Stone Vessels

ARCANE INTERREGIONAL II
Artefacts
Dedicated to the memory of Jean-Paul Thalmann, Director of the

excavations at Tell Arqa, who has left us too soon. The tireless linch-
pin of the ARCANE programme, he designed the architecture of the
database. Together with Stefania Mazzoni, he was also Team Leader
of the Northern Levant group.
ARCANE
Associated
Regional Chronologies
for the Ancient Near East
and the Eastern Mediterranean
© BREPOLS PUBLISHERS
THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY.
IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER.
Artefacts
Marc Lebeau (ed.)
H
F
The European Science Foundation (ESF) is an independent, non-governmental organisation, the members of
which are 79 national funding agencies, research-performing agencies, academies and learned societies from
30 countries.
The strength of ESF lies in its influential membership and in its ability to bring together the different domains of
European science in order to meet the challenges of the future.
Since its establishment in 1974, ESF, which has its headquarters in Strasbourg with offices in Brussels and
Ostend, has assembled a host of organisations that span all disciplines of science, to create a common platform
for cross-border cooperation in Europe.
ESF is dedicated to promote collaboration in scientific research, funding of research and science policy across
Europe. Through its activities and instruments ESF has made major contributions to science in a global context.
The ESF covers the following scientific domains:
• Humanities
• Life, Earth and Environmental Sciences
• Medical Sciences
• Physical and Engineering Sciences
• Social Sciences
• Marine Sciences
• Materials Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Polar Sciences
• Radio Astronomy
• Space Sciences
LEBEAU, Marc (ed.)

Arcane Interregional. Artefacts
(= ARCANE INTERREGIONAL II), Brepols, Turnhout, 2018
A4, sewn, 310 pages
Contents: Artefacts, Anthropomorphic Figurines, Animal Figurines, Inlays, Organic Materials, Metal Weapons,
Andirons, Stone Vessels, Model Vehicles, Semi-Precious Stones, Canaanean Blades, Bitumen, Beads, Chronology,
Stratigraphy, Trade, Periodisation, Interregional Studies, Archaeology, 3rd Millennium BCE, Early Bronze Age,
Early Anatolian, Early Levantine, Early Mesopotamian.
Areas: Eastern Mediterranean, Western Asia, Levant, Near East, Middle East, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Egypt,
Cyprus, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran.
© 2018, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior
permission of the publisher.
D/2018/0095/168
ISBN 978-2-503-54988-0
Printed on acid-free paper
Table of Contents
Foreword ix
By Marc Lebeau
1. Cypriot Anthropomorphic Figurines 1
By Diane Bolger
1.1. Introduction 1
1.2. Cypriot Anthropomorphs: An Abbreviated Typology 1
1.3. Chronological and Regional Overview 4
1.4. Interregional Connections 4
Bibliography6
2. Inlays 13
By Rita Dolce & Barbara Couturaud
2.1. Ancient Near Eastern Inlays: General Statements 13
2.2. The Inlays of Mari 21
Bibliography25
3. Organic Materials (Bone, Ivory, Shell) 27
By Hermann Genz
3.1. Introduction 27
3.2. Problems 27
3.3. Ivory 29
3.4. Decorated Bone Tubes 30
3.5. Scale Beams 32
3.6. Shells and Shell Inlays 33
3.7. Conclusions 34
Bibliography35
4. Metal Weapons 39
By Guillaume Gernez
4.2. Axes 41
4.3. Battle Adzes and Picks 43
4.4. Maceheads 50
4.5. Spearheads 55
4.6. Daggers 65
4.7. Arrowheads 69
4.8. Conclusion 71
Bibliography72
5. Andirons 77
By Mehmet Işıklı & Raphael Greenberg
5.1. Andirons of Eastern Anatolia 77
5.2. Andirons in the Levant 79
Bibliography81
v
Table of Contents
6. Animal Figurines 85
By Luca Peyronel & Alexander Pruß
6.2. Typology and Dating 87
6.3. Conclusions 93
Bibliography94
7. Dark Soft Stone Objects 107
By Holly Pittman
7.2. 3 Millennium Iranian Types
rd
109
7.3. Persian Gulf Dark Soft Stone Objects of the 3rd and Early 2nd Millennium 132
Bibliography136
8. Model Vehicles 173
By Alexander Pruß
8.2. Typology and Dating 175
8.3. Wheels 178
8.4. Conclusions 179
Bibliography180
9. Semi-Precious Stones 193
By Philippe Quenet
9.2. Lapis Lazuli 195
9.3. The Chalcedony Family 196
9.4. Turquoise 198
9.5. Summary 199
Bibliography200
10. Canaanean Blades 203
By Steven A. Rosen
10.2. Definitions: Typology and Technology 203
10.3. Function: Sickles Segments versus Threshing Teeth 206
10.4. Organisation of Production and Economics 207
10.5. Geography 210
10.6. Chronology 212
10.7. Discussion and Conclusions 213
Bibliography215
11. Anthropomorphic Terracotta Figurines 221
By Ferhan Sakal
11.2. Chronology 222
Bibliography229
12. Stone Vessels 245
By Karin Sowada
12.2. Stone Vessels as an Artefact: A Summary 245
vi
Table of Contents
12.3. Regional Evidence and Local Traditions 249

12.4. The Movement and Exchange of Stone Vessels 261
12.5. Chronological Implications in the Eastern Mediterranean 268
12.6. Conclusion 270
Bibliography271
13. Bitumen 277
By Thomas Van de Velde & Jacques Connan
13.2. Usage 277
13.3. Bitumen Trade 277
Bibliography281
14. Beads 283
By Zuzanna Wygnańska & Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer
14.2. Raw Materials and Beads from the First Half of the 3 Millennium
rd
(EM Phases I-II) in Mesopotamia and Western Iran 286

14.3. Beads from the Second Half of the 3 Millennium (EM Phases III–V)
rd
in Mesopotamia and Western Iran 287

14.4. Distinctive Bead Types in the 3rd Millennium in Mesopotamia and
Western Iran 288
14.5. Beads of the 3rd Millennium in the Levant 289
14.6. Stone Bead Technology 290
14.7. Mollusc Shell Beads 290
Bibliography292
Index of Place Names 295
vii
Foreword
Marc Lebeau
Four years after the publication of the first interregional volume of the ARCANE series — ARCANE
Interregional Vol. I: Ceramics — here is the second one, dedicated to the interregional study of a diverse range of
artefacts.
There is no need here to repeat the aims of the ARCANE Programme (Associated Regional Chronologies
for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean) and its innovative methodology, which have already
been summarised in the introduction of the first regional volume, on Jezirah.1 The Programme, funded by the
European Science Foundation, was officially launched in 2004 and preceded by preliminary steps beginning on
19 December 1998 in Istanbul. It aimed to synchronise the chronologies, and therefore the histories, of the vari-
ous areas comprising the ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean in the 3rd millennium BCE.
The ARCANE Programme was planned in three steps: regional level, supra-regional level and global synthe-
sis. The present volume constitutes the second publication of the interregional phase, and focuses on fourteen
topics of interregional significance (TIS). The TIS were identified during four interregional meetings held succes-
sively in Coimbra, Leiden, Durham and La Petite-Pierre in 2011.2
Twenty-two TIS were originally scheduled, including both artefacts and materials. However, it subsequently
became apparent that presenting both materials and general technology in the frame of the ARCANE inter-
regional volumes exceeded the original limits of the enterprise and it was thus decided to concentrate on the
artefacts. Owing to the significant delay of the regional phase, a few contributors were unable to deliver their
papers in due time. Rather than delaying this volume one or two additional years, it was decided to publish it as
it is currently, while acknowledging that contributions on metal vessels, metal tools, metal ornaments and pins,
composite figurines and weights would have been most welcome.
In keeping with the ARCANE methodology, most of the examples quoted in this book originate from archae-
ological contexts carefully selected for their stratigraphic quality. Many of those were chosen from among the
artefacts included in the ARCANE Database. We sincerely hope that this examination of the various categories
of objects used in the Ancient Near East and Eastern Mediterranean in the 3rd millennium BCE will contribute to
the refinement of our chronological estimates and assist in integrating them into a larger geographical framework.
Presented with this Foreword is the latest version of the ARCANE Periodisation and Cultural Horizon
Table (v. 5.4.6).
I would like to thank the Team Leaders, the Topic Coordinators and all the contributors to this interregional
volume, the publication of which was made possible by assistance from the European Science Foundation and
Brepols Publishers, in particular Chris Vanden Borre and Rosie Bonté.
I would also like to extend my sincere gratitude to Sarah Harrison and Martin Sauvage, who respectively acted
as English Editor and Cartographer.
Marc Lebeau
Brussels
26 July 2017
1
Lebeau, M. 2011, ‘Introduction’, in Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean:
Jezirah (ARCANE 1), ed. Lebeau, M. Turnhout: Brepols: 1–3.
Lebeau, M.; & de Miroschedji, P. 2014, ‘Foreword’, in ARCANE Interregional: Ceramics (ARCANE-IR I), ed. Lebeau,
2
M. Turnhout: Brepols: ix.
ix
Region Coastline / S. Syria Inland / N. Syria Region
CY WA CA SL CL NL ME UE JZ TG SM/CM WI
Cal. BC Cal. BC
a LC 5 LC 5 LC 5 LC 5 LC 5 L. Uruk EWI 0
3100 3100
ESL 3 b
(ECL 1) EME 1 ETG 1 a
EL I EJZ 0
3000 ESM 1 3000
(ENL 1) (EUE 0) a ECM 1
ESL 4 ECL 2 a
EM I ETG 2 b
ECY 1 EWA 1 ECA 1 EWI 1
EL II b
2900 2900
EA I
EME 2 EJZ 1 ESM 2 c
ETG 3
2800 b EUE 1 ECM 2 2800
a ECL 3 (ENL 2)
2700 2700
ESL 5
EM II a ESM 3
EJZ 2 ETG 4 ECM 3
EWA 2 EL III EWI 2
2600 ECY 2 EUE 2 2600
EA II ECA 2 Final b
b ECL 4 EME 3
ENL 3 a
?
2500 a ESM 4 2500
x
EUE 3 EJZ 3 ECM 4
EM III ETG 5 b EWI 3
M. Lebeau
2400 ENL 4 2400

b
a ECL 5
ECY 3 a EME 4 ESM 5
2300
EWA 3 a ETG 6 2300
ECM 5
EA III ECA 3 b ESL 6 ENL 5 EUE 4 EJZ 4 b
ETG 7 ESM 6
2200 2200
ECY 4
EL IV EM IV c
c
ECM 6
EWI 4

b
EME 5
c ECL 6 ETG 8
2100 2100

(ENL 6) ESM 7
ECY 5 EWA 4 ECA 4 EME 6 EUE 5 EJZ 5 ETG 9 EWI 5
EA IV EM V ECM 7
2000 2000
EA (Early Anatolian) – EL (Early Levantine) – EM (Early Mesopotamian)* Cultural Horizon Table**, v. 5.4.6
The regional phases or sub-phases reflect changes in the material culture (predominantly ceramics), and/or the level of urbanisation, and refer to the comparative stratigraphy of
chronological benchmarks, at a regional and inter-regional level. Use of the same colour denotes the existence of strong cultural links or parallel phenomena between neighbouring regions.
The absolute dates are based on the harmonised radiocarbon data.
E : Early, CY : Cyprus, WA : Western Anatolia, CA : Central Anatolia, SL : Southern Levant, CL : Central Levant, NL : Northern Levant, ME : Middle Euphrates, UE : Upper Euphrates,
JZ : Jezirah, TG : Tigridian Region, SM : Southern Mesopotamia, CM : Central Mesopotamia, WI : Western Iran.
* EMI (Early Mesopotamian/Iranian) for WI, ** EA, EL, EM & EMI are labels proposed by M. Lebeau and adopted by the ARCANE community at the Bern final meeting, on December 8-11, 2011.
12. Stone Vessels
Karin Sowada
WA EA
CY NL ME JZ TG
WI
CM
SL
EG SM
12.1. Introduction
The production of stone vessels has long antecedents in Western Asia. Originally crafted for food processing,
by the 3rd millennium their purpose had spread well beyond the strictly utilitarian. Key areas produced distinc-
tive shapes with characteristic stones, using manufacturing techniques that differed across the region. These traits
make stone vessels useful indicators of cultural, social and economic exchange activity, and assist with synchronis-
ing regional chronologies. Yet, as a class of evidence, they require cautious treatment. What follows is a summary
of stone vessels as an artefact class, an overview of material from various ARCANE regions, and a brief evaluation
of exchange patterns, with an emphasis on the Levant, as a basis for assessing the extent and nature of regional
interconnections and chronological synchronisms (Fig. 1).
12.2. Stone Vessels as an Artefact: A Summary

A stone vessel is made as a container with a hollowed cavity, thus differing from other stone objects. Variations
include models of full-size vessels, and platter or disk forms with or without an engaged stand. Stone vessels func-
tioned at different levels of ancient societies as, among other things, trade goods, elite gifts, tribute, cultic equip-
ment, utilitarian items, funerary articles, votive offerings, a store of wealth, and as items with inherent meaning.
The combination of vessel shape, the use of particular stones or minerals and manufacturing technique means
that, like pottery, even a body fragment without the diagnostic element of a rim, base or handle usually can be
identified.
Stone types used for vessel production fall into three main categories: igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic
rocks. There is a vast array of rock sub-types featuring different physical properties of colour, mineral composi-
tion, hardness, crystalline size, porosity and cleavage.1 In addition, stone vessels were manufactured from miner-
als — natural inorganic crystalline substances such as quartz with a singular chemical signature. Stone types are
an important diagnostic property, as certain varieties are exemplars of particular production zones and gained
popularity in different periods. For example, anorthosite gneiss or diorite gneiss (also called ‘Chephren diorite’
or ‘Chephren gneiss’), was favoured for Egyptian stone vessels from the late First Dynasty to late Sixth Dynasty.
Thereafter it was hardly used for this purpose, and is thus a hallmark of Egyptian 3rd millennium stone-working.
Workshops were dependent on access to raw materials, either obtained locally or imported from elsewhere.
Indeed, the exchange of raw stones, especially exotic varieties such as obsidian and lapis lazuli, has a long history in
Western Asia. Modern geological mapping provides a more accurate understanding of the topography, underlying
features and rock types from different regions. Laboratory-based techniques such as thin-section mineral petrog-
raphy, x-ray diffraction and elemental analysis enables micro-identification of stones used by ancient craftsmen.
The chemical ‘fingerprint’ of a stone can be matched to regional geological profiles and ground survey results to
1
Mineral hardness is measured against the standard Mohs hardness scale of 1 to 10, with 1 representing talc and diamond at
10. Soft sedimentary and metamorphic stones of <Mohs 2.5–3 (can be scratched with a coin) are regarded as ‘softstone’ types;
Mohs 3–7 are regarded as moderate to hard; hard minerals and igneous rocks range from Mohs 5–7: Sparks 2007: 155–70.
245
20° 25° 30° 35° 40° 45° 50° 55° 60° 65° 70° 75° 80°
ARCANE ESF Programme

Stone vessels (Karin Sowada) 0 100 200 km
Vo
© Martin Sauvage & ARCANE ESF Programme
lga
C ARAL 45°
40° BLACK SEA A
U SEA
C Sy
C
A S r
D
U
Troy S
ar
i
AS
a
Thermi
P
An atolia
Beycesultan
IAN
The
A
Aphrodisias
mu
Cyclades RUS
TAU 40°
Da
35°
r
Tarsus T U R K E S T A N i
a
SEA
M
E T. Banat
D Crete Vasilia T. Afis T. Beydar
IT Cyprus Ugarit PA M I R
Ebla T. Brak Telul eth-Thalathat
ER Kissonerga E
R AN T. Arqa Hama T. Bi’a Margiana Bactria
Assur
L B
EAN Byblos Qatna O U R Z
SEA Kamid el-Loz MariE
Beth Yerah up Badakhshan H
T. Mevorakh hr U S 35°
T. esh-Shuneh at Khafajeh K
30° Ai W. Hammeh T. Agrab
Z
es
T. Yarmouth A U
Buto T. Erani Jericho
Bab edh-Dhra Ti gris G N D
Arad H I
Merimde Abusir
Giza Nippur
R
Saqqara El-Omari W. Feinan/W. Fidan
S Y R O - Uruk
O
Sinai
S
Ur
A R A B I C
EASTERN P E N J A B

P
WESTERN D E S E R T 30°
DESERT
25° DESERT
ER

S
Abydos
Tepe Yahya
IA
s
Elephantine
N G
U In
du
meters Tarut Island
RED
LF
4000
3000
SE
2000
25°
A
1000 ile
N
500 OM
20° Nubia
200
AN
GULF
0 Omani
Southern Arabia
Peninsula
30° 35° 40° 45° 50° 55° 60° 65° 70° 75°
Fig. 1: Map of Western Asia, showing sites mentioned in the text.

Stone Vessels
Fig. 2: Old Kingdom tomb scene from Saqqara depicting a stone vessel workshop
(courtesy Peter Der Manuelian).
identify local sources and possible manufacturing centres, thus tracking the movement of vessels and raw materi-
als.2 That said, much of this type of analytical work remains to be done across the region.
Only a few workshops or manufacturing sites have been discovered. At Tepe Yahya, in south-eastern Iran, a
softstone chlorite vessel workshop was discovered in the 1970s. Other evidence from Egypt, Iran and the Gulf
helps construct the organisation and processes of vessel manufacture. Vessels were made by carving, chiselling,
drilling/boring, pecking, flaking, abrasion or grinding, or by combinations of these methods. Craftsmen were
constrained by technological capacity, as hard stones (>Mohs 5) such as diorite required considerable time and
skill, as well as specialised tools, to work. Examination of stone vessels, which often bear evidence of how they were
made, combined with experimental archaeology assists with identifying manufacturing techniques. In Egypt,
wall scenes from tombs, archaeological evidence and modern ethnographic parallels, reveal a high degree of craft
specialisation and technical skill. An Old Kingdom tomb relief from Saqqara dating to the Fifth or Sixth Dynasty
depicts a workshop scene (Fig. 2). Men work on vessels in different stages of completion. Simply put, vessel ‘blanks’
were cut from raw stone blocks before the exterior was shaped with tools and smoothed. The interior cavity was
then drilled and bored to shape. Variations of a long hand-held tool with a copper or stone drill bit were commonly
employed: it required the use of a twisting action, often aided by sand as an abrasive agent.3 The exterior surface
was usually polished to a dull or high sheen. With variations in the craftsmen’s toolkit, this basic method changed
little over the centuries. Some stone vessel workshops in rural Egypt today still use the basis of this method to
make tourist souvenirs (Fig. 3.1–4).
Like pottery, stone vessels (or fragments thereof) can remain in the archaeological record for a long time. They
are often found out-of-context, owing to deliberate retention, recycling or preservation as heirlooms or for the
value of the stone itself. This is indicated by the presence of such objects in deposits later than the period during
which the type was produced. In this case, a stone vessel may only assist with a terminus date rather than enabling
relative correlations.
The question of retention, curation, exchange and robbing of older stone vessels is an issue affecting many
Bronze Age sites. For example, in the 3rd millennium strata of Byblos and Ebla, Egyptian Fourth and Sixth
Dynasty stone vessels bearing royal names in hieroglyphs were found together (Fig. 11.6–7).4 A single deposit
from elite Building XXV at Byblos also contained a travertine bowl of Egyptian Early Dynastic date along with
later Old Kingdom material, revealing the retention of stone vessels over a long time, by either the Egyptians or
the final owners.5 Even in Egypt, old stone vessels, particularly those bearing royal names, possessed an heirloom
value and were retained in temple magazines or reinterred in royal burials for the purpose of dynastic validation.6
The retention phenomenon is known in other periods. Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom stone vessels (or
fragments) have appeared in Middle and Late Bronze Age Levantine contexts. Perhaps the best-known example
are the Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom vessels in Tomb VII and the Royal Tomb from 2nd millennium Qatna
2
Aston et al. 2000; Sparks 2007: 152; Köster 2014: 227–29; Milevski 2011: 109–13 and references.
The process of making stone vessels in Egypt is detailed by Stocks 2003: 139–68. On the wider region, see Stocks 1993; Sparks
3
2007: 178–202; Bevan 2007: 40–61.

4
Byblos – Dunand 1958: 929, Figs 1044–45, discussed in Saghieh 1983 and Bevan 2007; Ebla – Scandone Matthiae 1979 and
discussed in many subsequent papers. Both sites are discussed in, for example, Sparks 2003; Bevan 2007; Sowada 2009; Biga
2010.
5
Sowada 2009: 134, Fig. 28, [163c] (Early Dynastic bowl).
6
Reisner 1931a: 179–80, 199–201; Vlčková 2006: 91, Sowada 2009: 213–14.
247
K. Sowada
1 2
3 4
Fig. 3: A stone vessel-making workshop near modern Luxor, Upper Egypt (photos by author).
1. The stone worker carves the rough shape from a raw stone block. 2. The shape is embedded in
the ground to drill the interior with a tool. 3. Additional shaping and smoothing off the rough
edges of the exterior. 4. Polishing the exterior with a stone.
in Syria.7 Out-of-context stone Egyptian vessels come from Ugarit/Ras Shamra, Kamid el-Loz, Tel Mevorakh and
other Levantine sites.8 Various explanations for their appearance have been offered, of which availability owing
to later tomb-robbing is the most plausible.9 As such, stone vessels are of value in chronological discussions only
when the date of manufacture of the vessel is broadly coeval with the phase of the archaeological stratum in which
it is found.
A second issue involves the correct identification or inadequate publication of stone types, a problem largely
affecting material from older excavations. Much confusion has resulted from use of the term ‘alabaster’ to describe
two geologically distinct but related stones: gypsum and the harder travertine (Moh’s 3–4).10 The description of
related chlorite schist stones often also differ: it is variously known as soapstone, serpentine, chlorite, chloritite,
steatite or talc.11 As noted above, better understanding of local stone sources combined with scientific techniques
of analysis produces greater clarity around the identification of stones and the location of ancient quarries, produc-
tion centres and exchange routes.
7
Ahrens 2015.
8
Ahrens 2012; Sparks 2007: 50–52, Fig. 14; Sowada 2009: 231.
9
Lacovara 1991, citing William Y. Adams; Bevan 2007: 124–25.
10
Aston 1994: 1–2, 43, 48–51; Aston et al. 2000: 59–60; Köster 2014: 225–26. Köster suggests the term ‘calcite-gypsum’ and
‘calcite-alabaster’ to separate the two stones.
11
Moorey 1994: 37.
248
Stone Vessels
12.3. Regional Evidence and Local Traditions

In the eastern Mediterranean, Egypt was the most dominant manufacturing centre: its vessels were widely
exchanged and are found on a number of Levantine sites. Other major production centres were Crete, the Cyclades,
and the region of Southern Mesopotamia, Iran and the Gulf. Mesopotamian traditions for the most part devel-
oped separately from those of Egypt and the Aegean. In these three regions, the production of fine stone vessels
appeared alongside the emergence of social complexity, high-level craft specialisation and technological capacity.
The study of 3rd millennium stone vessels is uneven. Owing to their interment in elite monuments, Egyptian
stone vessels have been the subject of intense study for over 100 years. Comprehensive works on Crete and
Mesopotamia include those of Warren (1969), Casanova (1991) and Moorey (1994), in addition to site-specific
studies. A detailed paper by H. Pittmann focusing on the latter is included in the present volume. Since de
Miroschedji (1973), carved chlorite vessels from Iran and the Gulf are likewise the subject of many publications.
A. Bevan (2007) examined basic regional types, manufacturing traditions, value, meaning and exchange of stone
vessels in the eastern Mediterranean during the 3rd millennium as part of a wider study.12 Yet where a local indus-
try was non-existent or low-scale, material is less-well understood and published.
Stone mortars for food production are known in many regions, and are recorded in modest quantities in
ARCANE Inventories. Many are roughly shaped and often come from domestic contexts. Yet mortars of quality
workmanship may have had an heirloom value, and some acquired a ritual or funerary significance transcending
the utilitarian (e.g. ADB TG001_O400 from Assur, used as a pot burial). As demonstrated in the SL (see below),
basalts and other igneous rocks used in mortar production were exchanged as a raw material; it is possible that
high-quality finished products were traded too. For the most part stone mortars are not considered in detail here
owing to their general function as a tool rather than a container.
12.3.1 Western Anatolia and Cyprus

Although it had long antecedents, by the 3rd millennium there appears to have been very little stone vessel
production in Anatolia and Cyprus, even in softer stones. This trend is attributed to a preference for metal vessels.
In WA, a small quantity of Early Cycladic marble vessels imported from the Cyclades are found, but little local
production is hitherto known. Scattered finds come from sites such as Troy, Thermi, Aphrodisias, and Tarsus, but
even at the latter, little is found except for several crudely-made local bowls and fragments of fine vessels of likely
imported origin, dated across the EWA 1–3 period.13 At Beycesultan, two shallow palm-sized bowls ‘of fine work-
manship’ possibly of marble, with rock crystal pestles for grinding substances came from the Level XVIIb temple
(EWA 1), suggesting an association with ritual activities (ADB WA027_O015 and WA027_O017, Fig. 4.1).14
From CY, a limited locally-made ground stone vessel repertoire is known. Evidence reveals a decline in produc-
tion over the 3rd millennium, with material clustered in the ECY 1–3 eras, and few known for the ECY 4–5.15 The
main types are bowls, dishes and basins associated with food processing (e.g. ADB CY008_O037), along with
lids and stoppers. A bowl from Kissonerga-Mosphilia (ADB CY004_O011, ECY 1) was possibly a prestige item
used in a ritual feast (Fig. 4.2).16 Three unusual vessels are known from a Philia culture tomb at Vasilia-Kafkallia/
Kilistra Tomb 103, dated to the ECY 3. The ‘alabaster’ (calcite or banded gypsum?) bowl (ADB CY017_O001)
and jug (also possibly gypsum, ADB CY017_O002) are likely imported, but would require scientific analysis to
confirm the stone source (Fig. 4.3–4).17
12.3.2 Central and Northern Levant

Stone vessel production in the NL was relatively limited, despite highly developed stone-based prestige craft
industries involving inlay, glyptic art, tool manufacture and statuary. Access to superlative resources of silver,
Sparks 2007 deals with the 2nd millennium but raises issues relevant to the study of the Early Bronze Age. I am indebted to Dr
12
Andrew Bevan for permission to reproduce illustrations published in his important book. Thanks are also due to Dr Bevan and
Dr Stan Hendrickx for their comments on an early draft of this paper.
13
Goldman 1956: 265, 277, Fig. 421.154–56, 159–62; see also Bevan 2007: 253, n. 17.
14
Summarised in Bevan 2007: 79–80, n. 17. The Beycesultan bowls are variously described as made of ‘marble’, ‘alabaster’ and
‘limestone’, see Lloyd and Mellaart 1962: 35, 276, Pl. XXXII:7–8; Mellaart 1965: 18. Registration numbers cited in this paper
refer to open-access ARCANE Database (ADB) Object Numbers.
A preference for ceramics in the later EC may have fuelled this. No ECY 4–5 vessels are recorded in the ARCANE Database,
15
but see McCartney 2013: 301–03, 307–08.

16
McCartney 2013: 301–03, Fig. 8.4.
Dikaios and Stewart 1962: 274, Fig. 104.8–9; Sowada 2009: 146–47, Fig. 33. A smaller bowl of the same stone was found
17
in fragments: Merrillees 2003. Bevan suggests origins in Anatolia, Mesopotamia or even manufacture from local gypsum; see
Bevan 2007: 79–80, n. 16; Bevan 2012.
249
K. Sowada
Fig. 4: Western Anatolia and Cyprus. 1. Marble bowls with pestles, Temple Level XVIIb, Beycesultan
(WA027_O015, WA027_O017; © Courtesy British Institute at Ankara). 2. Stone bowl from
Kissonerga-Mosphilia (Reg. KM 1494; CY004_O011; McCartney 2013: Fig. 8.4). 3. Calcite-gypsum (?)
bowl, Vasilia Tomb 103 (Reg. 103.3; CY017_O0001). 4. Calcite-gypsum (?) jug, Vasilia Tomb 103
(Reg. 103.4; CY017_O002; after Dikaios and Stewart 1962: Fig. 104.8 and 9).
tin-bronze, copper and gold fuelled a preference for metalware as a store of wealth, a means of exchange and for
elite display.18 The relative paucity of material means that it has been little studied over the years.
For the most part, vessels fall into three main groups. They are small in size and were possibly made for offer-
ings or ointments. A small suite of chlorite or steatite thick-walled hemispherical bowls with or without a lid
are known from Byblos, featuring a small disk base and carved triangles or chevrons on the flat rim and/or the
exterior (Fig. 5.1–2). Such bowls were found with Egyptian Old Kingdom stone vessels in Building XXV (Byblos
18
Akkermans and Schwartz 2003: 270–71.
250
Stone Vessels
Fig. 5: Softstone vessels from the Central and Northern Levant. 1. Bowl, chlorite or steatite,
Byblos (after Bevan 2007: Fig. 5.7b). 2. Bowl, chlorite or steatite, Byblos (after Bevan 2007: Fig. 5.7a).
3. White softstone bowl, Hama (after Pinnock 1981: Fig. B3c606). 4. White limestone (?) bowl, Ebla
(after Bevan 2007: Fig. 5.7.l). 5. White limestone (?) bowl, Ebla (Reg. TM.75.G.491; NL001_O023;
after Pinnock 1981: Fig. B4). 6. Calcite/alabaster bowl, Ebla (after Pinnock 1981: Fig. B5).
7. ‘Greyish limestone’ bowl, Ebla (after Marchetti and Nigro 1995: Fig. 10).
Phase KIV).19 A second bowl type known from Byblos and Hama features red and white inlay on the surface.20
These softstone vessels recall material originating in workshops from ‘the Omani Peninsula, south-central Iran,
Bevan 2007: 78–79. He also highlights a similar likely imported vessel from Abydos in Egypt (253, n. 14). Fragments of two
19
hole-mouth jars with incised chevrons around the rim were also found at Byblos Phase KIV. They do not conform to Egyptian
types and may be from Mesopotamia; see Sowada 2009: 136–37.
20
Bevan 2007: 79, Fig. 5.7, g and h.
251
K. Sowada
and as far east as Bactria-Margiana … where suitable ophiolithic deposits of chloritite/steatite exist’.21 The ques-
tion of where the CL/NL vessels were produced is not settled, but the possibility that they belong to a north
Levantine industry is strengthened by the parallel use of decorative chevrons and triangles on Syrian ME ceramic
production.22 Moreover, a small bowl from Mari features a chevron pattern on the rim, revealing the shared nature
of this motif across a wider region (Fig. 7.1).23
A related suite of small bowls made of a ‘soft white stone’, possibly travertine, banded gypsum and limestone, is
known from Hama (Fig. 5.3), Byblos, and Ebla. They feature similar decorative schemes to the bowls noted above.
Again, they could be a local product, but links with non-local softstone production is possible. At Ebla, a small
corpus was found in the Palace G complex (Fig. 5.4–5).24 Small numbers of other vessel types include hemispheri-
cal cups or bowls with grooved rims made from ‘greyish limestone’ found in Ebla Palace G and Building P4 dat-
ing to the ENL 4 (EB IVA) phase (Fig. 5.6–7).25 Building P4 is regarded as a production zone for elite crafts and
foodstuff preparation associated with public activities; such vessels may be archaising.26
12.3.3 Middle Euphrates and Jezirah

A preference for metalware and other forms of status display means that there are few stone vessels known
from across the ME. Extant material has been little studied and published. Tell Banat Tomb 7 (EME 3–4) yielded
decayed ‘alabaster’ vessels in addition to a small bowl with triangular cut-outs for inlay (Fig. 6.1).27 The bowl is
small — only 8.4 cm across the rim — suggesting a vessel held in the palm for preparing pigments, incense or
a small offering. The decorative scheme recalls the stone bowl from Byblos (Fig. 5.1); ME pottery with painted
triangles; an EJZ 3 pottery type with white inlaid or impressed triangles; and inlaid Transcaucasian wares from
Tell Brak.28
From the JZ, local stone vessel production is hard to characterise, with more research and publication needed
to fully understand the nature and spread of stone vessels in the region. Fine stone vessels appear with greater
frequency in the second half of the 3rd millennium, concomitant with increasing levels of social complexity and
the later spread of the Akkadian empire. During this period, local industries may have developed at larger centres
using limestone and alabaster-calcite. For example, at Tell Brak, a significant number of vessels are known from the
EJZ 3 and later.29 Some are imported, such as chlorite vessels, and objects associated with the spread of Akkadian
cultural and political identity.30 Other vessels speak of regional production, such as rectangular stone troughs
or trays of ‘local alabaster’ from Tell Brak (EJZ 3, ADB JZ001_O015, Fig. 6.2),31 and the Tell Beydar Northern
Building, identified as a ceremonial complex, dating to EJZ 3a (ADB JZ002_O836, Fig. 6.3). Demonstrating the
regional spread of such vessels, an example comes from Telul eth-Thalathat (ADB TG002_O019); a related type
from Mari from the ECM 4 votive deposit of Ninhursag bore an animal head on one side (ADB CM005_O135;
Fig. 7.2).32
12.3.4 Central and Southern Mesopotamia

There is a long tradition of prehistoric utilitarian stone vessel production in Mesopotamia. By the mid-late
Urukian era of the 4th millennium a rich stone vessel working tradition was well-established. Craftsmen enjoyed
21
Bevan 2007: 78; see also Potts 1989; Potts 2003a.
For example, see incised chevrons and cross-hatching on the rim of bowls in Sconzo 2015: 115, Pl. 2:5–7 (EME 2); below the
22
rim: 117, Pl. 5:1 (EME 2b). See also the bowl from Tell Banat, below.
23
Pinnock 1981: 67–68, Fig. 20.
24
Bevan 2007: 79.
25
Pinnock 1981; Marchetti and Nigro 1995–1996: 14, Fig. 10.
26
Marchetti and Nigro 1995–1996: 19–20; Pinnock 1981: 70–71.
27
Aruz 2003: 184.
Sconzo 2015: 125, Pl. 13:9 (EME 3): Pl. 20:10; Rova 2011: 74, no. 79, Pl. 12:14–15. Painted friezes of triangles on the
28
upper body and rim is a recurring motif on earlier EJZ pottery. See examples from EJZ 0–2 in Rova 2011: Pl. 1:18; Pl. 2:9, 17;
Pl. 3:8–10, 12. For Transcaucasian pottery with white inlay from Tell Brak, see Oates et al. 2001: Fig. 400.228–40.
29
Oates et al. 2001: 263–65; little was found in preceding levels at the site — compare Matthews 2003.
30
Oates et al. 2001: 264–65; Wossink 2009: 30.
Oates et al. 2001: 263–64. A further unusual bowl from a ritual deposit at Brak featured a carved frieze of rosettes on
31
the exterior but the excavators could not determine if it was made of a soft stone or ceramic: Oates et al. 2001: 263 (ADB
JZ001_O092).
32
Beyer and Jean-Marie 2007: 84, Fig. 6.14:55.
252
Stone Vessels
1 2
3
Fig. 6: Stone vessels from the Middle Euphrates and Jezirah. 1. Stone bowl, Tell Banat Tomb 7 Diam. rim 8.4 cm
(Reg. TB193.95; Aruz 2003: 184; image provided by The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York,
Thomas J. Watson Library). 2. Limestone trough, Tell Brak (Reg. 396 [TB 3032]; JZ001_O015).
3. White stone trough, Tell Beydar (Reg. 61903-M-1; JZ002_O836).
access to a wide range of igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary stones and minerals, including prized semi-
precious varieties such as lapis lazuli.33 Decorated calcite bowls and high jars featured carved relief, of which the
Warka Vase (Uruk IV-III, c. 3000 BC, ESM 1 period), represents a high point in narrative art of the period.34
In his seminal work, P. R. S. Moorey outlines the importance of stone vessels in the material culture of the
region not just for domestic purposes but as temple votives and equipment, for funerary use and as valued com-
modities.35 The corpus is vast and while specialist studies have been published, much research remains to be done.
In SM, local stone sources were limited to light-coloured limestone and related types such as calcite/travertine
and gypsum, with darker, harder stones coming from further afield in mountainous regions to the east, north and
south.36 Various production centres were also located outside the region, with south-eastern Iran, Bactria and the
Gulf generating vessels for local use and a vibrant international exchange. In the absence of fulsome geological
data pinpointing stone sources, inscriptions on certain vessel types have helped track their origin and movement
in Mesopotamia as trade items or war booty.37
33
Moorey 1994: 23.
34
http://oi-archive.uchicago.edu/OI/IRAQ/dbfiles/objects/14.htm accessed 14 March 2017.
35
Moorey 1994: 36.
36
Potts 1989: 123. The precise origin of many stone types is still not known with certainty. According to Moorey (1994: 43)
funerary sequences from Ur assist in tracking the movement and use of stone types used for vessels through much of the 3rd mil-
lennium. The discovery of extraction and distribution zones for hard and soft stones in the Kerman Province of Iran may prove
significant: http://mpc-journal.org/blog/2015/12/13/german-iranian-team-uncovers-ancient-trade-routes/ accessed 16 May
2017. Diorite used in Mesopotamian statuary was sourced in Oman (ancient Magan): Potts 2003b: 307.
37
Potts 1989.
253
K. Sowada
Fig. 7: Stone vessels from Central and Southern Mesopotamia. 1. White stone bowl, Mari (after Margueron 2004: 289,
Fig. 275.1). 2. Gypsum-alabaster (?) trough, Mari (Reg. IX B 46 SE 76; CM005_O135).
3. Calcite-alabaster vessels, Royal Cemetery of Ur (Cylinder jar Inv. 30-12-698; Courtesy of Penn Museum,
image #152201). 4. Calcite libation vessel, Ur, L. 15cm (Inv. B17087, Courtesy of Penn Museum, image #152069).
5. Gypsum-alabaster (?) jar, Mari (Reg. IX B 46 SE 63; CM005_O099). 6. Calcite bowl with votive inscription,
Inana Temple Level VII, Nippur, H. 7.1cm (Reg. 59.41.11, Metropolitan Museum of Art, creativecommons.org/
publicdomain/zero/1.0/ accessed 20/05/2017). 7. Calcite bowl with war booty inscription of King Rimush,
Ur, H. 13.6cm (Potts 1989: Fig. 1). 8. Steatite beaker with three scorpions in relief, Ur, H. 3.6cm (Inv. B16226,
Courtesy of Penn Museum, image #234347a).
254
Stone Vessels
In the ESM/ECM 2–3 (Sumerian Early Dynastic I-II) period, gypsum and limestone were used for specific
shapes such as plain lamps, tall vases and pouring bowls. Such vessels were widely available even for modest buri-
als.38 During the ESM/ECM 3 period, heavily sculpted cups, bowls, vases and stands featured figurative scenes
including people and animals, with a suite known from the temple at Tell Agrab in the Diyala.39 By the ESM/
ECM 4 (Early Dynastic IIIa and b), finds from the Royal Cemetery at Ur represent a high point in local stone ves-
sel production. Some vessels also were imported from Iran and further afield.40 Banded calcite, limestone, diorite
and steatite were used, in addition to other stones, including lapis lazuli. Simple shapes included cylindrical jars,
flaring and concave sided bowls and varieties of necked jars (Fig. 7.3).41 More elaborate types from this era and later
included vessels in the shape of shells, imitations of metal vessels, bowls, inlaid containers and ornamental ves-
sels featuring motifs in the round and in high relief (Fig. 7.4).42 In the CM, the Ninhursag votive deposit at Mari
yielded 60 vessels (ECM 4), including unique types (Fig. 7.2) and others with links to SM (Fig. 7.5).43
Further hallmarks of mid-late 3rd millennium production are heavily banded calcite/travertine and steatite
vessels bearing incised inscriptions.44 Shapes featuring inscriptions are often open forms such as flaring bowls,
straight-sided beakers and cylindrical jars, with the occasional closed shape.45 Vessels with dedicatory inscriptions
to deities were offered as temple votives by men and women and are known from Sumerian sites such as Ur and
Nippur (Fig. 7.6). Some 25 stone vessels from Nippur Inanna Temple Level VIIIB (dated to the ED IIIA = ESM/
ECM 4a) bore such inscriptions.46 Royal dedicatory inscriptions are also known. The tradition of incising inscrip-
tions onto vessels continued into the Akkadian period (ESM/ECM 5–6) and later, both as temple votives and
proclaiming royal war booty (Fig. 7.7).47 Several vessels bearing the name of King Rimush were found at the Tell
Brak Naram-Sin Palace. They are regarded as heirlooms, once again demonstrating the difficulty of employing
stone vessels in chronological debates.48
The much-discussed chlorite (a dark green, grey or black softstone also known as steatite, soapstone or ser-
pentine) vessels are a further hallmark of 3rd millennium material culture in the region. While debate continues
regarding the first appearance of the type, a range in the second half of the 3rd millennium is now favoured.49
Chlorite vessels are found in cemeteries, temples, domestic and palace/elite deposits. These vessels were widely
exchanged through Western Asia, from the Indus Valley to far as Mari, and from there may have influenced local
softstone vessel production that spread to the Northern Levant.50 A workshop discovered at Tepe Yahya Phase
IVB1, in south-eastern Iran, indicates developed craft processes involving hollowing, carving and decoration of
vessels.51 Like Tarut Island in the Gulf, Tepe Yahya was one of several production centres from which vessels cir-
culated widely.52
P. de Miroschedji divided the corpus into the série ancienne (also known as the ‘Figurative’ or ‘Intercultural
Style’), with affinities to early Elamite traditions (c. 2600–2200 BC), and série récente (c. 2300–2200 BC).53
Intercultural Style vessels featured a wide variety of decorated and undecorated shapes, with globular storage
38
Potts 1989: 147.
39
Evans 2012: 160–66.
40
Zettler 1998: 149–50.
Moorey 1994: 45. For a lapis lazuli vessel from the Royal Cemetery, see https://www.penn.museum/collections/object/9490
41
accessed 15 March 2016.

42
For example, Evans 2016: Fig. 4 from Level VIIB, Inana Temple, Nippur.
43
Margueron 2004: 111–12; Beyer and Jean-Marie 2007.
44
Potts dated the earliest inscribed vessels to the Early Dynastic II period (ESM 3); see Potts 1989: 125.
45
Potts 1989: 149–58. See also Evans 2016.
46
Potts 1989; Moorey 1994: 45; Evans 2016: 170.
Potts 1989. Such vessels spread widely through the Akkadian Empire — for an inscribed fragment found at EME Tuttul (Tell
47
Bi’a), see Marchesi 2015: 424–25, Pl. 2.

48
Wossink 2009: 30.
49
For a summary of the debate, see Vidale 2015: 17–18.
50
Kohl 1975; Aruz 2003.
51
Local stone sources were also identified: Kohl 1975.
52
Bevan 2007: 174.
53
de Miroschedji 1973; Kohl 1975; Moorey 1994: 47. For recent references, see the bibliography in Vidale 2015.
255
K. Sowada
jars, cylindrical bowls, beakers, and conical jars the primary types.54 Decorative schemes showed a remarkable
range of motifs incised or in raised relief, from geometric patterns and architectural designs to highly figurative
scenes featuring densely packed human figures, flora and fauna, with contrasting pigment inlay sometimes used
to enhance visual impact (Fig. 7.8). While the type has considerable stylistic variation, detailed study has revealed
loose geographical patterns in the use of stone sub-types, shapes and decorative elements.55 Any contents are not
known with certainty, suggesting vessels valued in their own right.56 The carved decoration is linked to narrative
iconography of myths from the wider region.57
The movement of chlorite vessels continued after the Akkadian conquests. Vessels of the série récente genre
feature new shapes such as flasks with a square base and hemispherical bowls, with simpler linear and circular
decorative schemes.58 Distinctive traditions from Iran and Central Asia existed alongside manufacturing centres
in the Gulf and Oman Peninsula.59
12.3.5 Southern Levant

Ground stone mortars from the Epipalaeolithic site of Wadi Hammeh demonstrate the long history of stone
vessel manufacture in the SL.60 By the 4th millennium, the production and exchange of ground stone vessels was
well-developed. The Early Bronze Age (ESL 1–3) stone vessel industry is rooted in the Chalcolithic era, but with
some morphological distinctions. Basalt was the primary material used for a narrow repertoire of shapes, with
vessels likely made close to basalt outcrops located in the southern Galilee area, east of the Dead Sea, and the
Wadi Feinan.61 The character of the industry — use of a single stone type, a relatively narrow shape range, broad
geographical and flat social distribution patterns — is typical of craft industries belonging to ‘less stratified agri-
cultural communities’.62
E. Braun (1990) and A. Bevan (2007) identified four basic vessel types (Fig. 8) with concomitant subtypes,
which existed alongside other highly localised shapes. The most common is a concave-sided flaring bowl with a
flat base (Fig. 8.1); a rarer related type has a handle and decorative ridge below the rim (Fig. 8.2). A third type is
a square-based flaring bowl with four vertical handles (Fig. 8.3). Much rarer are knobbed bowls on an engaged
fenestrated stand, similar to examples in Grey Burnished Ware (Fig. 8.4).63 Basalt vessels are found across the
region in tombs and settlements, from Tell es-Shuneh in the north to Bab edh-Dhra and Wadi Fidan in the south,
and at many sites in northern and southern Israel such as Jericho, Tel Erani and Beth Yerah.64 Like softstone vessel
traditions in northern Syria, these items may have spread along routes associated with metal exchange.65 South
Levantine basalt bowls were occasionally exchanged over longer distances, with a hemispherical knobbed ESL 3
example found in a Naqada IIIB tomb in the north-eastern Egyptian Delta.66 Alongside bowl types, the produc-
tion of EB basalt mortars continued the age-old manufacture of such vessels in the SL (SL001_O016, Fig. 8.5).
Basalt vessels continue to be found across the region during the ESL period, especially simple bowls; other
types such as handled vessels are also known into the ESL 5. Alongside this, small-scale production of mostly
rough limestone bowls appears in the late ESL 3b–ESL 4, typified by material from Beth Yerah, Bab edh-Dhra and
54
Moorey 1994: 47.
55
Moorey 1994: 48.
56
Limited evidence exists for lead oxide and perfumed oils: Moorey 1994: 47, 50, citing Lamberg-Karlovsky and de Miroschedji.
57
Vidale 2015.
58
Moorey 1994: 49.
59
Potts 2003a: 86.
60
Edwards 2013: 311, Fig. 12.45–47; Bevan 2007: 75.
Milevski 2011: 108–13. Phosphorite from the Transjordan is similar to basalt and was used for vessels during the Chalcolithic
61
era; see Gilead and Goren 1989: 275. Use of this stone may have continued into the ESL.
62
Bevan 2012. It is likely that production and distribution was controlled by communities close to stone sources.
63
Braun 1990; Goren 1991; Gilead and Goren 1989; Bevan 2007: 75.
Braun 1990: 91–93; Greenberg 2014: 194–95. Greenberg (p. 197) suggests ‘some symbolic content’ was invested in handled
64
bowls by virtue of the effort involved in their manufacture.

65
Bevan 2007: 78.
66
El-Baghdadi 2008: 1152–53, Fig. 2. It is unknown if this example was re-modelled in ancient times to remove a stand.
256
Stone Vessels
Fig. 8: Basalt vessel types from the Southern Levant, ESL 1–3. 1. Flaring bowl (after Braun 1990: Fig. 2.9). 2. Flaring bowl with
handle, type known from Bab edh-Dhra (after Bevan 2007: 218, L2). 3. Bowl with four handles (after Braun 1990: Fig. 3.2).
4. Pedestal knobbed bowl (after Braun 1990: Fig. 4.3A). 5. Bi-conical basalt mortar, Tell Abu al-Kharaz, ESL 3b (SL001_O016;
Fischer 2008: Fig. 119).
257
K. Sowada
Arad.67 Two enigmatic limestone bowl fragments from ESL 4 Arad (Stratum II) are too finely worked to be local
and may be Egyptian. Egyptian imports are found at other sites including Tel Yarmuth, Ai and Bab edh-Dhra.68
12.3.6 Egypt
Stone vessels belong to a distinctive cultural tradition that emerged in the early 4th millennium.69 By the
Naqada II period (c. 3500–3350 BC) the manufacture of stone vessels was well-developed, and it continued as a
hallmark of Egyptian material culture through the Dynastic age.70 Stone vessels had many uses including cultic
items, as funerary offerings and containers, votive offerings, commodities, gifts, personal items, commemorative
objects and tableware. The material, shape and production technique mean that 3rd millennium Egyptian stone
vessels are easily identified in the Levantine archaeological record. Some types have a long date range, so morpho-
logical subtleties and the stones used assist in dating.71
Abundant varieties of stones and exotic minerals were obtained for their manufacture from the Eastern and
Western Deserts, Nubia and the Sinai.72 Sources of some stones were within close reach of Nile Valley commu-
nities, thus ensuring an ongoing supply for craftsmen that may not have relied on official mining expeditions.
A small number of other stones, such as lapis lazuli and obsidian, were traded through long-range exchange mech-
anisms. From the early 4th millennium, lapis lazuli arrived in Egypt through the Levant;73 obsidian was obtained
from the region of Ethiopia and Southern Arabia, and from Anatolia via the Levantine coast.74 Both were used for
limited periods for making small stone vessels.75
Stone vessel production in the 3rd millennium continued the traditions of the previous era. Funerary remains
attest to the high point of production attained during the Dynasty 0–First Dynasty, coeval with the emergent
Egyptian state. Fuelled by elites seeking exotic containers for luxury substances, and as a means of status dis-
play, many thousands of fragments have been found at Abydos alone from the First Dynasty.76 The period is also
marked by workshop innovation through shape experimentation using a greater repertoire of stones, especially
monochrome and coloured igneous varieties such as andesite porphyry, quartz and green volcanic tuff.77 Evidence
largely comes from elite funerary assemblages, but even graves of lower officials often contained stone vessels of
travertine or limestone. A very wide range of shapes was produced: basic key types include (but are not limited to)
heavy squat jars, cylindrical jars and bowls with a recurved rim, the latter often featuring a depression or incised
circle in the interior base (Fig. 9.1a–c).78
These traditions continue in the Second Dynasty, but, as A. Bevan notes, there is a noticeable change in pro-
duction values, possibly prompted by the emerging prestige of metalware.79 In the Third and Fourth Dynasty,
the general shapes of earlier eras continue but with some morphological differences and a more monochrome
palette of stones. Major deposits of stone vessels are known from the Third Dynasty royal funerary monuments of
Sekhemkhet and Netjerykhet-Djoser at Saqqara, where thousands of stone vessels were discovered in underground
Greenberg 2014: 195–198, 206–211, including a brief discussion of basalt and limestone bowls in the ESL; Sowada
67
2009: 102; Amiran 1978: 57–58, Pls 77:3–4, 78:19, 21–22.

68
Sowada (2009: 45, 49, 123–24, Figs. 5c, 20–23) proposed an Egyptian origin for the Arad fine bowls but did not handle the
fragments.
69
Simple forms date even earlier to the fifth millennium BC at Merimde Beni Salama and el-Omari: Bard 2015: 89.
Reisner 1931a: 130–99; el-Khouli 1978; Aston 1994; Aston et al. 2001; Stocks 2003; Bevan 2007. Predynastic chronology
70
based on Hendrickx 2006.

71
That said, an heirloom factor in stone vessel retention must be considered.
72
For a summary of stone types and quarries, see Aston et al. 2000.
Aston et al. 2000: 39; for a summary of the 3rd millennium trade, see Sowada 2009: 182–85; for late Old Kingdom textual
73
evidence of Egypt’s acquisition of lapis lazuli, see Marcolin and Espinel 2011.
74
Bavay et al. 2000; Bavay et al. 2004.
Egyptian-made lapis lazuli stone vessels come from the Naqada III–Early Dynastic period, and sporadically in later eras:
75
Aston et al. 2000: 39–40. Both stones were used for inlay, jewellery and making small objects.
76
Bevan 2007: 64; Hendrickx et al. 2001.
77
Aston 1994: 21–23, 26–27, 65; Bevan 2007: 64.
For summaries of the extensive Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom shape repertoire, see Reisner 1931a; El-Khouli 1978; Aston
78
1994: 99–140; Bevan 2007:196–205. There are other specialist works on specific periods e.g. Vlčková 2006; Hendrickx et al.
2001.
79
Bevan 2007: 68.
258
Stone Vessels
259
K. Sowada
Fig. 9: Egyptian stone vessels, Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom. (p. 259) 1. Basic Early Dynastic and early
Old Kingdom shape types — (a) the squat jar, (b) cylindrical jar and (c) bowl (after Aston 1994: 131, Fig. 108;
Hendrickx et al. 2001: Fig. 1.UFY 1 and Fig. 14.RFL 5). 2. A selection of stone vessels from Gallery VII, Step
Pyramid of Netjerykhet-Djoser, Third Dynasty, Saqqara (Lauer 1939: Pl. Xiii:2). 3. Carved limestone model
vessels, tomb of Hesi, early Sixth Dynasty, Saqqara (Kanawati and Abder-Raziq 1999: Pl. 67, TNE97:4a–c).
(p. 260) 4. Carved limestone canopic jar and lid from the tomb of Inumin, Sixth Dynasty, Saqqara (Kanawati
et al. 2006: Pl. 77c). 5. (a and b) Travertine vessels from Sixth Dynasty Tomb F40, Abydos, (c) with
an incised schist lid (Sowada 2010: 230, Fig. 2a–c).
260
Stone Vessels
galleries inside the complex, many ‘signed’ with incised or ink-inscribed royal names. 80 Yet the overall quality of
these corpora is uneven when compared to vessels from the First Dynasty. The deposits also contained many
heirlooms curated from other sources, appropriated from earlier royal tombs.81 These extraordinary quantities are
never again matched in Egyptian funerary assemblages (Fig. 9.2).
After the Third Dynasty, elite display shifts to other mediums such as metal, statuary and visible monuments.
The advent of the potter’s fast wheel could also quickly produce pottery for funerary use as an alternative to large
quantities of stone vessels.82 The monochrome colour palette dominates the rest of the Old Kingdom; limestone
and travertine were the preferred stones for a smaller repertoire of bowls, jars, platters, model vessels, and canopic
jars (Fig. 9.4). For elite consumption harder stones are still used, such as anorthosite gneiss (‘Chephren diorite’),
obsidian, quartz crystal and diorite. During the later Old Kingdom of the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties, the shape
repertoire contracts and vessels generally become smaller overall and of a faltering quality (Fig. 9.3–5). Travertine
and limestone are most commonly used. Although output never reached the heights of the Early Dynastic Period,
vessels were still produced for different levels of society, ranging from items for interment in modest graves of the
illiterate dead (Fig. 9.5), to monumental vessels inscribed with royal dedications for the Egyptian elite (Fig. 10).83
High quality vessels for royal consumption continued to be produced.
Recalling the practices of earlier kings, significant corpora of Old Kingdom elite vessels have been discovered
in magazines associated with funerary temple complexes. Older vessels with or without royal names inscribed on
the surface were curated along with contemporary pieces and other objects. According to G. Reisner, these reposi-
tories of antiquated stone vessels existed ‘for the funerary service of [the] royal tomb’, and represented ‘an attempt
to construct for the king’s tomb a set of these old forms which had, by tradition, been placed in tombs since
Dynasty 1’.84 Extant repositories are known from the reigns of Menkaure (Fourth Dynasty), Sahure, Neferirkare,
Raneferef, and Nyuserre (Fifth Dynasty).85 The intent of such deposits may have served a religious and political
purpose to legitimise the rule of the living king. Signed vessels destined as foreign diplomatic gifts may have come
from such repositories.
The custom of ‘signing’ vessels or pottery with painted or incised royal names stretches back to the late
Predynastic era.86 The types of inscription were slightly different to many known from Mesopotamia. Inscriptions
usually stated the royal name and epithets, but occasionally also identified the vessel as an offering or gift (inw), or a
commemoration of an event, usually a Heb-Sed (a royal jubilee of 18 or 30 years) (Fig. 10).87 As with Mesopotamian
incised vessels, a serekh or cartouche bearing the name of a royal personage was an ‘official statement’ and thus
reserved for royal use, exchange and display.88 According to R. Sparks, for the non-Egyptian recipient, a cartouche
was an unreadable — yet unmistakeable — marker of an Egyptian royal origin, along with the high quality of the
vessel itself. Egyptian stone vessels inscribed with private names are less common and are usually found in elite
tomb assemblages or as votive offerings.89
12.4. The Movement and Exchange of Stone Vessels

Products from the major stone vessel producing regions — Egypt and southern Mesopotamia, Iran and the
Gulf — moved through established maritime or riverine transport networks. These systems operated largely inde-
pendent of each other for much of the 3rd millennium. Yet overlapping interaction zones and localised exchange
patterns are evident, such as material from the Cyclades moving into Western Anatolia. Raw stones for vessel
production were also exchanged through regional networks and across longer distances.
A. Bevan describes the movement of stone vessels through different types of exchange — for example, by plun-
der and tribute or elite gifts, offerings and trade.90 He notes that identifying these distinctions in the a rchaeological
80
Lauer 1939: 6–34, Pl. 6–19; Goneim 1957: Pl. 29, 34B, 35; Lacau and Lauer 1936.
81
Bevan 2007: 70–71. There are elite Second Dynasty tombs at Saqqara, including the nearby mastaba of King Nynetjer.
82
Reisner 1931a: 174.
83
For example, Sowada 2010; Jéquier 1933: 28–33; Bevan 2007: 72–75.
84
Reisner 1931a: 199, 201.
85
Sowada 2009: 213.
86
For a stone bowl with the name of Narmer, see Lacau and Lauer 1936: n. 1; Sowada 2009: 212–14.
87
On the nature and role of inw as royal economic activity, see Bleiberg 1996.
88
Sparks 2003: 44–46.
89
Sowada 2009: 212–13, n. 157; Bevan 2007: Fig. 4c.
90
Bevan 2007: 21–23.
261
K. Sowada
Fig. 10: Travertine vessels from the funerary complex of Pepy II, Sixth Dynasty,
South Saqqara ( Jéquier 1940: 7, Fig. 6).
262
Stone Vessels
record is not always clear. Correct identification of stone types in conjunction with their shape and any inscrip-
tions, and careful study of the archaeological deposits in which they are found, provide a framework for assessing
the meaning of a stone vessel in an archaeological context.
In the Aegean a changing dynamic in the late 3rd millennium saw the arrival of Egyptian items on Crete as
direct or indirect long-range exchange items which influenced local production through the creation of local imi-
tations.91 The corpus of aegyptiaca, consisting primarily of stone vessels, semi-precious stones and small objects,
dates from the late Old Kingdom–First Intermediate Period onward (c. 2250 BC). Most of this has been found
clustered in group tombs and so the mixed contexts and wide date range of these deposits are problematic. Some
Egyptian stone vessels and fragments of Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom date are also known but views on the
date of the contexts have differed in the literature. D. Wengrow suggests that the appearance of 3rd millennium
aegyptiaca in Crete represents indirect transmission of goods adopted as ‘cargo cult’ items with ritual signifi-
cance.92 This material travelled via the Levant past Cyprus, but there is no evidence of a direct link with Egypt.
Nevertheless, the Egyptian stone vessels, viewed as exotic items, appear to have influenced Cretan production,
with certain shapes in local stones having strong parallels with Egyptian forms. The shapes and stone types are
at times so close that separating Egyptian imports from locally made Cretan types in the Prepalatial period has
proved difficult, resulting in confusion as to whether a vessel was imported or locally made. Scientific analysis has
enabled the identification of local stones.93
As a form of material culture, stone vessels are less common in the Levant during the 3rd millennium than in
later periods. Despite Egyptian contact, its stone vessel-making technology did not influence the development
of local industries in the region until the second millennium. With prestige invested in other status items such
as glyptic, statuary and metal, the effort expenditure in establishing local industries — including technology
transfer and raw material acquisition — was likely too great and deemed unnecessary by Levantine elites, and
was peripheral to the transactional nature of Egypt’s foreign engagement strategies. With little in the way of local
complex stone vessel industries in the SL and NL, Egyptian products were a valued acquisition for Levantine
elites. Restricted to a handful of sites, they come from contexts in quantities associated with the result of Egyptian
royal expeditions engaged in commodity exchange and diplomacy. Key sites are Ebla, Byblos (CL/NL), Ai and Tel
Yarmuth (SL). Ebla represents the northern-most extent of formal Egyptian international engagement.
The most significant deposits come from Byblos and Ebla in terms of quantity, quality and the number of
signed vessels. At Byblos, vessels were found in elite Building XXV (Phase KIV), where the earliest signed vessel
bore the name of Hetepheres, mother of Fourth Dynasty ruler Khufu (Fig. 11.1).94 The same deposit held many
bowls, including vessels dated to the Early Dynastic era, Sixth Dynasty and regionally produced softstone ves-
sels (see above), suggesting a storeroom for luxury items acquired over a long period.95 Other royal names found
at Byblos, some in problematic deposits associated with the Ba’alat Gebal temple (Building XL), are those of
Khufu, Merytitis, Khafre, Menkaure (Fourth Dynasty), Nyuserre, Kakai, Unas (Fifth Dynasty) (Fig. 11.2–3),
Teti, Pepy I, Merenre and Pepy II (Sixth Dynasty).96 Some were found in later deposits but still in the temple
precincts. In Building XL, larger jars, offering tables, bowls, and small jars dominated the repertoire; much of it
dates to the Fifth and Sixth Dynasty.97 Many uninscribed Late Old Kingdom small cylindrical and collared jars
(e.g. Fig. 11.4) were likely presented to the Ba’alat Gebal temple deity as a personal offering by Egyptian officials
for a successful voyage.98 Particularly for the late 3rd millennium, scholars associate the temple with the Egyptian
Discussed in Warren 1969 and many subsequent references; more recently, Bevan 2007: 93–99; Phillips 2008. Moréro
91
(2011: 215) describes them not as local copies, but rather ‘vases inspirés des formes égyptiennes’. The Aegean was not part of the
ARCANE Project, but a brief discussion is included here in the context of Egyptian stone vessels moving through the eastern
Mediterranean.
92
Wengrow 2009.
93
For example, see Barbieri et al. 2002a and 2002b.
94
Sowada 2009: 132, 140, 218. The earliest known is a bowl from Byblos with the name of Second Dynasty ruler Khasekhemwy,
but it was unstratified; see Saghieh 1983: 130–31. While imported coniferous timber was acquired from the CL for his Abydos
tomb (Dreyer et al. 2003: 112–14) the findspot means that the object is not of itself evidence for royal expeditions during his
reign.
Sowada 2009: 140. For a tabulated summary of vessel forms from elite Building XXV and Building XL, see Bevan 2007: 77,
95
Fig. 5.6.
96
Sparks 2003; Bevan 2007: 77.
97
Bevan 2004: 119; Bevan 2007: 77, Table 5.6.
Bevan 2007: 77. Two vessels from Byblos are inscribed with Egyptian private names; one was found near the Ba’alat Gebal
98
temple: Ward 1964.
263
K. Sowada
264
Stone Vessels
Fig. 11: Egyptian Old Kingdom stone vessels from Byblos and Ebla. (p. 264) 1. Diorite vessel, shape uncertain, name
of Hetepheres, Fourth Dynasty, Building XXV, Byblos (not to scale; Dunand 1958: 929, Fig. 1045). 2. Travertine
cylindrical jar fragment with name of Nyuserre, Fifth Dynasty, Building XL, Byblos (no scale stated; after
Dunand 1939: 280, Pl. 37:4030). 3. Travertine jar fragments with name of Unas, Fifth Dynasty, Building XL,
Byblos (no scale stated; Dunand 1939: 280, Pl. 37:4029). 4. Small travertine collared jar, Sixth Dynasty, from
the ‘depôts de fondation’, Byblos (no scale stated; after Montet 1928: 77, no. 98, Pl. 43:98). 5. Anorthosite gneiss
bowl, Sixth Dynasty, Ebla (Reg. TM.80.G.280; Scandone Matthiae 1981: Fig. C.Aa.1). (p. 265) 6. Quatrefoil
anorthosite gneiss bowl, name of Khafre, Fourth Dynasty, Ebla (Reg. TM.77.G; after Scandone Matthiae 1981:
Fig. D.Ab.14). 7. Travertine lid of a jar, name of Pepy I, Sixth Dynasty, Ebla (Reg. TM.77.G.600; NL001_O004;
after Scandone Matthiae 1979: Fig. 13a).
265
K. Sowada
goddess Hathor, who in later times was known as ‘Lady of Byblos’.99 During the Old Kingdom, Hathor was associ-
ated with the ‘foreign lands’, and Pepy I had a particular connection with her. The extensive presence of Egyptian
vessels at the Ba’alat Gebal temple certainly speaks of Egyptian offerings to the local cult, although the direct link
with Hathor during this period requires further evidence.
Over 200 fragments were found in Ebla Palace G (ENL 4), with around 85 per cent comprising open forms
rather than containers (e.g. Fig. 11.5). The corpus has a long Old Kingdom date range, with types from the Fourth
to Sixth Dynasty in the same horizon, including vessels inscribed with the name of Fourth Dynasty ruler Khafre
(Fig. 11.6) and Sixth Dynasty ruler Pepy I (ADB NL001_O004, Fig. 11.7). These vessels were exchanged as val-
ued items rather than for their contents, possibly for elite tableware or display, as part of a reciprocal commodities
exchange or as diplomatic gifts.
Bevan opines that the preponderance of open forms from Byblos Building XXV and Ebla Palace G points
to both these deposits being ‘the result of specific exchanges (e.g. greeting or wedding gifts) between Egyptian
and northern Levantine royal households’.100 The vessels themselves are representative of high-status objects
found in elite funerary and temple contexts rather than a repertoire associated with lower levels of society.101 The
biographical text of the Sixth Dynasty official Iny furnishes an extensive picture of the transactional nature and
extent of Egypt’s relationships in the eastern Mediterranean at the end of the Old Kingdom.102 The inscription
outlines contact with Byblos and other Levantine locations; commodities such as silver, lead/tin, ‘Byblos ships’,
sefetj-oil and lapis lazuli are mentioned.103 Although Ebla is not specifically named, it now seems certain that the
Egyptian vessels at Ebla were the result of royal expeditions for the acquisition of those products and concomitant
diplomatic engagement.
In north Syria, Egyptian stone vessels moved beyond Byblos and Ebla in a probable local secondary exchange
of foreign exotica. Individual fragmentary finds are recorded at Tell Afis (ENL 5), Tell Beydar (EJZ 3b) and even
possibly Tell Brak: they represent the local transmission of heirloom Egyptian objects, possibly as local gifts or
traded items.104
Far fewer Egyptian stone vessels are known in the SL and none have yet been found signed with royal names.
Much of the material dates to the ESL 4 period. At Ai a coherent deposit of travertine and limestone vessels was
found in phase ESL 5a and the ESL 5b cultic complex (Fig. 12).105 The travertine bowls, travertine cylindrical
jar (Fig. 12.1), and pink limestone platter (Fig. 12.2) are typical Early Dynastic types, likely placed in the First
Dynasty. Two vessels echo SL ceramic forms (Fig. 12.3–4). The travertine segmented jar features a vestigial handle
known from ESL 4 pottery; separate base and shoulder/rim pieces (not found) would have once fitted to either
end (Fig. 12.4). The grey limestone bowl with a flattened rim is an outlier of the group in both material and shape
and may not have arrived at the same time as the others (Fig. 12.3). The flattened rim likewise is not common on
Egyptian stone vessels but recalls ESL ceramics. The imitation of foreign pottery in either stone or ceramic is a
well-known phenomenon in third millennium Egypt (see Fig. 9.2 top left and right; 9.3, bottom row centre and
centre right; Fig. 10, top right). The zoomorphic vessel shape is rare in Egypt and only a few parallels are known
(Fig. 12.5). It was probably made especially for its Levantine recipients.106 The general impression of the group —
with the possible exception of the flat-rimmed limestone bowl — is a date in the First Dynasty.107 Again, this
speaks of a diplomatic gift to local elites during the ESL 4, with the vessels retained over a long period as temple
equipment.
Espinel 2002; Bleeker 1973: 72–73. A further link may have existed with the deity Kai-tau of Negaw, associated with conifer-
99
ous timbers, who is mentioned in the Pyramid Texts; see Stadelmann 1967: 8; Helck 1994: 107.
100
Bevan 2007: 78–79.
Bevan 2009: 78. See for example Fig. 10 and Jéquier 1933: Figs 9–15. Bevan opines that in the Old Kingdom, anorthosite
101
gneiss was a hallmark of vessels commissioned by the royal court.

102
Marcolin and Espinel 2011.
103
Pinnock 1988; Sowada 2009: 222–23; Biga 2010; Marcolin and Espinel 2011.
The anorthosite gneiss bowl from Tell Afis dates to the Sixth Dynasty and probably came via Ebla: Mazzoni and Cecchini
104
1995. The Tell Beydar vessel dates to the Early Dynastic period and was in a secondary context: Lebeau and De Putter 2006. For
Tell Brak, see Oates et al. 2001: 264.
105
Amiran 1970; Bevan 2007: 76; Sowada 2009: 111–19, 216–18.
Amiran 1970; Sowada 2009: 113–14, Fig. 22 and references. On the tradition of making local stone copies of foreign
106
ceramic shapes, see Sowada 2009: 215–16.

Amiran 1970, including older references to Callaway and Marquet Krause; Sowada 2009: 111–16, 216–18; Bevan 2007: 76.
107
Bowls with an incised circle in the base are more common in the First Dynasty.
266
Stone Vessels
Fig. 12: Egyptian stone vessels from Ai (after Amiran 1970: Figs. 1, 4–6). 1. Travertine bowls and jar — (a)
MK 514 and 692, (b) MK 344 and 399, (c) HU 5424, (d) IAA 36.587, (e) HU 5340. 2. Pink limestone platter
(IAA 36.588). 3. Limestone bowl (HU 5275). 4. Travertine segmented jar (IAA 36.583, 36.586). 5. Travertine
zoomorphic jar (IAA 36.581, 36.592).
267
K. Sowada
At Tel Yarmuth the material is more ephemeral (Fig. 13). Fragments date to the Early Dynastic period–early
Old Kingdom and are found in ESL 4 (Fig. 13.1) and ESL 5 deposits (Fig. 13.2).108 The Early Dynastic examples,
a number of which were found in the cultic structure, feature a variety of stone types typical of the period, such
as slate or schist (Fig. 13.1a) and travertine (Fig. 13.1b); gabbro and limestone fragments are also represented (Fig.
13c–d). ESL 5 material dates not much beyond the Third Dynasty at the latest, with the green lapilly tuff flat-
rimmed bowl (Fig. 13.2c) certainly dating to the Early Dynastic era. Like the bowl from Ai (Fig. 12.3), it may be
an imitation of a SL ceramic form.
Isolated examples are known from elsewhere in the SL.109 Yet no anorthosite gneiss vessels, so typical of the
Old Kingdom evidence from the CL/NL, are found in the region and there are no ‘signed’ vessels. The SL corpus
represents an earlier phase of regional Egyptian activity, which engaged South Levantine elites at major ESL 4–
early ESL 5 centres such as Tel Beth Yerah, in addition to Tel Yarmuth and Ai. For the Fourth and early Fifth
Dynasty, coeval with the ESL 5 urban complexes, the relative absence of such vessels in the SL is striking. This
cannot be explained solely by Egypt’s lack of interest in the region. Rather, it speaks of a different relationship
between Egypt and ESL 5 elites.
Further north, non-Egyptian softstone vessels from the CL/NL and ME are exemplified by examples from
Ebla, Hama, Byblos, and Tell Banat. They demonstrate the overlapping interaction zone for these products and
the transfer of decorative elements between north Levantine exchange routes on the one hand, and the interface
with Mari and north Syrian ceramic production, on the other. Such vessels may be the product of a local manufac-
turing centre, but more research is needed.
Much has been written about the exchange of hard and softstone vessels through Mesopotamia, thus only
a few brief remarks are offered here. Networks for raw materials procurement and the transmission of finished
objects were geographically extensive and well-developed through much of the 3rd millennium. The strong reli-
gious element to stone vessel usage is evident in their service as uninscribed temple votives, the presence of royal
and non-royal dedicatory inscriptions to divinities, and, in respect of chlorite vessels, as a canvas for the visual
expression of mythological themes. The shared nature of Sumerian religious practice over a wide area, combined
with the riverine transport network, ensured the transmission of material. This accelerated with emerging social
complexity across the region in the ESM/ECM 4 period and later under the Akkadian Empire.
12.5. Chronological Implications in the Eastern Mediterranean

Many Egypt stone vessels found in the eastern Mediterranean — including the Aegean — are difficult to use
for chronological purposes because of the mixed nature of the archaeological deposits, the heirloom factor and the
consequences of poor stratigraphy.
The much-discussed burnt travertine lid with the name of Pepy I (c. 2321–2287), which is from Ebla Palace
G Level IIB1, is arguably important from a chronological perspective (Ebla Reg. TM.77.G.600, ADB NL001_
O004) (Fig. 11.7). Made to celebrate the king’s Heb Sed (jubilee) festival in either Year 18 or Year 30, it could
not have arrived at the site before the Year 18 commemoration.110 Yet how long after Pepy’s Sed-festival the vessel
arrived at Ebla is unknown. At best it provides a terminus date linked to either one of these jubilees. However, the
object’s utility in linking the historical chronology of Egypt to the ENL 4–ENL 5 transition is undeniable, even
if still awaiting further definition.111
The Byblos stratigraphy is too problematic for the stone vessels found in Phase KIV to be of assistance, except
in a general sense. Many others were also found in Saghieh’s Phases J and H, dated to the end of the 3rd millennium
(ECL 6) and early 2nd millennium. Most scholars accept that they arrived in the Old Kingdom and were heirlooms
from earlier ECL deposits of the Ba’alat Gebal Temple (Building XL).112 The date range of the material is broad.
Evidence of burning was also observed, which Saghieh attributed to the Phase KIV Temple destruction, thus
regarding these examples as reused heirlooms from the earlier temple equipment.113 Two vessels from the Phase
KIV temple bearing the names of Nyuserra and Unas of the Fifth Dynasty came from level XI-XX, Phase KIV
108
Sowada 2009: 48–50, 105–09, discussion on 216–18.
109
Sowada 2009: 48–50, 91–127, 216–18.
110
Scandone Matthiae 1979: 37, Figs 13a–b, 14.
The question of Egyptian absolute chronology at the end of the Old Kingdom requires clarification based on radiocarbon
111
dates: see Sowada 2014b. The ‘consensus chronology’ of I. Shaw places the reign of Pepy I at 2321–2287 BC (Shaw 2003: 480).
On chronological synchronisms between Egypt and the Levant, see Sowada 2014b and Sowada in press; on radiocarbon dates
for the Ebla destruction, see Calcagnile et al. 2013.
112
See, for example, Espinel 2002.
113
Saghieh 1983: 42–45; Sparks 2003; Bevan 2004: 117; see also Sowada 2009: Appendix I.
268
Stone Vessels
Fig. 13: Egyptian stone vessels from Tel Yarmuth. 1. Early Dynastic bowl fragments — (a) schist or slate bowl,
(b) travertine bowls, (c) gabbro bowl, (d) indurated limestone bowl, from ESL 4 deposits (Sowada 2009:
Figs 4–5). 2. Fragments from ESL 5 deposits — (a) gabbro offering table, (b) travertine bowl,
(c) lapilly tuff bowl (Sowada 2009: Fig. 21).
269
K. Sowada
(= ECL 5) (Fig. 11.2–3), but more are identified from the area even if not strictly ‘in context’.114 Sed-festival vessels
of Pepy I and Pepy II at Byblos probably represent royal gifts to the city’s ruling elites. However, the question of
their original context remains a thorny one for the purposes of relative chronology and any possible synchronisms.
Yet, as Iny’s inscription describes, the enduring nature of the relationship between Egypt and Byblos is secure.
12.6. Conclusion
Given the limited spread of the technology for hardstone working and the specificity of geological sources for
different rock types, stone vessels form an important hallmark of international exchange activity. Correct identi-
fication of stones and morphology helps date specimens that may circulate in the archaeological record for many
generations. Correct assessment of this issue, along with the date of a context, is key to more precise interpretative
frameworks for meaning, value, economic activity and chronology.
The deposition pattern of stone vessels in Western Asia reveals several major exchange and transmission zones.
The first is the movement of Egyptian vessels to selected centres in the Levant. The second involved hard and
softstone vessels from southern Mesopotamia, Iran and the Gulf, circulating within the CM-SM and its eastern
fringes, and further north to the eastern JZ and TG via the Tigris–Euphrates River transport routes. Third, in the
CL/NL and ME, a modest local softstone industry may have developed, drawing influences from across northern
Syria, Mari and southern softstone industries. Zones in the Aegean, and the relationship of Cycladic production
on WA appears to have had little impact on Cyprus and the Levant.
Stone vessels purposed beyond the strictly utilitarian were a prestige item, coveted and acquired for religious,
political or funerary purposes. As a form of display, stone vessels competed with metalware and other forms of
stone-working, such as statuary, as a status marker. Softstone vessel manufacture and exchange was significant
in Mesopotamia, especially the south. Intercultural Style chlorite vessels and later forms were exchanged across
a wide area. In reflecting on their importance, C. Lamberg-Karlovksy opined that chlorite vessels were a hall-
mark of cultural and economic connectivity during this period, with their wide distribution indicating a ‘shared
ideological and ritual significance to peoples of different cultures … united by the specific belief system that the
vessels symbolise’.115 In the eastern Mediterranean the situation was different. Apart from Egypt, stone vessel
production was limited. This reflects a preference by elites for metalware as a form of status display and a store
of wealth. The appearance of Egyptian stone vessels in the Levant is directly linked to royal expeditions and elite
diplomacy, instead of a diffuse wide-ranging trade in the vessels themselves. Rather than an underlying belief sys-
tem, Egyptian stone vessels were a means of projecting royal power and helped cement its economic and political
interests.
114
Sparks 2003.
115
Lamberg-Karlovsky 1993: 285.
270
Stone Vessels
Bibliography
Ahrens, A.
2012, ‘Egyptian Imports from Tomb VII at Tell Mišrife/Qatna (Syria)’, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections
4/4 DOI:10.2458/azu_jaei_v04i4_ahrens2.
Ahrens, A.
2015, ‘Imports and Local Imitations: The Production, Exchange and Social Significance of Stone Vessels in the
Northern Levant during the 2nd Millennium: A Case Study from the Royal Tomb at Qatna’, in Qatna and the
Networks of Bronze Age Globalism, eds Pfälzner, P.; and al-Maqdissi, M. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag: 281–95.
Akkermans, P. M. M. G.; and Schwartz, G. M.
2003, The Archaeology of Syria. From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (ca. 16,000–300 BC).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Amiran, R.
1970, ‘The Egyptian Alabaster Vessels from Ai’, Israel Exploration Journal 20: 170–79.
Amiran, R.
1978, Early Arad. The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze Age City, I. First–Fifth Season of Excavations,
1962–1966. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Aruz, J.
2003, ‘‘Intercultural Style’ Carved Chlorite Objects’, in Art of the First Cities. The Third Millennium BC from the
Mediterranean to the Indus, ed. Aruz, J. New Haven: Yale University Press: 325–45.
Aston, B. G.
1994, Ancient Egyptian Stone Vessels. Materials and Forms (Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens
5). Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag.
Aston, B.; Harrell, J. A.; and Shaw, I.
2000, ‘Stone’, in Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, eds Nicholson, P. and Shaw, I. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press: 5–77.
Barbieri, M.; and Testa, G. et al.
2002a, ‘Comparative Strontium-Isotope Analysis and Petrography of Egyptian and Cretan Limestone and
Calcite-Alabaster’, in Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone. Asmosia VI. Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference, Venice, June 15–18 2000, ed. Lazzarini, L. Padua: 415–25.
Barbieri, M.; Lilyquist, C.; and Testa, G.
2002b, ‘Provenancing Egyptian and Minoan Calcite-Alabaster Artifacts through 87SR/86SR Isotopic Ratios and
Petrography’, in Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone. Asmosia VI. Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference, Venice, June 15–18 2000, ed. Lazzarini, L. Padua: 403–14.
Bard, K.
2015, An Introduction to the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, 2nd edition. Oxford: Wiley.
Bavay L.; and Faltings, D. et al.
2004, ‘A Bladelet Core from Tell el-Fara’in-Buto and the Origin of Obsidian in the Buto-Maadi Culture of Lower
Egypt’, in Egypt and its Origins. Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference
Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt, in Kraków, 28th August–1st September 2002, eds Hendrickx,
S.; Friedman, R. F.; Ciałowicz, K. M.; and Chłodnicki, M. Leuven, Peeters: 607–19.
Bavay, L.; and De Putter, Th. et al.
2000, ‘The Origin of Obsidian in Predynastic and Early Dynastic Upper Egypt’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 56: 5–20.
Bevan, A.
2004, ‘Emerging Values? The Consumption and Imitation of Egyptian Stone Vessels in EBII-MMI Crete and its
Wider Eastern Mediterranean Context’, in The Emergence of Civilization Revisited (Sheffield Studies in Aegean
Archaeology 6), eds Barrett, J. C.; and Halstead, P. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 107–26.
Bevan, A.
2007, Stone Vessels and Values in the Bronze Age Mediterranean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bevan, A.
2012, ‘Woodworked and Metal-Shocked: Softstone Vessels in the Bronze and Early Iron Age Eastern Mediterranean’,
available online at <http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/149736/2/149736_Bevan12d_postprint.pdf> [accessed 8 May 2017].
271
K. Sowada
Beyer, D.; and Jean-Marie, M.
2007, ‘Le temple du DA III de la déesse Ninhursag à Mari: les dépôts votifs du Lieu Très Saint’, in Akh-Purattim
— Les rives de l’Euphrate. Mémoires d’archéologie et d’histoire régionales interdisciplinaires 2, eds Margueron, J-C;
Rouault, O.; and Lombard, P. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de Méditerranée: 75–122.
Biga, G. M.
2010, ‘Tra Menfi e Ebla’, L’Egitto tra storia e letteratura (Serekh V), Torino : ADArte SRL: 23–40.
Bleeker, C. J.
1973, Hathor and Thoth. Two Key Figures of the Ancient Egyptian Religion (Studies in the History of Religions 26).
Leiden: Brill.
Bleiberg, E.
1996, The Official Gift in Ancient Egypt. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.
Braun, E.
1990, ‘Basalt Bowls of the EB I Horizon in the Southern Levant’, Paléorient 16, 87–95.
de Miroschedji, P.
1973, ‘Vases et objets en stéatite susiens du Musée du Louvre’, Cahiers de la Délégation Archéologique Française en
Iran 3: 9–79.
Calcagnile, L.; Quarta, G.; and D’Elia, M.
2013, ‘Just At That Time. 14C Determinations and Analysis from EB IVA Layers’, in Ebla and its Landscape.
Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East, eds Matthiae, P.: and Marchetti, N. Walnut Creek: Left Coast
Press: 450–57.
Casanova, M.
1991, La vaisselle d’albâtre d’Iran et d’Asie Centrale aux IIIe et IIe millénaires avant J.-C. Paris: Éditions recherché
sur les civilizations.
Dikaios, P.; and Stewart, J. R. B.
1962, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition Volume IV Part IA, The Stone Age and the Early Bronze Age in Cyprus. Lund:
Swedish Cyprus Expedition.
Dreyer, G.; and Hartmann, R. et al.
2003, ‘Umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen in frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof 13./14./15. Vorbericht’, Mitteilungen
des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 59: 67–138.
Dunand, M.
1958, Fouilles de Byblos 1933—1938, II. Paris: P. Geuthner.
Edwards, P. C.
2013, Wadi Hammeh 27, an early Natufian Settlement at Pella in Jordan (Culture and History of the Ancient Near
East 59). Leiden: Brill.
El-Baghdadi, S. G.
2008, ‘The Protodynastic and Early Dynastic Necropolis of Tell ed-Daba’a (el-Qanan) and Tell el-Samara (el-
Dakahlia Province, Northeast Delta)’, in Egypt at its Origins 2. Proceedings of the International Conference Origin of
the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt, Toulouse (France), 5th-8th September 2005 (Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 172), eds Midant-Reynes, B.; Tristant, Y.; Rowland, J.; and Hendrickx, S. Leuven, Peeters: 1151–55.
El-Khouli, A.
1978, Egyptian Stone Vessels. Predynastic Period to Dynasty III, I–III (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung
Kairo). Mainz: Von Zabern.
Espinel, A. D.
2002, ‘The Role of the Temple of Ba’alat Gebal as Intermediary between Egypt and Byblos during the Old Kingdom’,
Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 30: 103–19.
Evans, J. M.
2012, The Lives of Sumerian Sculpture. An Archaeology of the Early Dynastic Temple. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Evans, J. M.
2016, ‘Materiality, Writing, and Context in the Inana Temple at Nippur: The Dedicatory Objects from Level
VIIB’, in Materiality of Writing in Early Mesopotamia (Materiale Textkulturen Series 13), eds Balke, T. E.; and
Tsouparopoulou, C. Heidelberg: de Gruyter: 165–82.
272
Stone Vessels
Fischer, P. M.
2008, Tell Abu al-Kharaz in the Jordan Valley, Vol. 1: The Early Bronze Age. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences.
Gilead, I.; and Goren, Y.
1989, ‘Petrographic Analyses of Fourth Millennium B. C. Pottery and Stone Vessels from the Northern Negev,
Israel’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 275: 5–14.
Goldman, H.
1956, Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus. From the Neolithic through the Bronze Age, Vol. II. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Goneim, M.
1957, Horus Sekhemkhet. The Unfinished Step Pyramid at Saqqara, Vol. I. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie
orientale.
Goren, Y.
1991, ‘Pottery from Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I Mortuary Sites in Israel: New Aspects of the Development
of Ceramic Technology’, Eretz-Israel 21: 119–26 (Hebrew, English summary).
Greenberg, R.; et al.
2014, Bet Yerah. . The Early Bronze Age Mound. Volume II. Urban Structure and Material Culture 1933–1986
Excavations. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.
Helck, W.
1994, ‘Byblos und Ägypten’, in Biblio. Una citta e la sua cultura. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale, Roma, 5–7
dicembre 1990 (Collezione di Studi Fenici 34), eds Acquaro, E.; Mazza, F.; Ribichini, S.; and Scandone, G. Rome:
Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche: 105–11.
Hendrickx, S.
2006, ‘Predynastic–Early Dynastic Chronology’, in Ancient Egyptian Chronology (Handbook of Oriental Studies
I/83). eds Hornung, E.; Krauss, R.; and Warburton, D. Leiden: Brill: 55–93.
Hendrickx, S.; Bielen, S.; and de Paepe, P.
2001, ‘Excavating the Museum: The Stone Vessel Fragments from the Royal Tombs at Umm el-Qaab in the Egyptian
Collection of the Royal Museums for Art and History in Brussels’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 57: 73–108.
Jéquier, G.
1933, Fouilles à Saqqarah. Les pyramides des reines Neit et Apouit. Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut français
d’archéologie.
Jéquier, G.
1940, Le monument funéraire de Pépi II, Tombe. III: Les approches du temple. Cairo: Service des Antiquités de
l’Égypte.
Kanawati, N.; and Abder-Raqiz, M.
1999, The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara, Vol. V. The Tomb of Hesi (Australian Centre for Egyptology Reports 13).
Warminster: Aris and Phillips.
Kanawati, N.; McFarlane, A.; and Sowada, K.
2006, The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara, Vol. VIII. The Tomb of Inumin (Australian Centre for Egyptology Reports 24).
Warminster: Aris and Phillips.
Kohl, P. L.
1975, ‘Carved Chlorite Vessels: A Trade in Finished Commodities in the Mid-3rd Millennium’, Expedition 18/1:
8–31.
Köster, T.
2014, ‘Ask the Artefact: Provenance Analysis of Calcite-Alabaster Vessels’, in Contextualising Grave Inventories in
the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of a Workshop at the London 7th ICAANE in April 2010 and an International
Symposium in Tübingen in November 2010, Both Organised by the Tübingen Post-Graduate School „Symbols of the
Dead”, eds Pfälzner, P.; Niehr, H.; Pernicka, E.; Lange, S.; and Köster, T. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag: 225–41.
Lacau, P.; and Lauer, J.-P.
1936, La pyramide à degrés. Vol. IV: Inscriptions gravées sur les vases: Fouilles à Saqqarah. Cairo: Service des antiq-
uités de l’Égypte.
273
K. Sowada
Lacovara, P.
1991, ‘The Stone Vessel Deposit at Kerma’, in Egypt and Africa. Nubia from Prehistory to Islam, ed. Davies, V. W.
London: British Museum Press: 118–28.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.
1993, ‘The Biography of an Object: The Intercultural Style Vessels of the 3rd Millennium B.C.’, in History from
Things, eds Lubar, S.; and Kingery, W. D. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Press: 270–303.
Lauer, J.-P.
1939, Fouilles à Saqqarah: le pyramide à degrés. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.
Lebeau, M.; and De Putter, Th.
2006, ‘Un fragment de vase en pierre égyptien, vraisemblablement d’époque protodynastique, découvert à Tell
Beydar (Syrie)’, in Vorderasiatische Beiträge für Uwe Finkbeiner (Baghdader Mitteilungen 37), eds van Ess, M.; Faist,
B.; and Dittmann, R. Mainz, Von Zabern: 279–94.
Lloyd, S.; and Mellaart, J.
1962, Beycesultan, Vol. I (The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 6) London: The British Institute of
Archaeology at Ankara.
McCartney, C.
2013, ‘Lithic Artefacts’, in Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean:
Cyprus (Arcane II), ed. Peltenburg, E. Turnhout: Brepols: 299–312.
Marchesi, G.
2015. ‘History and Philology’, in Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern
Mediterranean: Middle Euphrates (Arcane IV), eds Finkbeiner, U.; Novák, M.; Sakal, F.; and Sconzo, P. Turnhout:
Brepols: 423–29.
Marchetti, N.; and Nigro, L.
1995–1996, ‘Handicraft Production, Secondary Food Transformation and Storage in the Public Building P4 at
EB IVA Ebla’, Berytus 42: 9–36.
Marcolin, M.; and Espinel, A. D.
2011, ‘The Sixth Dynasty Biographic Inscriptions of Iny: More Pieces to the Puzzle’, in Abusir and Saqqara in the
Year 2010/1, eds Bárta, M.; Coppens, F.; and Krejcí, J. Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology: 570–615.
Margueron, J-Cl.
2004, Mari. Métropole de l’Euphrate. Paris: Éditions A. et J. Picard.
Matthews, R., ed.
2003, Excavations at Tell Brak, Vol. 4: Exploring an Upper Mesopotamian Regional Centre, 1994–1996. Cambridge:
British School of Archaeology in Iraq.
Mazzoni, S.; and Cecchini, S. M. et al.
1995, ‘Tell Afis (Siria) 1994–Rapporto Preliminare’, Egitto e Vicino Oriente 18: 243–306.
Mellaart, J.
1965, ‘Anatolia c. 4000–2300 BC’, Cambridge Ancient History I.XVIII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Merrillees, R.
2003, ‘The Stone Vases of the Philia Culture from Vasilia: Cypriote, Egyptian or Other?’, in Egypt and Cyprus in
Antiquity. Proceedings of the International Conference on ‘Egypt and Cyprus in Antiquity’, Nicosia, 3–6 April 2003,
eds Michaelides, D.; Kassianidou, V.; and Merrillees, R. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 23–28.
Milevski, I.
2011, Early Bronze Age Goods Exchange in the Southern Levant. A Marxist Perspective. Sheffield: Equinox.
Montet, P.
1928, Byblos et l ’Égypte. Quatre campagnes de fouilles à Gebeil, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924. Paris: P. Geuthner.
Moorey, R. P. S.
1994, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries. The Archaeological Evidence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Moréro, E.
2011, ‘Transferts techniques en Méditerranée orientale. L’exemple de la fabrication des vases de pierre à l’Âge du
Bronze’, Syria 88: 207–44.
274
Stone Vessels
Oates, D.; Oates, J.; and McDonald, H.
2001, Excavations at Tell Brak 2. Nagar in the Third Millennium BC. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research.
Phillips, J.
2008, Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in their Chronological Context: A Critical Review, I-II. Vienna: Verlag der
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Pinnock, F.
1981, ‘Coppe Protosiriane in pietra dal Palazzo Reale G’, Studi Eblaiti 4: 61–75.
Pinnock, F.
1988, ‘Observations on the Trade of Lapiz Lazuli in the IIIrd Millennium’, in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft von Ebla.
Akten der internationalen Tagung Heidelberg, 4.–7. November 1986 (Heidelberger Studien zum alten Orient Band
2), eds Waetzoldt, H.; and Hauptmann, H. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag: 107–10.
Potts, D. T.
2003a, ‘A Soft-Stone Genre from Southeastern Iran: “Zig-zag” Bowls from Magan to Margiana’, in Culture through
Objects: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of P. R. S. Moorey, eds Potts, D. T.; Roaf, M.; and Stein, D. Oxford:
Griffith Institute: 77–91.
Potts, D. T.
2003b, ‘The Gulf: Dilmun and Magan’, in Art of the First Cities. The Third Millennium BC from the Mediterranean
to the Indus, ed. Aruz, J. New Haven: Yale University Press: 307–09.
Potts, T. F.
1989, ‘Foreign Stone Vessels of the Late 3rd Millennium from Southern Mesopotamia: Their Origins and
Mechanisms of Exchange’, Iraq 51: 123–64.
Reisner, G. A.
1931a, Mycerinus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Reisner, G. A.
1931b, ‘Stone Vessels found in Crete and Babylonia’, Antiquity 5: 200–12.
Rova, E.
2011, ‘Ceramic’, in Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean:
Jezirah (Arcane I), ed. Lebeau, M. Turnhout: Brepols: 49–128.
Saghieh, M.
1983, Byblos in the 3rd Millennium. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.
Scandone Matthiae, G.
1979, ‘Vasi inscritti di Chephren e Pepi I nel Palazzo Reale G di Ebla’, Studi Eblaiti 1, 33–43.
Scandone Matthiae, G.
1981, ‘I Vasi Egiziani in Pietra del Palazzo Reale G’, Studi Eblaiti 4: 99–127.
Sconzo, P.
2015. ‘Ceramics’, in Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean:
Middle Euphrates (Arcane IV), eds Finkbeiner, U.; Novák, M.; Sakal, F.; and Sconzo, P. Turnhout: Brepols: 85–202.
Shaw, I.
2003, ‘Chronologies and Cultural Change’, in The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, 2nd edition, ed. Shaw, I. Oxford:
Oxford University Press: 1–16, 479–83.
Sowada, K. N.
2009, Egypt in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Old Kingdom. An Archaeological Perspective (Orbis Biblicus et
Orientalis 237). Fribourg: Universitätsverlag.
Sowada, K. N.
2010, ‘Forgotten Cemetery F at Abydos and Burial Practices of the late Old Kingdom’, in Egyptian Culture and
Society. Studies in Honour of Naguib Kanawati (Supplément aux annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte
Cahier 38), eds Woods, A.; McFarlane, A.; and Binder, S. Cairo: Publications du Conseil Suprême des Antiquités
de l’Égypte: II, 219–32.
275
K. Sowada
Sowada, K. N.
2014a, ‘Report on a Project to Synchronize Egyptian and Levantine Chronologies of the 3rd Millennium’, Journal
of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 6/4: 55–57. DOI:10.2458/azu_jaei_v06i4_sowada.
Sowada, K. N.
2014b, ‘Never the Twain Shall Meet? Synchronising Egyptian and Levantine Chronologies in the 3rd Millennium’,
in Egypt and the Southern Levant during the Early Bronze Age: C14, Chronology, Connections. Proceedings of a
Workshop Held in Berlin, 14th–16th September 2011 (Orient-Archäologie 31), eds Höflmayer, F., and Eichmann, R.
Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf: 293–313.
Sowada, K. N.
In press, ‘Perspectives on Egypt in the Southern Levant in Light of the High Early Bronze Age Chronology’, in
New Horizons in the Study of the Early Bronze III and Early Bronze IV in the Levant, ed. Richard, S. Eisenbrauns:
Winona Lake.
Sparks, R. T.
2003, ‘Egyptian Stone Vessels and the Politics of Exchange (2617–1070 BC)’, in Ancient Perspectives on Egypt, eds
Matthews, R. J.; and Roemer, C. London: Psychology Press: 39–56.
Sparks, R. T.
2007, Stone Vessels in the Levant. London: Maney Publishing.
Stadelmann, R.
1967, Syrisch-Palästinensische Gottheiten in Ägypten. Leiden: Brill.
Stocks, D.
1993, ‘Making Stone Vessels in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt’, Antiquity 67/256: 596–603.
Stocks, D.
2003, Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology: Stoneworking Technology in Ancient Egypt. London: Routledge.
Vidale, M.
2015, ‘Searching for Mythological Themes on the “Jiroft” Chlorite Artefacts’, Iranica Antiqua 50, 15–59.
Vlčková, P.
2006, Stone Vessels from the Mortuary Complex of Raneferef at Abusir. Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology.
Ward, W.
1964, ‘The Inscribed Offering Table of Nefer-seshem-ra from Byblos’, Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 17, 44–45.
Warren, P. M.
1969, Minoan Stone Vases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wengrow, D.
2009, ‘The Voyages of Europa. Ritual and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean circa 2300–1850 BC’, in Archaic
State Interaction. The Eastern Mediterranean in the Bronze Age, eds Parkinson, W. A.; and Galaty, M. L. Santa Fe:
School for Advanced Research Press: 141–51.
Wossink, A.
2009, Challenging Climate Change. Competition and Cooperation among Pastoralists and Agriculturalists in Northern
Mesopotamia (c. 3000–1600 BC). Leiden: Sidestone Press.
Zettler, R. L.
1998, ‘Stone Vessels’, in Treasures from the Royal Tombs of Ur, eds Zettler, R. L.; and Horne, L. Pennsylvania:
University of Pennsylvania Museum: 149–62.
276

Stone Vessels

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stone Vessels

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARCANE INTERREGIONAL II

Dedicated to the memory of Jean-Paul Thalmann, Director of the

LEBEAU, Marc (ed.)

12.3. Regional Evidence and Local Traditions 249

(EM Phases I-II) in Mesopotamia and Western Iran 286

in Mesopotamia and Western Iran 287

M. Turnhout: Brepols: ix.

2400 ENL 4 2400

THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY.

IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER.

12.2. Stone Vessels as an Artefact: A Summary

ARCANE ESF Programme

THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE PRINTED FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY.

IT MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER.

Fig. 1: Map of Western Asia, showing sites mentioned in the text.

2007: 178–202; Bevan 2007: 40–61.

12.3. Regional Evidence and Local Traditions

12.3.1 Western Anatolia and Cyprus

12.3.2 Central and Northern Levant

but see McCartney 2013: 301–03, 307–08.

12.3.3 Middle Euphrates and Jezirah

12.3.4 Central and Southern Mesopotamia

accessed 15 March 2016.

Bi’a), see Marchesi 2015: 424–25, Pl. 2.

12.3.5 Southern Levant

bowls by virtue of the effort involved in their manufacture.

2009: 102; Amiran 1978: 57–58, Pls 77:3–4, 78:19, 21–22.

based on Hendrickx 2006.

12.4. The Movement and Exchange of Stone Vessels

temple: Ward 1964.

gneiss was a hallmark of vessels commissioned by the royal court.

ceramic shapes, see Sowada 2009: 215–16.

12.5. Chronological Implications in the Eastern Mediterranean

You might also like

12.3. Regional Evidence and Local Traditions 249

(EM Phases I-II) in Mesopotamia and Western Iran 286

in Mesopotamia and Western Iran 287