Trinity University
Digital Commons @ Trinity
Classical Studies Faculty Research
Classical Studies Department
2014
Signs of Writing? Red Lustrous Wheelmade Vases and Ashkelon
Amphorae
Nicolle E. Hirschfeld
Trinity University, nhirschf@trinity.edu
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/class_faculty
Part of the Classics Commons
Repository Citation
Hirschfeld, N. (2014). Signs of writing? Red lustrous wheelmade vases and Ashkelon Amphorae. In D.
Nakassis, J. Gulizio, & S. A. James (Eds.), KE-RA-ME-JA : Studies Presented to Cynthia W. Shelmerdine
(pp.261-269). INSTAP Academic Press.
This Contribution to Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Classical Studies Department at Digital
Commons @ Trinity. It has been accepted for inclusion in Classical Studies Faculty Research by an authorized
administrator of Digital Commons @ Trinity. For more information, please contact jcostanz@trinity.edu.
KE-RA-ME-JA
Studies Presented to Cynthia W. Shelmerdine
PREHISTORY MONOGRAPHS 46
KE-RA-ME-JA
Studies Presented to Cynthia W. Shelmerdine
edited by
Dimitri Nakassis, Joann Gulizio, and Sarah A. James
Published by
INSTAP Academic Press
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
2014
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviations for periodicals in the reference lists of the chapters follow the conventions of the American Journal of Archaeology 111 (2007), pp. 14–34.
A
AR
ARM
ASCSA
ca.
CAP
Chem.
CHIC
cm
comp.
Akones “mound”
Arkalochori
Armeni
The American School of Classical
Studies at Athens
approximately
Cambridge Amphora Project
chemical group
Corpus Hieroglyphicarum Inscriptionum Cretae
centimeter
composite (measurement restored on
the basis of one or more overlapping
but nonjoining fragments)
CR
DA
dat.
diam.
dim.
EDS
EH
EM
EPG
est.
fem.
FM
fr.
FS
Crete
Dark Age
dative
diameter
dimensions
energy dispersive X-ray spectrography
Early Helladic
Early Minoan
Early Protogeometric
estimated
feminine
Furumark motif number
fragment
Furumark shape number
xx
g
GC-MS
h.
ha
HARP
HM
Hom.
HT
ICP-MS
IKAP
INAA
IO
kg
KH
km
KN
KO
L
L.
lat. inf.
LC
LD
LH
LM
m
M
masc.
m asl
max.
MC
mcg
MGUA(s)
MH
ml
MM
MN
KE-RA-ME-JA: STUDIES PRESENTED TO CYNTHIA W. SHELMERDINE
grams
gas chromatography-mass
spectrometry
height
hectare
Hora Apotheke Reorganization
Project
Heraklion Museum
Homeric/Homer
Hagia Triada
inductively coupled plasma mass
spectrometry
Iklaina Archaeological Project
instrumental neutron activation
analysis
Juktas
kilograms
Chania
kilometers
Knossos
Kophinas
Lambropoulos/Lakkoules group
length
latus inferius
Late Cycladic
Lustrous Decorated
Late Helladic
Late Minoan
meters
tombs excavated by UMME at
Nichoria
masculine
meters above sea level
maximum
Middle Cycladic
micrograms
“Minoan Goddess(es) with
Upraised Arms”
Middle Helladic
milliliters
Middle Minoan
man’s name
MY
Myc.
N
Mycenae
Mycenaean
Nikitopoulou tomb group
(Tourkokivouro)
no.
number
nom.
nominative
pers. comm. personal communication
pers. obs.
personal observation
PG
Protogeometric
PH
Phaistos
PIXE
particle induced X-ray emission
PK
Palaikastro
pl.
plural
PN
place name
POR
Poros Herakleiou
PR
Prassa
PRAP
Pylos Regional Archaeological
Project
pres.
preserved
PY
Pylos
Py/GC-MS pyrolysis/gas chromatography-mass
spectrometry
RCT
Room of the Chariot Tablets, Knossos
rest.
restored (measurement restored despite missing segments of profile)
RLWM
Red Lustrous Wheelmade
SEM
scanning electron microscope
sg.
singular
SY
Syme
T
Tsagdi group
TH
Thebes
th.
thickness
TRO
Troy
UMME
University of Minnesota Messenia
Expedition
v
verso
V
Veves
WAE/ICP or ICP-AES inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry
XRD
X-ray diffraction
XRF
X-ray fluorescence
ZA
Zakros
C H A P T E R
20
Signs of Writing? Red Lustrous Wheelmade
Vases and Ashkelon Amphorae
Nicolle Hirschfeld
One important question about Bronze Age potmarks is whether they are signs of writing.* An affirmative answer has significant implications for
our understanding of how widely a script was used
within and between communities. This essay discusses two instances for which the claim of writing on ceramics has been made: Red Lustrous
Wheelmade (RLWM) pottery and the “inscriptions” found at Ashkelon. In both cases, the question is whether the marks incised into these vases
are to be identified as signs of the Cypro-Minoan
script. The answer is important in the first instance for our understanding of the diversity and
specialization of the Cypriot ceramic industry and
in the second for our understanding of the use and
influence of Cypriot writing outside the island.
*This article was submitted in 2010. In the interval
between submission and publication there have appeared
several publications significant to this study, though they do
not alter its fundamental conclusions. References to these
later publications and associated minor corrections have been
incorporated into the text; the discussion of the finds from
Ugarit merits a more whole-scale revision (in style more so
than substance), but that is impossible to achieve at this point
in the publication process.
262
NICOLLE HIRSCHFELD
Methodology
Cypro-Minoan refers to the native script(s) of
Late Bronze Age Cyprus. Not many traces have
survived, but the extant bits demonstrate that it
circulated throughout the island on a variety of
objects in diverse contexts throughout the entire
span of the Late Bronze Age. We do not know
which language(s) the writing expresses; no bilingual has been found, and there are not enough
texts preserved to support decipherment. The paucity of texts, the variety of media on which they
occur, and the different tools used to write make
it difficult to identify with certainty the individual elements of the signary or signaries, for there
is debate whether “Cypro-Minoan” texts all use
the same script and/or express the same language
(most recently, see Olivier 2013, 10–11; for a contrasting view, see Ferrara 2013).
A further wrinkle in the identification and classification of Cypro-Minoan is the brevity of many
inscriptions. Longer texts include sense units of
one or two signs, and this makes it feasible to propose that single marks inscribed into, for example, an obelos, an anchor, or a vase could be signs
of Cypro-Minoan writing. In fact, this has generally been the default assumption since the earliest discoveries of Bronze Age vases with single
marks inscribed on their handles were made by
the British Museum expedition at the turn of the
20th century (Murray, Smith, and Walters 1900, 9,
27; followed by, e.g., Casson 1937, 72–109; Masson 1957). John Daniel (1941) first called for separate treatments of marks/signs according to the
media on which they appear and their manner of
inscription (ductus), but his careful methodology
was largely ignored until I took up the study of the
marks on pottery found in Late Bronze Age Cyprus, a project undertaken partially under the mentorship of Cynthia Shelmerdine. I remain grateful
for her continued encouragement and critique.
After an initial survey of the range of marks and
vases, I decided—for logistical purposes—to concentrate on an easily defined subset: Mycenaean
vases with incised marks. It soon became apparent that this group shared several other features:
chronological and geographical distribution, the
shapes of the vases, and characteristics of the
marks themselves (they were cut into the fabric after firing; they are conspicuous in their size
and placement on the vase). The marks from that
group that can be specifically and certainly identified with any script are Cypro-Minoan. The geographical distribution of these marked vases and
the similarities to local Cypriot marking practices supported the Cypriot identification, and I
concluded (Hirschfeld 1992, 1993) that people familiar with Cypriot writing made the marks incised into Mycenaean pottery (though not every
mark is necessarily a sign of writing). My methodology for identifying marks with a script system
was holistic, reliant not on the identification of selected individual marks with signs of writing but
considering the entire corpus of marks and also
their contexts, micro and macro.
The simple forms of most Bronze Age potmarks and the fact that they usually appear as singletons on a vase mean that many valences can be
proposed for each mark when examined in isolation. The first step toward making meaningful
statements about any single potmark is to locate
it within the larger context of a marking system.
Marking systems become visible when all aspects
of marked vases are considered: not only the forms
of the marks, but also their ductus, the locations of
the marks on the vases, the types of vases, along
with the chronological, geographical, and functional distribution of the marked vases. Whereas
so many meanings and identifications can be proposed for a simple mark in isolation as to make the
proposals useless, the greater patterns visible in a
system both set parameters and suggest meaningful directions of inquiry. Only when an individual mark can be placed within a larger context of a
marking system can values be assigned with any
confidence.
SIGNS OF WRITING? RED LUSTROUS WHEELMADE VASES AND ASHKELON AMPHORAE
263
Red Lustrous Wheelmade Pottery
In general, RLWM pottery is like no other ceramic type found on Late Bronze Age Cyprus.
Cypriot pottery is typically handmade. Even very
small sherds of RLWM are instantly recognizable
by their wheelmade, fine, pinkish, hard-fired fabric and burnished surfaces. The shapes, too, are
largely unique to the ware. The distinctiveness
of these vases has engendered much debate about
whether RLWM was made in Cyprus or Anatolia, the two regions in which this pottery is most
abundant. Until recently, the strongest evidence
for Cypriot manufacture has been the quantities
and diversity of shapes found on the island, much
more than elsewhere in the eastern Mediterranean.
Now new discoveries in Anatolia are altering our
perception of this distribution pattern. But at the
same time, petrographic and instrumental neutron
activation analyses conducted in the last five years
point to a single production center for all RLWM,
tentatively identified with the northern coast of
Cyprus (Knappett et al. 2005). The investigators,
however, stress that the identification of place still
requires extensive prospection and examination of
clay sources and ceramic samples.
Cyprus as the place of production for RLWM
pottery is also the hypothesis put forward in the
seminal study of this ware by Kathryn Eriksson
(1993). In part, Eriksson made her claim on the
basis of the potmarks characteristic of this ware,
which she identified as Cypro-Minoan: “. . . some
of the signs should be regarded as examples of
the Cypro-Minoan script. Their presence on these
vessels clearly illustrates Cypriot involvement and
manufacture” (Eriksson 1993, 147). But this identification is unjustified. Yes, it is true that some of
the marks can be identified with Cypro-Minoan
signs. However, these are all simple forms (Eriksson 1993, 146, figs. 41, 42) that also occur in many
other marking and writing systems. In fact, the
corpus of marks on RLWM pottery includes very
few that are complex enough to make a meaningful identification with a sign of any writing
system. Furthermore, many of the RLWM marks
include circular elements, something outside the
repertoire of the Cypro-Minoan signary in any
medium. Also, in general terms these marks differ from the usual local Cypriot practice (during
the Late Bronze Age) of large, boldly cut, prominently placed, mostly postfiring marks, usually on
large storage containers. All RLWM marks share
the characteristics of being drawn into the wet clay
before firing, they are small, and they are inconspicuously placed under the base or at the base of
the handle. They are found almost exclusively on
spindle bottles, a shape otherwise unknown in the
Cypriot ceramic repertoire. In other words, there
is no valid reason for identifying RLWM marks
with either Cypro-Minoan writing or typical Cypriot marking systems.
This does not preclude the possibility that
RLWM vases were made on Cyprus. There are
several possible explanations, not exclusive from
one another, for the unusual (in Cypriot terms) features of this marking system:
1. Technical: the RLWM marks are small because
it is easy to draw very short strokes into wet
clay, whereas cutting into hard-fired clay with
stone or metal implements necessarily results
in the longer strokes characteristic of the postfiring marks on other Cypriot pottery.
2. Different purpose: technical reasons may explain why the prefiring marks on RLWM ware
are all small, but they do not explain their unobtrusive placement. The marks on these vases were not intended to be immediately visible.
This in itself suggests that they had a different function than the conspicuous postfiring
potmarks typical of Cypriot pottery. Since the
RLWM marks were made while the clay was
still rather wet, they are most likely associated with some aspect of the production process, for example, to designate kiln batches. It
is also possible that there was a postproduction
264
NICOLLE HIRSCHFELD
purpose for the marks. This would require
a corollary hypothesis of closely connected
manufacturing and distribution processes, or
of a connection between manufacture and use
of the vases. Such sophisticated systems did
exist in the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean.
Two examples from the Mycenaean world are
the coarse ware stirrup jars with Linear B inscriptions (whose circulation was restricted to
the Aegean, whereas those without Linear B
inscriptions have been found also in the Levant and Egypt) and Mycenaean pictorial vessels, some of which were designed specifically
for the export market (Åkerström 1987, 118–
119). A Cypriot counterpart might be the Base
Ring juglets, apparently made specifically to
contain opium (Merrillees 1962).
3. Specialized marking system: the ware comes
in relatively few shapes, several of them unique
and apparently serving specialized purposes. The tall slender spindle bottles with their
small bases and even smaller mouths must
have been used primarily for carrying liquids.
Long tubular vessels with a hand holding a
cup attached to one end might be particularly associated with temple use. An idiosyncratic marking system could have been developed
in connection with the specialized manufacture of this specialized ware.
4. Not made on Cyprus: the marks are unlike
the other potmarking systems used on Late
Bronze Age Cyprus because the vases were
not made on the island.
In summary, the marks drawn into the wet clay
of RLWM spindle bottles have no demonstrable
association with Cypro-Minoan writing or marking practices, and they cannot be cited as decisive
evidence in the debate about whether this highly
distinctive pottery was manufactured on Cyprus.
However, it is also true they do not preclude Cypriot manufacture.
Cypro-Minoan beyond the Island
The potmarks recently found in Late Bronze
and Early Iron Age levels at Ashkelon are similarly important for our understanding of how widely
(or not) Cypro-Minoan was used. But before evaluating Frank Cross and Lawrence Stager’s (2006)
identification of the Ashkelon potmarks as CyproMinoan, it is instructive to look at the potmarks
found at the one site outside Cyprus with strong
evidence for the local use and perhaps adaptation
of Cypro-Minoan, namely Ras Shamra-Ugarit.
(See now Ferrara 2012, 132–145, and the companion volume, Ferrara, forthcoming; see also Ferrara
2013, 57–58, and Olivier 2013, 15, for discussion
and bibliography published subsequent to the submission of this chapter.)
Cypro-Minoan here appears in a larger context
of close connections between Ugarit and Cyprus,
connections that were much deeper than simply
an exchange of commodities. Common dining and
burial customs, shared status objects, and common
divinities are indicative of a transmarine elite with
mutual political and social/cultural ties (Yon 1999).
Members of this elite sent letters to one another
(Malbran-Labat 1999). Archives in the houses of
Rap’anu and Ourtenou, high-ranking and wealthy
counselors to the king of Ugarit, preserve seven letters sent from or referring to Alashiya (now widely accepted to be part or all of Cyprus, though see
Merrillees 2011 for important dissent), all in Akkadian. This seems to have been the language of
official correspondence, and in one letter Kushmeshusha, ruler of Alashiya, asks that a scribe be sent
from Ugarit, presumably to assist in the composition or translation of foreign correspondence. Written communication was not restricted to Akkadian
cuneiform. Four tablets and two labels with CyproMinoan inscriptions found at Ras Shamra are indicative of alternate methods of communication
(see Matoïan 2012, 154–155, fig. 34, for another
possible Cypro-Minoan inscription). The fact that
Cypro-Minoan cannot yet be read makes it impossible to ascertain the meaning of the messages and/
or the identity of their intended recipients. Nevertheless, even absent a decipherment, some important observations can be made.
First, Cypro-Minoan inscriptions are not confined to a specific area of the site. Two of the tablets were found at separate locations in the Quartier
SIGNS OF WRITING? RED LUSTROUS WHEELMADE VASES AND ASHKELON AMPHORAE
Résidentiel, the other two were found in the building variously referred to as the Palais Sud/Petit
Palais/résidence de Yabninou on the western edge
of the citadel, and the two labels come from the
Maison d’Ourtenou, located in the Sud Centre region of the citadel (Yon 1999, 117). Finally, a silver
bowl with a Cypro-Minoan inscription was found
between the temples of Baal and Dagon on the
Acropolis, at the Maison du Grand Prêtre (Caubet
and Yon 2001). The inscription on the bowl does
not fall quite in the same category as those on the
tablets and labels, for it is not certain that this inscription was intended to be “read” at Ras Shamra. But it is further evidence that Cypro-Minoan
had a wide circulation within the citadel, on a variety of media.
Second, there may be indications of a local adaptation of the Cypro-Minoan script. The arguments for this are extremely tentative, based on
formal features such as the layout of the tablets,
direction of writing, vocabulary, idiosyncratic
signs, and visual observations about the quality of
the clay. Such observations have led Emilia Masson to suggest that two of the Ras Shamra CyproMinoan tablets were made at Ugarit, perhaps by
a non-native (Cypriot) speaker, possibly expressing a dialectical difference (Masson 1974; 2007,
236). It would require a trip to Damascus and firsthand examination of the tablets to corroborate the
readings and formatting details observed by Masson. Finally, a larger corpus of Cypro-Minoan inscriptions is needed before Masson’s claims for a
separate “Cypro-Minoan 3” dialect and/or script
at Ugarit could possibly be substantiated. But reevaluation of her claims is an important preliminary step in any discussion of how Cypro-Minoan
might have been adapted in foreign contexts.
The question of whether so-called Cypro-Minoan
3 is a real distinction is important because of its
greater implication, namely that Cypro-Minoan
was used frequently enough in a foreign environment to engender adaptations. Potmarks are often
cited as evidence for greater use or familiarity with
Cypro-Minoan than the small number of formal inscriptions belies. Like Cypro-Minoan 3, potmarks
are a fraught category of evidence. The question
relevant to this paper is: When is a potmark writing, and when is it just a mark? Or, to put it another
way, when is a potmark an inscription? And, specifically, when is it a Cypro-Minoan inscription?
265
Of the (tens of) thousands of vases and sherds
excavated at Ras Shamra-Ugarit, only about 200
potmarks have been recorded (Hirschfeld 2000;
Matoïan 2012). Most of the marks are simple in
form, and many can be compared with CyproMinoan signs. But it is also possible to equate them
with elements of several other writing or marking
systems. As discussed above, a specific identification can be assigned with confidence only when
the individual mark can be placed within the context of a marking or writing system. Even at Ras
Shamra, where there is a sure presence of Cypriot
writing and a context in which use of Cypriot writing makes sense, at present only the incised marks
on Aegean vases can be identified as having some
sort of connection with Cypriot writing. This is because this group of marked vases fits the parameters of incised-marked Aegean vases elsewhere and
for which a Cypro-Minoan connection has already
been established.
A large percentage of the rest of the marks
found at Ras Shamra are on amphora handles. In
contrast to the Aegean vases with incised marks,
marked amphorae cannot be defined as a cohesive
group. Rather, it is clear that various marking systems were used: groups of one, two, or three fingerprints impressed into the top of the handle before
firing; wedges notched into the handles, also before firing; parallel lines cut into the base of handles; and large bold marks incised into handles,
most probably after firing (it is difficult to be certain). No comprehensive study of the patterns of
marking Late Bronze Age amphora handles has
yet been published, and the origins, functions,
and interrelationships among the various ways of
marking amphorae are still unknown. Only marks
of the last kind listed above have been noticed and
published with any degree of consistency, partially because of their visibility, partially because of
their assumed connection with writing systems.
Based on the present state of knowledge, Cyprus
is the single region in the Late Bronze Age eastern
Mediterranean with a potmarking system characterized by large single marks incised into the
handles of medium to large closed containers. A
reasonable hypothesis, then, is that these are elements of a Cypriot marking system, inspired by,
but not necessarily strictly borrowed from the
Cypro-Minoan script.
266
NICOLLE HIRSCHFELD
I subscribed to this hypothesis in my publication
of the marked handles found at Tel Mor (Hirschfeld
2007). Twelve marked vases were found at this site:
two Cypriot imports and 10 amphora handles. In
my published comments, I note first that marked
pottery is rare not only at Tel Mor but also at the
other sites in Late Bronze Age Canaan. No site has
a sufficient number of preserved marks to determine their purpose; there are no significant clusters.
Perhaps this scattered distribution is an indication
that marks were used for extrasite purposes. For
these reasons, and because the Mor marks are like
Cypriot ones in form and application, it is possible
that the marks found at Tel Mor may be indicative
of some connection with Cyprus or Cypriots.
An amphora handle found at Aphek complicates
that explanation (Yasur-Landau and Goren 2004).
The excavators posit that the handle was probably
originally used in the 13th century, the period of
the “Governor’s Residency,” when Aphek was an
administrative center for the region and well connected with the larger eastern Mediterranean. The
mark conforms in its features to Cypriot practices;
it is large, boldly incised after firing, and conspicuously displayed on the handle. This same mark
is incised into local vases on the island of Cyprus
and a Mycenaean sherd found at Ras Shamra. The
mark itself has a parallel in the Cypro-Minoan
script. The unexpected feature of this amphora
handle is that petrographic analysis indicates that
it was made in the Acco-Tyre area. Assaf Landau and Yuval Goren proposed that the jar must at
some point have been shipped to Cyprus, where it
was marked, and then eventually reshipped back to
Aphek. Though at first this seems a cumbersome
explanation, there are good parallels for reuse and
reshipping of storage containers (van Doorninck
1989; Peña 2007, 61–118).
As the corpus of potmarks found in the Late
Bronze Age Levant increases, my Cypro-centric
hypothesis needs to be periodically reviewed. Three
trajectories of research are needed:
1. Petrography: the petrographic analysis undertaken as part of the study of the potmarks
from Aphek and, as we will see below, Ashkelon, illustrate the importance of considering this aspect of manufacture. Perhaps my
identification of the large incised marks on
the handles of amphorae as associated with
Cypriot marking practices—a theory based
on numbers and distribution—will need to
be revised as objective evidence for locally made, marked vases accumulates. At some
point it becomes cumbersome to continue to
insist on Cypriot involvement (whether in
terms of place or people).
2. Incision of marks before/after firing: it is usually very difficult to distinguish visually between marks cut into leather-hard and fired
coarse clay, especially since the surfaces of the
protruding handles are often battered or weathered. But it is certainly worth trying to find
some objective criteria for distinguishing between pre- and postfiring marks. Marks made
before firing necessarily were made at the
place of origin, and the identification of prefiring marks coupled with petrographic analysis
has tremendous potential for establishing origin points for marks and/or marking systems. I
welcome suggestions for an objective method.
3. Sample size: all the various marks that appear
on coarse pottery of the Late Bronze and Iron
Age Levant need to be noticed, recorded, and
published with the same thoroughness that is
accorded the marks on, for example, Mycenaean pottery. We need to have a better sense
of the frequency of marking and the variety
of marks. As more marks are noted and patterns of occurrence redrawn, it will undoubtedly be necessary to reevaluate the “Cypriot”
connection.
Cypro-Minoan beyond the Island and the Bronze Age, too?
Into this present state of uncertainty about the
potmarking systems current in Syria-Palestine
enter the inscriptions found at Ashkelon. Cross
and Stager (2006) published 19 inscribed objects,
found in both Late Bronze and Early Iron Age contexts: one ostracon with a painted inscription, one
SIGNS OF WRITING? RED LUSTROUS WHEELMADE VASES AND ASHKELON AMPHORAE
Minoan stirrup jar handle with a single incised
mark, and 17 jug and storage jar handles, also with
incised marks. The authors identify all of these inscriptions as Cypro-Minoan, an identification that
has important linguistic and historical implications. In Cross and Stager’s words: “. . . early Philistines of Ashkelon were able to read and write a
non-Semitic language, as yet undeciphered, using
Cypro-Minoan script” and “Cypro-Minoan signs
or their derivatives are at home on the Palestinian
coast” (Cross and Stager 2006, 129–130, 135 n. 6).
With the exception of one handle that has two
signs, the dipinto is the only multisign inscription
(Cross and Stager 2006, 131–134). It was found in
an 11th century context, and petrographic analysis
indicates that it was made locally, at Ashkelon. It
consists of nine signs, or, if the vertical line is understood as a word divider, sequences of two and
six signs. The authors reasonably suggest that the
cramping at one edge indicates a right-to-left reading. They argue that the orientation of the second
sign from the right further supports this reading,
as it is reversed from the usual orientation of the
Cypro-Minoan sign that they cite as a comparandum. A right-to-left reading for a Cypro-Minoan
inscription is unusual (insofar as we understand
Cypro-Minoan writing practices) but not without
precedent. Cross and Stager identify all the signs
on the ostracon with Cypro-Minoan signs and
conclude that “. . . the inscription is written in a
form of Cypro-Minoan script utilised and slightly modified by the Philistines” (Cross and Stager 2006, 134).
I would argue that this statement overreaches. The inscription is comprised of signs so simple that the individual identification of any one
with a sign of the Cypro-Minoan script can be regarded only as a possibility. No other feature of
this inscription—its ductus, its direction, its vocabulary (there are no correlations with attested
Cypro-Minoan words or sense units), or its functional, chronological, or geographical contexts—
suggests specifically Cypriot affiliation. Cross and
Stager suggest that historical circumstances would
have been conducive for such a connection but do
not develop this argument (Cross and Stager 2006,
134). Instead, they bolster their identification of the
ostracon’s script by identifying the 18 potmarks
found at the site as further examples of the currency of Cypriot writing at Ashkelon.
267
Cross and Stager identify the mark incised into
the handle of a coarse ware “oatmeal” Minoan stirrup jar as a sign of the Cypro-Minoan script (Cross
and Stager 2006, 149–150, no. 18). I will claim only
that this vase is marked in the Cypriot manner and,
like the other similarly marked Aegean vases in
Syria-Palestine, it arrived via Cyprus or Cypriots
(Hankey 1967; Hirschfeld 1992, 1993).
The other potmarks found at Ashkelon are all
incised into the handles of jugs or amphorae, and
they follow the Cypriot conventions also. Petrographic analysis of the five from Late Bronze Age
contexts indicates that they were made on Cyprus,
Lebanon, or northwest Syria (Cross and Stager
2006, 129, 135–147, nos. 2, 7, 8, 12, 15). None of
this requires any significant revision of the hypotheses proposed above. But the remaining 12 marked
vases push the parameters in two ways, chronologically and geographically. First, they come from
12th and 11th century contexts. If the handles were
in use then (rather than being relics from the Late
Bronze Age), then they indicate that the practice of
incising large marks into the handles of closed containers continued into the earliest Iron Age on the
Levantine coast. On Cyprus this practice seems to
have ceased with the end of the Late Bronze Age.
Second, petrographic analysis indicates that most
of the 12 marked handles from 12th and 11th contexts were produced locally in Syria-Palestine
(Cross and Stager 2006, 129, 135–148): one at Ashkelon (no. 5), one in or near Dor (no. 6), and seven in coastal Lebanon (Acco-Tyre; nos. 3, 9, 10, 13,
14, 16, 17); the remaining three were not analyzed
or their clay was not identifiable. Following Cross
and Stager’s hypothesis, it seems then that we have
at Ashkelon evidence for the continued and local
use of a marking system originally associated with
Late Bronze Age Cyprus.
As so often in archaeology, the same evidence
can be evaluated in utterly contrasting ways. Rather than seeing these amphorae as confirmation
of Cypriot influence in Canaanite marking, I begin to question my hypothesis that bold marks incised on handles all need to be associated with
Cyprus. In any case, it is premature to identify these individual marks as signs of a particular
script. The incised marks on the jar handles from
Ashkelon are not evidence of Cypro-Minoan writing. They are evidence of a marking system or
systems, but only in the case of the coarse ware
268
NICOLLE HIRSCHFELD
stirrup jar can it be demonstrated that the marking system is Cypriot, and even then, there is possibly only a loose association with the Cypriot
script. We simply do not know enough about local
marking systems in the Levant to assert that any
large boldly incised marks on amphora handles
are “Cypro-Minoan,” nor do we know the extent
to which marking systems were related to writing
system(s). The scenario of Cypriots in the Levant
during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, bringing and then eventually changing and adapting
their administrative systems, is reasonable. But
the ostracon and potmarks found at Ashkelon do
not prove this hypothesis. Nor do they indicate the
adoption and adaptation in Canaan of the writing system used on Late Bronze Age Cyprus. The
“inscriptions” cannot be positively identified as
Cypro-Minoan writing, and even the designation
“inscription” is questionable for all but the painted ostracon and perhaps the one handle with two
marks. (See also Davis 2011, which came to my attention after this article was submitted.)
Conclusions
Red Lustrous Wheelmade pottery may well
have been produced on Cyprus, but the marks
drawn into the wet clay during the production of
spindle bottles (and very rarely, other shapes) are
not evidence of their location of manufacture. The
marks incised into the handles of amphorae found
at Ashkelon may indicate the influence of writing,
but it has not (yet) been demonstrated that that
writing was Cypriot. Cypriots did write on vases, but it needs a rigorous methodology to identify which marking system(s) were based on signs
of writing.
References
Åkerström, Å. 1987. Berbati II: The Pictorial Pottery
(SkrAth 4º, 36 [2]), Stockholm.
Casson, S. 1937. Ancient Cyprus: Its Art and Archaeology, London.
Caubet, A., and M. Yon. 2001. “Une coupe inscrite
en chypro-minoen à Ras Shamra et les ‘trésors’
d’Ougarit,” in Contributions to the Archaeology and
History of the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Eastern
Mediterranean. Studies in Honour of Paul Åström
(Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut Sonderschriften 39), P.M. Fischer, ed., pp. 149–157.
Cross, F.M., and L.E. Stager. 2006. “Cypro-Minoan Inscriptions Found in Ashkelon,” IEJ 56, pp. 129–157.
Daniel, J.F. 1941. “Prolegomena to the Cypro-Minoan
Script,” AJA 45, pp. 249–282.
Davis, B. 2011. “Cypro-Minoan in Philistia?” Kubaba
2, pp. 40–74.
Eriksson, K.O. 1993. Red Lustrous Wheel-Made Ware
(SIMA 103), Jonsered.
Ferrara, S. 2012. Cypro-Minoan Inscriptions 1: Analysis, Oxford.
. 2013. “Writing in Cypro-Minoan: One Script,
Too Many?” in Syllabic Writing on Cyprus and Its
Context, P.M. Steele, ed., Cambridge, pp. 49–76.
. Forthcoming. Cypro-Minoan Inscriptions 2:
The Corpus, Oxford.
Hankey, V. 1967. “Mycenaean Pottery in the Middle
East: Note on Finds Since 1951,” BSA 62, pp. 107–147.
Hirschfeld, N. 1992. “Cypriot Marks on Mycenaean
Pottery,” in Mykenaïka. Actes du IXe Colloque international sur les textes mycéniens et égéens organisé par le Centre de l’Antiquité Grecque et Romaine
de la Fondation Hellénique des Recherches Scientifiques et l’École française d’Athènes, Athènes, 2–6
octobre 1990 (BCH Suppl. 25), J.-P. Olivier, ed.,
Athens, pp. 315–319.
. 1993. “Incised Marks (Post-Firing) on Aegean Wares,” in Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence
for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of
the International Conference Held at the American
School of Classical Studies at Athens, Athens, December 2–3, 1989, C. Zerner, ed., Amsterdam, pp.
311–318.
SIGNS OF WRITING? RED LUSTROUS WHEELMADE VASES AND ASHKELON AMPHORAE
. 2000. “Marked Late Bronze Age Pottery from
the Kingdom of Ugarit,” in Céramiques mycéniennes (Ras Shamra-Ougarit 13), M. Yon, V. Karageorghis, and N. Hirschfeld, Paris, pp. 163–200.
. 2007. “Potmarks,” in Tel Mor: The Moshe
Dothan Excavations, 1959–1960 (Israel Antiquities
Authority Reports 32), T.J. Barako, ed., Jerusalem,
pp. 183–190.
Knappett, C., V. Kilikoglou, V. Steele, and B. Stern.
2005. “The Circulation and Consumption of Red
Lustrous Wheelmade Ware: Petrographic, Chemical,
and Residue Analysis,” AnatSt 55, pp. 25–59.
Malbran-Labat, F. 1999. “Nouvelles données épigraphiques sur Chypre et Ougarit,” RDAC 1999, pp.
121–123.
Masson, E. 1974. Cyprominoica: Répertoires, documents
de Ras Shamra, essais d’interprétation (SIMA 31 [2]),
Göteborg.
. 2007. “Cypro-Minoan Scripts,” in A History of
Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity, A.-F. Christidis, ed., Cambridge, pp. 235–238.
Masson, O. 1957. “Répertoire des inscriptions chyprominoens,” Minos 5, pp. 9–27.
Matoïan, V. 2012. “Données récentes sur les céramiques
avec ‘marques’ d’Ougarit,” in Études Ougaritiques
II (Ras Shamra-Ougarit 20), V. Matoïan, M. AlMaqdissi, and Y. Calvet, eds., Leuven, pp. 123–157.
Merrillees, R. 1962. “Opium Trade in the Bronze Age
Levant,” Antiquity 36, pp. 287–292.
269
. 2011. “Alashiya: A Scientific Quest for Its Location,” in Metallurgy: Understanding How, Learning
Why. Studies in Honor of James D. Muhly (Prehistory
Monographs 29), P.P. Betancourt and S.C. Ferrence,
eds., Philadelphia, pp. 255–264.
Murray, A.S., A.H. Smith, and H.B. Walters. 1900. Excavations in Cyprus, London.
Olivier, J-P. 2013. “The Development of Cypriot Syllabaries, from Enkomi to Kafizin,” in Syllabic Writing
of Cyprus and Its Context, P.M. Steele, ed., Cambridge, pp. 7–26.
Peña, J.T. 2007. Roman Pottery in the Archaeological
Record, Cambridge.
van Doorninck, F. 1989. “The Cargo Amphoras on the
7th Century Yassi Ada and 11th Century Serçe Liman 2 Shipwrecks: Two Examples of a Reuse of Byzantine Amphoras as Transport Jars,” in Recherches
sur la céramique byzantine. Actes du colloque organisé par l’École française d’Athènes et L’Université de
Strasbourg, II, Centre de recherches sur l’Europe
central et sud–orientale, Athènes 8–10 avril 1987
(BCH Suppl. 18), V. Déroche and J.-M. Spieser, eds.,
Paris, pp. 247–257.
Yasur-Landau, A., and Y. Goren. 2004. “A CyproMinoan Potmark from Aphek,” Tel Aviv 31, pp.
22–31.
Yon, M. 1999. “Chypre et Ougarit à la fin du bronze
récent,” RDAC 1999, pp. 113–120.