Rida Arif – HART 507

26.12.16

Four Late Bronze Age Shipwrecks in the Mediterranean and Aegean,

and Their Connections to Cyprus

One of the most fascinating features of the Late Bronze Age in Antiquity is the

heightened expansion of cultural contacts. This exchange and activity meant that

along with materials, cultural ideas were also becoming international, enriching the

cultures involved with knowledge, social concepts, and religious and cultural

practices previously unknown to them. One region that was heavily involved in this

exchange were the Mediterranean and Aegean seas, which, by the end of the second

millennium BC, became a highway through which major cultures of the world

communicated. The ships sailing on these seas acted as the primary transporters,

and it is only fitting to study the remains of some of these vessels in order to enrich

our understanding of this communication further.

One island that stood out for its role in trade in the second millennium BC was

Cyprus. Dramatic shifts in settlement patterns were taking place on Cyprus in the

beginning of the second millennium BC, with a huge increase in population during

the transition from Middle to Late Cypriot periods. The character of settlements on

the island changed dramatically, symbolizing intense social and economic

transformations (Manning and Hulin 2005:280). A wealth of copper and copper alloy

objects found in cemeteries at this time indicates a rapid increase in the exploitation

of local copper ores, and the development of a local copper industry (Steel 2004:
138). Cyprus was gradually emerging from her isolation, and was finally beginning to

play a pivotal role in maritime networks of the eastern Mediterranean.

Fig. 1 Locations of the four shipwrecks in the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas

Four Shipwrecks

The Uluburun shipwreck near Kas, Turkey, is dated to the 14th century BC.

Excavations of the remains began in 1984. It consisted of a large cargo of raw goods,

that included approximately ten tons of

copper ‘ox-hide’ ingots, one ton of tin

ingots, round glass ingots, elephant and

hippopotamus ivory, tortoise shells, figs,

myrrh and frankincense, orpiment, olive oil

and wine. Manufactured cargo included

Cypriot pottery, gold and silver jewelry of

Canaanite type, a Mycenaean seal, small

Egyptian items of gold and silver, including

Fig. 2 Uluburun shipwreck (Wachsmann
1998: 207, fig. 9.1)
 Fig. 3 A sketch plan of the finds
at Uluburun during the 1983
survey (Bass 1986: 271 fig. 2)

a scarab bearing the cartouche of queen Nefertiti, bronze tools and weapons,

hematite weights, stone artifacts, beads of glass, faience, and amber (Pulak 1988: 5,

Goren 2013: 55). Close to 23 stone anchors were found. Initial dating was done

based on some terra-cotta artifacts which included an amphora, a pilgrim flask and a

wall bracket, which all looked Syro-Palestinian but the wall bracket could have been

Cypriot (Bass 269: 86). The position in which the objects lay pointed to the possibility

of an east-west voyage of the ship, and were proof of the east-west trade route for

the transport of copper in the eastern Mediterranean through the Late Bronze Age

(Bass 270: 86).

The Hishuley Carmel

shipwreck is a 13th

century BC site that is

one of fourteen Late

Bronze Age shipwrecks

that have been found

Fig. 4 A group of tin, copper and lead ingots from the Hishuley
along the Carmel coast. Carmel wreck (Galili 2013: 7, fig. 7)

This shipwreck is at a point in the coast where there are no natural features that can

provide shelter to ships in case of an emergency, like bad weather. The shipwreck is

located approximately 1 km south of Haifa, and is 2.5-4 m deep. It was covered with

a layer of sand, which had been removed because of a storm, when it was

discovered in 1982 (Galili 2013: 3). Amongst the finds were 18 stone anchors, all

single-holed, and made of limestone. Tin ingots, weighing a staggering 206 kg, were

also found in the wreck. They were of various shapes, and some of them bore

inscriptions on their upper side. One heavily corroded lead ingot was discovered, as

well as two copper ox-hide ingots, one of which consisted of marks. These marks are

divided into two types; primary and secondary (Bass 1967: 72). The primary marks

were placed in order to identify the production

site, or metal properties, and were made on the

base, or a smooth surface, while the ingot was still

hot, and this created a relief in the mould.

Secondary marks, on the other hand, could have Fig. 5 Primary mark seen on a
copper ingot from the Hishuley
Carmel wreck (Galili 2013: 10, fig.
been made at any time or stage, by the producer, 15)

trader or owner. These were made either with chisels, or with a die. A primary mark
 can be seen in Fig. 5. It is important to note here that these marks and inscriptions

on ingots are yet to be deciphered. They have been compared to ancient scripts, but

they do not have parallels to the Cypro-

Minoan, Linear A or Linear B script. Three

bronze axes were also among the cargo

(Fig. 6), with parallels in Hattusa, the

stronghold of the Hittites in Anatolia. Also

found in the cargo of this ship was a

bronze hoe, which had an inscription on

the inner side. The ship itself was made by

Fig. 6 Bronze axes from the Hishuley Carmel
wreck (Galili 2013: 11, fig. 17)
the shell-first method, very popular at this

time, and was a medium-sized vessel with a length of 15-18 m. The position of the

vessel, and overall analysis of the shipwreck and position of its remains indicate that

it was hit by a storm and capsized.

The Cape Gelidonya wreck was discovered in the late 1950’s, and excavations began

in 1960. The wreck was located in Cape Gelidonya in southwest Turkey, in between

five islands present here, known as Bes Adalar. The structure of the ship was barely

preserved, but the remains dictated its size to be around 8 or 9 meters long. The

cargo consisted of a large variety of goods. These included pottery, with some

distinct pieces like stirrup jars, a base-ring jug and a number of large storage jars

(Bass 2013: 66). All of these can be placed in the 13th century BC. The bulk of the

cargo, however, consisted of ox-hide copper ingots. The remains from the

shipwrecks, especially the Uluburun and Gelidonya wrecks, illustrate to us that

 Fig. 7 Plan of the
Gelidonya wreck (Bass
1961: pl. 85, fig. 10)

copper was most commonly transported in the form of ingots. They were a total of

40, and were divided into three types with distinct features. They bore marks as well.

Irregular pieces of ingots were also found, but these were simple scrap pieces. Along

with the ox-hide ingots were 20 bun ingots. A large number of bronze tools, utensils

and weapons were found near the ingots. It is believed that this ship sunk while it

was travelling from east to west, along the southern coast of Turkey, after loading a

shipment of copper from Cyprus. It is possible that this was one of the ships that

exclusively dealt with metals in the Mediterranean (Bass 1961: 275).

The Point Iria wreck was discovered in 1962, in the Argolid Gulf in the Aegean. It is

mentioned in the Iliad as Point Strouthous, which is one of the places from where

ships departed to take part in the Trojan War. The shipwreck lies 10 m from the

rocky shore, and examination of the wreck’s surroundings produced several other

finds, indicating that this was a dangerous part of the gulf for ships. The remains are

important for being one of the rarest and most important assemblages of pottery

found in the Greek waters. The pottery was examined by Peter Day, and consisted of
four pithoi, two jugs, a smaller juglet, and two basins, all of which have parallels in

Cyprus (Lolos 1995: 73). Other finds from the shipwreck include both Mycenaean

and Cretan pottery. Collectively, these finds have helped the researchers date this

vessel to the late, or end of the 13th century BC (Vichos and Lolos 1997: 326).

The cargo from this shipwreck has helped determine this

ship’s last voyage. It departed from the south coast of

Cyprus after loading the Cypriot pythoi, and then moved

westwards towards Crete, where it took on some local

stirrup jars. From here, it moved further west and

perhaps stopped at some Mycenaean harbors before

reached the Gulf of Argos (as the distance between

Fig. 8 Illustration of Cypriot
pithos from Point Iria
Crete and Point Iria is too long to be covered in one go).
wreck (Lolos 1993: 77, fig.
16)
Two scenarios are possible regarding its origin. One, that

the ship sailed from mainland Greece to Cyprus and returned via Crete. The second

possibility is that the ship was Cypriot, where it could have unloaded some cargo,

like copper ingots, onto Crete, and then went on to the Mycenaean harbors. It is

therefore possible to deduce that there were definite contacts between the Argolid

and Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age, and these contacts were frequent, as the remains

from the cargo look like they are part of an everyday trading expedition, and were

not a special shipment.

The general route of the ships sailing from the west to east in the Mediterranean

was through Egypt. Ships generally travelled from the Nile Delta to Cyprus, which
required two to three days (Wachsmann 2011: 204). If a stop on some of the many

ports in the Levant was made, this journey took longer. Ships mostly docked on the

southern side of the island of Cyprus, as the weather, sea and wind conditions did

not allow for safe anchorage along the northern coast (Broodbank 2013: 374). Ships

that aimed to travel to Anatolia did so by traveling up the Levantine coast, and along

the southern Anatolian coast. On average, a journey from the Levant all the way to

the Aegean Sea took anything from a week to ten days. These ships hugged the coast

of the Bay of Antalya, which is evidenced by the Uluburun and Gelidonya wrecks in

this area, and travelled further west (Bass 1986: 270). The actual journey was

certainly affected by the prevailing winds and sea conditions.

… And their Connections to Cyprus

It is widely understood by scholars that Cypriot copper began to be traded

extensively beyond the island in the 14th century BC. The important question here is,

what kind of an exchange is demonstrated by the remains of the Late Bronze Age

shipwrecks?

If we look at the remains of the Uluburun ship, we notice that the primary

commodity on board was copper. The excavator of the shipwreck, George F. Bass,

believes that the ship was on a royal voyage on behalf of the King of Alashiya, the

name of a place which is often attributed to Cyprus, as the enormous amounts of

copper found in the shipwreck cannot possibly be part of a shipment by a private

trader, and only a king could assemble a quantity of metal this great (Karageorghis

1995: 61). This is further evidenced by the presence of the Cypriot pithoi on the ship
that contained unused Cypriot pottery, including Base Ring II Ware, White Shaved

Ware, White Slip Ware, Bucchero Ware, and unused lamps. Adding to this is the

presence of the 23 anchors, which, after analyses, are concluded to be of Near

Eastern or Cypriot origin (Bass 1991: 74). It therefore becomes reasonable to suggest

that it is a possibility that the origin of the ship was either Levantine or Cypriot.

When we look at our shipwreck at Hishuley Carmel, along with the copper ingots,

bronze hoes were found among the remains. Comparison with other hoes of this

time shows that it has its closest parallels with hoes from Cyprus, and not Egypt and

Syria, and its excavators were therefore able to date it to the 13th century. Trace-

element analysis was conducted on the copper ingots, and the results showed that

the copper was smelted from Cypriot ores, but definite proof of this comes from

lead-isotope analysis. Both the copper ox-hide ingots were tested, and the results

indicate that the lead-isotope composition of one of the ingots matches that of the

ores at Apliki in Cyprus. The copper of the second ingot appears to have been

extracted from Skouriotissa, which is not far from Apliki (Galili 2013: 14). The

assemblage gives solid evidence for the transport and trade of copper and tin ingots

by sea along the Israeli coast in the Bronze Age. The lead isotope analyses have

helped us to identify the link this ship had to Cyprus, in the shape of the copper

ingots.

A total of forty ox-hide ingots were excavated from the Gelidonya wreck, along with

20 bun ingots, and Dikaios, during his excavations at Enkomi, found a mould for this

type of ingot shape. Moreover, an ingot of this type was found in the sea near Soli, in
northwestern Cyprus. On the other hand, representations of bun ingots can be seen

on Egyptian tomb paintings as well, indicating that these were known in the

Mediterranean. Lead isotope analyses of the ox-hide ingots, conducted by N. Gale,

show that the copper originates from Cypriot ores (Muhly et all 1977: 355, Bass

1991: 71). 48 bronze tools were also found near the ingots. Their total amount

created three sets in accordance with the Egyptian weighing unit of a qedet. This

method of measurement was also known in Syria and Cyprus (Bass 1961: 274).

The pottery from the Point Iria shipwreck was

studied by Peter Day. According to him, the

presence of four pithoi are highly likely to be of

Cypriot origin. This is because parallels to the Iria

pithoi are found in Late Cypriot IIC and early IIIA

periods from sites such as Myrtou Pigadhes, Pyla

Kokkinokremos and Maa Palaiokastro. These Fig. 9 A Cypriot jug from the Point
Iria wreck (Lolos 2013: 77, fig. 17)
pithoi were widely distributed in the

Mediterranean in the Late Bronze Age, however this is the first time they were found

in the Aegean. Two jugs and a smaller juglet were also found to be closely related to

Cypriot jugs of similar shape and size. Two more basins are also believed to be

Cypriot, as they are similar to basins found in the Cypriot sanctuaries of Myrtou

Pigadhes and Pyla Kokkinokremos.

Textual Evidence and Alashiya

The search for textual evidence for this exchange takes us to Egypt. The Amarna

Letters is a group of correspondence in the shape of clay tablets, between the rulers
of the Ancient Near East and Egypt, in the 14th century BC. Mentioned in these

letters is the kingdom of Alashiya, often connected to Cyprus (Knapp 2014: 87).

Here, the king of Alashiya called the king of Egypt his brother, indicating cordial and

strong relations between the two cultures (Steel 2004: 184). Eight Amarna texts,

sent to Egypt from Alashiya, attest to this relationship, specifically mentioning gift

exchange with Egypt. The amount of copper on the Uluburun ship comes to about

320 talents worth of copper, which, according to the Amarna Letters, was the

average for one shipment of copper from Alashiya to the Egyptian treasury as part of

the gift exchange (Goren 2013: 59). Alashiya is also mentioned in several texts from

Ugarit (Wachsmann 1998: 61). Although Alashiya has widely been attributed to

Cyprus from the 14th century BC, corresponding closely to the Amarna period, it is

extremely important to note that there is no evidence from this period from Cyprus

that hints at the presence of a unified state with a common central authority

(Keswani 1993: 76). Another problem that rises here is of the route (Bass 1991: 76).

If the Uluburun ship was indeed carrying a royal shipment from Alashiya, supposedly

the island of Cyprus, why had it sailed further west? Would a royal shipment not

employ the safest, shortest and quickest route to reach its receiver? In this case, the

Uluburun ship was sailing westwards, where it was either heading to Crete, Rhodes,

or to other islands in the Aegean, or mainland Greece (Marketou 2009: 48). It is

important to note that lead isotope analyses of artifacts from areas in the west, such

as Greece, indicate that the copper being used for making weapons and tools was

being sourced locally. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that the Cypriot copper

ingot exchange acted as a high status gift exchange.

It is appropriate here to briefly examine the Levantine coast, in order to understand

whether Cypriot wares appeared here in the Late Bronze Age. A look at the Carmel

coast, which is also the site of the Hishuley Carmel shipwreck, tells us that

excavations at sites such as Tell Abu Hawam, Akko as well as Tel Nami revealed

several types of imported Cypriot pottery, namely White Slip, Base Ring,

Monochrome and White Shaved wares. Tell Abu Hawam had an enormous number

of Cypriot imports, including those mentioned above, along with White Lustrous and

Cypriot Wheel Made pieces, which originate in the Enkomi area and the south of

Cyprus. Wall brackets, also of Cypriot origin, were found, as well as Cypriot pithoi

(Artzy 2006: 55). All of these finds suggest that the Carmel coast acted as a favorable

anchorage region for the transshipment of goods that were being circulated around

the Mediterranean.

Evidence of Trade from Cyprus

Cyprus, which is one of the largest resources of copper in the world, began exploiting

and taking great economic advantage of this resource in the middle of the second

millennium BC. Over the next few centuries, by the end of the second millennium

BC, Cyprus had become fully integrated within the active trading networks that were

operating between Egypt, the Levant and Aegean. The finds from the four major

shipwrecks from this period give weightage to the understanding that this is when

copper began to be used by the Cypriots for economic purposes. This led to the
 Fig. 10 Late Bronze Age sites on Cyprus (Steel 2013: 571, fig. 38.1)
emergence of an economic elite, which is evidenced by metal-rich tombs,

destruction levels, and most importantly, by the appearance of fortified sites along

the copper-rich region of the Troodos Mountains, as well as the coastal regions that

overlooked the copper trade, such as at Enkomi (Broodbank 2013: 368). Peltenburg

(1996) suggests that a Late Cypriot I fort at Enkomi can be taken as a physical

manifestation of the power of the emerging elite, who controlled, and were

dependent on the copper trade. The presence of rich burials at this fort, with a

significant amount of prestige objects, give weight to Peltenburg’s proposal. The

significant increase in the distribution of artifacts attests to the heightened activity in

the waters of the Mediterranean (Georgiou 1997: 117).

A look at the possible locations of harbors and ports is vital here, in order to

understand the dynamics of the areas of the island that were involved in this

maritime activity. No remains of harbors are present on the coasts of Cyprus today,
therefore we can examine the geography of the island to gauge their possible

locations. Cyprus did not have any natural big harbors like Piraeus, and artificial

facilities were minimal (Frost 1995: 1). The winds greatly affected the approaches

and anchorages. Because of this, the north coast, despite being closer to Mycenaean

trade centers, was not a safe place for anchorage, as the wind conditions here are

extremely dangerous for ships (Raban 1993: 145). The Chrysochou Bay does not

offer any shelter for ships, and the Morphou Bay is dangerous due to the winds.

Therefore, the important harbors of the island have always been located on the

south and southeastern part of the island, located between Famagusta, Larnaca,

Limassol and Paphos (Georgiou 1997: 121, Murray 1995: 40). The southern ports

then certainly acted as important stops in the Late Bronze Age, for ships that were

travelling to and from Egypt and Levant. Goods from the eastern Mediterranean

were also being transported as far west as the Aegean, as evidenced by the Point Iria

shipwreck in the Argolid Gulf (Karageorghis 2009: 16).

Our four Late Bronze Age shipwrecks namely Uluburun, Cape Gelidonya, Hishuley

Carmel and Point Iria give insight into late second millennium BC trade in a way that

on-land excavations will never be able to provide. The remains of these ships

encapsulate large groups of objects as they were in a single moment in time, without

any disturbances, unlike on land. Examinations of these shipwrecks enable us to

reconstruct the significant trade connections between some of the most important

cultures in the Late Bronze Age. The important role of Cyprus in this sea trade is

highlighted by the Cypriot remains from the cargoes of these wrecks. These

shipwrecks and their cargo also help us to understand how the island of Cyprus itself
was changing, and being affected by its exploitation of copper. It is this possible to

conclude that Cyprus had finally broken out of its isolation, and was an important

player in the maritime and metal trading activities of the Mediterranean, reaching as

far out as mainland Greece.

Bibliography:

Artzy, M. 2006 “The Carmel Coast during the Second Part of the Late Bronze Age: A
Center for Eastern Mediterranean Transshipping.” Bulletin for the American Schools
of Oriental Research 343: 45-64.

Bachhuber, C. 2006 “Aegean Interest on the Uluburun Ship.” American Journal of

Archaeology 110 (3): 345-363.

Bass, G. F. 1961 “The Cape Gelidonya Wreck: Preliminary Report.” American Journal
of Archaeology 65 (3): 267-276.

Bass, G. F. 1986 “A Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun (Kas): 1984 Campaign.”
American Journal of Archaeology 90 (3): 269-296.

Bass. G. F. 1991 “Evidence of trade from Bronze Age Shipwrecks.” Pp. 69-82 in
Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean: Papers presented at the conference held at
Rawley House, Oxford, ed. by N. H. Gale. Jonsered: Astrom.

Bass, G. F. 2013 “Cape Gelidonya Redux.” Pp. 62- 73 in Cultures in Contact: From
Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC, ed. by J. Aruz, S. B.
Graff and Y. Rakic. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Bass, G. F., Throckmorton P., Taylor, J. D. P., Hennessy, J. B., Shulman A. R. and
Buchholz H.-G. 1967 “Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck.” Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society 57 (8): 1-177.

Broodbank, C. 2013 The Making of the Middle Sea: A History of the Mediterranean
from the Beginning to the Emergence of the Classical World. London: Thames &
Hudson.

Frost, H. 1995 “Harbours and Proto-Harbours; Early Levantine Engineering.” Pp. 1-22
in Proceedings of the International Symposium Cyprus and the Sea, ed. by V.
Karageorghis and D. Michaelides. Nicosia: University of Cyprus.

Galili, E. “A Late Bronze Age Shipwreck with a Metal Cargo from Hishuley Carmel,
Israel.” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 42 (1): 2-23.

Georgiou, H. 1997 “Seafaring, Trade Routes and the Emergence of the Bronze Age:
Urban Centers in the Eastern Mediterranean.” Pp. 117-124 in Res Maritimae. Cyprus
and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity, ed. by S. Swiny, R.
Hohlfelder and H. Swiny. Atlanta: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Goren, Y. 2013 “International Exchange during the Late Second Millennium BC:
Microarchaeological Study of Finds from the Uluburun Ship.” Pp. 54-61 in Cultures in
Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC, ed.
by J. Aruz, S. B. Graff and Y. Rakic. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Karageorghis, V. 2009 “Cyprus and the Eastern Aegean: an introduction.” Pp. 15-22
in Cyprus and the East Aegean: Intercultural Contacts from 3000 to 500 BC, ed. by V.
Karageorghis and O. Kouka. Nicosia: A. G. Leventis Foundation.

Karageorghis, V. 1995 “Trade Relations between Cyprus, the Aegean and the Central
Mediterranean During the Late Bronze Age.” Pp. 61-63 in Proceedings of the
International Symposium Cyprus and the Sea, ed. by V. Karageorghis and D.
Michaelides. Nicosia: University of Cyprus.

Knapp, A. B. 2014 “Seafaring and seafarers: the case for Late Bronze Age Cyprus.”
Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 143: 79-93.

Keswani, P. S. 1993 “Models of Local Exchange in the Late Bronze Age Cyprus.”
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 292: 73-83.

Lolos, Y. G. 1995 “Late Cypro-Mycenaean Seafaring: New Evidence from Sites in the
Saronic and the Argolic Gulfs.” Pp. 65-85 in Proceedings of the International
Symposium Cyprus and the Sea, ed. by V. Karageorghis and D. Michaelides. Nicosia:
University of Cyprus.

Manning, S. W. and Hulin, L. 2005 “Maritime Commerce and Geographies of

Mobility in the Late Bronze Age of the Eastern Mediterranean.” Pp. 270-302 in The
Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory, ed. by E. Blake and A. B. Knapp.
Malden/Oxford/Victoria: Routledge.

Marketou, T. 2009 “Rhodes and Cyprus in the Bronze Age: old and new evidence of
contacts and interactions.” Pp. 48- 58 in Cyprus and the East Aegean: Intercultural
Contacts from 3000 to 500 BC, ed. by V. Karageorghis and O. Kouka. Nicosia: A. G.
Leventis Foundation.

Muhly, J. D., Wheeler, T. S., and Maddin, R. 1977 “The Cape Gelidonya Shipwreck
and the Bronze Age Metals Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean.” Journal of Field
Archaeology 4 (3): 353-362. doi:10.2307/529636.

Murray, W. M. 1995 “Ancient Sailing Winds in the Eastern Mediterranean: The Case
for Cyprus.” Pp. 33-44 in Proceedings of the International Symposium Cyprus and the
Sea, ed. by V. Karageorghis and D. Michaelides. Nicosia: University of Cyprus.

Parker, A. J. 1992 Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean & the Roman Provinces.
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Peltenburg, E. 1996 “From Isolation to State Formation in Cyprus, c. 3500-1500 BC.”

Pp. 17-44 in The Development of the Cypriot Economy: From the Prehistoric Period to
the Present Day, ed. by V. Karageorghis and D. Michaelides. Nicosia: Panepistemio
Kyprou.
Pulak, C. 1988 “The Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun, Turkey: 1985 Campaign.”
American Journal of Archaeology 92 (1): 1-37.

Raban, A. 1995 “The Heritage of Ancient Harbour Engineering in Cyprus and the
Levant.” Pp. 139-188 in Proceedings of the International Symposium Cyprus and the
Sea, ed. by V. Karageorghis and D. Michaelides. Nicosia: University of Cyprus.

Vichos, Y. and Lolos, Y. 1997 “The Cypro-Mycenean Wreck at Point Iria in the Argolic
Gulf: First Thoughts on the Origin and the Nature of the Vessel.” Pp. 321-337 in Res
Maritimae. Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity,
ed. by S. Swiny, R. Hohlfelder and H. Swiny. Atlanta: American Schools of Oriental
Research.

Wachsmann, S. 2011 “Deep Submergence Archaeology.” Pp. 202-231 in The Oxford

Handbook of Maritime Archaeology, ed. by Catsambis, A. Ford, B. and Hamilton, D. L.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wacshmann, S. 2008 Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant.
College Station: Texas A&M University Press.