Towards a reassessment of Levantine and Egyptian jugs and

juglets related to Cypriot Base Ring Ware

Sarah Vilain
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellow – ITEM Project, Université Paris-Nanterre

ABSTRACT

Cyprus’ insularity does not equate to isolation during the Cypriot Bronze Age. The discovery of a broad range of
Cypriot wares in the Levant and in Egypt attests to their extensive trading connections with the island. As exchanges
increase, local populations develop a growing interest in these exogenous vessels, especially Base Ring (BR) jugs and
juglets. Soon, imitations develop as do new ceramics inspired by their distinctive shapes and decorative motifs. The
dexterity and inventiveness of Levantine and Egyptian craftsmen lead to new productions of Cypriot-inspired or
Cypriot-influenced vessels. Although most are made of clay, Cypriot BR shapes are occasionally transposed in other
raw materials. Whereas Levantine productions offer a wide range of variations, Egyptian imitations reflect the area’s
highly specialised trade with Cyprus. This paper investigates the various ways in which Cypriot BR shapes and motifs
were adopted and adapted in both Egypt and the Levant and how they mirror the societies that produced them.

INTRODUCTION 1

During the 2nd millennium BC, the presence of Cypriot ceramics in the various areas with which the island
­interacted show extended connections between Cyprus and the continent. However, while the circulation of
these ceramics provides us with information about trading patterns, imitations of Cypriot shapes provide a
much more complex and multi-faceted picture. While local imitations related to BR Ware in the Levant and in
Egypt have often attracted the attention of scholars,2 they have never been studied through the prism of regional
variations, which constitute the main topic of this paper. BR Ware was created in Cyprus, in the Ovgos Valley,
during the transition between Middle Cypriot (MC) III and Late Cypriot (LC) IA. Relying on shape and dec-
oration, Åström identified an initial Proto Base Ring (PBR) stage, followed by the BR I and BR II phases.3 Fur-
ther petrographic analyses by Vaughan distinguished at least four fabrics, suggesting that multiple p­ roduction

1 This paper is a part of the Marie Skłodowska-Curie project ITEM “Imitations and inTeractions in the Eastern Mediterranean”
held from December 2020 to November 2022 at the Université Paris Nanterre (UMR 7041 ArScAn), in France. ITEM investigates
imitations and other types of artefacts related to Cypriot wares during the 2nd millennium BC.
2 See for example Bergoffen 2006; Karageorghis and Merrillees 2007; Höflmayer 2011.
3 Åström 1972a, pls. XVLVII–LI (BR I), pls. LII–LIII (BR II) and Åström 1972b, 700. BR I developed in Cyprus from LC IB to LC
IIA:2, while BR II developed from LC IIA:1 to the end of LC IIC:2. The repertoire of shapes includes bowls, jugs, juglets, bottles,
flasks, tankards and zoomorphic rhyta, with relief or incised decoration in BR I and white painted motifs in BR II.
· 142 · B E YO N D C Y P RU S : I N V E S T I G AT I N G C Y P R I O T C O N N E C T I V I T Y • AU R A S U P P L E M E N T 9

centres existed at various stages in the LC period.4 As a result, jugs and juglets soon inspired Levantine and
­Egyptian potters and craftsmen, who quickly imitated them or integrated some of their features into their own
works.

IMITATION, INSPIRATION, INFLUENCE

A common issue when dealing with imitations is the use of this term to characterise all types of vessels with any
degree of relation to Cypriot wares.5 It is therefore critical to define some of the terms to be used. In this work, an
artefact is considered to be an imitation when both its shape and decoration are copied from a Cypriot model.
On the other hand, an object is considered to be “Cypriot inspired” or “Cypriot influenced” when only selected
elements of shape or decoration are borrowed from the prototype. The use of a Cypriot vessel as “inspiration”
implies that potters likely acknowledged the original model. However, at the end of the Late Bronze Age (LBA),
shapes and motifs were circulating so broadly that potters and craftsmen might not always have been aware of
the origin of the morphological or stylistic features they were using, leading to the production of consciously or
unconsciously “influenced” artefacts. This distinction between “inspiration” and “influence”, which cannot be
archaeologically verified, is worth mentioning to highlight the difficulties inherent in the interpretation of such
artefacts. Another matter of interest is the use of shapes borrowed from the Cypriot ceramic repertoire to create
vessels in other raw materials, such as alabaster or even glass. This phenomenon is considered to be “transpo-
sition”, meaning the process of transferring and adapting features from one domain to another.6 Transpositions
mainly occurred during the 18th Dynasty in Egypt and LB IB–IIA in the Levant and are concomitant with the
floruit of the circulation of BR imports in the Eastern Mediterranean.

CLAY VESSELS RELATED TO CYPRIOT BASE RING WARE IN THE LEVANT

AND IN EGYPT

Levantine clay vessels related to Cypriot BR Ware seem to have been created soon after the arrival of the first
imports. At Tell Atchana, a local juglet in a BR shape has been identified in Level V, attributed to LB IA, which
also yielded the earliest well stratified BR I imports discovered at the site.7 According to Bergoffen, this juglet
is hand-made but the handle does not pierce the wall of the vessel, in contrast to the well-documented Cypriot
technique.8 The surface is covered with a red slip, carefully burnished, a treatment also observed on examples
from the Akkar Plain and the northern Lebanon area. In Ugarit, BR related juglets display their own original
features. According to Schaeffer’s description, the buff surface is left unslipped and undecorated.9 The use of
the main elements of shape was likely enough for these vessels to be associated with the originals by Ugarit’s

4 Vaughan (1991) distinguishes Metallic Slip Ware and Red Burnished Ware, associated with PBR and BR I, and Matt Slip Ware and
Uncoated Ware, associated with BR II. Red Burnished Ware occurs at sites that yielded the earliest BR attestations, while Uncoated
Ware is encountered at the most prominent LC II sites. The distribution of Metallic Slip Ware and Matt Slip Ware is less exclusive.
5 An in-depth discussion on imitation and cultural encounters theories is unfortunately beyond the scope of this paper. For
references, see inter alia Stockhammer 2012a; Stockhammer 2012b; Forberg and Stockhammer 2017.
6 For a discussion about the meaning of “transposition” and further insights on this phenomenon in Egypt, see Marchand 2011.
7 Bergoffen 2005, 40.
8 Bergoffen 2005, 44, 92, B90. The clay is definitely not Cypriot: “Beige clay, light red to the surface, many minute black and white
grits, extremely worn, corroded surface but had a red, vertically burnished slip”.
9 For an example of a local imitation from Ugarit, see Schaeffer 1949, fig. 82 no. 37. “Cruche en t. c. chamois. Ht. 16 cm 5. M. B.
1930. Tr. Aux lampes. Dépôt dans latrine près d’un escalier”.
S . V I L A I N • AU R A S U P P L E M E N T 9 · 143 ·

Fig. 1. Levantine red burnished juglet in BR shape, Tell Kazel, LB II. Ht. 18 cm (redrawn by the author, after Badre et al. 2018, pl. VI).

inhabitants, who were familiar with Cypriot imports.10 A juglet displaying similar features was discovered a
few kilometres further north, in Tomb 4 of Tell Shamiyeh. The assemblage also contained genuine Cypriot BR
II and White Shaved ceramics, suggesting that both local and imported vessels had similar functions.11 These
imitations were apparently not meant to replace the originals or to compensate for a lack of imports. The clay of
the juglet discovered at Tell Shamiyeh is clearly non-Cypriot; however, without petrographic analysis, it cannot
be determined whether it was locally made at the site or could have come from the main workshop located at
Ugarit.12
Levantine juglets in a BR shape and covered with a red burnished slip seem to have been a trend during the
LBA (Fig. 1). At least ten examples were discovered at Tell Kazel.13 They are all wheelmade, unlike the example
from Tell Atchana mentioned above. They were concentrated in the “treasury” of the Temple of Area IV and in
the large Building II of Area II, where they were present alongside genuine Cypriot imports.14 One has a hori-
zontal belt on the neck at the junction with the handle, a feature typical of BR I juglets.15 Following Bergoffen,
it seems likely that the choice of this specific surface treatment is the result of a fondness for this kind of finish,

10 Ugarit yielded one of the largest assemblages of Cypriot imports in the northern Levant. However, Cypriot ceramics only
constitute a minor part of the pottery discovered at the site. Quantitative data were provided by Monchambert (2004, 11) who stated
that, for example, imports represented only 0.6% of the pottery of the 1975–1976 excavation seasons.
11 Dib 2010–2011, juglet SH. A. 27. A. 55.
12 Schaeffer 1936, 148. Excavations at Ugarit and its harbour, Minet el-Beida, yielded a misfired local bowl copying Cypriot White
Slip Ware and interpreted by Schaeffer as a sign of the possible presence of a “Cypriot workshop”. The clumsiness of the execution
was attributed by the excavator to an inexperienced work force.
13 However, the overall number of imitations is low compared to the 896 BR imports discovered at the site (Badre et al. 2018, 169).
14 Badre 2006, 71, fig. 5 no. 12; Badre et al. 2018, 180, pl. couleur 1b, 216, BR IM:1–10.
15 Badre et al. 2018, 216, BR IM:2.
· 144 · B E YO N D C Y P RU S : I N V E S T I G AT I N G C Y P R I O T C O N N E C T I V I T Y • AU R A S U P P L E M E N T 9

Fig. 2. Jug with a “collar decoration”, Sidon-Dakerman, LB II. Ht. 27.3 cm (redrawn by the author, after Saidah 2004, fig. 37, no. 86).

which is well-documented in the Levant from Middle Bronze (MB) IIB.16 In such a case, the contents of these
juglets might even have been similar to those of traditional MB juglets with a red burnished slip.17 Thus, the use
of a BR shape may have been a way to follow a fashion, while the reddish slip may have been a tool to advertise
the contents in a way with which the local population was familiar. Similar juglets have been identified at Ne-
cropolis K at Byblos18 in the northern Levant, and at Jatt and Megiddo in the southern Levant.19 The example
from Jatt was discovered in the earliest burial phase of Grave 7, dated from the 15th century BC, where it was
present alongside a genuine BR I import. Petrographic analyses confirmed that these juglets originate from the
Syro-Lebanese coast, from an area between the Akkar Plain in the south and Bassit in the north.20 As the capital
city of the Kingdom of Amurru, Tell Kazel was the main centre of the Akkar Plain during the LBA. Considering
the concentration of red burnished juglets in a BR shape discovered at the site, it is likely that these juglets were
made in Tell Kazel or its vicinity.
Apart from these vessels, another specific production developed in the northern Levant, the extent of which
is still being investigated by the author. These wheelmade jugs and juglets have a general shape strongly reminis-
cent of BR, but they are painted with a very distinctive “collar decoration”, as shown by the example from Grave
18 at Sidon-Dakerman (Fig. 2).21 This motif is characteristic of Levantine Painted Ware that developed during
the MB IIA and was produced at many places in the northern Levant, especially in the Akkar Plain.22 Other

16 Bergoffen 2005, 44.

17 Levantine Red Burnished juglets might have contained some kind of aromatic oil or other precious commodity. See Maguire
2009, 55, fig. 15.
18 Salles 1980, 48, pl. XV no. 6.
19 Yannai et al. 2003, fig. 2 nos. 9–10 (Jatt) and 11 (Megiddo).
20 Yannai et al. 2003, 112.
21 Saidah 2004, fig. 37 no. 86.
22 Bagh 2013, 22.
S . V I L A I N • AU R A S U P P L E M E N T 9 · 145 ·

Fig. 3. Jug in BR style, Gezer, LB II. Ht. 20.4 cm (AO 6996, Musée du Louvre © 2007 RMN-Grand Palais (Musée du Louvre) / René-Gabriel Ojéda).

jugs and juglets with this specific combination were identified at Barkai, Jatt and ‘Ara.23 Petrographic analyses
confirmed that they originate from the northern Lebanese coast or the Syrian coast.24 The popularity of Cypriot
BR imports then triggered a new production, specifically created to cater to the tastes of the local population.
A similar phenomenon, extensively studied by Bergoffen, occurred in the southern Levant.25 Located in the
Shephelah Plain, the Tel Lachish site yielded at least 68 jugs with a BR shape.26 In Cyprus, BR II jugs are coated
with a black slip and painted with contrasting white linear motifs.27 In contrast to the Cypriot versions, the sur-
face of the Lachish jugs is either left unslipped or coated with a white slip, and they are painted with a contrasting
linear decoration in black, brown or red. Some of the motifs are strongly reminiscent of Bichrome Wheelmade
(BichrWM) Ware (Fig. 3), the origin of which has been highly debated. It is now accepted by most scholars
that BichrWM Ware originated in eastern Cyprus, where it developed during LC IA, before being produced
in the Levant, especially in the area of Tell el-Ajjul.28 Levantine potters were thus used to reproducing Cypriot
motifs and shapes and combining them with their own traditions and techniques, and likely to take advantage
of a trend.29 Apart from an example discovered in Fosse Temple III at Lachish,30 these jugs have primarily been
discovered in funerary contexts. Most were found in the tombs of non-elites, and they likely performed a similar

23 Yannai et al. 2003, fig. 2 nos. 3–7, 12–3.

24 Yannai et al. 2003, 106–7.
25 Bergoffen 2006.
26 According to Tufnell, in a corpus of 1983 vases (Tufnell 1958, 176), 210 BR imports (Tufnell 1958, 204) and 71 imitations
(among them 68 jugs, Tufnell 1958, 209) were discovered.
27 Åström 1972a, pl. LIII, nos. 2–3.
28 Artzy (2001, 168, 170) offers an overview of research on the origin of BichrWM Ware and suggests that various centres of
production might have existed.
29 Bergoffen 2006, 333. These jugs have been identified at at least 17 sites in the southern Levant.
30 Tufnell 1940, pl. LIB, 284.
· 146 · B E YO N D C Y P RU S : I N V E S T I G AT I N G C Y P R I O T C O N N E C T I V I T Y • AU R A S U P P L E M E N T 9

function to imported BR Ware. Both co-existed during the 14th century BC and the local jugs even continued to
be produced in the 13th century BC, when BR vessels ceased to be imported in such quantities.31
Levantine imitations of Cypriot BR Ware might have occasionally reached Egypt according to D. Aston, who
identified such a juglet in a funerary context at Hebwa, in the northern Sinai.32 In contrast to what was observed
in the Levant, most of the Egyptian imitations are faithful copies. Both the shape and decoration of Cypriot
juglets are reproduced, even though discrepancies are occasionally observed, undoubtedly due to the potters’
inexperience in elaborating such shapes.33 They are made of Nile silt or Marl clay34 and have been identified at
sites such as Abydos, Aman Daud, Gurob, Harageh, Maidum, Mazghuna, Quban and Sedment, where they were
produced during the 18th Dynasty.35 A peculiar juglet from Gurob is covered with a highly lustrous red slip, a
popular New Kingdom fashion. This juglet is also reminiscent of Red Lustrous Wheelmade (RLWM) Ware,36
often discovered alongside imported BR I juglets in funerary contexts during the early 18th Dynasty.37

BASE RING STYLE TRANSPOSITIONS

Although clay imitations of Cypriot BR juglets have been identified in Egypt, transpositions in stone seem to
have been favoured. They are made of so-called Egyptian alabaster, serpentine or other types of stone available
as waste from sculptors’ workshops.38 They have been recorded from the very beginning of the 18th Dynasty but
are better documented during the reign of Thutmose III.39 Unlike the clay imitations, which copied BR juglets,
most of the stone vessels are in the shape of BR jugs. One such jug in Egyptian alabaster, discovered in the
Grave of Three Foreign Wives of Thutmose III, still contained hardened ointment (Fig. 4).40 Another example,
from the Tomb of Yuya and Thuya, was found sealed with a cloth to ensure the preservation of the contents.41
The storage of cosmetic oils and ointments was the main function of Egyptian stone vessels, as their thick stone
walls helped to keep the fatty substances cool. Craftsmen especially chose BR jug shapes to fulfil the traditional

31 Tufnell 1958, 209–10.

32 Aston 2012, 15–6. Rescue excavations undertaken by the Austrian Archaeological Institute in Cairo at the site of Hebwa IV,
uncovered a number of graves dated from the reign of Thutmose III to Amenhotep III. N/6 Tomb 1 yielded a Levantine imitation
of a BR I juglet (Aston 2012, 18 no. 32) associated with a genuine Cypriot BR I import (Aston 2012, 16, 38 no. 7) and local Egyptian
pottery.
33 For example, in the proportions of a juglet discovered at Abydos. See Merrillees 1968, 99, Abydos no. 10.
34 Aston (2012, 15 no. 3) mentions the discovery at Hebwa of an imitation made in Marl clay A4.
35 Merrillees 1968, Abydos nos. 10, 27, 66; Aman Daud no. 1; Gurob nos. 8–9, 21, 23, 32; Harageh no. 5; Maidum no. 10; Mazghuna
nos. 2–3; Quban no. 11; Sedment no. 10.
36 RLWM is a distinctive LBA ware produced from high quality red clay and characterised by a carefully lustred red slip. Its
distribution includes Anatolia, Cilicia, Cyprus, the Levant and Egypt. Following Eriksson (1993), a Cypriot origin of the ware was
generally accepted. However, recent studies suggest that the production centre might have been located in Rough Cilicia (Kibaroğlu
et al. 2019).
37 For example: at Gurob, Point Q, Tomb 27, Tomb 003, Point W Tomb 472 (Eriksson 1993, 69, 93, 94); Saqqara, Tomb NE. 1
(Eriksson 1993, 73); Aniba, Cemetery S Tomb S 48 (Eriksson 1993, 76); Abydos, Cemetery D, Tomb D9, Tomb D114 (Eriksson
1993, 80–81) and Cemetery E, Tomb E10 (Eriksson 1993, 83); in the Tomb of Maket in Kahun (Eriksson 1993, 86), in Mastaba 17,
Tomb 261 A (Eriksson 1993, 88) at Maidum and at Tell el-Yahudiyeh, in Tomb 66 (Eriksson 1993, 94).
38 Some scholars prefer to call it travertine, although the typical travertine does not share the distinctive translucency of Egyptian
alabaster. For the history of stone-vessel making in Egypt, see Aston 1994.
39 One of the earliest examples attested in Egypt was discovered in Dra‘Abu el-Naga (Tomb AN B) in western Thebes. The
assemblage is dated to the reign of Amenhotep I by B. Aston (1994, 151, type 174). The creation of stone vessels in BR style from
the very beginning of the early 18th Dynasty is also accepted by Sparks (Sparks 2007, 36).
40 Lilyquist 1995, cat. nos. 83–4, 145. Jug MMA 26.8.18, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
41 Quibell and Smith 1908, pl. XXVI.
S . V I L A I N • AU R A S U P P L E M E N T 9 · 147 ·

Fig. 4. Jug in BR style, Egyptian alabaster, Grave of the Three foreign Wives of Thutmose III, Thebes, 18th Dynasty. Ht. 20.7 cm (MMA 26.8.18, Fletcher Fund,
1919, courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art, New York).

purpose of Egyptian stone vessels and occasionally adapted them to meet Egyptian trends.42 These stone vessels
might have been used as customary gifts from the pharaoh to members of his family, worthy officials and other
favoured individuals. They were also part of the burial equipment alongside other types of stone vessels, such as
canopic jars. Their production declined during the Amarna period, as suggested by the discovery of two likely
reused BR style stone vessels, inscribed with the names of Amenhotep III and his wife Tiyi, in the famous tomb
of Tutankhamun.43
In Cyprus, the relationship between BR pottery shapes and metallic vases has long been discussed.44 Re-
markably, even more than their clay counterparts, Egyptian BR style stone jugs show features that one would
expect on metal vessels, such as narrow belts resembling metal wires on the neck or a scroll design at the lower
terminus of the handle. These details might suggest that stone vessels were modelled after Cypriot metallic
vases, rather than ceramic imports.45 However, apart from a bowl discovered at Assasif,46 metallic vessels with
features resembling those of BR pottery are absent from Egypt. The scarcity of such metal vessels in the archae-
ological record might be explained by the common practice of recycling and recasting metallic artefacts.

42 For example, the compressed body of some of the vessels is reminiscent of Egyptian footed class jars (see Lilyquist 1995, fig.
141).
43 Höflmayer 2011, 349–50.
44 Merrillees 1982, 233 ff.
45 Bevan 2007, 136; Höflemayer 2011, 353 n. 5.
46 This bronze bowl of BR I style was discovered by the Egyptian Expedition of the Metropolitan Museum, New York, during the
1915–1916 season, in the Assasif at Thebes, in Egypt (MMA 16.10.438). Whether it was made in Cyprus and then imported to
Egypt, or made in Egypt from a Cypriot clay model, has long been discussed (see Merrillees 1982, 243; Karageorghis and Merrillees
2007, 147, fig. 9).
· 148 · B E YO N D C Y P RU S : I N V E S T I G AT I N G C Y P R I O T C O N N E C T I V I T Y • AU R A S U P P L E M E N T 9

Furthermore, several of the BR style stone vessels borrow elements from traditional Egyptian stone forms,
creating a hybrid product with a distinct identity. BR style stone juglets have also been encountered, though
much less commonly than the jugs. Slight modifications are sometimes applied to the shape due to the technical
limitations inherent to the material.47 Typical Egyptian features, like a petal-shaped mouth, are also occasion-
ally added.48 The predominance of transpositions in the shape of jugs, compared to juglets, is easily explained
by technical criteria. The shape of BR jugs could easily be adapted from the local repertoire and was more
suitable to the traditional purpose of Egyptian stone vessels as ointment jars. It is noteworthy that, in Egypt,
documented BR style stone vessels almost outnumber clay imitations, perhaps because the latter were not al-
ways recognised. Merrillees, and then Hulin, suggested that Cypriot ceramic imports were used by a category
of middle-class Egyptians to conform to the display of social status consistent with their rank.49 Following this
idea, stone transpositions might have been perceived by high-ranking Egyptians as more appealing and suitable
than ceramic BR shapes.
Stone vessels in a BR style are also encountered in the Levant,50 where they are mostly, but not exclusively,
associated with funerary contexts. In Ugarit, two such vessels were present in the “Fosse 1237”, which yielded
many fragments of stone vessels, the result of the plundering of the “Temple aux rhytons”, to which they likely
belong.51 Other examples, used as prestige items, were discovered at Ras Ibn Hani in room IV of the North Pal-
ace,52 in Qatna at the entrance of the Royal Tomb 153 and at Kamid el-Loz in the “Schatzhaus”, a mortuary com-
plex used by relatives or family members of the Egyptian governor ruling Kumidi.54 Local production cannot
be excluded, but some of them appear to be Egyptian, based on comparisons with material recovered from
Egypt and on the techniques by which they were produced. They might have reached the northern Levant as
diplomatic gifts or prestige items. In the southern Levant, at least six specimens of stone vessels were found
in the mortuary complex at Amman, which was discovered during bulldozing operations in 1955.55 Further
examples come from funerary contexts in Beth Shan56 and Tell el-Ajjul.57 In the Levant, BR style stone vessels
have been identified as early as LB IA,58 but most are encountered in contexts dating from LB IB–IIA, a period
contemporaneous with their main floruit in Egypt. Ultimately, they developed into simplified shapes, in which
all allusions to these prototypes were lost.59

47 Karageorghis and Merrillees 2007. For example, an upright neck instead of a sloping one.
48 Merrillees 1968, pl. XXXV, nos. 1–2.
49 Merrillees 1968, 195; Hulin 2009, 44.
50 Sparks (2007) provides an exhaustive study of stone vessels in the Levant, while Ahrens (2020) offers an overview of aegyptiaca
discovered in the northern Levant.
51 Caubet 1991, 214, pl. V, RS 4.138 (Minet el-Beida, tranchée 2V pt. 43, Louvre AO 15721); RS 78.109 + 81.3284 (Ras Shamra,
Centre de la Ville, fosse 1237); RS 84.005 (Ras Shamra, Centre de la Ville, fosse 1237), RS 37.[…] (Ras Shamra).
52 Sparks 2007, 305 no. 320; Bounni et al. 1998, 33–4, fig. 128, no. 5. The example from Ras Ibn Hani likely comes from the
plundering of the grave located under Room V.
53 Ahrens 2011, 260–1.
54 The “Schatzhaus” or “Treasury” yielded four stone vessels in BR shape, two in calcite and two in serpentine (Hatchmann 1989,
pl. 7, nos. 1–2; pl. 8, nos. 1–2).
55 The so-called “airport-temple”. See Sparks 2007, 304 no. 306, 314–16, 323.
56 Level IX, Locus 1385, Sparks 2007, 305 no. 317.
57 Cemetery 1000 and Tomb 1037, Sparks 2007, 304–5 nos. 312–13.
58 Tell el-Ajjul yielded one of the earliest examples of a stone vessel. Discovered in Grave 1157, it was associated with a Black
Lustrous Wheelmade (BLWM) Ware vessel and a toggle pin and was likely deposited during LB IA. Examples from the “Schatzhaus”
of Kamid el-Loz, Beth Shan Level IX and the Fosse Temple II at Lachish can be dated from LB IB–IIA (Sparks 2007, 304–5). These
forms appear to have remained in circulation later in the Levant than in Egypt, continuing to appear in deposits of LB IIB date.
59 One such Levantine jug was discovered at Lachish. See Sparks 2007, 306 no. 329.
S . V I L A I N • AU R A S U P P L E M E N T 9 · 149 ·

WHY IMITATE? WHAT TO IMITATE?

The fondness for Cypriot BR shapes prompted not only the production of faithful imitations but also the cre-
ation of “entangled objects”,60 inspired or influenced by Cypriot models, which combine both foreign and local
features. They are often isolated artefacts, the result of individual initiatives by local potters to take advantage of
a trend. However, at times they triggered a completely new production, the attributes of which varied according
to the local tradition of the region from which they originated. In the Levant, copying the main features of
“otherness” seems to have been enough for an association between the originals and the “entangled object” in
the acquirer’s mind. In Egypt, greater importance seems to have been placed on the accuracy of the copy, while
Levantine productions offer more variations. Local imitations and BR related vessels in clay are often discov-
ered alongside imports and seem to have had a similar function. We can then raise the question of the extent
to which the acquirers were aware of the various origins –Cypriot, Levantine or Egyptian– of the juglets. The
presence of both a Levantine BR imitation and an imported Cypriot BR I juglet in n/6 Tomb 1, in Hebwa,61 in
Egypt, suggests that people were not making a significant distinction between them, or at least not in the way
that we as archaeologists are doing so.
The contents of local vessels related to Cypriot BR jugs and juglets were likely made on the spot. Their na-
ture, and whether or not they were similar to those of imported BR vessels, is still hypothetical. Concerning
the specific case of the northern Levantine juglets covered with a red burnished slip, the contents might have
been similar to those of traditional MB Red Burnished vessels. Cypriot BR juglets, which are particularly con-
nected to funerary assemblages, especially in Egypt, are thought to have contained aromatic oils or some kind
of opium-based substance.62 The qualities and preciousness associated with the contents might have progres-
sively been associated with the containers themselves, giving a particular aspect to this distinctive shape. Such
a phenomenon would explain the choice of the transposition of BR shapes in precious raw materials. Possibly,
in some cases, imitations as well as other BR related artefacts might have even been deposited empty in graves,
their shape being significant enough for them to be associated with the qualities or properties attributed to
genuine Cypriot BR imports.
Ultimately, Cypriot BR juglets were transposed in faience and even glass, another trend that developed
during the New Kingdom.63 As a new material, glass seems to have enjoyed a relatively high status.64 Almost
from the very beginning glass vessels were made in a wide range of colours, imitating semi-precious stones such
as lapis lazuli and turquoise. A vivid example of a glass juglet in BR style is kept at the British Museum (Fig. 5).
While its exact discovery location is unknown, the applied thread decorations in yellow and light blue suggest
an origin at Medinet Ghurab.65 The yellow colour, reminiscent of gold, was obtained by using lead antimonate

60 Stockhammer 2012a, 89–90.

61 Aston 2012, 16, 18, 38, 41, 45 (no. 7, no. 32).
62 The nature of the contents of BR juglets has long been discussed. Merrillees (1968, 154, 157) has argued that it was a kind of
opium-based substance diluted with water, wine or honey. This theory seems to be supported by results of recent residue analysis
by Koschel 1996 and Smith et al. 2018.
63 The corpus of glass and faience vessels in a BR shape is currently being reinvestigated by the author. For an overview of
occurrences, see Karageorghis and Merrillees 2007, figs. 1, 3, 4, 8; Nolte 1968, 162, k “bilbils”.
64 The glass technology, which originates from Mesopotamia, was quickly mastered by Egyptian craftsmen. While they might have
been manufactured from the very beginning of the New Kingdom, glass vessels are better attested from the reign of Thutmose III.
Evidence of glassmaking or glass working activities has been identified at Malqata, Amarna, El-Lisht and Qantir. See Shortland
2009, 2–3; 2012, 49–51; Nicholson 1993; 2011, 1–2; Lilyquist and Brill 1993.
65 EA 2219, British Museum. See Karageorghis and Merrillees 2007, fig. 3; Taylor and Strudwick 2005, 168; Nolte 1968, pl. XIII,
10. Shortland (2012, 97) highlights the fact that several glass beads and vessels have been found at Medinet Ghurab, but there is no
direct evidence of an actual workshop.
· 150 · B E YO N D C Y P RU S : I N V E S T I G AT I N G C Y P R I O T C O N N E C T I V I T Y • AU R A S U P P L E M E N T 9

Fig. 5. Juglet in BR style, glass, Egypt, 18th Dynasty. Ht. 9.3 cm (EA 22819, British Museum © The Trustees of the British Museum).

colourant, which was likely made from lead derived from galena from the area of Gebel Zeit.66 The choice of this
specific foreign shape to create a luxury cosmetic juglet, using the newly mastered glass technology, shows how
valued the original Cypriot model must have been.
Thus, in Egypt, Cypriot imports represented a highly specialised trade, but they had a long-lasting influence
on New Kingdom craftsmanship. Whether in Egypt or in the Levant, imitations as well as locally made BR
related vessels or transpositions have much to reveal not only about Cyprus’ connectedness, but also about the
specific tastes, needs and beliefs of the societies that produced these vessels.

66 Shortland 2012, 80, 113–16.

S . V I L A I N • AU R A S U P P L E M E N T 9 · 151 ·

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahrens, A. 2011. “Die Steingefäße aus der Königsgruft und dem Palast von Tall Mišrife/Qațna: Verteilung, Typenspektrum
und Function.” In Interdisziplinäre Studien zur Königsgruft von Qaṭna, edited by P. Pfälzner, 258–73. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz Verlag.
_____. 2020. Aegyptiaca in der nördlichen Levante: Eine Studie zur Kontextualisierung und Rezeption ägyptischer und
ägyptisierender Objekte in der Bronzezeit. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis: Series Archaeologica 41. Leuven: Peeters.
Artzy, M. 2001. “A Study of the Cypriote Bichrome Ware: Past, Present and Future.” In The Chronology of Base-Ring Ware
and Bichrome Wheel-Made Ware, edited by P. Åström, 157–74. Stockholm: Royal Academy of Letters, History and
Antiquities.
Aston, B. 1994. Ancient Egyptian Stone Vessels: Materials and Forms. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag.
Aston, D. 2012. “Cypriot Pottery and its Imitations from Hebwa IV.” In All the Wisdom of the East. Studies in Near Eastern
Archaeology and History, in Honor of Eliezer D. Oren, edited by M. Gruber, S. Aḥituv, G. Lehmann and Z. Talshir,
13–56. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 255. Göttingen and Fribourg: Academic Press and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Åström, P. 1972a. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition Vol. IV, Part 1D. The Late Cypriote Bronze Age. Other Arts and Crafts,
Relative and Absolute Chronology, Foreign Relations, Historical Conclusions. Lund: The Swedish Cyprus Expedition.
_____. 1972b. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition Vol. IV, Part 1C. The Late Cypriote Bronze Age. Architecture and Pottery.
Lund: The Swedish Cyprus Expedition.
Badre, L. 2006. “Tell Kazel-Simyra: A Contribution to a Relative Chronological History in the Eastern Mediterranean during
the Late Bronze Age.” BASOR 343:65–95.
Badre, L., E. Capet, and B. Vitale. 2018. Tell Kazel au Bronze récent: études céramiques. Bibliothèque historique et
archéologique 211. Beyrouth: Presses de l’Institut Français du Proche-Orient.
Bagh, T. 2013. The Levantine Painted Ware from Egypt and the Levant. Tell el-Dab'a XXIII. Vienna: Austrian Academy of
Sciences Press.
Bergoffen, C. 2005. The Cypriot Bronze Age Pottery from Sir Leonard Woolley’s Excavations at Alalakh (Tell Atchana).
Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 5. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften
Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 31. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.
_____. 2006. “Canaanite Wheelmade Imitations of Late Cypriot Base-Ring II Jugs.” In Timelines: Studies in Honour of
Manfred Bietak, edited by E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger and A. Schwab, 331–39. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta
149. Leuven: Peeters.
Bevan, A. 2007. Stone Vessels and Values in the Bronze Age Mediterranean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bounni, A., J. Lagarce, and E. Lagarce. 1998. Ras Ibn Hani I. Le palais nord du Bronze récent: fouilles 1979–1995. BAH 151.
Beyrouth: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale.
Caubet, A. 1991. “Répertoire de la vaisselle de pierre. Ougarit 1929-1988.” In Arts et industries de la pierre, edited by M.
Yon, 205–63. Paris: ERC.
Dib, A. 2010–2011. “Tombeaux à puits du Bronze récent à Tell Nahr el-‘Arab (Shamiyeh).” Annales Archéologiques Arabes
Syriennes 53–54:21–35.
Eriksson, K.O. 1993. Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware. SIMA 103. Jonsered: Paul Aströms förlag.
Forberg, C., and P. Stockhammer. 2017. The Transformative Power of the Copy. A Transcultural and Interdisciplinary
­Approach. Heidelberg: Heidelberg University Publishing.
Hatchmann, R. 1989. “Kamed el-Loz 1963–1981, German Excavations in Lebanon.” Berytus 37:9–180.
Höflmayer, F. 2011. “Egyptian Imitations of Cypriote Base-Ring Ware in the Eastern Mediterranean.” In Intercultural Con-
tacts in the Ancient Mediterranean, edited by K. Duistermaat and I. Regulski, 347–61. Orientalia Lovaniensia Ana-
lecta 202. Leuven: Peeters.
Hulin, L. 2009. “Embracing the New: The Perception of Cypriot Pottery in Egypt.” In Egypt and Cyprus in Antiquity, edited
by D. Michaelides, V. Kassianidou and R.S. Merrillees, 40–7. Oxford: Oxbow.
Karageorghis, V., and R.S. Merrillees. 2007. “Imitations of Late Cypriote Pottery Found in Egypt.” RDAC:145–55.
Kibaroğlu, M., E. Kozal, A. Klügel, G. Hartmann, and P. Monien. 2019. “New Evidence on the Provenance of Red Lustrous
Wheel-made Ware (RLW): Petrographic, Elemental and Sr-Nd Isotope Analysis.” JAS Reports 24:412–33.
Koschel, K. 1996. “Opium Alkaloids in a Cypriote Base-Ring I Vessel (Bilbil) of the Middle Bronze Age from Egypt.” Egypt
and the Levant:159–66.
· 152 · B E YO N D C Y P RU S : I N V E S T I G AT I N G C Y P R I O T C O N N E C T I V I T Y • AU R A S U P P L E M E N T 9

Lilyquist, C. 1995. Egyptian Stone Vessels: Khian Through Tuthmosis IV. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Lilyquist, C., and R.H. Brill. 1993. Studies in Ancient Egyptian Glass. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Maguire, L. 2009. The Cypriot Pottery and its Circulation in the Levant. Tell el-Dab'a XXI. Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle
Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes 29. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.
Marchand, S. 2011. “La transposition céramique dans l’Égypte ancienne.” In Under the Potter’s Tree. Studies on Ancient
Egypt Presented to Janine Bourriau on the Occasion of her 70th Birthday, edited by D. Aston, B. Bader, C. Gallorini,
P. Nicholson and S. Buckingham, 60–31. Leuven, Paris and Walpole, MA: Peeters.
Merrillees, R.S. 1968. The Cypriote Bronze Age Pottery Found in Egypt. SIMA 18. Lund: Paul Aströms förlag.
_____. 1982. “Metal Vases of Cypriot Type from the 16th to 13th Century B.C.” In Early Metallurgy in Cyprus, 4000–500
B.C., edited by J.D. Muhly, R. Maddin and V. Karageorghis, 233–40. Larnaca: The Pierides Foundation.
Monchambert, J.Y. 2004. La céramique d’Ougarit : campagnes de fouilles 1975 et 1976. RSO XV. Paris: ERC.
Nicholson, P.T. 1993. Ancient Egyptian Faïence and Glass. London: Shire Egyptology.
Nicholson, P.T. 2011. “Glassworking, Use and Discard.” In UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 1 (1), edited by W. Wendrich,
J. Dieleman, E. Frood and J. Baines. Los Angeles. http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz00289zd5
Nolte, B. 1968. Die Glasgefässe in Alten Ägypten. Berlin: Hessling.
Quibell, J.E., and G.E. Smith. 1908. Tomb of Yuaa and Thuiu. Le Caire: Imprimerie De L’Institut Francais d’Archéologie
Orientale.
Saidah, R. 2004. Sidon et la Phénicie méridionale au Bronze récent: à propos des tombes de Dakerman. Bibliothèque
archéologique et historique 170. Beyrouth: Institut Français du Proche–Orient.
Salles, J.-F. 1980. La nécropole ‘K’ de Byblos. Recherche sur les grandes civilisations. Mémoire no. 2. Paris: ADPF.
Schaeffer, C.F-A. 1936. “Les fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit, septième campagne (Printemps 1935).” Syria 17:104–148.
_____. 1949. Ugaritica, II. Nouvelles études relatives aux découvertes de Ras Shamra. BAH 47. Paris: P. Geuthner.
Shortland, A. 2009. “Glass Production.” In UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 1, edited by W. Wendrich. 1–6. Los Angeles.
http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz001nf67x.
_____. 2012. Lapis Lazuli from the Kiln. Glass and Glassmaking in the Late Bronze Age. Leuven: Leuven University Press
Smith, R.K., R.J. Stacey, Ed. Bergström, and J. Thomas-Oates. 2018. “Detection of Opium Alkaloids in a Cypriot Base-Ring
Juglet.” Analyst 143:5127–36.
Sparks, R. 2007. Stone Vessels in the Levant. Leeds: Maney.
Stockhammer, P. 2012a. “Entangled Pottery: Phenomena of Appropriation in the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean.”
In Materiality and Social Practice. Transformative Capacities of Intercultural Encounters, edited by J. Maran and P.
Stockhammer, 89–103. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
_____., ed. 2012b. Conceptualizing Cultural Hybridization. A Transdisciplinary Approach. Heidelberg: Springer.
Taylor, J.H., and N.C. Strudwick 2005. Mummies: Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt. Treasures from The British
Museum. Santa Ana and London: The Bowers Museum of Cultural Art.
Tufnell, O. 1940. Lachish II (Tell Ed Duweir). The Fosse Temple. London: Oxford University Press.
_____. 1958. Lachish IV (Tell Ed Duweir). The Bronze Age. London: Oxford University Press.
Vaughan, S.J. 1991. “Material and Technical Classification of Base-Ring Ware: A New Fabric Typology.” In Cypriot Ce-
ramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record, edited by J.A. Barlow, D. Bolger and B. Kling, 119–30. Philadelphia: Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania.
Yannai, E., A. Gorzalcany, and M. Peilstöcker. 2003. “A Group of Vessels from the Syrian Coast Found in the Coastal Plain
of Israel.” Levant 35:101–16.