The necropolis of andriace in lycia

Tam metin

(1)AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY THE JOURNAL OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA. Volume 106 • No. 2. April 2002.

(2) ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA 2002 OFFICERS Nancy C. Wilkie, President Jane C. Waldbaum, First Vice President Ricardo J. Elia, Vice President for Professional Responsibilities Naomi J. Norman, Vice President for Publications Cameron Jean Walker, Vice President for Societies Jeffrey A. Lamia, Treasurer Hector Williams, President, AIA Canada HONORARY PRESIDENTS Frederick R. Matson, Robert H. Dyson, Jr., Machteld J. Mellink, James R. Wiseman, Martha Sharp Joukowsky, James Russell GOVERNING BOARD Karen Alexander Elizabeth Bartman Mary Beth Buck Eric H. Cline Michael Cosmopoulos Susan Downey Alfred Eisenpreis Neathery Batsell Fuller Kevin Glowacki James R. James, Jr. Charles S. La Follette Richard Leventhal Jodi Magness Carol C. Mattusch Francis P. McManamon Andrew M.T. Moore. Dorinda J. Oliver Kathleen A. Pavelko Alice S. Riginos John J. Roche Lucille Roussin Anne H. Salisbury Joan Schiele Catherine Sease John H. Stubbs Kathryn A. Thomas Barbara Tsakirgis Patty Jo Watson Robyn M. Webby Michael Wiseman Robyn Woodward. TRUSTEES EMERITI Richard H. Howland. Norma Kershaw PAST PRESIDENT. Stephen L. Dyson Jacqueline Rosenthal, Executive Director Leonard V. Quigley, of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, General Counsel MEMBERSHIP IN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA AND SUBSCRIPTION TO THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY The American Journal of Archaeology is published by the Archaeological Institute of America in January, April, July, and October. Membership in the AIA, including a subscription to AJA, is $112 per year (C$162.40). Student membership is $64 (C$92.80); proof of full-time status required. A brochure outlining membership benefits is available upon request from the Institute. An annual subscription to AJA is $75 (international, $95); the institutional subscription rate is $250 (international, $290). Institutions are not eligible for individual membership rates. All communications regarding membership, subscriptions, and back issues should be addressed to the Archaeological Institute of America, located at Boston University, 656 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02215-2006, tel. 617-353-9361, fax 617-353-6550, email aia@aia.bu.edu..

(3) AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY THE JOURNAL OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA EDITORS. R. Bruce Hitchner, University of Dayton Editor-in-Chief. Marni Blake Walter. Kevin Mullen. Editor. Electronic Operations Manager. Paul Rehak & John G. Younger, University of Kansas Co-editors, Book Reviews ADVISORY BOARD Susan E. Alcock. Kenneth W. Harl. University of Michigan. Tulane University. Roger Bagnall. Sharon C. Herbert. Columbia University. University of Michigan. Larissa Bonfante. Ann Kuttner. New York University. University of Pennsylvania. Joseph C. Carter. Claire Lyons. University of Texas at Austin. John F. Cherry. The Getty Research Institute. John T. Ma. University of Michigan. Princeton University. Stephen L. Dyson. David Mattingly. State University of New York at Buffalo. Jonathan Edmondson. University of Leicester. Ian Morris. York University. Stanford University. Elizabeth Fentress. Robin Osborne. Rome, Italy. Cambridge University. Timothy E. Gregory. Curtis N. Runnels. Ohio State University. Julie M. Hansen. Boston University. Mary M. Voigt. Boston University. College of William and Mary. Naomi J. Norman, ex officio University of Georgia. EDITORIAL ASSISTANTS Kathryn Armstrong, Trina Arpin, David Rich, Krithiga Sekar.

(4) THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY, the journal of the Archaeological Institute of America, was founded in 1885; the second series was begun in 1897. Indexes have been published for volumes 1–11 (1885–1896), for the second series, volumes 1–10 (1897–1906) and volumes 11–70 (1907–1966). The Journal is indexed in the Humanities Index, the ABS International Guide to Classical Studies, Current Contents, the Book Review Index, the Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, Anthropological Literature: An Index to Periodical Articles and Essays, and the Art Index. MANUSCRIPTS and all communications for the editors should be addressed to Professor R. Bruce Hitchner, Editor-in-Chief, AJA, Archaeological Institute of America, located at Boston University, 656 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02215-2006, tel. 617-353-9364, fax 617-353-6550, email aja @ aia.bu.edu. The American Journal of Archaeology is devoted to the art and archaeology of ancient Europe and the Mediterranean world, including the Near East and Egypt, from prehistoric to late antique times. The attention of contributors is directed to “Editorial Policy, Instructions for Contributors, and Abbreviations,” AJA 104 (2000) 3–24. Guidelines for AJA authors can also be found on the World Wide Web at www.ajaonline.org. Contributors are requested to include abstracts summarizing the main points and principal conclusions of their articles. Manuscripts, including photocopies of illustrations, should be submitted in triplicate; original photographs, drawings, and plans should not be sent unless requested by the editors. In order to facilitate the peer-review process, all submissions should be prepared in such a way as to maintain anonymity of the author. As the official journal of the Archaeological Institute of America, AJA will not serve for the announcement or initial scholarly presentation of any object in a private or public collection acquired after 30 December 1970, unless the object was part of a previously existing collection or has been legally exported from the country of origin. BOOKS FOR REVIEW should be sent to Professors Paul Rehak and John G. Younger, Co-editors, AJA Book Reviews, Classics Department, Wescoe Hall, 1445 Jayhawk Blvd., University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-2139, tel. 785-864-3153, fax 785-864-5566, email prehak@ukans.edu and jyounger@ukans.edu (please use both addresses for all correspondence). The following are excluded from review and should not be sent: offprints; reeditions, except those with great and significant changes; journal volumes, except the first in a new series; monographs of very small size and scope; and books dealing with the archaeology of the New World. THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY (ISSN 0002-9114) is published four times a year in January, April, July, and October by the Archaeological Institute of America, located at Boston University, 656 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02215-2006, tel. 617-353-9361, fax 617-353-6550, email aia@aia.bu.edu. Subscriptions to the American Journal of Archaeology may be addressed to the Institute headquarters in Boston. An annual subscription is $75 (international, $95); the institutional rate is $250 (international, $290). Membership in the AIA, including a subscription to AJA, is $85 per year (C$123). Student membership is $40 (C$58); proof of full-time status required. International subscriptions and memberships must be paid in U.S. dollars, by a check drawn on a bank in the U.S. or by money order. No replacement for nonreceipt of any issue of AJA will be honored after 90 days (180 days for international subscriptions) from the date of issuance of the fascicle in question. When corresponding about memberships or subscriptions, always give your account number, as shown on the mailing label or invoice. A microfilm edition of the Journal, beginning with volume 53 (1949), is issued after the completion of each volume of the printed edition. Subscriptions to the microfilm edition, which are available only to subscribers to the printed edition of the Journal, should be sent to ProQuest Information and Learning (formerly Bell & Howell Information and Learning), 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. Back numbers of AJA and the Index 1907–1966 may be ordered from the Archaeological Institute of America in Boston. Exchanged periodicals and correspondence relating to exchanges should be directed to the AIA in Boston. Periodicals postage paid at Boston, Massachusetts and additional mailing offices. Postmaster: send address changes to the American Journal of Archaeology, Archaeological Institute of America, located at Boston University, 656 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02215-2006. The opinions expressed in the articles and book reviews published in the American Journal of Archaeology are those of the authors and not of the editors or of the Archaeological Institute of America. Copyright © 2002 by the Archaeological Institute of America The American Journal of Archaeology is composed in ITC New Baskerville at the Journal’s editorial offices, located at Boston University. The paper in this journal is acid-free and meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources..

(5) AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY Volume 106 No. 2. April 2002. •. ARTICLES Robert D. Ballard, Lawrence E. Stager, Daniel Master, Dana Yoerger, David Mindell, Louis L. Whitcomb, Hanumant Singh, and Dennis Piechota: Iron Age Shipwrecks in Deep Water off Ashkelon, Israel Tyler Bell, Andrew Wilson, and Andrew Wickham: Tracking the Samnites: Landscape and Communications Routes in the Sangro Valley, Italy John K. Papadopoulos and Deborah Ruscillo: A Ketos in Early Athens: An Archaeology of Whales and Sea Monsters in the Greek World. 151. 169 187. NECROLOGY George F. Bass: Michael Lazare Katzev, 1939–2001. 229. PROCEEDINGS The 103rd Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America. 231. REVIEWS Review Articles Nancy T. de Grummond: Etruscan Mirrors Now Jennifer P. Moore: Straight from the Bottle: Rural Life in Roman Africa Book Reviews Huxley, ed., Cretan Quests: British Explorers, Excavators and Historians (G.C. Gesell) Evans, Scholars, Scoundrels, and the Sphinx: A Photographic and Archaeological Adventure Up the Nile (D.J.I. Begg) Schiffer, ed., Social Theory in Archaeology (J.C. Barrett) Renfrew and Scarre, eds., Cognition and Material Culture: The Archaeology of Symbolic Storage (B.G. Trigger) Hodder, ed., Towards Reflexive Method in Archaeology: The Example at Çatalhöyük (T.F. Strasser) Bailey, ed., The Archaeology of Value: Essays on Prestige and the Process of Valuation (A.B. Knapp) Clarke, ed., Identities in the Eastern Mediterranean in Antiquity: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the Humanities Research Centre in Canberra, 10–12 November, 1997 (D.W. Roller) Hather, The Identification of the North European Woods: A Guide for Archaeologists and Conservators (K.B. Flint-Hamilton) Martínez, Arte prehistórico en la península Ibérica (M. Díaz-Andreu) Gut, Das prähistorische Nineve: Zur relativen Chronologie der frühen Perioden Nordmesopotamiens (G. Emberling). 307 313. 316 317 317 318 320 321. 322 323 324 325.

(6) MacGillivray, Driessen, and Sackett, eds., The Palaikastro Kouros: A Minoan Chryselephantine Statuette and Its Aegean Bronze Age Context (K.D.S. Lapatin) Voutsaki and Killen, eds., Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States. Proceedings of a Conference held on 1–3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge (P. Thomas) Brunet, ed., Territoires des cités grecques. Actes de la table ronde internationale organisée par l’École Française d’Athènes, 31 Octobre–3 Novembre 1991 (F. De Angelis) Steiner, Images in Mind: Statues in Archaic and Classical Greek Literature and Thought (J.J. Pollitt) Tempesta, Le Raffigurazioni mitologiche sulla ceramica greco-orientale arcaica (T.H. Carpenter) Lissarrague, Greek Vases: The Athenians and Their Images (N. Spivey) Moreno, Apelle: La battaglia di Alessandro (R. Westgate) Jeppesen, The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos. Reports of the Danish Archaeological Expedition to Bodrum. Vol. 4, The Quadrangle: The Foundations of the Maussolleion and Its Sepulchral Compartments (A.M. Carstens) Mattusch, Brauer, and Knudsen, eds., From the Parts to the Whole. Vol. 1, Acta of the 13th International Bronze Congress, Held at Cambridge, Massachusetts, May 28–June 1, 1996 (M.B. Hollinshead) Fischer-Bossert, Chronologie der Didrachmenprägung von Tarent (K. Sheedy) Herfort-Koch, Mandel, and Schädler, eds., Hellenistische und kaiserzeitliche Keramik des östlichen Mittelmeergebietes: Kolloquium Frankfurt 24.25. April 1995 (R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom) de Waele, D’Agostino, Lulof, Scatozza Höricht, and Cantilena, Il tempio dorico del Foro Triangolare di Pompei (L. Richardson, jr) Bomgardner, The Story of the Roman Amphitheater (A. Futrell) Junkelmann, Das Spiel mit dem Tod: So kämpften Roms Gladiatoren (S.M. Cerutti) Wilson Jones, Principles of Roman Architecture (J.E. Packer) Fischer, Gichon, and Tal, En Boqeq: Excavations in an Oasis on the Dead Sea. Vol. 2, The Officina, An Early Roman Building on the Dead Sea Shore (J. Magness) Wacher, A Portrait of Roman Britain (R.S.O. Tomlin) Freeman, Ireland and the Classical World (B. Cunliffe) BOOKS RECEIVED. 326. 328. 329 331 332 334 335. 336. 337 338. 340 341 342 343 344. 346 347 348 349.

(7) Iron Age Shipwrecks in Deep Water off Ashkelon, Israel ROBERT D. BALLARD, LAWRENCE E. STAGER, DANIEL MASTER, DANA YOERGER, DAVID MINDELL, LOUIS L. WHITCOMB, HANUMANT SINGH, AND DENNIS PIECHOTA. rine, a thorough inspection of the three ancient shipwrecks was not conducted. A preliminary analysis of the black and white videotapes obtained while cruising high above the sites, however, did reveal some wreckage including, in two instances, large accumulations of stacked amphoras. Subsequent examination of those videotapes by archaeologists suggested that two of the shipwrecks might date from the Iron Age and, for that reason, merited further investigation.. Abstract In 1997, two shipwrecks were first discovered in the Mediterranean Sea west of Israel by the U.S. Navy’s research Submarine NR-1. Further investigation in 1999 with the remotely operated vehicle system Medea/Jason found the wrecks to be from the eighth century B.C., the earliest known shipwrecks to be found in the deep sea. Both ships appear to be of Phoenician origin, laden with cargoes of fine wine destined for either Egypt or Carthage, when they were lost in a storm on the high seas. The ships lie upright on the seafloor at a depth of 400 m in a depression formed by the scour of bottom currents. Their discovery suggests that ancient mariners took direct routes to their destinations even if it meant traveling beyond sight of land.*. 1999 expedition In 1999, a follow-up expedition was conducted in the area in hopes of relocating the two amphora wreck sites to determine their exact age and origin. The support vessel for this effort was the Northern Horizon, a converted British deep-sea trawler. This vessel is equipped with a dynamic positioning system, and it was previously used by the authors and collaborators to survey the remains of the British luxury liner Lusitania.2 The primary goals of the archaeological research were to survey, plan, and photograph the two oldest shipwrecks, the Tanit and the Elissa. The next goal was to collect samples of artifacts and other relevant material from their cargoes, while, at the same time, disturbing as little as possible of their remains in order to obtain the following information: (1). During the summer of 1997, the U.S. nuclear research submarine NR-1 participated in a major deepwater archaeology program in the Straits of Sicily north of Skerki Bank.1 Following that expedition, the submarine moved to the eastern Mediterranean where it conducted a search effort for the Israeli Navy in hopes of finding the Dakar, an Israeli diesel submarine lost in the 1960s. Although this search effort for the Dakar was not successful, the NR-1’s large area search sonar did succeed in finding three smaller shipwrecks in the area off Egypt and the Gaza Strip, 33 nautical miles offshore and in 400 m of water (fig. 1). Since the submarine’s primary mission was to locate a lost Israeli subma-. *. The authors wish to thank the Office of Naval Research, Leon Levy and Shelby White, the Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon, and the National Geographic Society for their sponsorship of the Ashkelon Deep-Sea Project in 1999. We also wish to thank the captains and crews of the NR-1 and SSV Carolyn Chouest for locating the two shipwreck sites in 1997. Appreciation to the captain and crew of the Northern Horizon for their assistance in the 1999 expedition as well as the Deep Submergence Laboratory of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the various teams from other research institutions that participated in the 1999 field program. Thanks also to Kristen Vagliardo, who provided invaluable assistance in preparing the manuscript. The archaeological component of the Ashkelon Deep-Sea. American Journal of Archaeology 106 (2002) 151–68. Project was made up of terrestrial archaeologists from the professional staff of the Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon: Catherine Beckerleg, Susan Cohen, Daniel Master, and Michael Press, all doctoral candidates (in 1999) in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University. In addition, the team included veteran maritime archaeologist Shelley Wachsmann, professor in the Institute for Nautical Archaeology at Texas A&M University, and Lawrence E. Stager, Dorot Professor of the Archaeology of Israel and director of the expedition’s deep-sea archaeology team. 1 Ballard 1985, 1998; Ballard et al. 2000; McCann and Freed 1994. 2 Ballard and Dunmore 1995.. 151.

(8) 152. ROBERT D. BALLARD, LAWRENCE E. STAGER, ET AL.. [AJA 106. Fig. 1. Topographic map of the eastern Mediterranean from Egypt to Lebanon showing the research area. Contours in meters.. the size and date of the shipwrecks, (2) the nature and origin(s) of the cargoes, (3) the home port of the crew, (4) their intended route and destination(s), (5) the cause of the shipwrecks, and (6) the relationship of the ships and their cargoes to the economic networks of the Mediterranean. After several days of research on each shipwreck, first Tanit and then Elissa, the archaeological team was satisfied that it had gathered sufficient data to meet most of its research goals. Remote Sensing Methods Aboard the Northern Horizon was the Medea/Jason remotely operated vehicle system and the DSL-120 sidescan sonar. 3 The DSL-120, developed by the Deep Submergence Laboratory of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, is a phased-array 120 kHz side-scan sonar used to produce both sonograms of the ocean floor as well as bathymetric maps. The Medea/Jason ROV system has been used on a growing number of marine investigations and is. 3. Ballard 1982, 1993.. equipped with advanced robotics and control technology ideally suited for deepwater archaeological programs.4 Once the Northern Horizon reached the search area, the DSL-120 was deployed. A systematic series of survey lines was conducted, revealing the location of several possible acoustic targets. These targets had the same size and signature of the suspected shipwrecks although they were not located at the reported positions given by the NR-1. The DSL-120 was then recovered and the Medea/ Jason was deployed to inspect two possible targets. Upon reaching the bottom, the Jason vehicle located the first target, which proved to be an 18th–19th century sailing ship with a steel anchor and chain. The Northern Horizon and the Medea/Jason system then moved to the second target some 2.4 km away. The second target was acquired on Jason’s scanning sonar system at a range of 150 m. It appeared as an oval shaped depression 18 m in length and 8 m wide with a highly reflective mass centered within. 4. Ballard 1993, forthcoming; Ballard et al. 2000..

(9) 2002]. IRON AGE SHIPWRECKS. 153. Fig. 2. Jason depicted in a survey operation simultaneously employing electronic still cameras, video cameras, 675 kHz scanning sonar, and 1200 kHz bottom-lock Doppler navigation sonar. 300 kHz EXACT sonar transducers are not depicted.. the depression. As the target was approached, an elongated pile of amphoras about 2 m high came into view. On closer inspection, the amphoras associated with the shipwreck appeared to be from the 8th century B.C., confirming earlier speculation. After a preliminary visual survey of the site was conducted, a free-falling elevator was dropped from the surface, which landed fewer than 100 m from the site.5 Contained on board the elevator were two high frequency EXACT 300 kHz transponders, which were then deployed by the Jason ROV next to the wreck site. For future reference purposes, the wreck site was nicknamed Tanit. Jason was then used to off-load and place the two transponders approximately 35 m from the wreck site, about 50 m apart. With these two transponders, it was possible to track Jason’s position three times a second to an accuracy of about 2 cm.6 With such a precise and rapid update rate, it was possible to place the vehicle in “closed-loop” control and conduct a series of survey lines 1–2 m apart. The navigation suite used during this survey effort consisted of the bottom installed EXACT transponders, an attitude reference package, a precision depth sensor, and a. 5 6. Ballard 1990. Ballard et al. 2000; Whitcomb et al. 2000, 1999.. 1200 kHz bottom track Doppler navigation sonar mounted on Jason.7 The bottom transponders and the vehicle’s Doppler navigation provided complementary information about the vehicle’s horizontal position. The transponders provided a stable reference with high accuracy, but were susceptible to shortterm dropouts. The Doppler navigation system, however, provided an excellent dynamic estimate of vehicle motion, but was prone to drift. By combining the two sensors, a very reliable and accurate position estimate was possible. Figure 2 illustrates the nature of Jason’s sensors. As each survey line was made, a series of electronic images was collected, while simultaneously a 675 kHz digital sonar was scanned back and forth across the wreck site measuring its microtopography.8 Due to the limited scanning rate of the sonar, the speed along the trackline was set at 10 cm/sec. High quality color video and still images were also collected during these survey runs. Until the precision mapping phase was completed, the vehicle constantly hovered over the site and did not land. Care was taken not to disturb the site with the vehicle’s propeller wash by insuring the. 7 8. Whitcomb et al. 1999. Singh et al. 2000..

(10) 154. ROBERT D. BALLARD, LAWRENCE E. STAGER, ET AL.. [AJA 106. Fig. 3. Mosaic of Tanit shipwreck, which dates to ca. 750 B.C. Tanit, protector of Phoenician seafarers, is the Iron Age successor of the leading Canaanite goddess Astarte and “Ashera of the Sea.” (Courtesy of H. Singh and J. Howland. © WHOI, IFE, and Ashkelon Excavations). vehicle was trimmed for positive buoyancy, resulting in the propeller wash being directed upward instead of downward. The documentation runs were conducted at very low speeds over the bottom and at sufficient altitude, 1.5–3 m, to avoid striking any objects. The photographic runs documented the exposed artifacts while a sub-bottom profiler penetrated the bottom sediments to a depth of a few meters. Individual images obtained with a high-resolution electronic still camera were processed to remove the effects of the underwater environment. These images were normalized with respect to reference images for the camera and then histogram equalized to stretch the contrast and thereby reveal the details of the site. Since lighting conditions underwater make it virtually impossible to frame large areas on the sea floor within a single image, composites of smaller images (photomosaics) were. assembled to permit archaeologists to gain a wider perspective of the site of interest.9 The mapping process continued until the entire area had been photographed with overlapping imagery and a dense concentration of sonar soundings. The result was the creation of a digital mosaic image (fig. 3) and a fine-scale bathymetric map of the wreck’s upper surface (fig. 4). The survey process proved highly efficient and was completed in fewer than 12 hours for each site. The team of archaeologists then had a complete photographic record of the site, showing the orientation and size of each exposed object, which was stored in a database. The acoustically derived bathymetric map of the same region (fig. 4) highlights the complementary nature of the imaging sensors. The optically derived photomosaics provide a vivid view of the shipwreck. Because of incremental errors in building up the. 9 The creation of a photomosaic involves choosing common points in overlapping imagery to compute the relative transformation between the overlapping images. This transformation is then used to warp successive images into a composite mosaic while blending the boundaries between overlapping images to give the mosaic a continuous look (Singh et al. 1998).. This method was used to make an initial mosaic of the wreck site with a small number of images taken at high altitude. Although it lacked resolution, the resulting mosaic minimized the inherent distortion associated with mosaics composed of a large number of images. This crude mosaic was used as a template to construct a higher resolution mosaic of a greater number of images taken at low altitude..

(11) 2002]. IRON AGE SHIPWRECKS. 155. Fig. 4. Microbathymetry of Tanit site. Contours in meters.. photomosaic, however, one is unable to make precise measurements over the entire mosaic. The bathymetric map, on the other hand, while not visually as appealing, provides a mechanism for making very precise quantitative measurements across the entire site. After completing this precision survey, specific artifacts were selected by the archaeological team for recovery, based upon their diagnostic qualities, to help determine the age, origin, and significance of each wreck. To avoid damage to the artifacts, important artifacts lying along the perimeter of the wreck site were initially selected for recovery. The recovery tool that proved most effective was a simple hydraulic device that consisted of two opposing horizontal tongs each having a webbed mesh net. With the tongs in a relaxed position, the vehicle operator slid the lower tong beneath the desired artifact, closed the upper opposing tong using the vehicle’s hydraulic system, and then thrusted the vehicle up off the bottom until it was free of the site. Using the search sonar on the vehicle, the pilot then drove over to the elevator, positioned the artifact above one of the elevator’s net meshed compartments, and reversed the hydraulic pressure, gently placing the artifact within the selected and numbered compartment.. 10. Whitcomb et al. 1999.. On some occasions, the artifact selected was nested within the site among other objects. To ensure that the artifacts were recovered without damage to themselves or the surrounding objects, Jason was moved, centimeters at a time, in incremental steps while in closed-loop control in all degrees of freedom (i.e., X, Y, Z, and heading).10 Once in position, while hovering (automatically) above the object, the vehicle’s mechanical arm was used to gently grasp the object. To avoid damaging fragile materials, the strength of the manipulator’s grip could be regulated, applying just enough force to cradle and lift the object. Once properly cradled between the grippers, the vehicle thrusted upward and away from the site toward the nearby elevator. Once the elevator was full, a meshed lid was placed above the artifact compartments, an acoustical command triggered the release of the elevator’s weight, sending it toward the surface where it was recovered aboard ship, emptied, and sent back to the bottom. After spending two days surveying, mapping, and recovering artifacts from the Tanit wreck, Jason then went to inspect the third acoustic target located in the initial side-scan sonar survey positioned 2 km to the north of the Tanit wreck site. This third target also proved to be an Iron Age shipwreck very.

(12) 156. ROBERT D. BALLARD, LAWRENCE E. STAGER, ET AL.. [AJA 106. Fig. 5. Mosaic of Elissa shipwreck, which dates to ca. 750 B.C. Elissa, Tyrian princess and sister of Tyrian king Pumiyaton, fled from mainland Phoenicia to Cyprus and picked up a crew of Phoenicians; they then set sail for the western Mediterranean. According to legend she then went on to found Carthage. (Courtesy of H. Singh and J. Howland. © WHOI, IFE, and Ashkelon Excavations). similar to the Tanit although slightly larger. Nicknamed Elissa, it was also surveyed in detail using EXACT bottom mounted transponders. This survey produced a similar mosaic (fig. 5) and microtopographic map (fig. 6) of the site. The survey was followed by the recovery of sample artifacts, selected by the archaeologists to determine the age and origin of the ship. Following this effort, attempts were made using the DSL-120 to locate additional shipwreck sites. Before conducting the new search effort, a series of lines was made at right angles to the Tanit and Elissa wreck sites using the DSL-120. The purpose of this effort was to obtain acoustic images of the two wrecks at different aspect angles to help guide the subsequent search program. Since Tanit and Elissa wrecks lie on an east–west line connecting the ancient seaport of Ashkelon with Egypt and Carthage to the west, it was thought the two shipwrecks might define an ancient trade route along which other shipwrecks could be found. For that reason, a series of side-scan sonar lines was made diagonally across this suspected ancient trade route. Very quickly several targets were de-. 11. Coleman and Ballard 2001.. tected with the same acoustic signatures as the Tanit and Elissa wrecksites. The DSL-120 was then recovered and the Medea/Jason was launched to investigate. These new targets proved to be a series of hydrocarbon seeps characterized by an elongated depression, in the center of which was located a hard reflective mound of seep deposits consisting of calcium carbonate.11 Since these mounds were numerous and had the same acoustic signature as the wreck sites, it was judged that further search efforts in this area would not be productive.. archaeological documentation The Ashkelon Deep-Sea Project was an archaeological survey with limited artifact sampling. After locating each wreck, Jason, using the EXACT system, systematically flew over the wreck in programmed track lines covering the entire wreck. This information from Jason provided the raw information necessary to build detailed photomosaics and construct precise bathymetric maps. These plans became the primary recording devices for understanding the positional relationships of the artifacts..

(13) 2002]. IRON AGE SHIPWRECKS. 157. Fig. 6. Microbathymetry of Elissa site. Contours in meters.. After thorough recording of the wrecks, the archaeologists decided it would be helpful to recover several artifacts from the wrecks. The fine details of the objects, necessary for making precise stylistic connections, were not clear from the visual information provided by Jason. Further, the provenience of the objects, essential for understanding the origin of these ships, could only be determined through petrography or neutron activation analysis, both of which required physical fragments of the pottery. The archaeologists on board chose objects that would not only demonstrate the total range of vessels visible on these ships but would also minimally disturb the delicate stacks of amphoras located in the middle of the wrecks. The location of each artifact was marked on the photomosaics, and the artifacts were further identified using time stamps linked to the video record of the recovery process. The artifacts were deposited in elevators to be lifted to the surface.12 In an attempt to fully document the alteration of this site, we recorded any artifact that was moved in any way by Jason. Artifacts that were moved but not. 12. Ballard et al. 2000.. recovered were numbered within the same sequence as the recovered objects but given an “M” suffix. Also, core samples taken at the margins of the wreck sites were numbered and recorded on the plans and marked with an “S” suffix. Jason completed the final step in the recording process by re-flying the initial survey in order to record the final disposition of the wreck site for future investigators. Microbathymetry provides the most precise measurements of the two shipwrecks, Tanit and Elissa. The contours of their cargoes are in the shape of a ship, outlining the forms of their long vanished hulls (figs. 3–6). The cargo of Tanit measures 4.5 m wide by 11.5 m long, for which we would estimate an overall width of ca. 6.5 m and a length ca. 14 m. The cargo of Elissa is 5 m wide and 12 m long for an estimated size of the ship of ca. 7 m wide and ca. 14.5 m long.. artifact analysis Tanit and Elissa Artifact Samples After the survey of Tanit was completed, the project archaeologists took several samples. First, core samples were collected from the sediments.

(14) 158. ROBERT D. BALLARD, LAWRENCE E. STAGER, ET AL.. [AJA 106. Table 1. Inventory of Artifacts Retrieved from Tanit (Shipwreck A) Type. No. Retrieved. Amphoras Cooking Pots Bowls. 16 2 1. Inventory Nos. 004–006, 009, 011–012, 014–019, 042–045 002–003 007. surrounding the wreck, but not so close as to endanger objects not visible on the surface. These samples provided a baseline against which to understand the sediments recovered from the various vessels. Then we sampled the various artifact types (table 1, fig. 7). Of the 385 visible amphoras, 16 were recovered to provide a broad sample for petrographic analysis. The survey of Elissa revealed a greater diversity of visible objects, and we designed our sampling accordingly. We recovered every type of artifact that was visible (table 2, figs. 8–9), and in order to understand the cargo in similar ways to the Tanit wreck, we recovered eight amphoras. Although the sample size of ceramics from Tanit and Elissa were similar, the Elissa samples accurately reflect the greater visible diversity of artifacts on that wreck. Cargo Amphoras. The most plentiful objects visible on the Tanit and Elissa were amphoras (fig. 7:4–5; fig.. 9:5–6). Tanit contained 385 visible amphoras and Elissa contained 396. It must be emphasized that this represents just the top two tiers of amphoras and there may be many more below. These amphoras are well known from land excavations in Israel and Lebanon. They have a slightly wasp-waisted body, a sharp shoulder, and a medium high-necked rim thickened at the top. There have been several significant studies of this form including work by Bikai, Gal, Gitin, Geva, and Lehmann.13 On land, these vessels are commonly found in eighth-century contexts such as Megiddo III, Hazor VI–V, and Tyre III–II. While there may be some ninth-century examples at Hazor and Megiddo, the distribution is heavily weighted toward the middle to end of the eighth century.14 Within the eighth century, there is a geographically limited distribution of these amphoras (fig. 10, table 3). Hazor and Megiddo have more than 60 whole forms, in addition to rim fragments. Tyre and Sarepta, while not possessing many whole forms,. Fig. 7. Artifacts retrieved from Tanit site. 1, AS99.A.003, cooking pot; 2, AS99.A.002, cooking pot; 3, AS99.A.007, Egyptian bowl; 4, AS99.A.005, amphora; 5, AS99.A.004, amphora.. 13 Bikai 1978; Gal 1992; Gitin 1990; Geva 1982; Lehmann 1996.. 14. Gal 1992..

(15) 2002]. IRON AGE SHIPWRECKS. 159. Table 2. Inventory of Artifacts Retrieved from Elissa (Shipwreck B) Type. No. Retrieved. Amphoras One-quarter amphora Cooking pots Mortarium Decanter Incense stand Ballast stones Bowl (broken). 7 1 4 1 1 1 6 1. have hundreds of rim fragments. Apart from these four sites, no other site has more than 10 preserved examples. This narrowly defined distribution plot shows the inland use of these containers in a very few places in proximity to the Phoenician coast. It also shows the presence of the containers in maritime trade both at the port and in transit on Tanit and Elissa. One possible destination for this cargo was the newly founded Phoenician colony at Carthage. The early Carthaginian colonists, many of them Tyrians according to founding legends, imported this type of transport amphora from the Levant. In archaic Carthage, complete jars have been found among mortuary offerings in tombs and graves as well as in habitations within the city. In one room alone the fill beneath the floor produced rim sherds representing 30 examples of this amphora.15 In a discussion of the terrestrial examples of this form, Geva argued that the “small size and clumsy. Inventory Nos. 031–032, 035–036, 038–040 021 022, 028–029, 034 024 023 027 026 020 manufacture” of the handles would argue that they were “seldom used.”16 In contrast, many other amphoras have larger, “functional” handles useful in terrestrial transport. Our discovery of these jars graphically demonstrates that these handles were perfectly designed for the guide ropes used to consolidate a shipborne cargo. While impractical for terrestrial transport and pouring, these amphoras were perfect as purpose-built maritime containers. Amphoras from the Tanit and Elissa contained an average of 17.8 lt of liquid. They averaged 68.8 cm in height and 22.3 cm in width. But these averages do not do justice to the standardization of these amphoras. The complete amphoras that were recovered had a standard deviation of less than 2 cm in height and around 1 cm in width. This narrow range indicates considerable standardization in manufacture, a characteristic typical of every aspect of these amphoras. These exacting tolerances were necessary for intricately stacking more than 400. Fig. 8. Photograph of artifacts retrieved from Elissa. 15. Vegas 1999, 430–1, fig. 21:195–197.. 16. Geva 1982..

(16) 160. ROBERT D. BALLARD, LAWRENCE E. STAGER, ET AL.. [AJA 106. Fig. 9. Artifacts retrieved from Elissa site. 1, AS99.B.023, mushroomlipped decanter; 2, AS99.B.027, incense stand; 3, AS99.B.024, mortarium; 4, AS99.B.021, small amphora; 5, AS99.B.032, amphora; 6, AS99.B.036, amphora; 7, AS99.B.029, cooking pot; 8, AS99.B.028, cooking pot; 9, AS99.B.034, cooking pot; 10, AS99.B.022, cooking pot.. amphoras in the hold of a ship. If this standardization is representative of the hundreds of amphoras still on the wrecks, the picture of standardized production is even more remarkable. In proposing a manufacturing center for this cargo of amphoras, we have considered several lines of evidence. First, these amphoras are purpose-built maritime containers. They are built to be easily stacked in the hold of a ship, to have consistent capacity, and to be easily tied down using special handles. This argues for a production facility familiar with the needs of maritime transport. Second, the ports at which many of these jars are found have a tradition of substantial pottery production. At Sarepta, several kilns have been excavated, and at Tyre, while no kilns were discovered in the extremely limited exposures of that excavation, Bikai uncovered kiln wasters from this very type of ampho-. 17. Bikai 1978. The petrographic profile of these vessels is quite distinctive for the eastern Mediterranean. The fabric contains the remains of algae of the genus Amphiroa, which is a clear mark18. ra.17 Finally, the petrographic profile of these jars is consistent with the Phoenician coast.18 We would argue that these jars were produced in one or more of the Phoenician port cities heavily involved with the maritime trade of the eighth century, Tyre being the primary port in Iron Age II. Resin Linings. Dr. Patrick McGovern of the Molecular Archaeology Laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania Museum has reported that “torpedo”shaped amphora (AS99.A.009), dated typologically to ca. 725 B.C. (± 25 years), had a dark, thin “lining” on its interior, which he determined to be pine pitch (from Pinus halepensis). Inspection of the 21 amphoras recovered from Tanit and Elissa indicates that all of the jars had once been lined with resin. McGovern used three complementary analytical techniques—infrared spectrometry, liquid chromatography, and wet chemical analyses—to determine. er of the Quaternary beach deposits of the central Levantine coast (for an extensive discussion of these formations on the northern Israeli coast, see Sivan 1996, esp. 106, photomicrograph 31; also Yuval Goren, pers. comm.)..

(17) 2002]. IRON AGE SHIPWRECKS. 161. Fig. 10. Distribution map of eighth-century B.C. amphoras. See table 3 for map legend.. whether tartaric acid, an organic acid that occurs mainly in grapes or grape products, such as wine, was present in the resin from Amphora A.009. It was. This analysis along with the presence of resin lining in the other amphoras examined makes it clear that many, if not all, of the nearly identical amphoras on board the two shipwrecks contained wine. These, then, would be the oldest cargoes of wine amphoras lined with resin to prevent seepage. Galley Cooking Pots. The cooking pots on Tanit and Elissa (figs. 7:1–2; 9:7–10) were far less plentiful but no less important than the amphoras. Because we know that ancient ships had their galley at the stern, the location of the cooking pots was essential for determining bow from stern on both ships. In addition, unlike the amphoras which were brought on as temporary cargo, the cooking pots were probably a basic component of the ship, a type of pottery used voyage after voyage, for cooking one-pot stews, especially the fish chowders that were the constantly replenished staple of seagoing ships from antiquity to the present. These cooking pots have the same stylistic connections as the amphoras, reinforcing the idea that these were Phoenician ships. We re-. 19 20. Lehmann 1996, Tafel 85.448/3. Lehmann 1996, Tafel 85.448/2.. covered six cooking pots, two from Tanit and four from Elissa. The two cooking pots from Tanit were very similar and their closest connections are with eighth-century cooking pots found on the Lebanese coast at Arqa.19 This form has a wide chronological range from the mid eighth through the seventh century. Similarly, two small cooking pots from Elissa had this same form in miniature.20 Also on Elissa, there was a larger cooking pot with a clear connection to an eighth-century vessel found in Hazor V.21 All of these cooking pots belong to the stylistic family of vessels from the eighth century B.C. in Phoenicia and its hinterland. Handmade Bowl. At the stern of Tanit we recovered a coarsely made bowl (fig. 7:3). Given the rounded bottom and lack of symmetry of the bowl, we thought for a while that this might be some sort of lid. In our search for parallels at land excavations, we found only one matching object, an Egyptian bowl from the Phoenician site of Migdol.22 Petrographically, our bowl is characterized by an abundance of straw temper. Mineralogically, there is a fair amount of biotite in the sand-sized fraction. This is a unique characterization within this assemblage, and it does fit with the use of Nile clay. This bowl is Egyptian in origin, a possible destination of the. 21 22. Yadin et al. 1960, LXXXV:7. Oren 1984, fig. 20:14..

(18) 162. ROBERT D. BALLARD, LAWRENCE E. STAGER, ET AL.. [AJA 106. Table 3. Type and Distribution of Eighth-Century B.C. Amphoras for Places Illustrated in Figure 10 Place. Site. Whole Jars. Rim Fragments. Present, No Count. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18. Tanit Elissa Tyrea Sareptab Hazorc d H . orbat Rosh Zayit Megiddo e Byblosf Kitiong Beth-Sheanh Samariai Gezer j Ashdod k Ashkelon l Ruqeish m Arqan Ras al-Bassito Carthagep. 385 396 – – 61+ 3 169 – – 3 6–7 – 4 – 2 – – –. – – 300 258 – 25+ – – – – – – – – – – – 30+. – – – – – – – Yes Yes – – Yes – Yes – Yes Yes –. a. Bikai 1978, 46–7, pl. XIV.10, IV.5, II.1–9, III1–5, IV.4,6. Anderson 1988, 1:table 9A; I. 2:type 15, table 9A.c c Yadin et al. 1960, esp. pls. LXXII–LXXIII; total numbers taken from Gal (1992, 71), but many more unpublished examples have been found in the renewed excavations (A. Ben-Tor, pers. comm.). d Gal and Alexandre 2000, type SJ VI, figs. V.5:13, 15, 16; V.7; VI.12:16–20; VII.12:8–9. e Lamon and Shipton 1939, esp. pl. 16, no. 81; total numbers taken from Gal 1992, 71. f Dunand 1954, 279, 281, object 9384, fig. 309. g Bikai 1987, 45, pl. XXIII:588. h James 1966, pl. 70:3. i Crowfoot et al. 1957, pl. 7:9, esp. 169, pl. 21:7. j Gitin 1990, 124–5, pl. 23:5. k Dothan 1971, figs. 38:3, 42:4. l L.E. Stager, pers. comm. m Culican 1973, fig. 4:22. n Thalmann 1990, pl. III. o Courbin 1993. p Vegas 1999. b. ship. In all probability, this was not the first time that this ship had made the run from Phoenicia to Egypt. Mortarium. In the galley at the port side of Elissa, we recovered a large, thick-walled bowl known as a “mortarium” (fig. 9:3). This descriptive name accurately reflects the function of this bowl, in which various foodstuffs would be ground. On land, this form is generally found in contexts dating to the seventh century B.C. and later. Mortaria are found over a time span lasting more than a millennium, and throughout this period, they appear to have. 23 24. Lehmann 1996, Tafel 107. Blakely and Bennett 1989; Blakely et al. 1992.. been made at only a very few production sites. Lehmann charts the beginning of the evolution of this form as far back as the late eighth century.23 Our eighth-century B.C. exemplar closely matches the petrographic profile of the majority of later mortaria, a provenience most closely linked to the northeast corner of the Mediterranean, at sites such as Ras al-Bassit in northern coastal Syria.24 The use of deep bowls as mortars for grinding condiments was known in Cilicia at Tarsus as early as the eighth century B.C.25 Recently another eighth-century mortarium has been found in the Phoenician site of. 25. Hanfmann 1963, 233, pl. 79:922..

(19) 2002]. IRON AGE SHIPWRECKS. H . orbat Rosh Zayit in Galilee. There, too, it appears alongside our torpedo-shaped amphoras.26 The Elissa mortarium seems to be one of the rare examples of this early eighth-century form, which marks the beginning of specialized mortarium production. Small Amphora. Also found in the galley of Elissa was a small amphora (B.021; fig. 9:4); its shape is similar to the larger torpedo-shaped ones, but only half their height and a quarter of their capacity. In Hazor VI, where so many of the larger amphoras of torpedo-type were found, a much smaller version similar in shape and size to B.021 appeared.27 This single item, most probably for wine, was set aside for the crew or for some special purpose. Our guess is that it stored the sacred wine to supply libations, which the captain poured out from the decanter upon departure or after a successful arrival. Mushroom-Lipped Decanter. Distribution of the mushroom-lipped decanter pottery type is centered on the Phoenician sites of southern coastal Lebanon. This type appears more rarely in those areas reached by Phoenician maritime trade, but Lehmann’s plot of its distribution strongly associates it with its place of origin.28 The decanter recovered here has the sharp shoulder typical of forms from the last quarter of the eighth century (fig. 9:1). That it served as a carafe for wine, rather than for water, is clear from an inscription engraved on another decanter describing its contents as yyn kh.l, some kind of wine.29 Further recent discoveries have provided an even more specific setting for at least some of the wine decanters. Expertly engraved on a decanter, 1.27 lt in volume, and dated to ca. 700 B.C., is an inscription that reads: “Belonging to Mattanyahu, wine for libation, one-fourth” (lmtnyhw. yyn. nsk. rbt.).30 The term nsk is used for a cultic libation of wine several times in the Bible (Gen. 35:14; Exodus 29:40, 30:9; Lev. 23:13, 18; Num. 4:7, 15:5–7). Following the lead of Exodus 29:40 and Leviticus 23:13, we find that a typical cultic libation of wine equaled one-quarter of a hîn, perhaps the quantity referred to elliptically in the nsk rbt (¼ hîn) of the decanter inscription. If the bat is equal to 32.5 lt, then a hîn equals ca. 5.4 lt and ¼ hîn equals 1.35 lt. The amount of wine, sacred or secular, held by our decanter is ca. 1.3 lt, quite close to the nsk rbt being offered in the Mattanyahu decanter.. 26 Gal and Alexandre 2000, 18, fig. VII, 11:19. We are grateful to Amichai Mazar for this reference. 27 Yadin et al. 1960. 28 Lehmann 1996, Tafel 40.241b/1. 29 Avigad 1972, 1–5. 30 Deutsch and Heltzer 1994, 23–6, fig. 6, pl. 25; see also. 163. The mushroom-lipped decanter provides an invaluable clue as to the cultural background of the crew. The mushroom-style rim, whether on jug, juglet, or decanter, was the “calling card” of Phoenicians from Tyre to the Pillars of Hercules. Incense Stand. The small ceramic incense stand recovered from the galley of Elissa (fig. 9:2) falls very much in the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age traditions of terracotta incense stands designed to be hand held. Typically they were used to offer aromatics to the gods. The most commonly cited example of a Canaanite sea captain offering precious aromatics, such as frankincense, to the maritime deities comes from a 14th-century B.C. Egyptian wall painting from the tomb of Kenamun.31 There the captain holds a portable incense burner aloft in his right hand and an offering cup in his left, as he gives thanks for a successful voyage to Egypt from the Levant. An attendant who is steadying a Canaanite jar in front of the officer has just filled the cup with wine. The incense burner and the cup in the wall painting served the same purpose as the incense stand and wine decanter found in the galley of Elissa. Like their Canaanite ancestors, these Phoenician sailors were beholden to such deities as Bal S.aphon and Astarte for safe passage over the waters. Anchors In addition to ceramic artifacts, eight anchors on Tanit and Elissa were found in the survey, and the team gathered as much data as was possible about them. These anchors are of the most common ancient type, an apsidal stone with a single hole bored through it, a type found from the Bronze Age through modern times. It is possible to estimate the general length and width of these anchors by comparing them to other artifacts in the digital photos, but this practice is inexact. Estimating the weight requires yet another approximation. As publications of anchors have shown, there is considerable variation in thickness.32 Anchors of roughly the same length and width as these anchors vary between 80 and 400 kg. While the high relief of some of these anchors argues for considerable girth, we cannot make an exact measurement. We were un-. book jacket for color photograph by Zev Radovan. 31 For a detailed discussion of the ships depicted in the tomb of Khenamun, see Wachsmann 1998, 42–7 and figs. 3.2–3.6; Brody 1998, 78–80, figs. 76a–b; also Pritchard 1954, no. 111. 32 Frost 1970, 1991..

(20) 164. ROBERT D. BALLARD, LAWRENCE E. STAGER, ET AL.. able to recover an anchor; they were too heavy to be lifted by Jason. On Tanit there were four anchors visible at the surface level. Three of the anchors were located roughly amidships and one was located about 2 m off the bow. On Elissa, all of the anchors were located at the midpoint of the ship, two on either side. The location of the anchors was probably a result of the use of the mast to assist in lifting, running a rope over the yard near the mast, and pulling down to maneuver the anchor.. oceanographic results In addition to the archaeological aspects of this expedition, much insight was gained about the oceanographic conditions that favor the preservation of deepwater sites, and the potential of the deep sea for archaeological studies also was considered. Unlike the Roman shipwrecks located in deep water north of Skerki Bank, which were mostly buried, the Tanit and Elissa wreck sites were found resting in depressions, their contents well exposed. In many ways, they mimic the process observed in the Skerki Bank region for individual amphora. There, hundreds of individual amphoras were found resting inside small depressions, the apparent result of long-term current scour. The Skerki Bank wrecks themselves, however, were mostly buried. As has been documented before, any wood placed in well-oxygenated bottom waters around the world is quickly consumed by various wood-boring organisms.33 This process, although quick by geologic standards, does take many years to remove the major wooden components of the exposed portions of ships. During this period of time, bottom currents result in the horizontal movement of sediment along the bottom and the construction of dune-like deposits on the down current sides of the ship’s exposed surface. If tidal in nature, deposits can form around the entire perimeter of the shipwreck. Sediment also penetrates into ship openings, filling existing voids and those produced as a result of the biodegradation of the ship’s exposed contents. The combined result of these processes is the buildup of sediments around the initially exposed portions of the ship. While wood removal continues through time, the sediments continue to flood the interior compartments of the ship, filling in around the non-biodegradable artifacts, leading to. 33. Turner 1973.. [AJA 106. the formation of a small topographic high. The fact that all of the amphoras are filled with sediments, even those 2 m above the base of the depression, shows that the now-exposed artifacts were once buried. This is further supported by the fact that the height of the amphora pile is the same as the surrounding ocean floor. From these observations, we can conclude that after the upper wooden portion of the ship was removed by wood borers and the non-biodegradable contents buried, bottom currents acting over a long period of time excavated a portion of the once buried ship. As this process took place, newly exposed wood was eaten, leaving the observed pile of artifacts carefully stacked in place. The fact that the ships were located more than 30 nautical miles from shore and on a straight line connecting Ashkelon with Egypt and distant Carthage further supports the proposal that ancient mariners commonly chose the more direct route than the one close to land.. conservation and the deepwater environment The conservation of archaeological assemblages excavated from deep water is, in many respects, similar to that of coastal sites. On the 1999 expedition, safe retrieval and transport remained the focus in the field, while desalinization and drying were the critical activities in the land-based laboratory. New problems were, however, presented to the archaeological conservator by the deepwater environment of the artifacts. That environment preserved startling good surface detail on unbroken artifacts, while at the same time, chemical alterations within those same artifacts created unexpected fragility. The bulk of the artifacts collected are low-fired pottery vessels, mostly Iron Age earthenware and terracotta. Most are self-slipped with a finer portion of the same clay used for the body of the vessel. All of the pottery shows solubilization to varying degrees. This term refers to pottery that is soft, even powdery, and prone to cracking when dried. This pottery fractures when re-dampened and can even crack when exposed to wide variations in storage room humidity. The orientation of the finds on the seafloor must be considered when analyzing the deterioration of the pottery. Three terms are used to describe the discoloration and erosion that occurs on different parts of a ceramic vessel from the Ashkelon region:.

(21) 2002]. IRON AGE SHIPWRECKS. the exposed side and the submerged sides of an artifact, and the biozone. The exposed side of a vessel is in contact with slowly moving, carbonatesaturated seawater. Generations of solitary coral grow and redissolve on this surface. The submerged side is embedded in foraminiferal mud having a higher pH than the seawater. At a few centimeters below the seafloor, this mud is often depleted of carbonates and dominated by silicates. The biozone of a deepwater artifact refers to the boundary between the submerged and exposed sides. Here, most coral growth occurs and can maintain a permanent mass of carbonate crust in the form of a ring circling the artifact. Artifacts that straddle these environments are differentially preserved, which, in turn, creates stresses within the clay of the pot. The primary environmental causes of the Ashkelon pottery weakness are varied. The exposedside surfaces are thinned by repeated solitary coral growth cycles. Each cycle removes clay at the point of contact with the coral. Typically, all surface details are eventually lost. While the submerged side of the vessel is spared, the higher alkalinity and salinity of the interstitial water in the surrounding mud causes increased dissolution of silica and other minerals. This condition allows the submerged surface of the vessel to retain fine surface detail. But it also has the softest clay and most crack-prone surface after drying. Carbonate cementation and depletion also play a role in setting up stresses within the pottery. The biozone, the boundary between the two sides, is usually cemented with carbonates, leading to a different shrinkage rate and water saturation content than either the submerged or exposed sides. The expression of cracking on the dried Ashkelon vessels is the result of manufacturing weaknesses and environmental alteration. Manufacturing weaknesses were introduced during the mixing of the clay and the throwing and firing of the vessel. The environmental stresses slowly accrued during marine burial. A close examination of all finds from the artifacts recovered showed four types of fractures: 1. biozone fracture: occurs along the vessel at the point where it meets the seafloor; 2. edge fracture: occurs perpendicular to the rims and edges of a vessel; 3. turn fracture: occurs where the shape of the vessel abruptly changes; 4. slip crazing and lifting: refers to the fine and sometimes invisible superficial crack pattern on slipped pots. While there are many factors promoting the breakdown of the Ashkelon pottery, it is profitably. 165. viewed as a function of the pore volume within the clay body. Low-fired pottery characteristically has a large pore or void volume. The solid-state sintering that strengthens fired clay at low firing temperatures does not vitrify the clay, making the interior of the clay body accessible to seawater. Chemical action and other environmental stresses will, over time, increase that pore volume and lead to a clay fabric that collapses in on itself during drying. When cracking occurred, it did not express itself until the final stage of drying when the water-swollen clay particles shrank and became brittle. An indirect method measuring the relative pore volume in a clay body is to measure its maximum water retention. Measurements of the Ashkelon vessels taken at the time of treatment showed that they contained an average of 21% of their dry weight in water. A few of them contained over 30% in water. As a comparison, modern bisque-fired clays absorb only 10–14% of their dry weight in water. To limit cracking during drying, each Ashkelon vessel was wrapped in wet fabric to give it an artificial drying surface and placed in incubators at 90– 100° F. Elevated humidity was maintained within the incubator during drying to avoid steep moisture gradients within the pottery walls. While this method is successful in most cases, the Ashkelon pots with the highest moisture content still experienced some cracking. In the future, improved humidity controllers will be installed in the drying tanks and the rate of drying will be further controlled at the expected fracture zones. Research is being done on two treatment refinements: the formulation of additives for the final desalinating phase that will decrease the surface tension of the water solution and a method of clay reinforcement prior to drying. In the field, data collection will be enhanced to better characterize the immediate environments of deepwater artifacts and thus predict their condition. These steps are essential if conservation is to keep pace with the field of deepwater archaeology as it retrieves lowfired pottery and other artifacts from earlier archaeological periods.. conclusion In the latter half of the eighth century B.C., when Phoenicians were establishing coastal colonies in the central and western Mediterranean and Homer (according to many classicists) was putting the Iliad and the Odyssey into written form, a fleet of Phoenician ships, the Tanit and Elissa among them, set sail from the Phoenician mainland. Perhaps they sailed from the great seaport of Tyre, heading south.

(22) 166. ROBERT D. BALLARD, LAWRENCE E. STAGER, ET AL.. toward their destination somewhere on the coast of northern Africa, probably Egypt or the new-found Tyrian colony of Carthage farther west. The two shipwrecks we surveyed were loaded with amphoras once filled with wine, more than 10 tons per ship. In Ezekiel’s famous oracle comparing the city of Tyre to a magnificent ship (ch. 27)—an account with all the credibility of an eyewitness34—fine wine is being transported overland to Damascus from such faraway places as Izalla, near Mardin in Anatolia, where cuneiform sources indicate that wine was fit “for a king.” From Damascus these vintages, along with the wines of Helbon (a place near Damascus famous in classical sources for its fine wines), were transshipped to the Phoenician port of Tyre. An enigmatic passage in Ezekiel (27:19) can now be deciphered as da¯ nê yayin me¯ ûza¯ l, meaning “pithoi of wine from Izalla.”35 The dannu-vessel has a capacity of ca. 180 lt, or 10 times the size of transport amphoras on the two shipwrecks. So wine of renown was transported overland in large ceramic jars (pithoi) to be decanted into export amphoras at Tyre for shipment to other parts of the Mediterranean. What was obtained in the early sixth century B.C. may also be the case even earlier, which is to suggest that the tons of wine on board the Tanit and Elissa were not necessarily produce local to Tyre even though the transport amphoras were made in the vicinity. Some evidence from the two shipwrecks provides clues as to the home base of the crew. At the stern end we found a ceramic mortarium for grinding condiments and cooking pots for one-pot stews, replenished regularly with fresh-caught fish and other seafood. (The petrographic profile of the cooking pots is consistent with a locale in Lebanon, with best parallels at Tell Arqa.) The incense burner is in the Late Bronze Age tradition, continued through the Iron Age, of one being held aloft by a Canaanite sea captain, depicted in a 14th-century B.C. Egyptian wall relief from the tomb of Kenamun.36 In his other hand the captain holds a libation cup filled with wine. Both the incense and drink offerings were being offered probably to BalS.aphon for the safe arrival in Egypt. The incense and wine offerings on our Phoenician ships proved to be less efficacious. The best clue as to the crew’s origin comes from the wine decanter with mushroom-shaped lip—the. 34 Diakonoff (1992, 192) suggests that Ezekiel visited Tyre between 588 and 585 B.C. or had access to a detailed report of the city and its commerce. 35 Millard 1962. 36 See n. 31, supra.. [AJA 106. calling card of the Phoenicians from the Levant to the Pillars of Hercules. The Tanit and Elissa were, then, Phoenician ships manned by Phoenician crews and mainly loaded with a single commodity: fine wines from elsewhere decanted into and transported abroad in Phoenician amphoras. The ships were roughly the size of the fourthcentury B.C. Kyrenia ship, estimated to be 25 tons when fully loaded. The Tanit and Elissa were wide at the beam, about three times as long as they were wide. They are not as slim as Phoenician ships depicted in relief with horse head prows (and sometimes sterns) and known in Greek sources as hippoi (“horses”) but more like what the Greeks called gauloi, or “tubs.” To the Phoenicians and the Israelites, however, these “tubby” seagoing merchant vessels were known by the more respectable rubric onîyôt taršiš, the famous “ships of Tarshish,” mentioned in the Bible (e.g., 1 Kings 10:22; Isaiah 23:1). Examples of these Phoenician merchantmen are illustrated in the famous relief of King Luli and his people fleeing from Tyre to Cyprus (ca. 700 B.C.),37 and in a clay model ship from Amathus (Cyprus) in Iron Age II.38 The Tanit and Elissa were probably part of a Phoenician fleet traveling south from Tyre when, en route from Ashkelon to points west, the unexpected east wind from the desert swept the ships off course, where they flooded and foundered. This is the cruel east wind (rûah. qa ¯ dîm), which sank Ezekiel’s “Ship of Tyre” (Ezekiel 27:26), and by which, the Psalmist says the Lord “shatters the ships of Tarshish” (Psalm 48:8 [48:7 in English trans.]). We can only speculate on the intended destinations of these ships. It could have been Carthage, where the Tyrian founders would not yet have had time to develop fine vineyards (grapes being unknown in the West before the arrival of the Phoenician colonists). We have noted the presence of the torpedo-shaped amphora there. Also we cannot rule out Egypt as their destination, although thus far we have not been able to document the presence of torpedo-shaped amphoras there. What is striking about Egypt is the pattern of Milesian and Sidonian shipping revealed in Aramaic bills of lading from Egypt in 475 B.C., a palimpsest on papyrus deciphered by Ada Yardeni.39 The large consignment of wine (totaling 300–400 resin-lined amphoras per. 37. Barnett 1969, pl. 1:1–2. Amathus model ship (BM A202): Basch 1987, 254, fig. 559; Casson 1995, 65–6, figs. 86–7. 39 Yardeni 1994, 67–78. 38.

(23) 2002]. IRON AGE SHIPWRECKS. ship), under which were metal ingots of copper, tin, and iron, and, surprisingly, clay for pot making, was documented by the bills of lading. The pharaoh was little more than the harbor master and tax collector—the bulk of the cargo going elsewhere in Egypt after the king had taken his tithe or tenth. If Egypt were the intended destination of the Tanit and the Elissa, they seemed to be on or near a direct route between Ashkelon and the Delta, most likely not hugging the coast as they sailed. These north Sinai coastal waters are among the most treacherous in the eastern Mediterranean.40 How direct the routes were that the ancient mariners took will only be known after years of deep-sea research. So far, these two shipwrecks are the earliest found in deep waters. There are tens of thousands more waiting to be discovered using these powerful research tools, and exploration has just begun.. Robert D. Ballard institute for exploration 55 coogan boulevard mystic, connecticut 06355 Lawrence E. Stager Daniel Master semitic museum harvard university 6 divinity avenue cambridge, massachusetts 02138 Dana Yoerger Hanumant Singh woods hole oceanographic institution David Mindell massachusetts institute of technology Louis L. Whitcomb johns hopkins university Dennis Piechota object and textile conservation arlington, massachusetts. 40 Ezra Marcus suggests a model for Middle Bronze Age sailing between the Egyptian Delta and Phoenicia in which the ship “is envisioned as tacking, or zig-zagging, its way up or down the coast although the latter involves going against the predominant current”(Marcus 1998, 103). For a detailed study of the prevalent winds in the eastern Mediterranean as well as Iron Age navigation techniques, see Davis 2000. Davis (2000, 208) and Wachsmann (1998, 331) believe that the brailed sail was invented at the beginning of the Iron Age; the invention opened up more direct routes between ports as ships became less dependent on dominant winds.. 167. Works Cited Anderson, W. 1988. Sarepta, vols. I and II. Beruit: Université Libanaise. Avigad, N. 1972. “Two Hebrew Inscriptions on WineJars.” IEJ 22:1–9. Ballard, R.D. 1982. “ARGO and Jason.” Oceanus 25:30–5. ———. 1985. “NR-1: The Navy’s Inner Space Shuttle.” National Geographic Magazine 167 (4):451–9. ———. 1990. The Lost Wreck of the ISIS. New York: Random House and Madison. ———. 1993. “The Medea/Jason Remotely Operated Vehicle System.” Deep-Sea Research I 40 (8):1673–87. ———. 1998. “High-Tech Search for Roman Shipwrecks.” National Geographic Magazine 193 (4):32–41. ———. Forthcoming. Maritime Archaeology. Ballard, R.D., with S. Dunmore. 1995. Exploring the Lusitania: Probing the Mysteries of the Sinking that Changed History. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Ballard, R.D., A.M. McCann, D. Yoerger, L.L. Whitcomb, D. Mindell, J. Oleson, H. Singh, B. Foley, J. Adams, D. Piechota, and C. Giangrande. 2000. “The Discovery of Ancient History in the Deep Sea Using Advanced Deep Submergence Technology.” Deep-Sea Research I 47 (9):1591–620. Barnett, R.D. 1969. “Ezekiel and Tyre.” Eretz-Israel 9:6–13. Basch, L. 1987. La musée imaginaire de la marine antique. Athens: Institut hellénique pour la preservation de la tradition nautique. Bikai, P.M. 1978. Pottery of Tyre. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. ———. 1987. Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus. Nicosia: A.G. Leventis Foundation. Blakely, J.A., and W.J. Bennett. 1989. “Levantine Mortaria of the Persian Period.” In Analysis and Publication of Ceramics: The Computer Data-base in Archaeology, edited by J.A. Blakely and W.J. Bennett, 45–65. BARIS 551. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Blakely, J.A., R. Brinkmann, and C.J. Vitaliano. 1992. “Roman Mortaria and Basins from a Sequence at Caesarea: Fabrics and Sources.” In Caesarea Papers: Straton’s Tower, Herod’s Harbour, and Roman and Byzantine Caesarea, edited by R.L. Vann, 194–213. Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Brody, A.J. 1998. ‘Each Man Cried Out to His God’: The Specialized Religion of Canaanite and Phoenician Seafarers. Harvard Semitic Monographs 58. Atlanta: Scholars. Casson, L. 1995. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, 3rd. ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Coleman, D.F., and R.D. Ballard. 2001. “A Highly Concentrated Region of Cold Hydrocarbon Seeps in the Southeastern Mediterranean Sea.” Geo-Marine Letters 21:162–7. Courbin, P. 1993. Fouilles de Bassit: Tombes du Fer. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilizations. Crowfoot, J.W., G.M. Crowfoot, and K.M. Kenyon. 1957. Samaria-Sebaste III: The Objects. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Culican, W. 1973. “The Graves at Tell er-Reqeish.” Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology 2:66–105. Davis, D.L. 2000. “Navigation in the Ancient Mediterranean.” Master’s thesis, Texas A&M University. Deutsch, R., and M. Heltzer. 1994. Forty New Ancient West Semitic Inscriptions. Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center Publications. Diakonoff, I.M. 1992. “The Naval Power and Trade of.

(24) 168. R.D. BALLARD, L.E. STAGER, ET AL., IRON AGE SHIPWRECKS. Tyre.” IEJ 42:168–93. Dothan, M. 1971. Ashdod II–III: The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Dunand, M. 1954. Fouilles de Byblos, vol. 2. Paris: P. Geuthner. Frost, H. 1970. “Bronze-Age Stone-Anchors from the Eastern Mediterranean: Dating and Identification.” Mariner’s Mirror 56:377–94. ———. 1991. “Anchors Sacred and Profane: Ugarit– Ras Shamra, 1986: The Stone Anchors Revised and Compared.” In Arts et industries de la Pierre. Ras Shamra–Ougarit, vol. 6, edited by M. Yon, 355–410. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient. Gal, Z. 1992. Lower Galilee during the Iron Age. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Gal, Z., and Y. Alexandre. 2000. H . orbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 8. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Geva, S. 1982. “Archaeological Evidence for the Trade between Israel and Tyre?” BASOR 248:69–72. Gitin, S. 1990. Gezer. Vol. 3, A Ceramic Typology of the Late Iron II, Persian, and Hellenistic Periods at Tell Gezer. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College. Hanfmann, G.M.A. 1963. “The Iron Age Pottery of Tarsus.” In Excavations at Gözlü Kule Tarsus: The Iron Age, vol. 3, edited by H. Goldman, 18–332. Princeton: Princeton University Press. James, F.W. 1966. Iron Age at Beth Shan. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Lamon, R.S., and G.S. Shipton. 1939. Megiddo, vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lehmann, G. 1996. Untersuchungen zur späten Eisenzeit in Syrien und Libanon: Stratigraphie und Keramikformen zwischen ca. 720 bis 300 v. Chr. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Marcus, E.S. 1998. “Maritime Trade in the Southern Levant from Earliest Times through the Middle Bronze IIA Period.” Ph.D. diss., University of Oxford. McCann, A.M., and J. Freed. 1994. Deep Water Archaeology. JRA Suppl. 13. Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Millard, A.R. 1962. “Ezekiel XXVII.19: The Wine Trade of Damascus.” Journal of Semitic Studies 7:201–3.. Oren, E.D. 1984. “Migdol: A New Fortress on the Edge of the Eastern Nile Delta.” BASOR 256:7–44. Pritchard, J.B. 1954. The Ancient Near East in Pictures. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Singh, H., J. Howland, D.R. Yoerger, and L.L. Whitcomb. 1998. “Quantitative Photomosaicking of Underwater Imaging.” In Proceedings of IEEE Oceans 98 Conference 1: 263–6. Singh, H., L.L. Whitcomb, D. Yoerger, and O. Pizarro. 2000. “Microbathymetric Mapping from Underwater Vehicles in the Deep Ocean.” Computer Vision and Image Understanding 79 (1):143–61. Sivan, D. 1996. Paleogeography of the Galilee Coastal Plain during the Quaternary. Jerusalem: Geological Survey of Israel (in Hebrew). Thalmann, J.-P. 1990. “Tell Arqa, de la conquête assyrienne à l’époque perse.” Transeuphratène 2:51–7. Turner, R. 1973. “Wood-boring Bivalves Opportunistic Species in the Deep Sea.” Science 180, n. 4093:1377–9. Vegas, M. 1999. “Eine archaische Keramikfüllung aus einem Haus am Kardo XIII in Karthago.” Römische Mitteilungen 106:395–438. Wachsmann, S. 1998. Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Whitcomb, L.L., D.R. Yoerger, and H. Singh. 1999. “Advances in Doppler-Based Navigation of Underwater Robotic Vehicles.” In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation 1:399–406. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE. Whitcomb, L.L., D.R. Yoerger, H. Singh, and J. Howland. 2000. “Advances in Underwater Robot Vehicles for Deep Ocean Exploration: Navigation, Control, and Survey Operations.” In Robotics Research: The Ninth International Symposium, edited by J. Hollerbach and D. Koditschek, 439–48. London: Springer-Verlag. Yadin, Y. et al. 1960. Hazor. Vol. 2, An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956. Jerusalem: Magness. Yardeni, A. 1994. “Maritime Trade and Royal Accountancy in an Erased Customs Account from 475 BCE in the Ah. iqar Scroll from Elephantine.” BASOR 293:67–78..