‘The Chicken or the Egg?’ Interregional Contacts Viewed Through a Technological Lens at Late Bronze Age Tiryns, Greece

ANN BRYSBAERT

‘THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG?’ INTERREGIONAL CONTACTSVIEWED THROUGH A TECHNOLOGICAL LENS AT LATEBRONZE AGE TIRYNS, GREECE

Summary. This paper reviews the environmental circumstances of the ostrichand its eggs, in order to provide a geographical overview of past human usageand modification of ostrich eggshells in the Aegean and, more specifically, atTiryns, while placing this craft in its contemporary context in the LateBronze Age Mediterranean basin. This ostrich shell evidence from Tiryns iscontextualized and analysed through the approach of the chaîne opératoire inorder to understand the material in the framework of Tiryns’ Late Bronze Agecraft activities, and within the Late Bronze Age Aegean network of contacts thatbrought this material to Tiryns in the first place.

INTRODUCTION

Ostrich eggs have always fascinated people, with ostrich farm visitors buying their meat,eggs, beauty products and feathers. In archaeological contexts, such eggs have been used fordating purposes (Brooks et al. 1990), their diachronic distribution in Egypt has been plotted(Manlius 2001), and Potts (2001) reports on how ostriches and their eggs were viewed by earlytravellers, and on the eggs’ functions in religious contexts. Even Aristotle and Pliny wrote aboutthese birds (Laufer 1926, 24).

This paper reviews the environmental circumstances of the ostrich and its eggs, in orderto provide a geographical overview of past human usage and modification of ostrich eggs andmeat in the Aegean and its surrounding areas (Kandel 2004, 389, table 3). This paper presents theevidence from the regions where the ostrich and its eggs originated, before moving on to considertheir usage and presence in the Aegean, from their first appearance until the end of the LateBronze Age and into the Iron Age. The paper finally discusses new ostrich shell evidence fromTiryns in order to extract the meaning of this material in the framework of Tiryns’ Late BronzeAge craft activities and, subsequently, within the Late Bronze Age Aegean networks that broughtthis material to Tiryns.

THE OSTRICH IN ITS ENVIRONMENT

What do Homo sapiens have that our hominid ancestors did not? Many researchers think thatthe capacity for symbolic behavior – such as art and language – is the hallmark of our species(Balter 2010).

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 32(3) 233–256 2013© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 233

Balter reported on a recent discovery of 300 engraved ostrich eggshell fragments,discussing the symbolic association that these had 55–60,000 years ago in Diepkloof, SouthAfrica. These remains displayed incised and coloured patterns, which changed over time.Some eggs were pierced with a tool to make a hole in the top part of the egg. P.-J. Texier(University of Bordeaux, Talence, France) concluded that these eggs, possibly used as watercontainers, may have been the earliest evidence of a graphic tradition among hunter-gathererpopulations, while other researchers were less convinced about the evidence for symbolicthinking behind the decorations (Amos 2010; Balter 2010). What is important is that ostricheggs were recognized very early on as useful objects, both for their shape and for theirmultiple uses.

The ostrich (Struthio camelus) is the largest bird alive today, weighing up to 90–135 kg(Serjeantson 2009, 232). It can run up to 70 km/hour and is farmed around the world for itsfeathers, meat, skin and eggs. While archaeological sources seem to place the origin of theostrich in several different areas, five subspecies have been recognized: four in Africa and one inthe Middle East, called the Arabian ostrich, which has been extinct since the 1960s (contraCaubet 1983). Owing to overhunting, ostriches are now only found south of the Sahara, while,previously, wild species were also present in North Africa and Asia (Serjeantson 2009, 288,385).

Ostrich eggs are protein-rich, c.15 cm long and 13 cm wide and weigh about 1.4 kg.They contain 1 kg of egg and can produce an omelet for a minimum of eight to ten adults, or formthe equivalent of 24–8 hen eggs. The eggshells are glossy, creamy-white to light brown, easilyrecognizable owing to their large diameter and thick section (up to 1.5–2 mm), and marked withpatterns of small pits or pores. A visit to a German ostrich farm confirmed that each egg has aunique colour, thickness, pattern of pitting, size and shape, and can be associated with anindividual hen, which lays typically one or two eggs per week during the breeding season fromApril to September (U. Kistner, pers. comm.).

The shells survive best in alkaline soils since they consist mainly of calcite (withvaterite, phosphate, proteinaceous fat, a polysaccharide coat on its outside, and a proteinaceousmembrane on the inside). Furthermore, they survive better in anaerobic and desiccatedconditions (Serjeantson 2009, 169–70). While the eggs are a very good proteinaceous foodsource, they seem to be avoided in certain cultures owing to the egg’s association with fertility,but they may be used for specific rituals (Serjeantson 2009, 166–7; pers. obs.). A freshlylaid/collected egg needs to be consumed within a few days if not refrigerated (see also Phillips2000, 332). I will return to this point below.

The highly valued feathers are known from Tutankhamun’s tomb, which containedseveral ostrich feather fans (Serjeantson 2009, 194). The meat has been enjoyed since thetime of pre-Dynastic Egypt (Darby et al. 1977, 315), and certainly since the Roman periodduring which the birds were hunted, captured and fattened for their meat. Ostrich fathad medicinal usages in the past (Darby et al. 1977, 320, 759) and formed the oily basis forbeauty products. People riding ostriches were documented in the first millennium BC on alimestone plaque from Kish, Babylonia, and they were also hunted from 1300 BC onwardswhen Assyrian royals referred to capturing them and keeping them in zoos (Moorey 1994,127).

While it is impossible to present a comprehensive account of all ostrich resources,the archaeological evidence is presented in tables for each region. These data are thencomplemented, discussed and contextualized by both textual and iconographic sources.

‘THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG?’

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.234

OSTRICH EGGS IN THE EAST MEDITERRANEAN BASIN1

Egypt

Table 1 gives a selected overview of both the chronological and geographical spread ofthe ostrich egg find-spots and their contexts. Ostriches seem to have been hunted early on inUpper Egypt and in the lower Nubian desert, as sketches and drawings from the Badari orNaqada I period testify (see e.g. Houlihan 1986, fig. 2). From the 11th Dynasty onwards, ostrichimagery was painted in tombs (Rekhmira’s tomb, Thebes (15th century BC), the tomb of BaketIII, Beni Hassan (11th Dynasty); Phillips 2000, 332). Tutankhamun’s ostrich feather fan showsa hunting scene involving the actual bird (Houlihan 1986, fig. 1). A similar scene is depicted ona silver bowl from the Bastet Temple at Bubastis (19th Dynasty), and ostriches are alsorecognized on cartouches (Hayes 1959, 358–9, figs. 124, 126, 401).

Paintings on temple and tomb walls depicting tribute bearers from Nubia, Syria andPunt show the birds’ popularity for their feathers and eggs in royal and elite contexts (Davies1943; Hayes 1959, 152, 242, 390), or as ethnic markers (Hayes 1959, 268). In Rekhmira’s tomb,Minoan and Nubian tribute bearers are shown together. Sakellarakis (1990, 306) hypothesizedthat these Minoans brought tribute to Egypt and took raw materials such as ivory and eggs back

1 Italy falls outside the East Mediterranean basin but it also produced several ostrich eggshell fragments, broughttogether in e.g. Reese 1985, 376. These lie outside the scope of this paper.

TABLE 1

Ostrich eggshell finds in Egypt and Libya in their archaeological context

Site/find-spot Date Description Publication

Hierakonpolis, structure7

Naqada IIC(c.3500 BC)

Min. 5 eggshells in frgms, somewith incised hunting scene,animals and geometric patterns

Friedmann 2010

Nagada, tomb Predynastic 1 eggshell Reese 1985, 374–6Abydos 11–12th Dynasty

18th DynastyFrom LM IA

Eggshell with apical hole andmarble spout

With stone neck and rim fitted

Evans 1928, 221Reese 1985, 374–6Helck and Eberhard 1986,

77; Phillips 2000, 332;Koehl 2006, 23

Tomb of Tutankhamun New Kingdom Ostrich feather fans Serjeantson 2009, 194Naukratis, 2nd Apollo

temple6th c BC Eggshell frgms with design etched

on inside, upper part stained redReese 1985, 376; 2000, 402

Thebes, Egypt, tomb 2nd IntermediatePeriod, Hyksos

FlaskEggshell with 1 hole and bone rings

inserted around hole

Hayes 1959, 23; Koehl 2006,28

Marsa Matruh, Libya,settlement

14th c BC (> 2 fromArchaic–Hellenisticlevels)

50 small eggshell frgms (5 from BAlevels)

White 1986, 74–6, 79, 82;Conwell 1987, 27, 29

Cyrene, Libya, temple ofApollo

Archaic Ostrich eggshells Reese 2000, 402

Cyrene, Libya, temple ofDemeter andPersephone

Archaic 31 frgms of eggshell Reese 2000, 402

Tokra, east Libya,Demeter sanctuary

Roman Frgms as cups, some with striationsalong line of chipped edge

Reese 2000, 402

ANN BRYSBAERT

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 235

to Crete to produce rhyta, but Panagiotopoulos (2001, 270) disputes ‘tribute’ on etymologicalgrounds and suggests ‘gifts’ instead. Bird pens are shown, too, probably to gather the birdstemporarily before they were hunted or to indicate a form of domestication to facilitate easier eggcollection (Phillips 2000, 332).

Very few eggshell vessels were found in Egypt, so most examples found in the Aegeanwere probably exported there, possibly via Bates’ Island (Conwell 1987), which was recentlyconsidered as an export centre for regional specialities in the locals’ trade with foreigners (White2002, 61). This may suggest that most Aegean examples were probably of Egyptian (e.g. Phillips2010, 826) rather than Near Eastern origin (but see Caubet 1983, 194), and were worked intovessels outside Egypt. Phillips (2000, 333) stated that the eggs may have had their contentsremoved before they were exported and this is confirmed by a photograph showing a hole in atleast one end of the eggs from the Ulu Burun shipwreck (Conwell 1987).

Near East2

At least one species (Struthio camelus syriacus) was native to the Near East and theArabian peninsula (Laufer 1926, 13–14, 20–1), as early as the Miocene period. Ostrich birdswere considered common in Sumer (Esaak 2006), Jordan, Syria and Central Asia (Serjeantson2009, 385). Reese (1985, 374–6) reports on modified ostrich shells from the Near East, mainlyfrom votive deposits and tomb contexts.

While ostrich eggs found in the Aegean have been most often attributed to Egypt,Caubet (1983, 194) demonstrated that a large part of this trade was actually the result ofcommercial activities by Levantine groups, thus referencing a long-standing tradition of the useand appearance of the eggs in the Near East. Ostrich eggs were made into vessels at Tell Asharah,Syria (Thureau-Dangin and Dhorme 1924, 291) and in Ur (Woolley 1934, 283, 567, pl. 156), andwere also imitated in gold and silver (Woolley 1934, pl. 170).

Yaqqim-Addu wrote, as local governor, to his king, Zimri-Lim of Mari (1779–1757BC), that ostrich eggs had been found in the steppe and brought to him, and he asks the king whatto do next. Assyrian annals also mentioned the capturing and killing of the birds, and kings tookpride in killing large numbers while the birds were already in captivity (e.g. Parrot 1953). Otherroyals kept them in zoos as ‘exotica’ praised for their feathers and eggs (Finet 1982, 69–71).Cuneiform texts mention eggs as temple offerings to the god Eanna at Uruk in Nabonide times(556–539 BC), and they also featured on the divine menu for the Anu temple in Uruk during theSeleucid period (312–63 BC) (Finet 1982, 74; see also Pausanias’ Book III.16.1 on an egg strungup in a temple in Sparta and its link to Leda; on Lobeck’s interpretation that Pausanias saw anostrich egg: Lobeck 1829, 52). Sumero-Akkadian texts refer to the eggs as receptacles amongstone vases, or as precious ornamental objects, such as the gold example from Ur, or decoratedwith gold, as indicated by a cuneiform text in the Louvre. Eggs were mentioned in medicinaltexts or were employed for magical purposes (Finet 1982, 74–5). Ostriches, finally, featured inBiblical texts, as unclean birds (Leviticus 11:16; Deuteronomy 14:15; see Laufer 1926, 9).

Iconographic evidence associating the bird with royal and elite contexts (Laufer 1926,7–8) is depicted on numerous seal stones, where ostriches are being strangled by kings or deities(Moorey 1994, 127–8). In the second millennium BC, eggs are emptied, polished and incised or

2 For a table overview of the presence of ostrich eggs in the Arabian peninsula, see Potts 2001, 187, table 2.



painted; they are often fragmentary but are frequently attested (e.g. Nuzi; Starr 1939, 488).Table 2 provides a selected overview of the archaeological material in the Near East.

Cyprus

Ostrich eggs have been found on several sites in Cyprus but, to my knowledge, they havenot been attested iconographically or in texts. Reese’s and other reports on the archaeologicalevidence from Cyprus have been brought together in Table 3.

OSTRICH EGGS IN THE AEGEAN

Table 4 presents the evidence for ostrich eggs in the Bronze Age, first by geographicalregion (Crete, islands, mainland, present-day Turkey), followed by later material in the sameregional sequence. These finds can be summarized as follows:

1. Crete: the earliest fragments come from Palaikastro (EM IIB–III) and Agios Charalambos(FN–MM IIB), and from Knossos (MM IB and MM IIIA), which also produced ostrich eggsfrom LM IB contexts (as does Kato Zakros), and again from the tenth–eighth century BC(Khaniale Tekke). The latest Cretan material comes from Kommos (seventh–fifth centuryBC).

2. Aegean islands: two ostrich egg rhyta come from Thera (LM I) and one from LC IIICPhylakopi. Ostrich eggshell fragments have been reported from Ialysos, Rhodes in funerarycontexts (LH IIIA2 and Iron Age) and from Lindos (Archaic period). The fragments fromEmporio, Chios (Temple of Athena, 690 BC; harbour sanctuary, 600 BC) and from the Herasanctuary, Samos are also Archaic in date.

3. Greek Mainland: the earliest ostrich eggs come from Mycenae’s Grave Circle A (LH I) butlater examples were attested on the Acropolis (LH III). Fragments and complete eggs werefound in Gla (LH IIIB:1–2), Agios Stefanos (LH II–III) and at Dendra in a funerary context(LH IIIA:1). Later ostrich eggshell fragments were attested at the Hera sanctuary, Argos(Archaic), Corinth (seventh–sixth century BC) and Delphi, and from a funerary context atOlynthos and from the Apollo treasury at Halieis (both fifth century BC).

No textual or iconographic data have supplemented the Bronze Age archaeological record, butthe Linear B ideogram *217VAS has been interpreted to represent ‘ostrich vessels’ or ‘Flacons enoeuf d’autruche, *217VAS’ (Vandenabeele and Olivier 1979, 5, fig. 2, 241). The Knossos tabletKN K 434.2 depicted this ideogram together with two other precious vessel types, while thematerial of the oval-shaped vessel mentioned on this tablet seems to have been of a precious kind(Vandenabeele and Olivier 1979, 244).

Caubet (1983, 196) ascertains that the eggs in Minoan–Mycenaean contexts aresufficiently different from those of Egypt and the Near East for their transformation from rawmaterial into final product to be seen as firmly rooted in the Aegean itself (but see the discussionbelow).

THE OSTRICH EGGSHELL FIND AT TIRYNS

Description and context

Tiryns (Fig. 1) is located on a low hill in the south-east Argolid, 4 km north of modernNafplio. One of the largest Bronze Age palatial centres developed here from the mid-second

ANN BRYSBAERT


TABLE 2

Ostrich eggshell finds in the Near East in their archaeological context


Ur, royal tombs 2550–2400 BC Gold vessel in ostrich eggshape, with LL, redlimestone, shell, bitumen

Woolley 1934, 283, pls. 156,170; Reese 1985, 374–5

Ur, royal tombs 2550–2400 BC Eggshell painted red Reese 1985, 374–5Abu Salabikh (Iraq), tomb

116Early Dynastic III Eggshell with terracotta base

and rim with shell inlayPostgate 1980, 73Reese 1985, 374–5

Nuzi – Frgms of eggshell cups Reese 1985, 374–5Kish, cemetery 4th millennium BC Frgms of eggshell Reese 1985, 374–5Kish, cemetery A, 7 tombs Mid 3rd millennium BC or

later1 eggshell: ceramic

reinforcement withbitumen, decorated withshell frgms.

Eggshell frgms decoratedwith small stones at baseand neck, as cups

Finet 1982, 72

Byblos, tomb Eneolithic/Chalcolithic Complete egg with large holefor spout and 10 smallerholes around it

Reese 1985, 374–5

Bahrein – Painted eggshell frgms Reese 1985, 374–5Bab edh-Dhra, Jordan EBA Eggshell with holes for spout Reese 1985, 374–5Jericho, tombs MBA Eggshell with hole and

painted brown+yellow.Eggshell with pink patches

Reese 1985, 374–5

Tell Beit Mirsim 17–16th c BC Reese 1985, 374–5Gibeon, tomb MBA II Eggshell with hole Reese 1985, 374–5Tell Gezer, tombs 1800–1400 BC Eggshells with white paint Reese 1985, 374–5Ba’qah valley, 2 cave tombs 1600/1500 BC

1400–1200 BC with IIB Mycpottery

Eggshell frgms Reese 1985, 374–5

Ugarit, Ras Shamra:tombRoyal palace

13th c BC Eggshell frgms Reese 1985, 374–5

Mari 13th c BC Eggs Reese 1985, 374–5Mari, under temple of Ishtar Pre-Sargon (=3370–2215

BC), around 2400 BCEggs Parrot 1937, 64; Finet 1982,

73Mari, palace, courtyard 106 18th c BC Eggs in foundation deposit Finet 1982, 73Mari, tombs of women Middle 2nd millennium Several eggs Parrot 1937, 84, fig. 16;

Finet 1982, 73Tell Asharah/Tirqa, Syria,

tombDate not mentioned Cut and painted eggshells,

eggshell amuletsThureau-Dangin and Dhorme

1924, 289–91, pl. LX fig.3; Reese 1985, 374–5

Hama, tomb 1200–1075 BC Frgm of eggshell Reese 1985, 376Lachish LBA with Myc IIIA:2/B:1

potteryReese 1985, 376

Lachish MB II (1750–1550 BC) Complete egg British Museum displayTell Kannâs, Syria, south

temple areac.3000 BC Eggshell frgm painted in

yellow ochreFinet 1982, 72

Sahab, Jordan Transitional LB–early IA 2 complete eggs Reese 1985, 376Tell Qasile, Philistine

sanctuaryPhilistine period? Frgms of 2 eggshells Reese 1985, 376; 2000, 402

Tell Beersheba, temple Hellenistic Eggshell frgms in votiffavissae

Reese 1985, 376; 2000, 402

Chamzhi, Luristan, Iran,necropolis

8–7th c BC Eggs Finet 1982, 74

Palestine LB I Eggshell flask Dayagi-Mendels 1989, 30;Koehl 2006, 28



millennium BC. The fortified hill is divided into an Upper, Middle and Lower Citadel and issurrounded by an extensive lower town. Building XI is situated in the northernmost part of theLower Citadel, which post-dates (LH IIIB Final; Maran 2008a, 41) the Cyclopean wallconstruction of the Lower Citadel (LH IIIB Developed), and which in turn post-dates the stratum(LH IIIB Early or Middle) in which the eggshell was found in 2003 (Maran 2008a, 37, fig. 2; fora detailed description of the site and its importance: Maran 2010; Brysbaert and Vetters 2010,both with references). The relationship between Building XI and the earlier find of the eggshellis explained below (Figs. 2a and 2b).

The ostrich eggshell at Tiryns (Fig. 3) is not immediately recognizable owing to its stateof preservation (see below). There is, however, similar material in the museum at Mycenae, andfurther confirmation of its identification as burnt ostrich eggshell came after visual comparisonwith the burnt and polished fragments found at Delphi and consultation of Poplin’s study (1995,fig. 31). The fragment is described as follows:

TN3 10, LXIII 35/21 spit VIhLength = 1.3 cmWidth = 1.7 cm

3 TN refers to ‘Tracing Networks’ and therefore the unique number given to each object studied and entered in thedatabase for this project; see www.tracingnetworks.ac.uk/content/web/cross_craft_interaction.jsp

TABLE 3

Ostrich eggshell finds in Cyprus in their archaeological context


Kition, area II – 3 groups of eggshells Reese 1985, 371Kition, temple 5, Rm 58 Cypro-Geometric I

(1050–950 BC)Eggshell frgms Reese 1985, 371

Kition, temenos A

bothros 2 in Rm 16

PG–Cypro-Geometric I(1150–1000 BC)

Cypro-Geometric I(1075/50–1000 BC)

4 eggshell frgms

Frgms of 1 eggshell

Reese 1985, 371Reese 2000, 402

Kition, area I, Rm 34 – Eggshell frgms Reese 1985, 371Kition, tombs 4 and 5 LC II–III Eggshell frgms Reese 1985, 371Kourion, sanctuary of

Apollo Hylates– Eggshells, 1 carved Reese 1990, 146

Kition-Bamboula LC IIC Painted eggshell frgms Caubet 1983, 195;Reese 1985, 371

Hala Sultan Tekke:tomb 1tomb 2

Myc IIIA:2–C:1With LC II pottery

Eggshell frgms Reese 1985, 371

Enkomi, tomb 11 LC II Complete egg with hole forspout

Reese 1985, 371

Enkomi, tomb 10 With Myc IIIB pottery Eggshell frgm with verticalbands reserved in originalwhite ground

Reese 1985, 372

Ayia Irini-Paleokastro,tomb 21

LC IA:2–B:1 Eggshell frgms with designas in Toumba

Reese 1985, 372

Cyprus, Toumba touSkourou, tomb 2,chamber 1

LB I (15th c BC)

MC

3 complete eggs with hole in1 end and white bands, 2painted with brown-purplelinear pattern

Vermeule 1974, fig. 63;Reese 1985, 372;Koehl 2006, 28

Caubet 1983, 195

ANN BRYSBAERT


TABLE 4

Ostrich eggshell finds in the Aegean in their archaeological context


Palaikastro, Crete, under RoomD32

EM IIB or III Eggshell frgms Dawkins and Currelly1903–4, 202; Reese 1985,372

Agios Charalambos cave, eastCrete

Pottery dates:FN–MM IIB

Eggshell frgms Agios Nikolaos Museum textpanel; (Betancourt et al.2008: no mention of egg)

Knossos, Kephala Ridge Undatable (Phillips2008)

Eggshell frgm with ‘red paint’(or glue) blotches

Reese 1985, 372; Phillips2008, cat. no. 261

Knossos, upper Gypsades Hill MM IIIA context Eggshell frgm Reese 1985, 372; Phillips2008, cat. no. 277

Knossos, Room of Stone Vats Early MM IB context Eggshell frgms Evans 1928, 169–70, fig.120; Phillips 2008, 90, cat.nos. 153–5 (for 3 differentgroups)

Khaniale Tekke, near Knossos,tholos tomb 2

Protogeometric–EarlyOrientalizing(10–8th c BC)

or LM III left-overs

Eggshell frgms, possibly forrhyton

Boardman 1954, 216, 228;1967a, 64, 70; Reese1985, 373

Author’s opinionKnossos, North Court and

CorridorLM IB 2 tiny eggshell frgms Cline 1994, cat. no. 951;

Phillips 2008, cat. no. 216Kato Zakro, Hall of Ceremonies LM IB Eggshell frgms, possibly of 2

eggsCline 1994, cat. no. 952–3;

Phillips 2008, cat. no. 108Thera, Rm D16 (shrine?) LM I Eggshell, holes in both ends,

faienceLambrou-Phillipson 1990,

396; Cline 1994, cat. no.948

Thera, Rm D16 (shrine?) LM I Eggshell with 2 bronze handlesin S shape?

Lambrou-Phillipson 1990,396; Sakellarakis 1990,300 on ‘S’ handle; Cline1994, cat. no. 949

Phylakopi, Melos, East shrine,phase 3, area O Lc

LH IIIC/1090 BC Joining fragments of eggshellwith poss. white stone handle

Renfrew and Cherry 1985,33–4, 324; Cline 1994,cat. no. 950

Ialysos, Rhodes, tomb 31 LH IIIA2 Eggshell frgms Cline 1994, cat. no. 954Ialysos, Rhodes, necropolis Iron Age Eggshell frgm Reese 2000, 401–3 (citing

Jacopi 1929, fig. 253)Dendra, Royal tholos tomb T LH IIIA:1 (find

context)

LM I (decorativedetails)

Egg with silver neck, bronzebands with gold borders andglass paste

Persson 1931, 14, 37, 54,pls. III, VIII;Lambrou-Phillipson 1990,335; Cline 1994, cat. no.939

Sakallarakis 1990, 306Mycenae, graves IV–V, grave

circle ALH I Eggshell, with faience and

bronze foilLambrou-Phillipson 1990,

349 (mentions 7);Tournavitou 1995, 114;

Cline 1994, cat. no. 940Mycenae, graves IV–V, grave

circle ALH I Eggshell Cline 1994, cat. no. 941;

Tournavitou 1995, 114Mycenae, graves IV–V, grave

circle ALH I Eggshell with faience and gold

covering woodCline 1994, cat. no. 942;

Tournavitou 1995, 114Mycenae, graves IV–V, grave

circle ALH I Eggshell with bronze and gold

foilCline 1994, cat. no. 943;

Tournavitou 1995, 114Mycenae, acropolis LH III Eggshell frgm Cline 1994, cat. no. 944Mycenae, Rm II below Megaron

of citadel houseLH IIIB Eggshell frgm Cline 1994, cat. no. 945

Gla LH IIIB1–2 Eggshell frgm with bronze wire Cline 1994, cat. no. 946



Thickness = 1.5 cmWeight = 0.5 gMain colour outside = 1 Gley 3/NMinor colour outside = 1 Gley 7/NMain colour inside = 1 Gley 4/N.

The outer surface appears polished with a scratched gloss, the material has been severely burnt,and some insoluble salt encrustations cover the worn breaks. The surface is very slightly curved(Fig. 4).

Considering the well-preserved and richly decorated ostrich rhyta from Mycenaeand Dendra and the presence of other ‘exotica’ at Tiryns (Brysbaert and Vetters 2013), it is oddthat no such finds have been reported here before. It is possible that similar small fragments werenot recognized in earlier excavations owing to their minute size and black-grey colour (see alsothe lack of recognition by Schliemann at Mycenae; Sakellarakis 1990, 295). Tiny fragments havebeen located, notably on Marsa Matruh (most recently, White 2002), but their original colour waspreserved (Fig. 5).

The Tirynthian eggshell was found underneath the floor of the trapezoidal Room 4/02(located in the east part of Building XI) (Fig. 2b), from which a Lapis Lacedaemonius

TABLE 4

Continued


Agios Stefanos LH II–III Eggshell frgm of rhyton? Cline 1994, cat. no. 947Ulu Burun shipwreck 14th c BC Eggshell frgms, 3 intact eggs,

possibly for rhyton, 1 possibleactual rhyton

Cline 1994, cat. no. 955–6;Conwell 1987, fig. 14;Bass 1997, 165; Pulak2010, 864, 869

Troy, settlement VI LH IIIB Several unmodified eggs Reese 1985, 373Kommos Associated with

7–5th c BCceramics

5 eggshell frgms, some with redpainted bands or zigzag motifs

Reese 2000, 401–3

Emporio, Chios, Athena temple(cella-terrace)

690 BC Egg with broad black paintedband

Boardman 1967b, 243, pl.97: 604; Reese 1985, 373

Emporio, harbour sanctuary 600 BC Eggshell frgms Boardman 1967b, 243, pl.97: 604; Reese 1985, 373

Samos, Heraion Archaic Eggshell frgms Reese 1985, 373 (citingBoessneck and von denDriesch 1983, 21)

Rhodes, Lindos acropolis,Athena Lindia sanctuary,votive deposit

Archaic acropolis (69 frgms), sanctuary(20 frgms)

Reese 1985, 373 (citingBlinkenberg 1931, 175,182)

Artemision on Thasos – Eggshell frgms Reese 2000, 402Argos, Heraion Archaic Possible eggshell frgms Reese 1985, 374 (citing

Waldstein 1905, 353)Corinth, votive fills of temple

hillLate 7th, early 6th

c BC4 eggshell frgms Reese 1985, 374; 2000, 402

Delphi – Burnt and polished eggshellfrgms

Poplin 1995, 130–1, fig. 3

Olynthos, burial 5th c BC Eggshell frgm Reese 1985, 374Halieis, Apollo treasury 5th c BC Eggshell frgms Reese 1985, 374; 2000, 402

(citing Jameson 1974, 117)Artemision, Ephesos – 1 eggshell frgm Reese 2000, 402 (citing

Forstenpointner 1993, 11)

ANN BRYSBAERT


fragment with sawing traces (TN 183) and a bone pin (TN 84) were recovered (Brysbaert andVetters 2010). The layer in which the eggshell was found is stratigraphically earlier thanthe building activities of LH IIIB Developed date in this area (see Maran 2008a, 38–41). Theeggshell’s date has been determined as LH IIIB Early or Middle, and the fragment maybelong to the lowest floor, which is contemporary with an oven (no. 46/03) that was probablysituated in an open space immediately to the south of a building also dating to LH IIIBEarly or Middle (Maran 2008a, 38, fig. 3) (Fig. 6). Alternatively, it may belong to the renewalphase of the floor, which sits just a few centimetres above the lower one (J. Maran, pers.comm.). The eggshell fragment thus pre-dates the workshop activities of Building XI(LH IIIB Final), but this is nevertheless of great interest owing to its find-spot in the samelocation. The fragment may have been burnt as a result of close contact with oven-relatedactivities in this area. These activities and the fragment’s shape are also of interest(see below).

Figure 1Map of the Aegean indicating the location of Tiryns (courtesy of H. Birk and Anastasio Editions).



Figu

re2a

Map

ofT

iryn

sin

dica

ting

the

loca

tion

ofth

ear

eaw

here

the

eggs

hell

frag

men

tw

asfo

und

(with

kind

perm

issi

onof

Prof

esso

rJ.

Mar

an).

ANN BRYSBAERT


Technical and functional discussion

In considering the function of the Tiryns ostrich shell and its interlinked technologicalmake-up, specific questions come to mind: what were the function and meaning of the ostrichshell fragment in this specific context and how does the find tie in with, first, the other finds fromthis area and phase(s) in Tiryns’ Lower Citadel and, second, with the later craft activities of thesame area (Maran 2008a; Brysbaert and Vetters 2010)? In a previous paper, we highlighted thepresence of ‘foreign’ materials within Building XI, concentrated in Rooms 78a, 78b and 4/02,and the finds from 78c indicated the presence of a standardized measurement system (Brysbaertand Vetters 2010, 33). We argued, on the basis of the finds, including imported materials andobjects, their context and the architectural layout of Building XI, that this building was, mostlikely, a palatially controlled and supervised workshop. Substantial finds relating to obsidianproduction from Room 1/02 in the same building indicated the presence of a craft activity

Figure 2bMap of Building XI indicating Room 4/02 under which the ostrich eggshell fragment was found

(with kind permission of Professor J. Maran).



(and its entire chaîne opératoire), so far not attested on Linear B records, that may well havesupported and helped to produce the luxurious goods noted elsewhere in Building XI.

Find-spot discussion and its implications In the fill above the floor to which the eggshellfragment was related, the following finds were encountered: a complete obsidian preparation

Figure 3The ostrich eggshell find from Tiryns.

Figure 4Enlarged area of eggshell fragment (bottom right-hand corner of Figure 3) indicating white lines (white arrow)resulting from post-depositional activities, and a series of parallel polish lines with black soot ingrained (black

arrow showing direction of polish lines).

ANN BRYSBAERT


flake with traces of retouching (TN 8), one complete preserved obsidian flake blank (TN 13), themedial part of an obsidian flake blank (TN 14), the medial part of a chert flake blank (TN 9), achild’s premolar tooth (TN 23) and a mudbrick oven (TN 18, published as oven no. 46/03: Maran2008a, fig. 3). The obsidian and chert assemblage suggests stone tool production here, inassociation with the presence of the eggshell fragment. Three interesting observations may bemade, taking into account that we cannot be entirely sure about the contemporaneity between theobsidian (LH III Developed) and the eggshell (which may be dated to LH IIIB Early/Middle oreven slightly later). First, the eggshell, if associated with the obsidian remains, may provideindirect evidence for tool use in relation to scraping and polishing activities. Second, ahorseshoe-shaped oven was in use in the LH IIIB Early/Middle phase (Maran 2008a, fig. 3), andan oven of exactly the same shape was used in the same area, now an open court (above theformer Rooms 78b and 4/02), during the post-palatial LH IIIC phase 2 period (Maran 2008a,figs. 56–7; J. Maran, pers. comm.) (compare Figs. 6–8). Third, the finds attested in Building XI’sRooms 78a and 78b may also have had an interesting association with the obsidian tools andremains, as found in the adjacent Room 1/02 (Brysbaert and Vetters 2010).

Even though the eggshell fragment pre-dates the workshop of Building XI, itnevertheless indicates something of crucial importance in Tiryns. First, the date of the eggshellfits perfectly well with eggshell rhyta found elsewhere in the Greek mainland and beyond,

Figure 5The egg rhyton from Dendra (after Persson 1931, pl. III).



especially with the rhyton from Dendra, dated to LH IIIB. Moreover, if we can associate theobsidian evidence with the eggshell, this may indicate that it could have been shaped and refined(cut, polished at the edges?) in that specific area of the Lower Citadel. Such production processeswould have been carried out by specific artisans and this would have been under palatial control,considering the luxurious nature of the materials involved (the egg itself, faience, bronze, gold,imported stones), while obsidian production may have supported such specialized craft activitieseven though the latter was, most likely, not directly under palatial control as such. Finally, thisgroup of finds supports an almost continuous presence of specialized craft activities andobsidian-working together at this particular location in the Lower Citadel of Tiryns. We havealready observed a similar situation, with an interval of about 30 years, in the subsequent phases(Brysbaert and Vetters 2010) and we suggested that memories of special craft activitiespotentially played a crucial role in the ‘return’ of later artisans to the same place.

I argue here for a similar situation occurring in this earlier phase, and the oven plays animportant role in the argument. It is known from ethnographic sources that people pass on craftskills, tools and knowledge over several generations. These families also frequently lived inthe same house, workshop or quarter for several generations and were thus closely connected tothe location. While we have no knowledge of land or workshop ownership within palatial wallsin the Mycenaean world or specifically at LH IIIB Tiryns (Eftychia Stavrianopoulou, pers.comm.), it is plausible that palatial leases or palace orders existed for artisans to work in the samelocations for as long as the provisions (access routes for water, raw materials, fuel, installations)were adequate (see also Georgousopoulou 2004 and Voutsaki et al. 2013 for other forms of land

Figure 6Oven (no. 46/03, TN 18) dating to LH IIIB Early or Middle from the area below Rooms 78b and 4/02 of Building

XI (with kind permission of Professor J. Maran; Maran 2008a, fig. 3).

ANN BRYSBAERT


claims in the region). The oven (no. 46/03, TN 18) known from this early phase may have beenemployed for exactly the same reasons as that (no. 79/02) found in LH IIIC phase 2 (metallurgy),although this remains to be determined. However, its similar shape (see Figs. 6–8) may indicatethat useful installations did not need changing as long as the same sort of work could besatisfactorily carried out. Such knowledge may have been passed down for several generations;one may compare, for instance, the tool-kit of past and present traditional carpenters orstonemasons.4

Reconstructing the technical chaîne opératoire and its implications Evely (1993, 233)mentioned shell (not ostrich eggshell) inlay for furniture in association with faience, rock crystaland other stones to provide the basic elements for the pattern of the inlay, which was furtherelaborated by the auxiliary use of paints, ‘blue paste’ and gold/silver foils, all testified by LinearB tablets. Almost all of the materials mentioned by Evely were found within Building XI

4 Ovens of similar shape and material make-up are known from Tiryns covering LH IIIB until the end of LH IIIC:see Brysbaert and Vetters 2013: Room 210 (LH IIIB Middle): figs. 3–4 and references within. See also Damm-Meinhardt 2013: Building complex A, Room 16 (LH IIIB Developed/Final): Plan 22 (in Damm-Meinhardt andMühlenbruch 2013). Damm-Meinhardt 2013: Building IV, Room 221a (LH IIIB Final): Beilage 2 (in Damm-Meinhardt and Mühlenbruch 2013); Damm-Meinhardt 2013: Room 10a (LH IIIC Early). See also Mühlenbruch2013: Room 76 (LH IIIC Early): pp. 63–5, Room 106 (LH IIIC Late): pp. 179–82.

Figure 7The oven (no. 79/02) located in the open area (dating to LH IIIC, phase 2), on top of former ‘Room 78b’ of

Building XI (with kind permission of Professor J. Maran; Maran 2008a, fig. 56).



(Brysbaert and Vetters 2010) so it is conceivable that eggshell vessel-working may have alsocontinued later on, in Building XI’s workshops, despite the lack of evidence of actual eggshell.He furthermore mentions the MM III–LM I gaming board of Knossos (North Quarter) as anexample of such a complex composite object, which also testifies to the artisans’ technicalknowledge. Evely (1993, figs. 95–8, 101–2) shows the types of tools and equipment needed forinlay, some of which were also present in Tiryns from the same area or nearby, from both thelevel of the eggshell find and later on, in Building XI: drills, cutting tools, awls, and evidence forobsidian-working, possibly tool production. Examples of actual ostrich inlay are known from Ur(Woolley 1934) and the Aegean (Sakellarakis 1990, 295; Phillips 2008, 89–90). The otherwisetiny Tirynthian eggshell fragment (whether a remnant of a manufactured rhyton or a fragment ofa broken eggshell) may therefore have been worth keeping as valued imported material. Ostricheggshell as a material is known to be extremely strong, very hard to work and very resilient. Itwould have taken sharp, hard-wearing blades to cut and work it (e.g. Helck 1986, col. 75), anda very careful, skilled worker exerting the right amount of force in order to avoid irreparablecracking of the shell after repeated blows (Kandel 2004, 383). The experiments carried out byPoplin (1995) demonstrated how skilful the artisans needed to be in order to polish ostricheggshells to obtain an almost marble-white perfect surface and texture.

Koehl (2006, 97–8) describes how ostrich eggshell rhyta were produced, but fails to givedetails of tool and production marks that would have allowed us to assess the way in which anostrich egg was modified into an object with one or two holes at the ends. The literaturesurrounding ostrich eggshell modification into rhyta is generally vague. Complete or intact eggs

Figure 8Close-up of the oven (no. 79/02) (LH IIIC, phase 2) (with kind permission of Professor J. Maran; Maran 2008a,

fig. 57).

ANN BRYSBAERT


are mentioned (Bass 1997, 165; Pulak 2010, 869), but without a photograph or thoroughdescription it is difficult to know what is considered an ‘intact egg’: with/without the contents,with/without holes? Such details are crucial, first, to understand the entire chaîne opératoireinvolved in producing these luxurious objects and, second, how this chaîne opératoireintersected with those of embellishing materials and their tools.

As mentioned above, non-refrigerated eggs transported in cargo ships that were underway for months would have been unfit for consumption, and such cargos may also have beenstored in port facilities for some time before they were shipped to their final destination (see alsoCline 1994, 27). Thus, trading ostrich eggs over long distances with their contents would bepointless since sulphur gasses from rotting eggs could cause the eggshell to explode. It would belogical, therefore, for the egg collectors to cut at least one (or two) sizeable hole(s) in the shell,drain the eggs of their contents, keeping that as a food source, clean and dry them, and then tradethem on. Koehl (2006, 28) mentions the examples from MM IA Knossos and EM III Palaikastrowhere no traces of primary or secondary openings or cuts were found, suggesting that these eggsor their fragments were not modified into rhyta. However, what is not clear from Koehl’sdescription is whether these traces were not visible in the fragments recovered or whether theirpreservation was too bad to detect such information. He furthermore suggests that some of theearly ostrich eggs were used as flasks – but even those needed at least one opening inorder to remove the contents – like those in Hyksos, Egypt, LB I Cyprus and LB I Palestine(Koehl 2006, 28).

It has been suggested that ostrich eggs were imported from Egypt (e.g. Phillips 2010,826) and/or the East (Vermeule 1974, 63; Caubet 1983; catalogue entries in Lambrou-Phillipson1990 refer to the Near East but are described as from Egypt on p. 335; Bass (1997, 165) believesthat the Ulu Burun eggs may have come from Libya but most likely came from Syria via Ugaritand Cyprus to the Aegean). These were subsequently modified into rhyta in the Aegean(e.g. Lambrou-Phillipson 1990, 335, 396), possibly even on Crete, before they were distributed(Sakellarakis 1990, 306). Sakellarakis (1990, 286, esp. 295) writes: ‘The first operation for thefashioning of the ostrich egg into rhyta was the opening of the egg at one end to facilitate thefitting of the neck attachment.’

While this may well be the case, I wish to stress that their initial modification, mostlikely, did not take place in the Aegean because the eggs arrived with holes already cut into atleast one end (see Conwell 1987, fig. 14: Ulu Burun example). One can, next, hypothesize thatwhile ostrich eggshell rhyta were not standard vessel types outside the Aegean, perhaps the eggcollectors were fully aware of where these eggs would go and how they would be modified.Knowledge and understanding of the final destination and function of these eggs are possiblyalso confirmed by the Ulu Burun’s Levantine manufactured ostrich egg and thus the firstexported example of its type (Pulak 2010, 869). This suggestion is also supported by theinscribed stirrup jar found at the cemetery of Bamboula, Karion, in Cyprus, which was producedin west or central Crete and traded from there to Cyprus. This stirrup jar was marked on Crete,during production, with Cypro-Minoan signs, possibly intended to be understood by the receiver,and indicating the possibility that Cypriot people were present on Crete, or people at theproduction centre knew enough Cypro-Minoan to know what to put on the vessel (Palaima et al.1984, 71–2). The importance of these examples lies in the people’s actions, demonstratingpre-knowledge of what would happen to their produce.

We can only hypothesize as to why Levantine, Egyptian or Nubian egg collectors,traders or craftspeople cut holes in the eggs, but in considering the entire chaîne opératoire of



this luxurious product, we arrive at a fascinating series of steps, carried out possibly hundreds ofkilometres and many months apart. Poplin (1995, 127, 129–30) noted that some of the ostricheggs were polished, such as the eggshell rhyta of Mycenae, Dendra and Thera. Polishing linesand a smooth, almost wax-like, surface can be seen under the microscope and polishing alsoreduces the thickness of the eggshell. Polished eggshell surfaces are ivory-white, slightly softerand more porous, so that a staining or hue-producing material can easily be absorbed. Inaddition, incising the eggs is easier after polishing, and the powder removed may have beenincorporated into medicinal recipes (Poplin 1995, 129; Finet 1982, 28).

I believe that, without having investigated the eggs of Mycenae, Thera and Dendramicroscopically, they were almost certainly polished because at least one rhyton from Mycenaebears green copper corrosion discoloration on its surface. Such a stain, whether from associatedcopper sheet decoration on the egg (Karo 1930/1933, 114) or from bronze objects buried near theegg (Sakellarakis 1990, 301), cannot penetrate the surface of a non-polished egg. The eggfragment from Tiryns was investigated under the microscope and revealed two types of scratcheson its dark burnt surface (Fig. 4): single white ones running in different directions that lookedfairly fresh, and rather smooth, parallel-running, superficial ones that are ‘filled’ with black‘soot-like’ material. I interpret these white scratches as post-depositional (Fig. 4, white arrow),while the black parallel ones seem pre-depositional marks resulting from scraping or polishing.This is further confirmed by the slightly thinner section of the Tiryns specimen (1.5 mm insteadof 1.8–2 mm). Lastly, the Tiryns fragment looks very similar to the burnt fragments from Delphi(Poplin 1995, fig. 31). It is uncertain when and where this scraping or polishing took place,abroad or in the Aegean, at the place of collection, near or at the port storage location (oranywhere in between), but Poplin (1995, 129) suggested that it is easier to carry out this workwith the contents still inside since such an egg is stronger and more pressure can thus be exertedon the surface. Polishing may thus have preceded the draining of the eggs.

I have argued elsewhere (Brysbaert 2011) that considering production – transport –distribution – consumption – discard as a linear set of steps may not be useful, since consumptionmay have taken place before production was achieved (eating the egg contents before the rhytonis made), and that the crossing over of several craft activities may produce loops in the chaîneopératoire (consumption before transport, end-product of empty egg becomes raw material fortrade, etc.), especially if each set of activities is placed within its own chronological andgeographical context. We are certain that the chaîne opératoire of the ostrich egg is quitedifferent for the egg collector than for the egg receiver in the palatial workshop. But both chaînesopératoires involve the same egg, so accepting a more crossed-over course in the egg’s ‘life line’significantly helps towards understanding its entire journey and the journey of those whoaccompanied it.

It may thus be conceivable, first, that the obsidian remains at Tiryns, indicating obsidiantool production, were indirectly involved in cutting one hole locally, and that the other, alreadyexisting, hole (cut overseas) may have been enlarged locally with obsidian tools or bronzeknives, since a large opening was usually fashioned at the top in order to fit on a spout in adifferent material (Sakellarakis 1990, 285, 295). The cutting of the second hole may also havebeen performed with a drill. Second, if both holes were cut overseas, they may not have beenlarge enough and may thus have been modified, locally, to suit the needs of a precious rhytonstone or metal mouthpiece. Third, the obsidian may not have been involved at all in producingholes and perhaps the egg at Tiryns arrived already broken and was, therefore, used as inlay only.The polishing marks can be attributed to both the eggshell as a rhyton or as inlay (if the latter was

ANN BRYSBAERT


secondary reuse of a broken vessel). What we can exclude is the presence of the fragment as anindicator of egg consumption because the eggs would have been inedible by the time theyreached the Aegean table.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has demonstrated that ostrich eggshells have been associated, diachronically,with funerary contexts, both elite (e.g. Mycenae) and mundane (e.g. Kish); see Tables 1–4. Theyappeared, diachronically, in tombs of all gender and age groups (e.g. Mari; see Finet 1982, 73),plain or decorated (Vermeule 1974). Moreover, the eggs were present in many temples andsanctuaries over time (e.g. Tell Kannâs, Phylakopi, Kourion, Thera, Naukratis), in settlements(Marsa Matruh, Palaikastro, Troy VI), and in palatial contexts (Ugarit, Knossos, Kato Zakro,Mycenae). The early egg remains at Palaikastro were most likely used in cult practices becausethey were found together with two triton shells. Evely (1993, 249, 252) associates seashells andtheir usage (as inlay) with food, thus providing inspiration to craftspeople to make greater use ofthem, and fulfilling functions as religious paraphernalia and symbols. This was probably also thecase for ostrich eggshells. Finet (1982, 75–6) stresses the difference in usage, and the symbolic,religious and cosmological meanings of the ostrich egg between the Near East and Egypt, and hebelieves these differences to be linked to the egg’s greater abundance in one region over another.

As far as the Aegean is concerned, the eggs were imported (from Egypt or Libyapossibly via the Levant, Ugarit and Cyprus), were probably considered a luxurious material, andwere scarce and hard to obtain. They belonged to the elite sphere and were employed as rhyta oras inlay. The Tiryns example does not diverge from this pattern and may indicate a long-standingpattern of Tiryns’ contacts with the Levant and Cyprus from as early as LH IIIB Early or Middleonwards. In this context, Kostoula and Maran (2012) argued convincingly for the finalembellishing of faience rhyta, made elsewhere in Tiryns, with gold foil and inlays in Building XI,possibly carried out by Cypriot or Near Eastern highly skilled artisans. If the ostrich egg was thusfashioned in this location into a rhyton or inlay, yet another thread of continuity in working withoriental materials would be present at this specific location in Tiryns.

Many publications mention the association of the eggs with life, death and rebirth (e.g.Persson 1931; Friedmann 2010 for whole eggs in tomb contexts of children), with fertility,regeneration (e.g. Serjeantson 2009, 165), with the gods (see Reese 1985, 374 on Pausanias’observations at Sparta), for medicinal purposes (Finet 1982, 75 referring to papyri on this theme;Phillips 2000, 332), or even as an ethnic marker (see paintings in Rekhmira’s tomb that place theeggs in the hands of Nubians).

If the fragment at Tiryns was part of a rhyton, its association with cult activities is aplausible suggestion. If the Tirynthian eggshell was intended to become inlay material (as aprimary or secondary usage of the egg), we have no way of knowing to which sphere it wouldbelong, apart from a luxurious one. What is, perhaps, of additional interest is the remark (Phillips2010, 827) that the continued presence of ostrich eggs in the Aegean beyond the end of thepalatial period is yet another strong indicator that Aegean trade contacts with the East and Egypt,possibly via Cyprus, continued for some time and may never have stopped. The role that ostricheggs played in the Aegean and along its contact routes is indicated by the second half of Table 4.Tiryns, too, continued to play a role in such overseas contacts beyond the end of the palatialperiod (Maran 2008a; 2008b; 2012; Brysbaert and Vetters 2010; Vetters 2012), and possibly asearly as LH IIIB Early or Middle (Maran 2004 on contacts between Tiryns and Cyprus).



Acknowledgements

I would like to express my warm gratitude to Professor Joseph Maran, as director of the Tirynsexcavations and as my host at the University of Heidelberg; he has supported my ongoing research atTiryns for many years. My stay in Heidelberg was facilitated by a Senior Research Fellowship from theAlexander von Humboldt Foundation (2010–13) for which I am very grateful. I would like to thank DrAlkestis Papadimitriou, ephor of the Argolid, for her constant support and help in our research in theregion. Warm thanks go to Melissa Vetters for years of collaboration at Tiryns and for helpful commentson this text. Thanks are also expressed to the anonymous referee whose constructive comments helped toimprove this manuscript and to Dr J. Atkinson for thoroughly proofreading my text; any mistakesremaining are, of course, my own. This paper was written as an outcome of the programme ‘TracingNetworks: Craft Traditions in the Mediterranean and Beyond’, sponsored for five years by a researchgrant from the Leverhulme Trust (2008–13, see www.tracingnetworks.org/content/web/cross_craft_interaction.jsp).

Universiteit LeidenFaculteit Archeologie

Reuvensplaats 3-42311 BE LeidenThe Netherlands

E-mail: [email protected]

REFERENCES

AMOS, J. 2010: Etched Ostrich Eggs Illustrate Human Sophistication. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8544332.stm, accessed 09/11/2010.

BALTER, M. 2010: Engraved Eggs Suggest Early Symbolism. http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/03/engraved-eggs-suggest-early-symb.html?ref=hp, accessed 16/11/2010.

BASS, G. 1997: Prolegomena to a study of marine traffic in raw materials to the Aegean during thefourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.C. In LAFFINEUR, R. and BETANCOURT, P.P. (eds.), TEXNH.Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6thInternational Aegean Conference, Philadelphia, Temple University, 18–21 April 1996 (Liège,Aegaeum 16), 153–76.

BETANCOURT, P.P., DAVARAS, C., DIERCKX, H.M.C., FERRENCE, S.C., HICKMAN, J., KARKANAS, P., MCGEORGE,P.J.P., MUHLY, J.D., REESE, D.S., STRAVOPODI, E., LANGFORD-VERSTEGEN, L. and CHLOUVERAKI, S. 2008:Excavations in the Hagios Charalambos cave: a preliminary report. Hesperia 77(4), 539–605.

BLINKENBERG, C.S. 1931: Les petits objets. In BLINKENBERG, C.S. and KINCH, K.F., Lindos: Fouilles etRecherches 1902–1914 (Berlin).

BOARDMAN, J. 1954: Catalogue of finds. In Hutchinson, R.W., The Khaniale Tekke tombs. Annual of theBritish School at Athens 49, 215–28.

BOARDMAN, J. 1967a: The Khaniale Tekke tombs II. Annual of the British School at Athens 62, 57–75.BOARDMAN, J. 1967b: Excavations in Chios 1952–1955. Greek Emporio (Athens and London, British

School at Athens Suppl. Vol. 6).BOESSNECK, J. and VON DEN DRIESCH, A. 1983: Weitere Reste exotischer Tiere aus dem Heraion auf Samos.

Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 98, 21–4.BROOKS, A.S., HARE, P.E., KOKIS, J.E., MILLER, G.H., ERNST, R.D. and WENDORF, F. 1990: Dating Pleistocene

archeological sites by protein diagenesis in ostrich eggshell. Science 248(4951), 60–4.BRYSBAERT, A. 2011: Technologies of re-using and recycling in the Aegean and beyond. In BRYSBAERT, A.

(ed.), Tracing Prehistoric Social Networks through Technology: A Diachronic Perspective on theAegean (London), 183–203.

BRYSBAERT, A. and VETTERS, M. 2010: Practicing identity: a crafty ideal? Mediterranean Archaeology andArchaeometry 10(2), 25–43.

ANN BRYSBAERT


BRYSBAERT, A. and VETTERS, M. 2013: A moving story about ‘exotica’: objects’ long-distance productionchains and associated identities at Tiryns, Greece. Opuscula.

CAUBET, A. 1983: Les oeufs d’autruche au proche orient ancient. Report of the Department of Antiquities,Cyprus 1983, 193–8.

CLINE, E.H. 1994: Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea. International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean(Oxford, BAR Int. Ser. 591).

CONWELL, D. 1987: On ostrich eggs and Libyans: traces of a Bronze Age people from Bates’ Island, Egypt.Expedition 29(3), 25–34.

DAMM-MEINHARDT, U. 2013: Baubefunde uns Stratigraphie der Unterburg (Kampagnen 1976–1983). Dieausgehende Palastzeit (SH IIIB2) und die Nachpalastzeit (Beginn SH IIIC). Text (Wiesbaden, Tiryns17.1).

DAMM-MEINHARDT, U. and MÜHLENBRUCH, T. 2013: Baubefunde uns Stratigraphie der Unterburg und desNordwestlichen Stadtgebiets (Kampagnen 1976–1983). Die ausgehende Palastzeit (SH IIIB2) und dieNachpalastzeit (SH IIIC). Dokumentation (Wiesbaden, Tiryns 17.3).

DARBY, W., GHALIOUNGUI, P. and GRIVETTI, L. 1977: Food: The Gift of Osiris, 2 vols. (London, New Yorkand San Francisco).

DAVIES, N.G. 1943: The Tomb of Rekh-mi-re at Thebes (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art).DAWKINS, R.M. and CURRELLY, C.T. 1903–4: Excavations at Palaikastro III. Annual of the British School at

Athens 9, 192–231.DAYAGI-MENDELS, M. 1989: Perfumes and Cosmetics in the Ancient World, The Israel Museum, Jerusalem,

Weisbord Exhibition Pavilion, November 1989 (Jerusalem, The Israel Museum).ESAAK, S. 2006: Gold Vessel in the Form of an Ostrich Egg. A Special Exhibition Image Gallery by

Stan Parchin. http://arthistory.about.com/od/from_exhibitions/ig/RoyalTombsofUr/Gold-Vessel.htm,accessed 10/11/2010.

EVANS, A. 1928: The Palace of Minos, Vol. II (London).EVELY, D. 1993: Minoan Crafts: Tools and Techniques. An Introduction (Göteborg, Studies in

Mediterranean Archaeology 92.1).FINET, A. 1982: L’oeuf d’autruche. Studia Paulo Naster oblata. II: Orientalia Antique (Leuven, Orientalia

Lovaniensia Analecta 13), 69–77.FORSTENPOINTNER, G. 1993: Kurzbericht zur archäozoologischen Befundungstätigkeit am

Tierknochenmaterial der Artemisiongrabung. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen ArchäologischenInstituts in Wien 62, 10–12.

FRIEDMANN, R. 2010: 2007 Field Note 6 – The Early Kings of Hierakonpolis. http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/hierakonpolis/field07/6.html, accessed 09/11/2010.

GEORGOUSOPOULOU, TH. 2004: Simplicity vs complexity: social relationships and the MH I community ofAsine. In BARRETT, J.C. and HALSTEAD, P. (eds.), The Emergence of Civilisation Revisited (Oxford,Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 6), 207–13.

HAYES, W.C. 1959: The Scepter of Egypt: A Background for the Study of the Egyptian Antiquities in theMetropolitan Museum of Art. Vol. 2: The Hyksos Period and the New Kingdom (1675–1080 BC)(New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art).

HELCK, W. 1986: Straußeneiergefaß. In HELCK, W. and WESTENDORF, W. (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie,Vol. 6 (Wiesbaden), columns 72–7.

HELCK, W. and EBERHARD, O. 1986: Lexikon der Ägyptologie, VI (Wiesbaden).HOULIHAN, P. 1986: The Birds of Ancient Egypt (Warminster, The Natural History of Egypt 1).JACOPI, G. 1929: Scavi nella Necropolis di Ialisso 1924–1928 (Rhodes, Clara Rhodos 3).JAMESON, M.H. 1974: Excavations at Porto Cheli. Archaiologikon Deltion 26(2), 114–29.KANDEL, A.W. 2004: Modification of ostrich eggs by carnivores and its bearing on the inter-

pretation of archaeological and paleontological finds. Journal of Archaeological Science 31,377–91.

KARO, G. 1930/1933: Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai (München).KOEHL, R.B. 2006: Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta (Philadelphia).KOSTOULA, M. and MARAN, J. 2012: A group of animal-headed faience vessels from Tiryns. In LEHMANN,

G., TALSHIR, Z., GRUBER, M. and AHITUV, S. (eds.), All the Wisdom of the East. Studies in Near EasternArchaeology and History in Honor of Eliezer D. Oren (Fribourg, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 255),193–234.



LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON, C. 1990: Hellenorientalia: The Near Eastern Presence in the Bronze Age Aegean ca.3000–1100 B.C. Interconnections Based on the Material Record and the Written Evidence (Göteborg,Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, Pocket Book 95).

LAUFER, B. 1926: Ostrich Egg Shell Cups of Mesopotamia and the Ostrich in Ancient and Modern Times(Chicago, Field Museum of Natural History, Anthropology leaflet 23).

LOBECK, C.A. 1829: Aglaophamus sive de theologiae mysticae graecorim causis, idemque poetrarumOrphicorum dispersas reliquias collegit, Vol. 1 (Regimonth Prussorum).

MANLIUS, N. 2001: The ostrich in Egypt: past and present. Journal of Biogeography 28,945–53.

MARAN, J. 2004: The spreading of objects and ideas in the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean: twocase examples from the Argolid of the 13th and 12th centuries B.C.E. Bulletin of the American Schoolof Oriental Research 336, 11–30.

MARAN, J. 2008a: Forschungen in der Unterburg von Tiryns 2000–2003. Archäologischer Anzeiger 2008,35–111.

MARAN, J. 2008b: Nach dem Ende: Tiryns – Phönix aus der Asche. In SIEBENMORGEN, H. and HORST, K.

(eds.), Zeit der Helden. Die, ‘dunklen Jahrhunderte Griechenlands’ 1200–700 v. Chr. Katalog zurAusstellung im Badischen Landesmuseum Karlsruhe (2008) (Karlsruhe), 63–73.

MARAN, J. 2010: Tiryns. In CLINE, E.H. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean(ca. 3000–1000 BC) (Oxford), 722–34.

MARAN, J. 2012: Ceremonial feasting equipment, social space and interculturality in post-palatial Tiryns.In MARAN, J. and STOCKHAMMER, P. (eds.), Materiality and Social Practice. Transformative Capacitiesof Intercultural Encounters. Papers of the Conference, Heidelberg, 25–27 March 2010 (Oxford),121–36.

MOOREY, P.R.S. 1994: Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence(Oxford).

MÜHLENBRUCH, T. 2013: Baubefunde uns Stratigraphie der Unterburg und des NordwestlichenStadtgebiets (Kampagnen 1976 bis 1983). Die Mykenische Nachpalastzeit (SH IIIC) (Wiesbaden,Tiryns 17.2).

PALAIMA, T.G., BETANCOURT, P.P. and MYER, G.H. 1984: An inscribed stirrup jar of Cretan origin fromBamboula, Cyprus. Kadmos 23, 65–73.

PANAGIOTOPOULOS, D. 2001: Keftiu in context: Theban tomb-paintings as a historical source. OxfordJournal of Archaeology 20(3), 263–83.

PARROT, A. 1937: Les fouilles de Mari: 3ième campagne (hiver 1935–36). Syria 18, 54–84.PARROT, A. 1953: Acquisitions et inédits du Musée du Louvre: 3, Bronzes iraniens. Syria 30, 1–11.PERSSON, A.W. 1931: The Royal Tombs at Dendra near Midea (Lund).PHILLIPS, J. 2000: Ostrich eggshells. In NICHOLSON, P.T. and SHAW, I. (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and

Technologies (Cambridge), 332–3.PHILLIPS, J.S. 2008: Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in Their Chronological Context: A Critical Review,

2 vols. (Vienna, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Contributions to the Chronology ofthe Eastern Mediterranean 18).

PHILLIPS, J.S. 2010: Egypt. In CLINE, E.H. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean(ca. 3000–1000 BC) (Oxford), 820–31.

POPLIN, F. 1995: Sur le polissage des oeufs d’autruche en archéologie. In BUITENHUIS, H. and UERPMANN,H.-P. (eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East, 2 (Leiden), 126–39.

POSTGATE, J.N. 1980: Excavations at Abu Salabikh 1978–79. Iraq 42, 87–104.POTTS, D. 2001: Ostrich distribution and exploitation in the Arabian peninsula. Antiquity 75, 182–90.PULAK, C. 2010: Ulu Burun shipwreck. In CLINE, E.H. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age

Aegean (ca. 3000–1000 BC) (Oxford), 862–76.REESE, D.S. 1985: Appendix III. Shells, ostrich eggshells and other exotic faunal remains from Kition. In

KARAGEORGHIS, V., Excavations at Kition. V: The Pre-Phoenician levels, Part II (Nicosia, Departmentof Antiquities), 371–82.

REESE, D.S. 1990: Astragali, shells, and ostrich egg-shells from Palaepaphos-Teratsoudhia (Cyprus). InKARAGEORGHIS, V., Tombs at Palaepaphos: 1. Teratsoudhia. 2. Eliomylia. Appendix 6 (Nicosia,Department of Antiquities), 144–9.

ANN BRYSBAERT


REESE, D.S. 2000: 13. Ostrich eggshell. In SHAW, J.W. and SHAW, M.C., Kommos. IV: The Greek Sanctuary,Part 1 (Princeton and Oxford), 401–3.

RENFREW, C. and CHERRY, J.F. 1985: The finds. In RENFREW, C., The Archaeology of Cult. The Sanctuary atPhylakopi (London and Athens, British School at Athens Suppl. Vol. 18).

SAKELLARAKIS, Y. 1990: The fashioning of ostrich-egg rhyta in the Creto-Mycenaean Aegean. In HARDY,D.A., DOUMAS, C.G. and SAKELLARAKIS, Y.A. (eds.), Thera and the Aegean World, III. Proceedings ofthe Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 3–9 September 1989, Vol. 1 (London), 285–308.

SERJEANTSON, D. 2009: Birds (Cambridge, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology).STARR, R.F.S. 1939: Nuzi. Report on the Excavations at Yorgan Tepa near Kirkuk, Iraq Conducted by

Harvard University in Conjunction with the American School of Oriental Research and the UniversityMuseum of Philadelphia 1927–1931 (Cambridge, Mass.).

THUREAU-DANGIN, F. and DHORME, R.P. 1924: Cinq jours de fouilles à Asharah 7–11 Septembre 1923. Syria5, 265–93.

TOURNAVITOU, I. 1995: The Ivory Houses at Mycenae (London, British School at Athens Suppl. Vol. 24).VANDENABEELE, F. and OLIVIER, J.P. 1979: Les Idéogrammes Archéologiques en Linéaire B (Paris, Etudes

Crétoises 24).VERMEULE, E.T. 1974: Toumba tou Skourou. The Mound of Darkness. A Bronze Age Town on Morphou Bay

in Cyprus (Boston, Harvard University Cyprus Archaeological Expedition and Museum of Fine Arts,Boston).

VETTERS, M. 2012: A clay ball with a Cypro-Minoan inscription from Tiryns. Archäologische Anzeiger2011(2), 1–49.

VOUTSAKI, S., MILKA, E., TRIANTAPHYLLOU, S. and ZERNER, C. 2013: Middle Helladic Lerna. Diet, economy,society. In VOUTSAKI, S. and VALAMOTI, S.-M. (eds.), Diet, Economy and Society in the Ancient GreekWorld: Towards a Better Integration of Archaeology and Science (Leuven), 133–47.

WALDSTEIN, CH. 1905: The Argive Heraeum, Vol. II (Boston).WHITE, D. 1986: 1985 excavations on Bates’ Island, Marsa Matruh. Journal of the American Research

Centre in Egypt 23, 75–84.WHITE, D. 2002: Marsa Matruh. II: The Objects. The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology

and Anthropology’s Excavations on Bates’s Island, Marsa Matruh, Egypt 1985–1989 (Philadelphia,Prehistory Monographs 2).

WOOLLEY, C.L. 1934: Ur Excavations. Vol. II: The Royal Cemetery (London, British Museum).



Documents

‘The Chicken or the Egg?’ Interregional Contacts Viewed Through a Technological Lens at Late Bronze Age Tiryns, Greece