Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:18:22.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Egyptian Bronze Jugs from Crete and Lefkandi

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2012

Jane B. Carter
Jane B. Carter
Affiliation:
Tulane University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

John Boardman has pointed to the squat bronze jugs with lotus handles from early Iron Age contexts in Crete and at Lefkandi on Euboia as Egyptian imports ‘certainly straight from Egypt itself with no eastern intermediaries’. On close inspection, however, the Egyptian antecedents of these jugs pose a chronological, and even a philosophical, puzzle; whatever the solution, the jugs found in Crete and at Lefkandi surely do not furnish convincing evidence for early direct connections between Egypt and the Aegean.

Type
Shorter Contributions
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 118 , November 1998 , pp. 172 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Boardman, J., The Greeks Overseas3 (London 1980) 113Google Scholar. I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers of this article for their helpful comments.

2 Halbherr, F., ‘Scavi e trovamenti nell'antro di Zeus’, Museo Italiano di antichità classica 2 (1888) 725Google Scholar and Atlante pl. 12, 9.

3 Inv. no. 18221. Unless this handle belonged to one of the five jugs in the Syllogos collection, Halbherr does not mention the handle in his report.

4 H. Matthäus, ‘Crete and the Near East during the ninth and eighth Centuries BC—new investigations on the finds from the Idaean Cave of Zeus’, paper delivered at the Colloquium on Post-Minoan Crete, Institute of Archaeology, London, Nov. 10-11, 1995.

5 Brock, J.K., Fortetsa, BSA suppl. 2 (Cambridge 1957) 136, 200-1, nos. 1571-2, pl. 113Google Scholar. The dates are those given by Brock.

6 S. Marinatos, ‘Άνασκαϕή Άμνίσου Κρήτης’ Praktiká (1933) 99 (ή λαβή ένός χαλκου σκεύους, καταλήγουσα άνω είς λωτοειδές άνθος, not illustrated), 99-100 and figs. 4-5 (faience objects).

7 Popham, M.R., Sackett, L.H., and Themelis, P., Lefkandi I, BSA suppl. 11 (1980) 188–9, 249-50Google Scholar; Sackett, L.H. and Popham, M.R., ‘Lefkandi: a Euboean town of the Bronze Age and the early Iron Age (2100-700 BC)’, Archaeology 25.1 (1972) 18Google Scholar.

8 Popham, M.R., Touloupa, E., and Sackett, L.H., ‘Further excavation of the Toumba Cemetery at Lefkandi, 1981’, BSA 77 (1982) 219Google Scholar (T 39.31), 239, fig. 8, pl. 33e.

9 Culican, W., ‘Phoenician metalwork and Egyptian tradition’, Revista de la Vniversidad Complutense 25 (1976) 89Google Scholar.

10 In the same way, Egyptian decorative schemes of the New Kingdom provided models for the Egyptian lotiform relief chalices made in Dynasty XXI (c. 1075-944); makers of bronze bowls in eighth and seventh century Cyprus then adopted these decorative schemes. See Markoe, G., Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls from Cyprus and the Mediterranean (U. Cal. Publ. in Classical Studies 26, 1985) 30–3.Google Scholar

11 Culican (n.9) 85 and fig. 6. See: J.L. Myers, Handbook of the Cesnola Collection (1914) no. 4701; Richter, G.M.A., Greek, Etruscan and Roman Bronzes (New York 1915) 241, no. 690Google Scholar, and ill. on 243; Myers gives a date of 1300-1200 BC, and Richter gives Dynasties XVIII-XIX.

12 The references given by Culican (n.9) nn. 14-16 are full of inaccuracies. He cites Brunton, G., Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture (London 1937)Google Scholar when he actually refers to Brunton, G., Matmar (London 1948) 67–8, no. 1017, pl. XLIX, 1Google Scholar; this error is duplicated from his earlier article, ‘Quelques aperçus sur les ateliers phéniciens’, Syria 45 (1968) 280 n. 1Google Scholar. The Matmar jug is long-necked, about 25 cm. tall, with an incised lotus on the handle, dated by the excavator on the basis of associated pottery to Dynasties XIX-XXI; it is thus much larger than the Cretan jugs and does not belong to Dynasty XXV. At Nuri in Nubia, the tomb of King Aspelta did contain a gold vase with a lotus handle, but the shape of this vase is very elongated, with a tall, slightly flaring neck and slender, round-bottomed, inverted piriform body. The handle has no rotelles and is attached to the rim ‘by means of clinched cotter pins’, of which there appear to be four; the bottom of the handle is soldered to the body of the vase: Dunham, D., The Royal Cemeteries of Rush. Volume II. Nuri (Boston 1955) 81Google Scholar, #18-3-321, fig. 55, pis. XXXIV D, LXXXIX A (now Boston Museum of Fine Arts, inv. 20.341). The pages and illustration cited by Culican for a jug from the tomb of ‘queen Amtalqa’ at Nuri do not mention or illustrate such a jug; indeed, Amtalqa was a king, not a queen. There is no other vessel with a cut-out or incised lotus on its handle in the publication of the cemetery at Nuri. As for ‘the example found by Layard at Nimrud’, this is a handle only, bronze with cut-out lotus decoration, which probably belonged to a wide shallow bowl rather than to a jug: Layard, A.H., Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon (New York 1853) 181Google Scholar. The shape of this handle corresponds to the handles of wide, shallow bowls such as Radwan, A., Die Kupfer- und Bronzegefässe Ägyptens, Prähistorische Bronzefunde ii.2 (Munich 1983) nos. 335–336.Google Scholar

13 Falsone, G., ‘Phoenicia as a bronzeworking centre in the Iron Age’, in Curtis, J. (ed.), Bronzeworking Centres of Western Asia c. 1000-539 (London 1988) 234Google Scholar.

14 Catling in Popham, Sackett, and Themelis 1980 (n.7) 250. Culican uses the Cincinnati wine service (FIG. 5) as an example of an Egyptian Dynasty XVIII jug with two real rivets and a false rivet in between: Culican (n.9) 86 and fig. 13. Catling points out that the thickness of the metal at the rim of the Lefkandi bowl is twice (or more) the thickness of the rest of the bowl. This feature does not occur in the numerous bronze Cypriot bowls of the Late Cypriot and Cypro-Geometric periods. Catling also observes that the Lefkandi bowl was placed with the jug in the tomb as a grave gift, whereas in Athens bronze hemispherical bowls of Cypriot type were used as covers for cremation urns during the Protogeometric, Early Geometric, and Middle Geometric 1 periods. He concludes that the Lefkandi bowl probably came (with the jug) from a different source than the bowls found in Athens.

15 Brock (n.5) 136, nos. 1574-1579, pl. 112.

16 Athens, National Museum #11790/2. In four of the hemispherical bowls from Fortetsa Tomb P, a small hole is visible near the rim. Brock explains that a loop handle was probably attached to these bowls by means of a single rivet. The hemispherical bowl in the Athens Museum also has a small hole near the rim.

17 Dothan, T., Deir el-Balah, Qedem x (Jerusalem 1979), Tomb 118, 46–91, figs 148-54Google Scholar; Gershuny, L., Bronze Vessels from Israel and Jordan, Prähistorische Bronzefunde ii.6 (1985) 19, no. 127, pl. 12Google Scholar. For the soldered handle and the shape of this jug, compare a Dynasty XIX bronze jug with a lotus engraved on the handle from Dendereh: Radwan (n.12) 135, no. 384, pl. 68.

18 Åstrom, P.et al., Hala Sultan Tekke 8 (Göteborg 1983) 169–87Google Scholar: Tomb 23, N 1220 (platter), N 1221 (bowl), and N 1222 (jug). The tomb is dated to the transition between Late Cypriote IIIA1 and IIIA2, c. 1175 BC. See also Matthäus, H., Metallgefässe und Gefässuntersätze der Bronzezeit, der geometrischen und archäischen Periode auf Cypern, Prähistorische Bronzefunde ii.8 (Munich 1985) 26, 58-9, 80Google Scholar (#151, bowl), 194-5 (#469, platter), 234-6 (#532, jug).

19 Eight wine services have been coveniently assembled by Gershuny (n.17) 46-7, pls. 17-18, A-H (note that the caption on pi. 17 should identify sets A and B as Megiddo, set C as Beth Shan, and set D as Tell es Sa'idiyeh). The dates given below (except no. 5) are from Gershuny. Another wine service (no. 5 below) was recently excavated at Tell es Sa'idiyeh.

1. Tell el-Ajjul, Tomb 419 (the Governor's Tomb), 14th century. Gershuny 24, nos. 77 (almost hemispherical bowl), 117 (strainer), and 119 (situla), pl. 18 F.

2. Beth Shan, Tomb 90, 13th century. Gershuny 26-7, nos. 16 (hemispherical bowl), 114 (strainer), and 130 (ju8). pl. 17 C.

3. Deir el-Balah, Tomb 114, 13th century. Gershuny 29-30, nos. 72 (shallow bowl), 116 (strainer), and 122 (situla), pi. 18 E.

4. Tell es Sa'idiyeh, Grave 101, late 13th century. Gershuny 43-4. nos. 7 (hemispherical bowl), 112 (strainer), and 131 (jug), pl. 17 D.

5. Tell es Sa'idiyeh, Grave 32, 13th-12th century. J.N. Tubb, ‘The role of the Sea Peoples in the bronze industry of Palestine/Transjordan in the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age transition’, in Curtis (ed.), Bronzeworking Centres (n.13) 254, fig. 156: shallow bowl, strainer, and jug.

6. Tell el-Far'ah, South, Tomb 914, end of thirteenthth/beginning of twelfth century. Gershuny 33-4, 70 (bowl) and 115 (strainer), pi. 18 H (note that the strainers have been switched in pl. 18: strainer no. 115 belonging to Tomb 914 is placed with pl. 18 G, while strainer no. 113 belonging to Tomb 229 is placed with pl. 18 H).

7-8. Megiddo, Locus 1739, 12th century. Gershuny 41-2, nos. 46-7 (shallow bowls), 110-11 (strainers), 128-9 (jugs), pl. 17 A and B.

9. Tell el-Far'ah, South, Tomb 229, 1 lth century. Gershuny 31, nos. 92 (carinated bowl), 113 (strainer), and 132 (jug), pl. 18G.

20 The use of these vessels was first identified by Petrie, in connection with his excavation of the Governor's Tomb at Tell el-Ajjul (n.19 above, no.l). For discussions of wine services, see: Pritchard, J.B., ‘New evidence of the role of the Sea Peoples in Canaan at the beginning of the Iron Age’, in Ward, W. (ed.), The Role of the Phoenicians in the Interaction of Mediterranean Civilizations (Beirut 1968) 99–112Google Scholar; Negbi, O., “The continuity of the Canaanite bronzework of the Late Bronze Age into the Early Iron Age’, Tel Aviv 1 (1974) 159–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moorey, P.R.S., ‘Metal wine-sets in the ancient Near East’, Iranica Antiqua 15 (1980) 181–97Google Scholar; Gershuny (n.17) 46-7; Matthäus (n.18) 59.

21 For the Egyptian presence in Palestine in the Ramesside period: Singer, I., ‘Egyptians, Canaanites, and Philistines in the period of the emergence of Israel’, in Finkelstein, I. and Na'aman, N. (eds.), From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel (Jerusalem 1994) 282–338Google Scholar; James, F.W. and McGovern, P.E., The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan: A Study of Levels VII and VIII, U. of Penn. University Museum Monograph 85 (1993)Google Scholar; Gonen, R., “The Late Bronze Age’, in Ben-Tor, A. (ed.), The Archaeology of Ancient Israel (New Haven & London 1992) 217, 221Google Scholar; Singer, I., ‘Merneptah's campaign to Canaan and the Egyptian occupation of the southern coastal plain of Palestine in the Ramesside period’, BASOR 269 (1988) 1–10Google Scholar; Oren, E.D., ‘“Governors’ residences” in Canaan under the New Kingdom: a case study of Egyptian administration’, Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 14.2 (1985) 37–56Google Scholar; Gonen, R., ‘Urban Canaan in the Late Bronze period’, BASOR 253 (1984) 61–73Google Scholar; Weinstein, J.M., ‘The Egyptian empire in Palestine: a reassessment’, BASOR ccxli (1981) 1–28Google Scholar.

22 Culican (n.9) 86, 89.

23 Catling in Popham, Sackett, and Themelis 1980 (n.7) 250.

24 Radwan (n.12) 133-7.

25 Catling in Popham, Sackett, and Themelis 1980 (n.7) 249.

26 Such an embassy in the fourteenth century would require that the jug from Toumba Tomb 39 could be dated in Dynasty XVIII; otherwise the Egyptian embassy might have been Ramesside, or the the jug in Tomb 39 came later. An official Egyptian embassy from Amenhotep III to cities in Crete and mainland Greece, including Mycenae, in the first half of the fourteenth century BC has been proposed based on the list of apparent Aegean toponyms found in the mortuary temple of Amenhotep III at Kom el-Hetan and the six or more objects from Mycenae inscribed with the name of Amenhotep III or Queen Tiyi: Cline, E. H., “Amenhotep III and the Aegean: A Reassessment of Egypto-Aegean Relations in the 14th Century”, Orientalia 56 (1987) 1–36Google Scholar and Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: International trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean, BAR International Series 591 (Oxford 1994) 39–42Google Scholar.

27 See the discussion of this and other pedigreed objects from Toumba by Antonaccio, C.M., “Lefkandi and Homer,” in Andersen, ø. and Dickie, M. (eds.), Homer's World (Bergen 1995) 5–27Google Scholar. The case may be similar with the bronze vessel stands of a type made on Cyprus in the late thirteenth and twelfth centuries BC that have been found in contexts as late as the eighth century BC at Athens, Knossos, and Thera; see Matthäus (n.18), 305-6, nos. d, f, and i and j, respectively. For the arguments for and against these stands as heirlooms: H.W. Cading, “Workshop and Heirloom: Prehistoric Bronze Stands in the East Mediterranean”, RDAC 1984, 69-91 and Matthäus, H., “Heirloom or Tradition? Bronze Stands of the Second and First Millennium B.C. in Cyprus, Greece and Italy”, in French, E.B. and Wardle, K. A. (eds.), Problems in Greek Prehistory (Bristol 1988) 285–300.Google Scholar

28 The apparent concentration of Iron Age examples on Crete does suggest another possibility, that the jugs found in the Aegean were made in a Cretan workshop and patterned on an antique jug from Egypt. It would be very interesting to compare metallurgical analyses of the jugs from Abydos with the jugs from Crete and Lefkandi.

29 Sackett thinks that ‘the family using the Toumba graveyard included a number of wealthy traders, who may themselves have penetrated to the Near East as early as the tenth century BC’ (Popham, Touloupa, and Sackett [n. 8] 237). Shaw, J.W., ‘Phoenicians in southern Crete’, AJA 93 (1989) 165–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar