. no barb.

compare Petrie, tools and Weapons, pl. 44, nos. 64–68, from haregeh and said to be of the 13th Dynasty. Also catling, Mansion, pl. 205, 23, for a copper specimen, n 62. 9.26 Fishhook? Pl. 10 89i-M-4. h5-iii/sW, 4.1. total length 3.3; d. 0.2. Mended from two pieces. Point of hook preserved without trace of barb; broken off at other end. round in section. object appears to have been pulled open to form a 90° angle with its shaft.

crucibles and slag (Pl. 10, nos. 9.27–9.50) nineteen crucible fragments were recovered from a broad range of island occupation deposits. none of them presented opportunities for joins, and it is impossible to estimate the actual number of crucibles.13 ten, or approximately half of the total assemblage, were either retrieved from 1.1 fill from inside the sponge-Divers house (s101) or were closely associated with it. numbers 9.32, 9.35, and 9.36 were in 1.1 fill inside the building. Four fragments were associated with the walls (9.27, 9.29–9.31, 9.33, and 9.34). one piece (9.28) came from bates’s dump left over from the 1913/1914 excavation of the house. given what is known of that house,14 all ten pieces could in theory date any time from the late bronze Age onwards, as could a single 1.1 surface piece from i5-iii (9.38) and the island’s one unprovenienced stray (9.37). on the other hand, the dimensions and appearances seem indistinguishable from four pieces found in purely late bronze Age levels (9.39 and 9.43–9.46) and with three other fragments (9.36–9.38) which, like the fragments found in association with the sponge-Divers house, were part of mixed contexts containing significant concentrations of late bronze Age artifacts. in my mind, there can be no doubt that all 19 have to be bronze Age in origin. there is nothing in either the makeup of the metal artifacts excavated from the island’s post-late bronze Age levels or the layout and contents of its later architecture to suggest that the island necessarily went on being used for working

lAte bronze Age iMPleMents AnD other MiscellAneous objects

metal after the late bronze Age, apart from the legend of the two jewish goldsmiths, ishak and hugah, said to be buried at its southern end.15 Apart from one stone example (9.27), all 19 crucible fragments are hand-made from coarse baked clay.16 their outer surfaces often exhibit evidence of burning (9.33, 9.34, 9.38), which can sometimes be very intense (9.44). the fabrics are apt to be heavily included with either a limestone or shell temper (9.44),17 while others preserve traces of chaff temper or the pits or voids left over after the chaff has burned away (9.29–9.34, 9.36, 9.42, 9.43).18 number 9.28 retains traces of both pitting and organic temper. the fragmentary state of preservation vitiates any attempt here to reconstruct overall shapes.19 number 9.41 seems to have been bowl-shaped;20 numbers 9.29, 9.31, 9.35, and 9.43 all have thicknesses greater than 2 cm., which probably indicates that they belong to the lower wall close to the base. indeed, 9.35’s 3 cm. thickness may represent the normative maximum thickness for these vessels, which, to judge from examples documented elsewhere,21 puts the bates’s island examples toward the heavy end of crucible design. some of the fragments represent just flakes or chips and preserve no traces of original curvature; others are perceptively shaped. none preserve remnants of lugged feet22 or pedestal bases23 but instead appear to have rested on their rounded bottoms.24 nothing survives to indicate the presence of pouring slits or spouts. Analysis of two of the crucibles, 9.29 and 9.35, indicates that their interiors were coated with nearly pure copper (pp. 188–189), whereas it had always been assumed that the early metal finds were bronze. it would be dangerous to attribute too much to results based on the limited sample which egyptian regulations allowed us to export. Pure copper, however, is an unlikely material for many of our implements. until further testing can be done, the precise identification of the metals used must remain unsettled. 25 no remnants of bellows, metal ingots, or fragments of stone, terracotta, or bronze molds 26 were found. While the analysis of our sample crucibles would seem to rule out smelting,27 their presence on the island, combined with the recov-

51

ery of slag and metal detritus, indicates that some form of casting occurred. Four waste samples (9.46–9.49) from metal-working detritus were recovered from a cross-section of island levels. each sample deposit contained varying amounts of other kinds of late bronze Age material. if the islanders recycled old implements instead of using raw copper or bronze,28 it would explain the absence of ingots. they may have only stocked the bulk metal needed for a single season. Due to the island’s remote situation coupled with its paucity of fuel, its output of cast implements would have been limited to local distribution only. As for molds, perhaps they were regarded as too valuable to be left behind during the off-season and were removed to avoid loss. to judge from where the crucibles and concentrations of waste were found, the melting operations took place in the various small room units along the windward ridge to take advantage of the prevailing winds to supply air to their furnaces that otherwise would have had to depend on some system of bellows or blowpipes.29 little is preserved of their rubble walls above foundation level, but the possibility exists that their west walls were built of panels of wood, lashedtogether reeds, or some other kind of light, perishable material that could be opened or taken down to open the rooms directly to the wind.30 hadidi’s analysis of the archaeobotanical evidence collected from the island and the eastern lagoon bottom indicates that the island’s vegetational cover has remained more or less constant since ancient times and that it furthermore has never substantially differed from that of the surrounding Mediterranean coastal strip of egypt. this means that the island’s present ground cover of low shrubs and succulent plants was basically always present. this puts bates’s island in direct opposition to cyprus, which is well attested to have been heavily forested at certain points in its history and where Muhly now suggests that earlier estimates of the affects of early deforestation may have been exaggerated.31 Possibly the fuel needs for illumination, heating, and cooking were met by gathering branches of dead shrub from the nearby mainland or the so-called “great ridge” to the immediate south, but it is difficult

52

MArsA MAtruh

to see how this would have been adequate to support even a limited metal-casting industry.32 Muhly’s figures indicate that copper smelting requires something on the order of 300 pounds of charcoal to generate one pound of copper. Despite the fact that smelting copper consumes considerably more wood than melting copper or bronze, the island’s fuel resources would have been grossly inadequate for even the modest casting operations conducted seasonally on the island unless they could have been supplemented either by wood and/or charcoal provided by the mainland libyans or by fuel shipped in by the island’s occupants on their own ships. if packed in overland by the libyans on animal-back,33 where was their source? Perhaps it was the wadi drains that traverse elevated ground west of Matruh,34 but these seem adequate mainly for supplying only domestic needs. the heavily wooded cyrenaican gebel 220 km. to the west would have been a better proposition than the Delta that lay outside libyan control, but the distances involved in either direction seem totally excessive. the only other obvious alternative fuel locally available35 is animal dung. this remains in near-universal use throughout central and southeast Asia to this day, and the pastoralist libyans would have been in a position to provide it in suitable quantities.36 to the question of whether dung fires generate enough caloric output to melt copper or bronze,37 the answer seems to be yes, based on what is known of smelting and casting operations in various parts of the third World. in particular, in the Peruvian Andes, llama dung was used for fuel, and the mountain winds took the place of bellows.38 in the case of bates’s island, chaff also could have been added to the dung, as is done throughout Asia, in order to make the mixture more readily combustible as well as to stretch its available supply. 9.27 stone crucible not ill. 85i-M-22. s101, cleaning, west wall.* Pres. length 4.0; w. 3.5; th. 1.0 cm. irregular piece of stone to which adheres traces of metal scoriae or slag. there is nothing to indicate that this could be part of a mold. For stone crucibles, see tylecote Metallurgy, 22.

9.28 terracotta crucible not ill. 85i-P-1. h3-iii/h4-iV (bates’s dump), 1.1. h. 2.0; w. 2.6; th. 0.6. small piece of crucible rim with flat lip. Dark gray fabric; core contains numerous small voids (left over from burned-off chaff temper?) and grit inclusions. convex exterior surface pale and cracked by heat. interior surface pocked, with metal scoriae. 9.29 terracotta crucible not ill. 85i-P-3. s101, cleaning, west wall.* Pres. length 6.9; w. 4.0; th. 2.2. coarse reddish brown fabric, turning gray on interior surface, exterior light dun-colored. core contains small to medium voids (left over from burned-off chaff temper?). For MAscA analysis, see pp. 188–189. 9.30 terracotta crucible not ill. 85i-P-23. s101, cleaning exterior, south wall.* Pres. length 5.2; w. 3.8; th. 1.45. coarse reddish brown fabric, turning gray on surfaces; core pocked with small voids (left over from burned chaff-off temper?). slag adhering to interior surface. 9.31 terracotta crucible not ill. 85i-P-24. s101, cleaning exterior, south wall.* Pres. length 4.5; w. 3.75; th. 2.3. coarse pale orange fabric, turning gray on interior surface, pale orange on exterior. core pocked with voids (left over from burned chaff-off temper?). thick layer of slag adhering to interior surface. 9.32 terracotta crucible not ill. 85i-P-2. 101, cleaning interior, 1.1. Pres. length 3.4; w. 2.5; th. 1.1. coarse dark gray fabric, reddish brown on exterior surface. core pocked with small voids. interior coated with greenish metallic residue. 9.33 terracotta crucible not ill. 85i-P-25. s101, cleaning exterior, south wall.* Pres. length 2.9; w. 1.5. Vitrified clay with many voids in its burned fabric. core pocked with many small voids. small number of metal droplets or slag adhering to interior surface. 9.34 terracotta crucible not ill. 85i-P-26. s101, cleaning exterior, south wall.* Pres. length 3.9; w. 2.5; th. 1.3. Vitrified clay with many voids in its burned fabric; exterior surface glossy and pocked. A few droplets of metal adhering to interior surface.

lAte bronze Age iMPleMents AnD other MiscellAneous objects

9.35 terracotta crucible not ill. 85i-P-63. s101 cleaning interior, 1.1. Pres. length 4.5; w. 4.5; th. 3.0. coarse buff clay with large shell or limestone inclusions. For MAscA analysis, see pp. 189–190. 9.36 terracotta crucible Pl. 10 85i-P-62. s101 cleaning interior, 1.1. Pres. length 2.5; w. 2.15; th. 0.04. surface flake; reddish coarse fabric with chaff temper inclusions. Metal droplets and slag adhering. 9.37 terracotta crucible Pl. 10 93i-P-3. island 1.1 stray. Pres. length 3.5; w. 3.0; th. 2.8. burned coarse clay with metal droplets adhering. 9.38 terracotta crucible Pl. 10 85i-P-22. i5-iii, 1.1 stray. Pres. length 4.5; w. 3.2; th. 2.0. burned coarse clay with metal and slag adhering. 9.39 terracotta crucible not ill. 93i-P-2. F4-iii, 3.1 (s107). Pres. length 2.0; w. 1.2. Destroyed during testing; no description available. 9.40 terracotta crucible Pl. 10 87i-P-69. h5-ii, 3.1* (s121). Pres. length 2.5; w. 2.0; th. 1.0. convex flake, with metal droplets adhering. 9.41 terracotta crucible Pl. 10 87i-P-57. h5-ii, 3.1* (s121). Pres. length 5.4; w. 3.2; th. 1.8; est. d. 24. section of plain rim from bowl-shaped vessel. unevenly fired dark gray core and reddish-black surface, with metal droplets adhering. 9.42 terracotta crucible Pl. 10 89i-P-8. h5-iii, 3.1 (s130, s132, s134a, b). Pres. length 5.6; w. 4.4; th. 1.4. coarse fabric, slightly reddened below outer surface. chaff temper inclusions. interior coated with greenish metallic residue. 9.43 terracotta crucible Pl. 10 87i-P-63. h5-ii, 5.1 (s121). Pres. length 6.0; w. 3.8; th. 2.2. coarse dark red fabric with black core. no discernible inclusions, but voids where chaff temper has burned away.

53

9.44 terracotta crucible Pl. 10 87i-P-66. h5-ii, 5.4 (s121). Pres. length 3.7; w. 2.8; th. 1.6. outer convex surface coarse brown clay, with shell or lime inclusions. inner surface displays traces of intense burning, with grains of metal adhering. 9.45 terracotta crucible? Pl. 10 93i-P-4. stray. Pres. length 6.0; w. 3.1; th. 1.1. outer convex surface has burnished, glossy surface. inner surface pitted with slight traces of metal adhering. core contains shell or lime inclusions. 9.46 Metal Waste Pl. 10 87i-M0-25. h5-ii, 4.2 (s121). length 2.7; w. 2.3; th. 0.9. spongy lump of melted metal and vitrified earth. compare catling, Mansion, 219. 9.47 Metal Waste Pl. 10 87i-M-12. h5-ii, 4.4 (s121). length 2.6; w. 1.6; th. 0.6. spongy lump of waste with traces of metal droplets adhering. 9.48 Metal Waste 89i-M-1. h5-i, 4.1. h. 2.8; w. 2.0; th. 2.3. corroded lump of metal waste.

Pl. 10

9.49 lump of Metal 89i-M-2. h5-iii/W, 3.1.* length 2.2; w. 1.6; th. 0.9. curved lump of metal, much corroded.

Pl. 10

9.50 iron ore not ill. 93i-M-4. D4-i/ii, 4.1 (s119). length 2.9; w. 2.2; th. 1.9. single lump of hematite, coated with sand and copper carbonates and/or chlorides. hematite could be explained as flux for smelting, but no other evidence was recovered to suggest that the island was ever used for more than simple copper or bronze casting. the lump is the only sample the expedition was allowed to export in order to analyze the assemblage of waste detritus collected from the s119 Workshop area.39 it is, thus, impossible to say whether it resembles the rest of fragments or is unique. For MAscA analysis, see 187–188.

54

MArsA MAtruh

late bronze Age stone and other Miscellaneous Artifacts (Pls. 10 and 11, nos. 9.51–9.85) Donald White with contributions by

brigit crowell the island’s bronze Age levels brought to light a small number of stone objects40 that for the most part fall under four basic headings: flaked tools, ground pounders, millstones, and weights. because of their recognizably early character, all of the island’s flaked, chipped, or ground tools are described here even though some were retrieved in clearly post-bronze Age contexts. on the other hand, discussion of the millstones and weights found in definitely late deposits is deferred to chapter 9 on the post-bronze Age artifacts because both classes of objects are too generic to attribute them to the early period solely on the basis of physical appearance. Although the two pounders (9.61 and 9.63) from late contexts that have been included here are not necessarily early, they well may have been manufactured in the bronze Age and continued to be used into the historical period. nearly any bronze Age site where so-called subsistence activities were carried out can be expected to have stone implements, and, despite, or perhaps even because of, its specialized function as a coastal way-station, bates’s island is no exception. the island probably served as a revictualing stop for seafarers, so that food preparation may have been carried out on a larger scale than necessary just for the feeding of the seasonal inhabitants. if used to weight nets or fishing lines, the stone sinkers (9.66–9.73), along with the bronze fishing hooks (9.24–9.26), provide evidence for fishing activities either in the lagoon or in the nearby sea. the various hearths and storage bins found in late bronze Age levels, along with their accompanying faunal remains, form another equally predictable pattern of subsistence behavior.

Flaked stones (Fig. 9.1, Pl. 10, nos. 9.51–9.59) the following catalog includes nine flaked stone tools, elsewhere defined as “pieces detached by means of percussion from a larger rock matrix.”41 it should be noted that, while too small an assemblage to permit much in the way of farreaching conclusions, a significantly larger number of cherts or flints, whose identity as actual man-made tools seemed too uncertain for inclusion, were noted throughout various island deposits.42 Five of the flakes (9.52–9.56) come from uncontaminated late bronze Age deposits. two were flaked from a distinctive black basalt (9.52 and 9.53) used for a third, similar tool (9.51) found on the island’s surface. because of their shared characteristics, all three basalt tools can be regarded as late bronze Age, bringing the total number of flaked tools of positive late bronze Age origin to six, or 66% of the total cataloged assemblage. their material appears to be basalt rather than “obsidian-like” as originally reported.43 obsidian does not occur naturally in egypt, and it would have had to have been imported by the egyptians or the island’s Aegean population. the basalt sources for 9.51–9.53 may well have been near the Fayum or perhaps farther to the south;44 chert and flint used for the remaining flaked tools are found readily elsewhere throughout the Western Desert.45 For this and other reasons, it makes more sense to assign the manufacture of the island’s flaked tools to the bronze Age libyans, if not the Matruh region’s 13th century b.c. egyptian occupants, rather than to an Aegean source.46 For what it is worth, the chipped stones

lAte bronze Age iMPleMents AnD other MiscellAneous objects

Fig. 9.1. late bronze Age flaked stones.

55

56

MArsA MAtruh

cataloged at Kommos represent only 2% of the 4,300 ground stone implements found at that site.47 blitzer observes that the “production of chipped stone implements at Middle Minoan– late Minoan Kommos bears little resemblance to the strong manufacturing tradition evident during the same time period on the greek mainland and may be a good sign of the availability of metal implements in quantity on the island of crete.”48 the same may well be true for bates’s island during its 14th to 13th century b.c. occupation. on the other hand, the evidence from Kommos is still sufficient to indicate that all of Matruh’s flaked tool industry cannot be automatically interpreted as exclusively northeast African in origin. the main problem in dealing with the island’s stone tools, as well as its libyan pottery and ostrich eggshells, is the lack of documented contemporary regional comparanda.49 there does exist, however, a relative abundance of evidence from neolithic sites ranging from the tripolitanian desert50 to the haua Fteah cave at the western limit of the Marmarica51 to egypt’s Western Desert as far south as the egyptian-sudanese border.52 the difficulty lies in relating the earlier material with the island when the latest of these cultures date anywhere from 1500 to 4500 years before the late bronze Age occupation of the island.53 caton-thompson narrowed this chronological gap with the discovery of two chert tools on the slopes of garn el-gineh in the Kharga oasis.54 she compares those lithics, identified as a libyan reaper’s knife and a sickle blade, with a similar assemblage of tools excavated near gasr ghuata, termed “neolithic” by their discovers, Menghin and Amer, as well as similar implements found by junker at tell el-Yahudiya said to be of early Dynastic date.55 in caton-thompson’s view, the occupants of the garn el-gineh site should be equated with the “tribal libyans of the temehu clans, descendants, one may suppose, mainly of the bedouin Microlithic people, possibly intermixed with residual neolithic Peasants . . . [who] though primarily pastoral, eked out their economy like modern bedouins, by plots of cereals.”56 it helps to further narrow the gap that an early

Dynastic triangular sickle-blade from the Kharga oasis resembles chert blade no. 9.57. the evidence gathered by the carter expedition along the coast of the libyan plateau has been summarized elsewhere.57 Although, unfortunately, none of it can be dated, some of carter’s presumably libyan lithics found along the cyrenaican coast could well be contemporary with the island’s stone tools. What this all means is that our evidence points to a link of sorts between the stone tools from the 14th century b.c. island and regional technologies belonging to the neolithic and early Dynastic periods that have been associated with the ancestors of the bronze Age libyans. but, at this stage in our knowledge, only the discovery of a larger sample from a contemporary regional site such as the ramasside fortress at zawiyet umm el-rakham can resolve with any degree of exactitude the question of source. According to harold Dibble, number 9.59 probably started out life as part of a hammerstone.58 he also believes that while most of the remaining specimens are untouched flakes, at least one of the cherts (9.58) has been reworked; the same also may be true of one of the basalt flakes (9.51) as well as the hammerstone flake (9.59). 9.51 basalt Flake Fig. 9.1, Pl. 10 85i-s0-6. surface find.* length 2.0; w. 1.5; th. 0.5. small flake of black basalt with rounded sharp edge that displays minute retouching. 9.52 basalt Flake 85i-s0-24. F4-iii, 3.2 (s107). length 1.8; w. 1.8; th. 0.5. small black basalt flake.

Fig. 9.1, Pl. 10

9.53 basalt Flake 89i-s0-10. h5-iii/sW, 3.1 (s130). length 1.6; w. 1.1; th. 0.5. A semicircular flake; edge still sharp. 9.54 chert Flake 89i-s0-12. h5-iii/sW, 3.1 (s130). length 3.2; w. 3.5; th. 0.4.

Fig. 9.1

Fig. 9.1, Pl. 10

lAte bronze Age iMPleMents AnD other MiscellAneous objects

9.55 chert Flake 89i-s0-11. h5-iii, 3.1 (s130). Pres. length 2.8; w. 3.0; th. 0.9.

Fig. 9.1, Pl. 10

9.56 chert Flake 89i-s0-13. h5-iii/W, 4.4 (s131). length 2.3; w. 1.5; th. 0.8.

Fig. 9.1

9.57 chert blade Fig. 9.1 85i-s0-7. s wall, sponge-Divers house (s101), 1.1. length 2.9; w. 1.8; th. 0.7. triangular sickle-blade? compare Kharga, 41–42, pl. 122, 4 for a supposedly early Dynastic temehu blade from Kharga oasis. 9.58 chert blade 89i-s0-2. ridge surface W of D4-i/ii.* length 5.5; w. 3; th. 1.2. curved edge shows signs of retouching.

Fig. 9.1

9.59 chert core of hammerstone Flake? Fig. 9.1 89i-s0-8. e4-iii, 2.4* (s102c). length 5.1; w. 3.8; th. 2.2. rounded greenish gray chert stone. several flakes have been secondarily removed. either accidentally broken from a hammerstone and then reused as a tool or simply a fragment of a broken hammerstone.

ground tools (Pls. 10, 11, nos. 9.60–9.63) While only four stone pounders or pestles were cataloged from all levels of the island, a number of rounded stones were initially considered as potential candidates before being rejected as simply water worn beach stones. since the sandy island does not “throw off” stones of this kind, they must have been introduced from the mainland for reasons no longer entirely clear. since hammerstones or pounders made up part of the ballast for the cape gelidonya wreck,59 our beach stones may have served a similar purpose. the entries below follow the Kommos publication’s use of the Wenworth scale for describing the size of water worn and alluvial stones.60 9.60 hammerstone or Pestle not ill. 87i-s0-1. i6-i/ii, 2.1* (s114, s115, s116). length 6.8; max d. 8.8. hard igneous stone cobble, artificially rounded at one end and tapering to a blunt, rounded end at the

57

other. cracked and pockmarked but without clear signs of wear or marks of having been used to grind or pound. because the i6-i/ii, 2.1 deposit is definitely post-bronze Age, the stone may also be late. compare blitzer, Kommos i, 423–424, for the effects of abrading or pounding the stone surface. 9.61 Pounder (?) Pl. 10 85i-s0-23. h4-iii, 1.1 (W wall, s101). length 10.7; w. 8.5; th. 3.6. Flattened beach stone with a roughly worked circular depression let into one of the flat surfaces. 9.62 hammerstone Pl. 10 85i-s0-21. e4-iii, 2.3 (s102d). length 14; w. 7; th. 5.8. black, kidney-shaped cobble, with a very smooth surface. one end exhibits a small roughened area that appears to be the result of pounding. 9.63 Pounder or Pestle Pl. 11 85i-s0-19. F4-iii, 3.1 (s107). Max. d. 8.2; th. 2.2–4.0. Flint disk shaped like a convex hockey puck. outer circumference roughened from pounding or grinding.

Quernstones (Pl. 11, nos. 9.64 and 9.65) two examples of the upper grindstones of portable milling devices or querns61 were recovered from unmixed early levels. to judge from what remains, both were ovoid or elliptical in plan and plano-convex in section.62 neither carry traces of the protuberances at their short ends which serve as grips on at least some pre-greek saddle-querns reported elsewhere.63 neither are cut from what eventually becomes the preferred grindstone material, lava,64 but from a hard limestone,65 which provided a pocked surface suitable for grinding grain. Although no pieces of lower grinding platforms were excavated in late bronze Age levels, the type could be represented by the three platform fragments made from a scoriaceous lava recovered on the island’s surface.66 9.64 Quern Pl. 11 85i-s0-25. F4-iii, 3.1 (s107). Max. pres. length 11.8; w. 16.4; max. th. 5.0. Plano-convex hard limestone (?), pocked or pitted

58

MArsA MAtruh

with minute holes across its flat grinding surface. compare evely, Mansion, 228, pl. 210b. blitzer, Kommos i, 479–481, pls. 52–54 type 17. 9.65 Quern not ill. 85i-s0-20. F4-iii, 3.1 (s107). Max. pres. length 16.3; w. 17; max. th. 7.0. cut from a pitted limestone. compare evely, Mansion, 228, pl. 210, a.

stone sinkers or Weights (Pl. 11, nos. 9.66–9.73) eight small, smooth-surfaced stones (in some cases almost certainly beach stones), pierced for suspension, were recovered. they appear to form a distinct class of late bronze Age object since six (9.66–9.71) occur in late bronze Age contexts. of the two found in later, mixed deposits, 9.72 could be a leftover from the earlier period while 9.73 may not belong to the series at all. to the extent that the type seems to be late bronze Age, the presence of this class carries its own limited chronological weight. too small to have functioned as anchors, the objects may have been weights used for sinking fishing-lines or nets, or for weaving on a loom. they vary both in size and shape. Five examples of approximately the same type of pierced stone have been excavated in MM iii to lM iiib levels at Kommos where no specific function has been suggested other than their having been used as suspension weights.67 bass reports two line or net sinkers aboard the cape gelidonya wreck. one was a round disk, the other triangular. neither were pierced, but the triangular weight was grooved to hold a string.68 9.66 sinker or Weight not ill. 89i-s0-5. h5-iii/W, 4.4 (s131). length 8.2; w. 6.7; th. 2.8; d. of pierced hole 4.4. ovoid beach stone, pierced for suspension near its tapered top. 9.67 sinker or Weight Pl. 11 89i-s0-6. h5-iii/W, 4.1 (s131). Pres. length 14.4; w. 9.2; th. 3.4; d. of hole 1.0. ovoid beach stone, broken at its tapered end. opposite end pierced for suspension.

9.68 sinker or Weight Pl. 11 85i-s0-2. e4-iii, 2.4 (s102c). length 4.8; w. 4.7; th. 0.6. Flat, roughly triangular stone, worn smooth. Pierced for suspension twice, once near pointed top (d. 0.6) and once toward center (d. 0.4). compare triangular sinker from the cape gelidonya wreck, gelidonya, 128–129, st 21. 9.69 sinker or Weight Pl. 11 85i-s0-3. g5-iV, sW test, 3.1 (s101). h. 7.8; w. 6.4; th. 1.9; d. of hole 0.5. Flat, irregularly shaped (beach?) stone, worn smooth and chipped at one end. Pierced for suspension at other end. 9.70 sinker or Weight Pl. 11 87i-ss-4. D4-i/ii, 3.1 (s119). h. 5.4; w. 4.1; th. 5.8; d. of hole 0.4. irregularly spherical beach stone, pierced for suspension toward edge. 9.71 sinker or Weight Pl. 11 89i-s0-3. h5-iii/sW, 4.1 (s131). length 5.7; w. 4.2; th. 2.0; d. of hole 0.1. Flat, triangular beach stone, pierced for suspension near its edge with an unusually small hole. compare triangular sinker from the cape gelidonya wreck, gelidonya, 128–129, st 21. 9.72 sinker or Weight not ill. 87i-ss-2. h5-i, 2.1.* length 10.7; w. 6.6; th. 1.7; max. d. of hole 1.7. Flat beachstone with rounded edges, pierced in center for suspension. 9.73 sinker or Weight Pl. 11 85i-s0-13. sponge-Divers house (s101), interior, 1.1. length 6.9; w. 5.6; th. 2.2; d. of hole 0.4. roughly square flat stone, broken along one corner and on surface around drill hole. Pierced near one end for suspension. the squarish outline differs from the above examples, and the stone could be modern.

Miscellaneous stone Artifacts (Pl. 11, nos. 9.74–9.77) the following objects are included here because of their recovery in what appear to be uncontaminated late bronze Age levels. there is nothing about their appearance or function that otherwise marks them as necessarily early.

lAte bronze Age iMPleMents AnD other MiscellAneous objects

9.74 bead not ill. 85i-s0-5. e4-iii, 2.3. Pres. length 0.7; d. 0.8. tubular-shaped, lustrous black stone. split in two and broken at both ends. originally drilled for stringing. 9.75 Worked base (?) Pl. 11 89i-s0-4. h5-iii/W, 4.4. length 6.9; pres. w. 4.9; th. 2.2. square or rectangular block of limestone of unknown purpose. smoothed edges and upper surface; the latter treated with a recessed or lowered margin preserved on two sides. 9.76 Whetstone (?) Pl. 11 87i-s0-3. h5-ii, 6.1. Pres. length 3.4; w. 1.4; th. 0.9. rectangular limestone (?) fragment, broken at one end. one surface has been worn concave; the other preserves a small slot, 0.9 by 0.4 cm. Many whetstones and abrading stones have been reported from Kommos. compare blitzer, Kommos i, 441– 447, esp. gs 247. For whetstones on the cape gelidonya wreck, see gelidonya, 39, 45, 82, 117, 163; see also “polishers,” gelidonya, 128–130, figs. 137–138. it may be noted here that none of the pumice chunks found in all island occupation levels show wear marks to indicate that they were used for grinding or polishing, as at Kommos (blitzer, Kommos i, 531). 9.77 Whetstone (?) not ill. P89-s0-1. island surface.* Pres. length 3.6; w. 3.0; th. 2.2. incomplete oblong, plano-convex gray-black basalt. Flat grinding surface worn smooth.

Faience and glass (Pl. 11, nos. 9.78–9.85) the island produced only ten beads in either glass or faience. seven were recovered from what appear to be reliably early, i.e., late bronze Age levels, while two (9.82) came from a mixed deposit containing a high percentage of late bronze Age objects and can be considered early. Five were found in trench D4-i/ii at the southern end of the island’s ridge in association with the s119 workshop, which we have argued may have been used for casting bronze tools for local exchange.69 this situation raises the interesting possibility that the same area was perhaps used for stringing

59

beads for the same purpose, although the sample is far too small to be certain. the single faience vessel wall fragment, 9.85, was recovered from what appears to be an uncontaminated late bronze Age deposit. in assembling the following brief remarks, i am much indebted to brigit crowell, who has supplied the following analysis but should bear no responsibility for any errors that may result because she has not had the opportunity to examine the island material first-hand, but only through photographs. According to crowell, the identifiable beads listed below find their closet analogies in the recently excavated settlement material from house P46.33 at Amarna in which a workshop may have been located and where faience beads are the most common class of object.70 this means that the island’s beads are of probable egyptian manufacture and should therefore belong, broadly speaking, to the 18th and 19th Dynasties. it should, however, be kept in mind that the simplest types of beads, such as our tiny ring beads (9.80 and 9.81), have a long tradition in egypt, dating back to the old Kingdom and even earlier. 9.78 Faience segmented bead Pl. 11 87i-M0-22. D4-i/ii, n. balk, 2.1. length 1.3; d. 0.4. segmented cylindrical faience bead, ridged or grooved for added color(s) no longer preserved; pierced for stringing. Worn and stained blue surface. see boyce, Faience, 76, 79–80, fig. 2.17, type s2. some 30 segmented beads have been found in house P46.33, of which the longest is 9.5 cm. they may have been used for necklaces. 9.79 Faience segmented bead Pl. 11 85i-M0-5. F4-iii, 4.1. Pres. length 0.5; d. 0.5. small cylindrical brown bead with ridged or grooved surface originally filled with white paste. one end broken. see boyce, Faience, 76, 79–80, fig. 2.17, type s2 or s3. 9.80 glass or Faience ring bead Pl. 11 87i-M0-21. D4-i/ii, n. balk, 2.1. D. 0.5; th. 0.3. rounded in section and pierced for stringing. the core appears to be blue with the surface covered with creamy yellow paste. see boyce, Faience, 76, 79, fig. 2.17, type r1.

60

MArsA MAtruh

9.81 three Faience ring beads Pl. 11 87i-g-5. D4-i/ii, 2.1. D. 0.3. three tiny blue/black beads, pierced for stringing. one crumbled into powder while being photographed. see boyce, Faience, 76, 79, fig. 2.17, type r1. 9.82 two Faience extended sphere beads Pl. 11 85i-M0-2. e4-iii, 2.1.* length 0.7; d. 0.4. two barrel-shaped black/gray beads, pierced for stringing. see boyce, Faience, 79, 80, fig. 2.17, type m es1. 9.83 glass bead (?) 85i-g-7. e4-iii, 4.2. length 0.95; d. 1.3; d. of string hole 0.1.

Pl. 11

badly decayed glass, perhaps originally a translu cent blue with opaque yellow spiraling trail decoration. only half of the bead preserved. 9.84 oblong blue Frit not ill. 87i-M0-18. D4-i/ii, 3.1. Pres. length 1.8; d. 0.2. longitudinally ridged oblong shape with poorly preserved, raised lines or flanges of blue frit. broken at one end. 9.85 Faience Vessel not ill. 85i-M0-13. e4-iii, 2.3. Max. pres. length 2.9; max. pres. w. 1.5; th. 0.5. Wall fragment of bowl-shaped vessel, broken on all edges. exterior and interior surfaces white; porous core yellow. From a late bronze Age deposit.

ostrich eggshells (Pl. 11, nos. 9.86–9.120) Donald White the island’s ostrich eggshell fragments71 are cataloged here as artifacts rather than as part of reese’s study of the island’s faunal remains. While we can never be entirely certain, some of the shells may have made their way onto the island as portable water flasks or cut down to serve as cups,72 despite the fact that none of the recovered fragments display signs of paint, incision, or other forms of surface decoration.73 this does not mean that the eggs could not have been cooked and their contents eaten along with the bird’s flesh, which seems to have been a standard practice in antiquity as well as in less developed societies down to the present.74 but, as reese has shown,75 the absence of ostrich bones on the island militates against any widespread use of the animal for food like that documented at carthage76 and perhaps rome.77 the total number of shell fragments from all island contexts is 60. of these, nine were not inventoried in the field, and no record was kept of their dimensions. the overall dimensions of

the remaining 51 fragments provide a rough estimate of 207 sq. cm. for the combined surface area of 85% of the total assemblage. Assuming that the nine unrecorded scraps were approximately the same size as the rest, the total preserved surface area of all 60 pieces would be in the rough vicinity of 235 sq. cm. this is the approximate equivalent of a flat surface measuring only 15.4 by 15.4 cm., which in turn is hardly enough to wrap half the surface area of an average ostrich eggshell.78 of the island’s total assemblage, 24 or 40% were excavated in purely late bronze Age deposits. With the exception of three fragments, of which one came from an Archaic deposit (9.114), one from the uncontexted surface (9.120), and the third from an undated deposit (9.104), the 33 remaining fragments came from mixed contexts that included late bronze Age artifacts. the chances seem good that shells from deposits containing no other bronze Age material represent chance survivals from the late

lAte bronze Age iMPleMents AnD other MiscellAneous objects

bronze Age occupation. the reason for this is that even if the mainland libyans, who are tied most closely with the island during its late bronze Age occupation, cannot be shown to have practiced some form of struthioculture or ostrich farming,79 their ties with ostrich products are well attested in other respects for this period. this would seem to strengthen the probability that the bulk of the island’s eggshells date before its iron Age occupation. on the other hand, ostrich products go on being used throughout antiquity, including by the post-bronze Age libyans, so perfect certainty in this matter seems out of the question. just how the fragments came to be distributed across the site plays a role in assessing their place in the island’s bronze Age economy. common sense rules out that they came to the island broken rather than as whole eggs. it makes even less sense to count each fragment as a single egg. but can it be assumed that all the fragments from a given closed deposit were once part of a single egg, or are we dealing instead with scraps of more than one egg?80 the island’s individual living units are tightly confined spatially, and life persisted on the island for a very long time. Does that argue that fragments from the same trench, but found in stratigraphically separate deposits, once belonged to a single egg that ended up scattered through several deposits and spread over a wide band of time? For example, trench h5-iii, 3.1, a mixed but probably largely late bronze Age deposit, had six fragments (9.110–9.113), while the nearby h5-iii/W, 3.2 deposit, which appears to be Archaic, brought to light eight (9.114). When the pieces were recovered and initially tabulated, no obvious joins were apparent to the cataloger, but the more systematic attempt to make joins that could have settled this matter was unfortunately never carried out. the same is true of the 14 fragments from the late bronze Age interior of the s119 workshop, D4-i/ii (9.86–9.88), excavated inside a walled enclosure measuring no more than 2.20 by 2.60 m.,81 but the chances are statistically greater than elsewhere that we are dealing with only a single eggshell. if we accept the general proposition that all the eggshell fragments found in associa-

61

tion with a single structure or a pair of closely linked structures come from a single egg, the island may have left us with no more than ten or possibly 11 individual eggshells.82 As observed, the island’s fragments have no surface decoration. it might have been theoretically possible that they were used locally for flasks or cups if it were not for the essentially unlimited availability of terracotta containers on the island. Finds of both decorated and plain ostrich eggshells in other bronze Age Mediterranean contexts83 suggest, instead, the strong likelihood that the islanders acquired empty shells from the libyans for the express purpose of exporting them out for resale and eventual modification.84 looked at this way, rather than indicating how few eggshells were brought to the island, the relative paucity of eggshells may indicate that their handlers were simply careful not to break a valuable exchange commodity. According to this model, in addition to functioning as a protective haven and resupply station, bates’s island was used as an export center for a regional specialty commodity.85 the eggshells should, therefore, be added to the fresh water, meat, and fuel, which previously have been argued to be the materials that the native libyan element exchanged with the island’s foreign occupants. only in this case, unlike the other products, the shells were destined for something more than shipboard consumption. the most explicit corroborative evidence for the ship-borne transport of the shells remains the uluburun wreck.86 ostrich products in antiquity have been discussed frequently since the pioneer research of bates,87 and little could be gained by minuting here all the various conclusions reached elsewhere.88 instead, what seems most pertinent for present purposes is the connection between the suppliers of the product and the product itself. in some respects, the neolithic occupants of the haua Fteah cave near the cyrenaican coast southeast of the ancient greek port of Apollonia come closest to approximating the ancestors of the late bronze Age eastern libyans. For that reason their incised and plain ostrich eggshell fragments should perhaps be regarded as the first

62

MArsA MAtruh

appearance of ostrich products in what is, in senso stricto, a coastal eastern libyan archaeological context.89 but what of prehistoric sites in the southern reaches of egypt’s libyan desert more or less coeval with haua Fteah? catonthompson lists eggshells and disk beads as diagnostic elements of her “bedouin Microlithic” stage in the prehistory of the Kharga oasis.90 twenty plain ostrich shell fragments have been reported from the late Prehistoric (i.e., after 6000 b.c.) sites of g.K, i6 l.d. and g.K. from Wadi el bakht in the southern gilf Kebir-gebel and the c uweinat region, 450 miles west of the nile and 600 miles from the Mediterranean coast.91 A total of 59 worked and unworked shell fragments including disk beads and a bowl, spread over twelve neolithic “libyan culture sites,” have also been reported from the Wadi Dungal terrace region.92 Kantor discusses eggshells from Predynastic tombs in egypt and early Dynastic nubian tombs, including a spectacular incised example found in upper egypt and now in the oriental institute in chicago.93 to the west, beads made of ostrich eggshells are relatively common in the Prehistoric Maghreb,94 and engraved ostrich eggshell flasks have been found in Mauretanian Azrag.95 Perhaps the most intriguing report of a pre-bronze Age discovery is catonthompson’s single incised shell from the Kharga oasis site of garn-el gineh. this was perhaps associated with a deposit of early Dynastic handmade sherds with incised linear decoration reminiscent of our local shell tempered Ware pottery found in surface scatters on the mainland near bates’s island.96 Viewed conservatively, these prehistoric cultures are probably geographically, chronologically, and perhaps even culturally too isolated to press for any direct connection with the Marmarican late bronze Age libyans. the remaining post-neolithic evidence tends to be either pictorial or literary and stems from the egyptians. the bronze Age libyans’ role as eggshell suppliers to the egyptians is confirmed by a tell el-Amarna tomb painting depicting libyans offering eggs as tribute.97 the painted record has the additional effect of establishing a commercial exchange value for the eggs in the eyes of the

libyans’ dominant neighbors, unless the transaction is more symbolic than actual value-based. it has been long recognized that an identifying feature of libyan military dress depicted on the egyptian monuments is the ostrich-plume headdress,98 which a number of the later authors indicate continues in use as a helmet decoration among their descendents into late antiquity.99 Finally, s. stucchi has argued for a use of ostrich wings for shields among the bronze Age libyans, but his proof is not convincing.100 According to herodotus, after the bronze Age period, the tribal Macae, who inhabited the western littoral of the syrtic gulf, used ostrich skins for shields;101 they make better military sense than wings.102 As late as the 2nd century A.D., lucian claims to know that the libyans were still using ostrich eggshells for cups, because, “as there was nothing but sand as material, they had no pottery,”103 a patent mistake. in any case, according to bates, lucian’s observation may be anachronistic.104 not surprisingly, the tripolitanian garamantes ate the eggs.105 the best documented archaeological connection between ostriches and the later libyans comes from the roman imperial period settlement of ghirza in the steppe-desert region, about 200 km. south of leptis Magna.106 the site provides evidence of middens for the shells107 and also the excavated remains of actual feathers.108 in addition, the birds appear in relief sculpture on no less than seven late imperial period ghirzan funeral monuments where they are usually depicted being chased down in the wild by hounds and horsemen.109 by this late time, much of the interest in hunting the birds may have been commercially motivated, and the birds destined for sale for arena venationes staged on the coast110 or export to mainland italy.111

9.86 eight ostrich eggshell Fragments not ill. 87i-M0-17. D4-i/ii, 3.1 (s119). 1.0 by 1.2. 1.2 by 1.0. 1.8 by 1.2. 1.2 by 1.0. 1.7 by 1.5. 0.9 by 0.8. 1.6 by 0.9. 0.8 by 1.0. combined surface area of all fragments 11.27 sq. cm. late bronze Age.

lAte bronze Age iMPleMents AnD other MiscellAneous objects

9.87 Five ostrich eggshell Fragments not ill. 87i-M0-20. D4-i/ii, 3.1 (s119). 1.2 by 0.8. 0.9 by 0.5. 1.0 by 0.6. 0.4 by 0.3. 1.0 by 0.4. combined surface area of all fragments 2.53 sq. cm. late bronze Age. 9.88 ostrich eggshell Fragment not ill. 87i-M0-26. D4-i/ii, 3.2 (s119). 1.8 by 0.9. surface area 0.72 sq. cm. late bronze Age. 9.89 ostrich eggshell Fragment 87i-M0-9. e4-ii/e, 1.1. 0.9 by 0.7. surface area 0.63 sq. cm. undated.

not ill.

9.90 ostrich eggshell Fragment 87i-M0-10. e4-ii/e, 1.1. 1.3 by 1.2. surface area 1.56 sq. cm. undated.

not ill.

9.91 ostrich eggshell Fragment 87i-M0-11. e4-ii/e, 1.1. 2.6 by 2.9. surface area 7.54 sq. cm. undated.

not ill.

9.92 ostrich eggshell Fragment 87i-M0-27. e4-ii/e, 1.1. 3.8 by 3.5. surface area 13.3 sq. cm. undated.

not ill.

9.93a–c ostrich eggshell Fragment not ill. a. 87i-M0-14 e4-ii/e, 1.1. 2.5 by 1.4. b. 87i-M0-15 e4-ii/e, 3.1. 0.4 by 1.6. c. 87i-M0-16. e4-ii/e, 3.1. 1.8 by 1.5. three joining fragments. total surface area is 9.8 sq. cm. late bronze Age, mixed. 9.94 ostrich eggshell Fragment not ill. 87i-M0-28. e4-center, 2.1 (s122; s137). 2.1 by 1.5. surface area 3.15 sq. cm. late bronze Age, mixed. 9.95 ostrich eggshell Fragment not ill. 85i-M0-3. e4-iii, 2.3 (s102). 6.6 by 7.6. the largest piece recovered from the island; surface area 50.l6 sq. cm. compare conwell, ostrich eggs, 28, fig. 6. late bronze Age.

63

9.96 ostrich eggshell Fragment 85i-M0-12. e4-iii, 2.7 (s102). 1.9 by 1.1. surface area 2.09 sq. cm. undated.

not ill.

9.97 ostrich eggshell Fragment not inv. e4-iii, 3.2 (s102). Dimensions not available. late bronze Age.

not ill.

9.98 ostrich eggshell Fragment not inv. e4-iii, 3.3 (s102). Dimensions not available. late bronze Age.

not ill.

9.99 ostrich eggshell Fragments not inv. F4-iii, 1.1. Dimensions not available. undated.

not ill.

9.100 ostrich eggshell Fragment not ill. not inv. F4-iii, 2.2 (s107; s120). Dimensions not available. A sliver specimen. late bronze Age, mixed. 9.101 ostrich eggshell Fragment not inv. F4-iii, 3.1 (s107; s120). Dimensions not available. late bronze Age.

not ill.

9.102 two ostrich eggshell Fragments not inv. F4-iii, 4.1 (s107; s120). Dimensions not available. late bronze Age.

not ill.

9.103 two ostrich eggshell Fragments not ill. 85-i-M0-11. F4-iii, 5.1 (s107; s120). 2.9 by 2.1. 3.0 by 1.3. combined surface area 9.99 sq. cm. late bronze Age 9.104 ostrich eggshell Fragment not inv. g5-iV/sW test, 3.1 (s101). Dimensions not available. late bronze Age.

not ill.

9.105 ostrich eggshell Fragment not ill. 85i-M0-7. g5-iV/sW test, 4.1 (s101). 3.0 by 2.2. surface area 6.6 sq. cm. late bronze Age.

64

MArsA MAtruh

9.106 ostrich eggshell Fragment not ill. 87i-M0-1. h5-i, 1.1 (s118). 2.6 by 2.1. Possibly burned grayish. surface area 5.46 sq. cm. late bronze Age, mixed. 9.107 ostrich eggshell Fragment not ill. 87i-M0-4. h5-i, 2.1 (s118). 1.9 by 3.1. surface area 5.89 sq. cm. late bronze Age, mixed. 9.108 ostrich eggshell Fragment not ill. 87i-M0-23. h5-ii, 3.1 (s118; s121; s126). 2.1 by 1.1. surface area 2.31 sq. cm. late bronze Age, mixed. 9.109 ostrich eggshell Fragment not ill. 87i-M0-24. h5-ii, 4.2 (?). 4.4 by 3.4. surface area 14.96 sq. cm. late bronze Age. 9.110 ostrich eggshell Fragment not ill. 89i-M0-4. h5-iii, 2.1 (s132; s134). 1.8 by 1.0. surface area 1.8 sq. cm. late bronze Age, mixed. 9.111 Four ostrich eggshell Fragments not ill. 89i-M0-3. h5-iii, 3.1 (s132; s134). 2.0 by 1.4. 2.5 by 1.6. 2.6 by 2.4. 2.2 by 1.5. combined surface area 16.34 sq. cm. late bronze Age. 9.112 ostrich eggshell Fragment not ill. 89i-M0-5. h5-iii, 3.1 (s132; s134). 2.3 by 2.3. surface area 5.29 sq. cm. late bronze Age. 9.113 ostrich eggshell Fragment 89i-M0-6. h5-iii, 3.1 (s132; s134). 3.6 by 2.0. surface area 7.2 sq. cm. late bronze Age.

Pl. 11

9.114 eight ostrich eggshell Fragments not ill. 89i-M0-2. h5-iii/W, 3.2 (s128). 2.0 by 1.2. 1.1 by l.0. 1.0 by 0.6. 2.0 by 1.1. 2.0 by 1.0. 2.0 by 1.6. 1.8 by 1.4. 1.5 by 0.9. combined surface area 13.17 sq. cm. Archaic context. 9.115 ostrich eggshell Fragment not ill. 87i-M0-6. i6-i/ii, 2.1 (?). 1.3 by 1.7. surface area 2.21 sq. cm. late bronze Age, mixed. 9.116 ostrich eggshell Fragment not ill. 87i-M0-5. i6-i/ii, 2.2 (s114; s115). 1.9 by 1.5. surface area 2.85 sq. cm. late bronze Age, mixed. 9.117 ostrich eggshell Fragment not ill. 87i-M0-7. i6-i/ii, 2.3 (?). 1.6 by 1.6. surface area 2.56 sq. cm. late bronze Age, mixed. 9.118 ostrich eggshell Fragment not ill. 87i-M0-12. i6-i/ii, 3.1 (s135). 0.9 by 0.7. surface area 0.63 sq. cm. late bronze Age, mixed. 9.119 ostrich eggshell Fragment not ill. 87i-M0-13. i6-i/ii, 3.1 (s135). 1.0 by 1.0. surface area 1.0 sq. cm. late bronze Age, mixed. 9.120 ostrich eggshell Fragment 85i-M0-1. island surface. 2.6 by 2.1. surface area 5.46 sq. cm. undated.

not ill.

chapter 9 notes *An asterisk following an entry’s trench coordinates and deposit numbers indicates that it comes from a post-bronze Age mixed context, whereas a “surface” or “1.1” designation means that the entry has no stratigraphic value. An “s” feature indicates with what architectural element the object was most closely associated.

1. these items occur in the following deposits: g5-iV, sW test, 4.2; e4-iii, 2.3; h5-ii, 3.1; h5-iii, 4.1 (identification as iron uncertain); D4-i/ii, 2.1; D4-i/ii, 4.1 (9.50). iron is fairly common throughout the post-bronze Age levels, particularly in late deposits in and around the spongeDivers house (s101) where we recovered a large number of

lAte bronze Age iMPleMents AnD other MiscellAneous objects

bronze and iron nails. 2. see Vol. i, chapter 4, p. 78, for a discussion of the use of wind versus bellows or blowpipes. 3. see Vol. i, chapter 4, pp. 74, 75, 78, for s119’s furnaces. 4. blitzer’s term, as is the association with fishhooks. see blitzer, Kommos i, 511. 5. For Kommos, see blitzer, Kommos i, 513, M 100, and M 101. For other Aegean sites, see K. branigan, Aegean Metalwork of the early and Middle bronze Age (oxford 1954) 171. 6. catling, cypriot bronzework, 292. gelidonya, 162. 7. see 13.4 for what may be a bronze Age artifact from a post-bronze Age deposit. 8. compare gelidonya, 49, 50, figs. 49, 50, n. 4, 164–165. 9. see blitzer, Kommos i, 511. 10. Petrie, tools and Weapons, 37. 11. For the Aegean, see K. branigan, Aegean Metalwork of the early and Middle bronze Age (oxford 1974) 173. For uluburun, see bass, ulu burun, 1986, 7, 9, figs. 9 and 13:21. g. bass, “oldest Known shipwreck reveals bronze Age splendor,” national geographic 172.6 (1987) fig. on p. 721. Ç. Pulak, “1994 excavation at uluburun: the Final campaign,” inA Quarterly 21.4 (1994) 10. 12. see n. 10. 13. the catlings report 10 largely complete crucibles and 7 fragments from the unexplored Mansion at Knossos, which they say represents the largest concentration of crucibles found in the Aegean. compare catling, Mansion, 219. their largest complete specimen measured 10 by 14 cm. overall, as compared with 9.29, which had a maximum preserved length of 6.9 cm. before being cut in two by the egyptian Antiquities organization prior to export for analysis. 14. see Vol. i, chapter 4, pp. 74,75,78. 15. see Vol. i, chapter 4, p. 72. 16. the catlings speak of “ ‘crucible clay’—coarse of texture.” compare catling, Mansion, 219. 17. the latter, at least, may be a natural by-product of the local clays, which are loaded with pulverized marine shells. see l. hulin’s discussion of the shell-tempered Wares, chapter 8. 18. compare catling, Mansion, 219 for the presence of chaff. 19. compare tylecote Metallurgy, 22–25, fig. 13 for a typology of early crucibles that covers 11 basic shapes with variations. catling, Mansion, pl. 206 provides a good illus-

65

tration of the Knossos examples. 20. tylecote Metallurgy, 23, fig. 11: bowl-shaped late bronze Age crucible from Keos, greece. bowl-shaped crucibles of comparable size and design appear in lM iii levels at Kommos. see blitzer, Kommos i, 504–505. 21. tylecote, Metallurgy, 23, fig. 11; 24, fig. 13. comparable and even greater thicknesses occur in MM iii to lM iii levels at Kommos. see blitzer, Kommos i, 502–507. M 7, for example, has a maximum thickness of 5 cm. the examples from Knossos also have comparable thicknesses, although some fragments closer to the rim are less thick. compare catling, Mansion, 221, pl. 206. For other crucibles from the Aegean, see K. branigan, Aegean Metalwork of the early to Middle bronze Age (oxford 1974) 203. 22. tylecote, Metallurgy, 24, b5 from troy iii. 23. tylecote, Metallurgy, 24, b6, from late bronze Age balubash, russia. the MM iii–lM i type of crucible at Kommos has a substantial pedestal base and otherwise is a “massive, deep, broad, thick-walled, spouted bowl (average reconstructed rim diameter ca. 25–30 cm.).” blitzer, Kommos i, 502. 24. conforming perhaps to the type of “bridge-spouted crucible” found in the unexplored Mansion at Knossos and in lM iii levels at Kommos, although we have no remains of a pinched spout. catling, Mansion, 219, pl. 206. blitzer, Kommos i, 504. 25. six were recovered at Kommos. blitzer, Kommos i, 500. 26. tylecote Metallurgy, 23, fig. 11; 40–41, figs. 24–27. twelve clay investment molds used for lost-wax casting were found in lM iiiA-b levels at Kommos. blitzer, Kommos i, 506–507, esp. n. 33 for other Minoan parallels. compare also gelidonya, 113, figs. 124, 125, 128, 129. 27. Which might otherwise be supported by the presence of a piece of iron ore, 9.50, which could have been brought in to be used as a flux in the copper smelting process. 28. see below for scrap bronze in the s119 Workshop. 29. see Vol. i, chapter 4, pp. 74, 78, n. 75, for more discussion of this point in reference to the s119 workshop. For the use of wind to smelt iron in sri lanka from the 7th to 9th centuries b.c., see “Ancient smelter used Wind to Make high-grade steel,” new York times (Feb. 6, 1996) pp. c1, c9. For a similar use of wind for smelting copper, see n. 38. 30. see Vol. i, chapter 4, pp. 74, 76. 31. j. Muhly, “the significance of Metals in the late bronze Age economy of cyprus,” the Development of the

66

MArsA MAtruh

cypriot economy from the Prehistoric Period to the Present Day (nicosia 1996) 45–46. 32. james hamilton, Wanderings in north Africa (london 1856) 15–16 provides some colorful, if not exactly scientifically quantifiable, background to the question of fuel consumption. residing in benghazi before setting out on his journey across the cyrenaican plateau, he recruited two artisans to cast him a supply of musket balls. i was amused at the way in which they set to work. two commenced, but before the end of the performance a third came to their aid, and then two more, apparently to lighten the labor by the charms of their conversation. My jews sat down opposite to each other, and scrapped a hole in the ground between them. in this they placed some lead, and covered it with charcoal, which they soon blew into a bright heat by means of a pair of bellows made of an entire goat’s skin, one end of which was fitted with a nozzle, while the edges of the other extremity were sewed to two flat sticks, so as to open or close by the pressure of the hand. the lead was now melted, and to extract it from its primitive crucible a little bit of tin, which was lying on the ground, the lining of an old packing-case, was slipped and fashioned into something like a ladle, and this, held by a pair of pincers, was all the apparatus required. it was highly simple, but the quantity of wood and charcoal consumed was enormous [emphasis added], and it took nearly five hours to cast more than a hundred balls. 33. Which, in the pre-camel era meant probably donkeys, although in theory oxen might have been used for the same purpose. According to bates, camels are first attested in egypt in the saitic period and along the Marmarica by the fourth century b.c. on the other hand, the libyan use of donkeys is attested as early as the nineteenth dynasty, and the animals are reported captured by ramesses iii in the second libyan war. see eastern libyans, 28–29, 96–97. 34. see, for example, the description of Wadi habis by M. el-hadidi, M. Abd el-ghani, i. springuel, and M. hoffmann, “Wild barley hordeum spotaneum l. in egypt,” biological conservation 37 (1986) 295–299. 35. While i do not know for certain, it seems unlikely that lignite, a variety of coal that is somewhere between peat and bituminous coal, occurs anywhere along the Marmarica. 36. see White, Water, Wood, 932–933. For the bronze Age libyans as sheep, goat, and cattle-herders see

o’connor, nature of tjemhu, 37–38, 95–98. 37. copper melts at 1065° c and tin at only 232° c so that the melting point of bronze depends on the metallic content of the alloy but must be less than copper. 38. i am grateful to Professor David browman, Department of Anthropology, Washington university, st. louis, Missouri, for a written communication about the results of his research in the central Andes from which i have extracted the following. the parallels with the situation on bates’s island are striking. in the central Andes arsenic bronze, tin bronze and other bronze alloys were made by very low technology. Fuel was llama dung. At the cottage industry level an individual would load up a guayra/huaira/wayra (an upright, ca. 3 foot high ceramic container with holes along the sides and an extractive unit at its base) with ore for smelting. the ore was broken into small gravel-size pieces and thoroughly mixed with the dung. temperature was raised by the very strong winds that blow up along the slopes of the Andes from the Antarctic. the wayra was set on a knoll, ridge top or other form of prominence, to take advantage of the wind in order to extract the bronze. the first run generated “prill” or small pellets of bronze. this was then resmelted a second time into ingots or sheets. For mold work, that is for pouring the metal into molds, a variant of kind of furnace was used. other types of wind-driven furnaces were used to heat the metal for cutting, soldering, embossing, hammering and other related purposes. Although charcoal was seen as the better fuel. it was saved for special occasions. the Andean Altoplano, where the wayras were used, is a treeless grassland, so that wood charcoal basically had to be imported by sack on llama back and became too expensive a fuel to employ on a regular basis. 39. see Vol. i, chapter 4, pp. 73, 74. 40. “small” relative at least to Kommos where over 4,300 ground stone implements were recovered and 2000+ eventually cataloged. chipped stones, on the other hand, were far fewer in number, and only 96 were cataloged. compare blitzer, Kommos i, 416, 488–489, 534. our approach toward beach stones, which do not occur naturally around the sandy edges of the lagoon basin, has been conservative; unless they bore traces of intentional shaping, battering, or wear, they were not cataloged as tools. this

lAte bronze Age iMPleMents AnD other MiscellAneous objects

reduced the catalog of pounders or hammerstones from many dozens to four (9.60–9.63). 41. blitzer, Kommos i, 417. 42. how many represent débitage or cores is hard to estimate, but as far as i am aware, chert and flint do not occur naturally on the island and would have had to be imported. 43. White, before the greeks came, 34. Although lustrous, the stone lacks the glossy, semi-translucency associated with obsidian, e.g., blitzer, Kommos i, 488. i wish to thank Professor robert giegengack, Department of environmental and earth sciences, university of Pennsylvania, for kindly agreeing to make a tentative identification of the stone on the basis of color slides because the expedition was unable to bring back study samples from egypt. it is worth noting that a gray/black basalt was used for the vase (A.1/r.1) and jar (A.1/1) found by bates in his tomb A.1 of the libyan cemetery on the “great ridge” southeast of Matruh. see chapter 7 as well as White, before the greeks came, 32, fig. 1a, b. see also African studies, 138, pls. 26, 27, figs. 4, 8. 44. nilotic Mutela shells in bates’s libyan “cemetery A” on the great ridge southeast of the town (Area ViA) corroborates the fact that the coastal pastoralists of this period were in at least indirect contact with the nile valley. see chapter 7. 45. compare F. Wendorf and r. schild, Prehistory of the eastern sahara (new York 1980) 272. For chert’s use by caton-thompson’s Microlithic bedouins and neolithic Peasants, cf. Kharga, 153. chert seems to be the preferred material for the neolithic stone tools associated with the libyan culture and oasis-c sites on the Wadi Dungul terrace according to hester and hobler, Patterns, 87, 104, 158. by contrast, only 18% of the Wadi el-bakht assemblages in southwest egypt do not use silicified sandstone, but this 18% includes basalt, flint, and/or chert. compare W. Mchugh, “some Archaeological results of the bagnoldMond expedition to the gilf Kebir and gebel `uweinat, southern libyan Desert,” jnes 34.1 (1975) 45, 49. 46. White, before the greeks came, 34–35. 47. blitzer, Kommos i, 488–489. the ratio appears to be much higher in the case of the unexplored Mansion at Knossos. compare evely, Mansion, 224, 230–231, 290–291, nn. 39, 49. 48. blitzer, Kommos i, 489. 49. on the gap in our knowledge of the libyans between the beginnings of pastoralism at ca. 4000 b.c. and the early first millennium b.c., see g. barker, “From classification to

67

interpretation: libyan Prehistory, 1969–1989,” sls 20 (1989) 39. 50. M. Fabbri and A. Winorath-scott, “stazione litica all’aperto nei pressi di garian,” lA 2 (1965) 83–90, pls. 37, 38. b.e. barich, c. giraudi, c. contani-barbaro and c. capezza, “geoarchaeology of jebel gharbi region: outline of the research,” lA new series i (1996) 13, fig. 4, nos. 6–9, 30 and fig. 8, nos. 7–10. 51. haua Fteah, 295–305. 52. Kharga, 145–196, pls. 94–119. Mchugh, gilf Kebir, 34–52, figs. 2–4. hester and hobler, Patterns, 84–109, figs. 98–104, 107–110. 53. A libyan culture hearth on the Dungul terrace has been assigned a c14 date of 5950 (plus or minus 120). cf. hester and hobler, Patterns, 126. on the other hand, see Mchugh, gilf Kebir, 51. Mchugh dates his Wadi el-bakht assemblages to the fifth and fourth millennia b.c.; cf. gilf Kebir, 52. this is consonant with butzer’s “saharan neolithic sub-pluvial” phase, as cited by Mchugh, n. 25, for which see K.W. butzer, “environment and human ecology in egypt during Predynastic and early Dynastic times,” bulletin de la société de géographie d’Égypt 22 (1959) 43–87. K.W. butzer, “climatic changes in the Arid zones of Africa during early to Mid-holocene times,” World climate from 8000 to 0 b.c. (london 1966) 72–83. 54. Kharga, 40–41, pl. 122, 4, 5. 55. o. Menghin and M. Amer, “stone Age Finds from the Kharga oasis,” MD/AiK iii, heft 1 (1932) 46–49. 56. Kharga, 41–42. 57. t.h. carter, “reconnaissance in cyrenaica,” expedition 5.4 (1963) 23. White, before the greeks came, 37–38. 58. harold Dibble, Professor of european Prehistory at the university of Pennsylvania’s Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, has been kind enough to offer some basic observations on the manufacture of the island’s lithics based on photographs. 59. gelidonya, 130. 60. blitzer, Kommos i, 417: (a) boulder = 25.6 cm. and greater; (b) cobble = 6.4–25.6 cm.; (c) pebble = 0.4–6 cm. 61. blitzer, Kommos i, 479–481, pls. 8.51–8.54, uses “quern” to describe her type 17 lower, stationary milling platforms and “handstone” for her type 7 upper millstone worked by hand back and forth across the former’s surface; see blitzer, Kommos i, 451–456. she seems to be following a prehistorian’s convention; e.g., evely, Mansion, 225–226, pls. 208, 210, 227 where we find “grinders” and “querns.” on the other hand, Webster’s new international Dictionary

68

MArsA MAtruh

(2nd. ed.) limits the meaning of quern to a primitive rotary milling device, while l.A. Moritz, who is something of a final arbiter in such matters, is willing to extend its use to both the upper and lower stones of the so-called “saddlequern” type; see Moritz, grain-Mills, 228. it was in this dual capacity that i used the term when publishing the Morgantina mills in AjA 67 (1963) 199ff. (see n. 63) and continue to do so here. 62. or, as h. schliemann’s description happily puts it, they resemble “an egg cut longitudinally through the middle.” Quoted by Moritz, grain-Mills, 19. 63. D. White, n. 61, 201, for type 1 A a; the grips become more prominent by the Archaic greek period. Also Moritz, grain-Mills, 34–41. 64. see White, n. 63, 200–201, n. 17. 65. this was also used for millstones at Kommos and the unexplored Mansion at Knossos along with a variety of other stones other than lava. blitzer, Kommos i, 451, 479; evely, Mansion, 226. 66. see chapter 13, catalog, 13.52–13.54. 67. blitzer, Kommos i, 469–470. 68. compare gelidonya, 128, figs. 137, 138. 69. Vol. i, chapter 4, pp. 74, 75, 78. 70. For this analysis and classification of egyptian beads see Andrew boyce: 2.14 “Faience beads” and 2.15 “glass beads” in ch. 2: “house P46.33 the finds” (pp. 75–82) in barry j. Kemp, ed., Amarna reports Vi, egypt exploration society occasional Publications 10 (london, 1995). the typology used here was established by earlier excavators working at Amarna: see h. Frankfort and j.D.s. Pendlebury, the city of Ahkenaten, Pt. ii: the north suburb and the Desert Altars, the excavations at tell el Amarna During the seasons 1926–1932 (london, 1933) pls. 43–45 and g. steindorff, Mission Archéologique de nubie 1929–34, Aniba, v. 2, text (glückstadt, hamburg, new York, 1937) 93–98, fig. 13. brigit crowell, who provided these references, points out that faience beads have a long, important history in egypt (A. lucas, Ancient egyptian Materials and industries, 4th edition revised and enlarged by j.r. harris (london 1962) 44–46. they also belong to a larger tradition both in terms of technology and cultural significance, with an inherent symbolic value, as shown in F.D. Friedman, gifts of the nile, Ancient egyptian Faience (london and Providence 1998); P.t. nicholson with e. Peltenburg, “egyptian faience,” in P.t. nicholson and i. shaw, eds., Ancient egyptian Materials and technology (cambridge 2000) 177–194. 71. For previously published references to the Marsa

Matruh finds, see 1985 report, 79, n. 71, fig. 37; 1987 report, 112–113, n. 60; Provisional evidence, 10–11. White, before the greeks came, 36; conwell, ostrich eggs, 25–34; White, Water, Wood, 933–934. in writing this short discussion, i am indebted throughout to David reese for generously sharing his knowledge of this topic as well as most of the following bibliographic citations. For a good introduction to the animal and its natural products, see P. Francis, “the ostrich, ostrich eggs, and ostrich eggshell beads,” Man and environment 7 (1983) 142–146. 72. For eggs as rhyta in the late bronze Age MinoanMycenaean world, see j. sakellarakis, “the Fashioning of ostrich-egg rhyta in the crete-Mycenaean regions,” thera and the Aegean World iii, 1: Archaeology (Proceedings of the third international conference 1989) (london 1990) 285–307. the practice of pastoralists using ostrich eggshells for portable water flasks goes on in somalia today. see 1985 report, 79, fig. 37 and conwell, ostrich eggs, 30, figs. 7–10. For cups elsewhere, see P. Francis, “bead report XX. Another bead Potpourri,” ornament 10.3 (1987) 63 and laufer, ostrich eggs, pl. 2. For eggshell cups in the postbronze Age period, see P.g. Warden, “the Miscellaneous small Finds,” the extramural sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at cyrene, libya. Final reports iV (Philadelphia 1990) 60, n. 39. Also, j. boardman and j. hayes, excavations at tocra 1963–1965. the Archaic Deposits ii and later Deposits (oxford 1973) 122: “it was clear that the shells had been chipped into halves for use as cups.” 73. the fragments also exhibit no signs of having been used for disk beads, which first appear in the north African capsian period ca. 10,000 b.c. compare Francis (see n. 71) 144, citing haua Fteah, 225. A single fragment has an intentionally cut edge, ca. 20 mm. long. 74. For the ethiopian struthophagi [sic], see Diod. sic., 3.28.1–3. laufer, ostrich eggs, 4, 9, 22 , 27, 35, 42. laufer explains that the contents of one eggshell averages ca. 40 fluid ounces, which is the equivalent of from 20 to 24 domestic fowl eggs. see also Kition eggs, 378. richard tully’s gustatory complaints from the field do not encourage sampling either the eggs or the flesh: the most delicate part of its body resembles the coarsest beef: one of its eggs made three large dishes of omelet too strong in flavour and smell to be tasted without disgust: and another egg was made into cakes and fried, and appeared like toasted crumpets. the whole repaste was too disagreeable to be partaken of by europeans, but some Moors who were present ate

lAte bronze Age iMPleMents AnD other MiscellAneous objects

of it with pleasure. r. tully, narrative of a ten Years’ residence at tripoli in Africa (london 1817) 297. For the sake of culinary fairness, it should be noted that the redoubtable desert traveler, c.M. Doughty, reports from Mada’in salih in 1877 that “some beduwy brought me in a great ostrich egg, which dressed with samn and flour in a pan, savoured a well tasting omelette.” compare travels in Arabia Deserta (london 1926) 15, quoted by M.c. jennings in “the Distribution of the extinct Arabian ostrich, struthio camelus syriacus,” Fauna of saudi Arabia 8 (1986) 451. jennings, 447–461, is throughout a rich source of information for the uses put to the ostrich’s skin, plumes, oil, eggs, and meat by the occupants of the Arabian desert at the beginning of this century. At the time of this writing when the fear of “mad cow” disease is oversweeping great britain, the newspapers report the appearance of signs in fast-food shops for “ostrich-burgers.” 75. Personal communication. 76. Kition eggs, 378, n. 9. g.e. Watson and D.s. reese, in D. reese, “Faunal remains from three cisterns,” in j. humphrey, ed., excavations at carthage 1977 conducted by the university of Michigan Vi (Ann Arbor 1981) 221, 225, 226, fig. 6. 77. Personal communication to reese from jacopo De grossi Mazzorin, soprintendente archeologica di roma. Faunal remains, including several bones, found near the Flavian Amphitheater suggest that, if not from the menagerie maintained for circus spectacles and arena venationes, the bird was kept for eating. For what it is historically worth, the mosaic from the Vestibule of the so-called small circus at Piazza Armerina depicts racing teams made up of paired ostriches pulling charioteers in small sulkies around a miniature race track; see W. Dorigo, late roman Painting (new York 1966) fig. 117. 78. While at first glance not providing much of a statistical base, in terms of raw numbers our 60 fragments are more than has been reported for most post-capsian sites elsewhere. late bronze Age Phylakopi on Melos has multiple fragments of a single eggshell: c. renfrew, the Archaeology of cult. the sanctuary at Phylakopi (london 1985) 324, pl. 64a, b. the teratsoudhia tomb and well-fill on cyprus produced 4 fragments and Kommos on crete has 5 eggshell fragments: D. reese, “Astragali, shells and ostrich eggshells from Palaepaphos-teratsoudhia (cyprus),” in V. Karageorghis, tombs at Palaepaphos i: teratsoudhia, 2. eliomylia (nicosia 1990) 146–147 and blitzer, Kommos i, 147, n. 26. see also D.s. reese, “the iron Age Fauna,” in

69

j.c. shaw, Kommos iV. the greek sanctuary, Part 1 (Princeton and oxford 2000) 401–403 in which the author again lists relatively small numbers of fragments from a wide range of post-bronze Age sanctuary sites that include syracuse, Paestum, corinth, the Argive heraeum, halieis, emporio on chios, samos, naucratis, tauchira in cyrenaica, the Philistine sanctuary at tell Qasile and at beersheba in israel, and finally Kition and Kourion on cyprus. two new fragments have been excavated at ephesus during the 1986 and 1987 seasons. compare g. Forstenpointner, “bericht, ephesos,” Öjh 62, bb1 (1993) 11. these, and an impressive number of other sites ranging in date from the bronze Age to late Antiquity and in geographic distribution from the Western Mediterranean to the near east, are cited by reese in Kition eggs, 371–382. While many of the site finds are not quantified, those that are report fragment totals substantially under ours. reese is currently working on lh mainland greek ostrich eggshells found at Mycenae, haghios stephanos, Dendra, and gla. While the numbers are small, we are dealing here with complete or nearly complete specimens. Finally, according to reese, only two post-capsian sites provide numbers of fragments similar to bates’s island: cyrene’s extramural Demeter and Persephone sanctuary has 31 and the Athena lindia sanctuary on rhodes yielded 69. Warden (see n. 72) 60, n. 39. c. blinkenberg, Fouilles de l’Acropole 1902–1914 i: les petits objets (berlin 1931) 175, 182. the 429 ostrich eggshell fragments, many of which are incised, reported from the upper capsian escargotière of Dra-Mta-el-Abiod 26 km. from tébessa vastly outstrips the numbers of fragments reported elsewhere. compare j. Morel, “les témoins des activités non immédiatement utilitaires dans le capsien supérieur de Dra-Mta-el-Abiod, libyca 26–27 (1978–1979) 119–125, figs. 2–4; also, haua Fteah, 254–255. 79. the raising of ostriches in captivity was practiced by the ancient egyptians as well as by other African peoples. see eastern libyans, 94, n. 1. laufer, ostrich eggs, 16–24, 41–46. V. seton-Williams and P. stocks, blue guide, egypt (new York 1983) 123. the same practice has been imputed to the romans, although the nature of the evidence is unclear. see M. hurxthal, “our gang, ostrich style,” natural history 95.12 (1986) 34, 40 for the current much reduced state of the ostrich farm industry that flourished at the turn of the last century in south Africa. A 4th century A.D. mosaic in the bardo Museum from le Kef depicts several men, either huntsmen or handlers, with large hounds driving ostriches into an outdoor net enclosure in what appears to be the countryside. Although identified by

70

MArsA MAtruh

Yacoub as preparations for an amphitheater hunt, it also could show the birds being captured in the wild or being held in captivity, the latter amounting to some form of domestication. M. Yacoub, le Musée du bardo (tunis 1993) 280, fig. 184. 80. small parts at that. Most of the fragments measured under 3 cm. in length. our largest fragment (9.95) was 7.6 by 6.6 cm. and was in terms of size very much an exception. unbroken eggs average ca. 15+ cm. in length. see laufer, ostrich eggs, 4–5; conwell, ostrich eggs, 30. 81. Vol. i, chapter 4, pp. 74–75. 82. the structures are s101, s102, s107/s120, s114/s115, s118, s119, s122/s137, s128, s132/s134, and s135. Fragments found on the island’s surface make up the possible eleventh. 83. see Morel, n. 78. 84. As rhyta, open vessels, and other objets de vertu used as prized personal possessions, sanctuary votive offerings, and burial gifts, a point previously made by conwell, ostrich eggs, 34. 85. According to bates, the ostrich had become extinct along the Marmaric coast in only relatively recent years. eastern libyans, 29, n. 2, where is cited siwa’s early explorer W.h. browne’s observations of ostrich tracks in the Western Desert: W. browne, travels in Africa, egypt and syria (london 1806) 16. i am indebted to David reese for drawing my attention to the reappearance of ostriches in the gebel elba region in egypt’s eastern Desert. see P. houlihan, the birds of Ancient egypt (Warminster 1986) 1. For their once wide geographic distribution, see Kition eggs, 378. the birds were exported from cyrene in eastern libya as late as the 5th century A.D. synesii cyrenensis epistolae, 133. it might be possible to say more about the geographic origin of the eggshells if we had a complete specimen, since the eggshell of the north African/near eastern subspecies is reportedly larger and less oval than the south African one. compare laufer, ostrich eggs, 5. under the circumstances, the best evidence for a local origin is the eggshell’s outer texture. According to laufer, the south African’s shell has larger sunken shell pores, which result in a pitted surface (the photo of the eggshell from somalia used for a water flask, supra, n. 72, clearly shows the surface pores; see 1985 report, fig. 37). see also, F. Poplin, “sur le polissage des oeufs d’autruche en archéologie,” in h. buitenhuis and h.P- uürpmann, eds., Archaeozoology of the near east ii (leiden 1995) 126ff. by way of distinction, the pores of the north African shells should be so small and so close to the surface as to be almost invisible to the naked eye, which

seems to be a fair enough description of the island fragments. see 9.95. 86. According to an April 1996 written communication from Çemal Pulak to D. reese, the wreck’s complete shells numbered at least two. on the other hand, according to verbal communication from g. bass, it also carried large numbers of pierced ostrich eggshell disc beads. bass, ulu burun 1986, 9, n. 44. g. bass, “oldest Known shipwreck reveals bronze Age splendor,” national geographic 172.6 (1987) 696, 699. conwell, ostrich eggs, 33, fig. 14. Ç. Pulak, “the late bronze Age shipwreck at ulu burun, turkey: 1989 excavation campaign,” underwater Archaeology Proceedings for the society of historical Archaeology conference (tucson 1990) 53. Ç. Pulak, “ulu burun: 1990 excavation,” inA newsletter 17.4 (1990) 8. Ç. Pulak (see n. 11) 10. the two complete eggshells appear to have been blown empty before shipment but not decorated. 87. eastern libyans, 29, 94, 116 n. 1, 148, 149 n. 1, 153. 88. Fundamental is the definitive, but now dated, bibliography in reese’s Kition eggs, 379–382, written in 1984. 89. haua Fteah, 305, 328, pl. 8.2. in regard to the ornamented eggshells from the cave, Mcburney says that “eggshell ornamentation in eastern libya underwent a complete change of style from the designs carried out almost solely in dots during the libyco-capsian of the sixth millennium to virtually complete adoption of (west) capsian motifs by the fourth millennium and possibly as early as the fifth.” r. Klein and K. scott, “re-analysis of Faunal Assemblages from the haua Fteah and other late Quaternary Archaeological sites in cyrenaican libya,” journal of Archaeological science 13 (1986) 519, do not mention the ostrich eggshells in their discussion of Mcburney’s neolithic layers. i owe this reference to D. reese. 90. see Kharga, 33, 159, 163–164, pl. 111, 11. 91. see W. Mchugh, “some Archaeological results of the bagnold-Mond expedition to the gilf Kebir and gebel `uweinat, southern libyan Desert,” jnes 34.1 (1975) 56. 92. see hester and hobler, Patterns, 98, 108, table 26, fig. 108; for the authors’ definition of what they mean by “libyan culture,” see p. 1. 93. h. Kantor, “oriental institute Museum notes: a Predynastic ostrich egg with incised Decorations,” jnes 7.1 (1948) 46–51, pls. 4, 5, figs. 1, 2. 94. in capsian sites. see F.r. Wulsin, the Prehistory of north-West Africa (cambridge, Massachusetts 1941) fig. 35, nos. 8, 10. j. Forde-johnston, neolithic cultures of north Africa (1959) 33.

lAte bronze Age iMPleMents AnD other MiscellAneous objects

95. compare r. Vernet, “bouteilles en oeuf d’autruche gravées de l’Azrag (région de zouerate, Mauritanie),” l’Anthropologie 87.2 (1983) 277–278. 96. Kharga, 41–42, fig. 5, pl. 111, 11. 97. n. de g. Davies, the rock tombs of el Amarna ii (london 1903) pl. 60. o’connor, nature of tjemhu, 102. conwell, ostrich eggs, 31, fig. 12. 98. eastern libyans, 129–130. rowe, contributions ii, 489. h. hölscher, libyer und Ägypter (reprint of 1937 ed., glückstadt 1955) 35, n. 3. A. Fahkry, the oases of egypt i: siwa oasis (cairo 1973) 76. o’connor (see n. 97) 55. 99. eastern libyans, 116, n. 11, 149, n. 1. Pliny, natural history 10.1. theophrastus, historia Plantarum 4.41. corippus, johannis 4.908; 7.510; 8.543. corippus wrote in the 6th century A.D. 100. s. stucchi, “il giardino delle esperidi,” QAl 8 (1976) 32, fig. 7. 101. herodotus 4.175. eastern libyans, 56, map 5, 148. 102. According to laufer, ostrich eggs, 21, “the skin of the ostrich is very thick, and still serves as a cuirass to Arabic tribes.” 103. lucian, De Dipsadibus, 7. 104. eastern libyans, 153, 4. 105. laufer, ostrich eggs, 4. no ancient reference cited. 106. ghirza, 37, 90, 91, 94, 136, 139–140, 153–54, 160, 167, 193, 196, 221, 251, 284. see reviews by c.M. Daniels, sls 17 (1986) 176–178 and D. White, AjA 93 (1989) 486–487.

71

107. ghirza, 93–94. Middens 1 and 3 are reported to have contained “numerous fragments” of the late roman period. 108. ghirza, 91, from building 32, period 2. 109. An arch-head from tomb north b with an ostrich pursued by a hound and huntsman, p. 136, pl. 62a. A relief from tomb north b, now in istanbul, with an ostrich with its head up and a second with its head down, p. 139, pl. 69a. A relief from tomb north c with two ostriches pursued by two mounted huntsmen, pp. 153–154, pl. 79c. A relief from tomb north D: two ostriches pursued by a mounted huntsman, p. 161, pl. 86a. A frieze from tomb north e: hound, ostrich, and horseman, p. 167, pl. 90b. A frieze from tomb south D: an ostrich followed by 2 hounds and a horseman, p. 193, pl. 111c. A frieze from tomb south e: an eagle and a mature ostrich with its chick, p. 196, pl. 116. elsewhere in tripolitania, a large-scale wall graffito depicting an ostrich has been reported on the wall of building lm 4e in the Wadi el-Amud area but appears to be Arabic. see g. barker and g.b. jones, “the unesco libyan Valleys survey Vi: investigations of a romano-libyan Farm,” sls 15 (1984) 21–22. 110. For the ostrich arena mosaic scene from the villa at zliten, see s. Aurigemma, l’italia in Africa: le scoperte archaeologiche. tripolitania i: i monumenti d’arte decorativa 1: i mosaici (rome 1960) pl. 158. 111. recalling the mosaic scenes from the corridor of the great hunt and the Vestibule of the small circus at Piazza Armerina. see W. Dorigo, late roman Painting (new York 1971) pls. 103, 117.

73

Chapter 10

ORGANIC REMAINS FROM THE ISLAND AND ADJACENT AREAS David S. Reese and Mark J. Rose

Bones and Shells David S. Reese Major Mammal Bones The total animal bone fragment sample includes 2,976 Late Bronze Age bones (32 deposits), 21 Late Bronze Age (?) bones (4 deposits), 242 mixed Late Bronze Age bones (3 deposits), 56 Post Late Bronze Age bones (2 deposits), 7 Earlier Greek bones (1 deposit), 8 Earlier Greek (?) bones (1 deposit), 2,131 Roman bones (20 deposits), 113 Roman (?) bones (4 deposits), 180 Islamic bones (5 deposits), 120 Undateable bones (11 deposits), and 718 Surface bones (17 deposits). The identifiable bones are noted on Table 1. The vast majority of the domestic mammal bones are Ovis aries (sheep)/Capra hircus (goat), with a small number of Bos taurus (cattle). There is a single Canis familiaris (dog) bone from Ro-man fill, but there are absolutely no pig, equids, camel, or gazelle. While we might not expect pigs in the Islamic sample, they would not be unexpected in the Late Bronze Age and Roman collections. Definite Ovis/Capra remains are present in 28 of 32 Late Bronze Age deposits (43 MNI), 3 of 4

Late Bronze Age (?) deposits (3 MNI), all 3 mixed Late Bronze Age deposits (4 MNI), both Post Late Bronze Age deposits (4 MNI), the single Earlier Greek and Earlier Greek (?) deposits, in 16 of 20 Roman deposits (35 MNI), in all 4 Roman (?) deposits (5 MNI), and in all 5 Islamic deposits (7 MNI) (Table 1). There are ageable Ovis/Capra in 17 Late Bronze Age deposits, 1 Late Bronze Age (?), all mixed Late Bronze Age deposits, both Post-Late Bronze Age deposits, in the Earlier Greek (?) deposit, in 15 Roman deposits, in all 4 Roman (?) deposits, and in 4 Islamic deposits. Very few bones come from individuals over 3–3.5 years old, with single individuals of this age from the Late Bronze Age (H5-II, 4.3), mixed Late Bronze Age (G5-IV/SW Test, 4.2), Post Late Bronze Age (I8-III/S, 3.2), Roman (I8-III/S, 2.1 and 2.4), and the Surface (Table 2). Detailed information on the burned bones is given in Table 4. Of special note are the 23 burned Ovis/Capra bones from the Late Bronze Age Room S102 occupation deposit with large patch-

74

MARSA MATRUH

es of burning (E4-III, 3.3). This is about 33% of all bones from this deposit. The butchered bones are noted in Table 5. In addition to those listed, it should be noted that most of the Ovis/Capra limb fragments are butchered down the shaft, suggesting that the marrow was extracted. Several Bos bones were also butchered down the length of the shaft. Bos or Bos-sized bones are present in 10 Late Bronze Age deposits (23 fragments), 1 Late Bronze Age (?) deposit (2 fragments), 8 Roman deposits (33 fragments), 2 Islamic deposits (2 fragments), 2 Undateable (3 fragments), and 3 Surface deposits (11 fragments). Fourteen (14) of the 23 Late Bronze Age fragments come from Trench H5-II; most of the Roman fragments come from Trenches H5-II (15) and I6-I/II (8) (Table 3). All of the ageable bones are from animals, probably over 1.5 but under 3 years. Only 5 bones were butchered, with 1 Late Bronze Age, 1 Roman, and 1 Islamic (Table 5). Late Bronze Age sites on Crete with mainly Ovis/Capra include: Ayia Triada,1 Chalinomouri,2 Coast Mochlos,3 Chalasmenos,4 the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos,5 Kommos,6 and Pseira.7 Ovis/Capra is also the major form in the Late Bronze Age Cyclades: Akrotiri on Thera,8 Phylakopi on Melos,9 and Koukounaries on Paros (personal analysis). This is also true for Late Bronze Age sites on Cyprus: Hala Sultan Tekke,10 Kalavasos Ayios Dhimitrios,11 Kition,12 Kition Bamboula,13 Kouklia,14 Maa Palaeokastro,15 Myrtou Pigadhes,16 Nitovikla,17 Phlamoudhi Melissa,18 and Phlamoudhi Vounari.19 In North Africa, we have no comparable Late Bronze Age faunal samples. In the Roman and Islamic periods, there is little comparable evidence. At the “Tempio Flavio” area at Leptis Magna, Ovis/Capra are the dominant form.20 At Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi, Ovis/Capra are also the most important form from the 2nd century B.C. to the 7th century A.D.21 At 1st to 3rd century A.D. Wadi el-Amud and 7th century A.D. Abu Telis, Ovis/Capra are also dominant.22 The fauna from the Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene is not comparable as it is a votive assemblage dominated by Sus (pig).23 As King has stat-

ed for North Africa, “[it] seems likely that Romanisation had little influence on a strong indigenous dietary culture which was reinforced by environmental determinants working against the extensive rearing of cattle and pigs.”24

Table 1 Animal Bones from Bates’s Island Bos = cattle Canis = dog Erinaceus = hedgehog Homo = human Ovis/Capra = sheep/goat Testudo = tortoise LATE BRONzE AGE (14TH C. B.C.) D4-I/II, 2.1 39 bones. 1 burned Ovis/Capra fragment; Ovis/Capra: molar (7 fragments), metacarpus shaft, rib; 2 Bossized fragments (1 shaft); Fish. D4-I/II, 2.2 (Room S119, hearth-furnace in NE corner) 7 bones. Ovis/Capra-sized, unidentifiable. D4-I/II, 3.1 (Room S119, secondary floor) 84 bones. 1 burned Ovis/Capra fragment and 1 partly burned; Ovis/Capra: premolar, 2 molars (1 M3 much worn down) and 4 fragments, pelvis/acetabulum fragment, distal femur epiphysis fragment (UF), carpus/ tarsus, distal phalanx 1, phalanx 2 (UF, small), vertebra, rib (2 MNI); Fish. D4-I/II, 3.2 (Room S119, first traces of hearth-furnace activity) 40 bones. 1 partly burned Ovis/Capra posterior mandible fragment; Ovis/Capra: distal humerus shaft, carpus/tarsus, astragalus (R), distal phalanx 1 (small), 2 phalanx 1 (2 broken) (2 MNI); Bos: 3 sesmoids, phalanx 1 (F), phalanx 2 (F); Fish. D4-I/II, 4.1 (Room S119, primary floor) 32 bones. 1 burned Ovis/Capra fragment, 1 partly burned fragment, and 1 possibly burned vertebra (JF); Ovis/Capra: 2 molar fragments, proximal femur head (UF), 3 pelvis/acetabulum fragments, carpus/tarsus, calcaneus (UF, L), proximal metapodial fragment, 2 vertebra fragments, 3 ribs; Fish.

ORGANIC REMAINS FROM THE ISLAND AND ADJACENT AREAS

E4-III, 2.3 (Overlays Wall S102d) 134 bones. Ovis/Capra: 2 scapula fragments (F, L), calcaneus fragment (L), phalanx 1 (F), 8 ribs; Bos ulna (UF, R). Fish.

75

E4-III, 2.4 43 bones. Most Ovis/Capra-sized, with 1 molar fragment; Bos-sized shaft fragment.

G5-IV/SW Test, 4.1 (Room S101, fill W of Wall S133) 51 bones. 1 slightly burned Ovis/Capra proximal metapodial; Ovis/Capra: 2 molars and 6 fragments (3 teeth), humerus shaft fragment, pelvis/acetabulum fragment, distal metapodial epiphysis (UF), 2 phalanx 2 (F, distal fragment), vertebra spine fragment; Testudo carapace fragment; Fish; Bird eggshell.

E4-III, 2.5 15 bones. 1 burned Ovis/Capra skull fragment; Ovis/ Capra proximal metapodial fragment; Fish.

H5-I, 2.3 (NW corner) 9 bones. Ovis/Capra: premolar (open roots), distal phalanx 1, rib.

E4-III, 3.2 (Outside E wall of Room S102) 12 bones. Ovis/Capra-sized, unidentifiable; Fish; Bird.

H5-I, 4.1 1 bone. Ovis/Capra radius/ulna shaft fragment.

E4-III, 3.3 (Room S102 occupation deposit with large patches of burning) 70 bones. 23 burned Ovis/Capra fragments: distal calcaneus (UF, L), 5 vertebra fragments (2 partly burned); 1 unknown burned phalanx 1 (F, has talon, encrusted); unburned Ovis/Capra: molar, carpus/tarsus, phalanx 1 (F), phalanx 2 (F, they articulate), vertebra centrum (UF, large), vertebra epiphysis, 2 ribs; Fish. E4-III, 4.2 (Small pit) 10 bones. Ovis/Capra: carpus, rib (small); Fish. E4-III/W balk, 3.1 (Fill) 1 bone. Ovis/Capra molar. F4-III, 3.1 (Pit-like deposit, a collapse level) 134 bones. 1 burned Ovis/Capra shaft; Ovis/Capra: premolar (tiny), 3 molars (21 fragments), distal humerus shaft, proximal femur (UF head, L), metapodial shaft (thin); Fish. F4-III, 3.2 (Collapse level over Room S107) 41 bones. Ovis/Capra: 2 molars (10 fragments) F4-III, 4.1 (Fill) 3 bones. unidentifiable mammal; Fish.

H5-II, 4.1 (Fill abutting W exterior face of Wall S118, NW quadrant) 1,077 bones. 3 burned Ovis/Capra fragments (proximal phalanx 2 [F], 2 shafts) and 1 slightly burned Ovis/Capra carpus; Ovis/Capra: 3 skull fragments (1 temporal), 11 mandible fragments (6 coronion process), incisor, 13 premolars, 31 molars and 86 fragments (37 teeth, 1 M3 unworn/open roots), 7 dp4 (4 L [4 with talon], 3 R [2 with talon]), axis (odontoid process), 3 scapula fragments (1 tiny, L; 2 MNI), distal humerus epiphysis (UF), distal humerus shaft fragment, proximal radius (F, butchered through distal on angle, R), distal radius epiphysis (UF), 3 proximal ulna (2 L, 1 R, 3 broken), 14 pelvis fragments (7 acetabulum, 4 R, 3 L), proximal femur shaft (R), femur shaft fragment, patella (L), proximal tibia epiphysis (UF), proximal tibia (F, broken), tibia shaft (R), 7 calcaneus (4 R [2 UF, 1 F, 1 broken], 3 L [2 UF, 1 broken]), naviculocuboid, 5 carpus/tarsus, 10 metapodial ½ epiphysis (10 UF), 12 metapodial fragments (1 UF), 5 meta-carpus fragments, 6 metatarsus fragments (1 UF), 33 phalanx 1 (21 UF, 2 F, 10 broken, 6 epiphyses), 23 phalanx 2 (20 UF, 2 F, 1 broken), 9 phalanx 3, 96 vertebra fragments (17 UF, 1 JF, 1 F, 3 UF centra epiphysis), 22 ribs (5 MNI); Bos carpus/tarsus (4 fragments); Fish; Bird; Testudo carapace fragment.

F4-III, 4.4 3 bones. unidentifiable mammal; Fish.

H5-II, 4.2 (Fill against Wall S118, SW quadrant) 25 bones. Ovis/Capra: 2 premolars, 4 molars and 6 fragments (5 teeth, 2 upper), distal humerus (F, R, broken), proximal radius (broken, L), calcaneus (UF, L), metatarsus (UF), 2 phalanx 1 (1 UF, 1 broken), phalanx 2 (UF); Fish.

G5-IV/SW Test, 3.1 (Room S101, occasionally burrowed into by rodents) 37 bones. Ovis/Capra: mandible fragment, molar fragment, proximal femur head (UF), calcaneus (UF, R, broken), metapodial shaft, 2 phalanx 2 (2 UF, 2 MNI); Fish.

H5-II, 4.3 (Fill against wall, NE quadrant) 163 bones. Ovis/Capra: skull fragment (occipital condyle), 4 mandible fragments (2 posterior [R, L], 2 join), 2 molars and 3 fragments (4 teeth, 3 young), axis (broken), 8 scapula fragments (4 R [2 F, 2 broken], 4 L [2 F, 2 broken]), 4 distal humerus (4 F, 3 L,

F4-III, 4.2 (Fill) 11 bones. Ovis/Capra-sized, unidentifiable.

76

MARSA MATRUH

1 R, 6 fragments), 2 proximal radius (2 F, 2 R), distal radius (UF, L), 2 radius shafts (R, L), 2 proximal ulna (2 broken, R, L), 5 pelvis fragments (1 acetabulum, 2 ilium fragments [1 L], 2 join), sacrum fragment, 2 proximal femur (F, L; broken, R), distal femur (UF, broken), distal femur shaft, patella (R), proximal tibia (F), 2 distal tibia (2 UF, 2 MNI), tibia shaft fragment, 5 metacarpus (1 UF, 4 broken), 2 metatarsus shaft fragments, metapodial shaft fragment, 4 phalanx 1 (2 UF, 1 F, 1 broken), phalanx 2 (UF), 16 vertebra fragments (3 UF, 1 F), 7 ribs (3 MNI); Bos scapula fragment (F). H5-II, 4.4 (Fill against wall, SE quadrant) 40 bones. Ovis/Capra: posterior mandible (vertical ramus and coronoid process), 5 molar fragments (2 teeth), 4 pelvis fragments (2 R), proximal femur head epiphysis (UF), metacarpus shaft, calcaneus fragment (UF), metapodial fragment, phalanx 3 fragment, 3 vertebra fragments, 6 ribs (2 MNI); Bos: proximal radius (F, butchered down center), 1 fragment; Fish: 2 shark vertebra centra (2 holed). H5-II, 5.1 (Fill against Wall S118, NW quadrant) 403 bones. Ovis/Capra: 2 mandible fragments, dp4 (slightly worn), 2 premolars, 2 upper molars and 8 molar fragments (4 teeth), atlas (slightly broken), axis fragment, distal humerus shaft (broken, L, 2 fragments), 2 proximal ulna (2 L, 2 broken), 2 pelvis fragments (1 acetabulum [R], 1 ischium), sacrum fragment, proximal femur head epiphysis (UF), proximal tibia epiphysis fragment (UF), distal tibia (F, R), tibia shaft fragment (R, 2 MNI), 2 calcaneus (L, UF; R, broken, and 1 epiphysis), astragalus (L), naviculocuboid, 4 carpus/tarsus, 3 metacarpus fragments, 3 metatarsus fragments, 11 metapodial fragments, distal metapodial (UF), 2 metapodial epiphysis (2 UF), 11 metapodial ½ epiphysis (11 UF), 17 phalanx 1 (6 UF, 3 F, 8 broken and 2 epiphysis), 4 phalanx 2 (1 UF, 3 F), 5 phalanx 3 (2 much broken), 37 vertebra fragments (1 caudal, F), 8 ribs (2 MNI); Fish. H5-II, 5.2 (Fill against Wall S118, SW quadrant) 35 bones. Ovis/Capra: phalanx 2 (UF), 2 vertebrae, 5 ribs; Bos phalanx 2 (F); Fish. H5-II, 5.3 (Fill against wall, NE quadrant) 289 bones. 1 burned Ovis/Capra shaft fragment; Ovis/Capra: skull fragment with horncore base and horncore fragment (?Capra), 14 mandible fragments (3 condyle process [2 R, L]), 9 molars and 33 fragments (13 teeth), dp4 (much worn), 2 axis fragments (2 odontoid process, 1 butchered on angle just behind process), 2 scapula (2 F, 1 L), 5 distal humerus (1 UF [R], 2 F [R, L], 2 broken [2 L]), 6 pelvis/acetabulum fragments (2 F, 1 R), 2 proximal femur (2 broken, R,

L), proximal tibia epiphysis fragment (UF), distal tibia (F, R), 2 tibia shafts, calcaneus (F, R), 3 carpus/tarsus, 3 proximal metacarpus (1 UF [with epiphysis], 2 R), 3 proximal metatarsus, proximal metapodial fragment, 7 phalanx 1 (3 UF, 2 F, 2 broken and 1 epiphysis), 7 phalanx 2 (3 UF, 4 F with 1 joining epiphysis), 2 phalanx 3 (2 large), 16 vertebrae fragments (7 UF, 2 F, 2 UF centra), 5 ribs (4 MNI); Bos: distal humerus fragment (3 fragments), 2 shaft fragments (may join humerus). H5-II, 5.4 (Fill against wall, SE quadrant) 76 bones. Ovis/Capra: 3 mandible fragments (2 condyle process [1 butchered through condyle], 1 coronion fragment), premolar, 5 molar fragments (1 tooth), scapula (F, R), distal humerus shaft (L), proximal radius (F, L), proximal ulna fragment (broken, R), distal ulna epiphysis (UF, L), 2 pelvis/acetabulum fragments (1 R), proximal femur (UF, L, and epiphysis), tibia shaft fragment, 2 calcaneus (1 UF, R; 1 broken), carpus/tarsus, metacarpus shaft fragment, proximal metatarsus fragment, proximal metapodial fragment, phalanx 2 (UF), 7 vertebrae (2 UF), 2 ribs (2 MNI); Fish; Testudo carapace fragment. H5-II, 6.1 (Associated with Walls S121, S126a, S126b, SE quadrant) 72 bones. 3 burned Ovis/Capra fragments and 1 slightly burned Ovis/Capra phalanx 1 (F); Ovis/ Capra: 2 premolars, 3 molars and 3 fragments (4 teeth, 2 upper), axis fragment (butchered on angle at anterior end), proximal humerus epiphysis (UF), pelvis/acetabulum fragment (L), proximal tibia epiphysis (UF), distal metapodial (UF), 2 metapodial ½ epiphysis (2 UF), metapodial shaft fragment, metatarsus shaft, 6 phalanx 1 (1 UF, 1 F, 4 broken, and 2 epiphyses), 2 phalanx 2 (1 F, 1 broken), phalanx 3, 2 vertebra fragments, rib (2 MNI); Bos scapula fragment; Fish. H5-III/SW, 3.1 4 bones. Ovis/Capra: metatarsus (UF), distal metapodial (F), 2 phalanx 1 (2 F) (2 MNI). H5-III/SW, 4.1 15 bones. Ovis/Capra: distal femur shaft, proximal metacarpus, 2 distal phalanx 1.

LATE BRONzE AGE (?) E4-III, 2.7 (Room S102, circular pit) 6 bones. Ovis/Capra-sized, unidentifiable. F4-III, 4.3 5 bones. Unidentifiable mammal.

ORGANIC REMAINS FROM THE ISLAND AND ADJACENT AREAS

H5-III/W, 4.1 6 bones. Ovis/Capra femur shaft (R); Bos molar (2 fragments). H5-III/W, 4.2 4 bones. Ovis/Capra: scapula (F, L), metacarpus (F), distal metapodial (UF), metatarsus (no distal) (2 MNI).

MIxED LATE BRONzE AGE E4-IV, 2.1 (Fill) 24 bones. Ovis/Capra: 2 molar fragments, distal metapodial (UF, ½). F4-III, 2.2 (Fill) 33 bones. 2 burned Ovis/Capra ribs; Ovis/Capra: molar (4 fragments), phalanx 1 (F). G5-IV/SW Test, 4.2 (Fill E of Wall S133) 185 bones. 10 burned Ovis/Capra fragments with 1 distal humerus (F); Ovis/Capra: incisor, premolar, 2 molars (6 fragments), distal humerus fragment (F), ulna shaft (L), distal femur fragment (F), patella, naviculocuboid, 2 calcaneus (UF, L; R, broken), 5 carpus/tarsus, proximal metapodial (3 fragments), distal metapodial epiphysis fragment (UF), 8 phalanx 1 (3 UF, 3 F, 2 broken), 5 phalanx 2 (1 UF, 4 F), 2 phalanx 3, 3 vertebra fragments, 6 ribs (2 MNI); Testudo humerus; Fish; Bird.

POST LATE BRONzE AGE I8-III/S, 3.2 51 bones. Ovis/Capra: 6 molars and 7 fragments (1 upper worn down), numerous mandible fragments (2 R, both with dp4; anterior fragment with P2, L; condyle process with part vertical ramus), distal femur (F, butchered across through distal, R), proximal tibia (F, R), naviculocuboid, calcaneus (F, R), tarsus, 2 ribs (3 MNI); Bird. I8-III/S, 4.1 5 bones. Ovis/Capra: distal metapodial (UF, ½), vertebra (UF, JF, butchered along body off-center) and UF vertebra centrum; Bird.

EARLIER GREEK (6TH–5TH C. B.C.) J8-I/II, 2.2 7 bones. Ovis/Capra: mandible coronion, rib; Fish; Bird.

EARLIER GREEK (?) J8-I/II, 3.2 8 bones. Ovis/Capra: 2 molars (1 M3), distal humerus (broken, F, encrusted), proximal metatarsus, 2 vertebra fragments (1 UF); Fish.

77

ROMAN (1ST C. B.C. TO 5TH C. A.D.) E4-III/W balk, 2.1 (Fill, exclusively Late Bronze Age sherds) 23 bones. Ovis/Capra: molar (4 fragments), phalanx 1 (UF), vertebra fragment, rib; 2 Bos-sized shaft fragments; Bird. G6-I, 3.1 (Fill with 8 A-shaped stone constructions) 209 bones. Ovis/Capra: 2 mandible fragments (1 with P2), 2 molars and 27 fragments (5 teeth, 1 M2, 1 M3), humerus shaft (L), proximal ulna (UF, L), femur shaft, distal femur epiphysis (UF, R), astragalus (R), naviculocuboid, 3 carpus/tarsus, metacarpus (UF, L), 2 distal metapodials (1 UF [½], 1 F), metapodial shaft, 4 phalanx 1 (1 UF, 1 F, 2 broken), 3 phalanx 2 (1 UF, 2 F), phalanx 3 (1 small, 1 medium/large), vertebra spine, 4 ribs (2 MNI); Canis astragalus (R); Mouse: skull fragment, mandible; Testudo carapace fragment; Fish; Bird. G6-I, 4.1 (Dark soil with A-shaped stone compartment/bin) 113 bones. 1 burned Ovis/Capra fragment; Ovis/ Capra: occipital condyle fragment, incisor, 2 molar fragments, atlas fragment, 2 scapula (2 F, 1 smaller, larger is butchered through glenoid), distal radius (UF, has epiphysis), sacrum fragment (F, possibly butchered through near center), proximal femur (UF, R), femur shaft (R), tibia proximal shaft fragment, 2 distal tibia (UF; F, L, 2 fragments), patella (broken), naviculocuboid, carpus/tarsus, metacarpus (UF, 2 fragments), phalanx 3 (broken), 14 vertebrae fragments (4 UF, 1 UF epiphysis, 1 spine), 7 ribs (2 MNI); Bos: distal humerus fragment (F, R, broken), 6 shaft fragments; Fish; Bird. H5-I, 3.1 (Fill against W face of Wall S118) 4 bones. Ovis/Capra: phalanx 1 (UF), rib. H5-I, 3.2 8 bones. Unidentifiable, 1 Ovis/Capra-sized rib; Fish H5-II, 3.1 (Roman Imperial) 702 bones. 3 burned Ovis/Capra fragments (1 skull) and 1 partly burned Ovis/Capra proximal metacarpus Ovis/Capra: horncore fragment, 10 mandible fragments (4 coronion), 8 premolars, 19 molars and 61 fragments (24 teeth, 1 M3 unworn/open roots), 2 dp4 (R, L, 2 MNI), axis (broken), 4 scapula (3 R [2 F, 1 broken], 1 L [F]), 8 distal humerus (6 L [1 F, 5 broken], 2 R [2 broken]), 11 radius (4 R [2 F proximal], 3 L [1 F proximal], 3 shafts), 3 proximal ulna (2 R, 1 L, 3 broken), 10 pelvis fragments (6 acetabulum, 4 L, 2 R), 3 distal femur fragments (3 UF), 3 femur shafts (1 R, 1 L), proximal tibia epiphysis (UF, R), distal tibia (UF), 2 tibia shafts (1 L), 8 calcaneus (3 R [2 UF, 1 broken], 3 L [3 broken], 2 fragments), navicu-

78

MARSA MATRUH

locuboid, carpus/tarsus, 6 metacarpus (1 UF, 5 broken), 5 metatarsus (1 UF, 4 broken), 3 metapodial epiphysis (3 UF, 2 + 1 ½), 8 metapodial shaft fragments, 27 phalanx 1 (16 UF, 6 F [1 large], 5 broken), 5 phalanx 2 (3 UF, 1 F [large], 1 broken; large phalanges articulate), phalanx 3, 26 vertebra fragments (8 UF centra, 1 spine), 18 ribs (6 MNI); Bos: 2 premolars, 9 molar fragments (3 teeth), proximal ulna (broken, L), rib, 2 shaft fragments; unknown pelvis fragment; Bird. H5-III, 2.1 (2nd/3rd c. A.D.) 1 bone. Ovis/Capra astragalus (L). I6-I/II, 2.1 177 bones. 5 burned Ovis/Capra fragments; Ovis/ Capra: incisor, 2 premolars, dp4, 6 molars and 12 fragments (10 teeth, 2 M3, 2 upper), 2 atlas fragments, distal humerus (F, R), pelvis/acetabulum fragment, patella (broken), naviculocuboid fragment, calcaneus (F, R, broken), astragalus (R, broken), 4 proximal metapodial fragments, 3 phalanx 1 (2 F, 1 broken), 5 phalanx 2 (1 UF, 4 F), 2 phalanx 3 (2 large), 2 vertebra fragments (1 spine), 5 ribs (1 head fragment) (2 MNI); Bos: phalanx 1 (F, broken), 2 shaft fragments; Fish; Bird. I6-I/II Section 1, 2.1 70 bones. 4 burned Ovis/Capra fragments; Ovis/ Capra: posterior mandible (coronoid process), dp4 (worn down), 2 molar fragments, proximal metapodial fragment, 2 phalanx 1 (UF, F), 2 phalanx 2 (1 F, 1 broken), rib (2 MNI) I6-I/II Section 4, 2.1 3 bones. Ovis/Capra-sized, unidentifiable. I6-I/II, 2.3 227 bones. 3 burned Ovis/Capra fragments (femur proximal shaft [young], 2 shafts); Ovis/Capra: anterior mandible fragment, 4 molars and 15 fragments (7 teeth, 2 upper, 2 lower), axis (broken), scapula (R, 3 fragments), 3 pelvis/acetabulum fragments (2 L), proximal femur head epiphysis (UF), distal tibia shaft, calcaneus fragment (L), carpus/tarsus, proximal metacarpus, 3 distal metapodials (1 UF, 2 F, 3 ½), 3 metapodial shaft fragments, 10 phalanx 1 (2 UF, 4 F, 4 broken), 10 phalanx 2 (4 UF, 6 F), phalanx 3, 2 vertebrae, 4 ribs (2 MNI); Bos: molar fragment (upper), shaft fragment; Testudo carapace fragment; Fish. I6-I/II, 2.4 (Hearth S117 fill in SW corner) 7 bones. Unidentifiable mammal, unburned; Fish (burned bones noted in 1987 Report, 100). I6-I/II, 2.5 (Spill of rubbish in SW corner) 66 bones. 2 burned Ovis/Capra fragments (molar, shaft) and 1 partly burned Bos atlas fragment (butchered almost down center); Ovis/Capra: incisor, molar and 3

fragments, pelvis/acetabulum fragment, calcaneus fragment (F, L), proximal metacarpus, phalanx 3, rib; unknown phalanx 1 (no proximal, has talon); Fish. I6-I/II, 3.1 (Sloping white walking surface S135) 65 bones. 2 burned Ovis/Capra fragments (1 rib), but much burned material noted in 1987 Report, 100. Ovis/Capra: 2 molars (2 upper, 2 young), pelvis fragment, proximal tibia epiphysis (UF), distal tibia (UF), carpus/tarsus, naviculocuboid, 2 phalanx 1 (1 UF, 1 broken, 2 MNI), phalanx 2 (F), 6 vertebra fragments, 4 ribs (2 MNI); Bos: molar fragment, phalanx 2 (F, broken); Fish. I6-I/II, 3.2 (Pulled-apart hearth fill) 1 bone. Ovis/Capra-sized, unburned, unidentifiable. I8-III/S, 2.1 187 bones. Ovis/Capra: horncore (?Capra, 3 fragments), 5 mandible fragments (1 dp4, much worn, R; 3 condyle process [3 L]), 3 premolars (3 upper), dp4 (with talon, worn, R), 8 molars and 4 fragments (9 teeth, 1 upper, 1 M3 [L]), 2 scapula (1 F, 2 R), 2 proximal humerus head epiphysis (2 UF, 1 broken), distal humerus (F, R), proximal radius (F, L), distal radius (F, L), radius shaft fragment, 4 pelvis fragments (2 acetabulum, 1 ilium), sacrum fragment (UF), proximal femur head epiphysis (UF), 3 distal femur (2 UF, 1 L [with epiphysis]; F, L), distal tibia (UF), tibia shaft (L), calcaneus (UF, L), carpus/tarsus, metatarsus (F, complete), proximal metatarsus fragment, 7 metapodial ½ epiphysis fragments (2 may join), 6 phalanx 1 (2 UF, 2 F, 1 broken, 1 epiphysis), phalanx 3, vertebra (UF) and 10 fragments (4 UF), 11 ribs (3 MNI); Fish; Bird. I8-III/S, 2.2 64 bones. Ovis/Capra: 3 mandible fragments (1 condyle process), dp4 (much worn), 3 molars and 1 fragment (3 teeth, 1 M1, 1 M3), 2 scapula (F, abraded/ encrusted; fragment), distal humerus (UF, R), 3 pelvis fragments (2 acetabulum, R, L; ilium), proximal femur head (UF), proximal tibia epiphysis fragment (UF), calcaneus (UF, R), 2 carpus/tarsus, phalanx 1 (F), 4 vertebra fragments, 2 caudal vertebrae (2 F), 5 ribs (2 MNI); Fish; Bird. I8-III/S, 2.4 (Late Roman) 127 bones. 5 burned Ovis/Capra fragments (scapula, 4 shafts): Ovis/Capra: 9 mandible fragments (dp4 worn down, R; 2 condyles [2 MNI]), 6 molars and 1 fragment (7 teeth, 2 young, 1 upper), axis (worn), scapula (F, R, 3 joining fragments), proximal humerus head epiphysis (UF, L), proximal humerus (F, butchered through head but not through tuberculum majus, L), 2 distal humerus (UF, R; F, L), 2 distal radius (UF; F, R), 3 proximal ulna (1 UF, 2 broken, 3 R), 3 pelvis/acetabulum fragments (1 R, 1 L, 2 MNI),

ORGANIC REMAINS FROM THE ISLAND AND ADJACENT AREAS

2 distal femur (2 UF, R [smaller], L [has epiphysis]), distal tibia (F, R), 2 calcaneus (UF, R; F, L), proximal metacarpus, proximal metapodial (2 fragments), distal metapodial (UF) may join distal metapodial epiphysis (UF), 2 metapodial shaft fragments (2 MNI), 3 phalanx 1 (2 F, 1 broken [small]), phalanx 2 (F), phalanx 3, 4 vertebra fragments (2 UF, 1 F), 23 ribs (3 MNI); Fish; Bird (very many). I8-III/S, 2.5 (Late Roman) 45 bones. Ovis/Capra: skull fragment, skull fragment with horncore base, mandible condyle, 3 molar fragments (1 tooth), distal humerus (F, L), proximal femur (UF), proximal tibia epiphysis (UF), sesmoid, phalanx 2 (F), 2 vertebrae (2 UF), 9 ribs (2 MNI); Fish; Bird (many). I8-III/S, 3.3 32 bones. 1 burned Ovis/Capra fragment; Ovis/Capra: palate fragment (P1-3, M1-2, R), mandible (P1-3, M1-3 worn down, R), 4 pelvis fragments (2 acetabulum, 1 R joins ilium), proximal tibia epiphysis (UF, R), distal metacarpus (UF), proximal metapodial fragment, 2 distal metapodial epiphyses (2 UF, 1 + 2 ½), phalanx 1 (F), vertebra fragment (UF), rib (2 MNI); 1 Bos-sized fragment.

ROMAN (?) H5-I, 2.2 (Small rubbish pit, NW quadrant) 12 bones. Ovis/Capra: calcaneus fragment, phalanx 2 (F), rib. H5-II, 3.2 (Collapsed hearth, 1.0 x 0.8 m) 48 bones. 2 slightly burned Ovis/Capra fragments: premaxilla, metatarsus (UF); Ovis/Capra: premaxilla fragment, distal humerus shaft fragment, carpus/tarsus, proximal metatarsus (2 fragments), phalanx 1 (UF), phalanx 3 fragment, vertebra fragment, 4 ribs; Bird. H5-II, 3.3 (Collapsed or pulled-apart hearth, 0.9 x 0.5 m) 46 bones. 1 partly burned Ovis/Capra shaft fragment and 1 slightly burned Ovis/Capra radius shaft; Ovis/ Capra: mandible coronion fragment, premolar, dp4 (worn down), 2 molars and 4 fragments (3 teeth), scapula fragment (UF, R, 2 fragments), humerus shaft fragment (R), radius (broken, L), pelvis/acetabulum fragment, sacrum fragment (UF), tibia shaft fragment, calcaneus (F, L), phalanx 1 (UF), 4 vertebra fragments (2 MNI). I8-III/S, 3.5 7 bones. Ovis/Capra: 2 skull fragments, distal tibia (UF), 2 vertebra fragments (1 UF centrum); Fish.

79

ISLAMIC (18TH–19TH C. A.D.) E4-III, 2.1 16 bones. Ovis/Capra: proximal metapodial fragment, phalanx 2 (F), rib; Fish G5-IV/SW Test, 2.1 (Rubble) 56 bones. 1 burned Ovis/Capra shaft fragment; Ovis/ Capra: 3 molars (1 M3, open roots), proximal humerus head (UF), proximal femur shaft (L), 2 calcaneus (F, L; UF, L, broken), proximal metacarpus, 2 distal metapodials (UF [½], F), phalanx 1 (F), 2 phalanx 2 (2 UF), 4 ribs (2 MNI); Bos metapodial (butchered down shaft and on angle at one end); Bird. G6-I, 2.1 (Fill) 52 bones. Ovis/Capra: 2 premolars, 3 molars (1 M3), mandible fragment, atlas fragment (butchered down side), scapula (F, L, butchered though glenoid, 2 fragments), distal radius epiphysis (UF, L), ulna (broken, L), pelvis/acetabulum with ilium (R), astragalus (L), thoracic vertebra (UF, with complete spine), 2 vertebra fragments (1 JF), 6 ribs (16 fragments); 1 Bos-sized fragment; Erinaceus: 9 skull fragments, mandible, 4 teeth, scapula, radius, 2 ulna, sacrum, femur, tibia/fibula, vertebra fragment, 4 ribs; Fish; Bird. H5-I, 2.1 (Room S118) 30 bones. Ovis/Capra: mandible fragment (no teeth), molar fragment, distal tibia epiphysis (UF), metapodial shaft (much smaller than tibia), phalanx 1 (UF), phalanx 3 (2 MNI). H5-II, 2.1 26 bones. Ovis/Capra: molar fragment, distal humerus shaft (R), 2 vertebra fragments (1 spine), 4 ribs.

UNDATEABLE E4-III, 2.2 4 bones. Ovis/Capra-sized, unidentifiable. E4-III, 2.6 19 bones. Ovis/Capra-sized, unidentifiable; Fish. F4-I, 2.1 1 bone. Ovis/Capra rib. F5-I/W, 2.1 5 bones. 1 burned Ovis/Capra shaft; Ovis/Capra: scapula fragment (R), metacarpus shaft fragment. G5-IV/SW Test, 4.3 2 bones. Ovis/Capra-sized, unidentifiable; Bird. G5-IV/SW Test, 5.1 (Crumbled bedrock) 20 bones. Ovis/Capra phalanx 2 (F).

80

MARSA MATRUH

G6-I, 3.2 5 bones. Small, unidentifiable mammal; Fish; Bird.

G5-IV/SW Test, 1.1 7 bones. Ovis/Capra distal humerus (F, R).

H5-III/W, 3.1 (Level beneath Arab pavement S128) 17 bones. 1 burned Ovis/Capra distal humerus fragment; Ovis/Capra: scapula fragment (F), distal humerus shaft (L), metatarsus (broken), phalanx 1 (F), 2 ribs; Bos phalanx 1 (F).

G6-I, 1.1 7 bones. 1 burned Ovis/Capra astragalus fragment; Bird.

I6-I/II, 3.2 7 bones. Capra: skull and horncore (6 fragments); Ovis/Capra: proximal humerus (F), shaft (cut down length); Fish. I8-III/S, 2.3 5 bones. Unidentifiable mammal with 2 small ribs; Fish. I8-III/S, 4.2 35 bones. Ovis horncore (butchered from skull); Ovis/Capra: skull occipital condyle, 3 molars and 1 fragment (4 teeth, 1 M3), scapula fragment, 2 distal humerus (2 F, R, L, 1 MNI), pelvis/acetabulum fragment (R), phalanx 1 (UF), rib (2 MNI); Bos: premolar (adult), proximal radius (F, butchered down center); Fish.

SURFACE D4-I/II, 1.1 + 1.2 36 bones. Ovis/Capra: molar (6 fragments), metatarsus shaft, phalanx 1 (F); Bos metapodial shaft fragment, rib; Fish. E4-II/E, 1.1 26 bones. Ovis/Capra: molar fragment, metapodial shaft; unknown distal phalanx, 1 with talon. E4-III, 1.1 56 bones. 8 burned gray Ovis/Capra fragments (metacarpus shaft, 2 distal phalanx 1 fragments); Ovis/Capra: molar fragment, phalanx 1 (F, broken), 4 ribs; Bird (burned). E4-III/W balk, 1.1 5 bones. Ovis/Capra-sized, unidentifiable. E4-IV, 1.1 9 bones. Ovis/Capra-sized, unidentifiable. F4-I, 1.1 5 bones. Ovis/Capra: molar fragment, proximal femur head (F), metapodial ½ epiphysis (UF). F4-III, 1.1 + 2.1 10 bones. Ovis/Capra distal tibia (F, R); Bird. F5-I/W, 1.1 5 bones. Unidentifiable mammal.

H4-III Test, 1.1 30 bones. 1 burned Ovis/Capra vertebra fragment; Ovis/Capra: pelvis/acetabulum fragment (F), astragalus, phalanx 2 epiphysis (UF), phalanx 2 (F) (2 MNI); Fish. Bird. H5-I, 1.1 15 bones. Ovis/Capra: posterior mandible (M3 worn), pelvis/acetabulum fragment, distal tibia (F, R), astragalus (R), calcaneus (F, R) (3 bones articulate), vertebra fragment; Bird. H5-II, 1.1 1 bone. Bos-sized shaft (3 attaching fragments). H5-III, 1.1 15 bones. Unidentifiable. I8-III/S, 1.1 25 bones. Ovis/Capra: mandible (3 fragments, no teeth), 2 molars and 7 fragments (4 teeth), calcaneus (UF, R), phalanx 2 (UF). J8-I/II, 1.1 5 bones. Ovis/Capra: skull fragment, tibia shaft (young), vertebra fragment, 2 ribs (small). Sponge-Divers House (S101) 462 bones. 4 burned Ovis/Capra fragments (distal metapodial epiphysis, UF) and 3 partly burned Ovis/Capra bones (scapula [F], phalanx 3); Ovis/Capra: skull fragment, 6 mandible fragments (2 MNI), 2 premolars (1 young), 18 molar fragments (16 teeth, 2 M3, 1 M3), 3 scapula fragments (2 F, R, L), 2 proximal humerus (UF, F), 2 proximal radius (2 F, 2 L), sacrum fragment and 1 epiphysis, 4 pelvis/acetabulum fragments (2 MNI), proximal femur (F), 2 proximal femur heads (2 UF), distal femur epiphysis fragment (UF), proximal tibia (F), distal tibia epiphysis (UF), 5 calcaneus (3 R [1 UF, 2 F], 2 L [2 UF]), naviculocuboid (rather large), 2 proximal metacarpus fragments, proximal metatarsus fragment, proximal metapodial fragment, distal metatarsus (F), 4 distal metapodials (2 UF, 2 F), 6 distal metapodial epiphysis fragments (6 UF, 6 ½), 15 phalanx 1 (5 UF, 10 F), 7 phalanx 2 (1 UF, 5 F, 1 broken), 2 phalanx 3, 13 vertebrae fragments (4 UF [1 butchered on angle through bone], 2 spines), 2 caudal vertebra (UF, F), 15 ribs (4 MNI); Bos: posterior mandible (vertical ramus and coronion), axis (butchered down center), scapula fragment (F), distal femur fragment, 2 shaft fragments;

ORGANIC REMAINS FROM THE ISLAND AND ADJACENT AREAS

Homo skull fragment; Rodent: humerus, femur; Testudo: 3 carapace fragments (1 edge); Fish; Bird.

Table 2 Ageable Ovis/Capra Bones from Bates’s Island LATE BRONzE AGE D4-I/II, 3.1 (Room S119, secondary floor) (2 MNI; one under 1–1.25 yrs. and one over 2 yrs.) phalanx 2 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. M3 much worn down + 2 yrs. d femur epiph. (UF) - 3–3.5 yrs. D4-I/II, 4.1 (Room S119, primary floor) (under 2.5–3 yrs.) calcaneus (UF) - 2.5–3 yrs. p femur head (UF) - 3–3.5 yrs. E4-III, 2.3 (Overlays Wall S102d) (over 1–1.25 yrs.) scapula (F) + 6–8 mos. phalanx 1 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. E4-III, 3.3 (Room S102 occupation deposit) (over 1–1.25 but under 2.5–3 yrs.) phalanx 1 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. phalanx 2 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. calcaneus (UF) - 2.5–3 yrs. F4-III, 3.1 (Pit-like deposit, collapse level) (under 3–3.5 yrs.) p femur (UF head) - 3–3.5 yrs. G5-IV/SW Test, 3.1 (Room S101) (2 1–1.25 yrs.) 2 phalanx 2 (UF) calcaneus (UF) p femur head (UF)

MNI; one under - 1–1.25 yrs. - 2.5–3 yrs. - 3–3.5 yrs.

G5-IV/SW Test, 4.1 (Room S101, fill W of Wall S133) (over 1–1.25 but under 1.75–2 yrs.) phalanx 2 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. metapodial epiph. (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs. H5-II, 4.1 (Fill abutting W exterior face of Wall S118, NW quadrant) (5 MNI; four under 1 yr. [with 1 under 10 mos.] and one over 2.5–3 but under 3–3.5 yrs.) d humerus epiph. (UF) - 10 mos. p radius (F) + 10 mos. 6 dp4 (4L, 2R, with talon) - 1 yr. - 1 yr. dp4 (R) 21 phalanx 1 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. 6 phalanx 1 epiph. (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs.

20 phalanx 2 (UF) 2 phalanx 1 (F) 3 phalanx 2 (F) metatarsus (UF) metapodial (UF) 10 metapodial ½ epiph. (UF) M3 unworn 4 calcaneus (UF, 2R, 2L) calcaneus (F, R) d radius epiph. (UF) p tibia epiph. (UF) p tibia (F)

81

- 1–1.25 yrs. + 1–1.25 yrs. + 1–1.25 yrs. - 1.75–2 yrs. - 1.75–2 yrs. - 1.75–2 yrs. + 1.5–2 yrs. - 2.5–3 yrs. + 2.5–3 yrs. - 3–3.5 yrs. - 3–3.5 yrs. - 3–3.5 yrs.

H5-II, 4.2 (Fill against Wall S118, SW quadrant) (over 10 mos. but under 1–1.25 yrs.) d humerus (F) + 10 mos. phalanx 1 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. phalanx 2 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. metatarsus (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs. calcaneus (UF) - 2.5–3 yrs. H5-II, 4.3 (Fill against wall, NE quadrant) (3 MNI; three over 10 mos., one under 1–1.25, and one over 3–3.5 yrs.) 2 scapula (4F, 2R, 2L) + 6–8 mos. 4 d humerus (4F, 3L, 1R) + 10 mos. 2 p radius (F, R) + 10 mos. 2 phalanx 1 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. phalanx 2 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. phalanx 1 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. 2 d tibia (UF) - 1.5–2 yrs. metacarpus (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs. d radius (UF, L) - 3–3.5 yrs. d femur (UF) - 3–3.5 yrs. p femur (F) + 3–3.5 yrs. p tibia (F) + 3–3.5 yrs. H5-II, 4.4 (Fill against wall, SE quadrant) (2 MNI; one under 2.5–3 yrs.) calcaneus (UF) - 2.5–3 yrs. p femur head epiph. (UF) - 3–3.5 yrs. H5-II, 5.1 (Fill against Wall S118, NW quadrant) (2 MNI; one under 1 yr. and one over 1.5–2 but under 3–3.5 yrs.) dp4 slightly worn - 1 yr. 6 phalanx 1 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. 2 phalanx 1 epiph. (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. phalanx 2 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. 3 phalanx 1 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. 3 phalanx 2 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. metapodial (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs. 2 metapodial epiph. (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs. 11 metapodial ½ epiph. (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs.

82

d tibia (F, R) calcaneus (UF, L) calcaneus epiph. (UF) p femur head epiph. (UF) p tibia epiph. (UF)

MARSA MATRUH

+ 1.5–2 yrs. - 2.5–3 yrs. - 2.5–3 yrs. - 3–3.5 yrs. - 3–3.5 yrs.

H5-II, 5.2 (Fill against Wall S118, SW quadrant) (under 1–1.25 yrs.) phalanx 2 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. H5-II, 5.3 (Fill against wall, NE quadrant) (4 MNI; one under 10 mos. and one over 2–5–3 but under 3–3.5 yrs.) scapula (F, L) + 6–8 mos. scapula (F) + 6–8 mos. d humerus (UF, R) - 10 mos. 2 d humerus (2F, R, L) + 10 mos. dp4 much worn - 1 yr. 3 phalanx 1 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. phalanx 1 epiph. (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. 3 phalanx 2 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. 2 phalanx 1 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. 4 phalanx 2 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. metacarpus (UF, with epiph.) - 1.75–2 yrs. d tibia (F, R) + 1.5–2 yrs. calcaneus (F, R) + 2.5–3 yrs. p tibia epiph. (UF) - 3–3.5 yrs. H5-II, 5.4 (Fill against wall, SE quadrant) (2 MNI; one over 10 mos. and neither over 1–1.25 yrs.) scapula (F, R) + 6-8 mos. p radius (F, L) + 10 mos. phalanx 2 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. d ulna epiph. (UF, L) - 2.5–3 yrs. calcaneus (UF) - 2.5–3 yrs. p femur (UF and epiph.) - 3–3.5 yrs. H5-II, 6.1 (Associated with Walls S121, S126a, S126b, SE quadrant) (2 MNI; one under 1–1.25 and one over 1–1.25 but under 3–3.5 yrs.) phalanx 1 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. 2 phalanx 1 epiph. (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. 2 phalanx 1 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. phalanx 2 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. metapodial (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs. 2 metapodial ½ epiph. (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs. p humerus epiph. (UF) - 3–3.5 yrs. p tibia epiph. (UF) - 3–3.5 yrs. H5-III/SW, 3.1 (2 MNI; one under 1.75–2 and one over 1.75–2 yrs.) 2 phalanx 1 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. metatarsus (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs. metapodial (F) + 1.75–2 yrs.

LATE BRONzE AGE (?) H5-III/W, 4.2 (2 MNI; one under 1.75–2 and one over 1.75–2 yrs.) scapula (F) + 6–8 mos. metapodial (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs. metacarpus (F) + 1.75–2 yrs.

MIxED LATE BRONzE AGE E4-IV, 2.1 (Fill) (under 1.75–2 yrs) metapodial (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs. F4-III, 2.2 (Fill) (over 1–1.25 yrs.) phalanx 1 (F)

+ 1–1.25 yrs.

G5-IV/SW Test, 4.2 (Fill E of Wall S133) (2 MNI; one under 1–1.25 and one over 3–3.5 yrs.) 2 d humerus (F) + 10 mos. 3 phalanx 1 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. phalanx 2 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. 3 phalanx 1 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. 4 phalanx 2 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. metapodial epiph. (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs. calcaneus (UF) - 2.5–3 yrs. d femur (F) + 3–3.5 yrs.

POST LATE BRONzE AGE I8-III/S, 3.2 (3 MNI; two under 1 yr. and one over 3–3.5 yrs.) 2 mandible with dp4 (R) - 1 yr. calcaneus (F, R) + 2.5–3 yrs. d femur (F, R) + 3–3.5 yrs. p tibia (F, R) + 3–3.5 yrs. I8-III/S, 4.1 (under 1.75–2 yrs.) metapodial (UF)

- 1.75–2 yrs.

EARLIER GREEK (?) J8-I/II, 3.2 (over 1.5–2 yrs.) d humerus (F) M3

+ 10 mos. + 1.5–2 yrs.

ROMAN E4-III/W balk, 2.1 (Fill) (under 1–1.25 yrs.) phalanx 1 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. G6-I, 3.1 (Fill with 8 Π-shaped stone constructions) (2 MNI; one under 1–1.25 and one over 1.5–2 but under 2.5–3 yrs.) phalanx 1 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. phalanx 2 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs.

ORGANIC REMAINS FROM THE ISLAND AND ADJACENT AREAS

phalanx 1 (F) 2 phalanx 2 (F) metacarpus (UF) metapodial (UF) M3 metapodial (F) p ulna (UF) d femur epiph. (UF)

+ 1–1.25 yrs. + 1–1.25 yrs. - 1.75–2 yrs. - 1.75–2 yrs. + 1.5–2 yrs. + 1.75–2 yrs. - 2.5–3 yrs. - 3–3.5 yrs.

G6-I, 4.1 (Dark soil with A-shaped stone compartment/bin) (2 MNI; 1 under 1.5–2 and one over 1.5–2 but under 3–3.5 yrs.) 2 scapula (F) + 6–8 mos. d tibia (UF) - 1.5–2 yrs. metacarpus (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs. d tibia (F) + 1.5–2 yrs. d radius (UF, has epiph.) - 3–3.5 yrs. p femur (UF) - 3–3.5 yrs. H5-I, 3.1 (Fill against W face of Wall S118) (under 1–1.25 yrs.) phalanx 1 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. H5-II, 3.1 (Roman Imperial) (6 MNI with two over 6–8 mos. but under 1 yr. and one over 1.5–2 but under 3–3.5 yrs.) 3 scapula (3F, 2R, L) + 6–8 mos. d humerus (F) + 10 mos. 3 p radius (3F, 2R, L) + 10 mos. 2 dp4 (R, L, 2 MNI) - 1 yr. 16 phalanx 1 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. 3 phalanx 2 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. 6 phalanx 1 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. phalanx 2 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. d tibia (UF) - 1.5–2 yrs. metacarpus (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs. metatarsus (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs. 2 metapodial epiph. (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs. metapodial ½ epiph. (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs. M3 unworn + 1.5–2 yrs. 2 calcaneus (UF, R) - 2.5–3 yrs. 3 d femur fragment (UF) - 3–3.5 yrs. p tibia epiph. (UF) - 3–3.5 yrs. I6-I/II, 2.1 (2 MNI; one under 1 yr. and one over 1.5–2 but under 2.5–3 yrs.) d humerus (F) + 10 mos. dp4 - 1 yr. phalanx 2 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. 2 phalanx 1 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. 4 phalanx 2 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. 2 M3 + 1.5–2 yrs. calcaneus (F) - 2.5–3 yrs.

83

I6-I/II Section 1, 2.1 (2 MNI; one under 1 yr. and one over 1.5–2 yrs.) dp4 worn down - 1 yr. phalanx 1 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. phalanx 1 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. phalanx 2 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. I6-I/II, 2.3 (2 MNI; one under 1–1.25 yrs. and one over 1.75–2 but under 3–3.5 yrs.) 2 phalanx 1 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. 4 phalanx 2 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. 4 phalanx 1 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. 6 phalanx 2 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. metapodial (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs. 2 metapodial (F) + 1.75–2 yrs. p femur head (UF) - 3–3.5 yrs. I6-I/II, 2.5 (Spill of rubbish in SW corner) (over 2.5–3 yrs.) calcaneus (F) + 2.5–3 yrs. I6-I/II, 3.1 (Sloping white walking surface S135) (2 MNI; one under 1–1.25 yrs. and one over 1–1.25 but under 1.5–2 yrs.) phalanx 1 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. phalanx 2 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. d tibia (UF) - 1.5–2 yrs. p tibia epiph. (UF) - 3–3.5 yrs. I8-III/S, 2.1 (3 MNI; two under 1 yr. and one over 3–3.5 yrs.) scapula (F, R) + 6–8 mos. d humerus (F, R) + 10 mos. p radius (F, L) + 10 mos. dp4 worn (with talon, R) - 1 yr. dp4 much worn (R) - 1 yr. phalanx 1 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. phalanx 1 epiph. (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. d tibia (UF) - 1.5–2 yrs. 7 metapodial ½ epiph. (UF, 2 may join) - 1.75–2 yrs. 2 phalanx 1 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. M3 + 1.5–2 yrs. metatarsus (F) + 1.75–2 yrs. calcaneus (UF) - 2.5–3 yrs. 2 p humerus head epiph. (UF) - 3–3.5 yrs. p femur head epiph. (UF) - 3–3.5 yrs. 2 d femur (UF, with 1 epiph.) - 3–3.5 yrs. d radius (F, L) + 3–3.5 yrs. d femur (F) + 3–3.5 yrs. I8-III/S, 2.2 (2 MNI; one under 10 mos. and one over 1.5–2 but under 2.5–3 yrs.) scapula (F) + 6–8 mos.

84

d humerus (UF) dp4 much worn phalanx 1 (F) M3 calcaneus (UF) p femur head (UF) p tibia epiph. (UF)

MARSA MATRUH

- 10 mos. - 1 yr. + 1–1.25 yrs. + 1.5–2 yrs. - 2.5–3 yrs. - 3–3.5 yrs. - 3–3.5 yrs.

I8-III/S, 2.4 (Late Roman) (3 MNI; one under 10 mos. and one over 3–3.5 yrs.) scapula (F) + 6–8 mos. d humerus (UF) - 10 mos. d humerus (F) + 10 mos. dp4 worn down - 1 yr. metapodial (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs. metapodial epiph. (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs. 2 phalanx 1 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. phalanx 2 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. calcaneus (UF, R) - 2.5–3 yrs. d tibia (F, R) + 1.5–2 yrs. p ulna (UF) - 2.5–3 yrs. calcaneus (F) + 2.5–3 yrs. p humerus head epiph. (UF, L) - 3–3.5 yrs. d radius (UF) - 3–3.5 yrs. d femur (UF, R, smaller) - 3–3.5 yrs. d femur (UF, L, has epiph.) - 3–3.5 yrs. p humerus (F, L) + 3–3.5 yrs. d radius (F, R) + 3–3.5 yrs. I8-III/S, 2.5 (Late Roman) (2 MNI; one under 10 mos. and one over 1–1.25 but under 3–3.5 yrs.) d humerus (F) - 10 mos. phalanx 2 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. p femur (UF) - 3–3.5 yrs. p tibia epiph. (UF) - 3–3.5 yrs.

H5-II, 3.3 (Collapsed or pulled-apart hearth) (2 MNI; one under 6–8 mos. and one over 2.5–3 yrs.) scapula (UF) - 6–8 mos. dp4 worn down - 1 yr. phalanx 1 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. calcaneus (F) + 2.5–3 yrs. I8-III/S, 3.5 (under 1.5–2 yrs.) d tibia (UF)

- 1.5–2 yrs.

ISLAMIC E4-III, 2.1 (over 1–1.25 yrs.) phalanx 2 (F)

+ 1–1.25 yrs.

G5-IV/SW Test, 2.1 (Rubble) (2 MNI; one under 1–1.25 and one over 2.5–3 but under 3–3.5 yrs.) 2 phalanx 2 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. phalanx 1 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. metapodial (½) epiph. (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs. M3 open roots + 1.5–2 yrs. metapodial (F) + 1.75–2 yrs. calcaneus (UF) - 2.5–3 yrs. calcaneus (F) + 2.5–3 yrs. p humerus head (UF) - 3–3.5 yrs. G6-I, 2.1 (Fill) (over 1.5–2 but under 3–3.5 yrs.) scapula (F, L) + 6–8 mos. M3 + 1.5–2 yrs. d radius epiph. (UF, L) - 3–3.5 yrs. H5-I, 2.1 (Room S118) (2 MNI; one under 1–1.25 yrs.) phalanx 1 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. d tibia epiph. (UF) - 1.5–2 yrs.

I8-III/S, 3.3 (2 MNI; one under 1.75–2 and one over 2 but under 3–3.5 yrs.) phalanx 1 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. metacarpus (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs. 2 metapodial epiph. (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs. mandible, M3 worn down + 2 yrs. p tibia epiph. (UF) - 3–3.5 yrs.

UNDATEABLE

ROMAN (?)

I6-I/II, 3.3 p humerus (F)

+ 3–3.5 yrs.

I8-III/S, 4.2 (2 MNI) 2 d humerus (2F, R, L) phalanx 1 (UF) M3

+ 10 mos. - 1–1.25 yrs. + 1.5–2 yrs.

H5-I, 2.2 (Small rubbish pit, NW quadrant) (over 1–1.25 yrs.) phalanx 2 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. H5-II, 3.2 (Collapsed hearth) (under 1–1.25 yrs.) phalanx 1 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. metatarsus (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs.

G5-IV/SW Test, 5.1 (Crumbled bedrock) phalanx 2 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. H5-III/W, 3.1 (Level beneath Arab pavement S128) scapula (F) + 6–8 mos. phalanx 1 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs.

ORGANIC REMAINS FROM THE ISLAND AND ADJACENT AREAS

Table 3 Bos Bones (and their Age) from Bates’s Island

SURFACE D4-I/II, 1.1 + 1.2 phalanx 1 (F)

85

+ 1–1.25 yrs.

LATE BRONzE AGE

E4-III, 1.1 phalanx 1 (F)

+ 1–1.25 yrs.

F4-I, 1.1 metapodial epiph. (UF) p femur head (F)

D4-I/II, 2.1 2 fragments (1 shaft).

- 1.75–2 yrs. - 3–3.5 yrs.

D4-I/II, 3.2 (Room S119, first traces of hearth-furnace activity) 3 sesmoids, phalanx 1 (F), phalanx 2 (F) (over 1.5 yrs.).

F4-III, 1.1 + 2.1 d tibia (F)

+ 1.5–2 yrs.

E4-III, 2.3 (Overlays Wall S102d) ulna (UF) (under 3.5–4 yrs.).

G5-IV/SW Test, 1.1 d humerus (F)

+ 10 mos.

E4-III, 2.4 shaft fragment.

H4-III Test, 1.1 (2 MNI) phalanx 2 epiph. (UF) phalanx 2 (F)

- 1–1.25 yrs. + 1–1.25 yrs.

H5-II, 4.1 (Fill abutting W exterior face of Wall S118, NW quadrant) carpus/tarsus (4 fragments).

H5-I, 1.1 d tibia (F, R) M3 worn calcaneus (F, R)

+ 1.5–2 yrs. + 2 yrs. + 2.5–3 yrs.

I8-III/S, 1.1 phalanx 2 (UF) calcaneus (UF)

- 1–1.25 yrs. - 2.5–3 yrs.

Sponge-Divers House (S101) (4 MNI) 3 scapula (F) + 6–8 mos. 2 p radius (F, L) + 10 mos. 5 phalanx 1 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. phalanx 2 (UF) - 1–1.25 yrs. 10 phalanx 1 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. 5 phalanx 2 (F) + 1–1.25 yrs. d tibia epiph. (UF) - 1.5–2 yrs. 2 metapodial (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs. 7 metapodial (½) epiph. (UF) - 1.75–2 yrs. 3 M3 + 1.5–2 yrs. metatarsus (F) + 1.75–2 yrs. 2 metapodial (F) + 1.75–2 yrs. 3 calcaneus (UF, 2 L, R) - 2.5–3 yrs. 2 calcaneus (F, R) + 2.5–3 yrs. 2 p humerus (UF) - 3–3.5 yrs. 2 p femur head (UF) - 3–3.5 yrs. d femur epiph. (UF) - 3–3.5 yrs. p femur (F) + 3–3.5 yrs. p tibia (F) + 3–3.5 yrs.

H5-II, 4.3 (Fill against wall, NE quadrant) scapula fragment (F) (over 7–10 mos.). H5-II, 4.4 (Fill against wall, SE quadrant) proximal radius (F, butchered down center), 1 fragment (over 1.5 yrs.). H5-II, 5.2 (Fill against Wall S118, SW quadrant) phalanx 2 (F) (over 1.5 yrs.). H5-II, 5.3 (Fill against wall, NE quadrant) distal humerus fragment (3 fragments), 2 shaft fragments (may join humerus). H5-II, 6.1 (Associated with Walls S121, S126a, S126b, SE quadrant) scapula fragment.

LATE BRONzE AGE (?) H5-III/W, 4.1 molar (2 fragments).

ROMAN E4-III/W balk, 2.1 (Fill) 2 shaft fragments. G6-I, 4.1 (Dark soil with A-shaped stone compartment/bin) distal humerus fragment (F, R, broken), 6 shaft fragments (over 1.5 yrs.).

86

MARSA MATRUH

Table 4 Burned Bones from Bates’s Island

H5-II, 3.1 (Roman Imperial) 2 premolars, 9 molar fragments (3 teeth), proximal ulna (broken), rib, 2 shaft fragments.

LATE BRONzE AGE

I6-I/II, 2.1 phalanx 1 (F, broken), 2 shaft fragments (over 1.5 yrs).

D4-I/II, 2.1 1 burned Ovis/Capra fragment.

I6-I/II, 2.3 molar fragment (upper), shaft fragment.

D4-I/II, 3.1 (Room S119, secondary floor) 1 burned Ovis/Capra fragment and 1 partly burned fragment; 1 burned light gray-white Sparidae vertebra.

I6-I/II, 2.5 (Spill of rubbish in SW corner) atlas fragment (partly burned, butchered almost down center). I6-I/II, 3.1 (Sloping white walking surface S135) molar fragment, phalanx 2 (F, broken) (over 1.5 yrs.). I8-III/S, 3.3 fragment.

ISLAMIC G5-IV/SW Test, 2.1 (Rubble, 18th–19th c. A.D.) metapodial (butchered down shaft and on angle at one end). G6-I, 2.1 (Fill) fragment.

UNDATEABLE H5-III/W, 3.1 (Level beneath Arab pavement S128) phalanx 1 (F) (over 1.5 yrs.). I8-III/S, 4.2 premolar (adult), proximal radius (F, butchered down center) (over 1.5 yrs.).

SURFACE D4-I/II, 1.1 + 1.2 metapodial shaft fragment, rib. H5-II, 1.1 shaft (3 attaching fragments). Sponge-Divers House (S101) posterior mandible (vertical ramus and coronion), axis (butchered down center), scapula fragment (F), distal femur fragment, 2 shaft fragments.

D4-I/II, 3.2 (Room S119, first traces of hearth-furnace activity) 1 partly burned Ovis/Capra posterior mandible fragment. D4-I/II, 4.1 (Room S119, primary floor) 1 burned Ovis/Capra fragment, 1 partly burned fragment, and 1 possibly burned vertebra (JF). E4-III, 2.3 (Overlays Wall S102d) 2 burned black Epinephelus vertebrae; 1 slightly burned black or stained ?Epinephelus basioccipitale; burned black unidentified fish (?) cranial fragment. E4-III, 2.5 1 burned Ovis/Capra skull fragment. E4-III, 3.3 (Room S102 occupation deposit with large patches of burning) 23 burned Ovis/Capra fragments: distal calcaneus (UF, L), 5 vertebra fragments (2 only partly); unknown burned phalanx 1 (F, has talon); 1 burned black with some whitening Epinephelus caudal vertebrae; 1 burned Scomber caudal vertebra; 2 burned unidentified fish axial fragments (1 black, 1 fin spine white). F4-III, 3.1 (Pit-like deposit, a collapse level) 1 burned Ovis/Capra shaft fragment. G5-IV/SW Test, 4.1 (Room S101, fill W of Wall S133) 1 slightly burned Ovis/Capra proximal metapodial. H5-II, 4.1 (Fill abutting W exterior face of Wall S118, NW quadrant) 3 burned Ovis/Capra fragments (proximal phalanx 2 [F], 2 shafts) and 1 slightly burned Ovis/Capra carpus. H5-II, 5.3 (Fill against wall, NE quadrant) 1 burned Ovis/Capra shaft fragment. H5-II, 6.1 (Associated with Walls S121, S126a, S126b, SE quadrant) 3 burned Ovis/Capra fragments and 1 slightly burned Ovis/Capra phalanx 1 (F).

ORGANIC REMAINS FROM THE ISLAND AND ADJACENT AREAS

87

MIxED LATE BRONzE AGE

ISLAMIC

F4-III, 2.2 (Fill) 2 burned Ovis/Capra ribs.

G5-IV/SW Test, 2.1 (Rubble) 1 burned Ovis/Capra shaft.

G5-IV/SW Test, 4.2 (Fill E of Wall S133) 10 burned Ovis/Capra bones (1 distal humerus, F).

UNDATEABLE

ROMAN

F5-I/W, 2.1 1 burned Ovis/Capra shaft.

G6-I, 4.1 (Dark soil with Π-shaped stone compartment/bin) 1 burned Ovis/Capra fragment.

H5-III/W, 3.1 (Level beneath Arab pavement S128) 1 burned Ovis/Capra distal humerus fragment.

H5-II, 3.1 (Roman Imperial) 3 burned Ovis/Capra fragments (1 skull) and 1 partly burned Ovis/Capra proximal metacarpus. I6-I/II, 2.1 5 burned Ovis/Capra fragments.

SURFACE E4-III, 1.1 8 burned gray Ovis/Capra fragments (metacarpus shaft, 2 distal phalanx 1 fragments).

I6-I/II Section 1, 2.1 4 burned Ovis/Capra fragments.

G6-I, 1.1 1 burned Ovis/Capra astragalus fragment.

I6-I/II, 2.3 3 burned Ovis/Capra fragments (femur proximal shaft [young], 2 shaft fragments).

H4-III Test, 1.1 1 burned Ovis/Capra vertebra fragment.

I6-I/II, 2.5 (Spill of rubbish in SW corner) 2 burned Ovis/Capra fragments (molar, shaft) and 1 partly burned Bos atlas fragment (butchered almost down center). I6-I/II, 3.1 (Sloping white walking surface S135) Much burned material noted in 1987 Report, 100. 2 burned Ovis/Capra fragments (1 rib). I8-III/S, 2.4 (Late Roman) 5 burned Ovis/Capra fragments (scapula, 4 shafts). I8-III/S, 3.3 1 burned Ovis/Capra fragment.

ROMAN (?) H5-II, 3.2 (Collapsed hearth, 1.0 x 0.8 m) 2 slightly burned Ovis/Capra fragments: premaxilla, metatarsus (UF). H5-II, 3.3 (Collapsed or pulled-apart hearth, 0.9 x 0.5 m) 1 partly burned Ovis/Capra shaft fragment and 1 slightly burned Ovis/Capra radius shaft. I8-III/S, 3.5 1 burned black Sparidae first vertebra; 1 burned black cf. Sparidae precaudal vertebra.

Sponge-Divers House (S101) 4 burned Ovis/Capra fragments (distal metapodial epiphysis, UF) and 3 partly burned Ovis/Capra fragments (scapula [F], phalanx 3); 1 burned black Sparidae caudal vertebra.

Table 5 Butchered Bones from Bates’s Island LATE BRONzE AGE H5-II, 4.1 (Fill abutting W exterior face of Wall S118, NW quadrant) Ovis/Capra proximal radius butchered through distal on angle (F). H5-II, 4.4 (Fill against wall, SE quadrant) Bos proximal radius butchered down center (F). H5-II, 5.3 (Fill against wall, NE quadrant) Ovis/Capra axis fragment butchered on angle just behind process. H5-II, 5.4 (Fill against wall, SE quadrant) Ovis/Capra mandible fragment butchered through condyle.

88

MARSA MATRUH

H5-II, 6.1 (Associated with Walls S121, S126a, S126b, E quadrant) Ovis/Capra axis fragment butchered on angle at anterior end.

POST LATE BRONzE AGE I8-III/S, 3.2 Ovis/Capra distal femur butchered across through distal (F).

ROMAN G6-I, 4.1 (Dark soil with -shaped stone compartment/bin) Ovis/Capra: scapula butchered through glenoid (F), sacrum fragment possibly butchered through near center (F). I6-I/II, 2.5 (Spill of rubbish in SW corner) Bos atlas fragment butchered almost down center (partly burned).

head but not through tuberculum majus (F).

ISLAMIC G5-IV/SW Test, 2.1 (Rubble) Bos metapodial butchered down shaft and on angle at one end. G6-I, 2.1 (Fill) Ovis/Capra: atlas fragment butchered down side, scapula butchered though glenoid (F).

UNDATEABLE I8-III/S, 4.2 Ovis horncore butchered from skull; Bos proximal radius butchered down center (F).

SURFACE Sponge-Divers House (S101) Bos axis butchered down center.

I8-III/S, 2.4 (Late Roman) Ovis/Capra proximal humerus butchered through

Fish Bones Mark J. Rose Excavations at Bates’s Island yielded fish remains from 47 deposits (Table 6). A total of 361 fish bones and bone fragments were recovered, most from Late Bronze Age and Roman contexts, but the number of remains from any single period is not great, and this situation precludes any sweeping conclusions about the fisheries practices of each period or diachronic change in them. In all, there are 12 taxa present in the assemblage (Table 7). This low number probably reflects the assemblage size rather than, for example, extreme selectivity of a few target species or differential incorporation of a small part of larger catch into the archaeological deposits. For comparison, the Bronze Age deposits at Kommos, some 1,100 bones and otoliths, had 11 taxa, while that site’s Iron Age fish assemblage, 3,414 pieces, had 22 taxa.25

Table 6 Fish Remains from Bates’s Island by Chronological Period Period

Deposit

Bones

Late Bronze Age Mixed Late Bronze Age Earlier Greek Roman Roman(?) Late Roman Islamic Undateable Surface

20 1 2 10 1 2 2 0 5

200 7 3 91 2 8 3 14 33

TOTAL

47

361

ORGANIC REMAINS FROM THE ISLAND AND ADJACENT AREAS

Table 7 Taxa Present in the Bates’s Island Fish Assemblage Elasmobranch Odontaspidae, Eugomphodus taurus or Odontaspis ferox Epinephelus sp. Dicentrarchus sp. Diplodus sargus or D. vulgaris Pagellus erythrinus Pagrus pagrus Sparus aurata Scombridae Scomber sp. Sphyraena sp. Mugilidae

shark or ray sand shark grouper sea bass white or common sea bream pandora Couch’s sea bream gilthead sea bream tunny and mackerels mackerel barracuda gray mullets

The remains are, for the most part, in somewhat battered condition. Furthermore, they tend to be robust mouth parts (especially the premaxillae and dentalia of sea breams, the Family Sparidae) and larger vertebrae. The poor preservation, large size, and absence of otoliths suggest that, through site conditions and possibly recovery methods employed, we have only a small portion of the fish remains originally deposited. The detailed analysis of the fish bones is given below in Table 8.

Table 8 Detailed Description of the Bates’s Island Fish Remains LATE BRONzE AGE D4-I/II, 2.1 Compare Pagrus right premaxilla (distal fragment); unidentified vertebral fragment. D4-I/II, 3.1 (Room S119, secondary floor) Sparus: right premaxilla, right dentale; cf. Sparus right maxilla; cf. Pagrus: left dentale, left maxilla; Sparidae: 2 left articulare (2 MNI), 3 teeth (1 molariform, 2 conical), vertebra (burned light gray-white); Mugilidae precaudal vertebra; unidentified: left quadratum, 4 cranial

89

fragments, 5 vertebral fragments; 11 Elasmobranch centra and 1 fragment. D4-I/II, 3.2 (Room S119, first traces of hearth-furnace activity) Sparidae precaudal or caudal vertebra; unidentified vertebral fragment. D4-I/II, 4.1 (Room S119, primary floor) Sparidae thoracic vertebra; cf. Sparidae first vertebra; Scomber: 7 caudal vertebrae; unidentified: 4 cranial fragments, 2 precaudal vertebrae (?articulate), 2 vertebral fragments, dorsal spine. E4-III, 2.3 (Overlays Wall S102d) Sparus right premaxilla; Sparidae precaudal vertebra; Epinephelus: 3 vertebrae (2 first [1 burned black], 1 thoracic [burned black]); ?Epinephelus basioccipitale (slightly burned black or stained); Scomber 2 caudal vertebrae; Sphyraena: 2 teeth; unidentified: 5 cranial fragments, 1 ?cranial fragment (burned black), vertebra fragment; Elasmobranch centrum. E4-III, 2.5 Compare Epinephelus dentale (small distal fragment); unidentified: 3 cranial fragments, vertebra fragment. E4-III, 3.2 (Outside E wall of Room S102) Sparus: 3 enlarged molars; Scomber caudal vertebra; Mugilidae vertebra; cf. Mugilidae: 2 vertebrae (1 caudal, 1 fragment); unidentified: 20 cranial fragments, 2 vertebra fragments. E4-III, 3.3 (Room S102 occupation deposit with large patches of burning) Pagrus left premaxilla; cf. Pagrus right dentale (distal fragment); Epinephelus: 2 caudal vertebrae (1 burned black with some whitening); Scomber caudal vertebra; unidentified: 2 cranial fragments, vertebra, 3 axial fragments (2 burned: 1 black, 1 fin spine white). E4-III, 4.2 (Small pit) Sparidae caudal vertebra; ?Epinephelus thoracic vertebra; cf. Scomber vertebra; Mugilidae: 2 vertebrae (precaudal, caudal); unidentified: 5 cranial fragments, axial fragment (fin spine). F4-III, 3.1 (Pit-like deposit, a collapse level) Unidentified: cranial fragment, vertebral fragment; Elasmobranch centrum. F4-III, 4.1 (Fill) Unidentified: 3 vertebral fragments. F4-III, 4.4 (Room S107) Pagrus left maxilla.

90

MARSA MATRUH

G5-IV/SW Test, 3.1 (Room S101, occasionally burrowed into by rodents) Sparidae basioccipitale; unidentified vertebral fragment. G5-IV/SW Test, 4.1 (Room S101, fill W of Wall S133) Sparus right premaxilla; cf. Epinephelus thoracic vertebra. H5-II, 4.1 (Fill abutting W exterior face of Wall S118, NW quadrant) Sparus right premaxilla, right maxilla (proximal fragment), 2 left dentale (2 MNI); ?Sparus right maxilla (distal fragment, may join above); Pagrus left premaxilla; Diplodus right premaxilla; Sparidae: left premaxilla (mesial fragment), molariform tooth, 6 caudal vertebrae; Epinephelus: 2 thoracic vertebrae (articulate), caudal vertebra; Scomber caudal vertebra; cf. Scombridae vertebra fragment; Mugilidae caudal vertebra; unidentified: left quadrate, 4 cranial fragments, 7 axial fragments (one very large dorsal or pectoral spine). H5-II, 4.2 (Fill against Wall S118, SW quadrant) Sparus right premaxilla; Pagrus: right premaxilla, right maxilla; Sparidae caudal vertebra; unidentified: 3 cranial fragments. H5-II, 4.4 (Fill against wall, SE quadrant) Pagrus right maxilla; unidentified ceratohyale; 2 Elasmobranch centra (2 holed).

EARLIER GREEK (?) J8-I/II, 3.2 Unidentified left quadrate.

ROMAN G6-I, 3.1 (Fill with 8 A-shaped stone constructions) Sparus left premaxilla (2 loose teeth from it), right premaxilla, left maxilla (proximal fragment); Pagrus right maxilla; ?Epinephelus thoracic vertebra; Scomber: 3 caudal vertebrae; Mugilidae precaudal vertebra; unidentified: cranial fragment, 2 vertebrae (thoracic, hypural), 2 vertebral fragments. G6-I, 4.1 (Dark soil with A-shaped stone compartment/bin) Sparus: 2 right dentalia (2 MNI); Sparidae molariform tooth; unidentified: right quadrate, cranial fragment; Elasmobranch centrum. H5-I, 3.2 Pagrus right premaxilla. I6-I/II, 2.1 Sparus enlarged molar; Sparidae caudal vertebra; unidentified: 2 vertebral fragments.

H5-II, 5.1 (Fill against Wall S118, NW quadrant) Scomber caudal vertebra; Mugilidae caudal vertebra; unidentified: 3 cranial fragments; 6 vertebral fragments.

I6-I/II, 2.3 Sparus: 2 right dentale (2 MNI), enlarged molar; Pagellus left premaxilla; Pagrus or ?Pagellus left dentale; Sparidae tooth (conical); Epinephelus left premaxilla; Scombridae (not Scomber) posterior caudal vertebra; unidentified: 4 cranial fragments; Eugomphodus or Odontaspis tooth.

H5-II, 5.2 (Fill against Wall S118, SW quadrant) Unidentified: cranial fragment, vertebral fragment.

I6-I/II, 2.4 (Hearth S117 fill in SW corner) Unidentified cranial fragment, unburned.

H5-II, 6.1 (Associated with Walls S121, S126a, S126b, SE quadrant) Epinephelus precaudal vertebra.

I6-I/II, 2.5 (Spill of rubbish in SW corner) Sparus left dentale; cf. Scombridae caudal vertebra.

MIxED LATE BRONzE AGE

I6-I/II, 3.1 (Sloping white walking surface S135) Sparus: 2 dentalia (right, left), left maxilla; Sparidae: 2 caudal vertebrae; Epinephelus thoracic vertebra; Sphyraena caudal vertebra.

G5-IV/SW Test, 4.2 (Fill E of Wall S133) Sparus: 2 right premaxillae; cf. Epinephelus right premaxilla (proximal fragment), basioccipitale; unidentified: cranial fragment, 2 vertebral fragments.

EARLIER GREEK J8-I/II, 2.2 Unidentified: right quadrate (proximal fragment), vertebral fragment.

I8-III/S, 2.1 Sparus: 2 right premaxillae (2 MNI); Pagrus left maxilla; Epinephelus: left dentale, left preoperculare, 3 vertebrae (thoracic, precaudal, caudal); Scomber caudal vertebra; Mugilidae precaudal vertebra; unidentified: right articulare, hyomandibulare, 24 cranial fragments, 2 thoracic vertebrae, vertebral fragment, 2 axial fragments.

ORGANIC REMAINS FROM THE ISLAND AND ADJACENT AREAS

I8-III/S, 2.2 Compare Diplodus right premaxilla (proximal fragment); unidentified vertebra. I8-III/S, 2.4 (Late Roman) Epinephelus: 2 caudal vertebra; ?Epinephelus parasphenoid; Dicentrarchus left premaxilla, right dentale; unidentified: vertebra fragment, fin spine. I8-III/S, 2.5 (Late Roman) Unidentified cranial fragment.

91

Sponge-Divers House (S101) Sparus: 4 premaxillae (2 right, 2 left, 2 MNI), right maxilla (mesial fragment), 2 dentale (right, left); Pagrus: left premaxilla (mesial fragment), left maxilla; Sparidae basioccipitale, caudal vertebra (burned black); Epinephelus: premaxilla, 2 thoracic vertebrae, precaudal vertebra; Mugilidae: precaudal vertebra, precaudal or caudal vertebra; unidentified: right articulare, cranial fragment, thoracic vertebra, precaudal vertebra (may be pathological), vertebra fragment, fin spine (large); Elasmobranch: 2 centra.

ROMAN (?) I8-III/S, 3.5 Sparidae first vertebra (burned black); cf. Sparidae precaudal vertebra (burned black).

ISLAMIC E4-III, 2.1 2 vertebral fragments. G6-I, 2.1 (Fill) Sparidae precaudal vertebra.

UNDATEABLE E4-III, 2.6 Unidentified vertebral fragment. G6-I, 3.2 Unidentified: 5 axial fragments. I6-I/II, 3.3 Sparus right premaxilla. I8-III/S, 2.3 Unidentified cranial fragment. I8-III/S, 4.2 Epinephelus thoracic vertebra; unidentified: right quadrate, 2 axial fragments (fine spines).

SURFACE D4-I/II, 1.1 Sparidae tooth (molariform); unidentified: 7 vertebral fragments. H3-III/H4-IV, 1.1 (Bates’s dump) Epinephelus left premaxilla (proximal fragment); unidentified vertebral fragment. H4-III Test, 1.1 Sparidae caudal vertebrae.

Assuming that fish remains found in separate excavation trenches represent different individuals, the total Late Bronze Age number of individuals is at least 5 Sparus, 2 Pagrus, 1 cf. Pagrus, 1 Diplodus, 2 Epinephelus, 1 ?Epinephelus, 3 Scom-ber, 3 Mugilidae, 1 Sphyraena, and 4 Elasmo-branch. Similarly, the total Roman number of individuals is at least 7 Sparus, 3 Pagrus, 1 Pagellus, 1 cf. Diplodus, 2 Epinephelus, 1 ?Epinephelus, 1 Dicentrarchus, 2 Scomber, 1 Scombridae (not Scomber), 2 Mugilidae, 1 Sphyraena, 1 Eugom-phodus/Odontaspis, and 1 Elasmobranch.

Table 9 Distribution of Bates’s Island Fish Jaw Elements (Premaxilla, Maxilla, Dentale, Articulare) and Teeth by Taxa and Chronological Period Taxon

Late Bronze Age

Iron Age

Late/ Undateable Surface

Epinephelus Dicentrarchus Sparidae Diplodus Pagellus Pagrus Pagellus/Pagrus Sparus

2 – 3 1 – 10 – 13

2 2 – 1 1 3 1 12

2 – – – – 2 – 8

Teeth: Odontaspidae Sphyraena

– 2

1 –

– –

92

MARSA MATRUH

Table 10 Distribution of Bates’s Island Fish Vertebrae by Taxa and Chronological Period Taxon

Elasmobranch Epinephelus Sparidae Scombridae Sphyraena Mugilidae Unidentified

Late Bronze Age

Iron Age

Late/ Undateable Surface

15 13 14 14 – 7 3

1 7 5 6 1 2 5

2 4 4 – – 2 2

Comparison of the number of identified specimens (Tables 9 and 10) indicates coastal fish (groupers and related sea bass, sea bream, and gray mullets) were likely important components of the catch. Calcified centra from sharks or rays (Elasmobranchs) could come from bottomdwelling species. Of interest is the single sand shark tooth from a Roman context, the first archaeological occurrence of this species from the eastern Mediterranean. A member, or members, of the tunny and mackerel family points to more open-water fishing.

Discussion The Bates’s Island fish remains, like those from Cretan sites such as Kommos and Pseira26 and Cypriot ones such as Hala Sultan Tekke,27 add to an overall picture of Bronze and Iron Age fisheries in the Mediterranean and Aegean in which coastal stocks played a large role. Although there are no remains from Bates’s Island that must have come from a traded fish, e.g., Nile perch or other fresh-water species, as at Kommos (Iron Age) and Hala Sultan Tekke, local versus long-distance trade may have brought fish to the site. It must be kept in mind, however, that the assemblage available for study is probably far less rich than the catch that originally was brought to the site. Fishing tackle were found in several deposits. In the Late Bronze Age, the primary floor of room S119 (D4-I/II, 4.1) produced a bronze fishhook (9.24) while the secondary floor here (D4I/II, 3.1) produced a pierced stone fish net or loom weight (9.70), and the G5-IV/SW Test, 3.1 yielded a pierced stone fish net or loom weight (9.69). ?Late Bronze Age H5-III/W, 4.1 produced a stone net weight (9.67), Roman H5-II, 3.1 has a bronze fishhook (9.25), the Islamic H5-I, 2.1 has a stone net weight (9.72), and Bates’s Dump produced a stone net weight.

Bird Remains David S. Reese There are about 1,940 bird bone fragments present in 30 excavation deposits: Late Bronze Age (5 deposits; 9 fragments), mixed Late Bronze Age (1 deposit, 14 bones, 3 MNI), Post Late Bronze Age (2), Earlier Greek (1 bone), Roman (9 deposits; 950+ bones), Roman (?) (1), Islamic (2), and Surface (7). The bird bones were studied by Ms. Petra Krönneck (Universität Tübingen) (Table 11). From the Late Bronze Age come 1 Tadorna sp. (shelduck, a duck) and 6 unidentifiable bird bones. There is also non-ostrich eggshell from

one deposit. From the mixed Late Bronze Age come 4 Coturnix coturnix (common quail), 7 Passeriformes (songbirds or passerines), and 3 unidentifiable bird bones. Most of the bones are from the Roman period, particularly in G6-I, 3.1 (64 MNI) and I8-III/S (11 MNI). There are a total of 9 Falco sp. (falcon, lanner, peregrine, hobby, kestrel) individuals (including F. tinnunculus, the kestrel), 5 C. coturnix individuals, 5 Family Rallidae (crake, rail, moorhen, coot) individuals, 2 G. gallus (domestic fowl or

ORGANIC REMAINS FROM THE ISLAND AND ADJACENT AREAS

chicken) individuals, 2 Family Strigidae (typical owls) individuals, 1 Family Accipitridae (vulture, hawk, eagle, goshawk, buzzard, kite, osprey) bone, 1 Fulica atra (European coot) bone, 1 Alectoris barbara (Barbary partridge) bone, 1 Family Anatidae (ducks, mallard, wigeon, teal, garganey) bone, and 133 Passeriformes bones (26 MNI). The Islamic period produced only 1 G. gallus, 2 Falco sp. and 3 unidentifiable bird bones. There is only 1 Tadorna bone, of the Late Bronze Age. These ducks are eaten today in Egypt and probably were eaten in the past. Shelducks occasionally are pictured in Egyptian art.28 Two species are found in Egypt today. There are also a Roman duck bone and an Anas (dabbling duck) bone from the Surface. There are 6 G. gallus bones, all Roman, Islamic, or Surface. This bird did not become a regular member of the Egyptian farmyard until the Ptolemaic Period, when it is often portrayed in art.29 There are 37 C. coturnix (Linnaeus) bones. These birds frequently are seen in Egyptian art and hieroglyphs. Herodotus (II. 77) notes that in Egypt “quails and ducks and small birds are salted and eaten raw.” In Egypt today they are highly esteemed as a food, with most obtained along the Mediterranean coast in the autumn.30 There are 3 F. tinnunculus (Linnaeus), 31 Falco sp., and 1 accipitrid bone. There are at least ten species of Falco living in Egypt today. Various falcons are pictured in Egyptian art frequently.31 There are 20 rallid bones from two deposits specifically referable to F. atra Linnaeus. These are water-birds frequently found along the coast. F. atra rarely is pictured in Egyptian art and is eaten today in Egypt.32 There is 1 Roman A. barbara (Bonaterre) bone. This species was found nesting at Marsa Matruh in 1928. There are 3 Roman strigid bones. There are at least six owl species living today in Egypt. The majority of the unidentifiable bird bones are referable to the Order Passeriformes. This group is made up of 22 families including numerous birds: lark, martin, swallow, pipit, wagtail, bulbul, robin, nightingale, redstart, chat, wheatear, thrush, blackbird, warbler, flycatcher, babbler, tit, sunbird, oriole, crow, raven, starling, sparrow,

93

weaver, serin, finch, and bunting. It should also be noted that although there are 61 ostrich eggshell fragments in the collection (Chapter 9), there are no ostrich bones present. Bird bones are not a significant part of any Late Bronze Age faunal assemblage and rarely have been studied from any Aegean site, except for the remains from Kommos.

Table 11 Catalog of Bird Remains from Bates’s Island LATE BRONzE AGE GS-IV/SW Test, 4.1 (Room S101, fill W of Wall S133) Eggshell. H5-II, 4.1 (Fill abutting W exterior face of Wall S118, NW quadrant) 7 fragments (proximal tarsometatarsus, distal tarsometatarsus). H5-II, 4.3 (Fill against wall, NE quadrant) 1 fragment. Tadorna proximal carpometacarpus (subadult/adult). H5-II, 5.4 (Fill against wall, SE quadrant) 1 fragment.

MIxED LATE BRONzE AGE G5-IV/SW Test, 4.2 (Fill E of Wall S133) 14 bones. Coturnix: 2 coracoid, ulna, tibiotarsus (all subadult/adult); 10 Passeriformes fragments (scapula, 2 humerus [2 MNI], ulna, 2 carpometacarpus [2 MNI], distal tarsometatarsus).

POST LATE BRONzE AGE I8-III/S, 3.2 2 fragments. I8-III/S, 4.1 1 fragment.

EARLIER GREEK J8-I/II, 2.2 1 fragment.

94

MARSA MATRUH

ROMAN E4-III/W balk, 2.1 (Fill) 1 bone. Passeriformes humerus. G6-I, 3.1 (Fill with 8 A-shaped stone constructions) 800+ bones. Gallus: mandibula, carpometacarpus (subadult/adult); Coturnix: 6 coracoid (6 subadult/adult), 8 humerus (8 subadult/adult), 8 ulna (8 subadult/adult), 2 femur (2 subadult/adult), 8 tarsometatarsus (8 subadult/adult) (4 MNI); Falco: 2 coracoid (2 juvenile), 8 humerus (5 juvenile, 2 subadult/adult), 6 ulna (6 juvenile), carpometacarpus (juvenile), pelvis (juvenile), 4 femur (4 juvenile), 2 tibiotarsus (2 juvenile), 5 tarsometatarsus (5 juvenile) (5 MNI); Rallidae: 6 coracoid (6 subadult/adult), 6 humerus (6 subadult/adult), 2 ulna (2 subadult/adult), 2 carpometacarpus (2 subadult/adult) (3 MNI); Strigidae: 3 tarsometatarsus (3 subadult/adult) (2 MNI); Anatidae scapula (juvenile); Alectoris coracoid (subadult/adult); 125 Passeriformes fragments (25 MNI), 600 unidentified fragments (22 MNI). G6-I, 4.1 (Dark soil with A-shaped stone compartment/bin) 15 fragments. Rallidae humerus (subadult/adult); Passeriformes: 2 humerus (1 MNI), distal tibiotarsus.

I8-III/S, 2.5 (Late Roman) 28 bones. Falco: humerus, ulna, lumbosacrale, proximal femur, distal femur, 2 tarsometatarsus (right, left).

ROMAN (?) H5-II, 3.2 (Collapsed hearth) 1 fragment, unburned.

ISLAMIC G5-IV/SW Test, 2.1 (Rubble) 1 bone. Gallus pelvis (subadult/adult). G6-I, 2.1 (Fill) 20 fragments. Falco: scapula, ulna; fragments from 3 shafts.

SURFACE E4-III, 1.1 3 small burned gray/white fragments (coracoid, scapula). F4-III, 1.1 1 fragment. Large femur shaft.

H5-II, 3.1 (Roman Imperial) 2 bones. Accipitridae scapula (juvenile); F. atra coracoid (subadult/adult).

G6-I, 1.1 1 fragment. Anas proximal coracoid.

I6-I/II, 2.1 8 fragments.

H3-III/H4-IV, 1.1 (Bates’s dump) 3 fragments. Gallus distal tibiotarsus; Passeriformes humerus and tarsometatarsus shaft.

I8-III/S, 2.1 Ca. 50 bones. Gallus: femur (subadult/adult), tarsometatarsus (subadult/adult); F. ?tinnunculus radius (subadult/adult); Passeriformes: 4 humerus (2 MNI), carpometacarpus. I8-III/S, 2.2 8 fragments. F. ?tinnunculus proximal femur (subadult/ adult); Rallidae humerus (subadult/adult). I8-III/S, 2.4 (Late Roman) Ca. 50 bones. Coturnix: humerus (subadult/adult), ulna (subadult/adult); ?F. tinnunculus femur (subadult/ adult); Falco humerus (proximal, distal, adult female): Rallidae tibiotarsus (subadult/adult).

H5-I, 1.1 23 fragments of 1 F. atra: 2 coracoid (right, left), humerus, 2 scapula (right, left), proximal radius, ulna, sternum fragment, proximal femur, femur, 2 proximal tibiotarsus (right, left), 2 distal tibiotarsus (right, left), vertebra fragment. I9-I, 1.1 1 bone, coracoid. Sponge-Divers House (S101) 7 fragments. Coturnix humerus; 6 fragments (2 MNI).

ORGANIC REMAINS FROM THE ISLAND AND ADJACENT AREAS

95

Rarer Animals One dog (Canis familiaris) bone comes from Roman fill (G6-I, 3.1). Numerous bones of a hedgehog (Erinaceus) come from an Islamic deposit (G6-I, 2.1). Mouse remains come from Roman fill (G6-I, 3.1), and unidentified rodents come from the surface (Sponge-Divers House, E wall) and one undated deposit (E4-I, 2.1). There are a number of tortoise (Testudo) remains: a carapace fragment from the Late Bronze Age fill of Room S101 (G5-IV/SW Test, 4.1), and carapace fragments from two other Late Bronze Age fills (H5-II, 4.1 and 5.4), a humerus from mixed Late Bronze Age fill (G5-IV/SW Test, 4.2),

carapace fragments from two Roman deposits (G6-I, 3.1; I6-I/II, 2.3), and 3 carapace fragments from the surface of the Sponge-Divers House (S101). The surface of the Sponge-Divers House (S101) produced a human skull fragment. Several medium-sized mammal remains are still unidentified. Late Bronze Age Room S102 occupation debris (E4-III, 3.3) produced a burned phalanx 1 (F, has talon). Roman rubbish (I6-I/II, 2.5) yielded a phalanx 1 (lacks proximal, has talon). A Roman Imperial deposit (H5-II, 3.1) produced a pelvis fragment. A surface deposit (E4II/E, 1.1) produced a distal phalanx 1.

Marine Invertebrates There are 2,252 marine invertebrate individuals from 69 deposits. Of the total sample, 32.6% are Monodonta, 29.8% Patella, 13.2% Murex trunculus, and 10.4% Bittium (Table 12). There are 917 Late Bronze Age shells (22 deposits), 47 mixed Late Bronze Age (3 deposits), 21 Post Late Bronze Age (1 deposit), 11 Earlier Greek (1 deposit), 568 Roman (15 deposits), 22 Roman (?) (2 deposits), 427 Islamic (3 deposits), 23 Undateable (3 deposits), and 316 Surface (19 deposits) (Table 13). The percentage of the major marine shells by the significant periods is given in Table 14. Certain deposits have particularly large numbers of shells (Table 15). In the Late Bronze Age, these come from the fill W of Wall S133 in Room S101 (G5-IV/SW Test, 4.1) with 385 shells (144 Monodonta, 141 Patella, 81 Bittium, 11 Arcularia), H5-II, 4.3 with 80 shells (64 Monodonta), H5 II, 5.3 with 69 shells (27 Arcularia, 25 Patella, 14 Monodonta), and F-4 III, 3.1 with 67 shells (22 Patella, 17 Monodonta, 10 Bittium). The largest Roman samples, other than the crushed Murex sample, are G6-I 3.1 with 120 shells (31 Monodonta, 28 Patella, 21 M. trunculus, 16 Arcularia) and I6-I/II 2.1 (52 Patella, 20 M. trunculus, 12 Monodonta). The largest Islamic sample is from Room S118 (H5-I, 2.1) with 386 shells (194

Patella, 175 Monodonta). This large assemblage was noted in an earlier report, although the marine gastropod Monodonta was mistakenly referred to as a land snail.33 The combined percentage for Monodonta and Patella, both food items collected high up on the rocky shore, are: Late Bronze Age (67%), mixed Late Bronze Age (73.8%), Roman (39.3%), and Islamic (90.4%). The reason that the Roman sample is much smaller than the others is that it produced 166 Murex trunculus shells or 29.2% of the Roman sample. Ninety-eight of these shells come from one excavation unit (E4-II/E W balk, 2.1 #28), with 19 complete shells and 640 fragments. This is probably to be considered evidence for the production of purple-dye rather than food debris. Note that although it is considered to be a Roman deposit, it produced only Late Bronze Age sherds. Bittium, a common small inedible gastropod, is probably naturally found in the deposits and was not eaten or utilized by man. Also not consumed were Arcularia, Erosaria, Dentalium, and the water-worn shells. The only possible ornamental shells are the mixed Late Bronze Age Dentalium and the Roman Conus holed at the apex. The single Strombus/Lambis apical fragment is of Roman date and probably was part of the

96

MARSA MATRUH

natural fossil sand dunes which make up the matrix of the island. Monodonta and Patella are also the dominant food shells at Kommos,34 Pseira,35 Coast Mochlos,36 and Chalinomouri on Crete,37 Koukounaries on Paros,38 and at Maa Palaeokastro on Cyprus.39 Shell purple-dye has been produced in the Aegean and Levant from the late Middle Bronze Age. It has been shown experimentally that to produce 1.5 g of dye, enough for the trim of a single garment, one needs 12,000 shells. We have crushed Murex evidence to indicate that in the Aegean Bronze Age it was produced in the Cyclades (Ayia Irini on Kea, Akrotiri on Thera, Kythera), on Crete (Chania, Malia, Kommos, Palaikastro); the nearby southern island of Kouphonisi (which also has Roman evidence), and at Hala Sultan Tekke on Cyprus.40 It also was produced at various sites in the Aegean Iron Age, including 7th century B.C. Kommos,41 as well as in Tunisia (Carthage, Kerkouane, Djerba), Ptolemaic Egypt, and Libya (Berenice, Tobruk, Leptis Magna).42

Table 12 Total Marine Invertebrates from Bates’s Island There were 2,352 individual marine invertebrates found in 69 units. GASTROPODA 767 Monodonta turbinata (Born, 1778) Topshell (groups of 175, 139, 64, 23, 19, 17, 17, 14; 42 units); 3 fragments burned (3 units). 701 Patella caerulea Linnaeus, 1758 Limpet (groups of 194, 140, 32, 28, 25, 22, 20, 19, 15, 13, 12, 10; 49 units); 3 MNI burned (2 units). 311 Murex trunculus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Rock) Murex (groups of 98, 21, 13, 12; 54 units); 11 burned (7 units), 1 open body and no apex, 1 worn and encrusted fragment, 1 bored exterior. 245 Bittium reticulatum (Da Costa, 1778) Needle shell or whelk (groups of 81, 35, 32, 18; 22 units); 3 burned (3 units), 1 with small natural hole onside (Late Bronze Age).

118 Arcularia gibbosulus (Linnaeus, 1759) Nassa or Basket shell (groups of 27, 22, 16, 11, 11; 22 units); 74 a bit worn. 45 Murex brandaris Linnaeus, 1758 (Dye) Murex shell (15 units); all fresh, 1 fragment burned, 2 open body. 31 Cerithium vulgatum Bruguière, 1792 (Common) Cerith, Horn shell (14 units); 16 open mouth, 1 burned fragment. 15 Conus mediterraneus Hwass in Bruguière, 1792 (Mediterranean) Cone (8 units); 6 water-worn (1 holed apex), 1 worn. 10 Erosaria (=Cypraea) spurca (Linnaeus, 1758) Cowrie (6 units); all fresh. 9 Columbella rustica (Linnaeus, 1758) Dove shell (5 units); 1 worn and holed on body, 2 worn. 8 Euthria cornea (Linnaeus, 1758) Whelk (6 units); 1 burned, 1 water-worn. 8 Tonna galea (Linnaeus, 1758) Tun shell, Cask shell (8 units); all fresh. 4 Neverita josephina Risso, 1826 Moon shell (4 units; 2 Roman; 2 Surface). 3 Pisania maculosa (Lamarck, 1822) Whelk (2 units; 2 Roman, 1 Surface); 1 fresh, 1 worn, 1 water-worn. 3 Gibbula varia (Linnaeus, 1758) Topshell (2 units; 2 Late Bronze Age, 1 Roman). 2 Charonia sequenzae (Aradus et Benoit, 1876) Trumpet or Triton shell (2 units; Roman, undateable). 2 Bivonia sp./Lemintina sp. Vermetid, worm tube (2 units; Roman, Surface). 1 Muricidea blainvillei (Payraudeau, 1826) Murex (Late Bronze Age); fresh. 1 Luria lurida (Linnaeus, 1758) (Mediterranean or Lurid) Cowrie (Late Bronze Age); worn. 1 Clanculus sp. Topshell (Roman) 1 Amyclina corniculum (Olivi, 1792) Nassa or Basket shell (Roman).

ORGANIC REMAINS FROM THE ISLAND AND ADJACENT AREAS

1 Cymatium parthenopium (Von Salis, 1793) Triton or Trumpet shell (Roman); rather fresh. 1 Fasciolaria lignaria (Linnaeus, 1758) Tulip, Band, or Spindle shell (Roman); fresh. 1 Haliotis lamellosa (Lamarck, 1822) Sea ear, ormer (Late Roman); fresh.

97

1 Paracentrotus lividus (Lamarck, 1816) Sea urchin, Rock urchin (Late Bronze Age); test fragments.

FOSSIL GASTROPOD 1 Strombus/Lambis (Roman); apex, broken open lip, worn and eroded exterior.

1 ?operculum (Islamic)

BIVALVIA 22 Pinna nobilis Linnaeus, 1758 (Noble) Pen shell, Fan shell (21 units). 9 Arca noae (Linnaeus, 1758) (Noah’s) Ark shell (9 units); all fresh, 7 R valves, 5 L valves. 5 Cerastoderma (=Cardium) edule glaucum (Bruguière, 1789) (Common) Cockle (5 units); 3 L valves (1 water-worn umbo), 2 R valves (2 fresh). 4 Barbatia barbata (Linnaeus, 1758) (Finged) Ark shell (4 units); 4 R valves, fresh. 4 Anomia ephippium Linnaeus, 1759 Slipper shell (3 units). 2 Acanthocardia tuberculata (Linnaeus, 1758) (Red-nosed or Knotted) Cockle (2 units; Late Bronze Age, Roman). 2 Spondylus gaederopus Linnaeus, 1758 Spiny or Thorny oyster (2 units; Roman, undateable); 2 lower valves, 2 fresh. 1 Chama gryphoides Linnaeus, 1758 Jewel box, Hoof shell (Late Bronze Age). 1 Mytilus galloprovincialis Lamarck, 1819 (Mediterranean) Mussel; tiny (Late Bronze Age).

OTHER 1 Dentalium sp. Tusk shell, Tooth shell; large (mixed Late Bronze Age). 5 Sepia sp. Cuttlefish (5 units; 4 Late Bronze Age, 1 mixed Late Bronze Age). 13 crabs, mainly Eriphia verrucosa (Forskål, 1775) (Yellow or Furry) Crab (13 units); 2 possibly burned.

Table 13 Marine Invertebrates from Bates’s Island by Period There were 2,352 individual marine invertebrates found in 69 units. LATE BRONzE AGE (14TH C. B.C.) (22 DEPOSITS, 917 INDIVIDUALS) 347 Monodonta (37.8%,14 deposits, 1 burned, deposits of 144, 64, 23) 265 Patella (28.9%, 16 deposits, 2 burned, deposits of 141, 25, 22) 152 Bittium (16.6%,14 deposits, 3 burned, deposits of 81, 32) 62 Arcularia (6.8%, 10 deposits, 17 worn apex) 47 M. trunculus (5.1% 14 deposits, 7 burned, deposits of 13, 9) 6 M. brandaris (3 deposits) 3 Erosaria (2 deposits) 3 Tonna (3 deposits) 2 Gibbula (1 deposit) 2 Cerithium (2 deposits, 1 small, 1 rather small) 1 Columbella 1 Muricidea 1 Luria 4 Sepia (4 deposits) 4 Pinna (4 deposits) 3 Anomia (3 deposits) 1 Chama 1 Acanthocardia 1 Mytilus 1 Cerastoderma 1 Arca 8 crabs (7 deposits, 1 burned) 1 Paracentrotus

98

MARSA MATRUH

MIxED LATE BRONzE AGE (3 DEPOSITS, 47 INDIVIDUALS) 16 Monodonta (34.0%, 3 deposits) 17 Patella (36.2%, 3 deposits) 7 Arcularia (14.9%, 2 deposits, 1 worn apex) 2 M. trunculus (4.3%, 1 deposits, 1 burned) 1 Bittium (2.1%) 1 M. brandaris 1 Conus 1 Dentalium 1 Sepia

POST LATE BRONzE AGE (1 DEPOSIT, 21 INDIVIDUALS) 8 Patella 6 Monodonta 3 M. brandaris 2 M. trunculus 1 Cerithium 1 Pinna

EARLIER GREEK (6TH–5TH C. B.C.) (1 DEPOSIT, 11 INDIVIDUALS) 9 Patella 1 Monodonta 1 Pinna

ROMAN (1ST CENTURY B.C. TO 5TH CENTURY A.D.) (15 DEPOSITS, 568 INDIVIDUALS) 166 M. trunculus (29.2%, 15 deposits, 4 burned, 1 worn, deposits of 98, 21) 127 Patella (22.4%, 13 deposits, 2 burned, deposits of 32, 28, 21, 19) 96 Monodonta (16.9%, 11 deposits, 0/2 burned, deposits of 31, 22) 45 Arcularia (7.9%, 7 deposits, 32 worn apex, deposit of 22) 40 Bittium (7.0%, 4 deposits, deposit of 36) 21 M. brandaris (6 deposits) 16 Cerithium (5 deposits, 0/1 burned, 7 in 1 deposit) 10 Conus (4 deposits, 1 holed at apex, 4 water-worn) 3 Euthria (3 deposits, 1 burned) 2 Columbella (2 deposits) 2 Pisania (1 deposit, 1 worn)

2 Neverita (2 deposits) 1 Amyclina 1 Bivonia/Lemintina 1 Gibbula 1 Cymatium 1 Fasciolaria 1 Tonna 1 Charonia 1 Haliotis 1 Clanculus 11 Pinna (9 deposits) 8 Arca (5 deposits) 3 Cerastoderma (3 deposits) 1 Acanthocardia 1 Barbatia (small) 1 Spondylus 1 Strombus/Lambis (fossil) 3 crabs (3 deposits)

ROMAN (?)

(2 DEPOSITS, 22 INDIVIDUALS) 4 Patella (1 deposit) 6 Monodonta (1 deposit) 4 M. trunculus (2 deposits) 4 Bittium (1 deposit) 1 Cerithium (open lip) 1 Tonna 1 Pinna 1 crab

ISLAMIC (18TH–19TH C. A.D.) (3 DEPOSITS, 427 INDIVIDUALS)

196 Patella (45.9%, 3 deposits, deposit of 194) 190 Monodonta (44.5%, 2 deposits, deposit of 175) 25 M. trunculus (5.9%, 3 deposits, 1 bored exterior) 6 Bittium (1.4%, 1 deposit) 4 Erosaria (1 deposit) 2 M. brandaris (1 deposit) 1 Arcularia 1 Tonna 1 ?operculum 1 Pinna

ORGANIC REMAINS FROM THE ISLAND AND ADJACENT AREAS

UNDATEABLE (3 DEPOSITS, 23 INDIVIDUALS) 7 Monodonta (1 deposit) 4 Patella (1 deposit) 4 M. trunculus (1 deposit, 4 fresh, 1 open body and no apex) 3 M. brandaris (1 deposit, 0/1 burned) 1 Charonia 1 Pinna 1 Spondylus 1 Cerastoderma 1 Barbatia

SURFACE

(19 DEPOSITS, 316 INDIVIDUALS) 93 Monodonta (29.4%, 8 deposits, deposits of 57, 18, 11) 72 Patella (22.8%, 10 deposits, deposits of 15 [two], 11)

99

54 M. trunculus (17.1%, 14 deposits, deposits of 11, 8 [two]) 43 Bittium (13.6%, 3 deposits, deposit of 35) 11 Cerithium (5 deposits) 8 M. brandaris (3 deposits) 6 Euthria (3 deposits, 1 water-worn) 4 Erosaria (3 deposits) 4 Conus (3 deposits, 3 water-worn) 3 Columbella (2 deposits, 1 worn and holed on body, 2 worn) 3 Arcularia (2 deposits, 2 worn apex) 2 Neverita (2 deposits) 2 Tonna (2 deposits) 1 Pisania (water-worn) 1 Bivonia/Lemintina 3 Pinna (3 deposits) 2 Arca (2 deposits) 2 Barbatia (2 deposits) 2 Eriphia (2 deposits,1 possibly burned)

Table 14 Percentage of Major Marine Shells at Bates’s Island DATE Late Bronze Age Mixed Late Bronze Age Roman Islamic Surface

% Monodonta

% Patella

37.8 34.0 16.9 44.5 29.4

28.9 36.2 22.4 45.9 22.8

Table 15 Distribution of Marine Invertebrates from Bates’s Island by Excavation Unit LATE BRONzE AGE D4-I/II, 3.1 (Room S119, secondary floor) 0/1 Sepia. D4-I/II, 4.1 (Room S119, primary floor) 2 Patella. 1 M. trunculus, small/medium, fresh. 11 Arcularia, fresh, unworn.

% Bittium 16.6 2.1 7.0 1.4 13.6

% M. trunculus 5.1 4.3 29.2 5.9 17.1

% Arcularia 6.8 14.9 7.9 0.2 0.9

E4-III, 2.3 (Overlays Wall S102d) 13 Patella. 8 Monodonta, 5 with apex, 1 large. 2/4 M. trunculus, 0/2 burned, 4 MNI. 6 Bittium. 2 Arcularia, 2 worn apex. 5 crab pincers. E4-III, 3.2 (Outside E wall of Room S102) 0/2 Paracentrotus, test fragments. 1 crab pincer.

TOTAL 917 47 568 427 316

100

MARSA MATRUH

E4-III, 3.3 (Room S102 occupation deposit with large patches of burning) 12/4 Patella, 1/1 burned, 1 large, length 52, 13 MNI. 4/2 Monodonta, 4 with apex, 0/1 burned, 5 MNI. 1/50 M. trunculus, 2/10 burned, (4 MNI), 13 MNI total. 4 Bittium. 1 Columbella, fresh. 1 Arcularia. 0/1 Pinna. 1 Chama. 0/2 Anomia. 1 Acanthocardia, L, large valve, fresh, umbo area only. 1 Mytilus, tiny, 11.5 x 5. 0/4 Eriphia, pincer and carapace. E4-III, 4.2 (Small pit) 8/2 Patella. 9 Monodonta. 1/1 M. trunculus, 2 MNI, medium. 32 Bittium. 1 Arcularia, worn apex. 1 M. brandaris. 1 Erosaria, length 21. 0/1 Cerastoderma, L, water-worn umbo fragment. 0/1 crab pincer. F4-III, 3.1 (Pit-like deposit, a collapse level) 22/1 Patella. 17 Monodonta, 9+ with apex. 1/15 M. trunculus, fresh, 1 extremely large fragment, 9 MNI. 2/4 M. brandaris, 4 MNI, fresh. 2 Erosaria, gloss and brown dots, length 21.5; thick lips, no gloss. 1 Arcularia. 10 Bittium. 0/- Pinna, with 1 large fragment. 0/1 crab carapace, large type, burned. F4-III, 3.2 (Collapse level over Room S107) 2 Patella. 5/3 Monodonta, 7 MNI. 0/3 M. trunculus, 1 MNI. 3 Bittium. 0/1 Tonna, apical fragment, medium/large, fresh. F4-III, 3.3 (Room S107, collapse deposit associated with clay oven) 0/4 M. trunculus, 1 MNI. 1 Muricidea, small, fresh, length 16.5. F4-III, 4.1 (Fill) 1 Patella. 5 Monodonta, 2 large. 0/3 M. trunculus, 1 MNI, large columella, fresh. 4 Arcularia, 1 worn apex, 1 worn. 2 Bittium, 1 burned, 1 with small natural hole on side. 1 Cerithium, small.

F4-III, 4.4/5.1 3 Patella. 0/1 Pinna, umbo. 0/1 Sepia. F4-III, 5.1 (Fill) 3 Monodonta. 1 Bittium. G5-IV/SW Test, 3.1 (Room S101, occasionally burrowed into by rodents) 1 Luria, worn, length 45.5. 0/1 Arca – R. G5-IV/SW Test, 4.1 (Room S101, fill W of Wall S133) 140/1 Patella, 141 MNI. 139/9 Monodonta, 144 MNI. 1/17 M. trunculus, complete is small, 1 burned fragment, 5 MNI. 81 Bittium, 1 burned. 11 Arcularia, 11 worn. 0/1 Tonna, body. 0/9 Pinna. 0/2 Sepia. H5-I, 2.3 (NW corner) 5 Patella. 11 Monodonta, with apex. 0/1 M. trunculus, distal, medium/large. 2 Bittium. 0/2 Anomia. H5-I, 4.1 6/1 Patella. 19 Monodonta, with apex. 1/1 Anomia, length 52, w. 58. H5-II, 4.1 (Fill abutting W exterior face of Wall S118, NW quadrant) 10/4 Patella, 12 MNI. 17/1 Monodonta, 17 with apex, 18 MNI. 1/11 M. trunculus, 2 fresh, 4 MNI. 2 Arcularia, 1 worn apex, 2 broken. 1 Cerithium, rather small, with lip. 5 Bittium. 0/4 Sepia. 1 crab pincer. H5-II, 4.3 (Fill against wall, NE quadrant) 7/2 Patella. 64 Monodonta, with apex. 0/3 M. trunculus, fresh, 2 MNI. 2 Arcularia, 1 fresh. 4 Bittium, 1 burned. 0/1 Tonna, apex, fresh, medium/large.

ORGANIC REMAINS FROM THE ISLAND AND ADJACENT AREAS

H5-II, 4.4 (Fill against wall, SE quadrant) 3 Patella. 23 Monodonta, 23 with apex. 0/4 M. trunculus, 1 burned, 2 MNI. 2 M. brandaris, 2 fresh. 1 Bittium. H5-II, 5.1 (Fill against Wall S118, NW quadrant) 2 Patella. 0/2 M. trunculus, 1 MNI. H5-II, 5.3 (Fill against wall, NE quadrant) 25/5 Patella. 14 Monodonta. 27 Arcularia, unmodified, 12 a bit worn at apex. 2 Gibbula. 1 Bittium. H5-II, 5.4 (Fill against wall, SE quadrant) 1 crab pincer.

MIxED LATE BRONzE AGE F4-III, 2.2 (Fill) 7 Patella. 6 Monodonta, 4 with apex. 0/3 M. trunculus, 3 MNI, all distal ends, fresh. 1 Arcularia. G5-IV/SW Test, 4.2 (Fill E of Wall S133 6 Patella. 2 Monodonta. 2/2 M. trunculus, fresh; 1 large, length 78, 3 MNI. 0/1 M. brandaris, apical end, fresh. 6 Arcularia, 1 worn apex. 0/1 Sepia. H5-III, 3.1 (With 1 Archaic Greek sherd) 4 Patella. 8 Monodonta. 1/3 M. trunculus, complete one is small, 3 burned fragments, 2 MNI. 1 Bittium. 1 Conus, length 31.5. 1 Dentalium, large, length 42.25, max. ext. D 11.25.

POST LATE BRONzE AGE I8-III/S, 3.2 8 Patella. 6 Monodonta, 5 open apex. 1/1 M. trunculus, complete is very large, fresh, length 83.75, 2 MNI. 3 M. brandaris, 3 fresh, 1 open body. 1 Cerithium, fresh, complete. 0/- Pinna, 1 MNI.

101

EARLIER GREEK I8-III/S, 5.1 9/2 Patella. 1 Monodonta. 0/2 Pinna, 2 umbo fragments.

ROMAN E4-II/E W balk, 2.1 (Fill, exclusively Late Bronze Age sherds) 19/640 M. trunculus, complete shells are mainly small: 79 distal ends, 98 MNI, evidence of shell purple-dye production. 36 Bittium. 0/1 Patella. 0/1 Cerithium, fresh. 0/1 Bivonia/Lemintina. 1 Gibbula. G6-I, 3.1 (Fill with 8 A-shaped stone constructions) 27/3 Patella, 0/2 burned, 28 MNI. 30/1 Monodonta, 0/1 burned, 31 MNI. 6/28 M. trunculus, most fresh, 1 worn and encrusted fragment, 3 small, 0/1 burned, 2 very large with no apex, 21 MNI. 7/1 Cerithium, all fresh, 4 open lip, 2 small, 1 apex, 1 broken distal. 6 M. brandaris, 1 open body. 16 Arcularia, 14 with worn apex. 2 Pisania, fresh, color; worn. 1 Columbella, fresh. 1 Clanculus. 1 Euthria, burned, broken lip. 1 Neverita. 1 Conus, recently broken lip, length 41.5. 0/- Pinna, 2 umbo, 2 MNI. 2 Arca, articulate, fresh, length 40. 0/1 Eriphia. G6-I, 4.1 (Dark soil with A-shaped stone compartment/bin) 3 Patella, longest length 55.5. 1/6 M. trunculus, 4 MNI, fresh. 6 M. brandaris, fresh. 2 Arcularia, 2 worn apex. 0/- Pinna, delaminating. 2 Arca, 2 L, 2 fresh. H5-I, 3.1 (Fill against W face of Wall S118) 2 Patella. 10 Monodonta, with apex. 0/2 M. trunculus, 1 MNI. 1 Bittium.

102

MARSA MATRUH

H5-II, 3.1 (Roman Imperial) 12/1 Monodonta, 13 MNI. 20/2 Patella, 21 MNI. 0/3 M. trunculus, 2 MNI, 1 columella very large. 22 Arcularia, 13 with worn apex. 2 Bittium. 1 Cymatium, rather fresh, length 116. 1/1 Arca, 2 R, 2 fresh. 1 Spondylus, lower valve, fresh, length 91. 0/2 crab. I6-I/II, 2.1 19/2 Patella. 6/5 Monodonta, 6 worn apex, 9 MNI. 1/27 M. trunculus, fresh, 1 large and broken, 12 MNI. 2 M. brandaris, 2 fresh. 1 Arcularia, worn apex. 0/2 Pinna. 1 Cerastoderma, L, fresh, length 22. 1 crab pincer – small. I6-I/II Section 1, 2.1 32/3 Patella. 1/7 Monodonta, 3 MNI. 1/14 M. trunculus, complete is small, 7 MNI. 2 M. brandaris, fresh. 1 Fasciolaria, fresh. 0/1 Euthria, distal end. 3 Conus, 1 large and water-worn, length 34.25; 1 small water-worn. 2 Arcularia, 1 worn apex, 2 fresh. 1 Bittium, medium, open mouth. 0/4 Pinna. 1/3 Arca, 2 R, 2 MNI, complete is 59.5. 1 Cerastoderma, R, fresh, small/medium. 0/1 Acanthocardia. I6-I/II Section 2, 2.1 1 Patella, large. 0/2 M. trunculus. 0/1 Pinna. I6-I/II, 2.3 6/1 Patella. 20/2 Monodonta, 18 with apex, 2 open apex, 1 fragment burned, 22 MNI. 0/6 M. trunculus, 2 MNI. 2/2 M. brandaris, 4 MNI, fresh. 0/1 Arca, R, fresh. 0/2 Pinna. I6-I/II, 3.1 (Sloping white walking surface S135) 1 Patella. 0/1 Monodonta. 0/3 M. trunculus, 3 MNI, 1 burned, 1 large, 3 MNI. 5 Conus, length 38 x w 23 worn; 31 x 23 water-worn; 28 x 17 fresh; 14 x 23.25 fresh; 34.25 x 21.5 waterworn, hole at apex 3.

1 Columbella. 1 Arcularia, fresh. 1 Barbatia, R, small. 0/1 Strombus/Lambis fossil, apex, length 78, w 52, broken open lip, worn and eroded exterior. I8-III/S, 2.1 4 Patella. 1 Monodonta, broken apex, large individual. 2/2 M. trunculus, fresh, 4 MNI. 3 Cerithium, 2 open mouth, 1 burned distal and open mouth. 1 Euthria, lacks distal end, fresh. 1 M. brandaris, fresh. 1 Amyclina. 0/7 Pinna, 2 umboes. I8-III/S, 2.2 0/1 M. trunculus, open body, no apex, fresh. I8-III/S, 2.4 (Late Roman) 6/1 Patella. 3 Monodonta, 2 open apex. 3/7 M. trunculus, fresh, 1 open body, 7 MNI. 1/5 Cerithium, 2 distal end, 2 apex, 2 open lip, 1 has lip, large, all fresh, 4 MNI. 1 Conus, small, length 17.5. 1 Arcularia, bit worn apex, fresh. 0/1 Tonna, body. 0/1 Charonia, lip fragment, bored exterior. 1 Neverita, light brown band. 0/27 Pinna, 3 umbo fragments, 2 MNI. 1 Haliotis, fresh, complete, ridged, length 33.5, 85I-MO-15. I8-III/S, 3.3 1 Monodonta, open apex. 1 M. trunculus, small, fresh. 0/9 Pinna. 1 Cerastoderma, R, asymmetrical, fresh. I8-III/S, 3.4 3 Patella. 2 Monodonta, 1 recently broken apex. 0/5 M. trunculus, 2 burned, (2 MNI), 3 MNI. 0/1 Cerithium, apex, fresh.

ROMAN (?) H5-I, 2.2 (Small rubbish pit, NW quadrant) 4/1 Patella. 6 Monodonta, with apex. 0/5 M. trunculus, 3 MNI, fresh. 4 Bittium.

ORGANIC REMAINS FROM THE ISLAND AND ADJACENT AREAS

I8-III/S, 3.5 0/1 M. trunculus, distal end, large, fresh. 1 Cerithium, fresh, open lip. 0/1 Tonna, large piece, large individual. 0/10 Pinna. 0/1 crab carapace, thin, brownish/purple.

ISLAMIC G5-IV/SW Test, 2.1 (Rubble) 0/1 Patella. 0/3 M. trunculus, 3 columellas, 3 MNI. 3/1 Erosaria, 4 with light brown dotted pattern, 4 fresh, length 26.5, 21.5, 4 MNI. 1 Arcularia. 0/4 Pinna. G6-I, 2.1 (Fill) 1 Patella. 15/3 Monodonta, 15 MNI. 5/12 M. trunculus, fresh, 11 MNI. 2 M. brandaris, 2 fresh, medium. 0/1 Tonna, upper body. 1 ?operculum. H5-I, 2.1 (Room S118) (Many shells noted here in 1987 Report, 103; Monodonta and other shells visible in fig. 16) 194 Patella, with numerous fragments. 175 Monodonta. 3/42 M. trunculus, 11 MNI, fresh, 1 bored exterior. 6 Bittium.

UNDATEABLE E4-III, 2.6 1 Spondylus, lower valve, with many spines, fresh, small, length 47. H5-III/W, 3.1 (Level beneath Arab pavement S128) 0/2 Charonia, apical end, worn, naturally open at apex, lenght 81; body, thin. I8-III/S, 4.2 4 Patella, 1 large. 7 Monodonta, 5 with open apex. 2/4 M. trunculus, fresh, 4 MNI, 1 open body and no apex. 2/1 M. brandaris, fresh, 0/1 burned, 3 MNI. 0/3 Pinna. 1 Cerastoderma, L, fresh, w 21.25. 1 Barbatia, R, fresh, w 42.5.

SURFACE D4-I/II, 1.1 1 Erosaria, fresh, color.

103

E4-II/E, 1.1 0/1 M. trunculus, body. E4-Center, Surface 0/1 Eriphia, large claw. F4-III, 1.1 11 Patella, some large. 10 Monodonta. 0/3 M. trunculus, 1 MNI, fresh. 3/1 M. brandaris, 4 MNI, fresh. 1 Euthria, length 38. 0/1 Eriphia pincer, possibly burned. F4-III, Cleaning 8/1 Patella. 10/3 Monodonta, 11 MNI, 10 with apex. 0/8 M. trunculus, 4 MNI, fresh. 1 Bittium. 1/1 M. brandaris, fresh, 2 MNI. 0/2 Pinna. 1 Barbatia, R, fresh, length 37.5. G5-IV, 1.1 0/1 Barbatia, R, fresh. H3-III/H4-IV, 1.1 (Bates’s Dump) 1 Monodonta. 1/1 M. trunculus, large, fresh, no apex and open body; columella, fresh, 2 MNI. 1 Arca, fresh, length 70. H5-I, 1.1 (Many shells noted in 1987 Report, 103). 15/1 Patella. 57 Monodonta, 50 with apex, 7 open apex. 2/16 M. trunculus, 2 complete are small, 11 MNI. 35 Bittium. 4 Cerithium, 2 with open mouth, 1 lacks apex and has open mouth, 1 small individual with open lip. 2 Arcularia, 2 worn apex. 1 Columbella, sand blasted. 1 Erosaria, no gloss, length 24. 0/1 Arca – L. H5-II, 1.1 1 Patella. H5-II, N balk cleaning 1 Tonna, medium, length 78.5. I6-I/II, 1.1 15/8 Patella. 1/1 Monodonta, 2 MNI. 1/17 M. trunculus, 7 distal end, 8 MNI. 1 Arcularia, fresh. 1 Cerithium, holed opposite mouth probably recent, hole 3.25 x 3.25, length 19.5. 1 Neverita, slightly broken lip.

104

MARSA MATRUH

I6-I/II Section 2, 1.1 7/5 Patella. 5 Monodonta, 5 with apex. 4/20 M. trunculus, 1 large complete, others small, 8 MNI. 7 Bittium. 0/1 Tonna, body. 2 Cerithium, 2 fresh, open mouth. I6-I/II Section 3, 1.1 2 Patella, 2 large. 1 M. trunculus, large, fresh, length 67.5. 0/1 Pinna. I6-I/II Section 4, 1.1 8/2 Patella. 4 Monodonta, 4 with apex. 3/10 M. trunculus, fresh, 4 apex fragments, 7 MNI. 0/1 Cerithium, distal end. 1 Conus, fresh, length 17. I8-I/II, 1.1 1 M. trunculus, fresh, very large, length 89. I8-III/S, 1.1 0/2 M. trunculus, distal, fresh; distal, large, 2 MNI.

I9-I, 1.1 4/2 Patella. 1/4 Monodonta, 3 MNI. 1/15 M. trunculus, 5 MNI, fresh. 1 Neverita, white. 5 Columbella, 1 worn and holed on body, 1 worn. 0/3 Euthria, 1 water-worn, 3 MNI. 0/2 Conus, 2 water-worn, 2 MNI. 0/1 Pisania, distal end, water-worn. 0/4 Cerithium, 3 fresh, 3 MNI, 1 small/medium with open lip. 1 Bivonia/Lemintina. 0/4 Pinna. Sponge-Divers House (S101) 1 Patella. 1/2 M. trunculus, complete is large, all fresh, 2 MNI. 2 M. brandaris, 1 large and fresh. 1 Euthria, fresh, length 40. 1 Erosaria, gloss, brown around dorsum, length 24. 1 Conus, a bit water-worn, length 32.25. Island Surface 1 M. trunculus, complete, large, length 65.5.

Fresh-water Shells There are 84 fresh-water shells from 19 deposits, mainly of the Late Bronze Age (33 shells, 11 deposits) and Roman periods (40 shells, 4 deposits, 35 from one Roman Imperial context) (Table 16). The only fresh-water shell of particular interest is a Late Bronze Age Aspatharia fragment with a cut edge (H5-II, 4.4 #322). This is a large bivalve, which is an import from the Nile River.43 All of the other fresh-water shells from the island are the small gastropod Melanopsis praemorsa. There are also large fresh-water bivalves from Bates’s 1914 excavations in the Libyan cemetery on the Great Ridge:44 Tomb A1 produced three “Iridina” shells, with one from above the right femur (A-1, 2; Peabody Museum no. 14-1250/B123; African Studies, 139, pl. 26:5) and two from just under the basalt vase in grave filling (A1, 3; PM 14-12-50/B123 and A-1/R-4; 14-12-50/ B125). Tomb A2 produced two “Iridina” from in front of the chin (A-2, 1, + A-2, 2; PM 14-1250/B126+127). Tomb A3 also produced a shell (3.3/3).

Today, Iridina are called Mutela. Sometimes they have been called Mutela nilitica (Cailliaud, 1823), but now this name is considered a junior synonym of Mutela dubia (Gmelin, 1788). In northeast Africa today this form is confined to the Nile River and its tributaries. It was an item of trade in the past.45 Its presence in ancient Egypt has been summarized by Falkner.46

Table 16 Fresh-water Shells from Bates’s Island LATE BRONzE AGE D4-I/II, 4.1 (Room S119, primary floor) 8 Melanopsis, fresh, most with color or gloss. E4-III, 4.2 5 Melanopsis, 4 small, 5 with color. F4-III, 3.1 (Pit-like deposit, a collapse level) 1 Melanopsis, with color.

ORGANIC REMAINS FROM THE ISLAND AND ADJACENT AREAS

105

ROMAN

F4-III, 4.1 (Fill) 1 Melanopsis, broken lip. G5-IV/SW Test, 4.1 (Room S101, fill W of Wall S133) 2 Melanopsis, 2 with color and broken lips. H5-I, 2.3, NW corner 1 Melanopsis, with color.

G5-I, 3.1 4 Melanopsis, 1 with color, 1 slight color, 1 no color. H5-II, 3.1 (Roman Imperial) 35 Melanopsis, many with color, some small. I6-I/II Section 1, 2.1 1 Melanopsis.

H5-I, 4.1 1 Melanopsis, with pinkish color.

ISLAMIC

H5-II, 4.1 (Fill abutting W exterior face of Wall S118, NW quadrant) 5 Melanopsis, 5 with gloss.

H5-I, 2.1 (Room S118) 1 Melanopsis.

UNDATEABLE

H5-II, 4.4 (Fill against wall, SE quadrant) 1 Aspatharia fragment, with cut edge. H5-II, 5.1 (Fill against Wall S118, NW quadrant) 1 Melanopsis, with color. H5-II, 5.3 (Fill against wall, NE quadrant) 7 Melanopsis, 5 small.

G5-IV/SW Test, 5.1 (Crumbled bedrock) 1 Melanopsis, with color.

SURFACE H5-I, 1.1 3 Melanopsis, 1 with broken lip.

MIxED LATE BRONzE AGE

I6-I/II Section 4, 1.1 2 Melanopsis, 1 with color, other lacks color.

G5-IV/SW Test, 4.2 (Fill E of Wall S133) 4 Melanopsis, 1 costate, with broken lip.

Land Snails There are 82 land snails of two genera, Helix and Helicella, from the excavation (Table 17). There are 32 Late Bronze Age (7 deposits, 17 in one deposit), 6 Post Late Bronze Age, 35 Roman (31 from one deposit), 4 Islamic, and 6 Surface. While both forms are edible, it is possible also that they are intrusive into the archaeological deposits. There is one intrusive Helix nucula from Bates’s 1914 Libyan cemetery excavation on the Great Ridge from Tomb A1 (A-1/R-3; PM 14-12-50/ B124.).47

E4-III, 4.2 (Small pit) 1 Helix, some color. 4 Helicella, small.

Table 17. Land Snails from Bates’s Island

H5-I, 2.3 (NW corner) 1 Helicella, small.

LATE BRONzE AGE D4-I/II, 4.1 (Room S119, primary floor) 1 Helicella, small.

F4-III, 4.1 (Fill) 1 Helix. 4 Helicella. F4-III, 5.1 (Room S119, primary floor) 1 Helix. 1 Helicella fragment. G5-IV/SW Test, 4.1 (Room S101, fill W of Wall S133) 17 Helicella, 15 small, 2 medium.

H5-II, 4.1 (Fill abutting W exterior face of Wall S118, NW quadrant) 1 Helicella, small.

106

MARSA MATRUH

POST LATE BRONzE AGE

ISLAMIC

I8-III/S, 4.1 6 Helix, 1 large form, with color.

H5-I, 2.1 (Room S118) 4 Helicella, small.

ROMAN

SURFACE

E4-II/E W balk, 2.1 1 Helicella, small.

F4-III, 1.1 1 Helix.

G6-I, 3.1 1 Helicella, small.

F4-III, Cleaning 1 Helix.

H5-I 3.1 (Fill against W face of Wall S118) 31 Helicella, small.

H5-I, 1.1 1 Helicella.

I6-I/II Section 1, 2.1 1 Helicella.

I6-I/II, 1.1 1 Helicella, small.

I8-III/S, 2.1 1 Helix, large form.

I9-I, 1.1 1 Helix, large. 1 Helicella, small.

Summation The animal exploitation of Bates’s Island in the Late Bronze Age, Roman, and Islamic periods is consistent over time. This included Ovis/ Capra under 3 yrs. old, the rare Bos, no Sus, equids, or camel; and the significant exploitation

of fish, birds, and marine invertebrates, mainly Monodonta and Patella. The only exotic fauna to the North African coast is one imported freshwater shell fragment from the Nile River.

Chapter 10 Notes 1. B. Wilkens, “The Fauna from Italian Excavations on Crete,” in D.S. Reese, ed., The Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and its First Settlers, Monographs in World Archaeology no. 28 (Madison, WI 1996) 246, and “I resti faunistici di Haghia Triada (Creta) in età neo e postpalaziale. Nota preliminare,” in E. De Miro, L. Godart, and A. Sacconi, eds., Atti e Memorie del Secondo Congresso Internationale di Micenologia, Roman-Napoli, 14-20 Ottobre 1991 3 Archeologia (Rome 1996) 1511–1520. 2. Reese, personal analysis. 3. Reese, personal analysis. 4. L.M. Snyder and W.E. Klippel, “The Vertebrate Faunal Material,” in W.D.E. Coulson and M. Tsipopoulou, “Preliminary Investigations at Halasmenos, Crete,” Aegean Archaeology 1 (1994) 91–92.

5. O. Bedwin, 1984, “The Animal Bones,” Appendix 2 in M.R. Popham et. al., The Unexplored Mansion at Knossos (London 1994) 307–308. 6. Reese 1995a, 163–204, 240–278. 7. D.S. Reese, “The Faunal Remains: Block AG, Building AB, Area AI, Building AM, Building AD Center; The Triton Shell Vessel, Building AB,” in P.P. Betancourt and C. Davaras, eds., Pseira I, The Minoan Buildings on the West Side of Area A (Philadelphia 1995) 11, 42, 45–46, 56–57, 83, 129–30; “The Faunal Remains, Building AC and the Faunal Remains, Building AJ,” in P.P. Betancourt and C. Davaras, eds., Pseira II, Building AC (the “Shrine”) and Other Buildings in Area A (Philadelphia 1998) 35–36, 92; “The Faunal Remains,” in P.P. Betancourt and C. Davaras, eds., Pseira III, The Plateia Building (Philadelphia 1998) 131–144;

ORGANIC REMAINS FROM THE ISLAND AND ADJACENT AREAS

“The Faunal Remains: Area BB, Building BC, Area BH, Area BL, Building BN East, Area BR, Building BT, Building BW, Building BY, Building DA; The Triton Shell, Building BQ,” in P.P. Betancourt and C. Davaras, eds., Pseira IV, Minoan Buildings in Areas B, C, D and F (Philadelphia 1999) 16, 36–37, 80, 99, 110, 136, 162–164, 184, 197, 223, 282–283. 8. C. Gamble, “The Bronze Age Animal Economy from Akrotiri: A Preliminary Analysis,” in C. Doumas, ed., Thera and the Aegean World I (London 1978) 746–750 and C. Trantalidou, “Animals and Human Diet in the Prehistoric Aegean,” in D.A. Hardy et al., eds., Thera and the Aegean World III/2 (London 1990) 392–405. 9. C. Gamble, “Animal Husbandry, Population and Urbanization,” in C. Renfrew and J.M. Wagstaff, eds., An Island Polity: the Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos (Cambridge 1982) 169 and “Formation Processes and the Animal Bones from the Sanctuary at Phylakopi,” in C. Renfrew, ed., The Archaeology of Cult, The Sanctuary at Phylakopi (London 1985) 482. 10. J. Ekman, “Animal Bones from a Late Bronze Age Settlement at Hala Sultan Tekke, Cyprus,” Hala Sultan Tekke 3 (Göteborg 1977) 166–178; L. Jonsson, “Animal and Human Bones from the Bronze Age Settlement at Hala Sultan Tekke” in Hala Sultan Tekke 8 (Göteborg 1983) 222–246; D.S. Reese, “Fauna from Late Cypriote Wells and Pits,” Appendix II in P. Åström, The Wells, Hala Sultan Tekke 10 (Jonsered 1998) 136–139. 11. P. Croft, “Animal Bones,” in A. South et al., Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios II (Göteborg 1989) 70–72. 12. G. Nobis, “Tierreste aus dem Präphönizischen Kition,” in V. Karageorghis, Excavations at Kition V/II (Nicosia 1985) 416–433. 13. D. Helmer, “La Faune du Locus 314: 165–188,” in M. Yon and A. Caubet, Le Sondage L-N 13, Bronze Recént et Géométrique I. Kition Bamboula III (Paris 1985) 159–168. 14. P. Halstead, “A Preliminary Report on the Faunal Remains from Late Bronze Age Kouklia, Paphos,” RDAC (1977) 261–275. 15. P. Croft, “Animal Remains from Maa-Palaeokastro,” in V. Karageorghis and M. Demas, Excavations at MaaPalaeokastro 1979–1986 (Nicosia 1988) 449–457. 16. I.W. Cornwall, “Animal Bones from the Earlier Periods,” in F.E. zeuner and I.W. Cornwall, “The Animal Remains and Soil Samples,” in J. duPlat Taylor, MyrtouPighades, a Late Bronze Age Site in Cyprus (Oxford 1957) 100–101. F.E. zeuner, “The Persian Fallow Deer and the Other Animal Remains from the Sanctuary,” ibid., 97–100. F.E. zeuner, “Animal Remains from a Late Bronze Age

107

Sanctuary on Cyprus, and the Problem of the Domestication of Fallow Deer,” Journal of the Palaeontological Society of India 3. (Birbal Sahni Memorial Number) (1958) 131–135. 17. R. Larje, “The Bones from the Bronze Age Fortress at Nitovikla, Cyprus,” in G. Hult, Nitovikla Reconsidered (Stockholm 1992) 165–175. 18. B. Hesse, A. Ogilvy, and P. Wapnish, “The Fauna of Phlamoudhi-Melissa. An Interim Report,” RDAC (1975) 5–29. 19. B. Hesse, A. Ogilvy, and P. Wapnish, “Report on the Fauna from Phlamoudhi Vounari,” in S.M.S. al-Radi, Phlamoudi Vounari: A Sanctuary Site in Cyprus (Göteborg 1983) 116–118. 20. L. Caloi, “Studio dei resti ossei,” Part 2 in “I ruderi del tempio flavio di Leptis Magna,” LA 11–12 (1975) 151–163. C. Siracusano, “The Fauna of Leptis Magna from the IVth to the xth century A.D.,” Archaeozoologia 6.2 (1994) 111–130. 21. G. Barker, “Economic Life at Berenice: The Animal and Fish Bones, Marine Mollusca and Plant Remains” in J.A. Lloyd, ed., Excavations at Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi (Berenice) 2: LA Suppl. 5.2 (Tripoli 1979) 1–49. 22. G. Clark, “ULVS xIV: Archaeozoological Evidence for Stockraising and Stock Management in the Pre-Desert,” LS 17 (1986) 49–64. 23. P.J. Crabtree, “Faunal Skeletal Remains from Cyrene,” in D. White, ed., The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone. Final Reports IV, Part III (Philadelphia 1990) 113–123, 127–154. P.J. Crabtree and J.M. Monge, “The Faunal Remains from the Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya,” MASCA Journal 4.3 (1987) 139–143. 24. A. King, “Diet in the Roman World: a Regional Inter-Site Comparison of the Mammal Bones,” JRS 12 (1999) 187–188. 25. M.J. Rose, “The Fish Remains,” in D.S. Reese et al., “The Minoan Fauna,” in J.W. Shaw and M.C. Shaw, eds., Kommos I.1 The Kommos Region and Houses of the Minoan Town (Princeton 1995) 204–239 and “The Fish Remains,” in D.S. Reese et al., “The Iron Age Fauna,” in J.W. Shaw and M.C. Shaw, eds., Kommos IV, The Greek Sanctuary (Princeton 2000) 495–560. 26. M.J. Rose, With Line and Glittering Bronze Hook: Fishing in the Aegean Bronze Age, Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington (Ann Arbor 1994) University Microfilms no. 9518585, “Fish Remains, Building AD Center,” in P.P. Betancourt and C. Davaras, eds., Pseira I, The Minoan Buildings on the West Side of Area A

108

MARSA MATRUH

(Philadelphia 1995) 130–132, “Fishing at Minoan Pseira: Formation of a Bronze Age Fish Assemblage from Crete,” Archaeofauna 5 (1996) 135–140, “The Fish Remains, Building AC,” in P.P. Betancourt and C. Davaras, eds., Pseira II, Building AC (the “Shrine”) and Other Buildings in Area A (Philadelphia 1998) 37–38, “The Fish Bones,” in C.R. Floyd, Pseira III, The Plateia Building (Philadelphia 1998) 145–148, “The Fish Remains, Area BR” in P.P. Betancourt and C. Davaras, eds., Pseira IV, Minoan Buildings in Area B, C, D and F (Philadelphia 1999) 164. 27. M.J. Rose, “Fish Remains from Wells F1552 and F2800,” Appendix IV in P. Åström, The Wells, Hala Sultan Tekke 10 (Jonsered 1998) 147. 28. Houlihan, Birds, 65–67. 29. Houlihan, Birds, 79–81. 30. Houlihan, Birds, 74–78. 31. Houlihan, Birds, 45–48. 32. Houlihan, Birds, 90–91. 33. 1987 Report, 103. 34. Reese 1995a, 240–273. 35. Reese (see n. 7). 36. Reese, personal analysis. 37. Reese, personal analysis. 38. Reese 1995a, 252. 39. D.S. Reese, “Shells and Fish from Maa-Palaeokastro,” in V. Karageorghis and M. Demas, Excavations at Maa-Palaeokastro 1979–1986 (Nicosia 1988) 458–466.

40. D.S. Reese, “Palaikastro Shells and Bronze Age Purple-dye Production in the Mediterranean Basin,” BSA 82 (1987) 201–206. 41. D.S. Reese, “Iron Age Shell Purple-dye Production in the Aegean,” Appendix 6.1 in D.S. Reese et al., “The Iron Age Fauna,” in J.W. Shaw and M.C. Shaw, eds., Kommos IV, The Greek Sanctuary (Princeton 2000) 643–645 and pl. 6:11. 42. D.S. Reese, “Industrial Exploitation of Murex Shells: Purple-dye and Lime Production at Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi (Berenice),” LS 11 (1980) 79–93. 43. D.S. Reese, H.K. Mienis, and F.R. Woodward. “On the Trade of Shells and Fish from the Nile River,” BASOR 264 (1986) 79–84. 44. See Chapter 5, pp.85–91. 45. Reese (see n. 43). 46. G. Falkner, “Mollusca.” Appendix F2 in G.T. Martin, The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara: The Southern Dependencies of the Main Temple Complex (London 1981) 143–144 and “Molluskenfunde der Ausgrabungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo im Satettempel auf Elephantine,” in J. Boessneck and A. von den Driesch, Studien an subfossilien Tierknocken aus Ägypten (Berlin 1982) 160–162. 47. See Chapter 5, pp. 85–91.

109

Chapter 11

THE ARCHAEOBOTANY OF BATES’S ISLAND AND ITS LAGOON Mohamad Nabil el-Hadidi with contributions by

Ibrahim el-Garf and Nahed M. Waly In July of 1989, a visit was made to Marsa Matruh at the request of Prof. Donald White to discuss details about the study area, Bates’s Island and its associated lagoon, with the University of Pennsylvania team. A total of 50 soil samples (50 bags, each 1–2 kg.) was taken to Giza for exami-

nation and for the study of both macroscopic and microscopic botanical remains. The study area was revisited in March, 1990, for a study of modern vegetation as well as to collect samples from the bottom of the lagoon for pollen analysis.

Modern Vegetation (March 1990) In general, the vegetation is poor, with a plant cover ranging between 5–10%, which can be roughly distinguished into saline (halophytic) vegetation on the coastal and lower reaches of the island, and desertic (xeric) vegetation on the elevated rocky ground. 1. Saline vegetation grows on soils with a wide range of fluctuations in salt concentration between wet and dry periods. Two main communities of halophytic succulent perennials were recognized: 1.1. Halocnemum strobilaceum community: growing on the eastern lower reaches of the island (Plan 1). Associate species include Salicornia fruticosa, Suaeda vermiculata, and Limonium raddianum.

1.2. Arthrocnemum macrostachyum community: growing on the southern and western lower reaches of the island (Fig. 11:1). Associate species include Limoniastrum monopetalum, Frankenia revoluta, and Atriplex halimus. 2. Desertic vegetation grows on the middle and elevated parts of the island with lower concentrations of salt. During the rainy season, the vegetation consisted of a framework of woody perennials of chasmophytic (rocky) nature and few annual herbs, which flourished after a rainfall. One community was recognized: 2.1. Thymelaea hirsuta community: growing in cracks filled with soil debris. Dominant species are Thymelaea hirsuta and Lycium europaeum, while characteristic species of woody perennials

110

MARSA MATRUH

Halocnemum strobilaceum community

Arthrocnemum mascrostachyum community

Thymelaea hirsuta community

Fig. 11:1. Plant communities in Bates’s Island.

ARCHAEOBOTANY OF BATES’S ISLAND AND ITS LAGOON

include Limonium pruinosum, Asparagus stipularis, Salsola villosa, Crucianella maritima, Ononis vaginalis, Zygophyllum album, and Helianthemum kahiricum. Herbaceous plants including annual species grow on residual or accumulated soil and include Lygeum spartum, Reaumuria mucronata, Calendula arvensis, Medicago littoralis, Senecio desfentainei, Lotus creticus, and

111

Emex spinosus. The dominant species of the above recorded communities: viz. Halocnemum strobilaceum, Arthrocnemum macrostachym, Thymelaea hirsuta, and Lycium europaeum are circum mediterranaeum taxa, and the characteristic species of these communities have apparent Mediterranean affinities.

Archaeobotanical Investigations Forty-eight soil samples, 1–2 kg. each, were investigated for their archaeobotanical remains. The macroscopic material found included woody branches, branchlets, dessicated fruits, and leaves. Morphological examinations of their anatomical features were made prior to the study. The microscopic materials (pollen grains and similar structures) were studied in soil samples which provided moderate or richer remains.

Wood Anatomical Investigations Woody branches and branchlets from the excavation were suitable for the study of wood (xylem) anatomical patterns. Recovered leaves and leaf fragments were too fragile for such investigations. A few desiccated fruit fragments are unidentified. Branches and branchlets were softened in a glycerine-soap mixture and transferred through alcohol-xylene series for embedding in paraffin wax. Embedded specimens were sectioned at 30–50: using a sledge microtome. Sections were passed through xylene-alcohol series prior to double staining with safranin and light green, dehydrated in alcohol-clover oil series, and mounted in Canada balsam for future microscopical examination.

Wood (Xylem) Pattern Wood (xylem) anatomical pattern is perhaps the most reliable method for the identification of archaeobotanical woody material.

It was possible to identify seven anatomical patterns in cross-sections, of which four are characterized by a solid and continuous xylem ring (Fig. 11:2a). The other three patterns are characterized by separate patches of vascular elements embedded in a parenchymatous ground tissue (Fig. 1b-d). Patterns with a solid continuous xylem ring can be easily separated according to the grouping of xylem vessels and number of rows of ray parenchyma. In Ononis, vessels are solitary and ray parenchyma are in single rows (Fig. 11:2a). In Limoniastrum, the vessels are in radial clusters, ray parenchyma are arranged in groups of 2–3 rows. Lycium and Thymelaea show close patterns with vessels in dentric clusters and ray parenchyma in several rows. They can be easily distinguished through the number of vessels/mm2, which are few (4–5/mm2) in Lycium or numerous (10–20/mm2) in Thymelaea. Patterns with separate vascular patches can be distinguished through the characters of these patches, which are of true monocotyledonous vascular bundles in Asparagus. Such bundles are very distinct, with a U-shaped xylem arch of few vessels (usually two larger vessels, and smaller ones below). The bundles are scattered in a parenchymatous ground tissue without connecting girdles between them (Fig. 11:2b). The xeric and halophytic chenopod patterns consist of patches of vascular elements, which are not true vascular bundles, but are the result of abnormal secondary growth. The xeric pattern is characteristic to the genera Salsola, Suaeda, and Atriplex, where the xylem

112

MARSA MATRUH

(vb)

(r)

Fig. 11:2a. Ononis, Limoniastrum and Thymelaea pattern. Xylem forms a continuous ring with radiating rows of xylem parenchyma (r ), which appears in single rows in Ononis.

Fig. 11:2b. Asparagus pattern. Vascular tissue consists of distinct bundles (vb) scattered in a parenchymatous ground tissue.

(g) (g)

Fig. 11:2c. Salsola, Suaeda and Atriplex pattern, the xylem arches of the vascular elemts are capped with separate girdles (g) of thickwalled parenchyma.

Parenchyma

Cork

Scleremchyma

Fig. 11:2d. Arthrocnemum, Halocnemum and Salicornia pattern. The xylem arches are connected by more or less continuous (g) girdles of thin-walled parenchyma.

Phloem

Wood vessels

Xylem

ARCHAEOBOTANY OF BATES’S ISLAND AND ITS LAGOON

113

Table 1. Macroscopic Archaeobotanical Material from Bates’s Island Lot

Context

Period

Material Recovered

Identified Taxa

11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.9 11.10 11.11 11.12 11.13 11.14 11.15 11.16 11.17 11.18 11.19 11.20 11.21 11.22 11.23 11.24 11.25 11.26 11.27 11.28 11.29 11.30 11.31 11.32 11.33 11.34 11.35 11.36

E4-1, 1.1 E4-1, 2.1 E4-1, 2.1 E4-1, 3.1 E4-1, 3.1 E4-III, 2.1 E4-III, 2.2 E4-III, 2.4 E4-III, 2.5 E4-III, 2.6 E4-III, 2.7 E4-III, 3.1 E4-III, 3.2 E4-III, 3.3 F4-III, 1.1 F4-III, 1.1 F4-III, 2.2 F4-III, 3.1 F4-III, 3.2 F4-III, 3.3 F4-III, 4.2 F4-III, 4.4 F4-III G5-IV, 2.1 G5-IV, 2.1 G5-IV, 4.1 G6-1, 2.1 G6-1, 3.1 G6-1, 3.2 G6-1, 4.1 H5-II, 3.2 H5-II, 4.2 H5-II, 4.3 H4-III, 2.1 H4-III, 3.1 I8-III/S, 1.1

Mod. ? ? ? ? Islamic Roman LBA LBA LBA? LBA? LBA* LBA LBA Mod. Mod. Mixed LBA LBA LBA LBA LBA LBA LBA Mixed LBA Mixed LBA LBA Islamic Roman ? Roman Roman LBA LBA ? ? Mod.

moderate moderate poor poor poor moderate moderate moderate moderate moderate poor poor poor poor poor poor poor poor poor poor poor poor poor moderate moderate moderate moderate moderate moderate poor rich rich rich rich rich poor

Asparagus (3), Thymelaea (6) Lycium (6), Atriplex (4) Limoniastrum (3) Ononis (1), Atriplex (2) Atriplex (2) Thymelaea (4), Lycium (5), Halocnemum (2) Ononis (2), Atriplex (3), Halocnemum (6) Thymelaea (4), Lycium (3), Suaeda (2) Thymelaea (7), Lycium (3), Ononis (2) Atriplex (5), Lycium (4), Salicornia (1) Halocnemum (2), Salicornia (1) Salicornia (2), Atriplex (2) Suaeda (3), Atriplex (1) Ononis (1), Salicornea (1) Salsola (3) Halocnemum (4) Halocnemum (2), Suaeda (1) Atriplex (3) Lycium (2), Thymelaea (1) Thymelaea (3), Lycium (1) Holocnemum (3), Salicornia (1) Ononis (2) Limoniastrum (4) Thymelaea (3), Ononis (4), Asparagus (3) Ononis (6), Thymelaea (4) Limoniastrum (4), Ononis (5), Asparagus (5) Salicornia (4), Halocnemum (3) Halocnemum (3), Limoniastrum (4) Suaeda (4), Salicornia (5) Suaeda (3) Asparagus (5), Ononis (6) Thymelaea (4), Lycium (5), Ononis (3) Asparagus (4), Atriplex (3), Ononis (2), Thymelaea (2) Thymelaea (6), Asparagus (4), Ononis (2), Limoniastrum (3), Atriplex (2) Atriplex (2), Asparagus (4), Ononis (3), Thymelaea (4) Salicornia (1), Atriplex (2)

poor moderate rich

less than 5 specimens/sample 5-14 specimens/sample 15-25 specimens/sample.

* No botanical traces were found in the remaining levels of I8-III/S. Numbers in parentheses denote the number of examined and identified specimens/taxon

arches are capped with separate girdles of thickwalled (lignified) parenchyma (Fig.11:2c). The halophytic pattern is characteristic to the genera Arthocnemum, Halocnemum, and Salicornia, where xylem arches are connected by

+- continuous girdles of thin-walled (non-lignified) paren-chyma (Fig. 11:2d). The genera of both of the xeric and halophytic chenopods can be distinguished through other anatomical elements.

114

MARSA MATRUH

Table 2. Number of Identified Specimens/Species in the Different Samples from the Excavated Areas of Bates’s Island Area/No. of Samples E4-I / 5 E4-III / 9 E4-IV / 1 F4-III / 10 G5-IV / 3 G6-I / 4 H4-III / 2 H5- II / 3 I8- III / 1 Total / 38

Hal

Sal

Sud

Art

Lim

Atp

Thy

Lyc

Sas

Asp

Ons

3/10 3/9 2/8 8/27

4/6 1/1 2/9 1/1 8/17

2/5 1/2 2/7 5/14

-

1/3 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/3 5/18

3/8 4/11 2/6 1/2 2/5 1/2 13/34

1/6 3/16 1/2 2/4 2/7 2/10 2/6

1/6 4/15 1/2 2/3 1/5 9/31

1/3 1/3

1/3 2/6 2/8 2/9 7/26

1/1 3/5 1/2 3/15 2/5 3/11 13/39

13/51

Species/No. of Specimens 6/27 7/68 2/4 9/34 4/32 4/28 5/28 5/36 2/3 10/260

Hal: Halocnemum; Sal: Salicornia; Sud: Suaeda; Art: Arthrocnemum; Lim: Limoniastrum; Atp: Atriplex; Thy: Thymelaea; Lyc: Lycium; Sas: Salsola; Asp: Asparagus; Ons: Ononis.

Reconstruction of the Natural Vegetation on Bates’s Island during the Late Bronze Age

remains. In addition, samples A (north) and B (east), which were taken 5–10 cm. deep from the bottom of the East Lagoon (Fig. 11:3), were also subjected to pollen analytical procedures.

Table 2 gives the number of the examined and identified specimens/species in the provided samples from the different excavated areas on Bates’s Island. A total of 260 specimens belonging to ten species could be identified from all periods. The most common among the identified species were Thymelaea (51), Ononis (39), Atriplex (34), and Lycium (31). These species are constituents of a desertic vegetation that seemed to prevail on the island during the Late Bronze Age as well as throughout the remainder of antiquity. The characteristic species of the saline Halocnemum strobilaceum community were represented by lower number of specimens ranging between 17–24 (Table 2). These species were recorded from areas E4-III, F4-III, G6-I, and I8-1, which can be an indication that salt marshes occupied the same areas in the eastern and lower reaches of the island.

Microscopic (Pollen Analytic) Material Pollen analytical procedures were carried out with 22 samples (Table 3) representing the main areas that provided moderate or richer botanical

Fig. 11:3. Location of samples A and B for pollen analysis.

ARCHAEOBOTANY OF BATES’S ISLAND AND ITS LAGOON

115

Table 3. Identified Pollen Types from the Examined Samples from Bates’s Island and the Lagoon Sample 11.42 11.43 11.44 11.45 11.46 11.47 11.48 11.49 11.50 11.51 11.52 11.53 11.54 11.55 11.56 11.57 11.58 11.59 11.60 11.61 11.62 11.63 11.64 11.65

Context Native PollenTypes Chenopodiaceae Leguminosae Compositae Gramineae E4-I, 1.1 + – – E4-I, 2.1 – – – E4-I, 3.1 – ++ + E4-III, 2.1 – + + E4-III, 2.5 + ++ – E4-III, 2.6 – + + E4-III, 3.2 – + + F4-III, 2.2 – + + F4-III, 3.3 + – – F4-III, 4.4 + + + F4-III, 5.1 + + – G5-IV, 2.1 + + – G5-IV, 4.1 + – – G6-I, 2.1 + – + G6-I, 3.2 ++ + – G6-I, 4.1 + + – H4-III, 2.1 + – + H4-III, 3.1 – + ++ H5-II, 3.2 – – – H5-II, 4.2 – + – I8-III/S 2.4 – + – 6.1 + + + A, Lagoon (N) +++ + ++ B, Lagoon (E ++ ++ –

– no pollen grains + 1-3 pollen grains/slide

Foreign Pollen Types ++ – + – ++ – – + ++ – + + ++ – ++ – + – – – + + ++ +++

– – – – – – – – – – – Ephedra? – – – – – – – Casuarina? Juniperus? Betula/Corylus Alnus, Ulmus Pinus/Cedrus

++ 3-10 pollen grains/slide +++ more than 10 pollen grains/slide

Soil samples +- 1 cm3 each were treated through centrifuging and decanting with 10% HCl, 10% KOH, and 40% HF for removal of CaCO3, humic acids, and siliceous material respectively. Pellets were then neutralized by Ca(OH)2, washed with distilled water before treatment with acetolysis mixture, and counterstained with 1% aqueous safranine. Polleniferous material was stored in glycerol jelly awaiting microscopic examination. Material from at least two slides/sample were studied. In general, the recovered pollen content was poor and consisted of partially damaged or badly preserved pollen grains. Soil conditions seem to have been unfavorable for the conservation of adequate pollen content. Table 3 shows that the representative samples from the excavated areas of Bates’s Island gave an apparently poor yield of pollen grains (1–10 pollen grains/ slide/ pollen type). This situation

can be attributed to the lower soil moisture content, which did not favor the conservation of higher amounts and variety of pollen grains. The identified pollen types (Chenopodiaceae, Leguminosae, Compositae, and Gramineae) are believed to belong to native taxa, which were constituents of the vegetation during the Late Bronze Age. Sample 2.1 of area G5-IV yielded a few pollen grains of the Ephedra type (Ephedraceae), while samples 4.1 and 6.1 of area I8-III/S yielded pollen of the Casuarina (Casuarinaceae) and Juniperus (Cupressaceae) types respectively. Several species of Ephedra and Juniperus phoenicea are among the native trees of Egypt, which are known at present from Northern Sinai. It is possible that these species were of wider distribution during the Bronze Age.1 Casuarina comprises Australian trees of recent introduction to Egypt.

116

MARSA MATRUH

Samples A and B from the shallow bottom of the lagoon gave a better yield of native and foreign pollen types (Table 3), denoting more favorable conditions for the conservation of pollen content. The recovered pollen types of Pinus/Cedrus (Coniferae), Betula/Corylus or Alnus (Betulaceae), and Ulmus (Ulmaceae) are apparently of foreign origin. These anemophilous pollen types of South European taxa were likely to be transported by wind, recently or during the last millennia. Remarkably, no specimens were identified that belonged to Arthrocnemum macrostachyum, which is the dominant species of the other saline

community recorded in the modern vegetation from the southern and western reaches of the island. One of the characteristic species of this community, Limoniastrum monopetalum, was recorded from several areas with a small number of specimens (Table 2). It is possible that the presence of the Arthrocnemum macrostachyum community in the southern and western lower areas of the island is a recent development caused by changes in environmental conditions and increased salinization during modern times.

Concluding Remarks The investigated samples from the excavated areas of Bates’s Island yielded well preserved branches and branchlets of woody perennials, which were identified using comparative anatomical methods. The plant remains belong to ten species, which were (are) constituents of the natural vegetation growing along the Mediterranean coastal land of Egypt. This vegetation consists of framework xeric shrubs and shrublets, which are dominated by Thymelaea hirsuta. This vegetation is adapted to the prevailing climatic and edaphic conditions, and the vegetation seems to have been about the same during the Bronze Age. The frequency of the identified species, based on the numbers of recovered specimens from the excavated areas of Bates’s Island, is similar to that of the present day vegetation growing on the central parts of Bates’s Island and along the Mediterranean coastal belt. Table 2 also shows that halophytic (saline)

species were less common, which is an indication of less saline conditions during the Late Bronze Age. The saline conditions in the southern reaches of the island seem to be of recent development due to changes in environmental conditions. The available pollen analytical information from the different areas of the island is too fragmentary to draw any conclusion on the structure of the vegetation during the periods discovered by the excavation of the island. Soil conditions, including the apparently low moisture content, were among the factors for the poor yield of polleniferous material. The conditions in the lagoon are perhaps encouraging for a future, more detailed, study. Comparatively well preserved pollen material was recovered from samples A and B and included several pollen types of foreign origin (Table 3). Pollen analysis would be of value for the study of the history of vegetation in the area during the Holocene Period or earlier.

Chapter 11 Notes 1. On the broader subject of the availability of wood along the Eastern Marmarica, see Chapter 7, nn. 32 and 33.

chapter 12

POTTERy OF THE GREEk ANd ROmAN PERIOdS donald Bailey

Area I, Bates’s Island The Greek, Egyptian, and Roman pottery described here (12.1–12.93) was, in the main, excavated during the various seasons’ work on Bates’s Island, but the study also includes surface sherd material found in July and August of 1989 at the eastern end of the island, and on the lagoon bed immediately off the eastern tip.* The Greek wares include an SOS amphora (12.36) of the last third of the 8th century B.c. or a little later, 7th to 6th century B.c. cups and other vessels, mainly from East Greek areas, Athenian pottery, mostly of the 5th and 4th century B.c., and Hellenistic fine wares from uncertain sources. The Saite to Ptolemaic coarse wares are in the main intrinsically undateable, but some information may be learned from the contexts in which certain of these pots were found. This situation is also true of the bulk of the transport amphorae. Nor is the source of most of these coarse wares known, although a coastal production is probable for most of them. A few Roman fine wares were found on Bates’s Island, includ-

ing Çandarli Ware, Phocaean Red Slip Ware, Eastern Sigillata A Ware, and African Red Slip Ware. The Roman coarse wares are largely undateable, and most are coastal products. Of the amphorae found, all but one are coastal versions of a Nile Valley shape current from the 1st to the 4th century A.d. or a little later. The one imported jar is of unknown origin and likely to be of Late Roman date. As with the pre-Roman coarse wares, some chronological information may be gleaned from their contexts. A few Greek and Roman lamps were found. The date range for Greek, Late Egyptian, and Roman pottery found on Bates’s Island is from late in the 8th century B.c. until perhaps the coming of the Arabs. From the identifiable material, there appears to be more pottery of the Saite to Persian periods than there is of Ptolemaic times, and more Roman pottery of the 1st to 5th century than later. However, Late Roman pottery is found in some quantity on the mainland in Area V.

* Time and circumstances did not permit the author of this chapter to make a full analysis of every sherd from each deposit. The following reflects, instead, his analysis of a broad, representative sample. Photographic illustrations have been kept to the minimum. Where post-Bronze Age

ceramic material not included here is noted in the deposit entries discussed in chapters on the island’s architecture, it is designated as “uncataloged.” It should be further noted that the following material was submitted for publication in 1994; a few new references have been added [Ed.].

118

mARSA mATRuH

The term “coastal” is used for wares made either at marsa matruh itself or at unknown centers somewhere along the coast, either to the west or perhaps more probably to the east. many of the clays thus designated contain white grits which are grains of sand; it is uncertain whether these grains were added deliberately as a temper or whether they were picked up by chance during the preparation of the clay; a few vessels have black grits that also appear to be grains of sand. marsa matruh may have produced the bulk of the production, and this seems very likely for the Saite to Ptolemaic ceramic material as well. It is uncertain if pottery was produced at any other site at this time. The Archaic Greek pottery found on Bates’s Island indicates at the very least occupation in the area of marsa matruh at that time, and there was certainly a town there when Alexander journeyed to Siwa.1 marsa matruh

could well have produced most of the preRoman coarse wares, but the coastal Roman pottery may have come from farther afield. Hellenistic pottery is described as such in the discussions and in the catalog entries of fine wares, because they are probably imports, but is called Ptolemaic in the coarse ware catalog entries. The pots are discussed often as though they are complete vessels, rather than having to use constantly the words sherd and fragment; an isolated find indicates that I know of nothing else from the stratum from which it comes. It is obvious that some contexts do not have the integrity that one would like, and the ever-present difficulties of disturbance, residuality, and intrusiveness occur. Some attributions to place of manufacture and to dating are not supported by identified parallels, but are the products of guesses based upon a balance of probabilities.

catalog Greek and Hellenistic Fine Wares (Figs. 12:1 and 12:2, Pls. 11 and 12, nos. 12.1–12.26) Some of the fine wares, particularly those of Greek Archaic and classical times, can be assigned geographically to their manufacturing source, but it has not been possible to do this with all the sherds, and not at all with the Hellenistic examples. The vessels of the 7th to 6th century B.c., mainly cups, come from East Greek sources. cups 12.1 and 12.3, the one perhaps Rhodian, the other possibly Samian, were found in the same stratum, and similar pieces, for example 12.4, have been found elsewhere in contexts of the second half of the 7th century B.c. until the middle years of the 6th century B.c. The same level also included the transport amphorae 12.41 and 12.42; it is later than one that contained Late Bronze Age material. The level above had the Hellenistic cup 12.23, the possibly Hellenistic fragment 12.20, and the undateable cooking pot

12.28. cup 12.2, from the Sponge-divers House (S101), is very close to cup 12.1. cup 12.5, a small body sherd, is probably East Greek of the 6th century B.c.; it comes from a stratum later than that containing a mycenaean cup. A parallel has not been found for cup 12.6, with its angular handles furnished with an applied knob. It is very likely to be East Greek and of the 6th century B.c. or a little earlier. It comes from a context earlier than that which produced the undateable amphorae 12.40 and 12.45 and lamp 12.90, probably Athenian of the late 6th or early 5th century B.c. The Archaic cup fragment 12.7 (not seen by me) was found in the same level as the late 1st to 2nd century A.d. lamp 12.92 and the undated coarse ware vessels 12.58 and 12.72; the context below had mixed material, including Roman sherds. Two fragments of closed vessels from the Sponge-divers House (S101) are respectively of the late 7th to early 6th century and the 6th century B.c.: number 12.8 is very probably of East

POTTERy OF THE GREEk ANd ROmAN PERIOdS

Greek origin, and 12.37 is possibly Athenian. Neither sherd is dateable by context. cups 12.9–12.17 are all Athenian of the 5th century B.c. The stemless cup 12.13, of about 480 B.c. (one sherd of which is residual in a later stratum), comes from a level that is earlier than that containing the kylix fragment 12.9 (ca. 525–475 B.c.), which, in turn, comes from a level earlier than contexts producing Hellenistic and Roman material. The cup-skyphos 12.10 from the Sponge-divers House (S101) and the skyphos 12.17 are surface finds. No other classical sherds appear to have been found with the red-figured kylix 12.14, and the black-glaze kylix 12.15 comes from a mixed context with both Bronze Age and Roman material. cup 12.16 comes from an earlier level (and one with Late Bronze Age material) than the undateable amphora rim sherd 12.49 and a lamp of the Late Bronze Age. cup 12.11 was probably residual in its context and was found with the late 6th or early 5th century lamp 12.91, the Hellenistic bowl 12.26, and the undated cooking pot rim 12.29. Its stratum is later than that of the probably contemporary skyphos 12.12, which was found with the Athenian “saltcellar” 12.19 of the 4th century B.c.; it is also later than the largely undateable coarse ware vessels 12.27, 12.33, and 12.47. Also Athenian is 12.18, a closed vessel (olpe) lower body sherd of the 5th or 4th century B.c., a surface find. Of the Hellenistic sherds, the hemispherical cup sherd 12.23 and the undated closed vessel 12.20 come from the same level as the cooking pot rim 12.28. The earlier strata in the same trench (see the contexts List), except for the undateable sherds, contained nothing later than the Hellenistic period (including the cup foot 12.21), and much that is considerably earlier. The cup sherd 12.22 was found with a fragment of a terra sigillata bowl, 12.53, which is probably Roman, but may be Hellenistic. The cup rim 12.24 and the bowl foot 12.25 were found together in a context that also contained part of the stemless cup 12.13, the other part of which comes from a much earlier level, and at least one Roman sherd, the amphora mouth 12.80; a stratum above contained the Roman lamp 12.92. The Hellenistic bowl 12.26 is probably the latest object in its

119

context, which it shared with the 6th to 5th century B.c. lamp 12.91, the 5th century B.c. cup 12.11, and the undated cooking pot rim 12.29. 12.1 cup Fig. 12:1; Pl. 11 89I-P-6. I6-I/II, 2.5. d. of rim ca. 16. Rim fragment with horizontal handle. Orange clay; black glaze inside with overpainted purple band below rim; black glaze on outside below handle zone, which is reserved; black glaze on outside of handle. Ionian, perhaps Rhodian. About 650–590 B.c. compare mégara, pl. 47:64, 6; y. calvet and m. yon, in G. Vallet, ed., Les céramiques de la Grèce de l’Est et leur diffusion en occident (Paris, 1978) pl. 20:1e, from Salamis in cyprus. 12.2 cup Fig. 12:1 85I-P-17. Sponge-divers House (S101), east wall ext., 1.1. d. of rim ca. 13. Rim sherd. Light brown clay; black glaze inside and out with a wide reserved band outside and a narrow reserved band at the rim inside; a little lower down inside is a purple band applied over the glaze. Fabric, date, and origin as 12.1. 1985 Report, 75, n. 58: other parts of this cup are in the Peabody museum, Harvard. 12.3 cup Fig. 12:1 Not inv. I6-I/II, 2.5. d. of rim ca. 19. Rim sherd. Brown clay; black glaze inside below a narrow reserved band immediately below the rim; black glaze outside, with wide reserved bands on lip and body. Ionian, perhaps Samian. About 640–550 B.c. For this very common cup shape, compare, for example, mégara, pl. 76, 1; Samos vi, pl. 43:345. 12.4 cup Not ill. Not inv. I6-I/II, 2.5. d. of rim ca. 13. Rim sherd. Brown clay; black glaze inside below a narrow reserved band immediately below the rim; black glaze outside, with wide reserved bands on lip and body. Ionian, perhaps Samian. About 640–550 B.c. For this very common cup shape, compare, for example, mégara, pl. 76, 1; Samos, vi, pl. 43:345. 12.5 cup Pl. 11 89I-P-30 H5-III, 3.1. Pres. length 8.4; pres. w. 2.5. Rim sherd: shape near last. Light brown clay; band of black at rim, inside and out (deeper outside) and

120

mARSA mATRuH

Fig. 12:1. Greek and Hellenistic Fine Wares. start of body, black glaze outside: i.e. reserve band on deep everted rim. East Greek. ca. 640–550 B.c. 12.6 cup Pl. 11 85I-P-97. F4-III, 3.2 (rim and center sherds); 4.4 (handle). d. of rim ca. 11; w. across handle 5.5. Rim fragment with horizontal handle: the handle is angular and has an applied knob on top at the angle. Non-joining floor sherd. micaceous light brown; unglazed on the exterior; narrow band of brown-black glaze at rim inside; two concentric glaze circles at center inside; knob and handle glazed, but inside of handle reserved. East Greek. Late 7th or early 6th century B.c. For an alternative opinion, see 7.4. 12.7 cup Fig. 12:1; Pl. 11 89I-P-15. H5-III/W, 3.3. Pres. length 3.5. Body sherd. Greenish cream clay with greenish slip;

bands of brownish black glaze inside and out. 6th century B.c. 12.8 closed Vessel Pl. 12 85I-P-46. Sponge-divers House (S101), South Wall, Ext., 1.1. Pres. length 2.9. Shoulder sherd of a closed vessel. Light brown clay with part of swastika in black glaze medium. East Greek. Late 7th or early 6th century B.c. 1985 Report, 75. n. 75. 12.9 cup (kylix) Fig. 12:1 85I-P-112. I8-III/S, 5.2. d. of base 7.7. Foot of cup. Orange clay; black glaze on exterior, but edge of base reserved; underside reddened with miltos. Athenian. About 525–475 B.c. compare Agora 12, fig. 4:415.

POTTERy OF THE GREEk ANd ROmAN PERIOdS

12.10 cup-Skyphos Fig. 12:1 85I-P-18. Sponge-divers House (S101), south wall, 1.1. d. of rim ca. 17. Rim sherd. Orange clay; black glaze inside and out. Athenian. About 500 B.c. 1985 Report, 74, n. 56. compare Agora 12, fig. 6 and pl. 25:572. 12.11 cup-Skyphos or droop cup Fig.12:1 Not inv. J8-I/II, 1.1. d. of rim ca. 19. Rim sherd; inside much eroded. Orange clay; very faint traces of a good black glaze. Athenian. About 525–450 B.c. compare Agora 12, fig. 6 and pl. 25:564, 572, and 575; pl. 19:398–413. 12.12 cup (Skyphos) Fig. 12:1 Not inv. J8-I/II; r 2.2. d. of base ca. 12. Base and lower body sherd: very eroded, including the loss of the base-ring. Black glaze inside and out: very little remaining inside. Athenian. About 500 B.c. compare Agora 12, pl. 16:336. 12.13 cup (Stemless) Fig. 12:1 85I-P-91; 85I-P-111. I8-III/S, 2.4 (mixed with 2.1) and 5.1. d. 15.0; d. of base 6.0. Two non-joining fragments (rim and base) of a stemless cup. Orange clay; black glaze on rim; intentional red on body inside and out; circle of black glaze near center inside and on lower part of base outside; underside of base reserved. Athenian. About 480 B.c. 1985 Report, 75, n. 64. compare Agora 12, pl. 21:453 and fig. 5:454. 12.14 cup (kylix) Pl. 12 85I-P-47. E4-IV, 2.1. Pres. length 2.2. Body sherd of red-figured cup. Orange clay; black glaze inside and out; part of reserved figure on outside with a thickened glaze line at its edge. Athenian. First half of the 5th century B.c. 1985 Report, 75, n. 63. 12.15 cup (kylix) Fig. 12:2 87I-P-39. F5-I/W, 2.1. Pres. length 6.0 cm; pres. w. 6.8. Body sherd of black-glazed cup. Orange clay; black glaze inside and out; reserved band high on sherd outside. Athenian. 5th century B.c. 12.16 cup Pl. 12 85I-P-96. G5-IV, SW Test, 4.2. Length 10.9; d. of lost base at its junction with body 10.

121

Fragment, probably of a stemless cup; ring-base broken away. Pale orange clay; black glaze inside and out. Athenian. 5th century B.c. 12.17 cup (Skyphos or Bolsal) Fig. 12:2 89I-P-3. NE corner of island, below 2 m. contour, 1.1. d. of rim 18. Rim sherd. Black glaze inside and out, fired red in places. Athenian. 5th century B.c. 12.18 Olpe Fig. 12:2 89I-P-5. NE corner if island, below 2 m. contour, 1.1. d. of foot 3.5. Lower body and foot sherd from a closed vessel, probably an olpe, much eroded. Black glaze on outside. Athenian. About 480–350 B.c. compare Agora 12, pl. 13:271–274. 12.19 Salt-cellar Fig. 2:2 Not inv. J8-I/II, 2.2. d. of base 4.3. Two non-joining fragments, including the base. Black glaze inside and out; base-ring reserved, with circle of glaze within the resting-surface; the area inside this is reserved. Athenian. About 375–350 B.c. compare Agora 12, pl. 34 and fig. 9:944–946. 12.20 Jug or mug? Fig. 12:2 87I-P-19. I6-I/II, 1.1. d. of rim ca. 6. Small diameter rim sherd from a vessel of uncertain shape. micaceous brown to orange clay, much eroded; traces of black glaze inside rim. Hellenistic, probably 3rd century B.c., but perhaps a little earlier. 12.21 cup Fig. 12:2 87I-P-35. I6-I/II, 2.1. d. of base 4.5. Flaring base-ring and lower body sherd. Buff clay; dull red glaze inside and out, except under base. Hellenistic. 12.22 cup Fig. 12:2 Not inv. H5-III, 2.1. d. 14.0. Rim fragment curving down to start of base. Buff clay; no glaze. Hellenistic. 12.23 cup Fig. 12:2 87I-P-18. I6-I/II, 1.1. d. 10.5. Sherd of a deep cup with slightly incurved rim. Hard, brown clay with white grits; red glaze inside; outside eroded. Probably a coastal fabric. Hellenistic.

122

mARSA mATRuH

Fig. 12:2. Greek and Hellenistic Fine Wares. 12.24 cup Fig. 12:2 85I-P-100. I8-III/S, 2.1 and 2.4. d. of rim ca. 13. Joining and non-joining fragments of a deep cup with incurved rim; no handles. Light brown clay with a buff surface; black glaze inside and from the rim down most of the outside. Hellenistic. 12.25 Bowl Fig. 12:2 85I-P-90. I8-III/S, 2.4 (mixed w/ 2.1). d. of base 5.7. Lower body and base-ring fragment of a deep bowl. Light brown clay with a buff surface; red glaze inside, runs and smears of red glaze outside. Hellenistic. Plus a closely similar lower body sherd from the same context. 12.26 Bowl Fig. 12:2; Pl. 12 87I-P-58. J8-I/II, 1.1. d. 12.5. Rim sherd: two grooves below rim, another farther down; between the latter and the rim grooves is a scroll

incised through the glaze. Red clay with dark brown glaze inside and out, fired reddish within the lower bowl of the body. Hellenistic, 2nd to 1st century B.c.

Egyptian, Greek, and Ptolemaic coarse Wares (Fig. 12:3, Pl. 12, nos. 12.27–12.35) With the present state of knowledge of the local marsa matruh coarse wares and of the imported pottery from other towns along the Egyptian sea coast, none of the material presented here is intrinsically dateable; only with the imported transport amphorae is it possible that some dating evidence may be available. Jug 12.27, known to me only from its drawing and photograph, is an isolated find from a stratum earlier than the late 6th or early 5th century lamp 12.91, the 5th century Athenian cup 12.11, the

POTTERy OF THE GREEk ANd ROmAN PERIOdS

Hellenistic bowl 12.25, and the coarse ware fragment 12.29. A Ptolemaic or possibly earlier date for 12.27 is likely. The cooking pot 12.28 was found with the Hellenistic cup 12.23 and the probably Hellenistic closed vessel 12.20, and it is probably of the same wide date, as is cooking pot 12.29, found with the 2nd to 1st century B.c. 12.26 and in a later level than the 5th to 4th century B.c. Athenian vessels 12.12 and 12.19. cooking pots 12.30 and 12.31 and the large coarse bowl 12.35 were found in a level that includes nothing that is intrinsically dateable, but it was above a stratum containing Late Bronze Age sherds (all perhaps residual) and adjacent to a context containing the 6th century B.c. cups 12.2 and 12.4, and below a level with the Hellenistic cup 12.23. unfortunately, the context of 12.30, 12.31 and 12.35 was contaminated with Late Bronze Age material, and certainty as to their dating is not possible: a very wide dating is suggested in their catalog entries. Jar 12.32 was found in a stratum below a level that contained the Roman amphora 12.87, the probably Roman 12.71 and 12.79, and the residual late 8th century B.c. amphora 12.36. Only a wide Saite to Ptolemaic date can be given to it; it could, indeed, be earlier, as its stratum is described as “purely Late Bronze Age” in 1987 Pottery, p. 110, although 12.32 has been rejected as being of the Late Bronze Age. The interesting stopper 12.33 was cut before firing from the side of a jar with a thumb-decorated flange. Found with the amphora 12.47, it is seemingly earlier than the Athenian 5th to 4th century B.c. vessels 12.12 and 12.19, and a date in the 5th century B.c. is likely. The cup or bowl base 12.34 is from a well-made vessel reminiscent of imported Greek 5th or 4th century B.c. material (it is close in profile to the Athenian salt-cellar 12.19), but its context is said in 1987 Pottery, p. 105 to have “contained exclusively Late Bronze Age sherds.” Presumably 12.34 has been rejected as intrusive; its context is earlier than that (also with Late Bronze Age material) containing the undateable but probably Roman cooking pot 12.63 and that with the Roman jar 12.75 and the Phocaean Red Slip Ware bowl 12.57.

123

12.27 Jug Fig. 12:3; Pl. 12 87I-P-64. J8-I/II, 3.1. H. 21.0; greatest d. 11.4. Almost complete, with rilled body, trefoil mouth, and sunken area within the resting surface; handle and some body sherds lost. Hard orange-red clay with a salt-induced buff surface, fired red in places; some fine white grits. coastal. Ptolemaic or earlier (a Roman date is suggested for it and its context in 1987 Pottery, 99). 12.28 cooking Pot Fig. 12:3 Not inv. I6-I/II (quad. 4), 1.1. H. 4.0; d. of rim 13.5. Everted rim sherd. coarse dark gray-brown clay with many white grits. coastal. Ptolemaic. 12.29 cooking Pot Fig. 12:3 Not inv. J8-I/II, 1.1. d. of rim 18.0. Everted rim sherd. Hard, red clay with a dark brown surface and white grits. coastal. Ptolemaic. 12.30 cooking Pot Fig. 12:3 Not inv. I6-I/II, 2.3. d. of rim 23.0. Everted rim sherd with transverse cuts between 2.5 and 4.0 cm apart. Hard, brown clay with a gray core and white grits. coastal. Late Bronze Age or late Saite to Ptolemaic. 12.31 cooking Pot Fig. 12:3 Not inv. I6-I/II, 2.3. d. of rim 20.0. Inturned knobbed rim sherd. coarse, hard brown clay with a gray core and white grits. coastal. Late Bronze Age or late Saite to Ptolemaic. 12.32 Jar or cooking Pot Fig. 12:3 Not inv. E4-II/E, 3.1. d. of rim 19.0; h. 5.8. Everted rim sherd. Pale brown clay with a pink surface; many white grits. coastal. Saite to Ptolemaic, if not Late Bronze Age. 12.33 Jar Stopper Fig. 12:3 89I-P-7. J8-I/II, 2.3. d. of flange 18.0. Stopper cut before firing from the side of a carinated jar with frilled flange; top edge of stopper broken away. Hard light brown clay with white grits. coastal. Probably 5th century B.c.

124

mARSA mATRuH

Fig. 12:3. Egyptian, Greek, and Ptolemaic coarse Wares.

POTTERy OF THE GREEk ANd ROmAN PERIOdS

12.34 cup or Bowl Fig. 12:3 Not inv. H5-II, 5.3. d. of foot 6.4. Base sherd with substantial, well-turned base-ring. Hard, red clay with white grits. For shape, compare the Athenian salt-cellar 12.19. coastal. 5th or 4th century B.c.? 12.35 Bowl Fig. 12:3 Not inv. I6-I/II, 2.3. d. 38.0. Rim sherd of shallow bowl with three rows of cordmarks. Hard, red-brown clay with large white grits and some large purple grits. coastal. Late Bronze Age or late Saite to Ptolemaic.

Transport Amphorae (Figs. 12:4 and 12:5, Pl. 12, nos. 12.36–12.52) Among the transport amphorae, the neck of an oil-jar of the SOS type, 12.36, is the earliest, and dating as it does to about 730–700 B.c., is probably the earliest Greek object from Bates’s Island after the Late Bronze Age (if, indeed, some of the material of that date can be regarded as Greek). It was found in a level containing the Egyptian Type A Roman amphora 12.87 and undateable but probably Roman pots, the bowl 12.71 and the lid 12.79; there was some Late Bronze Age material also, which like 12.36, is probably residual. Below was a Late Bronze Age stratum containing the apparently residual coarse ware jar or cooking pot 12.32. The context of 12.37, a lower body amphora fragment with black and red glaze horizontal bands and probably Athenian of the 6th century B.c., is no help to its dating. None of the other amphorae placed here in the Saite to Ptolemaic periods have been recognized by me as coming from any particular source. Some of them are in fabrics that point to coastal production (but this might be fortuitous considering their date); what their contents may have been cannot be determined, but oil and wine, one or the other, must, as always, have been the main products carried in them. Jars 12.38, 12.39 and 12.46 have no archaeological context: the first is very likely to be of the 6th or 5th century B.c.; 12.39 may be of the 4th century B.c. or yet again either

125

earlier or even 3rd–2nd century B.c., but 12.46 is only uncertainly pre-Roman. Amphorae 12.39 and 12.46 are probably imports, the former perhaps corinthian or Greco-Italic, and the foot 12.38 may well be imported; it is not unlike the probably 6th century B.c. 12.48. Amphora 12.40 may be an import; it was found with part of cup 12.6, an East Greek vessel of the late 7th or early 6th century B.c. (and above a stratum containing another part of 12.6 and below a context that included the Athenian (?) lamp 12.90, of the late 6th or early 5th century B.c. A 6th century B.c. date for 12.40 is likely, as is a 5th century B.c. date for amphora 12.45, found with lamp 12.90 above cup 12.6 and jar 12.40. Amphora 12.45 bears a post-firing graffito; if it is Greek, as it very well may be, this may make against it being a coastal product. Was Greek in use in the 5th century B.c. in a remote site on the Egyptian coast well west of the Nile? The Greek-speaking Libyan Pentapolis, equally as far to the west from marsa matruh, may be a source for this jar or at least the inscription scratched upon it. The smooth hard fabrics of amphorae 12.41 to 12.44, and their similarity in shape, point to a common source, and their sandy inclusions perhaps suggest a coastal origin, but they appear to be very early, and it difficult to conceive of a site on the north-west Egyptian coast producing such Greek-looking vessels at that date: but not enough is known of Saite marsa matruh. The possible occupancy of the site in Greek Archaic times is discussed elsewhere.2 The presence of the imported Archaic vessels 12.1 to 12.8 and 12.36 indicate a site to which such pots were traded, but manufacture of amphorae is something else again. Jar 12.42 and part of 12.41 were found with the East Greek cups 12.1 and 12.3 and are probably of the mid-7th to mid-6th century B.c., but perhaps later rather than earlier. The other part of 12.41 and also 12.43 were found in a contaminated level adjacent to that which produced the rest of 12.41 and also 12.42, and a similar date to these can be adduced; number 12.44 is no doubt residual in a later stratum, also contaminated with Late Bronze Age material. The hollow-footed amphora base 12.48 is from the same context as 12.43 and part of 12.41, and it may be of the 6th century B.c. It,

126

Fig. 12:4. Transport amphorae.

mARSA mATRuH

POTTERy OF THE GREEk ANd ROmAN PERIOdS

too, is apparently coastal and is conceivably the foot-form of amphorae like 12.41 to 12.44. Amphora 12.47, perhaps a coastal product, was found with the jar-stopper 12.33 in a level adjacent to and perhaps earlier than that which contained the skyphos 12.12 of about 500 B.c. and the 4th century salt-cellar 12.19, both Athenian. 12.47 is perhaps of the 5th century B.c. or a little later. It seems very probable that the squarishrimmed amphorae 12.49 to 12.51 are of coastal origin. Jar 12.49 was found with much comparatively modern material, and a lamp, probably of the Late Bronze Age, and above a stratum which contained the 5th century B.c. Athenian cup 12.15 and also Late Bronze Age sherds. A very mixed context held amphora 12.50, including material of the 5th century B.c. (a residual part of the Athenian cup 12.13), the Hellenistic 12.24 and 12.25, and the Roman amphora 12.80. Earlier strata contained the early 5th century Athenian stemless cup 12.13 and the late 6th to early 5th century B.c. Athenian kylix 12.9. Amphora 12.51 came from an equally confused level, containing Late Bronze Age material, the 5th century B.c. Athenian kylix 12.15, and the Roman amphora 12.85. No certain dates can thus be given to 12.49 to 12.51: they are placed with the pre-Roman material, but this may be incorrect. The small amphora 12.52 came from a mixed context which included Late Bronze Age sherds, the amphora 12.44, perhaps of the mid-7th to mid-6th century B.c., and the Hellenistic cup 12.21, and below a level with the Hellenistic cup 12.23: a Ptolemaic date is probable. 12.36 Amphora Fig. 12:4 Not inv. E4-II/E, 1.1. d. of rim 15. Rim sherd of an imported SOS amphora. Hard, red clay with white grits; black glaze inside and part way down outside, with reserved bands. Probably Athenian. About 730–700 B.c. compare A.W. Johnston and R.E. Jones, “The ‘SOS’ Amphora,” BSA 73 (1978) 106, fig. 2 (b), no. 61; di Sandro, pls. 1–2. 12.37 Amphora Fig. 12:4 Not inv. Sponge-divers House (S101) (S1O1), S. and W. corners, 1.1. Pres. h. 8.7; pres. w. 14.5. Two joining fragments from the underbody (or, less

127

likely, the shoulder) of a large closed vessel, probably an amphora. Orange-brown clay; bands of black and red glaze outside. Possibly Athenian. 6th century B.c. 12.38 Amphora Fig. 12:4 Not inv. NE corner of island, below 2 m. contour, 1.1. d. of foot 6.0. Ring-base fragment. Hard, red clay with orange surface and white grits. Very like the local clay, but the hollow foot shape is close to that of amphorae from several sources. Import? Probably 6th century B.c. For Samian jars of the middle of the 6th century with such a foot, compare di Sandro, pl. 14sg, 176–177. 12.39 Amphora Fig. 12:4 Not inv. underwater, off eastern tip of island. d. of rim 14. Everted rim sherd of an imported amphora. Redbrown clay. Perhaps a corinthian Type A jar. compare d. cerdá, in A. Arribas, et al., El Barco de el Sec (cadrià, mallorca) (majorca, 1957) 413, fig. 96b of about 375–350 B.c. and di Sandro, pl. 6 of the 6th century B.c. It might also be Greco-Italic of 3rd–2nd century date: m. Sciallano and P. Sibella, Amphores, comment les identifier? (Aix-en-Provence 1991) 30–31. 12.40 Amphora Fig. 12:4 85I-P-79. F4-III, 3.2. d. of rim ca. 12; pres. h. 13.3. Everted rim, and handle fragment. Orange-brown clay with some small grits and mica. 6th century B.c. 12.41 Amphora Fig. 12:4 Not inv. Tr I6-I/II, 2.5 and 2.3 (joining). d. of rim 13.5; pres. h. 15.3. Rim, body and handle fragment. Hard orangebrown clay with black and white grits. Import? mid7th to mid-6th century B.c.? 12.42 Amphora Fig. 12:4 Not inv. I6-I/II, 2.5. d. of rim 13; pres. h. 8.0. Rim sherd, similar to last. Hard, red-brown clay with black and white grits. Import? mid-7th to mid6th century B.c.? 12.43 Amphora Fig. 12:4 Not inv. I6-I/II, 2.3. d. of rim 13. Rim sherd, not unlike 12.41, with upper spring of one handle. Hard, red-brown clay with white grits.

128

mARSA mATRuH

Fig. 12:5. Transport amphorae. Import? mid-7th to mid-6th century B.c.? Plus an oval-sectioned handle from the same context and probably part of 12.43. 12.44 Amphora Fig. 12:4 87I-P-32. I6-I/II, 2.1. Pres. h. 13.1. Handle and body fragment, similar to 12.41 above. Hard light red clay. mid-7th to mid-6th century B.c.?

brown clay. 12.47 Amphora Fig. 12:5 Not inv. J8-I/II, 2.3. d. of rim 10.3. Rim sherd, probably of an amphora or, less likely, of a wide-mouthed jug. Hard, light red clay with white grits; traces of a buff surface on upper rim. coastal? Probably 5th century B.c. or a little later.

12.45 Amphora Fig. 12:5; Pl. 12 85I-P-95. Tr F4-III, 2.2. d. of rim 15.0; pres. h. 12.4. knobbed rim and neck sherd, with scratchy graffito perhaps reading man. Pale orange clay with many grits and an orange-buff surface or slip. Import? 5th century B.c. 1985 Report, 75, n. 61.

12.48 Amphora Fig. 12:5 Not inv. I6-I/II, 2.3. d. of base 4.0. Hollow-footed base, perhaps from an amphora like 12.41. Hard, brown clay with dark gray core and white grits. 6th century B.c.?

12.46 Amphora Fig. 12:5 Not inv. underwater, off eastern tip of island. d. of rim 13.5. knobbed rim sherd of imported amphora. Buff-

12.49 Amphora Fig. 12:5; Pl. 12 85I-P-48. G5-IV/SW test, 2.1. d. of rim ca. 10. Square knobbed rim sherd; impressed circle below rim. Buff fabric with small grits. coastal?

POTTERy OF THE GREEk ANd ROmAN PERIOdS

129

Fig. 12:6. Roman Fine Wares.

12.50 Amphora Fig. 12:5 Not inv. I8-III/S, 2.4 (mixed with 2.1). d. of rim ca. 13. Sherd with deep rim, level at the top and slightly flaring; upper handle-spring smear surviving. Hard, red clay with a brown core and white grits; saltinduced buff surface outside; possibly pitched inside. coastal? 12.51 Amphora Fig. 12:5 Not inv. F5-I/W, 2.1. d. of rim 14.5; pres. h. 4.0. Sherd of amphora with knobbed squarish rim with a grooved top. Pale orange-brown clay with black grits; surface very eroded. coastal? 12.52 Amphora Fig. 12:5; Pl. 12 87I-P-55. I6-I/II, 2.1. d. of rim 5.7; pres. h. 7.4. Neck, mouth and handles (13 body sherds were found with it but none join). Brown clay, fired dark gray inside; buff slip or surface on outside; some white grits. coastal? Ptolemaic.

Roman Fine Wares (Fig. 12:6, Pl. 12, nos. 12.53–12.57) All the Roman fine wares from Bates’s Island are imported Red Slip fabrics of various sources. The relief-decorated bowl 12.53 is of unidentified origin and, indeed, may be Hellenistic rather than Roman: it was found with the Hellenistic bowl 12.22, but the decoration appears to have more in common with Roman sigillata bowls than with “megarian” bowls. The surface-find

fragment 12.54 is of Çandarli Ware of Augustan date. The African Red Slip Ware bowl 12.56 of the 3rd to early 4th century was found in the same stratum as the rather earlier Eastern Sigillata A bowl 12.55, and the locally made Egyptian Type A amphora 12.82. The stamped bowl 12.57 is of Phocaean Red Slip Ware and is of the last quarter of the 4th or first half of the 5th century A.d. 12.53 Sigillata Bowl Fig. 12:6 89I-P-11. H5-III, 2.1. Pres. w. 3.9. Body sherd from a deep relief-ware bowl, decorated with a lion (rear only) in a circular roundel. It is probable that there were a series of such roundels, divided by a stemmed leaf. Fine brown clay with no apparent mica; red slip inside and out. Hellenistic or Roman, between about 125 B.c. and A.d. 150. 12.54 Sigillata Bowl Fig. 12:6 Not inv. underwater, off eastern tip of island. d. of rim ca. 17. Rim sherd of a Çandarli Ware bowl. Hard micaceous orange clay; traces of a purple-red slip inside. Augustan. compare I. Baldassare, ed., Enciclopedia dell’arte antica, classica e orientale, atlante delle forme ceramiche II (Rome 1985) pl. 16:5, Form A 4. 12.55 Sigillata Bowl Fig. 12:6 Not inv. I9-I, 1.1. d. of rim 15.0 Rim sherd from an Eastern Sigillata A bowl. Buff clay; red slip. The fabric is typical of ESA, but the shape has not been paralleled. Probably a late form of the Antonine period.

130

mARSA mATRuH

12.56 Sigillata Bowl Fig. 12:6 Not inv. I9-I, 1.1. d. of rim ca. 14. Rim sherd (broken, but downturned) from an African Red Slip Ware bowl of Hayes 61–62, Form 44. See J.W. Hayes, Late Roman Pottery (London 1972) 61–62. About A.d. 220–310. 12.57 Sigillata Bowl Fig. 12:6; Pl. 12 87I-P-56. H5-II, 1.1. Pres. length 3.7; pres. w. 3.3. Bowl-floor sherd of Phocaean Red Slip Ware, probably of Hayes 327–329, Form 2, with target and leaf stamps of his Group I, motifs 1 and 2. About A.d. 370–450.

Roman and unidentified coarse Wares (Figs. 12:7–12:9, nos. 12.58–12.79) This section includes a variety of closed vessels, cooking pots, bowls, and amphorae, almost all of coastal manufacture. many of them have archaeological contexts, but a large proportion of them are surface finds made in 1989. most are of the Roman period, but many cannot be chronologically determined with certainty. Very few excavations have taken place on sites along the northwest coast of Egypt, and a paucity of imported dateable fine wares come from Bates’s Island itself: these facts lead to the depressing conclusion that other than to present the pots themselves, very little can be said about them. Perhaps when they are published, the coarse wares from marina el-Alamein will help place some of the material from marsa matruh, but marina is nearly 200 km. away, and its local products may vary markedly from those of matruh. Not enough remains of 12.58 to show whether it had one or two handles and it has no intrinsic dating; it may be an import. It was found with the 2nd century A.d. lamp 12.92 and the undated deep bowl or jar 12.72, and comes from a level above a stratum containing both Hellenistic and Roman material. The unusual closed vessels, 12.59 and 12.60, with concave zones below their widest circumference, are probably locally made; no comparanda have been noted, and they are not dateable: 12.59 was found in the same context as

the Athenian cup 12.15, of the 5th century B.c., the undateable amphora 12.51 and the 1st to 4th century A.d. amphora 12.85; Bronze Age material was also found in the same level and nothing appears to be recorded in the levels above and below; number 12.60 has even less dating evidence, being from a top stratum with no other pottery noted. Of the cooking pots 12.61 to 12.70, only 12.63 has an archaeological context, the remainder being surface finds. Pot 12.63 comes from a mixed Roman/Late Bronze Age deposit, which was above a stratum containing not only Late Bronze Age material but also bowl 12.34, possibly of the 5th or 4th century B.c., and below a level which held the Phocaean Red Slip Ware bowl 12.57 of about A.d. 370–450. Thus, these cooking pots cannot be dated, and pre-Roman manufacture is possible. However, I suspect the majority of them are indeed Roman. Of the miscellaneous coarse ware bowls and jars, the bowl 12.71 and lid 12.79 were found with the early Greek SOS amphora 12.36 and the Roman amphora 12.87 and are likely to be Roman: both are coastal; number 12.72, which may be coastal, was found with the undated vessel 12.58 and the 2nd century A.d. lamp 12.92 above a level containing both Hellenistic and Roman sherds; 12.73, 12.74, and 12.77, of coastal origin, are surface finds and are intrinsically undateable; the small jar 12.75, again coastal, was found with the Phocaean Red Slip Ware bowl 12.57 and may be of the 4th or 5th century A.d.; the coastal jar-foot 12.76 comes from a mixed context, but one that includes the Roman amphora 12.80. Number 12.76 is probably Roman, but could be residual; nothing was found with the probably coastal combed sherd 12.78 to help with its dating. 12.58 Jug or Small Amphora Fig. 12:7 85I-P-72. I8-III/S, 2.1 (mixed with 2.4). d. of rim 4.0; pres. h. 5.7. Neck fragment with knobbed rim and one surviving upper handle-spring; the illustration shows two handles, but the presence of two is uncertain. Hard, fine red-brown clay with a dark gray core; the surface varies from greenish buff to dark gray. Probably 2nd century A.d.

POTTERy OF THE GREEk ANd ROmAN PERIOdS

131

Fig. 12:7. Roman and unidentified coarse Wares.

12.59 Jug or Bottle Fig. 12:7 Not inv. F5-I/W, 2.1. d. 11.0. upper part of a vessel with a narrow neck (lost) and a concave zone below a sharply carinated shoulder. Hard, red clay, pale brown inside and with a thick creamy slip or outer surface coating; some white grits. coastal? 12.60 Jug or Bottle Fig. 12:7 87I-P-7. F4-I, 1.1. d. 11.0. Fragment of a vessel similar to last. Orange-red clay with a gray core and a cream slip outside; some grits. coastal? 12.61 cooking Pot or casserole Fig. 12:7 Not inv. underwater, off eastern tip of island. d. of rim 20. Nocked rim sherd. Hard, brown clay with white and purple grits. coastal. 12.62 cooking Pot Fig. 12:8 Not inv. Eastern end of island, 1.1. d. of rim 24. Ridged rim sherd. Fine hard red clay with an orange surface and some white grits. coastal. 12.63 cooking Pot Fig. 12:8 Not inv. H5-II, 3.1. d. of rim 21; pres. h. 6.1. Rim sherd, stepped for a lid; narrow collar below rim, with groove below. Hard, coarse red clay with white grits. coastal.

12.64 cooking Pot Fig. 12:8 Not inv. underwater, off eastern tip of island. d. of rim 13. Rim sherd with handle. coarse, hard red-purplebrown clay with white grits. coastal. 12.65 cooking Pot Fig. 12:8 Not inv. underwater, off eastern tip of island. d. of rim 17. Everted rim sherd with handle. coarse, hard red clay with white grits. coastal. 12.66 cooking Pot Fig. 12:8 Not inv. underwater, off eastern tip of island. d. of rim 18. Everted rim sherd with handle. coarse, hard purplered clay with white grits. coastal. 12.67 cooking Pot Fig. 12:8 Not inv. underwater, off eastern tip of island. d. of rim 28. Everted rim sherd. Hard, brown clay with gray core and white grits. coastal. 12.68 cooking Pot Fig. 12:8 Not inv. underwater, off eastern tip of island. d. of rim 26. Everted rim sherd. Hard, brown clay with white grits. coastal. 12.69 cooking Pot Fig. 12:8 Not inv. underwater, off eastern tip of island. d. of rim 23. Sherd with a complex folded-down rim. Hard,

132

mARSA mATRuH

Fig. 12:8. Roman and unidentified coarse Wares.

POTTERy OF THE GREEk ANd ROmAN PERIOdS

133

Fig. 12:9. Roman and unidentified coarse Wares. red-brown clay; traces of a purple-red slip inside and out; thin black line on shoulder. 12.70 cooking Pot Fig. 12:8 Not inv. underwater, off eastern tip of island. d. at carination 13.0. Body sherd with carinated profile. Hard, red clay with purple-brown core and white grits. coastal. 12.71 Bowl Fig. 12:8 Not inv. 4-II/E, 1.1. d. of rim 17. Sherd with a high vertical rim above a carination. Hard, red clay with a gray core and a buff surface; white grits. coastal. 12.72 Bowl Fig. 12:9 85I-P-66. I8-III/S, 2.1 (mixed with 2.4). d. of rim 16.5. Fragment of a deep bowl with a knobbed everted rim. Pale orange clay, fired buff on the outside; a few grit inclusions. Probably coastal.

12.73 Bowl Fig. 12:9 Not inv. Eastern end of island, above 2 m. contour, 1.1. d. of rim 24.0. knobbed rim sherd. Hard, red clay with a brown core and white grits. coastal. 12.74 Bowl Fig. 12:9 Not inv. Eastern end of island, above 2 m. contour, 1.1. d. of rim 37.0 Rim sherd of handled bowl. Hard, gray clay with a red outer layer and a buff, salt-induced surface; white grits. coastal. 12.75 Jar Fig. 12:9 Not inv. H5-II, 1.1. d. of rim 3.7. Everted rim and upper body fragment; grooved round body; graffito cross. Hard, red clay with areas of salt-induced buff surface; white grits. coastal. 4th–5th century A.d.?

134

mARSA mATRuH

12.76 Jar or Jug Fig. 12:9 Not inv. I8-III/S, 2.4 (mixed with 2.1). d. of foot 14.0; pres. h. 6.6. Base sherd with high base-ring, part of floor and lower wall. Red clay with gray-brown core and white grits. coastal. 12.77 Jar or Jug Fig. 12:9 Not inv. Eastern end of island, below 2 m. contour, 1.1. d. of resting-surface 5.6. Base fragment with a sunken area within the resting-surface. Hard, brown clay with salt-induced buff surface inside and out, and white grits. coastal. 12.78 Jar Fig. 12:9 Not inv. IG-6I cleaning. H. 5.7; pres. w. 6.0. upper body sherd with a horizontal grooves above a zone of wavy combing. Hard, red-brown clay with white grits and a few black grits. coastal (?). 12.79 Lid Fig. 12:9 Not inv. E4-II/E, 1.1. Pres. h. 4.9. Part of a lid with a conical handle, the top of which is broken away but is pierced by a narrow hole. Hard, red clay with a gray core and white grits. coastal.

Roman Amphorae (Figs. 12:10 and 12:11, nos. 12.80–12.89) All but one of the Roman amphorae from Bates’s Island are versions of the Egyptian amphora of the first four centuries A.d. (classified as Peacock and Williams class 53 and Ashmunein Type A), which are extensively discussed in the section on Area V pottery, below. These tall-necked jars with handles placed right at the top of the neck were made in almost every part of Egypt proper, and it is interesting to find these coastal examples, produced so very far from the Nile. Amphorae 12.80 to 12.83 and 12.85 to 12.87 are all coastal, and this is probably the case also for 12.84 and 12.88, although their fabrics are not certainly local. There must have been Nile-silt examples around for them to be copied in a local fabric, but none was found in the university of Pennsylvania’s work at marsa matruh: this may point to the coastal examples

being made other than at matruh, but it is unsafe to press this. Jar 12.80, from a mixed context, was found below that containing the late 1st or 2nd century lamp 12.92, and is probably early in date, of the 1st century or a little later. Amphorae 12.81, 12.83 and 12.84 are surface finds, but 12.82 was found with the Eastern Sigillata A bowl 12.55 and the African Red Slip Ware bowl 12.56 and, like these, could be basically of the 2nd century A.d. A very mixed deposit, including Late Bronze Age material and the 5th century B.c. Athenian cup 12.15, produced 12.85 and a wide 1st to 4th century A.d. date for it is all that can be applied. The handle 12.86 and the spike 12.88 were found in levels that appear to be earlier than that containing jar 12.80 mentioned above, and may be of the 1st century A.d. The context in which 12.87 was found, including as it does the undateable coarse ware vessels 12.71 and 12.79, and also the very early Greek SOS amphora 12.36, is not useful for a closer dating of 12.87 than the 1st to 4th century A.d. The surface-find 12.89 is a sherd almost certainly of an imported amphora and is likely to be of Late Roman date. 12.80 Egyptian Amphora Fig. 12:10 85I-P-67. I8-III/S, 2.4 (mixed with 2.1). d. of rim ca. 13. Rim and handle fragment of an Egyptian Type A amphora. Red clay with dark gray core and small white grits; dark to dark gray surface. coastal. 1st or 2nd century A.d. Its profile is very close to 12.134 from the sherd stratum below the church in Area V. 12.81 Egyptian Amphora Fig. 12:10 Not inv. Eastern end of island, below 2 m. contour, 1.1. d. of rim 12.0. Rim fragment of an Egyptian Type A amphora with traces of upper spring of handle. Hard, light brown clay with a buff surface and white grits. coastal. 1st to 4th century A.d. 12.82 Egyptian Amphora Fig. 12:10 Not inv. I9-I, 1.1. d. of rim 14.0. Rim sherd of an Egyptian Type A amphora. Hard, red-brown clay with a pink-buff surface inside and out; white grits. coastal. Probably 2nd century A.d.

POTTERy OF THE GREEk ANd ROmAN PERIOdS

135

Fig. 12:10. Roman amphorae. 12.83 Egyptian Amphora Fig. 12:10 Not inv. Eastern end of island, below 2 m. contour, 1.1. d. of rim 12.5. Rim sherd of an Egyptian Type A amphora. Hard, red-brown clay, fired brown inside, with a pink surface outside; white grits. coastal. 1st to 4th century A.d. Plus two other rim-sherds and a spike from the same context. 12.84 Egyptian Amphora Fig. 12:10 87I-P-17. H5-I, 1.1. d. of rim 13.0; pres. h. 5.1. Rim sherd of an Egyptian Type A amphora. Hard, brown clay, very abraded: there is a slight possibility that this is a Nile silt fabric. 1st to 4th century A.d. 12.85 Egyptian Amphora Fig. 12:11 Not inv. F5-I/W, 2.1. d. of rim 10.5; h. 5.7. Rim sherd of an Egyptian Type A amphora. Redbrown clay; exterior very eroded. coastal. 1st to 4th century A.d. 12.86 Egyptian Amphora Fig. 12:11 85I-P-103. I8-III/S, 2.5. Pres. h. 17.5. Handle from an Egyptian Type A amphora, with part of neck. Red-brown clay with grits; salt-induced yellow-brown surface; interior pitched. coastal. Probably 1st century A.d.

12.87 Egyptian Amphora Fig. 12:11 Not inv. E4-II/E, 1.1. Pres. h. 10.4. Lower ribbed neck sherd of an Egyptian Type A amphora. Hard, red-brown clay with white grits. coastal. 1st to 4th century A.d. 12.88 Egyptian Amphora Fig. 12:11 85I-P-102. I8-III/S, 3.3. H. 12.5. Amphora spike. Red-brown clay with gray grits. Not a Nile silt fabric: probably coastal. Probably 1st century A.d. Plus two other spikes from the same context. 12.89 Amphora Fig. 12:11 Not inv. Eastern end of island, below 2 m. contour, 1.1. Pres. h. 10.0; pres. w. 9.7. Body sherd with bands of light horizontal combing. Hard, red clay with an orange surface and white grits (imported?). For the pattern of combing, compare Berenice II, d 381, where such decoration suggests a 6th or 7th century A.d. date.

Lamps (Fig. 12:12, Pl. 12, nos. 12.90–12.93) Five Greek and Roman lamps were found on Bates’s Island. Lamps 12.90 and 12.91 are Greek

136

mARSA mATRuH

Fig. 12:11. Roman amphorae.

of the late 6th or early 5th century B.c.; number 12.90, which is probably Athenian, comes from a stratum later in date than that which produced the East Greek cup 12.6, which may be a century earlier in date, and 12.91 comes from a mixed deposit, including the Athenian cup 12.11, of about 525–450 B.c., but also the Hellenistic bowl 12.26 and the undateable, but pre-Roman cooking pot 12.29. There was also some Late Bronze Age material in the same stratum. Of the 2nd century A.d. lamps 12.92 and 12.93, number 12.92 was found with the residual Hellenistic cup 12.24 and the undateable coarse ware vessels 12.58 and 12.72. The level from which these come was above one containing the 1st or 2nd century A.d. Egyptian Type A amphora 12.80 as well as some Hellenistic and earlier material. Lamp 12.93 is of coastal origin and a surface find. An uncataloged fragment was found in the same context as the last.

12.90 Lamp Fig. 12:12; Pl. 12 85I-P-92. F4-III, 2.2. d. 8.5. Non-joining fragments, with overhanging rim, start of nozzle, and floor with raised center. Orange clay; black glaze on rim, on nozzle and on floor of oilchamber; thinned glaze wash on underbody. A variant of Howland Type 16 (R.H. Howland, The Athenian Agora 4: Greek Lamps and Their Survivals [Princeton 1958]). Probably Athenian. Late 6th, early 5th century B.c. 1985 Report, 75, n. 60 12.91 Lamp Fig. 12:12 Not inv. J8-I/II, 1.1. Pres. length 2.4. Nozzle fragment. Light brown clay, apparently dipped in black glaze, but possibly blackened from use. Late 6th, early 5th century B.c. 12.92 Lamp Fig. 12:12; Pl. 12 85I-P-74. I8-III/S, 2.1 (mixed with 2.4). Pres. length 2.6.

POTTERy OF THE GREEk ANd ROmAN PERIOdS

137

Fig. 12:12. Greek and Roman lamps. Front right sherd with part of heart-shaped nozzle of a Loeschcke Type VIII lamp (S. Loeschcke, Lampen aus Vindonissa [Zürich 1919]); rounded shoulder with large impressed ovolos. Not seen by me: fabric uncertain; orange-brown clay with a darker slip. An “associated fragment”, again not seen by me, is recorded as having come from St. 1.1, above that in which 12.92 was found. 2nd century A.d. or a little earlier. 1985 Report, 73.

12.93 Lamp Fig. 12:12 Not inv. Eastern end of island, below 2 m. contour, 1.1. Pres. length 5.1. Right front rim fragment with spring of nozzle of a Loeschcke Type VIII lamp; impressed ovolos on shoulder. Hard, brown clay with a light brown surface and white grits; traces of a red-brown slip. coastal. 2nd century A.d. Plus a body wall sherd of another lamp from the same context: 1st to 3rd century A.d.

Area V, the mainland North of Bates’s Island The pottery described here (Sherds 12.94– 12.155) comes from four places on the mainland immediately north of Bates’s Island: the church (Structure 501: 1987 Report, 88–93) on the highest part in this particular area of the coastal ridge, sherded on three occasions, in 1985, 1987 and 1989 the slopes on all sides below the church but within 10 m. of it, sherded in 1989: there was very little scatter outside this range a pottery stratum in the lower slope of the hill, below the church and near the lagoon, exposed by a mechanical digger in 1989 a trench (RG c4) excavated by Rita Gardner, the expedition’s geologist in 1989, in the old beach levels close to the lagoon

The material found by the mechanical digger lay on a deep but undulating level of clean sand, presumably the ancient surface on which it was dumped, and was between 30 cm. and 1.5 m. below the present surface. The approximate length of the pottery stratum was 90–100 m. At about 15 m. from the east end of the deposit were building stones (some squared off) and column and pilaster drums, all limestone; for about 14 m. west of this location, a level layer of slabs was placed directly on the natural sand. Only a selection of the more diagnostic pottery exposed in the “section” was selected for inclusion here. Other than the sherd from RG c4 (12.94), none of the pottery from Area V was excavated. It would seem that the pottery within and immediately surrounding the church postdated its construction, while the sherd stratum near the lagoon very probably predated the church and may have come from habitations still buried. The pottery

138

mARSA mATRuH

Fig. 12:13. Greek or Hellenistic pottery and African Red Slip Ware. from in and around the church is unlikely to be much earlier than the mid-5th century A.d., and much of it considerably later; that from the sherd stratum is not closely dateable, but much of it may be earlier than the 5th century (the cretan [?] jar 12.137 is of 3rd century date), although a couple of the other imported amphora fragments are later than this date, but not necessarily much later (for example, the Late Roman Amphora 1, 12.141, might be of the early 5th century, and the Aegean oil-jar, 12.149, is probably not earlier than the middle of the 5th century A.d.). The single sherd from RG c4 (12.94) is Hellenistic or even earlier; all the other sherds are Roman. The pottery from the four areas has for convenience been placed in the catalog into one sequence. The material from within the church comprises nos. 12.105, 12.107, 12.108, 12.111– 11.118, 12.122, 12.123, 12.125, 12.127, 12.138, 12.139, 12.142–12.148, 12.150–12.152, and 12.154. That from the area immediately surrounding the church consists of nos. 12.95–12.104, 12.106, 12.109, 12.110, 12.119–12.121, 12.140, and 12.153. From the sherd stratum close to the lagoon come nos. 12.124, 12.126, 12.128–12.137, 12.141, 12.149, and 12.155. 12.94, as noted above, comes from the old beach levels near the lagoon. much of the material of Egyptian origin must be locally made, and it was probably produced at marsa matruh or along the coast, perhaps for a

hundred or more kilometers. As with similar fabrics from Bates’s Island described above, it is designated “coastal”; nothing was found of which the clay was Nile silt. It is very likely that the fine wares bowl 12.105, the jug and costrel 12.106 and 12.107, the cooking pots and casseroles 12.108–12.117, the coarse ware bowls, jars, and lid 12.118–12.127, and the Egyptian Type A amphorae 12.128–12.136 are all local (coastal) products. Imported wares include the Hellenistic or earlier bowl 12.94, the African Red Slip Ware bowls 12.95–12.99 from Tunisia and the Late Roman c Wares from Phocaea (12.100– 12.104); no Egyptian Red Slip Wares from the Nile Valley were found. The remainder of the imported wares consists entirely of transport amphorae (some of the identifications are tentative): 12.137 may be from crete, 12.138–12.143 come from the Antioch/South Turkey-cyprus area, 12.144– 12.148 were produced in North Africa west of the cyrenaica, and 12.149–12.153 are likely to be from the Aegean. It is interesting that imported wares come either from the west or from the north and east: there is nothing from the Nile Valley or from southern Palestine; the lack of Gaza jars is noticeable. It seems likely that the contrary winds and currents that occur in the summer sailing season hindered sea-borne trade from the east. Two glass bowl fragments (12.154, 12.155) were worth recording; Egyptian (coastal?)

POTTERy OF THE GREEk ANd ROmAN PERIOdS

139

Fig. 12:14. Phocaean Red Slip Ware. manufacture is probable. All the imported sigillata was found just outside the church, though a local copy of an African Red Slip Ware shape was found inside (12.105). All the coarse ware vessels, except the two jars 12.124 and 12.126, came from inside or outside the church. All the Egyptian amphorae came from the sherd stratum near the lagoon. most of the imported amphorae came from the church and its immediate area.

12.95 Sigillata Bowl Fig. 12:13 Not inv. Ex-church surface scatter 1989. Pres. length 5.2. Lower body sherd with feather-rouletting inside. Hayes, Form 53B (ca. A.d. 370–430) or, more likely, Form 91A (5th century A.d.)

Greek or Hellenistic Pottery (Fig. 12:13, no. 12.94)

12.97 Sigillata Bowl Fig. 12:13 Not inv. Ex-church surface scatter 1989. d. of rim 16.0. Rim sherd of Hayes, Form 99A. circa A.d. 450–540.

A small fragment of a Greek or Hellenistic (probably the latter) cup was found in a trench dug to examine the geology of the old beach levels near the lagoon. 12.94 cup Fig. 12:13 Not inv. c4 (RG 1989), -1.3 m. below surface of ground. Pres. length 4.5. Bowl fragment. Fine light brown-buff clay; red glaze inside; on the outside a band of black glaze above red glaze that has a reserved patch.

African Red Slip Ware (Fig. 12:13, nos. 12.95–12.99) Five bowl sherds of this fabric were found, all in the vicinity of the church. Their date range is from about the last quarter of the 4th to the middle of the 7th century A.d.

12.96 Sigillata Bowl Fig. 12:13 Not inv. Ex-church surface scatter 1989. d. of rim 22.0. Rim sherd, Hayes, Form 99A. circa A.d. 450–540.

12.98 Sigillata Bowl Fig. 12:13 Not inv. Ex-church surface scatter 1989. d. of rim 14.0. Rim sherd probably of Hayes, Form 99A or B. circa A.d. 450–580. 12.99 Sigillata Bowl Fig. 12:13 Not inv. Ex-church surface scatter 1989. d. of rim 27.0. Rim sherd of Hayes, Form 107. circa A.d. 600–650.

Phocaean Red Slip Ware (Fig. 12:14, nos. 12.100–12.104) Five bowl sherds of this fabric were found in the vicinity of the church. They date to sometime within the 5th to 7th century A.d.

140

mARSA mATRuH

Fig. 12:15. coastal Fine Ware and coastal coarse Ware.

12.100 Sigillata Bowl Fig. 12:14 Not inv. Ex-church surface scatter 1989. d. of rim 22.0. Rim sherd of Hayes, Form 1c. Perhaps first half of the 5th century A.d. 12.101 Sigillata Bowl Fig. 12:14 Not inv. Ex-church surface scatter 1989. d. of rim 23.0. Rim sherd near Hayes, Form 1d. Early to third quarter of the 5th century A.d. 12.102 Sigillata Bowl Fig. 12:14 Not inv. Ex-church surface scatter 1989. d. of rim 26.0. Rim sherd of Hayes, Form 3B. circa A.d. 450–490. 12.103 Sigillata Bowl Fig. 12:14 Not inv. Ex-church surface scatter 1989. d. of rim 18.0. Rim sherd of Hayes, Form 3, near Type E. Last quarter of the 5th century A.d. 12.104 Sigillata Bowl Fig. 12:14 Not inv. Ex-church surface scatter 1989. d. of base-ring 10.0. Base-ring fragment. This shape is found on several bowl forms of this fabric that range in date from the 5th to the 7th century A.d.

coastal Fine Ware (Fig. 12:15, no. 12.105) Only one fragment of an Egyptian fine ware vessel was found; it came from inside the church and is a local copy of an imported bowl of the first half of the 5th century A.d.; it is not a Nile silt product. 12.105 Fine Ware Bowl Fig. 12:15 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1985. d. of rim 38.0. Rim fragment from bowl based upon imported African Red Slip Ware examples of Hayes Form 67, third group. Hard, red-brown clay perhaps slipped much the same color; some small white grits. circa A.d. 400–450. See J. Hayes, Supplement to Late Roman Pottery (London 1980) 516 for revised dating (also for 12.96–12.98).

coastal coarse Ware (Figs. 12:15–12:19, nos. 12.106–12.127) The various coarse ware sherds, most of which were found within and near the church, consist of fragments of a jug and of a costrel, ten cooking pots and two casseroles, six bowls, three jars, and

POTTERy OF THE GREEk ANd ROmAN PERIOdS

141

Fig. 12:16. coastal coarse Ware.

a lid; there seems every likelihood that they were of coastal manufacture and were all made at or near marsa matruh. None is intrinsically dateable, it being a useless exercise to compare such peculiarly local vessels as cooking pots and coarse ware bowls with examples from elsewhere; but the costrel 12.107 may have been influenced ultimately from those made in Aswan during the 4th and subsequent centuries. A general 5th to 7th century date is all that can be given to these coarse wares, but the two jars from the sherd-stratum (12.124 and 12.126) could be of the 5th century but are probably earlier. 12.106 Jug Fig. 12:15 Not inv. Ex-church surface scatter 1989. d. of rim 6. mouth sherd of jug. Hard purple-red clay with buff slip or salt-induced surface. 12.107 costrel Fig. 12:15 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1985. d. of rim 3.7. Rim fragment. Buff clay with a few black grits. For the Aswan versions of this vessel, cf. examples exported to cyprus and found in an earthquake context of A.d. 365 (d. Soren and J. James, kourion [New york 1988] 113, 141). A similar costrel in the British museum, from Hawara (W.m.F. Petrie, Hawara,

Biahmu, and Arsinoe [London 1889] 13, pl. 16:10), contained over 3000 coins, the latest of which was of Arcadius (A.d. 395–423). See the discussion in d.m. Bailey, Excavations at Ashmunein V: Pottery, Lamps, and Glass of the Late Roman and Early Arab Periods (London 1998) 34–36. Examples with slightly different detail about their necks and mouths (local, not Aswan?) were found in contexts of about A.d. 390 to 450 at kellia (m. Egloff, kellia: la poterie copte [Geneva 1977] pl. 90, 2). There are, of course, other local varieties of these keg-like vessels, like those from the dakhleh Oasis (W.I. Edwards, c.A. Hope, and E.R. Segnit, ceramics from the dakhleh Oasis [Burwood 1987] 72, pl. 32a; 92, fig. 9) and also from the kharga Oasis (m. Rodziewicz, “Introduction à la céramique à engobe rouge de kharga [kharga Red Slip Ware],” cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 1 [1987] pl. 45, 45, where a 4th to 5th century A.d. dating is given to similar vessels from Alexandria). 12.108 cooking Pot Fig. 12:15 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1987. d. of rim 18, w. of handle 3.1. knobbed rim sherd with vertical flat ribbed handle: the handle presumably angled down to the body; it appears to be keyed by means of a small tenon inserted through the rim. Hard, brown-gray fabric with white grits and a reddish core. Plus flat strap-handle from a cooking pot probably like the last and of closely similar fabric, also from the church (surface scatter 1985).

142

mARSA mATRuH

Fig. 12:17. coastal coarse Ware. 12.109 cooking Pot Fig. 12:15 Not inv. Ex-church surface scatter 1989. d. of rim ca. 14; w. of handle 2.5. knobbed rim sherd with handle, from a pot similar to 12.108. Hard, red clay fired brown on handle and outside; white grits. Plus a handle from a cooking pot similar to last and of a similar fabric, and from the same context.

12.112 cooking Pot Fig. 12:16 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1985. d. of rim ca. 18. Everted rim sherd with spring of one of the applied handles. Hard, dark red-brown clay with a dark gray surface; many small shiny dark grits.

12.110 cooking Pot Fig. 12:15 Not inv. Ex-church surface scatter 1989. d. of rim ca. 13. knobbed rim sherd. Hard, red clay, brown on outside; white grits.

12.113 cooking Pot Fig. 12:16 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1987 d. of rim 12. Everted rim sherd. Hard, coarse red-brown clay with white grits and a buff salt-induced exterior.

12.111 cooking Pot Fig. 12:16 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1985. Pres. h. 3.9. Body fragment with closely spaced rills. Fine hard dark gray clay with white grits. Plus similar fragment

12.114 Small cooking Pot Fig. 12:16 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1989. d. of rim 10. upper part with two vertical handles, one surviving. Rim stepped for lid. Body heavily ribbed. Hard

in similar fabric from the same context.

POTTERy OF THE GREEk ANd ROmAN PERIOdS

143

Fig. 12:18. coastal coarse Ware. clay with white grits; red brown with gray core. 12.115 Small cooking Pot Fig. 12:16 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1985. d. of rim 11. Rim fragment with handle from pot similar to last. Red-brown clay with white grits and gray core. 12.116 casserole Fig. 12:17 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1987. d. of rim 23. Rim sherd. Hard, coarse clay with white grits: red fabric with gray-brown core; gray-brown surface inside, buff salt-induced surface outside. 12.117 casserole Fig. 12:17 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1985. d. of rim 28. Wide everted rim fragment. Hard gray fabric with white grits. 12.118 coarse Ware Bowl Fig. 12:17 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1987. d. of rim 30. Rim sherd with part of applied lug or horizontal handle below rim: slightly inturned rim, plain and squarish. Very coarse brown-gray fabric, with white grits.

12.119 deep coarse Ware Bowl Fig. 12:17 Not inv. Ex-church surface scatter 1989. d. of rim 16. Sherd with flaring thickened rim. Hard, red-brown clay; black and white grits. much abraded. 12.120 coarse Ware Bowl Fig. 12:17 Not inv. Ex-church surface scatter 1989. d. of rim 21. Rim sherd and upper spring of vertical handle. Hard purple-brown clay with white grits; buff slip. 12.121 coarse Ware Bowl Fig. 12:18 Not inv. Ex-church surface scatter 1989. d. of rim 28. Rim sherd: thick everted rim. Hard, red clay with a brown core; white and black grits. 12.122 coarse Ware Bowl Fig. 12:18 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1987. d. of rim 16. Rim sherd: thick, wide everted rim. Buff clay. 12.123 Small coarse Ware Bowl Fig. 12:18 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1985. d. of rim 12. knobbed rim sherd. Hard, red-brown clay with lighter surface and white grits.

144

mARSA mATRuH

Fig. 12:19. coastal coarse Ware. 12.124 coarse Ware Jar Fig. 12:18 Not inv. Sherd stratum south of church, near lagoon, 1989. d. of rim 13. knobbed rim sherd. Hard, brown clay with white grits. 12.125 coarse Ware Jar Fig. 12:18 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1989. d. at shoulder-ridge 12.0. upper body sherd with ridged shoulder and incurved wall above. dark brown clay with gray surface. 12.126 coarse Ware Jar or Bowl Fig. 12:19 Not inv. Sherd stratum south of church, near lagoon, 1989. d. of base 28.5. Lower wall and flat base fragment, decorated with horizontal grooves and crossed arcading. Hard, red clay with thick brown core and white grits. Burned underneath, probably on a cooking-fire. 12.127 coarse Ware Lid Fig. 12:19 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1985. Pres. h. 4.8. Handle fragment, the edge of the knob broken all round. Hard, coarse, red-brown clay with white grits.

coastal Amphorae (Figs. 12:20, 12:21, nos. 12.128–12.136) All the amphorae of Egyptian manufacture found on the mainland north of Bates’s Island came from the sherd-stratum close to the shore of

the lagoon. They are the local (coastal) version of a shape (Egyptian [Ashmunein] Type A; d.P.S. Peacock and d.F. Williams, Amphorae and the Roman Economy [London 1986] class 53) made throughout Egypt over a very great length of time, probably as early as the 1st century A.d. until some time in the late 4th or the first half of the 5th century, when they gave way to a smaller jar (Egyptian [Ashmunein] Type B; Peacock and Williams class 52). This amphora is characterized by highplaced handles on a long neck. Almost certainly devised for the transport and storage of wine, many of the examples from elsewhere in Egypt are pitched inside, but none of the examples found at marsa matruh are pitched: possibly the hard fabric allowed little seepage of the contents. The body-shape of the marsa matruh jars is not recoverable from the fragments found, but it may have been close to those found at marina el-Alamein mentioned below. The body-shape of Peacock and Williams class 53 amphorae can be very different according to the place of manufacture within Egypt. How much difference in shape is also due to chronological change is not yet possible to determine. However, an early shape may be distinguished in Hayes.3 For a late occurrence, see Egloff Type 172, from kellia, where a leaning towards Peacock and Williams class 52 is perhaps discernible.4 For other examples of the various shapes this type of amphora can assume, compare those from marina, between marsa matruh and Alexandria;5 from 4th century abandonment levels

POTTERy OF THE GREEk ANd ROmAN PERIOdS

145

Fig. 12:20. coastal amphorae.

at Qasrawet in north-west Sinai, about 50 km. east of the Suez canal;6 from Tell el-maskhuta, and given a date in the 2nd century A.d.;7 from Saqqara;8 from Euhemeria;9 from Narmouthis;10 from

Heracleopolis magna;11 from Hermopolis magna;12 from Tôd;13 and from Esna.14 The marina elAlamein jars mentioned above are, like 12.128 to 12.136, not of a Nile silt fabric15 and are no doubt

146

mARSA mATRuH

local: the term “local” should be treated in a wide sense, and it is possible that the marsa matruh amphorae and the marina examples, while probably made in the immediate vicinity of those two towns, are in fact products of a kiln or group of kilns situated on the north Egyptian coastline well west of Alexandria; as noted earlier, the fabric is best described as “coastal.” A kiln-site at Tell el-Haraby, between marina and marsa matruh, has produced Late Ptolemaic and possibly early Roman amphorae of much the same fabrics;16 indeed the Tell el-Haraby Type B jar could well be a forerunner of, or contemporary with, the earlier forms of our Egyptian Type A jars here discussed. One must also consider amphorae from Alexandria that are not far in shape from the Tell el-Haraby Type B jars, but of a Nile silt fabric, and which are dated to the late 1st century B.c. to the early 1st century A.d.17 It is interesting that some of the Egyptian Type A jars (one of which is of the 3rd century A.d.) found in Berenice in the cyrenaica are not of Nile silt but of a similar fabric to ours.18 They may have come to the cyrenaica by land from Egypt, the sea route being extremely difficult. It is likely that the bulk of the Egyptian Type A amphorae from the sherd stratum in Area V are of the 4th century and earlier.

12.131 Egyptian Amphora Fig. 12:20 Not inv. Sherd stratum south of church, near lagoon, 1989. Pres. h. 25.8. Egyptian Type A amphora neck and upper shoulder fragment. Hard, red-brown clay with white grits. 12.132 Egyptian Amphora Fig. 12:21 Not inv. Sherd stratum south of church, near lagoon, 1989. d. of rim 13.0. Egyptian Type A amphora rim. Hard, red clay, fired brown on outside, with white grits. 12.133 Egyptian Amphora Fig. 12:21 Not inv. Sherd stratum south of church, near lagoon, 1989. d. of rim 14. Egyptian Type A amphora rim. Hard, red clay with white grits. cream-slip outside and inside mouth, with runs inside. 12.134 Egyptian Amphora Fig. 12:21 Not inv. Sherd stratum south of church, near lagoon, 1989. d. of rim 12. Egyptian Type A amphora rim. Hard, brown clay with white grits. Traces of a cream slip. The rim-profile is very close to the 1st or 2nd century amphora 12.80 from Bates’s Island.

12.128 Egyptian Amphora Fig. 12:20 Not inv. Sherd stratum south of church, near lagoon, 1989. d. of rim 13.0, pres. h. 21.2. Egyptian Type A amphora mouth and handle fragment. Hard, red clay with white grits.

12.135 Egyptian Amphora Fig. 12:21 Not inv. Sherd stratum south of church, near lagoon, 1989. Pres. h. 16.2. Egyptian Type A amphora spike. Hard light red clay with black grits and a few white grits.

12.129 Egyptian Amphora Fig. 12:20 Not inv. Sherd stratum south of church, near lagoon, 1989. d. of rim 13.0, pres. h. 14.1. Egyptian Type A amphora mouth and handle fragment. Hard purple-red clay with white grits.

12.136 Egyptian Amphora Fig. 12:21 Not inv. Sherd stratum south of church, near lagoon, 1989. Pres. h. 15.2. Egyptian Type A amphora spike. Hard light red clay, fired brown inside, with black grits and a few white grits. Traces of a buff surface outside, probably salt-induced, but perhaps a slip. For 12.135–12.136, compare R. Tomber and d. Williams, “Egyptian amphorae in Britain and the Western Provinces,” Britannia 31 (2000) 44. fig. 2, 3–4, from mareotis.

12.130 Egyptian Amphora Fig. 12:20 Not inv. Sherd stratum south of church, near lagoon, 1989. Pres. h. 24.3. Egyptian Type A amphora neck fragment, with lower handle-spring. Breathing-hole pierced below handle; another hole lower down, at right angles to the first. Hard, red clay, fired brown inside; white grits.

POTTERy OF THE GREEk ANd ROmAN PERIOdS

147

Fig. 12:21. coastal amphorae.

Imported Amphorae (Figs. 12:22–12:25, nos. 12.137–12.153) Several transport amphorae which would have been used to bring oil and wine from places outside of Egypt were found in Area V and are described here.

unidentified One fragment (12.137) from the sherd stratum south of the church has not been identified. 12.137 Imported Amphora Fig. 12:22 Not inv. Sherd stratum south of church, near lagoon, 1989. d. of mouth 5.7–6.0 cm. (distorted by attachment of handles). Neck and mouth fragment: parts of springs of upper handle attachments just surviving. Light brown clay.

Antioch/cilician Origin Several fragments of jars of Peacock and Williams class 44 (carthage and Benghazi Late Roman Amphora 1) were found (12.138–12.143); they were almost certainly made in the Antioch/South Turkey-cyprus area from the early 5th century A.d. until the mid-7th century; these classes of jars are very common in Egypt. For kilns producing these jars, see J.y. Empereur and m. Picon, “Les régions de production d’amphores impériales en méditerranée orientale,” Amphores romaines et histoire économique, dix ans de recherche (Rome 1989) 236–243 and “La reconnaissance des productions des ateliers céramiques: l’exemple de la maréotide,” cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 3 (1992) 149. See also Bailey, in 12.107, 121–122. All but one cataloged fragment were found in or close to the church:

148

mARSA mATRuH

Fig. 12:22. Imported amphorae. 12.141 and an uncataloged example come from the sherd stratum south of the church, near the lagoon, and they probably, thus, come early in the sequence. 12.138 Imported Amphora Fig. 12:22 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1987. Pres. length 8.1, w. of handle 3.4. Lower spring of ridged handle, with part of body. Hard light brown clay with white grits and lighter, almost pale orange, surface. 12.139 Imported Amphora Fig. 12:22 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1989. Pres. length 12.8, w. of handle 3.3. Ridged handle with lower spring remaining. Brown clay with white grits. Plus similar handles from the church, in yellow-buff clay (surface scatter 1987) and in red-brown clay (surface scatter 1989). 12.140 Imported Amphora Fig. 12:22 Not inv. Ex-church surface scatter 1989. Pres. length 9.2.

Ridged handle fragment. Hard light brown clay. 12.141 Imported Amphora Fig. 12:22 Not inv. Sherd stratum south of church, near lagoon, 1989. Pres. length 8.1, w. 3.2. Ridged handle fragment. Brown clay with redbrown surface. Plus similar handle in red clay from the same context as last. 12.142 Imported Amphora Fig. 12:22 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1989. Pres. length 7.5. Shoulder or underbody fragment with widely spaced shallow rills. Buff clay. 12.143 Imported Amphora Fig. 12:22 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1985. Pres. length 8.8. Lower body fragment with widely spaced shallow rills. Hard buff clay.

POTTERy OF THE GREEk ANd ROmAN PERIOdS

149

Fig. 12:23. Imported amphorae.

North African “Spatheia” Some fragments of North African “spatheia” of Peacock and Williams class 51 were found, all within the church. They were made in two sizes, and 12.144 is from the mouth of the large form, while 12.145–12.148 come from the small variety. A recent discussion of the type, with references, was published by m. mackensen, “Invillino-mediterrane Sigillata, Lampen und Amphoren,” münchener Beiträge zur Vor- u. Frühgeschichte 33 (1987) 253–258. See also Bailey, 12.107, 120–121. The body of these jars often exhibits vertical paring (cf. 12.147). The large form dates between the mid-4th century A.d. and the 5th, perhaps into the 6th century; the smaller version is apparently a later innovation, of the 6th and 7th century. I suspect, however, that there is more contemporaneity of the two sizes than the sparse chronological evidence for the smaller form has hitherto suggested. 12.144 Imported Amphora Fig. 12:23 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1985. d. of rim 16.0. knobbed rim sherd with jog below, from a large “spatheion.” Hard, red fabric with gray core; outer surface gray brown.

12.145 Imported Amphora Fig. 12:23 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1985. d. of rim 7.0. knobbed rim sherd, from a small “spatheion.” Hard buff clay. 12.146 Imported Amphora Fig. 12:23 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1985. d. of rim 6.0. knobbed rim sherd, from a small “spatheion.” Hard, reddish clay with a buff-brown surface. 12.147 Imported Amphora Fig. 12:23 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1987. Pres. length 6.8. Lower body fragment of a small “spatheion,” with typical pared outer surface. Buff clay. 12.148 Imported Amphora Fig. 12:23 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1987. Pres. h. 6.7. Spike from small amphora, probably a “spatheion.” Buff clay.

Aegean Oil-Jars Several fragments (12.149–12.153) of Aegean oil-jars of Peacock and Williams class 43 were found, one (12.149) in the sherd stratum south of the

150

mARSA mATRuH

Fig. 12:24. Imported amphorae. church, the others from within and near the church. It is a long-lived type, dating mainly from the second half of the 5th to the 7th century: the 4th century date for the Athenian Agora examples noted by Peacock and Williams may be too early. A ca. A.d. 400 date for some from Isthmia is given by J. marty,

in T.E. Gregory, ed., The corinthia in the Roman Period (Ann Arbor 1993) 128. For a very full discussion of this jar type, see W. Hautumm, Studien zu Amphoren der spätrömischen and frühbyzantinischen Zeit (Fulda 1981) 21–58. Jar 12.149, from the sherd stratum, is probably of the 5th century A.d.

POTTERy OF THE GREEk ANd ROmAN PERIOdS

151

Fig. 12:25. Imported amphorae and glass. 12.149 Imported Amphora Fig. 12:24 Not inv. Sherd stratum south of church, near lagoon, 1989. Three nonjoining sherds were used to reconstruct an amphora. Fragment A: d. of mouth 7.0; h. of neck 8.4. Neck with upper spring of handle and part of shoulder. Hard light brown clay. Fragment B: Length 13.6, w. 11.2 Shoulder sherd of amphora similar to last, with lower spring of handle; two grooves on upper shoulder. Hard pale red clay. Fragment c: Length 15.3, w. 11.9 Rounded base sherd of amphora similar to the last two, with small boss at center. Pale red-brown clay. 12.150 Imported Amphora Fig. 12:25 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1989. Pres. length 4.3 and 5.0. Non-joining fragments with closely spaced deep rills. Hard, red clay with orange surface. 12.151 Imported Amphora Fig. 12:25 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1985. Pres. length 6.7. Fragment with closely spaced deep rills. Hard, red clay with orange surface. Plus a similar sherd in hard purple-red clay from the same context. 12.152 Imported Amphora Fig. 12:25 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1985. Pres. length 6.9. upper body fragment with closely spaced rills on upper part. Hard purple-red clay with a buff-brown surface.

12.153 Imported Amphora Fig. 12:25 Not inv. Ex-church surface scatter 1989. Pres. length 4.7. Body sherd with deep closely spaced rills. Pale brown clay with red core and buff-brown outer surface.

Glass (Figs. 12:25, nos. 12.154–12.155) The two pieces of glass that were worth illustrating were found on the mainland north of Bates’s Island, one from the church and the other from the sherd stratum near the lagoon. Both are base fragments of bowls; neither is likely to be earlier than the 4th century A.d. 12.154 and the uncataloged fragments from the church are probably considerably later. 12.154 Glass Bowl Fig. 12:25 Not inv. church: surface scatter 1985. d. of base 4.4, greatest w. 8.0. Bowl fragment with base-ring; pontil-mark within base. clear white glass, surface much eroded. Plus two small fragments, unillustrated, from the same context: one perhaps part of a goblet stem, the other part of a bowl floor. clear glass; the last has a greenish tinge. 12.155 Glass Bowl Fig. 12:25 Not inv. Sherd stratum south of church, near lagoon, 1989. d. of base 11.5. Floor and base-ring fragment. clear green glass, surface much eroded.

152

mARSA mATRuH

chapter 12 Notes 1. See 1985 Report, 74 for possible occupancy in Greek Archaic times. Also Resurfacing of Paraetonium, 79 as well as Vol. I, chapter 6. 2. See n. 1. 3. J.W. Hayes, Roman Pottery in the Royal Ontario museum (Toronto 1976) no. 363, containing a coin hoard of early Flavian date. 4. For Egloff Type 172 of the late 4th century to the early 6th (most no later than the mid-5th), cf. m. Egloff, kellia: la poterie copte III,2 (Geneva 1977). 5. cf. G. majcherek, in L. krzyzanowski, ed., marina el-Alamein I (Warsaw 1991) 52, fig. 1, 2, of the 2nd and 3rd century A.d. 6. E.d. Oren in IEJ 32 (1982) pl. 29A. 7. J.S. Holladay, Tell el-maskhuta (malibu 1982) pls. 35, 37, 39. 8. J.E. Quibell, The monastery of Apa Jeremias (cairo 1912) pl. 48, 1, top right. 9. B.P. Grenfell, A.S. Hunt and d.G. Hogarth, Fayûm Towns and their Papyri (London 1900) pl. 13b. 10. E. Bresciani, medinet madi, rapporto preliminare delle campagne di scavi 1966 e 1967 (milan 1968) pl. 61, 41–42. 11. W.m.F. Petrie, Ehnasya 1904 (London 1905) pl. 34, 133. 12. See d.m. Bailey, Excavations at el-Ashmunein V,

Pottery, Lamps and Glass of the Late Roman and Early Arab Periods (London 1998), where many examples from throughout Egypt are listed and discussed, and a mid-5th-century or earlier termination of the type is suggested. 13. The single example published by G. Pierrat, “Essai de classification de la céramique de Tôd de la fin du VIIe siècle au début de XIIIe siècle ap. J.-c.,” cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 2 (1991) 152, fig. 4c is presumably residual in its ca. A.d. 650–750+ context. 14. H. Jacquet-Gordon, Les ermitages chrétiens du désert d’Esna III, céramique et objets (cairo 1972) pl. 199, P7, the only (broken and probably old when it was deposited) example of the type from this site which probably dates from about A.d. 500 onwards: there are many Egyptian Type B/Peacock and Williams class 52 jars from these excavations at Esna. 15. majcherek (see n. 5) 51–53. 16. G. majcherek and A. Shennawi, “Tell el-Haraby. A Newly-discovered kiln Site,” Bulletin de liaison du groupe international d’étude de la céramique égyptienne 15 (1991) 5–7. 17. G. majcherek (op.cit.) 16, 1992, p. 3, fig. 1, 4. 18. J.A. Riley in J.A. Lloyd, ed., Excavations at Sidi khrebish, Benghazi (Berenice), II (Tripoli 1979) fig. 89, d 302–306.

153

Chapter 13

POST-BRONze AGe ARTIfACTS Donald White

Area I, Metal Donald White with contribution by

William Metcalf The following metal objects were excavated from post-Bronze Age deposits. In the case of several categories, either a post-Bronze Age or modern identity appears beyond dispute (e.g., coins, religious medals, and lead musket shot); other classes of artifacts could either belong to the Bronze Age or the post-Bronze Age period but are assumed to be contemporary with the later objects found in their respective deposits, since there is nothing intrinsic to their makeup to preclude their being manufactured at virtually any time in the island’s history.

Bronze Pendants (Pl. 12, nos. 13.1–13.3) 13.1 Religious Pendant Pl. 12 85I-M-2. 5-IV/SW Test, 2.1. H. 2.85; w. 1.5; max. th. 0.2. Octagonal pendant with attached suspension loop

and single loose chain link. Obverse displays the profile head of Christ in low relief; inscribed SALVATOR*MUND*. Reverse veiled profile head of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Presumably belonged, along with 13.2 and 13.3, to one of the Greek or Maltese occupants of the Sponge-Divers House, S101.1 13.2 Religious Pendant Pl. 12 85I-M-10. G5-IV/SW Test, 2.1. H. 2.4; w. 2.0; th. 0.15. Oval pendant, broken around suspension hole at top. Obverse portrays the Blessed Virgin Mary and the infant Christ, with heraldic angels in attendance above. Design on reverse no longer legible. The low relief on both sides framed by a low band. 13.3 Pendant Pl. 12 85I-M-11. GV-IV/SW Test, 2.1. D. 1.2; th. 1.5. Circular pendant, broken around suspension hole at top. Obverse and reverse reliefs no longer legible.

154

MARSA MATRUH

Bronze Needle, Pins, Nails, Tacks (Pls. 12 and 13, nos. 13.4–13.17) Unlike the Chapter 9 Late Bronze Age nails (9.14–9.22) which were all round or elliptical in section, the island’s later versions are square as well as round, the former resembling nails that remained in common use into the 20th century. 13.4 Sailor’s Needle or Awl Pl. 12 87I-M-5. H5-I, 3.2. Max. pres. length 14.6; th. 0.4. Heavily corroded and broken in two; eye no longer preserved. If a needle, it was sufficiently heavy for sewing canvas. Perhaps this was a Bronze Age survival in a Greek-Roman deposit. Compare 9.23. If originally eyeless, it compares with the Gelidonya shipwreck awl. Compare Gelidonya, B 137, p. 102, figs. 112, 113. 13.5 Nail Pl. 12 85I-M-19. e4-III, 1.1. Max. pres. length 3.3; d. 0.5. Two joining fragments of perhaps a nail; head and point missing. Slightly squared in section.

13.10 Nail Pl. 13 85I-M-26. I8-III/S, 2.1. Pres. length 2.4; d. 0.45. Round shaft and flattened head. from a mixed deposit; perhaps as late as the 4th century A.D. 13.11 Tack Pl. 13 85I-M-31. I8-III/S, 2.2. Length 2.0; d. of head 1.0; d. of shaft 0.4. Short nail or tack with slightly convex, round head (bent over) and round shaft. from a mixed deposit; perhaps as late as the 4th century A.D. 13.12 Tack Pl. 13 85I-M-34. I8-III/S, 2.2. Length 2.2; d. of head 1.25; max. th. of shaft 0.5. Short nail or tack with slightly convex, round head and round shaft. Tip missing. from a mixed deposit; perhaps as late as the 4th century A.D. 13.13 Tack Pl. 13 85I-M-49. I8-III/S, 2.4. Length 3.1; d. of head 1.7; th. of shaft unrecovered. Short nail or tack with slightly convex, round head. Round shaft, heavily encrusted with corrosion. from a mixed deposit; perhaps as late as the 4th century A.D.

13.6 Pin or Nail Pl. 12 85I-M-21. Sponge-Divers House (S101), e. wall, 1.1. Pres. length 2.9; th. 0.4. fragment of shaft; square in section.

13.14 Tack Pl. 13 85I-M-50. I8-III/4.2. Length 2.6; d. of head 1.2; th. of shaft 0.4. from an undated deposit, but probably ArchaicClassical period.

13.7 Nail Pl. 12 87I-M-2. H5-I, 2.1. Length 5.6; th. 0.3. Broken into two pieces during excavation; square in section. Heavily corroded. Islamic deposit mixed with earlier material.

13.15 Nail Head Pl. 13 85I-M-47. I8-III/S, 3.4. D. 1.65; th. 0.5. Circular head with small protuberance on one side left over from shaft. from a Roman Imperial deposit mixed with earlier material.

13.8 Nail Pl. 13 85I-M-25. I8-III/S, 2.1. Pres. length 1.6; d. of head 1.5; w. of shaft 0.5. Slightly convex, round head and upper end of square shaft. from a mixed deposit; perhaps as late as the 4th century A.D. 13.9 Nail Pl. 13 85I-M-27. f7-II, 1.1. Pres. length 3.9; d. of head 1.4; w. of shaft 0.6. Slightly convex, round head with square shaft; tip missing. Close in type to 13.8.

13.16 Nail Head Pl. 13 85I-M-48. I8-III/S, 4.2. D. of head 1.7; max. pres. length of shaft 0.7; th. of shaft 0.6. from an undated deposit, but probably ArchaicClassical Greek. 13.17 Pinhead? Pl. 13 85I-M-29. I8-III/8, 2.1. Max. pres. length 1.0; d. 0.4. Perhaps the rounded head of a pin, whose shaft is mostly missing. from a mixed deposit; perhaps as late as the 4th century A.D.

POST-BRONze AGe ARTIfACTS

Copper/Bronze Coins (Pl. 13, nos. 13.18–13.20) 13.18 Copper Drachm Pl. 13 87I-C-1. e4-II/e, 3.1. D. 3.4. Obv. Imperial bust of Trajan facing right, with aegis. Rev. Temple with standing Serapis sacrificing over tripod altar. Inscribed LI-e. from an Islamic deposit; the coin was struck in Trajan’s year 15 at Alexandria = A.D. 111/112. Compare G. Dattari, Numi Auggustali Alexandrini (Cairo 1901) no. 1146.2 13.19 Bronze Coin Not ill. 85I-C-1. Area IV (“Cleopatra Ridge” area) surface. D. 1.1; th. 0.2. Small illegible coin. 13.20 Bronze Coin? Not ill. 85I-C-2. I8-III/S, 2.4. D. 1.4; th. 0.6. Small illegible coin? from a mixed deposit; perhaps as late as the 4th century A.D.

Miscellaneous Bronze Objects (Pl. 13, nos. 13.21–13.28) 13.21 Small Chisel (?) Pl. 13 85I-M-38. G6-I, 3.1. Pres. length 1.7; max. w. 0.5. Broken shaft terminating in a squared, flattened end. from a Hellenistic to Roman deposit. 13.22 Hooked Point Pl. 13 85I-M-44. G6-I, 3.1. Max. pres. length 4.7; max. w. 0.45. Bent squared shaft, tapered to a hooked point. from a Hellenistic to Roman deposit. 13.23 Handle Pl. 13 85I-M-39. G6-I, 3.1. W. 4.8; h. of loop 4.2; th. of shaft 0.6. Loop handle, formed from twisted shaft square in section, with flattened ends. from a Hellenistic to Roman deposit. 13.24 Looped Pin 85I-M-32. Island’s surface. Pres. length 3.0; d. of shaft 0.45. fragment of pin bent double to form loop.

Pl. 13

155

13.25 Sheet Pl. 13 85I-M-37. G6-I, 3.1. Length 5.0; max. w. (folded) 5.5. Thin, perhaps originally circular sheet, folded in half. edges curled. Two (nail?) holes pierced near edge. from a Hellenistic to Roman deposit. 13.26 Swallow-Tailed Bronze Object Pl. 13 87I-M-4. e4-II/e, 1.1. Length 3.9; max. w. 3.1; min. w. 2.9; th. 0.2. Unidentified fragment of bronze scrap; ribbed or corrugated on inner face. 13.27 Metal Sling-Shot Pellet (?) Pl. 13 87I-M-3. I6-I/II, 2.3. Roughly spherical pellet of what appears to be bronze. from a Roman Imperial deposit with earlier material. 13.28 Incised Bronze Object Pl. 13 89I-M-5. H5-III, 2.1. Pres. length 1.0; w. 0.5; th. 0.4. Unidentified piece of bronze; broken and incomplete inner curved surface faceted; outer curved surface incised with row of dots inside circles set between parallel lines. from 1st century B.C.–2nd century A.D. deposit with earlier material.

Iron Nails (Pl. 13, nos. 13.29–13.38) 13.29 four Iron Nails Pl. 13 85I-M-16. G5-IV/SW Test, 2.1 (south wall, S101). Max. pres. length 4.1; d. of heads vary from 2.1 to 2.6; max. d. of shafts 0.8. Group of corroded iron wall nails with short shafts and large heads. Clumps of plaster still adhere to heads and shafts. from Ottoman period deposit. 13.30 four Iron nails Pl. 13 85I-M-17. GV-IV/SW Test, 2.1 (south wall, S101). Max. pres. lengths vary from 7.0 to 4.0; d. of heads varies from 2.1 to 1.8. Group of corroded iron wall nails with short shafts and large heads. from Ottoman period deposit. 13.31 Iron Nail Pl. 13 85I-M-36. G6-I, 3.1. Pres. length 2.6; th. of shaft 0.4. Short, bent nail with flat, round head. Corroded. from a Hellenistic to Roman deposit.

156

MARSA MATRUH

13.32 Iron Nail Head Pl. 13 87I-M-1. I6-I/II, sect. 3, 1.1. Pres. length of shaft 1.5; th. of shaft 0.7; d. of head 1.8. Rusted-out shell of head and stub of shaft.

Miscellaneous Iron (Pl. 13, nos. 13.33–13.38) 13.33 Iron Point Pl. 13 85I-M-45. G6-I, 3.1. Pres. length 5.2; max. w. of shaft 1.0. Short, bent rod, squared in section and tapering to a sharp point. from a Hellenistic to Roman deposit. 13.34 Iron Rod Pl. 13 85I-M-53. G5-IV/SW Test, 4.2 (south wall, S101). Pres. l 3.2; d. 1.0. fragment of a nail or other unidentified object. from an otherwise almost exclusively Bronze Age deposit containing, however, an Attic sherd (12.15). 13.35 Iron Handle? Pl. 13 85I-M-15. Sponge-Divers House (S101), inner face of west wall, 1.1. Pres. length 10.2; max. th. 1.0. Long thin strip, rectangular in section at one end and flattened at other end into rounded termination. Pierced by two rivets. Tool handle? 13.36 Iron Ring Pl. 13 85I-M-40. I8-III/S, 2.5. D. 2.1; oval bezel 1.9 by 1.6. finger ring, badly corroded, with oval bezel. from a Roman imperial deposit mixed with earlier material.

shotgun “pumpkin” shot. The fact that none of the island’s examples share a standardized caliber suggests that 13.39 to 13.42 were manufactured as shot for Arab muskets. from an otherwise purely Late Bronze deposit, 13.39 seems to be clearly intrusive, since it resembles so closely the four examples from the Ottoman period deposit associated with S101’s south wall. 13.40 Lead Shot Pl. 13 85I-M-7. G5-IV/SW Test, 2.1 (south wall, S101). D. 1.6. Spherical lead ball, slightly flattened from impact. Musket shot? from an Ottoman period deposit. 13.41. Lead Shot Pl. 13 85I-M-4. G5-IV/SW Test, 2.1 (south wall, S101). D. 1.2. Spherical lead ball; musket shot? from an Ottoman period deposit. 13.42 Lead Shot Not ill. 85I-M-5. G5-IV/SW Test, 2.1 (south wall, S101). D. 1.85. Quarter section of what was originally probably musket shot, perhaps reused here as a fishing line weight. from an Ottoman period deposit. 13.43 Lead Shot Pl. 13 85I-M-6. G5-IV/SW Test, 2.1 (south wall, S101). D. 1.8. Quarter section of what was originally probably musket shot, perhaps used here as a fishing line weight. Does not match or join with 13.42. from an Ottoman period deposit.

13.37 Iron Ring Pl. 13 85I-M-14. f4-III, 1.1. D. 1.4; th. 0.4. Small ring, not fully complete, probably modern.

Miscellaneous Lead (Pls. 13, 14, nos. 13.44–13.47)

13.38 Iron Lump Pl. 13 87I-M-6. I6-I/II, 3.1. 2.2 by 2.2 by 0.5. Slightly convex and reddened on one side. from a mixed, late deposit.

13.44 Lead Weight? Pl. 13 85I-M-28. G6-I, 1.1. Length 2.1; d. 1.25. Small, roughly spherical ball, segmented into two lobes, with short, twisted stem for attaching string? fishing weight?

Lead Shot (Pl. 13, nos. 13.39–13.43) 13.39 Lead Shot Pl. 13 85I-M-13. f4-III, 3.1. D. 1.2. Spherical lead ball. either musket shot or a modern

13.45 Modern fishing Weight Pl. 13 85I-M-8. Sponge-Divers House (S101), interior, 1.1. Length 3.5; base d. 1.5. Cylindrical weight, fattened toward top and pierced for attachment to line.

POST-BRONze AGe ARTIfACTS

13.46 Lead Point Pl. 13 85I-M-3. G5-IV/SW Test, 2.1 (south wall, S101). Length 3.6; max. w. 1.0 Sharply pointed object; rounded wide end pierced. from Ottoman period deposit.

157

13.47 Lead Sheet Pl. 14 85I-M-9. G5-IV/SW Test, 2.1 (south wall, S101). Length 5.6; folded w. 3.3, unfolded 4.5; th. 0.2. Anepigraphic rectangular lead sheet, folded. from Ottoman period deposit containing earlier material and therefore possibly ancient.

Area I, Stone Donald White with contribution by

Joyce Reynolds Architectural Stone (Pl. 14, nos. 13.48–13.51) 13.48 Triglyph Pl. 14 85I-AS-2. Sponge-Divers House, west wall. Max. pres. h. 13.8; max. pres. w. 19.6; th. 6.5. Upper part of a small sandstone triglyph. Surface weathered. 2.1 by 7.3 cm. shallow rectangular recession let into upper surface. Traces of protruding molding preserved above glyphs. Perhaps from a local tomb facade. Stone burial loculi doors carved in relief with architectural facades have been reported in the environs of Matruh. See P. Adriani, “Découvertes a Marsa Matrouh,” Annales du Musée Gréco-Romain 3 (1935–1939) 160, pl. 65, 3–4. Bates reports what appears to be a triglyph from a tomb. Also African Studies, 190, no. 33, pl. 63, no. 56. 13.49 Revetment fragment Pl. 14 85I-AS-1. J8-II, 1.1. Max. pres. w. 8.2; max. pres. h. 7.5; th. 2.0. Roughly square slab of medium-grained, blue-gray veined marble revetment. exposed surface originally polished, inner surface left irregular. With all other fragments of wall decoration made of plaster, this represents the first of only three pieces of marble recovered on the island. 13.50 Well-Head Curbstone Pl. 14 87I-AS-1. f4-III, 1.1. Length 21, w. 20.5, th. 8.0. Roughly triangular fragment of limestone wellhead curb or rim-stone with four 3.5/6.4 cm. deep cuttings left over from ropes.

13.51 Islamic Tombstone Cippus? Pl. 14 85I-SS-1. H6-II, 1.1. Pres. h. 9.6; rest. d. ca. 16. Roughly half of a cylindrical, creamy-white marble cippus, with circular, inward-sloping depression (upper d. 4.7) let into top. Side incised with triangular and heart-shaped designs.

Quernstones (Pls. 14, 15, nos. 13.52–13.55) Perhaps the most compelling reason for identifying 13.52–13.54 as milling devices is that they are made of lava. Lava does not occur in natural deposits but was apparently introduced here for milling, as it was in so many other locations. Because it has a hard and scoriaceous surface, the cutting face is constantly renewed as it wears down, thus making it an ideal material for milling and grinding.3 13.52 Lower Millstone Pl. 14 85I-SO-15. I7-IV, 1.1. Pres. h. 6.6; pres. w. 13.2; max. th. 4.7. fragment of plano-convex lower millstone platform; pitted gray lava stone. found out of context, this platform could date anywhere from the prehistoric to the early Hellenistic period before so-called “hopperrubber” mills were replaced by rotary querns. Moritz, Grain-Mills, 1–52.

158

MARSA MATRUH

13.53 Lower Millstone Pl. 15 85I-SO-16. I7-IV, 1.1. Pres. length 14.7; pres. w. 7.5; max. pres. th. 7.0. Slab of pitted gray lava, worn slightly concave on its upper grinding surface. Lower surface broken away.

two are somewhat larger than most. Number 13.56 is further atypical because of its faceted shape, which could indicate that it was cut in order to grind or polish.

13.54 Lower Millstone Not ill. 85I-SO-17. f7-II, 1.1. Pres. length 8.2; pres. w. 6.5; th. 2.5. Slab of pitted gray lava; faint striations or grooves diagonally transect grinding surface.

13.56 Pumice Block Pl. 15 85I-SO-12. G5-IV/SW Test, 2.1. 10.3 by 10.0. Rough cube, of which two sides have been cut vertically. exceptionally large fragment. from an 18th to 19th century deposit associated with the SpongeDivers House, S101.

13.55 Circular Millstone? Pl. 15 87I-SS-3. I6-I/II, 2.1. Max. combined d. 27.5; max. th. 7.3; d. of axle hole ca. 6.0. Plano-convex, limestone lower rotary grindstone, broken into four pieces. No traces remain of grooves or striations on grinding surface as noted by Moritz, Grain-Mills, 106. for the type in general, which seems to enter the Classical world in the second century B.C., see Moritz, Grain Mills, 103–121, figs. 10–11, pl. 11.

Pumice (Pl. 15, nos. 13.56–13.59) Individual lumps of pumice were recovered from every occupation phase of the island’s history, including the most recent. Prior to excavation, the 1.1 surface of H5-I off the northwest corner of the Sponge-Divers House as well as directly west of H5-I was liberally sprinkled with unworked pumice. The pebble-sized particles covering the surface of this sector of the island may have floated onto it during Gardner’s final high water period, radiocarbon-dated to the 5th to 10th centuries A.D. when the lagoon water may 4 have stood ca. 2.5 m. above its present level. With a pumice bed available from the Late Bronze Age onward at least as close as Râs Alam el-Rûm,5 the likelihood is that the stratified pumice finds were carried onto the island by its occupants where they could have been used to serve a variety of industrial as well as domestic purposes. On the other hand, the large majority bore no traces of the grooves or other sorts of wear marks associated elsewhere with pumice used for abrading or polishing tools.6 four representative examples are presented here, of which

13.57 Pumice Pebble Pl. 15 85I-S0-10a. f4-I, 2.1. 4.9 by 4.5. Water-worn lump, with no trace of either deliberate shaping or wear. from a largely sterile deposit. 13.58 Pumice Pebble Pl. 15 85I-S0-10b. f4-I, 2.1. 2.6 by 2.5. Small lump with rounded end that perhaps resulted from wear. from a largely sterile deposit. 13.59 Pumice Lump Pl. 15 85I-S0-9. e4-III, 3.3. 6.1 by 4.5. Unshaped, unworn lump. from a Late Bronze Age deposit.

Miscellaneous Unworked Stones (Pl. 16, nos. 13.60–13.65) The following objects are either unidentified or of doubtful function. Since all of them were found in late contexts or on the island’s surface, there is contextual reason to believe that their date of manufacture is also late. However, with so many examples of securely identifiable Late Bronze Age artifacts turning up in similarly late contexts, some of the following pieces could also be survivals from the island’s earlier occupation. 13.60 Sandstone Disk Pl. 16 85I-SO-14. 1.1, Se of S101. D. 6.9; th. 1.8; d. of central depression 1.3. Roughly circular stone with a shallow circular depression at its center connected to rim by incised radial line. Purpose unknown.

POST-BRONze AGe ARTIfACTS

13.61 Cylinder (?) Pl. 16 85I-SO-22. G6-II, 1.1. Length 9.0; d. 6.7; th. 4.0. Split length of fine-grained limestone roller or cylinder of unknown purpose. 13.62 Limestone Palette Pl. 16 87I-SS-I. I6-I/II, sect. 4, 1.1. Length 5.9; w. 6.2; max. pres. th. 0.4. Thin slab or palette, originally forming a truncated triangle. One corner broken off; one of its original flat surfaces flaked away. 13.63 Loom Weight? Pl. 16 85I-SO-1. S. Wall, S101, 1.1. H. 8.0; w. 7.0; th. 1.9; d. of suspension hole 0.6. Trapezoidal weight. Pierced 2.2 cm. below its top for suspension. 13.64 Basalt Pendant Pl. 16 85I-SO-18. G6-I, 2.1. H. 1.8; max. w. 1.1. Truncated pyramidal pendant of polished black basalt; surface scratched. Pierced for suspension near top. 13.65 Base of Marble Vessel Pl. 16 85I-SO-4. east of S101, 1.1. D. ca. 17; h. 7.0; w. 7.2; max. th. 2.0. fragment of open bowl or plate with raised, shallow ring base. Medium-grained white marble.

Inscriptions (Pl. 16, nos. 13.66 and 13.67) 13.66 fragment of Inscription? Pl. 16 85I-SS-2. S101 interior, 1.1. W. 23.5; h. 19.3; th. 4.5. Irregularly preserved slab of soft sandstone, carrying what is perhaps a trace of the letter “A.”

159

13.67 Marble Inscription7 Pl. 16 85I-SO-26. I8-III/S, 2.1. Max. pres. h. of stone 12.0; max. pres. w. 16; th. 2.8. Large-grained white marble slab, broken away at both sides (it is possible, but not certain, that a top edge survives, and probable, in view of the spacing, that the bottom edge is original); preserves two lines of an incomplete text, which may have consisted of two lines only. H. of letters 5.5 cm.; lunate epsilon and sigma. from a mixed, possibly late Imperial deposit; the lettering is difficult to date in the absence of any other work from the site, but looks to be earlier than the 3rd century A.D. Compare 1985 Report, 71–72, fig. 24. ...]ΙΣΝΗΣΙΩ[... ...]ΡΜΑΡΟΙΣΚΙ[... L.1, there seems to be a stop cut within the first sigma, which would indicate a more significant break than a word ending, certainly than the ending of an article preceding its noun; that militates against restoring τοι [?ς or τα?]ς At the end the first incomplete letter is probably an iota, the second might be zeta, xi or omega; sense requires omega, and although we might have expected its lunate form (ὺ) cutters are not completely consistent in their choice of letter forms. It seems likely that we have part of the word νησιώτης or νησιωτικός. L.2, the first word can hardly be anything but μα]ρμάροις; the second could be part of the word κίων, a column, and a project involving pillars of marble might be envisaged—but too little survives of what is the sense. ...]ις stop νησιω[τ-... ...μα]ρμάροις κι[όνας ?...

Area V, Stone Donald White Architectural Stone (Pl. 17, nos. 13.68–13.70) Throughout the 1989 season, mechanical earth movers were in constant use by local contractors

to remove the dune sand deposited against the lower face of the coastal ridge beneath Area V’s church (S501) for construction elsewhere.8 Their operations brought to light three badly eroded limestone architectural elements. While their

160

MARSA MATRUH

down-slope proximity to the church does nothing to rule against their having been once part of that monument, there is no need to suppose that the church was the only late antique structure to occupy the ridge’s south slope. 13.68

engaged Column Drum Pl. 17 or Shaft fragment 89V-SO-8. Area V, lower ridge scarp, 1.1. Max. pres. length 54; w. 49; max. pres. th. 14. Originally coated with an off-white stucco now badly worn; the outer surface preserves no trace of fluting. Preserves lower surface.

13.69

engaged Column Drum Pl. 17 or Shaft fragment 89V-SO-9. Area V, lower ridge scarp, 1.1. D. 49; max. pres. h. 12. Preserves one of its original ends; other broken off. Stuccoed similarly to 13.68. 13.70

engaged Column Drum Pl. 17 or Shaft fragment 89V-SO-7. Area V, lower ridge scarp, 1.1. D. 33; max. pres. h. 25. Preserves one of its original ends; other broken off. No traces of either fluting or stucco.

Glass and faience Murray McClellan The following catalog does not include fragments of obviously modern bottle glass found on the island’s surface. The island’s tiny collection of stratified post-Bronze Age glass includes no Archaic artifacts, but several fragments of early Roman glass were uncovered. Number 13.74 is a translucent purple ribbed bowl of the first half of the 1st century A.D. The opaque blue glass pendant, 13.76, is likely to be coeval with the bowl. Number 13.73 may be as early as the 5th century A.D., though the simple shape, used for drinking as well as for lamps, lasts into the early modern period. Number 13.71 is an earring pendant lost on the island at some time during the past century.

Glass (Pl. 17, nos. 13.71–13.76) 13.71 Pendant earring Pl. 17 85I-G-1. Sponge-Divers House (S101) interior, 1.1. Length 2.0; w. 1.3; th. 0.9. Tear-shaped green glass with iridescent weathered surface. 19th to early 20th century. 13.72 Blown Glass Cup Pl. 17 85I-G-2. G5-IV/SW Test, 2.1. Max. pres. length 2.4; th. 0.2. Transparent, greenish tinged glass with a weathered, devitrified surface. fragment of outward curving

wall of a small cup of probable Arab-egyptian origin. from an 18th to 19th century deposit. 13.73 Blown Glass Cup Pl. 17 85I-G-5. G5-IV/SW Test, 2.1. Rest. d. of rim 5.5; max. pres. h. 7.1; th. 0.3/0.4. Two joining fragments of the rim and upper body of a cylindrical free-blown cup. exterior of rim has ground beveled edge. While this could be as early as the 5th century A.D., it is more likely to be of Arabegyptian origin, since it was found in an 18th to 19th century deposit. 13.74 Mold-Made Ribbed Bowl Pl. 17 85I-G-3. J8, 1.1. Pres. h. 2.9; pres. w. 3.4; th. from 0.25 to 0.8. Upper body fragment of transparent glass with a purple tinge. Both exterior and interior pitted. On exterior three angled ribs, thick at their top and thinning toward mid-body. On interior, two parallel wheel-cut grooves toward mid body. Traces of wheel grinding on the interior. first half of the 1st century A.D. 13.75 Blown Glass Bowl Base Not ill. 85I-G-4. Underwater off north end of island. Max. pres. h. 1.1; rest. d. of base 4.0. Transparent glass with light purple tinge, slightly pitted. fragment of base and flaring wall of small bowl. Base formed from a flattened tube, leaving a deep grove on the underside. Probably Roman 1st century A.D.

POST-BRONze AGe ARTIfACTS

13.76 Glass Pendant Pl. 17 85I-G-6. I8-III/S, 2.1. Decayed glass, originally probably translucent blue with opaque white decoration. A small pendant in the shape of a one-handled pitcher; apart from two fragments, most of the handle is missing. Rim and body formed around a thin rod whose diameter is 0.2 cm. The small button base was added separately. from a mixed deposit, perhaps as late as the 4th century A.D. Late Hellenistic or later.

161

faience (Pl. 17, no. 13.77) 13.77 faience Gem Pl. 17 85I-MO-14. I8-III/S, 2.1. D. 1.4 cm.; th. 0.7. Small round plano-convex faience token. Blue. from a Roman Imperial level that could date as late as the 4th century A.D.

Terracotta and Plaster Donald White Terracotta (Pls. 17 and 18, nos. 13.78–13.81)

Plaster (Pl. 18, nos. 13.82–13.89)

13.78 Loomweight (?) Pl. 17 85I-TC-1. H3-III/H4-IV (Bates’ dump), 1.1. D. 6.8; th. 1.5; d. of suspension hole 0.8. Circular disk, pierced for suspension. Beige fabric, with tiny dark inclusions, hard-fired.

13.80 Brazier Pl. 17 85I-TC-4. I8-III/S, 5.1. Pres. length 6.5; pres. w. 3.2; th. 2.3. Terracotta slab; reddish brown fabric, pierced with numerous holes and carrying traces of burning. from a 5th century B.C. deposit.

Lumps of plaster, most likely fallen from walls but also perhaps from demolished floors, have been noted in deposits ranging from the Late Bronze Age to the later Roman periods. Nearly all of this material appears to have been plain white, but in a few instances tinted fragments have been reported. The following cataloged entries are the only fragments of decorated wall plaster from the island. The piece from I8-III, 2.1 (13.82) comes from a mixed deposit containing material that could be as late as the fourth century A.D. The seven I9 fragments (13.83–13.89) were retrieved in the course of a test pit dug by the expedition’s geologist Rita Gardner a short distance from the first context, and they were probably part of the internal decoration of the same late room complex (but not necessarily off the same wall).

13.81 “Turkish” Pipe Pl. 18 85I-TC-2. GV-IV, SW Test, 2.1. Max. pres. length 4.3; max. d. of bowl 2.7. Bowl rim; broken; decorated with impressed dots forming a “V” at its base and narrow, concave channels with raised dots around main body of bowl. Torus molding marks the beginning of the stem, which is otherwise missing. A gray, hard-fired fabric, covered with a matt gray slip. from an 18th to19th century deposit. 1985 Report, 66, fig. 16, n. 33. R. Robinson, “Clay Tobacco Pipes from the Kerameikos,” AthMitt 98 (1983) 274, pl. 52.8.

13.82 Painted Plaster fragments Pl. 18 85I-MO-10 I8-III/S, 2.1 Max. pres. h. 8.2; max. pres. w. 7.8; th. 1.85. Two joining fragments of wall plaster with traces of an unidentifiable painted scene. The design, reminiscent of foliage, is painted over a reddish brown background. Along one side appears a 0.3 cm. wide blue band or border. The leaf-shaped elements are reserved against the background and have been overpainted with two shades of green (“forest” and “grass”). By one of the broken edges is a round red element with a stripe of pink highlighting, perhaps a fruit, berry, or

13.79 Bead Pl. 17 85I-TC-3. I8-III/S, 2.1. Length 2.65; d. 2.5; d. of suspension hole 0.6. Rounded bead, pierced lengthwise for suspension. eroded, coarse reddish fabric, with no traces preserved of surface color. from a mixed deposit, perhaps as late as the 4th century A.D.

162

MARSA MATRUH

flower. from a mixed deposit, perhaps as late as the 4th century A.D. and probably early Imperial in date.

with traces of a black, curving design. from an undat ed context.

13.83 Painted Plaster fragment Pl. 18 89I-MO-1a. I9 Test. Length 12.1; w. 6.9; th. 1.3. Traces of orange and brown with black bands forming a border. Green foliage over a purple background within the border. from an undated context.

13.87 Painted Plaster fragment Pl. 18 89I-MO-1e. I9 Test. Length 4.6; w. 2.7; th. 1.0. Two vertical and one horizontal red lines against a yellow background. from the same surface as 13.86? from an undated context.

13.84 Painted Plaster fragment Pl. 18 89I-MO-1b. I9 Test. Length 3.3; w. 2.7; th. 1.3. Traces of purple and green paint. from the same surface as 13.83? from an undated context.

13.88 Painted Plaster fragment Pl. 18 89I-MO-1f . I9 Test. Length 3.3; w. 2.1; th. 1.1. Red line against a yellow background. from the same surface as 13.86 and 13.87? from an undated context.

13.85 Painted Plaster fragment Pl. 18 89I-MO-1c. I9 Test. Length 4.4; w. 2.7; th. 0.9. Pale red, edged on one side with two black bands. from an undated context. 13.86 Painted Plaster fragment Pl. 18 89I-MO-1d. I9 Test. Length 4.5; w. 3.5; th. 1.2. Broad red band along one side; yellow background

13.89 Painted Plaster fragment Pl. 18 89I-MO-1g. I9 Test. Length 2.8; w. 3.0; th. 1.2. White plaster with traces of a border (whose color has largely vanished) on two sides. from an undated context.

Chapter 13 Notes 1. See Vol. I, Chapter. 1. 2. I owe the identification to W.e. Metcalf who informs me that the American Numismatic Society owns three specimens of the coin. 3. See D. White, “Millstones from Morgantina,” AJA 67 (1963) 199–203. 4. See Vol. I, Chapter. 3, pp. 25–32.

5. Off the northeast shore of the fifth lagoon, less than a km. west of the Râs. See Vol. I, Chapter 3, pp. 25, 26, 28. 6. Compare Blitzer, Kommos I, 509–510. 7. The entry has been kindly provided by Joyce Reynolds. 8. Also referred to by Bailey; see Chapter. 12, p. 65.

163

Chapter 14

OTTOMAN ERA lOCAl AND IMPORTED POTTERy James Thorn

Catalog Pottery of the types described in the following catalog was in every case retrieved from the island’s upper occupation levels; presumably, it matches what Bates reported from near surface levels inside as well as outside the Sponge-Divers House (S101).1 Indeed, most of our own cataloged sherds were found closely associated with this structure and, as such, provide our best indications for its 17th century construction date.2 The range of artifacts is purely domestic and may be divided into the following categories: 1. Painted (14.1–14.3) 2. Tin-glazed (14.4) 3. Sgraffito (14.5–14.7) 4. Marbled (14.8, 14.9) 5. Slipped (14.10) 6. Solid or partially solid glazed (14.11–14.17) None of the wares correspond with the presentday fabric sold in Marsa Matruh’s souk, which is a low-fired, dull sand-tempered red fabric. In a volume published in 1809, an Egyptian potier illustrated at work some time after the 1798 French invasion of Egypt3 is shown producing Islamic vessels, which would have been

equally capable of being manufactured in metal. Compared with the Bates’s Island artifacts, these vessels are entirely different, which points to an external origin for at least some of the Marmarican pieces as wares imported into the Ottoman province. In their shapes, the island pieces recall European forms. The plate (14.4) is similar to 17th and 18th century Dutch delftware forms mass-produced on a template, but the thick, poorly-fired tin-glaze enamel points to a non-European source of production. The Marbled Ware plates (14.8, 14.9) are most likely imported Italian Pisa Ware, comparable to fragments from the excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, dated to the late 16th and 17th centuries.4 The green glazed alberéllo (14.13) may have an Italian origin, but the scar left by another vessel touching its interior during the firing process is a mark of rudimentary technology implying a local copy. The virtually complete storage jar (14.10) matches in profile an example at present on display in the Graeco-Roman Room in the Cairo Museum, but the circumstances of the latter’s discovery in Ptolemaic Alexandria are unclear. The Matruh example’s barbotine decoration (14.10), together with its stratified context, suggests a post-antique origin.

164

MARSA MATRuH

Fig. 14:1. Ottoman Era: Painted Wares. On the other hand there seems to be no doubt that the glazed two-handled dish (14.12) and the shallow cooking pot (14.11) are European rather than Ottoman utensils,5 since they can be matched by those often found in 17th century European/British (?) kitchen middens. The Sgraffito Wares also seem to be European forms, 14.5 and 14.6 representing porringers and 14.7 a small charger, but their origin is unclear, and comparisons are, thus far, unavailable to me. In their hard fabric, the painted wares (14.1 to 14.3) exhibit a better quality of production and may be related in terms of their place of local origin to the plate (14.6) and the storage jar (14.10). The cylindrical container (14.17) points to an inferior process, and, to judge from the different runs of glazes and the surface spalling, must be a local product. In summary, the pottery found on Bates’s Island indicates a 17th century occupation of the house, which is further borne out by the expedition’s failure to recover any later, more developed wares—for example, European china—on the island, although a 19th century Greek storage jar identical to jars still used on lesbos for olive production was observed by D. Bailey on the lagoon’s nearby northern shore. Several uninventoried pieces were documented by the author from storage, and they are designated “Not. inv” meaning “not inventoried, and “No strat. loc.” indicating that “no stratigraphical location” was recorded.

Painted Wares (Fig. 14:1, Pl. 18, nos. 14.1–14.3) 14.1 Bowl Fig. 14:1 Not. inv. No strat. loc. Pres. h. 4.0; d. of rim ca. 17.02. Flanged rim. yellow fabric; sand tempered. All surfaces covered with turquoise-colored paint on exterior. Interior decorated with alternating vertical triple stripes in purple-brown and yellow. 14.2 Bowl Fig. 14:1 Not. inv. No strat. loc. Pres. h. 5.3; d. of rim ca. 13.4. Rim fragments decorated with horizontal purplebrown bands and covered in a thin, clear lead glaze. Hard yellow fabric; sand tempered. 14.3 Small Storage Vessel Fig. 14:1; Pl. 18 87I-P-13. H5-I, 1.1. Pres. length 4.2; pres. w. 4.3; th. 0.5; d. of rim 17. Greenish yellow slip on interior and exterior; few inclusions. Purple-brown band on exterior rim. Purplebrown and yellow bands below. Green radial strokes with brown dots at lower right. Two bands on interior. Pinkish buff fabric, well-levigated and with few grits.

Tin-Glazed Ware (Fig. 14:1, no. 14.4) 14.4. Plate Fig. 14:1 Not. inv. G5-IV, SW Test, 2.1. H. 3.9; d. of rim 22.8; d. of ring base 7.3. Exterior and interior surfaces covered with thick layer of white tin-glazed enamel. Hard yellow fabric;

OTTOMAN ERA lOCAl AND IMPORTED POTTERy

165

Fig. 14:2. Ottoman Era: Sgraffito Ware. sand tempered. local copy of 17th–18th century Delftware.

Sgraffito Wares (Fig. 14:2, Pl. 18, nos. 14.5–14.7) 14.5 Double lob-Handled Bowl Fig. 14:2; Pl. 18 85I-P-84. G5-IV, SW Test, 2.1. H. 5; d. of rim 13; wall th. 0.5; d. of base 6. Rim and body frag. with handle. low dish with curved wall that rises to straight rim with rounded lip. low string-cut base. Opposing horizontal palmette

handles, one missing. Interior and exterior coated with lemon-yellow glaze, with 1.2 cm. wide brown band beneath rim. Handle has green glaze on top, and yellow beneath. Bowl interior incised with tulip bud, stem, and leaf design; lines filled in with green glaze. Red visible in bud center and on outer leaf. Fine red fabric, with traces of thin white slip. 14.6 Double-Handled (?) Bowl Fig. 14:2; Pl. 18 85I-P-83. G5-IV, SW Test, 2.1. Pres. h. 3.6; d. of base 6.9; wall th. 0.6. Center of low bowl with curving wall rising from low string-cut base. Tulip design similar to 14.5. Traces

166

MARSA MATRuH

Fig. 14:3. Ottoman Era: Marbled Ware.

of brown, green, and yellow glaze on interior. yellow glaze on exterior. Fine orange brown fabric; white slip. 1985 Report, 66, fig. 15.

Slipped Ware (Fig. 14:4, Pl. 19, no. 14.10)

14.7 Small Plate Fig. 14:2; Pl. 18 85I-P-85. G5-IV, SW Test, 1.1, 2.1. H. 3.5; d. of rim 19.4; d. of base 7.3; wall th. 0.7. Three joining rim frags. of shallow bowl or plate. Flat string-cut base. Gently rising wall; slightly everted rim. Exterior unglazed. Interior incised with central floral design, outer edges with six concentric bands. Traces of brown, green, and yellow glaze. Orange fabric. 1985 Report, 66, fig. 15.

14.10 Storage Jar Fig. 14:4; Pl. 19 89I-P-33. H5-III/SW, 1.1. D. of rim 9.8; d. of base ca. 8.7; wall th. 0.5. Eight fragments of ovoid jar with plain disc base, tall, flaring neck, and plain rim. Junction of neck with body marked by raised line from which hang barbotined bunches of grapes at regular intervals. Black glaze on grapes. light metallic green glaze in area of rim and base. Hard sand-tempered red fabric; traces of thin off-white slip visible on exterior.

Marbled Ware (Fig. 14:3, Pl. 19, nos. 14.8 and 14.9) 14.8 Small Plate Fig. 14:3; Pl. 19 85I-P-86. G5-IV, SW Test, 2.1. H. 3.3; d. of rim ca. 21; d. of base ca. 10; wall th. 0.6. Two joining fragments of base and rim of plate with straight flaring wall, round lip, and flat string-cut base. Exterior unglazed. Interior marbleized with mixture of white and red slips covered with a clear yellow glaze spot-tinted in green. Circular groove run around interior 1.1 cm. below rim. Orange-brown fabric with scant grit inclusions. late 16th or 17th century. 1985 Report, 66, fig. 15. 14.9 Small Plate Fig. 14:3 Not. inv. No strat. loc. H. 3.2; d. of rim 19.8. Rim and body fragment of small plate with marbled decoration similar to 14.8. late 16th or 17th century.

Fig. 14:4. Ottoman Era: Slipped Ware.

OTTOMAN ERA lOCAl AND IMPORTED POTTERy

167

Fig. 14:5. Ottoman Era: Solid Glazed Wares.

Solid Glazed Wares (Fig. 14:5, Pl. 20, nos. 14.11–14.17)

exterior; yellow in interior. Fine, reddish yellow-brown fabric.

14.11 Cooking Pot Fig. 14:5; Pl. 20 87I-P-42. F5-I/W, 2.1. Pres. length 4.7; pres. w. 8.5; wall th. 0.4; d. of rim ca. 17-18. Rim sherd of shallow cooking vessel. Triangular everted rim, with additional ridge on inner surface. Interior and exterior rim coated with transparent glaze. Orange fabric with brown and white inclusions. 17th century European origin?

14.14 Vessel with Tubular Spout Fig. 14:5 Not inv. No strat. loc. H. 2.3; d. 3.0. Tubular spout with its exterior covered with a thin pale turquoise-green glaze. Hard, red fabric; sandtempered. 17th–18th century?

14.12 Two-Handled Dish Fig. 14:5; Pl. 20 85I-P-89. G6-I, 2.1. H. 3.2; handle th. 2.25; d. of base ca. 17; wall th. 0.55. Three joining rim fragments of shallow dish with flaring walls and rim folded over on exterior Opposing horizontal handles (one missing) attached to rim. Purplish black glaze on interior only. Hard, reddish brown fabric. 17th century European origin? 14.13 Alberéllo Fig. 14:5; Pl. 20 85I-P-82. G5-IV, SW Test, 1.1, 2.1. H. 7.8; d. of rim ca. 9; wall th. 0.55. Two joining rim fragments of a small cosmetic jar with slightly concave walls. Small rounded shoulder, and everted rim with rounded lip. Exterior scar may have resulted from contact in kiln with another jar rather than broken-away handle. Dark green glaze on

14.15 Storage Jar Fig. 14:5 Not Inv. No strat. loc. Pres. h. 2.6; d. of rim 5.7. Olive green glaze. Hard, yellow fabric; sand-tempered with red inclusions. 14.16 Flaring Bowl Pl. 20 85I-P-9 G5-IV, SW Test, 2.1. H. 11.3; d. of rim ca. 35; d. of base 10.8; wall th. 0.9–1.4. Three joining fragments of large bowl with ring base set on flat resting surface, 1.9 cm. wide. Flaring straight walls; everted rim with slightly concave horizontal lip. Interior solid green glaze with three flaws from kiln stacking. Exterior unglazed. 14.17 Cylindrical VesselFig. 14:5; Pl. 20 87I-P-48 F5-I/W, 2.1. Pres. h. 7.8; d. of base 8.0; wall th. 0.6. lower body and base fragment of straight-sided cylindrical container. Interior coated with thick light

168

MARSA MATRuH

brown glaze trapping spalled fragment lying on floor. Exterior shows runs of green glaze perhaps picked up from neighboring vessel in kiln. Well-fired pinkish

buff fabric with black and white inclusions. Islamic if not modern.

Chapter 14 Notes 1. See Chapter 4, nn. 24, 25. 2. See Chapter 4 for the Sponge-Divers House. See also Turkish pipe 13.81. 3. N. Buonaparte, Description de l’Égypte ou recueil des observations et des recherches qui ont été faites en Égypte pendant l’expédition de l’armée française publié par les Ordes de sa Majesté l’Empereur Napoléon le Grand II

(Paris 1809) pl. 22. 4. J.W. Hayes, Excavations at Sarachane in Istanbul II: The Pottery (Princeton 1992) 272, 344, pls. 51ff. 5. As pointed out to me in personal conversation by Dr. David Gaimster, Curator of the British Museum’s Department of Mediaeval and Modern Europe.

169

Chapter 15

A FINAL SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE Linda Hulin and Donald White

Late Bronze Age Linda Hulin Bates’s Island is a unique type of site. It is not a snapshot in time, as represented by shipwreck sites such as Uluburun and Cape Gelidonya, because the ceramic reports clearly demonstrate that the island enjoyed at least 50 years of activity and short-term occupation for as much as 150 years, and it is also not a typical land-based site, such as Tell el-Ajjul or Tell Abu Hawwam. Its extreme physical isolation, without a hinterland of any appreciable size, means that, ideally, every single artifact has significance as an intra- or inter-regional import and should be addressed as such. Moreover, the archaeological remains are significant in that they afford us a unique, if blurred and partial, view of the meeting of three very different social and economic systems: the Libyan, the Egyptian, and the east Mediterranean maritime (a term embracing the not wholly compatible Levantine and Aegean worlds). The facts, reduced to the barest minimum, are simple: two clusters of modest plastered rooms were constructed on a small island in a lagoon close to the north African shore and served as a shelter/revictualing station for passing sailors, who seemingly exchanged small, made-on-thespot metal items and other, more archaeologically elusive goods, for meat, fish, ostrich egg shells and, presumably, water. However, it is important

to note that the existence of this revictualing stop, so remote from significant land-based trade routes, depended as much upon the means as the motive of the enterprise. The direction of the east Mediterranean trade routes,1 once thought to follow an anti-clockwise route, are now recognized to be more complex, with ships choosing to follow either the anti-clockwise or the clockwise route, partially or wholly as needs required.2 A southerly route was clearly a viable, if less reliable option, especially, but not exclusively, in the autumn, and indeed, inter-island trade, notably from Crete and Cyprus to all points, seems to have been vigorously and independently pursued.3 In any event, whichever the route, the lagoon system at Marsa Matruh seems to have been the best harbor between Cyrenaica and the Egyptian delta,4 and it was clearly a recognized stopping point in the international trade cycle. The motive for it becoming so is less obvious. The Eastern Marmarican coast represents, at ca. 450 km., the longest and driest stretch on the route, regardless of direction, but not so arduous that it was vital to a ship’s survival to break the journey; and even if this were the case, this only partially explains the selection of that particular spot. The seas around Marsa Matruh can be very rough, especially in winter,5 and to have had to

170

MARSA MATRUH

rely on Bates’s Island for food and water would surely have been incautious in the extreme. There must, then, have been an economic imperative that drew the ships in, one that, in the first instance, probably involved the indigenous inhabitants of the area, the Libyans. The archaeological evidence for the Libyans in the 2nd millennium B.C. is so sparse as to make the historical record seem almost abundant, despite the fact that any picture we can draw must be cobbled together from a number of anachronistic sources. Apart from the occasional reference to their cattle,6 the Egyptians seem largely to have ignored the Libyans until the later 18th Dynasty, with the exception of an expedition under Hatshepsut to Libya, or possibly one of the oases, perhaps where Libyans were to be met.7 In the later 18th Dynasty, Libyan chiefs and ambassadors emerged from obscurity to attend court proceedings at the court of Akhenaten,8 and Libyans also participated in tribute processions.9 Akhenaten, setting the tone for much of the ensuing Libyan/Egyptian relations, even counted Libyan mercenaries in his personal escort.10 However, in regard to the Late Bronze Age occupation of Bates’s Island, most of our roughly contemporary information about the Libyans comes from their increasingly hostile encounters with the Egyptians. Successive Pharaohs of the 19th and 20th Dynasties tried to stem their eastward progression, acts doomed to failure with large-scale settlement in the western delta and the subsequent foundation of Libyan monarchies as the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th Dynasties.11 Later, a number of the Classical Greek authors were to concern themselves with the Iron Age Libyans.12 The inhabitants of the western desert were not, even for the Egyptians, a homogeneous group. The edges of the western delta, the oases, and the Marmarica generally were occupied by the Tjeh.nu, distinguished in their dress by phallus-sheaths and in their hair ornaments by feathers and a side curl.13 The Tjemeh, the other prominent tribe of the 18th Dynasty, were red-haired, white-skinned, and blue-eyed, and seem to have dwelt in Cyrenaica, as did the Libu and Meshwesh, dominant tribes in the Libyan coalition of the 19th and 20th Dynasties, along with the Soped and

Keh.ek.14 Interestingly, a fragmentary inscription from Zawiyet Umm el-Rakham, only 25 km. west of Marsa Matruh, refers to fortresses and wells of the Tjemeh, indicating that the eastern limit of this group extended, at least by the time of Ramesses II, and possibly Merenptah, this far into Marmarica.15 The Libyans (a term used here in the later Egyptian sense, as a generalized term for all of these tribal groupings) were mhwt, a word for family, which, when applied to the Libyans and the Shasu of Palestine, apparently meant a kinship-based society.16 The Libyans were clearly associated with the desert, and they appear in Tomb 2 at Tell el-Amarna, known as Merye’s Tomb, for example, offering ostrich eggs and feathers,17 while Herodotus noted later that the Macae, to the east of Cyrenaica, wore bucklers made of ostrich skins.18 However, some at least were also pastoralists: much-prized Meshwesh cattle were traded at the Dakhla oasis as early as the Middle Kingdom19 and were included in the herds of an official of Amenhotep III;20 Herodotus took interest in the famous backward-grazing cattle of the Garamantes, so-called because their long, curving horns made it impossible for them to move forward with their heads down.21 The booty lists of Merenptah and Ramesses III include not only cattle, but also large numbers of sheep, goats, and asses taken in the Second Libyan war,22 and Herodotus quoted an oracle from Delphi referring to Libya as the “country of the sheepfolds.”23 Certainly livestock rearing is the normal mode of production in marginal desert areas, since it has a limited impact on a fragile environment, and is still carried out to a limited extent in the Marsa Matruh region today. But however important the rearing of livestock was in the economy of the Libyans, it cannot have been the sole mode of production. Ramesses III referred to the towns of the Meshwesh in general,24 and specifically to the town of a Libu chief, one Meryey.25 That these towns were situated in Cyrenaica, rather than Marmarica comes as no surprise, since it is there that sufficient agricultural land to sustain significant settlement is located. Indeed, Herodotus recorded that around the region of Cyrene the

A FINAL SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

locals were able to exploit three harvest seasons: on the coast, in the hills, and in the Jebel Akhdar.26 The Auschisae, a little farther east, apparently left their flocks on the coast in the summer, and withdrew inland to harvest date palms and locusts. Theophrastus also noted that sheep were driven inland in search of pasture. Such practices echo the transhumance practices recorded by Behnke27 among the Bedouin of the region: where young men moved inland in search of rain-fed pasture in the winter, leaving older members of the community to tend to the crops on the coast. The young men returned to the coast to harvest the crops in the late spring and stayed in large temporary camps there throughout the summer, allowing the flocks to forage in the fields. That the ancient Libyan towns were significant settlements, and not merely agricultural communities, is suggested by the fact that, at the court of Akhenaten, Libyan dignitaries were grouped with the free trading areas of Punt and North Syria, rather than with the subject areas of Nubia and Palestine.28 Certainly, Egypt does not appear to have been the sole trading partner of the Libyans: the presence of substantial numbers of gold and silver items in the booty lists, together with a range of metal implements, domestic and military (including Sherden-type swords), none of which are likely to have been produced locally, given the lack of resources,29 attest to regular relations with the Mediterranean world. Indeed, the Libyan alliances with the Sea Peoples in the Second Libyan war could hardly have been possible otherwise. One should expect, therefore, to find other stopping points in Cyrenaica that would have served the international traffic.30 The archaeological record of the Libyans in the second millennium B.C., taken by itself, is decidedly sparse. Rock art (Equid phase) points to a pastoral economy, but it also includes horses and chariots (recalling the chariotry units that also appear in Egyptian reliefs).31 Haua Fteah, a cave on the Cyrenaican coast, remains the most important site for this phase and most other prehistoric periods in the region, containing occupations dating from the Middle Paleolithic to the Historic period, where good pottery and lithic assemblages were identified.32 Neolithic assem-

171

blages have also been identified at other Cyrenaican sites33 and in the Tripolitanian desert.34 Ostrich eggshells, some of them decorated, occur throughout the region.35 Of architecture there is very little evidence, although circular stone structures identified by Bates as animal pens and by Carter as cult structures and animal pens may date to this period.36 Similar round structures have been found in the Libyan squatter phase at Zawiyet Umm el-Rakham (postMerenptah year 5).37 Against this background, Oric Bates’s excavations in the Marsa Matruh area provided a major contribution to the understanding of the Libyans, and particularly his recovery, along a ridge east of the city, of five cist burials accompanied by stone vessels, pottery, and mollusk shells.38 Particularly important were Bates’s discovery of sherds of Cypriot White Slip II milk bowls on his island,39 which provided, for the first time, hard evidence for direct contact between the Libyans and the Mediterranean world. Subsequently, possible Minoan and Mycenaean sherds were found out of context along the Cyrenaican coast,40 while the so-called Libyan fresco at Thera has prompted a wide range of discussions on contact between Crete and Libya.41 Nevertheless, it is only with the current excavations at Marsa Matruh that the extent of the contact between the Libyans and the Mediterranean world has been realized, with not only Minoan, Mycenaean, and Cypriot pottery being found, but also Canaanite. Although Libyan pottery has not been found on the island itself, the presence of ostrich eggshells and stone tools clearly indicate that those who came to Bates’s Island were not indifferent to the indigenous population.42 Nor were they ignored by them: a rock carving of a clearly Mediterranean ship exists as far south as the Dakhla oasis.43 The activities on Bates’s Island, Marsa Matruh, reflect a shadow of that larger, more active Libyan world to be found in Cyrenaica and points east. Herodotus pointed out that “from Egypt to the Tritonian lake” the Libyans were nomadic, dependant upon meat and milk production, because the region is sandy and low-lying.44 However, the region around Marsa Matruh provides the exception to this topography, with

172

MARSA MATRUH

exceptionally fertile soil supplied in winter by heavy rains and in summer by wells, which can tap aquifers fed by the Libyan plateau.45 In fact, Marsa Matruh may well have been the westernmost habitable area for the Libyans, providing an “island” of crop-growing and good summer pasturage, enabling the locals to provide mariners with food and water all year round. This last point is worth stressing, because the dependability of a local presence must have contributed in no small part to the seafarers’ willingness to put in. No one would have wanted to risk valuable supplies waiting for the Libyans to turn up, however desirable ostrich eggs (or other luxury/perishable items) may have been. The activities on Bates’s Island seem to have been very modest, on the level of trinkets for the natives (contra Richardson,46 who seems to have overestimated the significance of the metals trade at the site). Even if the commodities traded were more substantial, it can hardly have been supposed that the goods that the nomadic Libyans of the region around Marsa Matruh had to offer would have rivaled the trade opportunities to be found in the Libyan settlements farther west. However, there is one more local community to add into the equation: the Egyptians. Apart from an ivory knife and an offering table of the Middle Kingdom,47 nothing has been found along the Marmaric coast that pre-dates the time of Ramesses II, when a chain of fortresses was strung along the fringes of the western delta and along the coast as far west as present-day Zawiyet Umm el-Rakham.48 The latter represents the most substantial New Kingdom remains in the whole of Marmarica. The next closest remains to Marsa Matruh, a collection of statue and stela fragments at el-Alamein, include a mention of the Libyan wars.49 Thus, the presence of significant quantities of Egyptian pottery on Bates’s Island demands some explanation. Conwell50 views them as secondary evidence of Libyan trade with the Egyptians, doubtless picked up either on the fringes of the delta or in the oases. Excluding Siwa, which was not occupied until Ptolemaic times,51 the oases were variously brought under Egyptian control by the Middle Kingdom, if not earlier,

partly for their own value and partly to protect trade routes with the Sudan, notably the Darba el-Arba’in.52 How relevant this may be to the tribes on the coast is a vexing, if pertinent question. While at least some of the Libyans (in Cyrenaica) had access to asses, horses, and chariots, significant cross-desert travel is not possible without the camel, and the extent to which the camel was used, in even a quasi-domesticated state, prior to the 1st millennium is uncertain. A model of a camel with panniers dating to the Old Kingdom (6th Dynasty?) was found at Gurob.53 However, the fact that the Egyptians, ever on the look-out for the exotic, did not include the camel in their tomb or temple records, or in any written account, suggests that it was not commonly met with, even at the oases. Still, the presence of Meshwesh (and their cattle) at Dakhla oasis is something of a mystery, unless one envisages a transhumant population orbiting the oases and the Nile Valley, and possibly the coast. In any event, Marsa Matruh probably did not belong to this circuit, lying too far to the west and surrounded by large tracts of inhospitable desert. Leaving aside Alexander’s visit to Matruh in 332 B.C., contact between Siwa, the nearest oasis to Marsa Matruh (600 km. to the south), and the coast was regularized only from the Ptolemaic period onwards.54 The pocket of arable land around Marsa Matruh was most probably linked to Cyrenaica to the west by the belt of marginal pasture on the gebel behind the coast. Marsa Matruh would, thus, have been socially oriented in that direction, as the inscription from Zawiyet Umm el-Rakham referred to earlier implies. The escape of the Libyan chief Meryey behind the Fortress of the West, thought to be Zawiyet Umm elRakham, may be viewed in this context.55 On these grounds, the presence of Egyptian pottery on Bates’s Island would best be explained by not merely secondary, but possibly even tertiary trading. However, apart from single exceptions (one jug, 8.62, one cooking pot, 8.74, one unidentified slab, 8.48, and some jars of differing types, 8.28, 8.29, and 8.49), the Egyptian pottery found on Bates’s island consists mostly of open bowls in various sizes. It cannot be emphasized enough that this is not a transport shape; rather, it

A FINAL SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

suggests the presence of a garrison, or at least a ration-apportioning institution, as a comparison with the ceramic profiles of the Residency levels at Beth-Shan or Tell es-Sayidiyeh affirm.56 White has already pointed out that the Bronze Age facilities on Bates’s Island are unlikely to reflect the true extent of activity in the region,57 and it seems most probable that, despite the lack of evidence, there was a more substantial Egyptian presence on the mainland itself. The reason for that presence is unclear, since, at least at the time of the earlier occupation of the island, relations between the Egyptians and their western neighbors appear to have been cordial (above), although it can hardly be supposed that the Egyptians went to the Matruh areas solely to take advantage of the trade opportunities there. Nevertheless, if the Egyptians wished to engage, in whatever capacity, with the Libyans, the Marsa Matruh/Zawiyet Umm el-Rakham region represented the nearest habitable point of contact, and it is possible that Egyptian presence in this area marks a consciousness of and a statement of their western border at the time of contact. Quirke has concluded, from a study of Middle Kingdom material,58 that the boundary between military and economic activity on the borders of Egypt was fluid, and it is clear from the Amarna correspondence that this situation was also true for later periods.59 In any event, garrisons were required to provision themselves from the surrounding district, a condition that would not have been possible farther east. The Egyptian inhabitants of the region certainly took advantage of the maritime trade that passed along the coast during the later phases of the Umm elRakham site, as the presence of Cypriot pottery, notably large Base Ring tankards and Base Ring II teapots attest,60 and there is no reason to suppose that they would not have done so earlier. Certainly, the profile of the Aegean and Cypriot wares in the assemblage, most notably the presence of White Shaved and Monochrome wares, reflects the situation found in Canaan, rather than in Egypt itself.61 Nevertheless, the extent to which the Egyptians were involved with the activities on Bates’s Island remains open to conjecture: it is impossible to judge whether they

173

were the controlling interest, or merely active partners/clients. The most significant element in the remains from Bates’s Island is the absolutely non-local pottery: that from Palestine and, predominantly, from Cyprus. The period of activity on Bates’s island, from just before and possibly just into the Amarna period (i.e., mid-14th century) to sometime in the latter half of the 13th century (presumably no later than year 5 of Merenptah, when the fortress at Zawiyet Umm el-Rakham was abandoned and Egyptians relinquished control of the area) marks both the zenith and the break-up of the great east Mediterranean trade networks of the Late Bronze Age. The Mycenaeans were an active force in this trade, and their pottery is found in impressive quantities in the Levant62 (particularly at Ugarit63), in Cyprus,64 and to a lesser extent in Egypt65 and points farther west as far as Spain.66 The Mycenaeans were, following their occupation and subsequent control of Crete,67 the inheritors of the Minoan empire, which, it has been argued, appears to have channeled much of its activity through the island of Cyprus, possibly for strategic maritime reasons.68 However, there is no doubt that by the dawn of the Amarnan age the Cypriots themselves had emerged as a major trading force, and they maintained this position for the next two centuries, most probably as the result of increased export of copper from the island.69 Enkomi, Kition, and Hala Sultan Tekke, cities with access to reasonable anchorages on the south-eastern side of the island (i.e., closest to the Levantine coast) developed into vigorous centers of international trade where luxury and mundane goods from all over the eastern Mediterranean have been found, and where rich tombs and impressive public buildings, indicators of real wealth, have been unearthed.70 Indeed, it is looking ever more likely that it was the Cypriots who were the driving force behind trade in the central and eastern Mediterranean. Wherever Mycenaean pottery occurs in Egypt or the Levant, Cypriot pottery is sure to be found alongside it, usually in greater quantities.71 The Uluburun shipwreck, dating to the 14th century, could be interpreted as a Cypriot trading ship, given its cargo of Cypriot

174

MARSA MATRUH

copper and its large Cypriot storage vessels containing Cypriot fine wares.72 The Point Iria vessel, some two hundred years later, although not carrying as wealthy a load, included large Cypriot pithoi in its cargo, and the Gelidonya wreck also carried a wide range of Cypriot wares.73 More tangible evidence for Cypriot control of trade is emerging from the study of pot marks, where it seems that the Cypro-Minoan script was used to mark both Mycenaean pottery and Canaanite jars.74 Large Cypriot storage jars have been found at Kommos in Crete,75 and Linear B tablets from Knossos mention trade in a wide range of perishable goods, from textiles to coriander,76 indicating that Crete was also included in the Cypriot orbit, although not exclusively. Various trade mechanisms have been delineated from these diverse regions. The area for which we have the most evidence (of a more or less contemporary nature) is Palestine, where quantities of economic documents have been preserved at Ugarit.77 Documents also come from Syria,78 el-Amarna,79 Crete,80 and Greece.81 The dominant pattern, with local variations, appears to have been the city-kingdom and its associated hinterland. The fundamental economic unit was the Palace, in whose interest all trade took place, with economic dispersal achieved through a widely developed royal service system conducted by royal dependants.82 Thus, most trade can be characterized as state-to-state trade, or gift exchange;83 this is perhaps best attested to, archaeologically speaking, by the Uluburun shipwreck, which carried ten tons of copper and one ton of tin,84 an immense load assumed to be beyond the means of ordinary tradesmen. Thus, it may well be that the traders who took advantage of the facilities and opportunities afforded by Bates’s Island may have been bent on grand missions as state emissaries; the archaeological remains from this site can, by the nature of things, leave no record of the main purpose of the voyagers. Nevertheless, it is clear that another economic network was also in operation at the site. This system was initially characterized by Artzy85 as “sailor’s trade,” i.e., one-to-one barter

by crewmembers for their own, rather than the state’s benefit. It is becoming apparent that a wide-spread system of trade in relatively valueless items such as pottery (Sherratt’s value-added items) was in operation in the Mediterranean, having developed opportunistically on the back of the grander trade networks in copper, tin, and other valuable commodities.86 The remains from Room S102, in particular, indicate that metal trinkets (pins and the like) were manufactured on the spot in exchange for materials of some kind, be it food, water, ostrich eggs, or a combination of all three (and more). While it is possible that luxury items such as ostrich eggs were exchanged for baubles and trinkets, as in the great slave triangle trade of the 19th century in Africa, it is also arguable that the remains from Bates’s Island represent, perhaps, the first tangible evidence for the informal barter of small items of trade or sustenance. The remaining two centuries of the Late Bronze Age, before the general collapse of the great economic powers of the east Mediterranean, saw a gradual decentralization of production.87 Moreover, it is interesting to note that the local manufacture (copying) of imported goods (Sherratt’s import substitution) increased during the period under discussion.88 This phenomenon is arguably representative of the jostling for social display of an emerging nouvelle elite, which manifests itself in the archaeological record by an extreme variation of form in pottery, small arts, and architecture visible in the whole of the east Mediterranean.89 The picture that emerges from the remains found on Bates’s Island suggests that informal/tramping/sailor’s trade may have flourished for some time before the loosening of the palatial economies. The later finds, especially those that were retrieved from the surface layers of Bates’s Island, may well represent a lingering trade being conducted against a background of increasing economic activity by small groups of people filling the gap left by the general economic collapse at the end of the Late Bronze Age.

A FINAL SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

Some Chronological Questions In the eyes of the excavators, this chapter presents a reasonable picture of the activities at Marsa Matruh, which began in the 15th/early 14th century (based on the Aegean evidence) and continued into the 13th (based on Egyptian/Palestinian evidence); the bulk of the pottery dates to LH IIIA:1 and 2. Although the details lie outside the scope of a site report such as this, problems surrounding the absolute chronology of the eastern Mediterranean remain a much-discussed topic.90 Nevertheless, the date of LH IIIA/LH IIIB transition has a direct bearing upon our interpretation of the site, since, as it stands, the activities at Matruh occurred significantly earlier than previously known Egyptian activity in the area. Egyptian and

175

Cypriot ceramics are not stratigraphically separable on Bates’s Island (Appendix II, pp. 191–194). The circulation of Cypriot pottery in the Levant also has a bearing on this problem. Table 1 shows the different absolute dates of relevance to Bates’s Island that have been assigned to the Late Helladic. In Chapter 7, Pam Russell follows the high chronology for her dating sequence for the Cypriot pottery. The Pharaonic accession dates follow the Middle Chronology, which is used more generally in the Egyptological literature. In an attempt to avoid the complications involved in trying to reconcile High, Middle, and Low Chronologies, Table 2 presents the dates of Late Helladic ware with reference to Pharaonic reigns.

Table 1. Absolute Dates New High Chronology

Traditional Chronology

Pharaonic Accession Dates*

LH IIIA:1

1490–1430 B.C.

1400–1370 B.C.

Amenophis III

1391 B.C.

LH IIIA:2

1430–1365 B.C.

1370–1325 B.C.

Akhenaten

1353 B.C.

Tutankhamun

1336 B.C.

Horemheb

1323 B.C.

Seti I

1294 B.C.

Ramesses II

1279 B.C.

LH IIIB

*

1365–1200 B.C.

1325–1180 B.C.

Accession dates of Pharaohs after von Beckerath 1997

Table 2. Pharaonic Reigns Traditional

Revised

LH IIB

Late Tuthmosis III early Amenophis III

early 18th–early Tuthmosis III

LH IIIA:1

Amenophis III

Tuthmosis III–Amenophis III

LH IIIA:2

Amenophis III–Horemheb

Amenophis III–end, or just after, removal Akhetaten

LH IIIB

Horemheb–end 19th dynasty

end Akhetaten/early Tutankhamun–near end 19th dynasty

176

MARSA MATRUH

Chronology of LH IIA:2/LH IIIB THE END OF THE OCCUPATION AT AKHETATEN A large quantity of Mycenaean pottery (1,329 sherds, according to Hankey,91 although figures vary) from a limited range of contexts was found in Akhenaten’s city: the dumps associated with the Great Palace (1,329 sherds), the Great Palace (9) itself, and 3 sherds in middle ranking houses nearby. Hankey stated that one stirrup jar fragment, AKUB 295.15, should be classified as Furumark Shape 171 or 173, which, together with its lozenge pattern, place it early in LH IIIB:1.92 Another sherd, UC.725 + 742, also from a stirrup jar, was classified as FS 182, and with its multiple stem decoration (FM 19) was also classified as belonging to LH IIIB:1 early.93 This being the case, Warren and Hankey argued that the LH IIIA:2/LH IIIB transition took place during the Amarna period that is, no later than Year 3 of Tutankhamun, when the court, the presumed market for Aegean fine wares, relocated to Memphis.94 Kaiser and Podzuweit both cast doubts upon the classification of AKUB 295.15, the former on stylistic grounds and the latter on the difficulty of dating stirrup jars in the Argolid, the origin of much of the Amarna material.95 These doubts were echoed by Wiener and supported by the assessments of Mountjoy and French.96 Equally pertinent is the extent to which Akhetaten was abandoned after Year 3 of Tutankhamun. Warren and Hankey defended placing the LH IIIA:2 / LH IIIB transition to Year 3 on the grounds that the type of person left in the city after that (pig-keepers in the Workmen’s Village, for instance), would not have been in a position to acquire exotic pottery.97 This does not take into account that, from a purely practical point of view, any occupation of the Workmen’s Village would not have been viable without support of some kind from the Main City; indeed, there is evidence that that was occupied well into Tutankhamun’s reign, i.e., after the removal of the court.98 The lack of Aegean wares in the walled village may not present problems. Cypriot and Mycenaean pottery was found at Deir el Medina,99 and, it has been argued that at Amarna the wealthier segments of such a

community—the painters, scribes and foremen, etc.—may not have lived in the Workmen’s Village at all, given the proximity of the North Suburbs to the tombs.100 That the city lived on is not in doubt; Horemheb erected a stele in a temple there, presumably before his destruction of the town. Even Hankey was willing to define the “Amarna period” as one extending down to the accession of Horemheb, some eleven years after the removal of the court.101 It has been suggested that it was standing at least until Ramesses II used it as a quarry.102 Bell, presenting what initially seemed to be an extreme view, preferred to wait for further evidence before relying upon Amarna to date the LH IIIA:2/LH IIIB:1.103 SAQQARA TOMBS Shaft C of the Tomb of Tia and Tia yielded a stirrup jar (FS 183); a second stirrup jar of the same type, part of a cup (FS 220, with pattern FP 59), and a White Slip II bowl came from a surface deposit.104 This tomb dates to the reign of Ramesses II, but these contexts may have been contaminated by material from the nearby tomb of Horemheb. Chamber E from the same tomb complex, associated with the functionary Iurudef, contained another stirrup jar, FS 178, 179, or 182, bearing decoration FM 41.12, again LH IIIA:2– LH IIIB transition.105 Two stirrup jars were found in the Tomb of Maya and Merit; Warren and Hankey classified these as borderline late LH IIIA:2 or early LH IIIB.106 Maya served as Treasurer to Tutankhamun and was buried no later than year 7 or 8 of Horemheb.107 Mycenaean LH IIIA:2 and LH IIIB:1 pottery was found in Shaft 1 of the Memphite (pre-regnal) tomb of Horemheb and in nine upper rooms.108 Shaft 1 was re-used, or possibly used for the first time, by a daughter of Ramesses II who died in the reign of Merenptah. SESEBI, NUBIA LHIIIA:2 pottery was found in houses dating to the reign of Akhenaten (while he still reigned

A FINAL SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

as Amenophis IV) and Tutankhamun.109 It also occurs, however, in the magazines dating to Seti I. Certainly, no Mycenaean pottery was found in Amarna West, which was occupied during the reign of Ramesses II, but this merely highlights the fact that the transition probably had occurred by then. GUROB Gurob was the site of an important 18th dynasty center with the House and “Burnt Groups” yielding LH IIIA:2 and LH IIIB pottery. Petrie dated it to the reigns of Amenophis III and Tutankhamun.110 Bell redated these to the reign of Ramesses II at the earliest. She noted that these groups were from mixed loci and disturbed strata and were thus not reliable for chronological purposes,111 although Warren and Hankey considered that a LH IIIB stirrup jar from a pit dated to Tutankhamun was sound.112 An intact LH IIIB:1 stirrup jar (FS 182.22, shoulder decoration FM 19.31) was found in Tomb 605 in Cemetery H, apparently part of an 18th–19th dynasty cemetery complex. A scarab of Ramesses II also was found in that tomb. Furumark regarded this a closed deposit, yielding a firm date for LH IIIB.113 Bell pointed out that the deposit was not closed but confirmed a date to Ramesses II, probably early in his reign, albeit with reservations, given the difficulty of dating this shape in the Argolid. She cited six other parallels in Egypt, all from early 19th dynasty contexts.114 In his reassessment of Tomb 6 in Cemetery W, D. Aston also regarded the presence of a LH IIIB:1 sherd as consistent and contemporary with 19th dynasty Egyptian pottery (from a mixed 19th–20th dynasty context).115 THE DATE Thus, as it stands, there is not, contra Betancourt, general agreement on Aegean chronology from LM IIIA:2 (and thus LH IIIA:2) until the end of the Late Bronze Age.116 Although it seems

177

clear that LH IIIA:2 lasted into the reign of Tutankhamun, and that LH IIIB was underway by the reign of Ramesses II, it is not certain when the transition occurred. There is growing evidence to suggest that LH IIIA:2 lasted into the early years of Horemheb, but it is by no means certain whether it also continued into the reign of Seti I. Wiener’s suggested dates of 1320–1300 B.C. for the transition seem increasingly likely.117 Certainly in the Levant—at Lachish, Tell Abu Hawwam, Kamid el-Loz, and Megiddo—LH IIIB is absent from pre-19th dynasty contexts.118 New advances in dendrochronology offer the promise of resolving some of these dating problems (or at least of advancing our knowledge of the issues involved).119

Cypriot Pottery The Cypriot pottery aboard the Uluburun shipwreck belongs to the LC IIC period, slightly later than that found at Bates’s Island. Nevertheless, it is clear that, when examined closely, the chronological position of White Slip II and Base Ring II wares is similarly unclear. In the potter’s Workshop at Haruba in northern Sinai, Monochrome, White Shaved, White Slip II early and Normal, and Base Ring I and II (early) were found in late 18th/early 19th dynasty contexts.120 At the fortress at Haruba, which continued in official use until the time of Seti II, White Slip II Normal, White Shaved wares, and Base Ring I and II jugs and juglets were found alongside LH IIIB pottery.121 Bergoffen gathers together a number of examples of White Slip II Normal in 13th century contexts.122 Gittlen’s catalog, if not his arguments, also provides convincing evidence for the export of non-degenerated forms of Base Ring II and White Slip II wares in good LB IIB contexts.123 In Cyprus, even the validity of the terms Base Ring I and II have been called into question by Vaughan, who notes a chronological overlap between the two, certainly down past the LH IIIA:2–LH IIIB transition (LC IIB–C), however it is defined.124

178

MARSA MATRUH

Conclusion The suggestion that the LH IIIA:2–LH IIIB:1 transition might have occurred as late as the reign of Seti I, or at least Horemheb, has interesting implications for Bates’s Island, since it pulls the main activity of the site closer to the establishment of the fortress of Zawiyet Umm el-Rakham, and other known Egyptian activity in the area.125

Ramesses II established a chain of fortresses along the western delta and desert to deal with the Libyan pressure which first became serious in the reign of his predecessor Seti I. The ceramic history of Bates’s Island echoes the ambiguities and long history of the find spots of Aegean material in Egypt proper, and indeed in the Levant. Clearly these questions need to be examined in the future.

Historical Postscript: The Post-Bronze Age Island Donald White As has been already stressed on more than one occasion, no verifiable material evidence (known to the writer, at least) has been preserved from which to gauge the full spread and extent of the Late Bronze Age occupation of the combined Matruh area. That fact notwithstanding, Bates’s Island can be assumed to have played at least something of an archetypal role by showing how other sites around the west lagoon, on the southern shore of the main harbor, and possibly elsewhere farther east along the eastern lagoon series might have been put to use in the same period. On the other hand, this use seems clearly not to have been the case after activities resume on the island from the 8th century B.C. onward. In other words, the island’s restricted number of 8th to 5th century B.C. sherds fails to substantiate more than indirect and infrequent contact between it and the outside world and effectively sheds no light on the identity and character of the rest of the surrounding area. Whether that contact was the consequence of land or sea trade is also left in doubt, although the presence of transport amphora sherds126 might seem to point to the latter. And if Plutarch’s tale of the companions of Cimon traveling after his death in 449 B.C. from Siwa to the “camp of the Hellenes” on the coast is in fact a reference to Matruh,127 it fails to clarify whether we are dealing with a permanent settlement with sea contacts to the outside world or

merely a stopping-off place for caravans. Apart from this story and the jejune tale of how Alexander came to name Matruh Paraitonion during his Siwa excursion of 332 B.C.,128 the preRoman town’s only other cameo appearance in the historical record emerges in connection with a single minor side-affair in Magas’ failed land expedition against his half-brother, Ptolemy II Philadelphus.129 The sum-total of the archaeological evidence for the town’s occupation during these same years does not represent much of an improvement, being again restricted to a few sherds from the island.130 The area’s earliest attested historical period structure is a cistern discovered 7 km. southwest of Matruh town. With the Plasterer Isalas’s signature scrawled on its wall in 6 B.C.,131 this modest benchmark monument dates a full generation after Antony’s defeat at Actium had driven him to whatever constituted the Ptolemaic town of Paraitonion.132 Leaving aside the question of the final disposition of his fleet (usually thought to have been trapped and sunk in the Western Lagoon by Octavian’s general, Cornelius Gallus),133 nothing has thus far been recovered of the preRoman town, while modern real estate development has dimmed chances of much ever being found in the future.134 Dio Cassius and Orosius, our two main sources for Antony’s involvement with Paraitonion, assert no proof of Cleopatra’s

A FINAL SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

having ever visited the town despite the implication by Plutarch that she might have briefly domiciled there before fleeing to Alexandria after Actium.135 This leaves De Prorok’s “golden palace” of Cleopatra with its underground passages, mosaic, and emerald necklace as little more than the bogus invention of a hyper-stimulated travel-writer’s imagination.136 By the time the Roman town comes into focus to the extent that it has been revealed by the discoveries of Fourtau and Bates and their various successors, the urban core stretches from the coastal ridge north of the Western Lagoon to the east end of the East Lagoon,137 with the main urban concentration centered on the southern shore of the main harbor,138 in the area of Fourtau’s villa along the south shore of the Western Lagoon,139 and the coastal ridge north of the Western Lagoon.140 Signs of suburban development pick up west of the town where Walpole’s underground aqueduct intersects the coastal ridge141 and were at one time detectable as far east as Râs Alam el-Rûm, if Fourtau’s report is to be believed.142 Tombs found well to the south of the harbor and along the top of the Great Ridge presumably demarcate the city’s southern limits.143 Our own discoveries of now submerged walls and sherds on the lagoon floor north and east of Bates’s Island suggest that the water stood lower in the Roman period and that the island may have been connected to the nearby shore by the sandbar visible off its northeast end.144 Despite its marginally increased landmass, there is nothing to indicate that the island played more than a very minor role in the town’s life and economy. A 4th to 5th century A.D. Phocean Red Slip Ware bowl and some Egyptian Type A and Type B wine-amphorae sherds do little more than indicate occasional occupation through the 4th century A.D. and beyond, but whether this was restricted to daytime activities or was continuous is almost impossible to say. Apart from potsherds, the island’s principal later finds are limited to a single Trajanic copper

179

coin, a fragmentary pre-3rd century A.D. marble inscription, part of a sandstone triglyph, a piece of marble revetment, miscellaneous bronze and iron nails (of which some may be post-antique), a few simple bronze tools, a poor range of glass, and several scatters of bits of plain and painted wall plaster associated with J8-I/II’s wall S109a, I8-III/S’s wall S105, the S135 floor in I6-I/II, the I9 grid square test, and possibly whatever structure(s) pre-existed the Sponge-Divers House (S101). The marble inscription and triglyph have the feel of objects originally used for something else, and why they made their way to the island is hard to say. On the other hand, the marble revetment fragment still backed with plaster grout and the various chunks of wall and floor plaster, especially the painted wall fragment from I8-III/S, by their context and nature imply that the island possessed at least some form of finished residence. The closest building is the Area V church set on the landward-facing slope of the coastal ridge whose character145 sheds no light whatsoever on what kinds of activities the island might have supported, any more than do the latter’s all too meager range of artifacts. With a drop in water level, the Eastern Lagoon would have barely communicated with the main harbor and the open sea, which minimizes any chance that its users prefigure in some loose sense the multinational occupants of the Sponge-Divers House. That said, if the Sponge-Divers House had not obliterated so much of what lay under it, we would be in a position to know substantially more than we do today. In fact, if we even understood better what factors drew the sponge divers to this relatively remote spot when they took up residence in far more recent times, we might have a better idea of why the island—exposed to sun and wind, stripped of tree cover, and lacking water— went on being occupied throughout later antiquity. What seems certain, however, is that, whatever the reasons might have been, they were not the same as what led to its Bronze Age development discussed by Hulin above and elsewhere.146

180

MARSA MATRUH

Chapter 15 Notes 1. The case for an anti-clock-wise route is summarized by B. Kemp and R. Merrillees, Minoan Pottery in Second Millennium Egypt (Mainz 1980) 264–284. 2. For a comprehensive review, see E.H. Cline, Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea. International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean (Oxford 1994) 91–94. S. Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant (London 1998) 295–301. 3. L.V. Watrous, Kommos III: The Late Bronze Age Pottery (Princeton 1992) 175–178. W.M. Murray, “Ancient Sailing Winds in the Eastern Mediterranean: the Case for Cyprus,” in V. Karageorghis and D. Michaelides, eds., Cyprus and the Sea (Nicosia 1995) 33–43. J.W. Shaw, “Kommos in Southern Crete: an Aegean Barometer for East-West Interconnections,” in V. Karageorghis and N. Chr. Stampolides, eds., Eastern Mediterranean CyprusDodecanese-Crete 16th–6th century B.C., Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Rethymnon—Crete in May 1997 (Athens 1998) 13–27. 4. White and White failed to locate any good preClassical harbor between Salloum and el-Alamein, while recognizing the extreme modification of the coastline as a result of both man-made and natural agencies. See White, Coastal Survey, 11–30. Carter’s survey to the west, in Cyrenaica, was primarily aimed at finding 2nd millennium settlement sites, but at least one possible harbor was noted. T.H. Carter, “Reconnaissance in Cyrenaica,” Expedition 5.3 (1963) 18–27. See also White, Before the Greeks Came, 37–38. 5. Conwell, Ostrich Eggs, 33. White, Costal Survey, 27, n. 67. See Chapter 4, n. 18. 6. L. Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Sahure (1913) pl. 1. Eastern Libyans, 95–96. O’Connor, New Kingdom, 272–231. O’Connor, Nature of Tjemhu, 37–38, 96ff. Provisional Evidence, 12. 7. D. Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton 1992) 152. 8. O’Connor, New Kingdom, 272 9. N. de G. Davies, The Rock Cut Tombs of El Amarna II (London 1904) pl. 40. 10. N. de G. Davies (see n. 9) pl. 51. O’Connor, Nature of Tjemhu, 102. Conwell, Ostrich Eggs, 31, fig. 12. 11. O’Connor, New Kingdom, 271–281. 12. Perhaps the best known being Herodotus in his Book 4, passim. But see Eastern Libyans, 231–241. J. M. Reynolds, “Libya,” OCD 3, 855–856.

13. Eastern Libyans, 118–141. A.H. Gardner, Egypt of the Pharaohs. An Introduction (Oxford 1961) 35. O’Connor, Nature of Tjemhu, 47–57. 14. A.H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica (Oxford 1949) 196. Gardiner 1961 (see n. 13) 270. O’Connor, New Kingdom, 252. O’Connor, Nature of Tjemhu, 33. 15. Habachi, Military Posts, fig. 3. Apis, 141–143. 16. O’Connor, Nature of Tjemhu, 31ff. 17. See n. 8. See also Chapter 9, n. 97. 18. Hdt 4.175. See also Chapter 9, nn. 181, 182. 19. L. Limme, “Les oases de Khargah et Dakhleh d’après les documents égyptiens.” Études sur l’Égypte et le Soudan anciens I (Brussels 1973) 39–58. 20. O’Connor, New Kingdom, 272. 21. Herodotus 4.183. 22. O’Connor, Nature of Tjemhu, 96. KRI IV, 38.5 and KRI V, 53, 14–54.8. 23. Herodotus 4.155. 24. O’Connor, Nature of Tjemhu, 63–66. 25. Eastern Libyans, 293 for indexed page references. O’Connor, New Kingdom, 273. 26. Herodotus 4.199. 27. R. Behnke, Illinois Studies in Anthropology 12: Herders of Eastern Cyrenaica (Chicago 1980) 49–73. 28. O’Connor, Nature of Tjemhu, 36–37. 29. Contra A. Nibbi, Lapwings and Libyans in Ancient Egypt (London 1986). See O’Connor, Nature of Tjemhu, 61–62. Provisional Evidence, 11–12. See also n. 42. 30. See n. 41. 31. For historic period rock art depictions of horses and chariots, see B. Brentjes, African Rock Art (New York 1970) 84–89, figs. 47, 49–52. For the association of Late Bronze Age Libyans with chariots, see W. Hölscher, “Libyer und Ägypter,” (reprint of the 1937 ed., Gluckstadt 1955) 40. J. Osing, “Libyen, Libyer,” Lexikon der Ägyptologie III (1980) 1022. O’Connor, Nature of Tjemhu, 57. 32. Haua Fteah, 295–305; 396, pl. 9:7, nos. 10–11. White, Before the Greeks Came, 36–37. 33. For the coastal area between the eastern Cyrenaican towns of Tocra and Derna, see Carter, n. 4, 18–37. White, Before the Greeks Came, 36. 34. M. Fabri and A. Winorath-Scott, “Stazioni litica all’aporo nei pressi di Garian,” LA 2 (1965) 83–90. White, Before the Greeks Came, 36. 35. See Chapter 9.

A FINAL SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

36. Eastern Libyans 183, 247–248, figs. 93, a–c, 94. Carter, see n. 4, 24. White, Before the Greeks Came, 38. 37. Personal communication from Steven Snape, Director of the Liverpool Excavations at Umm el-Rakham. For references to this work, see n. 48. 38. Vol. I, Chapter 5. 39. Vol. I, Chapters 4 and 7. 40. S. Stucchi, “Prime tracce tardo-minoiche a Cirene: i rapporti della Libya con il mondo egeo,” QAL 5 (1967) 19–45. J. Boardman. “Bronze Age Greece and Libya,” BSA 63 (1968) 41–44. L. Bacchielli, “Contati fra Libya e mondo egeo nell’età del bronzo: una conferma,” RendLinc 34 (1979) 163–168. M. Vickers, “Cyrenaica 1962-72,” AR 18 (1972) 29. I. Baldassare, “Tracce dell’abito prebattiano ad Ovest dell’Agorà di Cirene,” QAL 12 (1987) 17–24. S. Tiné, “Ceramica prebattiatica nell’area cirenea,” QAL 12 (1987) 15–16. L. Vagnetti and F. Lo Schiavo, “Late Bronze Age Long Distance Trade in the Mediterranean: the Role of Cyprus,” in E. Peltenburg, ed., Early Society in Cyprus (Edinburgh 1989) 217–243. 41. See B. Knapp, “The Thera Frescoes and the Question of Aegean Contact with Libya during the Late Bronze Age,” Journal of Mediterranean Anthropology and Archaeology 1 (1981) 249–279. O. Negbi, “The ‘Libyan Landscape’ from Thera: a Review of Aegean Enterprise Overseas in the Late Minoan IA Period,” JMA 7.1 (1994) 73–111. T. Strasser, “The Blue Monkeys of the Aegean and their Implications for Bronze Age Trade,” AJA 101 (1997) 348. P. Parker, “African Vervets on Crete and Thera during MMIIIB–LMIA,” AJA 101 (1997) 348. 42. White, Water, Wood. 43. L. Basch, “Une représentation de navire de type égéen dans l’oasis de Dakhleh (Égypte) vers 1200 av. J.C.,” in Res Maritimae, 17–30. 44. Herodotus 4.186, 191. 45. White, Water, Wood, 932, nn. 7, 8. Eastern Libyans, 126–127. 46. S. Richardson, “Libya Domestica: Libyan Trade and Society on the Eve of the Invasions of Egypt,” JARCE 36 (1999) 151–152. 47. B. Porter and R.L. Moss, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings VII: Nubia, the Deserts and Outside Egypt (Oxford 1951) 369. 48. Rowe, Aegypto-Cyrenean Relations, 4–5, fig. 5. Rowe, Contributions II, 141. Habachi, Military Posts, 141–143. S. Snape, “Ramesses II’s Forgotten Frontier,” Egyptian Archaeology 11 (1997) 23–24. J. Leclant and G.

181

Clerc, “Fouilles et travaux en Égypte et au Soudan, 19961997,” OR 67, fac. 3 (1998) 315–444. 49. Porter and Moss (see n. 47) 368. 50. Conwell, Ostrich Eggs, 27, 31–32. 51. A. Fakhry, The Oases of Egypt I: Siwa Oasis (Cairo, reprint 1982) 73ff. K.-P. Kuhlmann, “Siwa Oasis, Late Period and Greco-Roman Sites,” Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt (London 1999) 738–744. 52. Redford (see n. 7). 53. M. Ripinsky, “Camel Ancestry and Domestication in Egypt and the Sahara,” Archaeology 36 (1983) 21–27. 54. Eastern Libyans, 132. Resurfacing of Paraetonium, 65. See also n. 51. Hulin 1999, 13–15. 55. O’Connor, New Kingdom, 275. 56. For example: Tubb 1988, fig. 48A: 12, 16; Tubb 1998, 82, fig. 65; Megiddo II, pl. 65: 10, 16; James, fig. 49: 9; Yadin and Geva, 54–55 and fig. 22: 3–5; Deir el-Balah, passim. 57. 1987 Report, 93–95. White, Coastal Survey, 14, n. 28. Marsa Matruh, 470–471. 58. S. Quirke, “Frontier or Border? The Northeast Delta in Middle Kingdom Texts,” The Archaeology, Geography and History of the Egyptian Delta in Pharaonic Times. Discussions in Egyptology Special Issue Number 1 (1989) 269, n. 32. 59. Redford (see n. 7) 200–207. 60. Snape, personal communication 61. R.S. Merrillees, The Cypriot Bronze Age Pottery Found in Egypt (Lund 1968). B. Kemp and R. Merrillees, Minoan Pottery in Second Millennium Egypt (Mainz 1980). B. Knapp, “Spices, Drugs, Grain and Grog: Organic Goods in Bronze Age East Mediterranean Trade,” in N.H. Gale, ed., Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean (Göteborg 1991) 21–68. See also P. Russell, Chapter 7. 62. A. Leonard, An Index to the Late Bronze Aegean Pottery from Syria-Palestine (Jonsered 1994). “The Significance of the Mycenaean Pottery Found East of the Jordan River,” in A. Hadidi, ed., Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 3 (Amman 1987) 261–266. M. Yon, V. Karageorghis and N. Hirschfeld, Céramiques mycéniennes. Ras-Shamra-Ougarit XII (Nicosia 2000). 63. M. Yon, V. Karageorghis, and N. Hirschfeld, The Mycenaean Pottery from Ras Shamra-Ougarit (Nicosia 2000). 64. V. Hankey, “Mycenaean Pottery in the Middle East: Notes on Finds since 1951,” BSA 62 (1967) 107–147. A. Leonard, “Mycenaean Pottery found in Cyprus,” Acts Cypria 2 (1992) 184–191.

182

MARSA MATRUH

65. V. Hankey, “The Aegean Deposit at El Amarna,” Acts of the International Symposium: The Mycenaeans in the Eastern Mediterranean, March-April 1972 (Nicosia 1973). 66. See, for example, J.C. Martín de la Cruz, "La Península Ibérica y el Mediterraneo en el Segundo Milenio A.C.," in El Mundo Micénico. Cinco siglos de la primera civilización Europea 1600-1100 A.C. (Madrid 1992) 110–114, esp. references on p. 114 and cat. no. 314. 67. J. Chadwick, The Mycenaean World (Cambridge 1976). 68. S. Sherratt, “Pots, Markets and Values in the Second Millennium Mediterranean,” in J.P. Grielaard, V. Stissi, and G.J. van Wijngaarden, eds., The Complex Past of Pottery. Production, Circulation and Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (Sixteenth to Early Fifth Centuries B.C.) (Amsterdam 1999) 183. V. Hankey, “The Aegean Interest in El Amarna,” Journal of Mediterranean Anthropology and Archaeology 1 (1981) 38–49. N. Hirschfeld, “Cypriot Marks on Mycenaean Pottery,” in J.-P. Olivier, ed., Mykenaïka. Actes du IXe colloque international sur les textes mycéniens et égéens organisé par le Centre de l’Antiquité grecque et romaine de la Fondation hellénique des recherches scientifiques et l’Ecole francaise d’Athènes, Octobre 1990 (Athens 1992) 315–319. 69. H.-G. Buchholz, “Der Metalhandel des zweiten Jahrtausends in Mittelmeer,” in M. Heltzer and E. Lipinski, eds., Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (ca. 1500-1000 B.C.). (Leuven 1998) 187–228. 70. V. Karageorghis and M. Demas, Excavations at Kition V. The Pre-Phoenician Levels (Nicosia 1974). P. Åström et al., Hala Sultan Tekke (Jonsered 1975). P. Dikaios, Enkomi. Excavations 1948-1958, 1–3 (Nicosia 1969). C.F.-A. Schaeffer, Enkomi-Alasia; nouvelles missions en Chypre 1946-1950 (Paris 1952); Alasia. Première série (Paris 1971). 71. N. Hirschfeld “Introduction to the Catalogue,” in M. Yon, V. Karageorghis, and N. Hirschfeld, The Mycenaean Pottery from Ras Shamra-Ougarit (Nicosia 2000) 69. V. Hankey, “Mycenaean Trade with the Southeastern Mediterranean,” in Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 46 (1971) 20–21; “Mycenaean Pottery in the Middle East: Notes on Finds since 1951,” ABSA 62 (1967) 145–146. 72. G.F. Bass et al., “The Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun: 1986 Campaign,” AJA 93 (1989) 1–29; “A Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun (Kas): 1984 Campaign,” AJA 90 (1986) 269–296. Ç. Pulak, “The Bronze Age Shipwreck

at Ulu Burun, Turkey: 1985 Campaign,” AJA 92 (1988) 1–37; “A Late Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun: Preliminary Analysis (1984-1985 excavation campaigns)” (M.A. thesis, Texas A & M University 1987); “1990 Excavation Campaign,” INA Newsletter 17.4 (1990) 8–13; “The Uluburun Shipwreck,” in Res Maritimae 233–262. “The Shipwreck at Uluburun: 1993 Excavation Campaign,” The INA Quarterly 20.4 (Winter 1993) 4–12; “1994 Excavation at Uluburun: The Final Campaign,” The INA Quarterly 21.4 (Winter 1993) 8–16. 73. C. Pennas and Y. Lolos, “Underwater Surface Investigation of the Late Bronze Age Wreck at Iria,” Enalia 3.1-2 (1991) 8–24. Y. Vichlos and Y. Lolos, “The CyproMycenaean Wreck at Point Iria in the Argolic Gulf: First Thoughts on the Origin and the Nature of the Vessel,” in Res Maritimae, 321–338; Y. Lolos, “The Cargo of Pottery From the Point Iria Wreck: Character and Implications,” in W. Phelps, Y. Lolos, and Y. Vichlos, eds., The Point Iria Wreck: Interconnections in the Mediterranean ca. 1200 B.C. Proceedings of the International Conference, Island of Spetses, 19 September 1998 (Athens 1999) 43–58. 74. Hirschfeld 1999, 227–229; “Cypriot Marks on Mycenaean Pottery,” BCH Suppl. 25: Mykenaïka 1998, 315–319; “Marked Late Bronze Age Pottery from the Kingdom of Ugarit,” in M. Yon, V. Karageorghis, and N. Hirshfeld, eds., Céramiques mycéniennes. Ras ShamraOugarit XII (Nicosia 2000) 163–200. 75. L.V. Watrous, Kommos III (Princeton 1992) 157, cat. no. 807; 158, cat. no. 846. 76. See references in E.H. Cline, Sailing the WineDark Sea. International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean (Oxford 1994) 130, although there is some debate about whether at least some of the texts refer to goods going to or from Cyprus. 77. M. Heltzer, Goods, Prices and the Organization of Trade in Ugarit (Wiesbaden, 1987). 78. J. Bottéro, Archives Royal de Mari VII. Textes economiques et administratifs (Paris 1957). 79. For a recent translation, see W.L. Moran, The Amarna Letters, English trans. (Baltimore/London 1992). 80. J.T. Killen and J.-P. Olivier, The Knossos Tablets. Fifth Edition (Minos Suppl. 11) (Salamanca 1989). E.L. Bennet, Jr. and J.-P. Olivier, The Pylos Tablets Transcribed (Rome 1973). 81. J.-P. Olivier, The Mycenae Tablets IV (Leiden 1969). 82. E.g., M. Heltzer, The Internal Organization of the Kingdom of Ugarit (Wiesbaden 1982). J.T. Killen, “The

A FINAL SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

Linear B Tablets and the Mycenaean Economy,” in A. Morpugo-Davies and Y. Duhoux, eds., Linear B: A 1985 Survey (Louvain 1985) 241–305. 83. For a thorough review of the different trade systems put forward for the Mediterranean, see Knapp and Cherry, 123–156. 84. Ç. Pulak in Res Maritimae, 235. 85. M. Artzy, “Nomads of the Sea,” in Res Maritimae, 1–16; “Merchandise and Merchantmen: On Ships and Shipping in the Late Bronze Age Levant,” in T. Papadopoulos and S. Hadjistyllis, eds., Πρακτικά του Διεθνικούς Κυπρολογικού Συνεδρίου (Nicosia 1985) 135–140; “Supply and Demand: A Study of Second Millennium Cypriote Pottery in the Levant,” in A.B. Knapp and T. Stech, eds., Prehistoric Production and Exchange: The Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean (Los Angeles 1985) 93–99. A. and S. Sherratt, “From Luxuries to Commodities: The Nature of Mediterranean Bronze Age Trading Systems,” in N.H. Gale, ed., Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean (Jonsered 1991) 351–384, esp. 270ff. 86. Sherratt 1999, 165–211; “‘Sea Peoples’ and the Economic Structure of the Late Second Millennium in the Eastern Mediterranean,” in S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern, eds., Mediterranean Peoples in Transition. Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE (Jerusalem 1998) 292–313. 87. For WS and BR wares, see Knapp and Cherry, 1994, 158–161; I.A. Todd, “Excavations at Sanidha 1991,” RDAC (1992) 75–112; I.A. Todd and D. Pilides, “Excavations at Sanidha 1992,” RDAC (1993) 97–146. For specialization in Mycenaean palatial centers, see S. Sherratt 1999, 174–177 and references in n. 34. 88. Sherratt 1999, 178; Sherratt 1994, 67–68. For Aegean wares, see M. Artzy, see n. 85; “Incense, Camels and Collared Rim Jars: Desert Trade Routes and Maritime Outlets in the Second Millennium,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 13 (1994) 121–147, esp. 130; V. Hankey “Imported Vessels of the Late Bronze Age at High Places,” in A. Biran, ed., Temples and High Places in Biblical Times (Jerusalem 1981) 113–114; D.C. Baramki, “The Impact of the Mycenaeans on Ancient Phoenicia,” in Acts of the International Symposium “The Mycenaeans in the Eastern Mediterranean” (Nicosia 1973) 193–197. For Canaanite jars from Cyprus, see P. Åström, “Problems of Definition of Local and Imported Fabrics of Late Cypriot ‘Canaanite Ware’ A,” in J.A. Barlow, D.R. Bolger, and B. Kling, eds., Cypriot Ceramics. Reading the Prehistoric Record (Philadelphia 1994) 67–72. 89. Sherratt 1994, 185, for a discussion of sub-elite;

183

Sherrat 1999, for her argument that the tastes of the sub-elite were actively catered to by a conscious downward-marketing strategy by Aegean production centers, a practice probably allowed by local elites as a strategy for their own power maintenance. 90. See S.W. Manning, A Test of Time. The Volcano of Thera and the Chronology and History of the Aegean and the East Mediterranean in the Mid Second Millennium B.C. (Oxford: 1999) for a thorough discussion of the issues. 91. V. Hankey, “Aegean Pottery at el-Amarna: Shapes and Decorative Motifs,” in J. Phillips (ed.) Ancient Egypt, the Aegean and the Near East. Studies in Honour of Martha Rhoads Bell I (San Antonio 1977) 193–216. 92. ibid. p. 203, cat. no. 12 and references there. 93. ibid. p. 205, cat. no. 14 and references there. 94. P. Warren and V. Hankey, Aegean Bronze Age Chronology (Bristol 1989) 149–150. 95. B. Kaiser, Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Deutschland 40 (Munich 1976) 82–96; C. Podzuweit, “Bermerkungen zur mykenischen Keramik von Tell elAmarna,” in C. Dobiat and D. Vorlauf, eds., Festschrift für Otto-Herman Frey zum 65 Geburstag (Marburg 1994) 457–474. 96. M.H. Wiener, “The Absolute Chronology of Late Helladic IIIA2,” in M.S. Balmuth and R.H. Tykot, eds., Sardinian and Aegean Chronology (Oxford 1998) 309–320, esp. p. 312 and quotations there. 97. P. Warren and V. Hankey, Aegean Bronze Age Chronology (Bristol 1989) 149–150. 98. B.J. Kemp, Amarna Reports I (London 1984) 3–4; I.M.E. Shaw, “Ring Bezels at el-Amarna,” in B.J. Kemp, Amarna Reports I (London 1984) 124–132, esp. pp. 127–128. 99. M.R. Bell, “Preliminary report on the Mycenaean Pottery from Deir el-Medina (1979–1980),” in ASAE 68 (1982) 143–163. 100. E. Shannon, “Ring Bezels with Royal Names at the Workmen’s Village,” in B.J. Kemp, Amarna Reports IV (London 1987) 154–159, esp. pp. 158–159. 101. V. Hankey, “The Aegean Interest in El Amarna,” in JMAA 1/1 (1981) 38–49, esp. p. 38; “The Chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze Age,” in P. Åström, High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg 20th–22nd August 1987 Part 2: 39–59. 102. J.D. Cooney, Amarna Reliefs from Hermopolis in American Collections (Brooklyn 1965) 2–3. 103. M.R. Bell, “Gurob Tomb 605 and Mycenaean

184

MARSA MATRUH

Chronology,” in Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar I (1985) 61–77, esp. p. 62 and references there. 104. G.T. Martin, “The Tomb of Tia and Tia: Preliminary Report on the Saqqara Excavations, 1983,” JEA 70 (1984) 5–12. 105. G.T. Martin, M.J. Raven, and D. Aston, “The Tomb-Chambers of Iurudef: Preliminary Report on the Saqqara Excavations, 1985,” JEA 72 (1986) 15–22. 106. P. Warren and V. Hankey, Aegean Bronze Age Chronology (Bristol 1989) 151–152. 107. G.T. Martin, “The Saqqara New Kingdom Necropolis Excavations, 1986: Preliminary Report,” JEA 73 (1987) 1–9. 108. G.T. Martin, “Excavations at the Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, 1977: Preliminary Report,” JEA 64 (1978) 5–9. 109. P. Warren and V. Hankey, Aegean Bronze Age Chronology (Bristol 1989) 151. 110. W.M.F. Petrie, Illahun, Kahun and Gurob (London 1891). 111. M.R. Bell, “Preliminary Report on the Mycenaean Pottery from Deir-el-Medina (1979–1980),” ASAE 68 (1982) 61; The Tutankhamun Burnt Group from Gurob, Egypt: Bases for the Absolute Chronology of LH IIIA and B (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania 1991). A.P. Thomas also supported a late 18th–early 19th dynasty date for LH IIIB stirrup jars from Gurob: Gurob: A New Kingdom Town. Introduction and Catalogue of Objects in the Petrie Collection I (Warminster 1981) 44, cat. nos 175 and 176; 46, cat. nos 201–207. 112. Warren and Hankey, Aegean Bronze Age Chronology (Bristol 1989) 154. 113. A. Furumark, The Chronology of Mycenaean Pottery (Stockholm, reprinted 1972) 113 n. 8. 114. M.R. Bell, “Preliminary Report on the Mycenaean Pottery from Deir-el-Medina, (1979–1980),” ASAE 68 (1982) 74–76. 115. Aston, D. “Cemetery W at Gurob,” in J. Phillips (ed.) Ancient Egypt, the Aegean and the Near East. Studies in Honour of Martha Rhoads Bell I (San Antonio 1977) 43–66, esp. pp. 47–51. 116. P.P. Betancourt, “The Chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze Age: Unanswered Questions,” in M.S. Balmuth and R.H. Tykot (eds.) Sardinian and Aegean Chronology. Towards the Resolution of Relative and Absolute Dating in the Mediterranean. Studies in Sardinian Archaeology V (Oxford, 1998) 291–296, esp. p. 293. 117. M.H. Wiener, “The Absolute Chronology of Late

Helladic IIIA2,” in M.S. Balmuth and R.H. Tykot, eds., Sardinian and Aegean Chronology (Oxford 1998) 314–315. 118. See M. Wiener, 313, quoting Oren. 119. For discussion, see Wiener, n. 117 above. W. Manning, B. Kromer, P.I. Kuniholm, and M.W. Newton, “Anatolian Tree Rings and a New Chronology for the East Mediterranean Bronze-Iron Ages,” Science 294 (21 December 2001) 1535, n. 38. 120. C.J. Bergoffen, A Comparative Study of the Regional Distribution of Cypriote Pottery in Canaan and Egypt in the Late Bronze Age (Unpublished PhD dissertation, New York University 1989) 364–368. 121. C.J. Bergoffen (see n. 120 above) 361–364. 122. C.J. Bergoffen (see n. 120 above) 211–226. 123. B.M. Gittlen, Studies in Late Cypriot Pottery Found in Palestine. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1997); “The Cultural and Chronological Implications of the Cypro-Palestinian Trade During the Late Bronze Age,” BASOR 41/1 (1981) 49–60. Gittlen took the view that trade between Cyprus and the Levant ceased at the end of LB IIA, i.e., after the Amarna period, regarding all LB IIB examples as heirlooms. This view generally is not held now, although a shift in deposition, from settlement to tomb, is recognized. 124. S.J. Vaughan, “Material and Technical Characterization of Base Ring Ware: A New Fabric Typology,” in J.A. Barlow, D.L. Bolger, and B. Kling (eds.), Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record (Philadelphia 1991) 119–130, note esp. fig. 12.2. 125. The date of Zawiyet Umm el-Rakham’s establishment is not entirely clear. Cartouches of Ramesses II are ubiquitous at the site, of a form confined to the early years of his reign. It has been suggested that he may have expanded upon measures initiated by Seti I and thus it is not impossible that there was Egyptian activity in the area a little earlier than was previously thought (G. Edwards: www.surdig.com/ ConclusionsFrame.htm; S. Snape, personal communication and forthcoming in S. Snape and P. Wilson, Zawiyet Umm el Rakham I: The Temple and the Chapels [Liverpool 2002]). 126. Chapter 12, pp.53-57, 12.36–12.52. 127. Vol. I, Chapter 6, n. 6. 128. Vol. I, Chapter 1, n. 47; Vol. I, Chapter 6, n. 6. Alexander also met with ambassadors from Cyrene in whatever constituted this remote frontier way-station while on his way to Siwa. Oxyrrhynchus Papyrii, I, 12 (p. 28) col. 5. African Studies, 128–129, 132, n. 5. A. Laronde, Cyrène et la Libye hellénistique (Paris 1987) 219–232.

A FINAL SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

129. Resurfacing of Paraetonium, 65, n. 12. 130. Chapter 12, 12.20–12.26, 12.51, and 12.52. For isolated concentrations of what may have included Hellenistic sherds scattered on the ground south of the Area III stairs, see 1985 Report, 56 and Resurfacing of Paraetonium, 75. Also Vol. I, Chapter 1, n. 52. 131. Resurfacing of Paraetonium, 68, n. 34. O. Guéraud, “Signature d’un Platrier,” BSAA 30 (1936) 31–33. 132. That it was walled can be adduced from the fact that Antony approached the city’s defensive circuit to address its defenders. Dio Cass. 51.9. Flor. 4.11. African Studies, 133, n. 6, 136, n. 2. Resurfacing of Paraetonium, 71, n. 49 where for “First Western Lagoon” read “Eastern.” 133. Dio Cass. 51.9–10. Oros. Hist. advPagos 6.19, para. 13–15. African Studies 133–134. Whatever traces of the Roman fleet survived the passage of time to modern times were probably obliterated when the lagoon-bed was dredged by the Egyptian navy before the mid-1980s. The only submerged wreck that I am aware of belongs to a World War II submarine reportedly sunk in the vicinity of the harbor mouth. 134. Resurfacing of Paraetonium, 61. 135. Plutarch, Vit. Ant. 69. Bates also seems to have accepted her presence in the town: African Studies, 133. 136. B. Khun de Prorok, Mysterious Sahara, the Land of Gold, of Sand, and of Ruin (Chicago 1929) 250: The palace of Cleopatra, queen of ancient Egypt, stands at the water’s edge, where she could hear the soft rippling waves re-echoing through the marble corridors. . . . We explored several passages under the ruins, and while I was picking up some ancient bits of mosaic I narrowly escaped being crushed when part of the ceiling came crashing down. In the village we were able to purchase several pieces of jewelry that

185

were supposed to have come from the ruins of the great queen’s golden palace. And on 68: “. . .a beautiful carved emerald necklace of precious stones from Cleopatra’s sumptuous palace at Mersa Matru.” De Prorok seems to have confused Cleopatra’s villa with the Byzantine chapel first brought to light by Bates and identified by him as a bath. See R. Goodchild, “A Byzantine Chapel at Marsa Matruh (Paraitonium [sic]) JARCE 28 (1991) 201–209. In his Through Egypt in War-Time (London 1918) 111, at the end of his description of Bates’s bath/ chapel, the World War I correspondent M.S. Briggs relates how “it is” (i.e., in 1916) “commonly called Cleopatra’s Villa.” 101. Vol. I, Chapter 1, p. 7, n. 52. Resurfacing of Paraetonium, 75. D. White, “Marsa Matruh,” in K. Bard, ed., Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt (London 1999) 472–473. For the university’s investigations of Areas II and III, see Vol. I, Chapter 2, pp. 15–26. 102. Vol. I, Chapter 1, p. 7, nn. 53, 54. Resurfacing of Paraetonium, 74. 103. Resurfacing of Paraetonium, 67, fig. 5. 104. Vol. I, Chapter 1, p.7, n. 60. Resurfacing of Paraetonium, 67, 73–74. 105. G. Walpole, “An Ancient Suburban Aqueduct West of Matruh,” Survey of Egypt Paper no. 42 (Cairo 1931). Resurfacing of Paraetonium, 71. See also Vol. I, Chapter 1, p. 7, n. 55. 106. Vol. I, Chapter 1, nn. 19, 20. Resurfacing of Paraetonium, 67, n. 26 107. Vol. I, Chapter 1, p. 7, nn. 55–59. Resurfacing of Paraetonium, 67, 71. 108. Vol. I, Chapter 3, p. 24. 109. 1987 Report, 88–93, figs. 3–5. Resurfacing of Paraetonium, 74–75, fig. 12.

187

Appendix I

MASCA ANALySIS OF CrUCIBLES AND LUMP OF OrE Donald White, Stuart J. Fleming, David Killick, Vincent C. Pigott, and Charles P. Swann Permission could not be gained to export the 60 or so bits of industrial waste making up the S119 workshop deposit at the south end of the island’s LBA ridge top complex for external laboratory analysis.1 To judge from vol. I, Pl. 33A, at least one piece of the S119 deposit was scrap bronze, presumably destined for recasting, while the rest was made up of various kinds of lumps of industrial waste. The Egyptian Antiquities Organization did permit the export of two crucible fragments (9.29, 9.35) as well as a sample lump of detritus (9.50), which surprisingly turned out to be nearly pure iron ore. These pieces have been analyzed by the Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology (MASCA), University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.2 Vincent C. Pigott of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, MASCA, and David Killick of Washington University in St. Louis have kindly supplied the following report.3 SAMPLE MM # 1 = 9.50 Iron Ore Excavation Context: D4-I/II, 4.1 (S119 Workshop) Description: The sample is a fragment of a piece of ore (2 cm. long x 1 cm. wide). During a preliminary examination under the microscope at MASCA, we noticed, entrapped in the outer matrix

of the sample, an identifiable fragment of plant material, perhaps charcoal. It may have been entrapped by corrosion occurring on and around the iron ore fragment in situ. Dr. Naomi Miller, the palaeobotanist at MASCA, identified the vegetal inclusion as Conifer, most probably pine. Pine could have been used to fuel local pyrotechnological activities at the site. Thin-Section Petrographic Analysis: To the unaided eye, in transmitted light, this section consists of a compact and almost opaque brown core, surrounded on all untrimmed sides by a pale green rim. Viewed through the petrographic microscope, most of the core is opaque, but thin portions are a uniform deep red. There are no non-opaque minerals in the core, but there are numerous small voids. Some of these voids are filled with secondary deposits of the same red mineral or with bright green or blue-green material. The core and the red void fillings are almost certainly hematite (Fe2O3), and the green and blue materials are copper carbonates or chlorides (malachite, azurite, and/or atacamite). Under the microscope the greenish rim (a few mm. thick) can be seen to consist of very well rounded sand grains (the degree of rounding suggests beach sand) of limestone and/or dolomite and rare quartz grains held to the core by a cement of the same blue or blue-green material described above, or (in

188

MArSA MATrUH

some areas) of calcite (CaCO3). The limestone/ dolomite is mostly micritic, but a few grains contain recognizable microfossils. Interpretation: This is a chunk of fairly pure iron ore that has become coated with sand and copper carbonates and/or chlorides. These last presumably derive from solutions percolating through a heap of cuprous material; the copper would have been leached out of chunks of copper ore and would have permeated any relatively porous material in underlying strata. The iron ore clearly has not been roasted as there is no evidence of cracking caused by thermal expansion. Hematite, which presumably does not occur naturally on the island, could have been brought in to be used as a flux in the copper smelting process, although the evidence offers no indication that smelting was being practiced at this site. * SAMPLE MM # 2 = 9.29 Crucible Fragment Excavation Context: S101 cleaning, west wall (Sponge-Divers House) Description: The sample is a fragment (ca. 4.5 cm. long x 3 cm. wide) of what appears to be quite a large, thick-walled crucible. A layer of slag about 0.5 cm. thick adheres to the darkly reduced ceramic fabric. There appears to have been considerable reactivity between the slag and the fabric, and the crucible wall appears eroded as a result. The exterior surface of the slag layer is heavily patinated in green, and prills of copper are evident. Several prills entrapped in the slag, most of which are fully oxidized, became visible when the sample was cross-sectioned. One intact prill, 0.1 cm. in diameter, is visible and was analyzed by PIXE. PIXE ANALySIS OF COPPEr-BASE PrILL: ref # MM851-P-396 Cu 96.92

As 0.469

Sn 1.003

Fe 0.79

S 0.053

Pb 0.043

Ag 0.02

Ni 0.249

Sb 0.104

Cl 0.133

Thin-Section Petrographic Analysis: To the unaided eye there are four obvious zones visible

in this section of thick-walled crucible. Passing from the outside of the crucible to the inside, these are: 1. red-brown zone about 10 mm. thick 2. Gray zone of variable thickness, 10–15 mm. wide 3. Thin colorless and transparent zone 3–5 mm. wide 4. Dark green to red-brown layer, 2–6 mm. wide, with many circular voids Zones 1 and 2 above have many large serpentine voids up to 10 mm. long that are aligned parallel to the crucible sides. These voids clearly mark the former presence of chopped vegetable temper, probably a coarse grass. In transmitted light, under the petrographic microscope, zones 1 and 2 are clearly the same fabric, differing only in the degree of oxidation/reduction of the iron oxide content of the clay (red is relatively more oxidized, gray relatively more reduced). Both zones are fired clay displaying no sign of vitrification. The clay contains about 10% (by volume) very well sorted quartz silt (0.02–0.10 mm., with very few larger particles) and rare tiny flakes of muscovite mica. Zone 3 is the same clay, but severely vitrified and bloated. It now consists of rims of a dirty glass around myriad tiny circular voids (formerly entrapped bubbles of gas) up to 1 mm. in diameter. The quartz silt particles seem to be unaffected. Some of the voids are now filled with green copper carbonates or chlorides or by calcite. These minerals have been deposited since burial. The contact zone between zones 3 and 4 is packed with tiny transparent acicular crystals, almost certainly of mullite (A16Si2O13). These crystals are intergrown with another mineral that becomes dominant as one traverses into zone 4. This mineral forms elongated laths, pleochroic from yellow to yellow-green, and interference colors in the high first order. Basal sections are rhombic with two well-developed cleavages intersecting at about 90°, and symmetrical extinction. This is a pyroxene, probably aegirine-augite (Na, Ca [Fe, Mg] Si2O6). Associated with this mineral are several opaque mineral phases. The round opaque structures are or were copper metal, since

MASCA ANALySIS OF CrUCIBLES AND LUMP OF OrE

some are now converted to brilliant green corrosion product. The cubes and dendrites with angular facets are probably magnetite (Fe3O4), and the slender opaque rods are possibly delafossite (CuFeO2). All of these phases are enclosed in a small amount of clear glass. Interpretation: This vessel is clearly a thickwalled crucible, made from well-sorted clay (probably a flood plain deposit) to which chopped vegetable fiber was added for green strength. It has been used to process copper. Because vitrification occurs only on the inner surface of the crucible, it is clear that it must have been blown from above; i.e., that the tuyere must have been positioned over the mouth of the crucible, which must itself have been buried in charcoal. The inferred presence of a calcium- and sodium-rich pyroxene as the major slag mineral suggests to me that the crucible has been used to melt rather than smelt copper; had copper been smelted in this crucible, a slag much richer in iron (from iron oxide flux added to remove any gangue minerals in the copper ore) would have been expected. If a rather pure copper ore, containing only a little iron oxide gangue, had been smelted in this crucible, the slag essentially would be identical to that resulting from remelting crude copper containing some iron from the initial smelting. Although the tin content of the copper prill is very low (1% Sn), it appears that tin-bronze may have been processed in this vessel. The presence of the tin suggests the melting of tin-bronze in the crucible. Moreover, the relatively clean metal that is present in this crucible argues in support of melting copper. The smelting of copper and tin ores together to make bronze probably would have yielded more impurities than appear to be present. SAMPLE MM # 3 = 9.35 Crucible Fragment Excavation Context: S101, interior, 1.1 (SpongeDivers House) Description: To the unaided eye this sample resembles closely sample MM # 2. This sample is 3 cm. long x 3 cm. wide. Both this crucible fragment (9.35) and 9.29 appear to have large, reddish iron oxide inclusions as part of the ceramic fabric,

189

which may suggest they were made from the same clay source. In this sample, the cross-section shows reduction proceeding from the slag layer about half-way through the core. The remainder of the core is orangish in color. PIXE analysis was conducted on one uncorroded copper-base prill (0.2 cm. in diameter) entrapped in the slag and surrounded by several oxidized prills. The prill is copper with 0.4% Sn. PIXE ANALySIS OF COPPEr-BASE PrILL: ref # MM871-P-6398 Cu 98.29

As 0.178

Sn 0.404

Fe 0.080

S 0.056

Pb 0.027

Ag 0.014

Ni 0.093

Sb 0.025

Cl 0.133

Thin Section Petrographic Analysis: To the unaided eye, this sample appears very similar to 9.39. It displays the same four zones of about the same thicknesses and has the same elongated voids marking the former presence of chopped fiber temper. Macroscopic observation suggests that 9.35 and 9.29 might be sherds from the same crucible; however, when examined under the microscope, it is clear that they are not part of the same crucible. In this sample, the outer portion of the wall is a fired but unvitrified opaque gray clay containing the same well-sorted quartz silt as in 9.29, but it also contains many well-rounded clasts of micritic limestone, up to 1.5 mm in size. These clasts are not present in 9.29. In 9.35, there is a gradual transition towards the inner (convex) surface into a vitrified zone (equivalent to the zone 3 in 9.29), which consists of rims of black glass and quartz silt particles around circular voids (former gas bubbles). Larger rounded voids mark the former presence of limestone clasts, presumably decomposed by high temperature. The transition to the inner slag layer is marked by a mass of elongated transparent acicular crystals (probably mullite) in glass. This material gives way over a transect of a couple of millimeters to a slag containing clear, stubby, rectangular laths of a mineral with parallel extinction. The presence of the characteristic “peg structure” and anomalously white, gray, and blue

190

MArSA MATrUH

interference colors identify this mineral as a member of the melilite series, perhaps kermanite (Ca2MgSi2O7), although electron microprobe analysis would be required to confirm this. The laths are enclosed in a pale brown transparent glass dotted with hundreds of tiny circular opaque dots, certainly copper prills now oxidized. There is much red cuprite (CuO) and green malachite resulting from corrosion. Iron silicates, iron oxides, and delafossite are conspicuously absent. Interpretation: The fabric, mode of manufacture, and use of this crucible are very similar to

that of 9.29, but a different pocket of clay evidently was used (or perhaps a little well-rounded beach sand was mixed into the wet clay). This crucible also appears to have been used to remelt copper, although the copper melted would appear to have had a lower iron content than that melted in 9.29. As in the previous sample, the relatively clean metal that is present in this crucible, argues in support of melting. Tin is present in negligible amounts and does not assist in the interpretation of this sample.

Concluding remarks It is very difficult to characterize the nature of pyrotechnological activity at Marsa Matruh based on such a small sample of artifacts. The evidence suggests “cottage industry” type activity in which ceramic crucibles (manufactured from local clays?) were used to melt smelted and perhaps refined metal, quite possibly tin-bronze, for the casting of artifacts. Temperatures at or above ca. 1000° C would have been necessary to melt bronze in these crucibles. Such temperatures

could have been obtained by means of a bellows blast into a crucible filled with charcoal (locally produced?). Finally, additional support for bronze processing at Marsa Matruh comes in the form of a third very small crucible fragment with slag adhering (MM# 30-1985). In the slag was a small and partially corroded prill, which was analyzed by PIXE to determine if tin was present, which it was.

Appendix Notes 1. This could in theory have resulted in the sort of detailed information provided by the Catlings. Compare Catling, Mansion, 218–219. 2. The University’s thanks is owed to the Egyptian Antiquities Organization and its chairman, Dr. Mohamed Ibrahim Bakr, for authorizing the export of these study samples in 1992. Our warmest and most special thanks go to Dr. Kamal Fahmy, the then General-Director of the Inspectorate and Excavations of the Western Delta, and his representative

at Marsa Matruh, Mr. Tarek Mohamed Farid, for their herculean efforts in assisting the University of Pennsylvania Expedition obtain the use of these items. 3. The thin-section petrographic analyses were done by David Killick. PIXE analyses were undertaken by Charles P. Swann (Bartol research Institute, University of Delaware) and Stuart J. Fleming (Scientific Director, MASCA) to whom we are most grateful.

191

Appendix II

LAtE BRoNzE AgE ShERDS CoNtExt LISt D4-I/II, 1.1 8.21 Egyptian bowl 8.22 Egyptian bowl D4-I/II, North balk, 2.1 8.16 Canaanite jar; potmark 8.84 Cypriot cooking pot 8.149 Canaanite cooking pot

87I-P-77

D4-I/II, 3.1 8.23 Egyptian bowl 8.85 Cypriot Plain Ware storage 8.86 Cypriot Plain Ware jar 8.87 Cypriot Plain Ware jar 8.150 Canaanite jar 8.151 Canaanite jar 8.152 Canaanite jar D4-I/II, 3.2 8.1 Cypriot lamp

87I-P-67

D4-I/II, 4.1 8.88 Cypriot Plain Ware storage vessel 8.89 Cypriot Plain Ware storage vessel E4-II/E, 1.1 7.6 Mycenaean Jar 7.11 Mycenaean closed vessel 7.26 Cypriot WS bowl 7.33 Cypriot WS bowl 7.59 Base-ring juglet 7.72 White Shaved juglet 8.2 Cypriot lamp 8.27 Egyptian bowl 8.29 Egyptian jar 8.30 Egyptian bowl 8.31 Egyptian bowl 8.32 Egyptian bowl 8.33 Egyptian bowl

8.34 8.35 8.90 8.91 8.92 8.93 8.153

Egyptian bowl Egyptian bowl Cypriot Plain Ware bowl Cypriot Plain Ware jar Cypriot Plain Ware storage vessel Cypriot Plain Ware storage jar Canaanite jar

E4-II/E, 2.1 7.34 Cypriot WS bowl 8.38 Egyptian bowl 8.39 Egyptian bowl 8.40 Egyptian bowl 8.41 Egyptian closed vessel 8.42 Egyptian open vessel 8.43 Egyptian open vessel 8.44 Egyptian bowl 8.45 Egyptian bowl 8.46 Egyptian bowl 8.47 Egyptian bowl

85I-P15

85I-P-53

E4-II/E, 3.1 8.94 Cypriot cooking pot 8.95 Cypriot Plain Ware storage vessel

87I-P-46 87I-P-45 87I-P-54 87I-P-53 87I-P-49 87I-P-44 89I-P-28 87I-P-44A

E4-III, 1.1 7.22 Cypriot WS bowl 7.24 Cypriot WS bowl 7.31 Cypriot WS bowl 7.34 Cypriot bowl 7.44 Cypriot BR cup 7.48 Cypriot BR cup 7.50 Cypriot BR cup 7.54 Cypriot BR cup 7.64 Cypriot BR flask (?) 7.75 Red Lustrous bottle 8.3 Canaanite (?) lamp 8.96 Cypriot cooking pot

85I-P-29 85I-P-28 85I-P-30 85I-P-15 85I-P-36 85I-P-35 85I-P-38 85I-P-42 85I-P-43 85I-P-60 85I-P-20 85I-P-21

192

E4-III, 2.1 7.1 Mycenaean miniature bowl 8.6 Cypriot lamp

MARSA MAtRuh

85I-P-8 85I-P-49

E4-III, W. Balk 2.1 8.36 Egyptian bowl E4-III, 2.3 8.4 Canaanite lamp 8.37 Egyptian bowl 8.97 Cypriot pithos 8.175 Painted jar (unidentified)

85I-P-19 85I-P-107 85I-P-106 85I-P-61a,b

E4-III, 2.4 7.45 Cypriot BR cup 7.55 Cypriot BR cup 8.47 Egyptian tab-handled bowl 8.48 Egyptian horned slab 8.100 Cypriot pithos

85I-P-69 85I-P-44 85I-P-53 85I-P-52 85I-P-57

E4-III, 2.5 7.44 Base-ring cup 7.53 Base-ring cup 8.49 Egyptian jar 8.50 Egyptian closed vessel

85I-P-36 85I-P-41

E4-III 2.6 8.51 Egyptian bowl 8.52 Egyptian bowl 8.53 Egyptian closed vessel E4-III 3.2 7.46 Cypriot BR cup 7.76 Cypriot Red Lustrous flask

85I-P-70 85I-P-59

E4-III 3.3 8.54 Egyptian bowl 8.55 Egyptian bowl E4-III, 4.2 7.73 Cypriot White Shaved juglet E4-Center, 1.1 7.7 Mycenaean jar 8.17 Cypriot Plain White; potmark 8.24 Egyptian bowl 8.25 Egyptian bowl 8.26 Egyptian bowl 8.27 Egyptian bowl E4-Center, 2.1 8.28 Egyptian jar 8.98 Cypriot pithos 8.99 Cypriot pithos F4-III, 1.1 7.68 Cypriot Monochrome cup

85I-P-81

87I-P-60 87I-P-61

87I-P-81

85I-P-7

8.61 Egyptian open vessel 8.101 Cypriot storage vessel 8.176 Painted bowl (unidentified) F4-III, 2.2 7.8 Mycenaean jar 7.20 Cypriot WS bowl 7.47 Cypriot BR cup 8.56 Egyptian cup

85I-P-93 85I-P-47

85I-P-13 85I-P-31 85I-P-12

F4-III, 2.2/3.1 8.102 Cypriot cooking vessel

85I-P-64

F4 III, 3/4.4 7.4 Cup

85I-P-97

F4-III, 3.1 7.3 Mycenaean cup 7.17 Mycenaean stirrup jar 7.19 Cypriot WS bowl 7.25 Cypriot WS bowl 7.27 Cypriot WS bowl 7.32 Cypriot WS bowl 7.49 Cypriot BR cup 7.51 Cypriot BR cup 7.52 Cypriot BR cup 7.56 Cypriot BR cup 7.65 Cypriot Monochrome cup 7.66 Cypriot Monochrome cup 7.69 Cypriot White Shaved juglet 7.71 Cypriot White Shaved juglet 7.74 Cypriot White Shaved juglet 8.18 Canaanite jar; potmark 8.19 Cypriot Plain White; potmark 8.57 Egyptian bowl 8.58 Egyptian bowl 8.59 Egyptian bowl 8.60 Egyptian open vessel 8.62 Egyptian jug or jar 8.63 Egyptian closed vessel 8.64 Egyptian open vessel 8.65 Egyptian bowl 8.66 Egyptian bowl 8.67 Egyptian jar (?) 8.102 Cypriot cooking vessel 8.103 Cypriot jar 8.154 Canaanite cooking pot 8.155 Canaanite jar 8.177 Carinated bowl F4-III, 3.2 7.14 Aegean jar 8.68 Egyptian jar 8.69 Egyptian jar 8.104 Cypriot painted jar 8.105 Cypriot painted jar 8.106 Cypriot painted jar

85I-P-68 85I-P-51 85I-P-33 85I-P-32 87I-P-27 85I-P-34 85I-P-37 85I-P-39 85I-P-40 85I-P-77 85I-P-113 85I-P-114 85I-P-104 85I-P-105 85I-P-58 85I-P-56 85I-P-75 85I-P-109 85I-P-110 87I-P-2 87I-P-3

85I-P-64 85I-P-101

85I-P-98

85I-P-76 85I-P-108 87I-P-11 85I-P-94 87I-P-78 85I-P-78

LAtE BRoNzE AgE ShERDS CoNtExt LISt

8.107 Cypriot White Painted storage vessel 8.108 Cypriot White Painted storage vessel

87I-P-9 87I-P-10

F4-III, 4.4 7.4 Mycenaean cup (?) 8.109 Cypriot White Painted storage vessel 8.110 Cypriot White Painted storage vessel

85I-P-97 87I-P-5 87I-P-4

F4-III, 5.1 7.58 Cypriot BR juglet 8.70 Egyptian juglet

85I-P-73 85I-P-65

F5-I/W, 2.1 7.9 Mycenaean jar 7.57 Cypriot BR cup 8.71 Egyptian bowl 8.111 Cypriot Plain Ware storage vessel 8.112 Cypriot Plain Ware storage vessel

87I-P-43 87I-P-38

F5-I/II, 2.1 7.12 Mycenaean closed vessel

87I-P-40

Sponge-Divers house (S101) 7.10 Mycenaean closed vessel 7.15 Aegean stirrup jar 7.40 Cypriot WS bowl

85I-P-16 85I-P-50 85I-P-10

Bates’s Dump 7.41 Cypriot WS bowl 7.43 Cypriot BR cup 7.60 Cypriot BR juglet

85I-P-5 85I-P-4 85I-P-6

h4-III, 1.1 7.18 Cypriot WS bowl

85I-P-87

h5-I, 1.1 7.36 Cypriot WS bowl 7.37 Cypriot WS bowl

87I-P-15 87I-P-16

87I-P-27 87I-P-26 87I-P-28 87I-P-25 87I-P-30 87I-P-24

h5-I, 3.1 8.156 Canaanite jar h5-I, 4.1 8.178 Bowl (unidentified)

h5-II, 3.1 7.2 Mycenaean cup 7.13 Mycenaean closed vessel 8.74 Egyptian jar 8.75 Egyptian jar 8.76 Egyptian juglet (?) 8.77 Egyptian bowl 8.78 Egyptian bowl 8.79 Egyptian pithos 8.114 Cypriot Plain Ware jug 8.115 Cypriot pithos 8.116 Cypriot Plain Ware jar 8.117 Cypriot jar 8.118 Cypriot jar 8.119 Cypriot pithos 8.120 Cypriot pithos 8.121 Cypriot pithos 8.157 Canaanite cooking pot 8.158 Canaanite jar 8.159 Canaanite jar 8.179 Carinated vessel (unidentified) 8.180 holemouth jar (unidentified)

87I-P-80

87I-P-70 87I-P-72

87I-P-78

h5-II, 3.2 8.122 Cypriot Plain Ware storage vessel

Sponge Divers’ house Interior Surface 8.72 Egyptian jar

h5-I, 2.1 7.30 Cypriot WS bowl 7.38 Cypriot WS bowl 7.42 Cypriot WS bowl/krater 7.67 Cypriot Monochrome cup 7.70 Cypriot White Shaved juglet 8.73 Egyptian bowl 8.113 Cypriot Plain Ware bowl

h5-II, Balk cleaning 8.20 Canaanite jar; potmark

193

87I-P-83

h5-II, 4.1 8.123 Cypriot bowl 8.124 Cypriot pithos 8.125 Cypriot pithos 8.126 Cypriot pithos 8.127 Cypriot cooking pot 8.128 Cypriot Plain Ware storage vessel 8.129 Cypriot storage jar or krater h5-II, 4.2 8.5 Canaanite lamp 8.130 Cypriot Plain Ware storage vessel 8.131 Cypriot cooking vessel

87I-P-68

h5-II, 4.3 8.132 Cypriot pithos 8.133 Cypriot pithos h5-II, 4.4 7.35 Cypriot WS bowl 8.134 Cypriot Plain Ware storage vessel 8.135 Cypriot Plain Ware storage vessel h5-II, 5.1 8.136 Cypriot pithos 8.137 Cypriot Plain Ware bowl 8.160 Canaanite jar

87I-P-64

194

MARSA MAtRuh

8.161 Canaanite jar 8.162 Canaanite jar

h5-III, 4.4 8.81 Egyptian storage jar

h5-II, 5.2 8.80 Egyptian bowl 8.138 Cypriot storage vessel 8.139 Cypriot Plain Ware storage vessel 8.140 Cypriot storage vessel 8.141 Cypriot Plain Ware jar 8.163 Canaanite jar 8.164 Canaanite jar 8.165 Canaanite jar

h5-III/SW, 3.1 7.28 Cypriot WS bowl

89I-P-32

h5-III/W, 3.2 8.8 Jar stopper

89I-P-9

h5-III/W, 4.2 8.7 Cypriot lamp

89I-P-14

h5-II, 5.3 7.78 Cypriot Bichrome closed vessel 8.142 Cypriot storage vessel 8.143 Cypriot Plain Ware jar 8.166 Canaanite jar 8.167 Canaanite jar

87I-P-82

h5-II, 5.4 8.144 Cypriot pithos 8.145 Cypriot Plain Ware stand 8.168 Canaanite jar 8.169 Canaanite jar 8.170 Canaanite jar 8.171 Canaanite cooking pot h5-II, 6.1 7.77 Cypriot Bichrome closed vessel 87I-P-79 8.146 Cypriot storage vessel 8.147 Cypriot White Painted storage vessel 8.148 Cypriot White Painted storage vessel 8.172 Canaanite jar 8.173 Canaanite jar h5-III, 1.1 7.21 Cypriot WS bowl h5-III, 3.1 7.16 Aegean Jar

h5-III/W, 4.4 8.9 Jar stopper 8.10 Jar stopper 8.11 Jar stopper 8.12 Jar stopper 8.13 Jar stopper 8.14 Jar stopper 8.15 Jar stopper 8.81 Egyptian storage vessel

89I-P-16 89I-P-17 89I-P-18 89-P-19 89I-P-20 89I-P-21 89I-P-22

I6-I/II, 1.1 7.61 Cypriot BR juglet 7.62 Cypriot BR juglet 7.63 Cypriot BR juglet

87I-P-19 87I-P-20 87I-P-21

I6-I/II, 2.1 7.39 Cypriot WS bowl

87I-P-37

I6-I/II, sect. 3, 2.1 7.5 Mycenaean open vessel

87I-P-31

I6-I/II, 2.3 7.23 Cypriot WS bowl 7.29 Cypriot WS bowl 8.174 Anatolian widemouth pot

87I-P-51 87I-P-50

I6-I/II, sect. 4, 1.1 8.82 Egyptian bowl 8.83 Egyptian bowl (Nile B2 uncoated)

87I-P-12

85I-P-88

89I-P-31

index

197

index The following does not include the proper names, bibliographic citations, or terminology found in the individual catalogue entries. While the entries include chronological periods, they do not list specific dates or centuries; the appendix on crucible analysis is not included.

Abu Telis, 74 Accipitridae, 93 Acetolysis mixture, 115 Actium, 178, 179 Aegean, 1, 2, 5, 6–8, 19, 20, 44, 45, 54, 92, 93, 96, 169, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178 Aegean oil-jar, 150–151 Africa, 174 African Red Slip, 117, 129, 134, 138, 139 Akhenaten, 170,171, 176 Akhetaten, 176 Akrotiri, 74, 96 Alberéllo, 163, 167 Alcohol clover, 111 Alcohol-xylene, 111 Alectoris barbara, 94 Alexander the Great, 118, 172, 178 Alexandria, 144, 146, 163, 179 Alnus, 116 Amarna, 3, 5, 6, 59, 62, 170, 173, 174, 176, 177 Amarna period (mid-14th century), 44, 173, 176 Amarna, Tomb 2, 170 Amenhotep iii, 170 Amenophis iii, 177 Amer, M., 56 Amphora, 117, 118, 119, 122, 123, 125–129, 130, 134–135, 138, 144–151 Anas, 93 Anatolian pottery, 42, 44 Andes (Peruvian), 52 Animal pen, 171 Annuals, herbs, 109, 111 Antioch/Cilician, 147 Antioch/South Turkey-Cyprus area, 138, 147

Antony (Marcus Antonius), 178 Apollonia (Cyrenaica), 61 Aqueduct, 179 Aquifer, 172 Arabs, 117 Archaeobotany, 51, 109–116 Archaic, Greek period, 60, 61, 118, 125 Archaic Greek pottery, 118, 125 Architectural stone, 157, 159–160 Arcularia, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103 Area V, 117, 134, 136, 139–153 Arena venationes, 62 Arthrocnemum macrostachyum, 109, 110, 111, 116 Artzy, M., 174 Ashdod, 45 Ashmunein Type A amphora, 132, 146 Asia, Central, Southeast, 52 Asparagus stipularis, 111 Ass, 170, 172 Aswan, 141 Athenian Agora, 150 Athenian cup, 122, 127, 128, 134, 136 Athenian lamp, 118, 119, 125, 136 Athenian pottery, 117, 118, 119, 122, 123, 125, 127 Atriplex halimus, 109, 111, 114 Auschisae, 171 Autumn, 93 Awl, 47, 48 Ayios iakovos, Cyprus, 3 Ayia irini, 29, 96 Ayia Triada, 74 Azrag, Mauretania, 62 Babbler, 93

198

MARSA MATRuH

Bailey, d., 141, 147, 149, 164 Ballast, 57 Barbary partridge, 93 Barbotine, 163 Basalt, 54, 56 Base, hollow-footed, 127 Base Ring i, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 177 Base Ring ii, 3, 4, 45, 173, 177 Base Ring, Cypriot, 1, 2, 3–4, 5, 10–12, 173 Bass, G., 58 Bates, O., 3, 4, 14, 19, 50, 61, 62, 106, 163, 171, 179 Bates’s dump, 28, 50 Bates’s island, 1, 2, 4, 6, 17, 20, 28, 29, 44, 51, 54, 56, 61, 62, 88, 92, 93, 111, 114, 115, 116, 117, 129, 130, 135, 137, 138, 144, 151, 153, 154, 158, 161, 163, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179 Bead, 59, 62 Bedouin, 171 Bedouin Microlithic people, 54, 61 Behnke, R., 171 Bell, M.R., 176, 177 Bellows, 47, 51 Benghazi, 74, 147 Berenice, 96, 146 Betancourt, P., 177 Beth Shan, Residency levels, 173 Betula/Corylus, 116 Betulaceae, 116 Bichrome Wheelmade, Cypriot, 1, 4–5, 13–14 Bird, 60, 62, 92, 93, 106 Bird bones, 92–94 Bittium, 94, 95 Black glaze, 119–121 Blackbird, 93 Blade, 47 Blitzer, H., 56 Blowpipe, 51 Bodkin, 48 Bonaterre, 93 Bone, 17, 73 Bone, butchered, 74 Bone, fish, 17, 88–92 Bone, mammal, 73–88, 95 Booty, booty list, 170, 171 Bos taurus, 73, 74, 85 Bourriau, J., 21 Bowl, 1, 2, 3, 5, 20, 21, 44, 62, 119, 123, 125, 129, 130, 135, 136, 139, 140, 141, 151, 160, 171, 172, 179 Branch, branchlet, 111, 116 Bronze, 47, 51, 52, 153–155, 179 Bronze Age, 1, 17, 44, 45, 47, 54, 61, 96, 115, 116,

121, 132, 153, 155, 173, 179 Bronze weapons, knives and other cutting tools, 179 Bulbul, 93 Bunting, 93 Buzzard, 93 Cairo Museum, 163 Calendula arvensis, 111 Camel, 72, 106, 172 Camp of the Hellenes, 178 Canaan, 44, 173 Canaanite Wares, 19, 29, 39–42, 44, 171, 174 Canada balsam, 112 Çandarli ware, 119, 131 Canis familiaris, 73, 74, 95 Cape Gelidonya wreck, 29, 48, 57, 58, 169, 174 Capra hircus, 73 Carapace, 95 Caravan, 178 Carter, T.H., 56, 171 Carthage, 60, 96, 147 Casserole, 138, 140 Casting, 47, 48, 51, 52 Casuarinaceae, 115 Caton-Thompson, G., 56, 62 Cattle, 73, 74, 170, 172 Cave, Haua Fteah, 171 Centra, calcified, 91, 92 Chalasmenos, 74 Chalinomouri, 74, 96 Chania, 96 Charcoal, 52 Charger, 164 Chariot, 171, 172 Chasmophytic perennials, 109 Chat, 93 Chenopodiaceae, 115 Chert, 54, 56 Chicago Oriental institute, 62 China, european, 164 Chipped tool, 54, 56 Chisel, 47 Church (S501), 134, 137, 138, 139, 140–144, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 159, 160, 179 Cimon, 178 Cist burial, 171 Cistern, 178 Classical Greek authors, 170 Classical period, 118, 119, 170 Clay, preparation of, 118 Cleopatra, 178, 179 Closed vessel, 1, 2, 4, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 125,

index

130 Coast Mochlos, 74, 96 Coastal ridge, 137, 159, 179 Coastal wares, production, 117, 118, 125, 127, 130, 134, 136, 138, 140–147 Coin, 153, 155, 162, 179 Column drum, 137, 160 Combed sherd, 130 Compositae, 115 Coniferae, 116 Conus, 96 Cooking pot, 44, 45, 118, 119, 123, 125, 130, 136, 138, 140–141, 164, 172 Coot, 92, 93 Copper, 47, 51, 52, 173, 174, 179 Coriander, 174 Corinthian pottery, 125, 127 Cornelius Gallus, 178 Costrel, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143 Coturnix coturnix, 92, 93 Crake, 92 Cretan [?] jar, 138 Crete, 2, 56, 74, 96, 138, 169, 171, 173, 174 Crow, 93 Crowell, B., 59 Crucianella maritima, 111 Crucible, 47, 50–53 Cup, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 20, 60, 117, 118–119, 123, 125, 127, 130, 134, 136, 139, 176 Cup-skyphos, 119, 121, 127 Cupressaceae, 115 Current, sea, 138 Cyclades, 74, 96 Cypriot Coarse Pottery, 28–38, 44 Cypriot pottery, 1–16, 18–19, 20, 44, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177 Cypro-Minoan script, 174 Cyprus, 3, 4, 5, 19, 30, 51, 74, 96, 169, 173, 177 Cyrenaica, 138, 146, 169, 170, 171, 172 Cyrene, 170 Cyrene, Sanctuary of demeter and Persephone, 74 dabbling duck, 93 dakhla oasis, 170, 171, 172 de Prorok, B.K., 179 deir el Medina, 176 delphi, 170 delta, 52, 169, 170, 172, 178 dentalium, 95 dibble, H., 56 dio Cassius, 178 djerba (Jerba), 96

199

dog, 73, 74 dotted row pattern, 3 dotted scallop pattern, 3 dotted zig-zag pattern, 3 duck, 92, 93 dung as fuel, 52 dutch delftware, 163 eagle, 93 early dynastic, 56, 62 earring, 160 east Greek pottery, 117, 118, 120, 125, 136 east Lagoon, lagoons, 114, 116, 117, 137, 138, 139, 144, 146, 151, 158, 164, 178, 179 east Mediterranean, 169, 173, 174, 175 eastern Sigillata A ware, 117, 119, 129, 131, 134 egloff type amphora, 144 egypt, egyptian, 4, 5, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 29, 44, 45, 51, 54, 59, 62, 93, 96, 115, 119, 124, 127, 132, 137, 138, 144, 145, 147, 163, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178 egypt, French invasion of, 163 egyptian art, 48, 62, 93, 171 egyptian coarse ware, 122–125 egyptian potier, 163 egyptian pottery, 18, 20–28, 29, 44, 54, 117, 119–125, 138, 144, 172, 177 egyptian relief, 171 egyptian types A, B amphoras, 127, 129, 131, 134, 136, 138, 144–146, 179 eighteenth dynasty, 4, 44, 59, 170, 177 emerald necklace, 179 emex spinosus, 111 empereur, J.Y., 147 enkomi, 4, 173 ephedraceae, 114 equid, 73, 106 erinaceus, 74, 95 esna, 144 euhemeria, 144 eurosaria, 98

F. tinnunculus, 92, 93 Faience, 59–60, 160–161 Falco sp., 92, 93 Falcon, 92 Family Anatidae, 93 Family Rallidae, 92, 93 Family Strigidae, 93 Farmyard, 93 Fayum, 54 Finch, 93 Fine ware, 117, 118, 129, 130, 138, 140

200

Fish, 17, 106, 169 Fish bone, 88–92 Fisheries, 88, 92 Fishhook, 47, 48, 50, 54, 92 Fishing, 58, 92 Fishing tackle, 92 Flaked tool, 54–57 Flange, thumb-decorated, 123 Fleet, 178 Flinders Petrie, W.M., 50, 177 Flint, 54 Floor, 161 Flycatcher, 93 Food, 172, 174 Food debris, 95 Fortress, 21, 170, 172, 173 Fortress of the West, 172 Fourtau, R., 179 Fowl, domestic, 92 Frankenia revoluta, 109 Fruit, 29 Fuel for casting bronze, 51, 61 Fulica atra, 93 Furnace, 48, 51 Furumark, A., 177

G. gallus, 92, 93 Garamantes, 62, 170 Gardner, R., 137, 158, 161 Garganey, 93 Garn el-Gineh, 56, 62 Garrison, 44, 173 Gasr Guata, 56 Gastropod, 96 Gaza, 138 Gazelle, 73 Gebel, 172 Gebel (Jebel) Akhdar, 171 Gebel, Cyrenaican, 52, 56, 171 Ghirza, 62 Gift exchange, 174 Gilf Kebir-Gebel, 62 Gittlen, B., 44, 177 Giza, 109 Glass, 59–60, 138, 151, 160–161, 179 Glycerine-soap mixture, 110 Glycerol jelly, 112 Goat, 73, 170 Gold, 47, 171 “Golden Palace” of Cleopatra, 179 Goshawk, 93 Graffito, 127 Gramineae, 113

MARSA MATRuH

Gray mullet, 92 “Great Ridge”, 51, 106, 171, 179 Greco-italic, 127 Greece, 1, 2, 3, 174 Greek, 2, 73, 92, 95, 117, 119, 122, 123, 125, 130, 134, 135, 139 Greek coarse ware, 122–125 Greek pottery, 117, 118–129, 139 Gregory, T.e., 150 Grit, 118 Ground tool, 54, 57 Grouper, 92 Gurob, 172, 177 Hadidi, M.n., 51 Hala Sultan Tekke, 74, 92, 96, 173 Halocnemum strobilaceum, 109, 110, 111, 114 Halophytic chrnopod pattern, 110 Halophytic (saline) species, 114, 116 Halophytic succulent, 109 Hammerstone, 56, 57 Handle, 2, 3, 4, 20, 39, 118, 130, 134, 135, 144, 172 Hankey, V., 176 Harbor, 178, 179 Haruba, 177 Haskell, H., 2 Hatshepsut, 4, 170 Haua Fteah cave, 56, 61, 62, 171 Hautumm, W., 150 Hawk, 93 Hayes, J., 144 Hearth, 17, 47, 54 Hedgehog, 74, 95 Helianthemum kariricum, 111 Helicella, 105 Helix, 105 Helix nucula, 105 Hellenistic material, 132 Hellenistic pottery, 114, 117, 118–122, 123, 127, 129, 136, 138, 139 Hemispherical cup, 119 Heracleopolis Magna, 145 Herbs, annual, 109, 110 Hermopolis Magna, 145 Herodotus, 62, 93, 170, 171 Hieroglyph, 93 Hirschfeld, n., 19, n. 2 Hobby, 92 Holocene Period, 116 Homo, 74, 95 Horizontal band, 125 Horse, 171, 172 Horuba, 21

index

Hound, 62 House P46.33, Amarna, 59 House of the Wine Merchant, Mycenae, 2 Horemheb, 176, 177, 178 Hugah and ishak, 51 Hulin, L., 179 Human, 74, 95 Humic acid, 115 ialysos, 5 inclusion, sandy, 125 ingot, 47, 51 inscription, 125, 159, 179 institute of nautical Archaeology of the Texas A. & M. university, 6 inter-island trade, 169 iron, 47, 156 iron nails, 155–156, 179 iron i, iron Age, 39, 40, 44, 88, 92, 170 isalas the Plasterer, 178 ishak and Hugah, 51 islamic, 73, 74, 92, 95, 106, 163 istanbul, 163 isthmia, 150 italian Pisa ware, 163 ivory knife, 172 Jar, 2, 19, 20, 22–26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, 123, 125, 130, 134, 135, 140, 141, 144, 147, 149–150, 163, 164, 172, 174 Jar handle, 19 Jar stopper (cover), 18–19, 123, 127 Jug, Juglet, 3, 4, 5, 6, 20, 138, 140, 172, 177 Juniperus phoenicea, 115 Junker, 56 Kalavasos Ayios dhimitrios, 74 Kamid el-Loz, 177 Kantor, H., 62 Kea, 96 Keh. ek, 170 Kellia, 144 Kerkouane, 96 Kestrel, 92 Keswani, P.S., 29 Kharga Oasis, 56, 62 Kiln site, 21, 146, 147 King, A., 74 Kitchen midden, 164 Kite, 93 Kition, 74, 173 Kition Bamboula, 74 Knob, 120

201

Knossos, 74, 174 Kommos, 29, 48, 50, 56, 57, 58, 74, 88, 92, 93, 96, 174 Kouklia, 74 Koukounaries, 74, 96 Kouphonisi, 96 Krater, 2 Kröneck, P., 92 Kylix, 6, 119, 127 Kythera, 96 Lachish, 177 Lagoon bottom, 109, 113, 179 Lake Tritonis, 171 Lamp, 17–18, 39, 117–119, 122, 125, 127, 129, 130, 132, 135–137, 160 Land snail, 105 Land trade, 169, 173, 178 Lanner, 92 Lark, 93 Late Bronze Age, 1, 5, 17, 18, 44, 45, 47, 50, 51, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 73, 74, 88, 92, 93, 95, 104, 105, 106, 107, 115, 118, 119, 123, 125, 127, 135, 136, 156, 158, 161, 170, 173, 174, 177, 178 Late egyptian period, 117 Late Roman amphora, 137 Late Roman period, 117, 130, 134, 138, 161 Lava, 57, 157 Lead, 156–157 Lead musket shot, 153, 156 Leguminosae, 115 Lentoid flask, 4 Leptis Magna, 62, 74, 96 Lesbos, 164 Levant, Levantine, 169, 173, 175, 177, 178 Libu, 170 Libya, Libyans, 52, 54, 56, 61, 62, 96, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 178 Libyan cemetery, 104, 105 Libyan chief, monarch, 170 “Libyan fresco”, Thera, 171 Libyan mercenary, 170 Libyan Pentapolis, 125 Libyan plateau, 56, 172 Libyan town, 171 Libyan wars, 172 Lid, 125, 138, 141 Light green, 111 Limestone, 57, 139 Limestone siltware, 20, 21 Limoniastrum monopetalum, 109, 116 Limonium pruinosum, 111 Limonium raddianum, 109

202

MARSA MATRuH

Limpet, 17 Linear B, 174 Linnaeus, 93 Livestock rearing, 170 Llama dung, 52 Locust, 171 Loom weight, 92 Lotus creticus, 111 Lozenge, 3 Lucian, 62 Lycium europaeum, 109, 111, 114 Lygeum spartum, 111 Maa Palaeokastro, 74, 96 Macae, 62, 170 Mackensen, M., 149 Mackerel, 92 Macroscopic botanical remains, 109, 111 Magas, 178 Maghreb, 62 Malia, 96 Mallard, 93 Mammal bones, 73–88 Marble revetment, 179 Marbled pottery, 163, 166 Marina el-Alamein, 130, 144, 145, 146, 172 Marine invertebrates, 95–106 Marl, 21 Marmarica, Marmarican, 44, 56, 62, 163, 169, 170, 172 Martin, 93 Matruh, Marsa, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 19, 20, 21, 52, 94, 118, 122, 125, 130, 135, 138, 141, 144, 145, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 175, 178 Matruh’s souk, 163 Marty, J., 150 Meat, 61, 169, 171 Mechanical digger, 137, 161 Medal, 153 Medicago littoralis, 111 “Megarian” bowl, 129 Megiddo, 44, 177 Melos, 74 Memphis, 176 Menghin, O., 56 Merchant ship, 48, 169 Merenptah, 170, 171, 173, 176 Merrillees, R.S., 4, 5 Merye’s tomb, 170 Meryey, 170, 172 Meshwesh, 170, 172 Metal artifact, 47, 48, 153, 169, 171 Metal trade, 172

Metalworking, 21, 29, 48, 50, 51, 52, 169 Mhwt, 170 Microscopic botanical remains, 109 Midden, 62 Middle Bronze Age, 5 Middle Kingdom, 170, 172, 173 Middle Paleolithic, 171 Middlemen, 20 Milk, 171 Milk bowl, 29, 44, 171 Millstone, milling, 54, 57, 155 Miniature bowl, 1 Minoan, 1, n. 1, 2, 54, 171, 173 Modern material, 127 Mold, 47, 51 Mollusk, 171 Monochrome, Cypriot, 1, 4, 13, 173, 177 Monochrome A, 4, n. 24, 177 Monodonta, 95, 106 Moorhen, 92 Mosaic, 179 Mountjoy, P., 2, 176 Mouse, 95 Muhly, J., 51, 52 Murex trunculus, 95, 96 Mycenaean, 1, 2, 5, 5–8, 19, 118, 171, 173, 174, 176, 177 Myrtou Pigadhes, 74 nail, 47, 48–50, 154, 155, 179 narmouthis, 144 needle, 47, 48–50, 154 neolithic, 56, 61, 62, 171 “new” high chronology, Cypriot, 5 new Kingdom, 44, 172 nightingale, 93 nile perch, 92 nile river, valley, 4, 5, 20, 21, 62, 104, 107, 117, 125, 135, 138, 172 nile silt, 134, 138, 140, 145 nineteenth dynasty, 44, 59, 170, 177 nitovikla, 74 north Africa, 74, 107, 138, 169 north African “spatheia”, 149 northern Cluster, 21, 29, 39, 45 northern Sinai, 115 nubia, 21, 62, 171, 176, 177 Oasis, 170, 172 Obsidian, 54 Octavian, 178 Offering table, 172 Oil, 125

index

Old beach, 138 Old Kingdom, 59, 172 Olive, 29, 164 Olpe, 119 Ononis, 111, 114, 116 Ononis vaginalis, 111 Oren, e., 21 Oriole, 93 Orosius, 178 Osprey, 93 Ostrich as food, 60–61 Ostrich egg, eggshell, 60–64, 92, 93, 169, 170, 171, 172, 174 Ostrich eggshell bead, 62 Ostrich eggshell cup, 62 Ostrich eggshell water flask, 60, 61 Ostrich feather, 170 Ostrich plume headdress, 62 Ostrich skin, 170 Ostrich wing shield, 62 Otolith, 88 Ovis aries, 73 Ovis/capra, 73, 74, 106 Owl, 93 Painted Ottoman era pottery, 163, 164 Palace, 174, 179 Palaikastro, 96 Palestine, 5, 44, 45, 138, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175 Palm, 171 “Palm-tree” motif, 3 Pannier, 172 Paraffin wax, 111 Paraitonion, 178 Parallel Line Style, 3 Parenchyma, 111, 113 Parenchymatous ground tissue, 111 Paros, 74, 96 Passarine, 92 Passeriforme, 92, 93 Pasture, summer, 172 Pasture, winter rain-fed, 171 Patella, 95, 106 Peabody Museum, Harvard university, 3, 14–15 Peacock and Williams amphora, 136, 144, 147 Peacock and Williams oil-jar, 150 Peacock and Williams “spatheia”, 149 Peloponnesus, 5, 6, n. 32 Pelvis, 94 Pendant, 153, 160 Perennials, chasmophytic, 109 Perennials, woody, 109, 110, 114 Pestle, 57

203

Phalanx, 95 Pharaoh, 170 Phocaea, 138 Phocean Red Slip, 117, 123, 129, 130, 139–140, 179 Phlamoudhi Melissa, 74 Phlamoudhi Vounari, 74 Phylakopi, 74 Picon, M., 147 Pig, 73, 74 Pilaster drum, 137 Pin, 47, 48–50, 154, 174 Pinus/Cedrus, 116 Pipit, 93 Pithos, 19, 20, 28, 29, 30, 44, 174 Plain White Ware, Cypriot, 19 Plant cover, 109 Plaster, 161–162, 179 Plutarch, 178, 179 Point, 47 Pollen analysis, 109, 112, 114–116 Pollen material, 114–116 Pollentaxa, anemophilous type, 116 Porringer, 164 Post-antique, 179 Post-Bronze Age, 50, 54, 61, 73, 95, 153, 160, 178–179 Pot mark, 3, 4, 19–20, 39, 174 Pounder, 54, 57 Pre-Roman coarse ware, 118, 125, 127 Proximal, 94 Pseira, 74, 92, 96 Ptolemaic coarse ware, 122–125 Ptolemaic egypt, 96 Ptolemaic period, 93, 96, 117, 118, 123, 125, 127, 146, 163, 172, 178 Ptolemy ii Philadelphus, 178 Pumice, 158 Punt, 171 Purple dye, 96 Puzzles, 42–44 Qasrawet, 145 Quail, 92, 93 Quernstone, 57–58, 157–158 Quirke, S., 173 Rail, 92 Ramesses ii, 45, 170, 172, 176, 177, 178 Ramesses iii, 170 Râs Alam el-Rûm, 158, 179 Rataba, 5 Raven, 93 Ray, 92

204

MARSA MATRuH

Reaumuria mucronata, 111 Recycled implement, 51 Red figure pottery, 119 Red Lustrous, Cypriot, 1, 4, 5, 13 Red slip ware, 129 Redstart, 93 Reese, d., 60 Revictualing station, 54, 169 Rhodes, 1, 5 Rhodian pottery, 118 Richardson, S., 172 Robin, 93 Rock art (equid phase), 171 Roman, 73, 74, 88, 92, 93, 95, 104, 105, 106, 117, 119, 123, 125, 130, 135, 138, 144, 178, 179 Roman amphora, 127, 134–135 Roman C ware, 138 Roman coarse ware, 130–134 Roman fine wares, 129–130 Roman material, 130 Roman pottery, 117, 119, 123, 125, 127, 129–130, 131, 132–136 Romanisation, 74 Rome, 60 Rubbish, Roman, 95 S102 room, 21, 29, 74, 95, 174 S107 room, 19, 21, 29 S118 wall, 21, 29 S119 workshop, 17, 19, 21, 29, 48, 59, 61, 92 S120 room, 19, 29 S121 wall, 21, 29 S122 ramp, 19 S125, 29 S126 a, b, 21, 29 S128, 18 Saddle-quern, 57 Safranin, 111, 115 Sail, cloth or hide, 48 Sailor, 169, 172 Sailor's trade, 174 Saite period, 117, 118, 123, 125 Salicornia fruticosa, 109, 111 Salinization, 116 Salsola villosa, 111 Salt concentrations on island, 109 Salt marshes, 114 Salt-cellar, 119, 123, 127 Samian pottery, 118 Sanctuary of demeter and Persephone, Cyrene, 74 Saqqara, 144, 176 Saraçhane, 163

Sardinia, 29 Scale pattern, 2 Sea bass, 92 Sea bream, 92 Sea Peoples, 171 Sea, roughness of, 169 Sea trade, 19, 138, 146, 169, 173, 174, 178 Sea-farer, 172 Second Libyan war, 170, 171 Senecio desfentainei, 111 Serin, 93 Sesebi, nubia, 176 Seti i, 177, 178 Seti ii, 177 Sgraffito ware, 163, 164, 165–166 Shark, 92 Shasu, 170 Sheep, 73, 170 Sheepfold, 170 Shelduck, 92 Shell, marine, 17, 18, 105–106 Shell Tempered Ware, 62 Sherden, 171 Sherratt, S., 174 Ship, 171, 174 Shrapnel, 47 Shrub, 51 Sicily, 29 Sickle blade, 56 Sidi Khrebish (Benghazi), 74 Sigillata ware, 129, 139 Signature, 178 Siliceous material, 115 Siltware, 20, 21 Silver, 47, 171 Sinai, 21, 144, 177 Sinker, stone, 54, 58 Site 400, Marsa Matruh, 50 Siwa, 118, 172, 178 Sixth dynasty, 172 Skull, human, 93 Skyphos, 119, 127 Slab, 137, 172 Slag, 47, 50, 51 Slave triangle trade, 174 Sledge microtome, 111 Slipped Ottoman era pottery, 163, 166 Smelting, 51, 52 Snail, 17, 106 Snape, S., 45, n. 21 Soil sample, 109, 111, 115 Solid or partially glazed pottery, 163, 167–168 Song bird, 92

index

Soped, 170 SOS amphora, 117, 125, 130, 135 Souk at Marsa Matruh, 163 Southern Cluster, 19, 39 Spain, 173 Sparrow, 93 “Spatheia,” 149 Spike, amphora, 134 Spindle bottle, Red Lustrous, 4 Sponge-divers House (S101), 18, 48, 50, 95, 118, 119, 158, 163, 179 Stamped bowl, 129 Stand, 30 Starling, 93 State-to-state trade, 174 Steppe desert, 62 Stipple pattern, 2 Stirrup jar, 1, 2, 5, 176, 177 Stone artifact, 54–59, 157–160, 171 Storage area ne of Sponge-divers House, 18, 29 Storage vessel, 18, 28, 30, 164, 174 Strombus/lambis, 95 Struthioculture, 61 Stucchi, S., 62 Suaeda vermiculata, 109, 111 Succulent plant, 51, 109 Sudan, 172 Sudan border, 56 Suez, 144 Summer sailing season, 138 Sun, 179 Sunbird, 93 Sus, 74, 106 Swallow, 93 Sword, 171 Syria, Syrian, 5, 48, 171, 174 Syro-Palestine, 4 Syrtic Gulf, 62 Tack, 154 Tadorna sp., 92, 93 Talon, 95 Tankard, Base Ring, 173 Taxa, circum Mediterranean, 111 Taxa, South european, 116 Teal, 93 Teapot, Base Ring ii, 173 Tell Abu Hawwam, 169, 177 Tell el-Ajjul, 169 Tell el-Haraby type B jar, 146 Tell el-Maskhuta, 144 Tell el-Yahudiya, 56 Tell es-Sayidiyeh, 173

205

Tel nami, 19 Temehu, 56 Temper, chaff, limestone, sand, shell, 29, 51, 52, 118 Tempio Flavio area, Leptis Magna, 74 Terra sigillata, 119 Terracotta, 51, 61, 161 Testudo, 74, 95 Textile, 174 Thera, 74, 96, 171 Third world, 52 Thrush, 93 Thutmose iii, 4 Thutmose iV, 4 Thymelaea hirsuta, 109, 110, 111, 114, 116 Tin, 174 Tin-glazed pottery, 163, 164 Tit, 93 Tjeh. nu, 170 Tjemeh, 170 Tobruk, 96 Tôd, 144 Tomb, 179 Tomb A1, Bates’s Libyan cemetery, 106 Tortoise, 74, 95 Trade, 138, 146, 169, 173, 174, 179 “Traditional” chronology, Cypriot, 5 Transhumance, 171 Transport amphora, 117, 118, 122, 125–129, 138, 144, 147, 178 Transport container, 1, 2, 5, 144 Tree, 116, 179 Tree, Australian, 116 Tri-curved arch pattern, 2 Triglyph, 179 Trinket trade, 172, 174 Tripolitanian desert, 56, 62, 171 Troy, 2 Tunisia, 96, 138 Tunny, 92 Tutankhamun, 176, 177 Twentieth dynasty, 170, 177 Twenty-fourth dynasty, 170 Twenty-second dynasty, 170 Twenty-third dynasty, 170 Two-handled dish, 164 ugarit, 29, 173, 174 ulmaceae, 116 ulmus, 116 uluburun wreck, 6, 29, 50, 61, 169, 173, 174, 177 unexplored Mansion, Knossos, 74 universität Tübingen, 92 c uweinat, 62

206

V-shaped handle, 2 Vegetation, desertic (xeric), 109–111, 116 Vegetation in rainy season, 109 Vegetation, Late Bronze Age, 115 Vegetation, modern, 109–111 Vegetation, saline (halophytic), 109, 115 Vulture, 93 Wadi dungal terrace, 62 Wadi el-Amud, 74 Wadi el-Bakht, 62 Wagtail, 93 Wall plaster, 161, 169, 179 Walpole, G., 179 Warbler, 93 Warren, P., 176 Waste, 47, 50 Water, 61, 169, 170, 172, 174, 179 Water, distilled, 115 Water flask, ostrich egg, 60, 61 Weapon, 47, 48 Weaver, 93 Weight for nets, fishing line, 54, 58, 92 Wenworth scale, 57 West Lagoon, 178, 179 Western desert, 54, 56, 170, 178

MARSA MATRuH

Wheatear, 93 White, d., 173 White Painted Ware, Cypriot, 19, 29, 30 White Shaved, Cypriot, 1, 4, 13, 173, 177 White Slip i, 3 White Slip ii, 3, 4, 5, 8–10, 45, 171, 176, 177 White Slip, Cypriot, 1, 2–3, 5, 6, 19, 44 Wigeon, 93 Wind, 138, 179 Wine, 125, 144, 179 Wishbone handle, Cypriot, 2, 3, 4 Wood anatomical investigation, 115 Wood (xylem) pattern, 111 World War ii, 47 xeric pattern, 111 xylem arch, 111, 115 Y-shaped cup, 3 Zawiyet umm el-Rakham, 21, 44, 45, 56, 170, 171, 172, 173, 178 Zig-zag pattern, 3 Zygophyllum album, 111

PLANS

PLAN 1

Plan 1. Topographic plan of Bates’s Island showing location of excavated walls and structures.

PLAN 2

Plan 2. Plan of Bates’s Island showing location of excavated trenches.

PLAN 3

Plan 3. Map of the Eastern Lagoon showing relationship of Bates’s Island (Area I) to adjacent shores features (Areas II, III, and V).

Plan 4. Redrawing, with additions, of 1938/1941 1:25,000 scale plan (Dept. of Surveys and Mines, Sheet no. 2) of Matruh harbor and lagoons east to Râs Alam el-Rûm, locating Areas I-IX. Area IV, Umm el-Rakham area, and the ridge south of Umm el-Rakham and west of Wadi el-Samad all lie west of the mapped area.

PLAN 4

PLATES

PLATE 1

interior of rim sherd

7.1

7.2

7.6

7.3

7.7

7.4

exterior of rim sherd

7.9

7.8

7.10

7.14

7.5

7.11

7.12

7.15

7.17

7.16

1:2

PLATE 2

7.18

7.23

7.19

7.20

7.24

7.21

7.25

7.28

1:2

7.22

7.26

7.27

PLATE 3

7.30

7.29

7.31

7.33

7.35

7.41

7.36

7.42

7.32

7.34

7.37

7.38

7.43

7.39

7.40

7.44

1:2

PLATE 4

7.45

7.46

7.47

7.48

7.52

7.57

7.64

1:2

7.50

7.49

7.53

7.58

7.65

7.54

7.60

7.61

7.66

7.51

7.55

7.56

7.62

7.63

7.68

7.69

PLATE 5

7.70

7.71

7.72

7.73

7.74

7.75

7.76

7.77

7.78

7.79

7.80

7.83

7.81

7.84

7.82

7.85

1:2

PLATE 6

7.86

7.87

7.96

7.89

7.97

7.90

7.92

7.93

8.1

7.98

7.94

7.95

8.2

8.16

8.6

8.7 8.18

8.37

8.28

1:2

8.47

8.48

PLATE 7

8.62 8.58

8.68

8.73

8.69

8.82

8.100

8.70

8.101

8.102

1:2

PLATE 8

8.103

8.109 8.106

8.175

1:2

PLATE 9

8.176

8.179

8.177

9.1

9.5

9.15

9.6

9.2

9.7

9.16

9.9

9.3

9.10

9.17

9.11

9.18

9.4

9.12

9.20

9.13

9.21

9.14

9.22

1:2

PLATE 10

9.23

9.25

9.26

9.36

9.24

9.37

9.40

9.38

9.41

9.42

9.44

9.43

9.45

9.46

9.47

9.48

9.49

9.54

9.55

1:2

9.61

9.62

9.51

9.52

PLATE 11

9.63

9.64

9.67

9.71

9.113

9.73

9.75

12.5

12.1

9.69

9.68

9.70

9.76

9.78

9.79

9.80 9.81

9.82

9.83

interior of rim sherd

12.6

exterior of rim sherd

12.7

1:2

PLATE 12

12.8

12.14

12.16

12.26

12.52

12.57 12.45

12.90

12.49

12.27

13.1 (1:1)

1:2

12.92

13.2 (1:1)

13.4

13.5

13.3 (1:1)

13.6

13.7

PLATE 13

13.9

13.8

13.15

13.16

13.10

13.24

13.26

13.38

13.30

13.34

13.39

13.40

13.43

13.27

13.31

13.35

13.41

13.14

13.21

13.25

13.29

13.33

13.13

13.18 (1:1)

13.17

13.23

13.12

13.11

13.36

13.44

13.45

13.22

13.28

13.32

13.37

13.46 1:2

PLATE 14

13.47

13.48

13.49

13.50

13.51

1:2

13.52

PLATE 15

13.53

13.55

13.56

13.57

13.58

13.59

1:2

PLATE 16

13.60

13.61

13.62

13.64

13.65

13.66

1:2

13.67

13.63

PLATE 17

13.68

13.70

13.71

13.69

13.72

13.76

13.73

13.74

13.77

13.78

13.79

13.80

1:2

PLATE 18

13.81

13.84

13.85

13.86

13.87 14.3

13.82

13.83

13.88

14.5

1:2

13.89

14.6

14.7

PLATE 19

14.8

14.10

1:2

PLATE 20

14.11

14.12

14.13

14.16

1:2

14.17