Aegean Interest On The Uluburun Ship

Aegean Interest on the Uluburun Ship
Author(s): Christoph Bachhuber

Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 110, No. 3 (Jul., 2006), pp. 345-363
Published by: Archaeological Institute of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40024547
Accessed: 03-12-2015 10:53 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40024547?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal
of Archaeology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 87.218.152.126 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 10:53:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AegeanIntereston theUluburunShip
CHRISTOPH BACHHUBER
Abstract FourteenobjectsassociatedwiththereignofAmen-
The inventoryof elitemanufactured objectsand the hotep III have been identified in theAegean (nine
ofmetalrecoveredfromtheLate Bronze
largequantity
mirrorin manyrespectspala-
14
ofthe at Mycenae) .6From Mycenae,a faiencevase
Age Uluburunshipwreck and fragments from at leastfourfaienceplaques in-
tialgiftexchangedeliveriesas theyare recordedin the
AmarnaLetters.The excavatoroftheship- scribedwiththe cartoucheof AmenhotepIII were
contemporary
wreckproposesthattwomen ofAegeanoriginwereon recovered fromLH IIIA and LH IIIB contexts, respec-
boardand thattheshipwassailingtotheAegean.Bycom- tively. scarabsof Queen Tiyi,Amenhotep's
Two wife,
biningdatagenerated fromtheUluburunshipwreck with havealsobeenfoundatMycenaeinLH IIIB contexts.7
evidencefromthecontempo-
textualand archaeological
raryNearEastandAegean,thispaperevaluatestheplau-
Hankeyand Cline haveproposedthattheobjects
voyageen routetotheAegeantied
ofa diplomatic
sibility belongedto an officialEgyptiandelegationthatvis-
to Mycenaeanpalatialenterprise.* itedtheAegeanduringthereignofAmenhotepIII.8
Thisvoyageof "giftexchange"appearsto havebeen
INTRODUCTION recordedon theAegeanListofKomel-Hetan.Cline,
Evidencefora singulardiplomaticvoyageto the followingSchulman,proposesthatthe embassyto
Late BronzeAge AegeanwasfirstadvancedbyHan- theAegean was one of severalEgyptiandiplomatic
keyovertwodecades ago. In thisscenario,an Egyp- gesturestowardvariousregionalpowersin the Le-
tiandelegationrepresenting AmenhotepIII visited vant.9Egypt'sinterestin thesekingdoms(including
numerouspolitiesin the Aegean. She beginswith Ugarit,Mitanni,and Babylon)was theirproximity
observations on a statuebase of AmenhotepIII in to the landmassof Asia Minor.AmenhotepIII had
his mortuary templeat Kom el-Hetan.1The statue establishedallianceswiththe neighborsof Hattiin
base is inscribedwith14 place-names,listingimpor- an effortto containtheHittitesand theiraggressive
tantcentersin theLH/LM III Aegean (i.e.,Knossos, in
policies 14th-century Syro-Palestine.
BoetianThebes,Mycenae,Troy).2Hankeycautiously Reconstructions of contactbetweenthe Bronze
proposesthatthe inscribedstatuebase recordsan AgeAegeanand itsneighborsare uniquelychalleng-
Egyptianvoyageto the Aegean.3Her proposalhas ing to devise.Much of the difficultyarisesfromthe
been takenup byCline,4who suggeststhatthe "Ae- inadequacy of the textualevidence. The Minoan
as theplace-namesfollowa
gean List"is an itinerary, scripthas yetto be deciphered,the Mycenaeanar-
roughlycircularpatternaroundtheAegean,begin- chivesare notoriouslyelusiveon issues relatedto
ningand endingwithCrete.5 tradeand foreigncontact,and references totheLH/
* I wishtothankCemalPulakforwalking me through the formative andforlaying

stages, suchan important foundation
labyrinth thatistheUluburun andforgiving
shipwreck, methe forfuturestudiesofLateBronzeAgelong-distance trade.The
opportunity toponderoveraspectsofhislife'swork.Additional titleofthepaperis in memory and appreciation ofVrowny
thanksgo to himforentrusting me withtheUluburunfield Hankey(see Hankey1981). Anyerrors inthepaperareofmy
catalogues andforhisfinalreview ofthepaper.The Institute ownnegligence.
1For ofthestatuebase,see Edel 1966.
ofNauticalArchaeology (INA)andProf.Pulakwereverykind publication
tograntmepermission tousean imagefromtheINA"virtual 2Edel1966,37-48.
museum"Websiteforuse in thispaper.Manythanksgo to 3Hankeyl981,45.
Cynthia Shelmerdine forherencouragement, guidance,and 4Cline1987;1990-1991,22-7;1994,38-9;1998a,244-45.
hergenerosity oftimeandenergy. ThanksalsotoSue Sherratt 5Cline1990-1991,25; 1994,39; 1995b,94-5; 1998a,245.
and critiqueofmywork.I wishto 6
forherkeenobservations Hankey(1981,45-6) discussesonlytheplaques.The re-
thank Wachsmann
Shelley forhisobservations,
comments, and mainingAmenhotep III objectsare eitherinitially
published
guidance.Mythanks go alsotoElizabethFroodforherreview byCline( 1990,onefaienceplaquefrom Mycenae)orcitedand
ofthepaperinitsfinalstages.I amgrateful formycorrespon- discussedbyCline1987,11-13;1990;1994,39; 1995b,94-5.
dencewithJeremy Rutter, whogaveme permission to refer- 7Cline1987,8-9.
encehisunpublished workon theAegeanceramics fromthe 8Hankey 1981,45-6;Cline1987;1990-1991, 22-7;1994,38-
Uluburunshipwreck, as wellas formycorrespondence with 9; 1998a,244-45.
NicolleHirschfeld, whogavemepermission toreference her 9Schulman1979,183-85;1988,59-60;Cline1994,41-2;
unpublished workontheCypriot ceramicsfrom thatshipwreck. 1998a,248-49.
Last,I wishto thankEricClineforreviewing thepaperin its
345
American 110 (2006) 345-63
JournalofArchaeology
346 CHRISTOPH BACHHUBER [AJA110
LM IIIA-B Aegeanseldomappear in contemporary onlyavenue forassessingthe makeupof the men
NearEasterntexts.Thus,scholarship isforcedtorely on board,sincethesitehas producedno epigraphic
on less dependablebodies of evidence. evidence.Even ifit had, wouldtextsnecessarily be-
Cline'smodelis appealingbecause itfitsverywell trayall thelanguagesspokenon theship?
withinobservableEgyptianstratagems in the 14th- An examinationof the proposedpersonaleffects
centuryNear East, and has thusattractedfewdis- ishamperedbyseveralambiguities inherenttoa ship-
sentingopinions.The hypothesis is also immuneto wrecksite.Personaleffects make up a smallpercent-
the growingconsensusin Bronze Age scholarship age of the objectsrecovered,includingthe cargo,
thatthe Egyptiansand the Mycenaeanswere not anchors,and ballast.Withtheentropy ofa wrecksite,
directlytradingwithone another.10 A tradepartner- the diminutivepersonalpossessionsare integrated
ship,afterall, does notappear to be themotivation intothelargermatrixoftheship'scargo.Anymanu-
forthisEgyptianembassy. facturedobject in the ancientworld,so long as it
Giventhelack of LinearB textsthatsayanything wouldfitin thehold ofa ship,could conceivably be
explicitaboutcontactswithEgypt,Hankeyand Cline stowedas a commodity. Is itpossible,then, to isolate
have substituted in theirplace inherently ambigu- personally ownedartifacts and theirownersfromthis
ous evidence.Exoticobjectsidentified in LH IIIA-B jumbled matrix?Futhermore, if the objectsidenti-
contextsbecome the Aegean cornerstonefortheir fiedas personaleffects wereactuallywornand used
hypotheses. While Cline getslimitedsupportfrom bytheship'spersonnel,are theyreliableethnicindi-
an interpretation of an illustrated
papyrusfromel- cators?The men on board werewell traveled,rou-
Amarna,believedto depicttwoAegeanmercenaries tinelyexposed to the rich diversityof cultures
runningto savea stricken Egyptiansoldier,11thehy- occupyingtheshoresofthegreatereasternMediter-
pothesisfora diplomaticvisitrequiresa leap offaith. ranean. It is conceivablethata Near Easternmer-
Objectsbearingthe cartoucheof AmenhotepIII chant,out of sheernovelty, fashionsense,vanity, or
and his wifewere not necessarilydeliveredby an forsome reasonbeyondour understanding, could
Egyptianembassy.12 Further,the Aegean List dem- have wornthe amberbead jewelryrecoveredfrom
onstratesan Egyptianknowledgeof the Aegean- the site.Amber,whichis popularin theAegean,is
nothingmore.Neitherfieldofevidenceconclusively exceedingly rarein theBronzeAgeNearEast.13 More
demonstrates a giftexchangedelivery. Nevertheless, fundamental, however,are thepotential theoretical
an Egyptianembassyto the Aegean remainsan in- pitfallsof assigningethniclabels to objectsdepos-
triguing and perhaps,ifmoreconclusive
possibility, itedonto theseafloor.These I addressbelow.
evidencecomes to light,the hypothetical visitcan Observations on theship'scargomighthelp to al-
be demonstrated to be a significanthistoricalevent. leviatesomeoftheambiguities inherentin theiden-
tificationand interpretation so-calledpersonal
of
AN ALTERNATETHEORY OF HIGH-LEVEL effects.The cargocan offercluesto a ship'slastports
EXCHANGE ofcall and itsprobabletrajectory. Moresignificantly,
Thereare othermodelsforexchangethatmayac- it mayprovidepointsof contact to shipmentsre-
countfortheevidencecurrentlyavailablefortheLH/ cordedin contemporary texts, appearsto be the
as
LM IIIA2Aegean.Pulakhas made severalinteresting case forthe Uluburunship.In short,the natureof
observations
on patternsof objectsrecoveredfrom theUluburuncargocan laya foundation fromwhich
the Uluburunwreckthathe has labeled "personal we can begin to speculate about the originsof its
A discussionof the personaleffectsis our
effects." personnel.
10The trendinBronze Mediterranean ofotherPha-

Age scholarship,be- Thoughfaienceplaquesbearingthecartouche
ginningwithBass(1967,14-18)andMerrillees (1968,195),is raohscertainlyexistedintheNewKingdom, findsno
Lilyquist
tounderstand tradebetweentheLH/LMIIIA-BAegeanand exactparallelfortheMycenaeplaquesinEgypt. The plaques
thegreatereasternMediterranean as theprerogativeofeither at Mycenaeare differentiatedfromthecorpusin Egyptpre-
CypriotorSyro-Palestinian
middlemen; seealsoBass1973,36; dominantly bythearrangement oftheirinscriptions.Until
1991,73-4;1997,83-5;1998,184-87;Merrillees 1974,8;Kemp comparanda forthefaienceplaquesinMycenaearefoundin
andMerrillees1980,278;Yannai1983,101-14;Gillis1995,64- Egypt, theworthoftheseobjectsto theEgyptians cannotbe
1997;Sherratt
73;Artzy 1999;2001,224,234;Manning andHulin determined. In otherwords,thereis no wayofknowing yet
2005,281. whether theseobjectswerevaluableenoughtodeliveras gifts
11Schofieldand Parkinson 1994,161-62,169,fies.1,2. to a foreignpalace.
13See infran. 90 foramber
(1999,303-4)challenges
12Lilyquist Cline's"gift
exchange" objectsidentifiedbeyondthe
fortheplaquesatMycenae.
designations Shecallsintoquestion Aegean(andtheUluburun shipwreck)intheBronzeAgeNear
theultimate worthofthefaienceplaquesto theEgyptians. East/easternMediterranean.
2006] AEGEAN INTEREST ON THE ULUBURUN SHIP 347
Pulakpointsto a pairingofornamentaland utili- The roughly150 Canaanitejars of terebinth resin,
tarianobjectsof Aegean manufacture on the Ulu- olives,and glassbeadswerelikelyhauledaboardat a
burunship and concludesthattwo men of Aegean Syro-Palestinian Pulakseesnumerousparallels
port.21
1
originwereon board.14 tentatively accepthistheory betweenthecargooftheUluburunshipand thestore-
butaskifitis possibleto demonstrate
as a possibility housesof Minet-elBeidha,one of the portsserving
the mechanismof trade he is implying.Is there Ugarit.22 The presenceof nine large Cypriotpithoi
enoughevidencein thetexts,archaeology, and icon- filledwithoil,pomegranates, and Cypriot as
pottery,23
ographyoftheLate BronzeAge eastern Mediterran- wellas 10 tonsof copperfromsourceson Cyprus,24
ean to supporthishypothesis? suggests thatCyprus wasthelastornearlythelastport
ofcallfortheship.Pulakintroduces thepossibilitythat
THE TRAJECTORYOF THE ULUBURUN SHIP havebeen before laded
goodsmay transshipped being
As is wellknown,the Uluburunshipsankoffthe ontotheship(i.e.,fromCyprus toSyro-Pales tine),thus
Lyciancoastin the late 14thcenturyB.C.E. (fig.1) addingconsiderableuncertainty to a reconstruction
whilehaulingan extraordinary cargo.15EighteenLH/ of its itinerary.25Nevertheless,additionalevidence,
LM IIIA2Aegeanstirrup jars and one flaskhavebeen namely the numerous anchors,leaveslittledoubtthat
recovered fromthesite.16 The well-demonstrated syn- it was fullyoutfittedat one or more Near Eastern
chronism betweenLH/LM IIIA2-B1pottery and the ports.All 24 anchorsfindtheirclosestparallelto sets
reignofAkhenaten17 suggests thattheUluburunship of anchorsrecoveredfromterrestrial sitesat Kition
sankverynear to or in the Amarnaperiod; thatit (Cyprus),Ugarit (Syria), and Byblos(Lebanon).26
canbe no earlierisestablished bytheNefertiti scarab These anchortypesare also foundcommonly offthe
recoveredfromthesite.18 coastof Israel.27
The numberof Aegean transport vesselsis mini- The probableAegeandestination forthecargohas
mal comparedwith the large haul of Near Eastern been assessedbyCline: "[T]he breakdown(byper-
pithoiand amphoras,including nine large Cypriot centage)oftheUluburunshipwreck's workedcargo,
pithoiand atleast149Canaanitejars.19Thereshould in termsofcountry oforigins,presentsa remarkable
be moreAegean transport potterythanNear East- similarity to the breakdown(bypercentage)of the
ern pottery if the ship had just lefttheAegean and workedOrientaliafoundin LH/LM IIIA and IIIB
wassailingeast. It is salient that severaloftheAegean contextswithintheAegean area."28In otherwords,
transportceramics show considerable use-wear,which thecargooftheUluburunshipis an important mani-
maysuggest that this pottery was in recirculation festation oftradebetweentheLH/LM IIIA2Aegean
whenitwasladen onto theship.20 and the greaterLevant.29
14Pulak 1997,252-53;1998,218;2000b,264;2001,14,49. 35-6;Warrenand Hankey1989,148-54;Cline1994,7.

15The initial 18Bassetal. 1989,17-29.
datingoftheUluburunshipwreck wasdeter-
minedthrough ofa cedarbranch 19Pulak1998,201,204;2001,33,40.
dendronchronological analysis
(probably usedas dunnage)recovered fromthesite.A dateof 20J.Rutter,pers.comm.2005.
1305(Pulak1998,213-14)wasbasedontheAnatolian 21Hairfieldand Hairfield 1990;Pulak1998,201;2001,33.
tree-ring
in1996(Kuniholmetal. 1996).Anupward 22Pulak1997,252.
sequencepublished
wasrecently 23Pulak2001,40-1.
revision of22 (+4or-7)years proposedforthering
sequence (Manning etal.2001),which woulddatethewreck to 24Stos-Galeetal. 1998,119.
1327.None ofthebarkfromthebranch,however, has sur- 25Pulak1998,215.
vived.The mostexternalringsmayhavedeteriorated, thus 26Wachsmann 1998,283.
toanyabsolutedateforthe 27See Pulak(1998,216)foranchorfindsofftheIsraelicoast.
addingconsiderable uncertainty
(Pulak1998,213-14).Radiocarbon datesforthewreck 28Cline1994,100.Pulakhasmadean observation
shipwreck important
arecurrently beinggenerated. NewtonandKuniholm(2005) on thecargoofCypriot ceramicson theUluburunship:where
corroborated radiocarbon datesfromthecedarbranchwith 68 Cypriot ceramicvesselshavebeenidentifiedinallphasesof
thedendrochronological dataanddetermined thebranchto theLateBronzeAgeAegean(Cline1994,60;Pulak2001,42),
be olderthanpreviously publisheddendrochronological re- approximately 135wererecovered from thewreck(Pulak2001,
sults.Radiocarbondatesforothermaterials fromthewreck, 40-2).Presuming theUluburun shipwasenroutetotheAegean,
however, including thebrushwood dunnage,terebinth resin, a singlecargoofCypriot ceramicsdoublestheentirecorpusof
andolivepits,areclosertotheendofthe14thcentury (C. Pu- Cypriot ceramicfindsin theLateBronzeAgeAegean(Pulak
lak,pers.comm.2005). 2001,42; ManningandHulin2005,282). Cline'sdatabasefor
I amgrateful forcommunication withRutter,whogener- imported objectsintheBronzeAgeAegeanrepresents onlythe
ouslyprovidedhisunpublished manuscriptson theAegean tipoftheicebergforthevolumeormagnitude oftradebetween
pottery recovered from theUluburun shipwreck (Rutter2005). theAegeanand greater Levant.The occurrence,however,of
He concludesthatthemajority ofthestirrupjarsareofCretan Cline's"orientalia" on boardtheUluburunshipis significant
manufacture, whilea fewweremadeintheDodecanese(Rho- andreveals a virtualmicrocosm ofwestboundtradeintheLate
des) and theGreekmainland. BronzeAgeeasternMediterranean.
1973,128-32;1981,44;1987,48-50;Haider1988, 29Pulak1997,255-56;1998,218-20;2001.
17Hankey
Late BronzeAge sitesand centersmentionedin thetext.

Fig. 1. Important
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CARGO: ADDRESSING into quartersand halves,32and manyhave deterio-
GIFTS AND COMMODITIES ratedintoa pasteconsistency How-
on theseafloor.33
Specificcomponents oftheship'scargoaredirectly ever,it has been estimatedthatnearlya ton of tin
relevant tothisdiscussion.30The Uluburunshipwreck wentdownwiththeship.The proposedamountsof
has producedan extraordinary cache ofcopperand copperand tinfitthedesiredcopperto tinratiofor
tiningots.31 No fewerthan354 copperoxhideingots bronzeproduction(10:1 observedin actualartifacts
(fig.2), as wellas 121 smallerbun-(or plano-convex) of thisperiod).34
and pillow-shapedingotsweighingtogetherabout Comparable seaborne deliveries(in talents)of
three-quarters of a ton, have been identified.The metalarerecordedin BronzeAgetexts.A talentmea-
totalcoppercargoweighsapproximately 10 tons.The sureis estimatedto weighabout 28-29 kg.35The av-
numberof tiningots(mostlyin oxhide form)can- erage weightof a copper ingotfromthe Uluburun
not be countedaccurately, as all but threewerecut siteis 24 kg.36The ship'scargowould thusamount
30The 32Pulak2000a,140,143,150.
cargooftheUluburnshipisbeingexhaustively
ana-
lyzedand publishedundertheleadershipofPulakat Texas 33C. Pulak,
pers.comm.2002
A&MUniversity. andcomplete
Forthemostcurrent discussion 34Pulak2001,22.
ofthecargo,see Pulak2001. 35Pulak2000b,263.
31Pulak2000a,137. 36Pulak2001,18.
toabout325 talentsofcopper,37 whichis comparable
to deliveriesmentionedin contemporary texts.In
one AmarnaletterbetweenthekingofAlashiyaand
Pharaoh,the Alashiyankingapologizesforhaving
sentonly500 talentsof copperto Pharaoh.38 In an-
other,we learnthatPharaohhad requested200 tal-
entsofcopperfromtheAlashiyan Copperand
king.39
tinwerealso used as liquidassets,or as mediumsof
pricedexchange.In a letterfroma prefectofQades
to thekingofUgarit,thereis a disputeovera delivery
of copperand tinfromUgaritto Qades, whichwas
exchangedforpack animals.40
The rulersof the Late Bronze Age worldwere
vestedin the exchangeof metals,and such transac-
tionsoftenoccurundertherubricof"giftexchange"
in theAmarnaLetters.Giftexchangewasthemodus
operandi for diplomaticrelationswhere political
Fig.2. A typicalcopper"oxhide"ingotrecoveredfromthe
equals offeredgiftsto one anotherto facilitatea re- Uluburunshipwreck ofNauticalAr-
( 2002 The Institute
lationshipofreciprocityandfurther Such
giftgiving.41 chaeology).
exchangewas practicedat the highestechelonsof
politicsand societyin theLate BronzeAge. Manyof
thegifts wereprestigeitemsor objectsand materials tinguishing "gift"attributesfrom "commodity" at-
ofhighintrinsic and culturalvalue.42 tributesin transactions.Gregorydefines a commod-
Giftcargoescirculated in an arenaoflong-distance ityas follows:
exchange,dominated (at least in volume) by the [A] sociallydesirable thingwitha use-valueand an
transport ofbulkcommodities. Generally,thelastfive
exchange value. The use-valueof a commodityis an
centuriesof theBronzeAge sawan increase(in the intrinsicpropertyof a thingdesiredor discoveredby
easternMediterranean)in the scale of production society.. . . "Exchange-value"on the other hand is
and a concomitantrisein maritimetraffic. The in- an extrinsicproperty,and is the definingcharacter-
tensificationofexchangewasmostclearlymanifested istic of a commodity.Exchange value refersto the
in theadoptionofuniform quantitativeproportionin which use values of one
commodity units,namely sortare exchanged forthose of anothersort.45
in oxhide ingotsformetalsand Canaanitejars for
organics.43 Commodities are alienable or psychicallyand emo-
The escalationin exchange also profoundlyaf- tionallydetached fromthe transactorsand thus may
fectedpoliticalrelationsin the Late Bronze Age. be exchanged by the transactorsas privateproperty
Elaborategesturesofgiftgivingwereone expression freeof reciprocal obligations.46Gifts,however,are in-
of this,and the resultingnexus of economicsand alienable objects thatpossess an "indissoluble bond"
politics,of commodity and gift,has been the focus with their original owner.47A giftnecessarilycarries
of muchdiscussion.44 an emotional or psychological burden and upon
One problematic aspectofstudying giftexchange receipt calls for reciprocation. Thus, giftexchange
in itsbroaderpoliticaland economiccontextis dis- establishesa relationshipbetween the individualsen-
37Pulak1997,251. BronzeAgeNearEastandgreater easternMediterraneanare

38Moran1992,EA 35.10-15.Thispaperrelieson Moran framed
orexplicitly
eitherimplicitly within un-
thetheoretical
(1992)forthetranslation oftheAmarnaLetters andthususes derpinningsoftheseethnographic studies. thatthe
Theystress
hisabbreviation system: EA,followedbythenumberofthe exchangesystems ofthemaritime culturesofMelanesiamay
Amarnaletterand thelinesreferenced. notofferappropriate modelsfortheexchangesystems ofthe
39Moran1992,EA34.9-18. BronzeAgeNearEast(see Manningand Hulin2005,288-91
40Nougayrol et al. 1968,117-20;Liverani1979,29. fora tentative model). Manythanks
[andpartial]alternative to
41 toherandManning'sarticle,
Knappand Cherry 1994,146;Cline1995a. Hulinfordrawing myattention
42"Gift"is usedherein thebroadestsenseoftheword. thispaper.Timeconstraints
though onlydaysbeforesubmitting
43Sherratt and Sherratt 1991,363,369-73. did notallowme tofully integratetheirworkintomyown.
44Muchoftheliterature forBronzeAgegift isinflu- 45 1982,10-11.
exchange Gregory
encedbyclassicanthropological works(e.g.,Malinowski
1922; 46 1982,12 (afterMarx1867,91).
Gregory
Mauss1954). ManningandHulin(2005,288) raisetheimpor- 47 1982,18-19(afterMauss1954).
Gregory
tantpointthatnearly alldiscussions
ofeliteexchange
withinthe
gaged,whilecommodity exchangeestablishesa re- respondencebetweena governorofAlashiyaand his
lationship between the objects.48 counterpart in Egyptis concernedwitha giftofivory
How distinctare thesetwomodesof exchangein thattheAlashiyan(Cypriot)officialis deliveringto
practice?Can we reallydifferentiate betweenthetwo Egypt.51In thissame letter,theAlashiyanrequestsa
in thetextsand archaeologyoftheBronzeAge Near shipmentofEgyptian Liveranirecognizestwo
ivory.52
East?One blurring factorbetweengifts and commodi- irrationalelementsin thistransaction.The firstcon-
tieshasbeen eloquently addressedbyBourdieu.Both cernsthegreateconomiccostofdelivering thisivory
are exchanged throughcalculated, rational self- to Egyptso thatit maybe replacedbyanothership-
interest,and a gifttransactionhas the ultimateef- mentof ivoryfromEgypt.Clearly,the Alashiyanis
fectofprojecting intothefuturebyguaranteeing the gainingno economicadvantagein thistransaction.
circulationofdesirablecommodities.49 Here,giftex- The second irrationalelementincludesthe "anti-
changeand commoditiesexchangemeld diachron- economicalnatureof exportingivoryfromCyprus,
icallyintoa seamlesstransaction. whichdoes notproduceit,to Egypt,whichbyvirtue
The blurredboundariesbetweengiftand com- of havingaccess to the vastAfricanreservesis the
modityare verywell expressedby the BronzeAge privilegedexporterofthismaterial."53Liveranimain-
circulationof metalsin the easternMediterranean. tainsthatthe seemingirrationality of theexchange
Nonpreciousmetalsin theAmarnaLetterswereex- has thetwineffects of transcending economicmoti-
changedas gifts, thoughattributes ofthecirculation vationand ensuringfriendly relationsbetweenthe
of metalhardlymeet the criteriaforgiftgivingas The economicirrationality
participants.54 ofthetrans-
Gregory definesit.The disputebetweentheprefect action eliminatesthe exchangevalue of the ivory
of Qades and the kingof Ugarit,mentionedabove, whilesimultaneously demonstrating an indissoluble
overtheexchangeofpack animalsforcopperhigh- bond betweentheivoryand theAlashiyan governor.
lightsthe liquidityof nonpreciousmetalsin a pre- Thus,theexchangesofivoryin EA 40 maybe said to
coinageeconomy.Metal'sliquidityis antithetical to representpure gift-giving behaviorin the Amarna
the conceptof a gift,whichis meantto possessan Letters.
indissolublebondwithitsoriginalowner.The liquid-
ityof metalcreatesexchangevalue,the possession The Archaeology
of Gifts
of whichis a definingattribute fora commodity. It Is it possibleto isolatepure giftsin the archaeo-
appearsthatnonpreciousmetalin the BronzeAge logicalrecord?The following elementsof thecargo
NearEastwasexchangedas a giftbutcirculatedas a fromtheUluburunshipwreck arereflectedin thegift
commodity. Preciousmetalsweretreatedin a similar exchange inventoriesand correspondencesof the
manner.Objectscraftedofgoldor silverin theAma- AmarnaLetters:bulkmetals(see fig.2), rhyta,55 raw
rnagiftinventories areoftenqualifiedbytheirweight ivoryand ivorycarvingsand crafts,56 a gold goblet,57
in shekelsand minas.More explicitly, Egyptiangold ebony,58 and an assortment
glassingots,59 ofgoldjew-
objects arrivingat Babylon and Washukanniare We can suggestwithsomeconfidencethatthe
elry.60
smeltedintoingotsand thenweighed.50 The feature metalingotsand metalobjectsfromthe Uluburun
of liquidityis again added to objectslistedas gifts, shippossessan elementofliquidity and consequently
thusundermining theirattributes Ifprecious
as gifts. exchangevalue,and thusmaybe classifiedas com-
metalobjects,whichmake up a significant propor- modities.As for gifts,however,an archaeological
tionof theAmarnagiftinventories, are actuallyliq- contextcannot assuredlydemonstratewhetheran
uid assets,can we be certainthatanyobjectin the objectpossessesan indissoluble,emotional,or psy-
inventory is nota commodity? In otherwords,where chicbondwitha giftexchangepartner."Gift," there-
are thegiftsin theAmarnagiftinventories? fore,maybe an inappropriatetermto applyto any
Liverani'sdiscussionof "irrationaltrade"in the elementof theUluburuncargo.We can extendthis
AmarnaLettersmaybe helpfulin thisregard.A cor- observation to critiquesuggestionsthatEgyptian(or
48 1982,19. 51.
Gregory
49Bourdieu1977,171. 56Moran1992,EA25.25-6,25.28-31;Pulak2001,37.
50Liverani2000,24-5. 57Bass1986,286,289, 24; Moran1992,EA25.76-7.
51Moran1992,EA40.12-15;see also fig.
pp. 354-55herein. 58Bassetal. 1989,9-10;Moran1992,EA25.28-31.
52Moran1992,EA40.6-11. 59Moran 1992,EA148.4-17,314.17-22,327.11-21,331.12-
53Liverani1979,22-3.
24;Pulak2001,25-6.
54Liverani1979,24. 60Moran1992,EA25; Pulak2001,24.
55Bassetal. 1989, 12;Moran1992,EA25.35-47,25.49-
fig.
otherwise foreign)objectsin theAegean constitute were men appointed by theirking to deliverhis
giftsin thetruestsenseof theword. wellwishes,demands,and grievancesto hiscounter-
However,the parallelsbetweenthe ship's cargo partsin otherkingdoms.Words,however, werenot
and the Amarnainventories,as manifestations of all thatwere delivered.Cargoes of elite exchange,
eliteexchangenetworks, are worthy of furthercon- such as those discussedabove, oftenaccompanied
sideration.IftheUluburunshipwereen routeto the the messengers.
Aegean world,some of the cargo of rawmaterials Two separate grievancesin the AmarnaLetters
mayhavebeen destinedforthe palatialworkshops. referto "messenger" as tamkar, or merchant.In one,
Mostspecialistsconcurthatmetal(includingprecious thekingofKaraduniyas insiststhatPharaohfindand
metals)enteredtheAegeanworldthroughthe pal- execute the murderersof his merchants,to whom
aces and was distributed fromthemto palace-spon- he also refersto as his "servants." He warnsthatif
sored workshops.61 Similarly,the unworkedivory the murderersare not executed,"theyare goingto
recoveredfromthe Uluburunship (one elephant killagain,be it a caravanof mineor yourownmes-
tuskand 14 hippopotamusteeth)62mayhave been sengers,and so messengersbetweenus willthereby
en routeto ivory-carvingworkshops, whichwerealso be cutoff."67
In another, we read thekingofAlashiya
theexclusivedomainoftheMycenaeanpalace.63 The demanding Pharaoh to "letmymessengers go prom-
largequantities ofterebinthresinrecoveredfromthe ptlyand safelyso thatI mayhearmybrother'sgreet-
cargo (approximately1 ton) can be similarlyex- ing."68In the nextsentencethe Alashiyankingre-
plained.Terebinthresinis drawnfromthe Pistacia mindsPharaoh: "These men are mymerchants."69
atlantica and waswidelyused as an aromaticin
tree64 Clearly,"ambassador" is synonymous with"merchant"
laterperiodsin theAegean.65The KnossianLinear in thesetexts.70
B archivesrecordan enormousdelivery ofki-ta-nu
to Messengersare also associatedwithmerchantac-
thepalace; Melena has interpreted ki-ta-nu
as a pis- tivitywhenthekingofUgaritexemptsthepowerful
tachioproduct - probablyterebinthresin.66 The as- UgariticmerchantSinaranufromservingas a mes-
sociationof metallurgy and ivorycarvingto Mycen- senger,whichpresumesthatmerchantsat Ugarit
aean palatialindustry,as wellas thepossiblepalatial were regularlyemployedas envoys.71 Additionally,
demandforterebinth resin,maytiethedoomedvoy- thereare numerousreferences to messengersbeing
age oftheUluburunshiptopalatialenterprise in the deployedwithcaravans.72
Aegean. Messengerswerealso, on occasion,sentbyboat.
We hear of theAlashiyankingdispatchinghis mes-
THE PERSONNEL OF THE ULUBURUN SHIP in shipstoEgypt,73 and oftheking
senger/merchants
The stageis now set fora discussionof the indi- ofMariconsidering sendinga messengerfromEkall-
vidualswho wereon board the Uluburunship.Be- atumbyboat.74Last,the arrivalof Keftiu(Cretan)
forereviewingthe objects Pulak has identifiedas emissariesto 18th-Dynasty Thebesleaveslittledoubt
personaleffects, toassesssomerelevant
itisnecessary that Bronze Age Aegean ambassadorsarrivedin
textualevidence for high-levelexchanges in the Egypton seafaringships.75
BronzeAge world.
Giftexchangewas a complex gestureinvolving Personnel
Identifying fromUtilitarian
and Ornamental
and economically
politically motivated both
behavior, Objects
ofwhichare embodiedin Near Easterntextsbythe Pulak has noted some interesting
patternsof ob-
role of marsipri,whichis translatedas "messenger." jects on the Uluburunshipwreck.The overwhelm-
Messengers werethepawnsofa highly elaborategame ingpercentageofutilitarian
and ornamentalobjects,
of Late BronzeAge interregional diplomacy.These forexample,is ofeitherSyro-Palestinian/Cypriot
or
61 70Astour1972,23-4;Knapp1991,49;Cline1994,85;Wachs-
Lejeune1961,409-34;Lang1966;Killen1987;de Fidio
1989;Smith1992-1993. mann1998,307.
62Pulak2001,37. 71Meier1988,29-30.
72Meier1988,80-2.
6*Kopcke 1997,43;Voutsaki2001,197.
64MillsandWhite1989;Pulak1998,201. 73Moran 1992,EA39.14-20.
65Niebuhr 1970,43; Melena1976,182. 74Birot1974,127.18-24.AnotherMaritextreads:"The
66Melena 1976,180-82. boatswhichwerewithLarim-Bahli arrivedandYammuQa-
67Moran 1992,EA8.8-21. dumthemessengerofYamhadarrivedwithhim"(Kupper
68Moran 1992,EA39.10-13. 1950,56).
69Moran 1992,EA39.14-20. 75Seep.354.
Aegean manufacture.76 Syro-Palestinian weaponry, gadroonedsphericalquartzbead of typicalAegean
includinga sword,severaldaggersand arrowheads, shape,92and a pair of Aegean seals.93A numberof
Syro-Palestinian pan-balanceweights,77 twodiptychs the Aegean objectswerefoundin pairs,including
(woodenwriting boards),78and twotypesofoil lamp the swords,the glassreliefplaques (in twomotifs),
(of Syro-Palestinianand Cypriotmanufacture)79 the drinking jugs,94and the seals.This conspicuous
haveallbeenrecovered fromthesite.A pairofbronze pairingarguesagainstassumingthattheseobjects
cymbals80 and an ivorytrumpet,81bothofSyro-Pales- wererandomly pickedup as trinkets It
or bric-a-brac.
tinianmanufacture, maysuggestshipboardmusical is also salientthatseveralof theseAegean objects,
amusement(thoughtheycould also representelite includingthe glass reliefbeads,95the chisels,96 the
cargo). It maybe thata partlygold-cladbronzestatu- spearpoints,97 and the knives,98had not been iden-
ette,also ofSyro-Palestinian manufacture, had ritual tifiedoutsideof theAegeanpriorto theexcavation
significance.82 of theUluburunship.
Otherrecoveredartifacts include a smallservice PulakhassuggestedthatthisassemblageofAegean
of fineLH IIIA2 drinking twoAegean-type
vessels,83 manufactured objectsrepresentsthepersonaleffects
swords,84 roughly 10Aegean-type spearpoints,85three of a pair of Mycenaeans."Here, it is necessaryto
curve-bladed knivesthatappearto be Aegeanin ori- raise a note of caution.The proposed destination
gin,86at leastthreeAegean-type sixAegean-
razors,87 fortheUluburunship,namelya palace centerin the
type chisels,88Aegean glass relief plaques from Aegean,isnotself-evident. Neitherisitclearthatmen
(probably)twopectorals,89 41 Balticamberbeads,90 ofAegeanoriginwereaboardship.Weshould,there-
at least200 flattenedblue ovoidfaiencebeads (occa- fore,examinethe assemblageof Aegean manufac-
sionallyseen as necklaces in LH III burials),91a turedobjectsforwhatit is: a collectionof objects
76The includea stonescepter/mace (Pulak1997, 85Pulak1997, 23; 1998,218;2005.

exceptions fig.
86Bassetal. 1989,6-7,
253-54,fig.20) anda globe-headed pin(Pulak1988,29-30,fig. fig.10;Pulak1998,218;2005.
36),bothofwhichsharecomparanda intheBalkans(Romania 87Bass1986,292-93,fig.33;Pulak1988,14-15,fig.10;1998,
and Bulgariaforthescepter/mace and Albaniaforthepin) 218;2005.
alsoshares 88Pulak1988, 14;2005.
(Pulak2001,47). The globe-headed pin,however, fig.
89Bassetal. 1989,8-9,
comparanda withpinsinSub-Mycenaean Greece.Pulak(2001, fig.15;Pulak1998,218;2005.
47) suggests thepinrecovered fromtheUluburunshipwreck 90Pulak1998,218;2005.Pulak(2005)notes more
thatmany
probably represents theearliestAegeanexampleofthistype. amberbeadslikelyfloatedawayfromtheUluburunship,as
The uniquestonescepter/ mace,however, sharesno compar- amberisneutrallybuoyant.Amberj ewelryisabundantinBronze
andaoutsideofthenorthern Balkans. A swordrecovered from AgeAegeancontexts (see HardingandHughes-Brock 1974),
thewreck(Pulak1988,21-3,fig.22) sharescomparanda with thoughitoccursinfrequently inBronzeAgeeasternMediter-
swordsidentified in southern Italyand Sicily(Thopsostype) raneancontexts beyondtheAegean.Thetotalrecorded amber
(Vagnetti andLo Schiavo1989,223,fig.28.2;Pulak2001,45- objectsincludes17 amberscarabsidentified in 18th-Dynasty
6) .No otherItalianutilitarianorornamental objectshavebeen Egypt(Lamberg-Karlovsky 1963,301-2),twobeadsfrom Assur
recovered fromthewreck.Daggersofthistype(thoughnot (Hardingand Hughes-Brock 1974,169),and sixbeadsfrom
swords) havealsobeenidentified inAlbaniaandaredesignated Enkomiin Cyprus(Hardingand HughesBrock1974,169).
however, 91Pulak2005,304.
Thopsostype(Pulak2001,46-7). Anyspeculation,
intotheconnection ofthestonescepter/mace withthepossible 92Bassetal.1989,8-9,fig.16.
swordwouldextendbeyondthescope ofthis 93Bass1986,283-85, 20, 17;Pulak1998,218;2005.
Thopsos-type fig. pl.
discussion. Featuresoftheswordalsosharecomparanda with 94Rutter2005.
andleadisotopedataon one of 95Harden1981,31-50.
EarlytoLateCypriot daggers,
thesword's rivets
isconsistentwitha Cypriot originforthesword. 96Deshayes 1960,38-9;Pulak1988,17.
97The
Pulak(2001,47) raisesthepossibility theswordmightalsobe spearpointsbelongtoAvila'sTypeVI class,which
Cypriot. havebeenidentified inlateLH IIIB-C contexts on theGreek
77Pulak1988,20-2, 20,23-4,30-1, mainland(Bachhuber 2003,113;Pulak2005,299),making the
fig. figs.37-88.
78Bassetal. 1989,10,fie.19;Payton1991,101-10. Uluburunexamplestheearliestofitstype(Pulak1997,254;
79Bass1986,281-82,fig.14.Pulak(1997,252) placesspecial 2001,47;2005,299). A similarspearpointhasbeenidentified
emphasis on thelampsas possibleethnicindicators. The Cyp- intheEnkomiweaponhoard(Pulak2005,299),thoughdated
riotform appearsinpristine condition withinthepithoiascargo. tothefirsthalfofthe12thcentury B.C.,orwellafterthesink-
TheSyro-Palestinian lamps,however, areburnedatthenozzles. ingoftheUluburunship.
98The Uluburunknivesdo notshare
He suggests thesearegalleywaresthatmayhavebeenusedby comparandain the
Syro-Palestinians. easternMediterranean (Bachhuber2003,106 n. 400). The
80Bass1986,288-90. curvedbladesand theknobbedand ribbedhandleofone of
81Pulak1997,244-45,fis.13. thebladesarefeatures foundon Aegeanexamples.The Ulu-
82Pulak1997,246,fte.15. burunknives areunique,however, as nootherknifecombines
83Pulak2005;Rutter 2005. bothfeatures (Bachhuber2003,114;Pulak2005,300-1).
84Pulak1988,21, 21; 28,218;2001,45;2005. "Pulak 1998,218;2001,49; 2005.
fig. 1998,208,fig.
depositedonto the seafloorwithinthe contextof a velopmentis havingnegativeconsequencesforthe

sunkenship. fieldof archaeology.Shennannotes:
Pulak'suse of theterm"Mycenaean"forboththe . . . shouldreferto self-consciousidentifi-
Ethnicity
assemblageofAegeanobjectsand theproposedown- cationwitha particular socialgroupat leastpartly
ersoftheseobjectsisgenerally toobroad.100 Itshould basedon a specific ororigin.Ifweacceptthis
locality
be emphasized that there is nothingMycenaean definition,thenitappearsthatprehistoric archaeol-
abouttheassemblage;thereis no evidencethatthese ogyis ina difficultpositionas faras investigating
itis
concerned, sinceitdoes nothaveaccessto people's
objectsweremanufactured and used byGreekspeak- self-conscious 105
identifications.
erswhoseliveswereintrinsically bound to the Late
BronzeAge citadelsof Greeceand Crete.The only Similarly,Hall (afterTambiah) isolates two at-
certainty is thatsimilar,ifnotidentical,objectswere tributesthatmighteffectively pinpointethnicity:an
manufactured andusedbypeoplelivingintheAegean identification witha specificterritory and a shared
area. mythof descent.106 Needless to say,the contextof
Pulak'sconclusionsraisea fundamental concern the Uluburunshipwreckis whollyinadequate for
thathas been at the core of a difficult theoretical identifying theseattributes,and so, adheringto the
debatein recentarchaeology:howto determinethe above definitions, ethnicitycannot be readilyattrib-
relationship betweenmaterialcultureand ethnicity. of
utedto theassemblage Aegean manufactured ob-
Whilea comprehensive discussionof thesedevelop- jects recovered from the site.
mentsextendsbeyondthescope of thepaper,some We musttreadcarefully whendiscussingthe per-
of the observationsthathave arisenfromthe dia- sonnelon board theship.Nevertheless, thepairing
loguehavesignificant implications in thiscontext.101 of several of the object types Aegean manufac-
of
Thereare no setor objectivecriteriaforidentify- ture and the observation thatmanyof the object
ingethnicity in an ethnographic, historic,linguistic, types had not been identified beyondthe Aegean
or archaeologicalcontext.The inherentdifficulty prior to the ship'sexcavation does permitus to con-
withethnicity as a conceptis thatit is, to use Hall's siderPulak'sconclusionthattheseobjectsmayhave
phrase,"sociallyconstructedand subjectively per- been personaleffects, wornand used bypeople on
ceived."102Unfortunately, our abilityto identifyeth- thevoyage.It is enough,forthepurposesofthisdis-
nicityin anyof thesecontextsis largelydetermined cussion,to suggestthatindividualswithgreateraf-
bythecriteriawe choose to defineethnicity. finityto the Aegean area (as opposed to the Near
Language and religionare oftenused as impor- East Egypt)mayhaveownedtheobjects,and so I
or
tantcriteriaforidentifying ethnicity, thoughany herereferto themas "individuals ofpossibleAegean
numberofethnographic and historical observations origin."
highlightthe ineffectiveness of these twovariables Pulakfirstsuggestedthatthesepeople weremer-
fordistinguishing one populationfromanother.103 chants107 but has sinceretracted, based on his study
In anyevent,neitheris applicableto the proposed of thepan-balanceweightsrecovered,all butone of
Aegeanpresenceon boardtheUluburunship.I have whichwere of Near Easternmanufacture.108 The
alreadynotedthatthesitehasproducedno epigraphic absence of an Aegean weightset suggeststo Pulak
evidence, andovertly religiousorculticobjectsarenot thattheseindividualshad littleto do withthe pro-
amongtheassemblageofAegeanmanufactured ob- curementof the cargo.109 Consequently,the other
jects recovered(thoughNear Easternculticobjects personnel must have carriedout all merchantactiv-
maybe represented) . ityon this voyage.110Pulak has suggested,therefore,
Theoreticiansare generallymovingbeyondob- thattheAegeanpersonnelmayhaveactedas Mycen-
servablebehavioras criteriaforethnicidentity and aean emissaries, ormessengers, accompanying a cargo
intotherealmofideologyand cosmology.104 de- The of reciprocalgiftexchangeback to theAegean.111
100Pulak1997,251,253;1998,218-19;2001,45,47,49; see 104

Foran important see Emberling
1997,316-
exception,
esp.2005. 26.
101
Forcomprehensive treatmentsoftheissues,seeArutinov 105
Shennan1994,14 (after Arutiunov andKhazanov1981).
andKhazanov 1981; Shennan1994;Emberling 1997;Hall1997, 106Tambiah 1989,335;Hall 1997,25.
111-42. 107Pulakl988,37.
102Hall 1997,19 (afterDe Vos and Romanucci-Ross 1995, 108
Pulak2000b,256-57.A singleleaddiskmayrepresent an
350). Aegeanweight.
103
Fortheineffectivenessoflanguageasanethnicindicator, 109
Pulak1997,252-3;2000b,264;2001,14.
of 110
See p. 352forNearEasternutilitarian
andritualobjects.
Geary1983,20). Fortheinadequacy
seeHall 1997,22 (after
111
religiontodistinguish see Hall 1997,23 (after
ethnicity, Just Pulak1997,252-53;2000b,264;2001,14;2005,308.
1989,81; Clogg1992,101).
To reiterate,weshouldbe cautiouswithethnicqua- suggestsome palatialintereston thevoyage.Could
lifierssuch as "Mycenaean,"as wellas withthe con- one or bothdiptychs highlighttheexistenceofmes-
ceptofgiftexchangewheninterpreting theevidence sengerson board,as Pulakhas suggested, delivering
fromthe Uluburunshipwreck. In addition,thereis a documentfromone palace to another,to be pre-
nothingat thesitethatclearlypointsto a palatialdes- sented withthe accompanyinghaul of politically
tinationin theAegean.Nevertheless, voyagesofelite chargedcargo?Giventheobservation thatdiplomatic
exchange,couchedin termsof "giftgiving"in Near documents(such as theAmarnaarchive)werenor-
Easterntexts, areaccompaniedbyindividuals whoare mallyrecorded on clay,this scenario seems less
safeguardingthe cargo and servinga diplomatic possible.117
function.The cargo of the Uluburunship appears The greaterlikelihoodis thatone orbothdiptychs
to be a manifestation of eliteexchangeheadingto- recordedthe ship's register.118
Symington observes
ward the Aegean. If we can accept the hypothesis thatsuch writingboards were usefulforeveryday
thattwoindividualsof possibleAegean originwere bookkeepingbecause the leaves,coveredwithwax
aboard,we shouldalso considerthe possibility that and inscribedwitha stylus,could be easilyeditedor
theywereindeliblytiedto itsimportant cargo. A ship'scargois in continualfluxas com-
erased.119
The pair of wooden and ivory-hinged diptychsil- moditiesare laded and unladed witheveryportof
luminatessome of the activitiesthatmayhave oc- recordedin wax,could have
call.The ship'sregister,
curredon the ship'svoyage.The earliestarchaeo- been amendedaccordingly.
logicalevidencefortheuse ofwoodenwriting boards
dates to Old KingdomEgypt,112 thoughour fullest AegeanAmbassadors?
textualaccountfortheuse ofwoodenwriting boards Can we conceivethenof an Aegeanpalatialpres-
in theLate BronzeAge appearsin Hittitetexts.Writ- ence aboard the Uluburunship?The Minoanscer-
ingboardsin theHittiteworldwereused in numer- tainlydispatchedemissariesto foreignshores,as
ous contexts, includingtempleadministration113 and recordedin the 18th-Dynasty tombdecorationsof
forday-to-day palatialand provincialmatters.114One Senmut, Puimire, Intef, Useramun, Menkhep-
referenceto thewoodenwritingtabletdescribesits erresonb,and Rekhmire.120 The Aegean visitorsin
use in inventorying "tribute lists"fromvariousplaces thetombofRekhmireare announcedas "thechiefs
in Anatolia,Syria,Cyprus,Egypt,and Babylonia.115 (Crete) and the islandswhich
of (the) Keftiu-land
Writing boardswerealso used forlettersand official arewithintheGreatSea."121The Aegean"chiefs" were
documents.Hittiteand Ugaritictextsdescribemes- likelyhigh-ranking ofa Minoancourt.
representatives
sengersbeing dispatchedto foreignpalaces with The Mycenaeansalso had messengers, assuming
woodenwriting tablets.116
There is no evidencethat thatthelong-disputedAhhiyawan/Mycenaean equa-
theinhabitants oftheBronzeAgeAegeanused such Allusionsto Ahhiyawan
tionis correct.122 giftgiving
boards. are made in twolettersof HattusiliIII. The firstlet-
We mayimaginetwouses forthe diptychs on the terwas addressedto an unknownkingand reads:
ship.As noted above, messengerswere dispatched "ConcerningthegiftofthekingofAhhiyawa, about
withwooden writingtablets,and althoughwe will whichyouwroteto me,I do notknowhowthesitua-
neverknowthecontentofthispairofdiptychs from tionis and whetherhis messengerhas broughtany-
the Uluburunsite,the elite elementsof the cargo thingor not."123The second (the so-calledTawag-
112
See, e.g.,Brovarski1987. let,which,whenin contactwithwater,wouldhavesuffered
113Laroche 1971,698. damage,isaninteresting one.Butthepositive
identificationof
114Syminffton1991,118. the"Alashiya intheAmarnaarchives
tablets" withCypriot clay
115Laroche 1971,241-50;Symington 1991,118. sources(see p. 357herein)doessuggest weretrav-
claytablets
116
AletteroftheHittiteQueenPuduhepatothekingofAla- elingbysea.
118
siyareads:"Whenever themessengersreachyoulet'mybrother' Pulak1997,252.
sendouta ridertome,andtothelordsofthecountry letthem 119Symington 1991,113-16,118.
120 oftheKeftiu in
presentthewoodentablets"(Laroche1971,24,cat.no. 176). Forthemostcomprehensive discussion
Another from Ugaritreads:"Nowthewritingboardwhichthey 18th-Dynastytomb see
decorations, Wachsmann 1987.See also
deliveredtome,letthemread(it)outbeforeyou"(Schaeffer Rehak(1998,40 n. 12) foran updatedbibliography.
1978,403). 121
Davies1943,20.
1 122 withMycenaean,
Dalley(pers.comm.2006)wonders ifdiplomatic
(oroth- pormorerecent ofAhhiyawan
equations
erwisepolitical)correspondencethatwastobe senton a sea- see Hawkins1998,30-1;Neimeier1998.
faringshipwouldhavebeeninscribed inwaxratherthanclay. 123Sommer 1975(1932),242-48.
Herargument, basedon thesolubility
ofan unbakedclaytab-
alawaLetter)is a grievance
to a kingofAhhiyawa. He the manifestations of interregionalexchange,how-
complains: "But when [my brother's messenger]ar- ever, are more observable.
rivedat myquarters,he broughtme no [greeting] One elementof the Uluburuncargo,namelythe
and [he brought]me no present."124 largepithoifilledwithCypriotpottery,127 shouldbe
If an Aegean palace was representedby men consideredin thisregard.Ceramicsneverappearin
aboardtheUluburunship,as Pulakhas suggested, it documentsrecording giftexchange,and Hirschfeld's
followsthatsome traceof theseofficialscould ap- observationthatthe Cypriotceramicsare cheaply
pearin theLinearB texts.The speculativecase fora manufactured further suggeststheywereintendedfor
Mycenaeanpalatial presence on the ship is com- noneliteconsumers.128 The humblercomponentof
pounded by the contentof the Linear B archives, thecargo(and perhapsothercommodities on board
whichare notso forthcoming on issuesoftradeand as well) mayhave been destinedfornonelitemar-
interregionalcontact.125
Nevertheless, it remainsan ketsand mayrepresentprivateintereston theship.
intriguingconsideration, which I have addressed The conflationof private(entrepreneurial) and
morefullyelsewhere.126 Crucialforthisdiscussionis state-sponsored (palatial)merchant activityhas been
thatelementsof the Uluburuncargo appear to be recognizedand variouslyaddressedin BronzeAge
manifestationsof eliteexchange,the ship seemsto scholarship.129Zaccagniniobservesthattamkdr (mer-
be sailing towardthe Aegean, and Egyptianand chant) in the Mari archiveswasa functionary of the
Hittitesourcesinformus thatambassadorsof some palace, thoughadditionally he could operatein the
typeexistedin Minoan and Mycenaeanpalace ad- interestsof privatepersons.130 We should also con-
ministrations.These observationsallow us to con- sider thatthese merchantswere perhapsopportu-
sideran Aegeanpalatialpresenceon board,though nisticallypursuingprofiton theirownbehalf,rather
thishypothesis mayneverbe demonstrable. than servingonlythe interestsof palaces and pri-
vate investors.131
DEPARTURE AND DESTINATION
Thisobservation mayhaveimportant implications
Unlikehypotheses forgiftexchangeput forthby fortheitinerary oftheUluburunship.Pulaksuggests
Hankey and Cline, the evidencepresentedin this thecargowasladed at one or twoports,to be deliv-
paper does not point to a specificambassadorialmis- ered to a singledestination.132 The elite natureof
sion acknowledgedor even manifestedin the ar- thecargocertainly suggests there werefixeddestina-
chaeologicalor textualrecordsof the participating tionsfortheship.However,ifprivateenterprise and
kingdoms. I am reluctant to describea gestureofgift palatialenterprise were not mutually exclusiveactivi-
exchange on board the Uluburun shipat all. A gift, tiesin BronzeAge trade,and ifaspectsof thecargo
as definedhere,cannotbe distinguished froma com- revealsomemannerofprofitmotive,can we be sure
modity in the archaeological record. Nevertheless, thatthemerchants on boardwerenotcallingat any
the inventory of elite manufactured objectsrecov- numberofports?
eredfromthewreckand theinvaluablehaulofmetal
werealmostcertainly circulating throughpalatialex- Departure
change networks. We should address the possibility It is perhapsironicthattheonlyevidenceto date
thatone or more politiesin the Aegean mayhave forLH/LM IIIA-B Aegean-basedemissaries is found
been destinedto receivethem.Is itpossible,or even in theHittitearchives.Bothreferences toAhhiyawan
desirable,to narrowthe rangeof potentialpartici- messengersin the lettersof HattusiliIII describe
patingpalaces? Withthe exceptionof Hattusha's themas fallingshortof theirgift-giving obligations.
tenuousrelationship withAhhiyawa, and the possi- Additionally, the virtualabsence of LH IIIA-B pot-
that
bility Aegean mercenaries served in thearmyof teryin centralAnatoliais widelybelievedto repre-
PharaohduringtheAmarnaperiod,littleis known sentHittiterestrictions on Aegeanimports.133 These
of how the LH/LM IIIA-B centersparticipatedin same policiesmayhaveaffected Aegeanpottery dis-
the politicsof the easternMediterranean. Some of tributions in Cilicia (via the portof Ura,whichwas
124Laroche1971, 25, cat. no. 181. 273.

125
See p. 356. 130Zaccagnini 1977, 172-74.
126
Bachhuber 2003, 138-44. 131
Wiener 1987,264; see also Manningand Hulin 2005, 283
127Pulak2001,40. (citingArtzy1997).
128
N. Hirschfeld,pers. comm. 2004. 132
Pulak 1997, 251; 1998, 215.
129Leemans1950,119-25;Astour1972,26; Zaccagnini1977, 133
Yakar1976,117-28; Sherratand Crouwell1987,345; Cline
172-80; 1987,57;Wiener1987,264; SherrattandSherratt1991; 1991, 140; 1994, 71-4; Kozal 2003, 72.
Knapp 1993;Knappand Cherry1994; Manningand Hulin 2005,
closelyassociated withthe Hittitevassal Tarhun- to argueone wayor theother.The samecan be said
theentrepot
tassa),134 joiningtheland ofHattito the foreveryotherSyro-Palestinian centersouthofByblos
circuitof maritimetradein the Mediterranean. Sig- thatexhibitsimportedAegeanceramics.143
nificantly,verylittleLH IIIA-B potteryhas been Relativelyfewobjectsand materialsfromEgyptor
identifiedinCilicia(comparedwithSyro-Palestine and Nubia are representedon board the Uluburun
Cyprus).135Hattusa does not a
appear to be healthy ship.144The onlysignificant quantity ofAfrican cargo
tradepartnerwiththeAegean.It is also notablethat is approximately of
24 logs ebony,145 thoughthese
Anatolianobjectsare scarcelyrepresented on board are also depictedin thehandsofSyriantributebear-
theUluburunship.136 ersin 18th-Dynasty tombpaintings.146 Weshouldcon-
I agree withPulak thatthe Uluburunship likely siderthepossibility thattheUluburunship'sebony
called at Ras Shamra/Ugariton its lastjourney.137 mayhavebeen transshipped fromEgyptto another
Like Ura, Ugaritwas a Hittitevassaland an impor- emporium in the eastern Mediterranean, beforebe-
tantlinkto maritime commerce.UnlikeCilicia,Uga- ing laden intothe cargo.Alternatively, shiphad
ifthe
ritimportedlargequantitiesofLH IIIA-B pottery.138 visitedEgypt,perhapsmuchof theAfricancargoof
Ugarit,then,appears not to have been influenced transportceramicsor othermanufactured objects
bytheproposedHittitetraderestrictions on Aegean had alreadybeenunladedin Syro-Palestine, Anatolia,
imports discussed above. Severalscholars have sug- or on Cyprus.
gested that the of
importance Ugarit as an empo- As is Cline,I am intriguedbytheinterpretive po-
riumalloweditsomedegreeofneutrality orautonomy, tentialofAegeanmercenariesdepictedon theillus-
thusleavingit relatively freeofHittitemeddling.139 tratedpapyrusfromel-Amarna. It is significant that
Ugaritshould,therefore, remainon thelistofcan- the mercenariesappear to be runningto save a
didates engaged in high-levelexchangeswiththe stricken Egyptian soldier.Additionally, Egyptians may
Aegean.Itis salientthattheLinearB archivesrecord havebeen livingin theAegean.The LinearB archives
numerousSemiticloan wordsforvariousexoticre- ofKnossosrecordthenamesoftwoEgyptian foreign
sources,140 althoughMycenaeanrecordsof direct ethnics.One (a3-ku-pi-ti-jo/Aiguptios/) is a shepherd
contactor exchangewithSyro-Palestine do not ex- listedon Db 1105;theother(mi-sa-ra-jo/ Misraios/)is
ist.However,scholarsincreasingly attributethescar- an "Egyptian" receiving foodstuffson F(2) 841. Shel-
cityof evidence forexchange in the LinearB archives merdineemphasizestheprosaicnatureofthesemen,
to the media on whichexchange entrieswere re- whoare "assimilated intoordinary localcontexts, not
corded.Perhapsmoreextensive accountancy oftrade relatedto foreignaffairs ofanykind."147 Niloticloan
existedon perishablemediathatdo notsurvive in the words,however, are notrepresented in theLinearB
archaeological record.141 archives.Thiscontrast withSemiticloan wordsis sig-
We mightquestion,however,if a Hittitevassal nificantand again raises the question of whether
wouldriskengagingin high-level exchangeswitha Egyptand the LH/LM III Aegean werein regular,
region that was probably not on good termswith directtradecontact.We should,nevertheless, main-
Hattusa.But Bybloswas furtherremovedfromthe tain the possibility thatpowersin Egypthad some
Hittitesphereofinfluence(aligningitselfwithEgypt bearingon, ifnotinterestin,theUluburuncargo.
atleastduringtheAmarnaperiod). Significant quan- This leavesthe islandof Cyprus.A significant in-
titiesofLH IIIA-B pottery havealso been identified hibiting feature of Late Bronze Age Cyprus is that
in Byblos.142 This prominentLebanese emporium Cypro-Minoan scriptremainsindecipherable.Con-
may have had interestin thecargoof theUluburun sequently, we knowverylittleof the motivations of
ship,though,again,thereis no conclusiveevidence the Cypriotelite.The importanceof Cyprusto the
134
Ura is best knownfroman Ugariticarchive,recordinga 138
Leonard 1994, 208-9; Van Winjgaarden2002, 37-73.
139
For references,see Cline 1994, 48.
desperateplea fromHattusa fora large shipmentof grainvia
Mukis (Nougayroletal. 1968, 107, lines 20-4). The shipment 140Shelmerdine 1998, 291.
was to arriveat theportofUra,whichhas yetto be conclusively 141
Killen 1985, 267-68; Shelmerdine1998,293 (afterWein-
identifiedon theCiliciancoast,thoughmanyassociatetheHittite garten1983);Wachsmann1998,154 (afterUchitel1988,21-2).
142
portwithmodernSilifke(classicalSeleucia) (see Davesne etal. Leonard 1994, 204-5.
143
See Leonard 1994. See also Artzy(2005) forfurtherdis-
1987).
135Sherratt and Crouwell 1987, 345. cussionofpossibleLate BronzeAge emporiaalong theCarmel
136
Whilestillnot conclusive,lead isotope data fromthelead coast.
fishnetsinkerson board theUluburunshipand pieces ofscrap 144
Bass etal. 1989,26.
silver(Pulak 2001, 23-5) point to ore sources in the south- 145
Pulak 1998, 203; 2001, 30-1.
centralTaurus ranee of southernAnatolia. 146Davies1943; Pulak 1998, 215.
137
See p. 347. 147
Shelmerdine1998, 295.
tradeeconomyoftheLate BronzeAgeeasternMedi- concentration of exoticimportsin theAegean cen-
terranean, however, is certain.Alashiyain theAmar- tersof LH/LM IIIA-B Mycenae,Tiryns,Knossos,
na Lettersappears to have risento prominenceas Kommos,andIalysos, and suggests theseclusters
point
thechiefexporterof copperin the Mediterranean. to "specificpointsof entry."Fromtheentrepots, the
Recentpetrographic analyseson theAlashiyaletters non-Aegeanimports could have been redistributed
fromtheAmarnaarchivessuggesta Cypriotorigin to othercentersand lessercommunities withinthe
fortheclaytablets,whichgivesgreatercredenceto Aegean.154
theidentification ofAlashiyawithCyprus.148 It seems Cline's observationhas important for
implications
likelythatcenterson Cyprusenjoyedhealthyrela- the cargo.A singlecentercould have receivedthe
tionswiththeAegean,as theflourishing ofimported bulkofthecargo,includingthepreciousobjectsand
LH IIIA2-B ceramicson the island seems to indi- materialsthatmirrorthe Amarnagiftinventories.
that
cate. It is perhapssignificant Cyprus exhibits The same centercould then redistribute the bulk
more LH IIIA2-B potterythan Syro-Palestine and commoditiesto other centerswithinthe Aegean.
Egyptcombined.149 This should alleviateany apprehensionsthat the
Recentinterpretations ofthetermku-pi-ri-jo (Cyp- cargoof the Uluburunshipwas too massiveforthe
riot) in the Linear B archives conclude thatdirect economyof a singleAegean palace to absorb.155
exchangesbetweenthe Mycenaeankingdomsand Geographyand textual evidence may narrow
agentsfromCyprusdid occur.Killen,following Oliv- Cline's specificportsof entryto a likelydestination
ier150on the role of "collectors" in the Mycenaean forall or some of the elite cargo.Three of thefive
palatialeconomy,suggeststhatofficialstitledku-pi- portsareon Rhodes(Ialysos)and Crete(Knossosand
ri-joat Knossosand Pylosacted as intermediaries in Kommos). Theseislandsformthesouthernand east-
trading with
activities or
Cyprus, Cyp riot-based mer- ernAegean gateways to the easternMediterranean.
chants.151 Additionally, Hirschfeld'sstudyof Cypro- The shipwrecks of Uluburunand Cape Gelidonya
Minoan-marked LH IIIB vasesidentified in theArgo- clearlydemonstrate thatwestboundLevantinecom-
lid and abroad offersan intriguing hypothesisfor mercein the Late BronzeAge followedthe south-
Aegean contact with Cypriot merchants.152 This thin ernAnatoliancoastto theAegean.These merchants
accumulation ofevidencefortiesbetweenCyprusand would have encounteredRhodes if theywishedto
the LH/LM IIIA-B Aegean places a Cypriotcenter engage theAegean in trade.
(Alassa?Kition?Enkomi?)at the top of a tentative BronzeAge Rhodesremainsrelatively enigmatic.
list of politieswho mayhave had interestin the The islandhas yetto producesignificant excavated
Uluburuncargo.153 BronzeAge settlements, let alone anythingresem-
bling a palace. However,substantialquantitiesof
Destination Cypriotceramicsand bronzes appear in the LH
narrowtherangeofpossible
Severalconsiderations IIIA1-2 cemeteryat Ialysos.156 Such examplesof in-
fortheUluburuncargo.Clinenotesthe
destinations creasedgravewealthsuggesta timeof relativepros-
148
Gorenetal. 2003. not to specifyshape, size,fabric,decorativemotif,context,site,
149CatW1964,38. or geographicallocation,are likelyidiosyncraticnotationsys-
150
Olivier1967. tems,whichwere "designationsmade by those who handled
151
Killen 1995,214-21. themerchandise"(Hirschfeld1996,292) . Of thetwopossibili-
l52Hirscheld(1996,291) notesthatonlyabout 200 vasesout tiesforthehandlersofthemerchandise(CypriotsorAegean) ,
oftheentirecorpusofexcavatedLHIIIA-B Aegean potteryare Hirschfeld(1996, 293) prefersthe simplerscenario,assigning
"post-firingincised."She suggeststherarityofincisedmarkson Cypriotsthe role of markingthe vases withtheirown script.
Aegean potterypointsto some "specificand directeduse, i.e., Thus, Cypriotagentsmayhave been on Aegean soil,marking
a markingsystem."The incisedmarksare thustied to Cypriot the potteryintendedforexportto Cyprus.To myknowledge,
trade,a viewbased on thefollowingobservations:(1) themarks the onlyotherpossible evidence forforeignmerchantsin the
thathave been unequivocallyidentifiedas notationare Cypro- Late BronzeAge Aegean is a pairofSyro-Palestinian or Cypriot
Minoan characters,(2) the largestquantityand varietyof in- anchorsatKommoson Creteused as columnbases (Shaw 1995,
cisedvasesappear on Cyprus,and (3) thepracticeofpost-firing 285-86; Rutter1999, 141).
153
For an intriguingdiscussionconcerningthe location of
incisingoccurswidelyon Cypruson both local and imported
pottery.Conversely, inscribedvasesare rarein theAegean (Hir- thepoliticalcenterofAlashiyabased on thepetrographic analysis
schfeld1993,313) . The Cypriot-inscribedAegean potteryisnot of theAlashiyatabletsin theAmarna archive,see Goren et al.
confinedtoCyprus.The Levanthas produced significant quan- 2003,248-52.
so has theArgolid(Hirschfeld1996, 154
Cline 1994, 86-7.
but,moreimportant,
tities,
291). The appearance of24 post-firing vasesin theArgolid(the 155
portionsofthecargocould have also remainedon board,
vastmajorityatTiryns)suggeststoHirschfeldthatthevaseswere continuingthe easternMediterraneancircuit.
incisedwithCypriotmarkspriorto theirexport.The inconsis- 156
Mee 1982, 20-2, 85; Benzi 1996, 951.
tentpatterningofthemarksfromvesseltovessel,whichappear
perity on theisland(comparedwithearlierperiods).157 B Crete (148) 165vs. thoseon the LH IIIA-B main-
It is probablynot a coincidencethatthe escalation land (33) 166clearlyshowscommercegravitating to-
of Aegean exportactivity in LH IIIA2 corresponds wardtheislandcontemporary to the(LH/LM IIIA2)
withtheincreasedwealthexhibitedin theLH IIIA2 sinkingoftheUluburunship.LinearB tabletsatboth
Rhodian tombs.158 Knossosand Pylosshowpossibleevidenceforcontacts
Sherrattsuggeststhat Rhodes was one of two abroad,167thoughPyloshasnotproduceda singlefor-
entrepots(includingKommoson Crete)joiningthe eignobjectfromtheLH IIIA period.168 LinearB texts
LH/LM IIIA-B Aegeanto thegreatereasternMedi- at Pylosalso postdatetheUluburunwreck,whereas
terraneancircuit.159Voutsakihypothesizes LH IIIA2- mostof the Knossostabletsare contemporary.
B Rhodeswas politically subservientto a palace on The onlychallengertoKnossosfora LH/LM IIIA2
theGreekmainland,proposingthata mainlandforce high-levelexchangeis Mycenae,throughtheneigh-
had conqueredat leastpartofRhodesas a vitallink boring harbor citadelofTiryns. Mycenaeexhibitsthe
to theinterregional maritime circuit.160
Bothmodels largestconcentration of exotic objectson the Late
could concludethattheentireUluburuncargowas BronzeAgeGreekmainland(outnumbering on Crete
destinedforRhodes.161 Knossosand second to Kommos).169 Mycenaeis un-
Voutsaki highlightstherelative ofNearEast-
paucity rivaledon themainlandin sizeand presumedpoliti-
ern seals and othernon-Aegean(and non-Cypriot) cal gravityand shouldnotbe excludedas a possible
objectson Rhodes. Thus, when a cargo was deliv- destinationforthe elite elementsof the Uluburun
ered to Rhodes,themostdesirableeliteobjectsand cargo.
materialswould have continuedonto the palatial The emporiumofKommosin thewesternMesara,
overlordon themainland.162 This dearthcould also however, tipsthebalancein favorofCreteas thepri-
mean,however, thatthe eliteand foreignobjectswere mary destination. Kommosboaststhe greatestcon-
not being unladed on Rhodes in the firstplace. centrationof foreignobjects in the Bronze Age
Sherrattbelieves the distance separatingRhodes Aegean. A pair of Syro-Palestinian or Cypriotan-
fromthemainlandensureditsautonomy.163 Presum- chorssimilarto theanchorshauledaboardtheUlu-
ably ifan entirecargo (includinggiftexchangeele- burunshipwasidentified in an LM IIIA2 contextat
ments) was delivered to Rhodes, and Rhodes was Kommos,170 as well as dozens of Cypriottablewares
autonomous, the island musthave had a centerca- and pithoi,morethan50 Canaanitejars, and about
of and
pable receiving usingwaresand resourcesthat 36 Egyptianjars and flasks,171 all recoveredfrom
had circulatedamong the Near Easternelite; this mostly LM IIIA contexts.
centerhasyettobe identified. The ambiguity ofRho- Sherratt suggeststhatLM III Kommoswasclosely
des leavesus to considerotherdestinations forthe relatedto Knossos,if not under some measureof
eliteelementsof theUluburunship'scargo. administrative control.172
Kommos,likeRhodes,does
Crete'srole in linkingtheAegean to the civiliza- not exhibithigher-status foreignobjectssuchas cyl-
tionsofthegreaterLevantis notin doubt.Afterthe inderseals,stonevases,and so forth.Ruttersuggests
crisison LM IB Cretethatmarkedtheend ofMinoan thatthe more prestigiousimportsarrivingat non-
Creteappearsto haveled theAegeanin
civilization, palatialKommoscontinuedinlandto thepalaces.173
resuminginterregionalexchange activities.164 The On Crete,theproblemofdistanceand controlis con-
numberof importedobjectsidentified on LM IIIA- siderablylessthanbetweentheGreekmainlandand
157Benzi
1988,62-4. designated LM IIIB.
158
Mee 1982,82;Benzi1996,950-51. 166
Cline1994,table4. Thetotalincludesobjectsdesignated
159
Sherratt1999,183;2001,220-21. LH IIIAandLH IIIA-B;itdoesnotincludeobjectsdesignated
160
Voutsaki2001,209-11. LH IIIB.
161
Rutter(2005) observesthattheeclecticformsofAegean 167Seep.357.
ceramicsonboardtheUluburun ship(manufactured onCrete, 168
Cline1994,tables63-9.
in theDodecanese,theGreekmainland, and coastalwestern 169
Cline1994,table70.
Anatolia)mostresemble theburialassemblagesoftheLH IIIA2 170
Shaw1995,285-86;Rutter 1999,141.The Syria-Palestin-
Rhodiantombs. iananchorisexceptionally rareintheAegean.The PointIria
162Voutsaki
2001,210. shipwreck (ca. 1200B.C.) hasyieldedtwoexamples(Vichos
163
Sherratt2001,222-23n. 17. 1996),andonemissing a provenence attheMykonos
isondisplay
164Clinel994,9. Museum(Rutter 1999,141).
165
Cline1998b,appx.1. Clineupdateshis1994cataloguefor 171
Rutter1999,142,tables1-3.
imported objectsonCrete.Thesumtotalincludes objectsdesig- 172
Sherratt2001,221.
natedLM III, LM II-IIIA1,LM IIIA,LM IIIA1,LM IIIA2,LM 173Rutter
1999,141-42.
IIIA-B,and LM IIIA2-B.The totaldoes notincludeobjects
Rhodes.Sherrattobservesthatthe KnossianLinear Myinvestigation movesonto less sure groundin
B tabletsshowa stronginterestin Phaistos,which discussions of the ship's personnel.While the Am-
maydenote the regionoccupied byKommos,Ayia arna Lettersand otherLate BronzeAge textsmen-
Triada,and the abandoned Phaistospalace.174 It is tion individualscalled "messengers," whose dutyit
notdifficult to imagineKommos,the most lucrative was to accompanygift-exchange boththe
deliveries,
emporiumin the LH/LM IIIA2 Aegean,underthe uncertainty the
surrounding giftexchange nature of
swayofthemostpowerful polityon Crete.Whilethe thecargoand theinherentambiguities of theorna-
Argolidshould not be excluded as a destination, mentaland utilitarian objectsPulakhas labeled"per-
Knossosheld centerstagein the Minoan era as an sonal effects" preventanydefinitive statements as to
important polityin theAegean.Knossos,witha prob- the natureof the personnel.Nevertheless, the pat-
able emporiumat Kommos,also possessedthegeo- ternsof objectsdo suggestthattwoindividuals with
graphicadvantageofsittingon theperiphery of the greateraffinity to the Aegean thanany other region
Aegean in line with the eastern Mediterranean cir- in the easternMediterraneanwere on board. The
cuit.It may also be significant thatthe majorityof patternofAegean objectsis distinct withina matrix
theAegeanstirrup jars on theUluburun ship,though of Near Easternutilitarian and ornamentalobjects,
in recirculation,wereofCretanmanufacture.175 Knos- as wellas withinthematrixofcargoand anchorsthat
sos may have held a profound in
interest the cargo wereclearlyladed at a Near Easternport.This ob-
oftheUluburunship. servation allowsa rangeofspeculation.Egyptian and
HittitesourcesindicatethattheMinoanssentemis-
CONCLUSION sariesto Egyptian Thebes,and thatAhhiyawans (My-
Is thereenoughevidenceto suggestthatthecargo cenaeans) sent messengersto Hattusha.We should,
and personnelof the Uluburunship representan therefore, not rule out Pulak's suggestionthatthe
ambassadorial missionto theLH/LM IIIA2Aegean? proposed individuals ofAegeanoriginmayhavebeen
The inherentlimitations of the archaeologicalcon- representing the interests of a Mycenaeanpalace.
textforexploring complex,politicallychargedbehav- The Uluburunship'scargowasdesirable,and the
iormayforever leavescholarsguessingat theimplica- palace (Knossos?),whichmayhave been destined
tionsofthewrecksite.Nevertheless, theshipdid not to receiveevena fractionof themetaland eliteob-
sinkintoa vacuum;rather, itmetitsdemisein a con- jects,wouldhavecultivated considerableprestigeand
textthathas been thefocusofa scholarshipincreas- poweramong subjects rivals.Thiscargowould
its and
inglyconcentratedon the issue of long-distance havehad lastingeffects on theeconomicwell-being,
exchangein thegreatereasternMediterranean. We and probablyalso the politicalclimate,of the in-
are able to studytheshipwreck throughphilological tendedrecipient.BeyondtheAegean,theunfulfilled
and archaeologicallensesprovidedbythisresearch. deliveryof the cargo mayhave sentharmfulrever-
There is enough evidenceto suggest,withconfi- berationsthrougha networkthatappears to have
dence,thatthe ship and itscargowereen routeto joined the Aegean elite to theirneighborsin the
theAegean.To argueotherwisenecessarily callsfor easternMediterranean.
specialpleading.176 I also propose that elements of
thecargowerecirculating withineliteexchangenet- st. john's college
works,whileotheritemsappear to be destinedfor university of oxford
nonpalatialconsumers.The parallelsbetweenas- oxford ox1 3jp
pectsofthecargoand thegiftinventories and deliv- united kingdom
eriesin theAmarnaLettersare striking and should christoph.bachhuber@st-johns.oxford.ac.uk
leave open the possibility thatone or morepalaces
helda vestedinterest in theUluburuncargo.It must
be stressed, however, thata giftexchange,or a mani- WorksCited
festation ofa politicaland personalcorrespondence Artzy,M. 1997. "Nomads of the Sea." In ResMaritimae:
betweentworulers,is notevident. Cyprusand theEasternMediterranean to
fromPrehistory
174 2001,221n. 16.

Sherratt betweenthecargooftheUluburunshipand representations
175Rutter2005. anddescriptions
ofSyriantribute
toEgypt, andtherefore
sug-
thatthe
(2005,339-41) hasraisedthepossibility
176Bloedow geststheUluburunshipwreck a similar
represents venture
from
Uluburunshipwasblownoffcoursebya powerful eastwind SyriatoEgypt,
he doesnotconsiderthatverysimilar
materials
anemos)
(apeliotes as itsetsailfromUgariten routeto Egypt. werebeingdeliveredinevery
direction
betweenthepowersof
WhileBloedowhas correctly identified
numerousparallels theNearEast/greatereasternMediterranean.
LateAntiquity: Proceedings the2nd International assessmentof Egypto-AegeanRelationsin the 14th
" of Sym-
posium"Citieson theSea, Nicosia,Cyprus,October 18- CenturyB.C." Orientalia56(l):l-36.
22, 1994,editedbyS. Swiny,R. Hohlfelder,and H.W. . 1990. "AnUnpublishedAmenhotepIII Faience
Swiny,1-16. Atlanta:Scholars Press. Plaque fromMycenae."JAOS 110(2):200-12.
. 2005. "Emporiaon theCarmelCoast?Tel Akko, . 1990-1991."Contactand Tradeor Colonization?:
Tell Abu Hawam and Tel Nami of the Late Bronze Egyptand the Aegean in the 14th-13thCenturies
Age." Aegaeum25:355-61. B.C." Minos25/26:7-36.
Arutinov, S.A.,and A.M. Khazanov.1981. "Das Problem . 1991. "A Possible HittiteEmbargo Againstthe
der archaologischen Kriterianmit ethnischerSpe- Mycenaeans."Historia40(1) :l-9.
zifik."Ethnographisch-Archdologische 22:669-
Zeitschrift . 1994. SailingtheWineDarkSea: International Trade
85. and theLate BronzeAgeAegean.Oxford:OxfordUni-
Astour,M. 1972. "The Merchant Class of Ugarit." In versity Press.
XVIIIRecontre internationale,
assyriologique Munchen, 29. . 1995a. '"My Brother,My Son': Rulershipand
Junibis 3. Juli 1970, edited by D.O. Edzard, 11-26. Trade Betweenthe LBA Aegean,Egyptand the Near
Munich: BayerischenAkademie der Wissenschaften. East." Aegaeum11:143-50.
Bachhuber, C. 2003. "Aspects of Late Helladic Sea . 1995b. "Egyptianand Near EasternImportsat
Trade." M.A. thesis,Texas A&M University. Late Bronze Age Mycenae."In Egypt,theAegeanand
Bass, G. 1967. "Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Ship- theLevant:Interconnections intheSecondMillennium B.C,
wreck." TAPS 57(8) :3-177. edited byW. Davies, V. Schofield,and L. Schofield,
. 1973. "Cape Gelidonyaand Bronze Age Mari- 91-115. London: BritishMuseum Press.
timeTrade." In Orientand Occident: EssaysPresented to . 1998a. "AmenhotepIII, theAegean,and Anatol-
CyrusGordon ontheOccasionofHis 65thBirthday, edited ia," In Amenhotep III: Perspectives
onHis Reign,editedby
byH. Hoffner,29-38. Kevelaer:Butzon and Bercker. D. O'Connor and E. Cline, 236-50. Ann Arbor:Uni-
. 1986. "A Bronze Age Shipwreckat Ulu Burun versity of MichiganPress.
(Ka): 1984 Campaign." AJA90(3):269-96. . 1998b. "The Natureof the Economic Relations
. 1991. EvidenceofTradefromBronzeAge Ship- ofCretewithEgyptand theNear EastduringtheLate
wrecks." In BronzeAge Trade in theMediterranean, Bronze Age." In FromMinoanFarmers toRomanTrad-
edited by N.H. Gale, 69-82. Jonsered:Paul Astroms ers:Sidelights on theEconomy ofAncientCrete, edited by
Forlag. A. Chaniotis,115-44. Stuttgart: Franz SteinerVerlag.
.1997. "Beneath the Wine Dark Sea: Nautical Clogg, R. 1992. A ConciseHistoryofGreece. Cambridge:
Archaeologyand thePhoeniciansof theOdyssesy." In CambridgeUniversity Press.
Greekand Barbarians:Essayson theInteractions Between Davesne, A., A. Lemaire, and H. Lozachemeur. 1987.
Greeks andNon-Greeks inAntiquity and theConsequences of "Li site archeologique de Meydancikkale(Turqie):
Eurocentrism, edited byJ.E. Coleman and C.A. Waltz, Du royaumede Pirindua la ranison ptolema'ique."
71-101. Bethesda: CDL Press. Comptesrendusde I Academedes Inscriptions et Belles-
. 1998. "SailingBetweentheAegean and the Ori- Lettres1987:373-76.
ent in the Second MillenniumB.C." Aegeaum18:183- Davies,N. 1943. TheTombofRechmire at Thebes.NewYork:
92. MetropolitanMuseum of ArtEgyptianExpedition.
Bass, G., C. Pulak, D. Collon, and J. Weinstein.1989. De Fidio, P. 1989. L artigianatodel bronzo nei testi
"The BronzeAge Shipwreckat Uluburun:1986 Cam- micenei de Pilo." Klio 71(l):7-27.
paign." AJA93(l):l-29. Deshayes,J. 1960.Lesoutilsdebronze, deVIndusau Danube.
Benzi, M. 1988. "MycenaeanRhodes: A Summary."In Vol. 2. Paris: Geuthner.
Archaeology in theDodecanese, edited byS. Dietz and I. De Vos, G.A., and L. Romanucci-Ross.1995. "Ethnic
Papachristodoulou, 59-72. Copenhagen: National Identity: A Psychocultural Perspective."In EthnicIden-
Museum of Denmark Departmentof Near Eastern tity:Creation, Conflictand Accommodation, edited byL.
and ClassicalAntiquity. Romanucci-Ross and G. De Vos,349-79.WalnutCreek,
. 1996. "Problemsof the Mycenaean Expansion Calif.:AltamiraPress.
in the South-EasternAegean." In Attie Memoriedel Edel, E. 1966. Die Ortsnamenhsten dem Totentempel
SecondoCongresso Internazionaledi Miconologia.Vol. 3, Amenhopis III. Bonn: Peter Hanstein.
editedbyE. De Miro,L. Godart,and A. Sacconi,947- Emberling,G. 1997. "Ethnicityin Complex Societies:
78. Rome: Gruppo editorialeinternazionale. ArchaeologicalPerspectives." JournalofArchaeological
Birot, M. 1974. Lettresde Yaqqim-Addu, gouverneurde Research5:295-344.
Sagaratum(Archives royalsdeMariXTV).Paris:Librarie Geary,P. 1983. "Ethnic Identityas a SituationalCon-
orientalisteP. Geuthner. structin theEarlyMiddleAges."Mitteilungen deranth-
Bloedow,E. 2005. "Aspectsof Trade in the Late Bronze ropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien113:15-26.
Age Mediterranean:What Was the Ultimate Desti- Gilhs,C. 1995. Trade in theLate BronzeAge. In Trade
nation of the Uluburun Ship?" Aegaeum25:335-41. and Production in Premonetory Greece:Aspectsof Trade:
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outlineofa Theory ofPractice.Cam- Proceedings oftheThirdInternational Workshop, Athens
bridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. 1993, edited by C. Gillis,C. Risberg,and B. Sjoberg,
Brovarski,E. 1987. "Two Old KingdomWritingBoards 61-86. Jonsered:Paul AstromsForlag.
fromGiza." Annalesde ServicedesAntiquites de VEgypte Goren,Y, S. Bunimovitz, and N. Na Aman.
I. Finkelstein,
71:27-52. 2003. "The Location ofAlashiya:New Evidencefrom
Catling,H.W. 1964. Cypriot BronzeWorkin theMycenaean PetrographicInvestigationofAlashiyanTabletsfrom
World.Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press. El-Amarnaand Ugarit."AJA107(2) :233-55.
Cline, E. 1987. "AmenhotepIII and the Aegean: A Re- Gregory,C.A. 1982. Gifts and Commodities. London: Aca-
demic Press. WorldArch 24(3):332-47.

Haider, P.W. 1988. Griechenland-Nordafrika. Darmstadt: Knapp,A.B., andj. Cherry.1994. Provenience Studiesand
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. BronzeAge Cyprus:Production, Exchangeand Politico-
Hairfield,H.H., and E.M. Hairfield.1990. "Identifica- EconomicChange.Madison,Wis.: Prehistory Press.
tionof a Late BronzeAge Resin."Analytical Chemistry Kopcke, G. 1997. "Mycenaean Ivories." Aegaeum16:
62(1):41A-45A. 141-43.
Hall,J.1997.EthnicIdentity in GreekAntiquity.Cambridge: Kozal, E. 2003. "Red LustrousWheel-madeWare, My-
CambridgeUniversity Press. cenaean and CypriotPotteryin Anatolia."In Identify-
HankeyV. 1973. "The Aegean Deposit at el Amarna." ing Changes:The Transition fromBronzetoIronAgesin
In ActsoftheInternational ArchaeologicalSymposium: "The Anatoliaand Its Neighboring Regions:Proceedings ofthe
in theEasternMediterranean, " edited V. International
Mycenaeans by Workshop,Istanbul,November 8-9, 2002,
Karageorghis,128-36. Nicosia: Departmentof An- editedbyB. Fischer,H. Genz,E.Jean,and K. Koroglu,
tiquities,Cyprus. 65-78. Istanbul:Turk EskicagBilimleriEnstitiisu.
. 1981. "The Aegean Interestin el Amarna."Jour- Kuniholm,P., B. Kromer,S. Manning,M. Newton,C.
nal ofMediterranean Anthropology andArchaeology 1:38- Latini,and M. Bruce. 1996."AnatolianTree Ringsand
49. the Absolute Chronologyof the Eastern Mediterra-
. 1987. "The Chronology of the Aegean Late nean." Nature381:780-83.
BronzeAge." In High,MiddleorLow?:Actsofan Inter- Kupper,J.1950. Correspondence deKibri-Dagan, gouverneur
nationalColloquium on AbsoluteChronology Held at the de Terqa(Archives royalsdeMariIII). Paris:Impremerie
University of Gothenburg, 20-22 August1987, Part 2, Nationale.
edited by P. Astrom,39-59. Goteborg:Paul Astroms Lamberg-Karlovsky, K. 1963. "Notes and News: Amber
Forlag. and Faience." Antiquity 37:301-2.
Harden, D.B. 1981. CatalogueofGreekand RomanGlass Lang, M. 1966. Jn Formulasand Groups." Hesperia35
in theBritish Museum.Vol. 1, Core-and Rod-formed Ves- (4):397-412.
selsand Pendantsand Mycenaean ArtObjects. London: Laroche, E. 1971. Cataloguedes textesHittites.Paris:
BritishMuseum. Klencksieck.
Harding,A., and H. Hughes-Brock.1974. "Amberin Leemans, W.F. 1950. The Old BabylonianMerchant, His
the MycenaeanWorld."BSA 69:145-72. Businessand His SocialPosition.Leiden: Brill.
Hawkins,J.D. 1998. "TarkasnawaKingof Mira: 'Tarkon- Lejeune, M. 1961. "Les forgeronsde Pylos." Historia
demos,'BogazkoySealingsand Rarabel."AnatSt4S:l- 10:409-34.
31. Leonard, A. 1994. An IndextotheLateBronzeAge o0
Aegean
o
Hirschfeld,N. 1993. "Incised Marked (Post Firing) on Pottery fromSyria-Palestine. Jonsered: Paul Astroms
Aegean Wares."In Waceand Blegen:Pottery as Evidence Forlag.
forTradein theAegeanBronzeAge,edited byC. Zerner, Lilyquist,C. 1999. On the Amenhotep III Inscribed
P. Zerner,and J. Winder,311-18. Amsterdam:J.C. Faience FragmentsfromMycenae."JAOS 119:303-8.
Gieben. Lindgren,M. 1973. ThePeopleofPylos,Vol. 2. Uppsala:
. 1996. "Cypriotsin the MycenaeanAegean." In Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
Attie memorie delSecondoCongressointernazionaledi micen- Liverani,M. 1979. IrrationalElementsin the Amarna
ologia,Roma-Napoli 14-20 Octobre 1991.Vol. l,Fiologia, Trade." In ThreeAmarnaEssays,edited and translated
IncunabulaGraeca98,editedbyE. Demiro,L. Godart, by M. Jaffe,21-34. Malibu: Undena Publications.
and A. Saconi, 289-97. Rome: Gruppo editoriale . 2000. "The Great PowersClub." In AmarnaDi-
internazionale. plomacy:TheBeginnings ofInternational Relations,ed-
Just,R. 1989. "Triumphof the Ethnos."In Historyand itedbyR. Cohen and R. Westbrook,15-27. Baltimore:
Ethnicity, edited byE. Tonkin,M. McDonald, and M. JohnsHopkins University Press.
Chapman, 71-88. London: Routledge. Malinowski,B. 1922. Argonauts oftheWestern Pacific:An
Kemp, B.J.,and R. Merrillees.1980. Minoan Pottery in AccountofNativeEnterprise and Adventure in theArchi-
SecondMillennium Egypt.Mainz am Rhein:Phillipvon pelagoesofMelanesian NewGuinea.London: Routledge.
Zabern. Manning,S., and L. Hulm. 2005. "MaritimeCommerce
Killen,J.T 1985. "The Linear B Tabletsand the Mycen- and Geographiesof Mobilityin the Late Bronze Age
aean Economy."In LinearB: A 1984 Survey: Mycenaean of the Eastern Mediterranean:Problemizations."In
Colloquium oftheVIII Congress oftheInternational Fed- TheArchaeology ofMediterranean Prehistory,edited by
erationoftheSocieties ofClassicalStudies.Biblioteque des E. Blake and A.B. Knapp, 270-91. Oxford:Blackwell.
Cahiersde Vlnstitute de Linguistiqede Louvain 26, ed- Manning,S., B. Kromer,P. Kuniholm,and M. Newton.
ited by M. Davies, A. Duhox, and Y. Duhoux, 241- 2001. "AnatolianTree Ringsand a New Chronology
305. Louvain-la-Neuve:Cabay. fortheEast MediterraneanBronze-IronAges."Science
. 1987. "Bronzeworkingat Knossos and Pylos." 294(2) :2532-35.
Hermathena 143:61-2. Marx,K. 1867. Capital.Vol.1, A CriticalAnalysisofCapi-
. 1995. "Some FurtherThoughtson Collectors." talistProduction.Moscow:ProgressPublishers.
Aegaeum12:213-26. Mauss,M. 1954. TheGift.London: Routledgeand Kegan
Knapp, A.B. 1991. "Spice, Drugs,Grain and Grog: Or- Paul.
ganic Goods in Bronze Age East Mediterranean Mee, C. 1982. Rhodesin theBronzeAge:An Archaeological
Trade."In Bronze AgeTradein theMediterranean, edited Survey. Warminster: Arisand Phillips.
byN.H. Gale, 21-68.Jonsered:Paul AstromsForlag. Meier,S.A. 1988. TheMessenger in theAncientSemitic World.
. 1993. "Thalassocraciesin Bronze Age Eastern HarvardSemitic Monographs 45. Atlanta:ScholarsPress.
MediterraneanTrade: Makingand Breakinga Myth." Melena,J.L. 1976. "La productionde plantasaromaticas
en Cnoso." EstudiosClasicos20:177-90 Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Instituteof
Merrillees,R.S. 1968. TheCypriote BronzePotteryFoundin America,6-9 January,Boston.
Egypt.Lund: Carl Bloms Boktryckeri. Schaeffer,C. 1978. Ugaritca7. Missionde Ras Shamra
. 1974. Irade and lranscendence in theBronzeAge 18. Paris: LibraireorientalistePaul Geuthner.
Levant.SIMA 39. Goteborg:Paul AstromsForla^. Schofield,L., and R.B. Parkinson.1994. "Of Helmets
Mills,J.S., and R. White. 1989. "The Identityof the and Heretics:A Possible EgyptianRepresentationof
Resins fromthe Late Bronze Age Shipwreckat Ulu MycenaeanWarriorson a PapyrusFromEl-Amarna."
Burun (Ka)." Archaeometry 31:37-44. BSA 89:157-70.
Moran, W. 1992. TheAmarnaLetters. Baltimore:Johns Schulman,A. 1979. "DiplomaticMarriagein the Egyp-
Hopkins University Press. tian New Kingdom."JNES38:177-93.
Newton,M., and P. Kuniholm.2005. "The Wood from . 1988. "Hittites,Helmets,and Amarna:Akhen-
the Ka Shipwreckat Uluburun: Dendrochronologi- aten's First Hittite War." In The AkhenatenTemple
cal and RadiocarbonAnalysesThrough2004." Paper Project.Vol. 2, Rwd-MNW, andInscriptions,
Foreigners ed-
read at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the Archaeo- ited by D.B. Redford,54-79. Toronto: Akhenaten
logical Instituteof America,6-9 January,Boston. Temple Project.
Niebuhr,A.D. 1970. HerbsofGreece. Athens:J. Makris. Shaw,J. 1995. "Two Three-holedStone Anchorsfrom
Niemeier, W.D. 1998. "The Mycenaeans in Western Kommos, Crete: Their Context,Type and Origin."
Anatolia." In Mediterranean Peoplesin Transition,ed- IJNA24:279-91.
itedbyS. Gittin,A. Mazar,and E. Stern,17-65.Jerusa- Shelmerdine,C. 1998. "WhereDo We Go FromHere?:
lem: Israel ExplorationSociety. The Linear B Tablets."Aevaeum18:291-99.
Nougayrol, J., E. Laroche, C. Virolleaud, and C. Shennan, S. 1994. "Introduction:Archaeological Ap-
Schaeffer.1968. UgariticaV: Nouveauxtextsaccadiens, proaches to Cultural Identity."In Archaeological Ap-
hourrites d'Ugarit:Commentaries des texteshistoriques proachesto CulturalIdentity,2nd ed., edited by S.
(premiere partie).Paris:ImpremerieNationale. Shennan, 1-32. Routledsre:London.
Olivier,J.P. 1967. "La serie Dn Cnossos." In SMEA 2. Sherratt,S. 1999. uEpursi muove:Pots Marketsand Val-
IncunabulaGraeca18, edited by C. Gallavotti,71-93. ues in the Second MillenniumMediterranean."In
Rome: Edizioni dell'Ateneo. TheComplex Past ofPottery.Production,Circulation
and
Payton,R. 1991. "The Uluburun WritingBoard Set." Consumption ofMycenaean and Greek
Pottery(Sixteenthto
AnatSt41:99-110. EarlyFifthCenturies B.C.): ProceedingsoftheARCHON
Pulak, C. 1988. "The Bronze Age Shipwreckat Ulu International HeldinAmsterdam,
Conference, 8-9 November
Burun, Turkey:1985 Campaign." ATA92(l):l-38. 1996, edited byJ.P.Crielaard,V. Stissi,and G.J.van
. 1997. "The Uluburun Shipwreck."In Res Mari- Wijngaarden,163-211. Amsterdam:J.C. Gieben.
timae:Cyprus and theEasternMediterranean fromPrehis- .2001. "Potemkin Palaces and Route-Based
torytoLateAntiquity: oftheSecond
Proceedings International Economies." In Economy and Politicsin theMycenaean
Symposium "Cities
ontheSea,"Nicosia,Cyprus, October18- PalaceStates:Proceedings ofa ConferenceHeldon 1-3July
22, 1994,editedbyS. Swiny,R. Hohl-felder, and H.W. 1999 in theFacultyofClassics,Cambridge, edited by S.
Swiny,233-62. Atlanta:ScholarsPress. Voutsakiandj. Killen,214-54. Cambridge:Cambridge
. 1998. "The UluburunShipwreck:An Overview." PhilologicalSociety.
IJNA27:188-224. Sherratt,S., and J.H. Crouwell.1987. "MycenaeanPot-
. 2000a. "The Copper and Tin Ingots fromthe teryfromCilicia in Oxford." OJA6:325-52.
Late Bronze Age Shipwreckat Uluburun."InDerAn- Sherratt,A., and S. Sherratt.1991. "FromLuxuries to
schnitt: furKunstand KulturimBergbau,ed-
Zeitschrift Commodities:The Natureof MediterraneanBronze
ited byU. Yalchin, 137-57. Bergbau: Der Anschnitt. Age TradingSystems."In BronzeAgeTradein theMedi-
. 2000b. "The Balance Weightsfrom the Late terranean, editedbyN.H. Gale, 351-86.Jonsered:Paul
Bronze Age Shipwreckat Uluburun."In MetalsMake AstromsForlag.
theWorldGo Round,edited by C.F.E. Pare, 247-66. Smith,J. 1992-1993. "The PylosJn Series. Minos27/
Oxford:Oxbow. 28:167-259.
.2001. "The Cargo of the Uluburun Ship and Sommer,F. 1975. Reprint.Die AhhijawaUrkunden. Gert-
Evidence for Trade with the Aegean and Beyond." senberg:Hildesheim.Originaledition,1932.
In Italyand Cyprus in Antiquity1500-450 B.C., edited Stos-Gale,Z.A.,H. Gale, G. Bass,C. Pulak,E. Galih,and
byL. Bonfanteand V. Karageorghis,13-60. Nicosia: J. Sharvit.1998. "The Copper and Tin Ingotsof the
CyprusAntiquities. Late BronzeAge Mediterranean."In TheFourth Inter-
. 2005. "Who Were the MycenaeansAboard the nationalConference on theBeginning oftheUseon Metals
Uluburun Ship?" Aegaeum25:295-312. and Alloys. BUMA 4, 115-26. Sendai: Japan Institute
Rehak, P. 1998. "Aegean Nativesin the Theban Tomb of Metals.
Paintings:The KeftiuRevisited."Aegaeum18:39-51. Symington, D. 1991. "Late Bronze Age WritingBoards
Rutter,J. 1999. "CretanExternalRelationsDuringLate and Their Uses: TextualEvidencefromAnatoliaand
Minoan IIIA2-B (ca. 1370-1200 B.C.): A View from Syria."AnatSt41:111-23.
theMesara."In ThePointIria Wreck: Interconnections
in Tambiah, S.J.1989. "EthnicConflictin the WorldTo-
theMediterranean ca. 1200 B.C., edited byW. Phelps, day."American Ethnologist16:335-49.
Y. Lolos, and Y. Vichos,209-38. Athens:Hellenic In- Uchitel,A. 1988. "The Archivesof Mycenaean Greece
stituteof Marine Archaeology. and theAncientNear East." In Society and Economy in
. 2005. "Assessingthe Shipboard Profileof a Re- theEasternMediterranean (c. 1500-1000 B.C.): Proceed-
gionalCeramicAssemblage:The Aegean Pottery from ingsoftheInternational Symposium Heldat theUniversity
the Uluburun Shipwreck."Paper read at the 2005 ofHaifa fromApril28 to May 2, 1985, edited by M.
Heltzerand E. Lipinski,19-30.Leuven:Uitgeverij Press.
Peeters. Warren,P.M.,and V Hankey.1989.AegeanBronze Age
L.,andF.Lo Schiavo.1989."LateBronzeAge
Vagnetti, Bristol:
Chronology. BristolClassicalPress.
LongDistanceTrade intheMediterranean:TheRole J. 1983."The Use of theZakroSealings."
Weingarten,
oftheCypriots." In EarlySociety
in Cyprus,
editedby Kadmos22(1):8-13.
E. Peltenberg,
217-43.Edinburgh: EdinburghUni- Wiener,M. 1987."Tradeand Rule in MinoanCrete."
Press.
versity FunctionoftheMinoanPalaces:Proceedingsofthe4thIn-
VanWijngaarden, GJ.2002. TheUseandAppreciation of ternational
Symposiumat theSwedishInstitute
in Athens,
in theLevant,Cyprusand Italy(ca.
MycenaeanPottery 10-16June, 1984,editedbyR.HaggandN. Marinatos,
1600-1200B.C.).Amsterdam: Amsterdam University 261-67.SkrAth 4, 35. Stockholm:
SvenskaInstitutet
Press. i Athen.
VichosY. 1996."PointIriaWreck(1993). PartII: The Yakar,J. 1976. "HittiteInvolvement in WesternAna-
StoneAnchors." ENALIAAnnualIV,1992:17-20. tolia."AnatSt26:117-28.
Voutsaki,S. 2001."EconomicControl,
Powerand Pres- Yannai,A. 1983. "Studieson TradeBetweenthe Le-
tigein theMycenaeanWorld:The Archaeological vantand theAegeanin the 14thto 12thCenturies
Evidence." In Economyand Politicsin theMycenaean B.C."Ph.D. diss.,University ofOxford.
PalaceStates:Proceedings
ofa Conference
Heldon 1-3July Zaccagnini,C. 1977."The Merchant at Nuzi."Iraq39:
1999 in theFacultyofClassics,Cambridge,
edited by S. 171-89.
VoutsakiandJ. Killen,195-213.Cambridge:Cam- . 1987."Aspects ofCeremonial GiftExchangein
bridgePhilological
Society. theNear EastDuringtheLate SecondMillennium
Wachsmann,S. 1987. Aegeansin theFhebanTombs. B.C." In Centre
and Periphery
in theAncientWorld,ed-
Leuven:UitgeerijPeeters. itedbyM. Rowlands,
M.T Larsen,andK. Kristensen,
. 1998. SeagoingShipsand Seamanship
in theBronze 47-57.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
AgeLevant.CollegeStation:TexasA&M University

Aegean Interest On The Uluburun Ship

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Aegean Interest On The Uluburun Ship

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Aegean Interest on the Uluburun Ship

Author(s): Christoph Bachhuber

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

* I wishtothankCemalPulakforwalking me through the formative andforlaying

10The trendinBronze Mediterranean ofotherPha-

14Pulak 1997,252-53;1998,218;2000b,264;2001,14,49. 35-6;Warrenand Hankey1989,148-54;Cline1994,7.

Late BronzeAge sitesand centersmentionedin thetext.

37Pulak1997,251. BronzeAgeNearEastandgreater easternMediterraneanare

76The includea stonescepter/mace (Pulak1997, 85Pulak1997, 23; 1998,218;2005.

depositedonto the seafloorwithinthe contextof a velopmentis havingnegativeconsequencesforthe

100Pulak1997,251,253;1998,218-19;2001,45,47,49; see 104

124Laroche1971, 25, cat. no. 181. 273.

174 2001,221n. 16.

demic Press. WorldArch 24(3):332-47.

Potrebbero piacerti anche