Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Burial offerings in intramural tombs at Middle Bronze Age Megiddo

Burial offerings in intramural tombs at Middle Bronze Age Megiddo INTRODUCTIONAt the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 2000–1900 BCE), a new burial custom appeared in the Southern Levant in which the dead were interred beneath the floors of occupied houses (Baker, 2012; Cradic, 2017, 2018). Individuals of all ages, from newborns to older adults, were buried alone or in groups, in simple pits sometimes stone‐lined, storage jars (mainly in the case of children), or in masonry‐constructed subterranean chambers. Funerary objects found in the burials attest to the social status of those interred. The most common offerings were ceramic vessels. Though hundreds of such burials have been unearthed, traditional archaeology has fallen short of identifying the contents of these vessels. Here, we report the results of residue analysis of ceramic vessels retrieved from intramural Middle Bronze burials at Tel Megiddo, Israel; it provides the first empirical evidence for the contents of these containers.Megiddo is a major type site for the Middle Bronze Levant (Ussishkin, 2018, pp. 171–199). The tradition of intramural burials is well attested there throughout the Middle Bronze and through the Late Bronze I (Adams & Cradic, 2022; Loud, 1948; Martin et al., 2022). By the Late Bronze IIA (starting c. 1400 BCE), the practice abruptly ended, and the city's dead were buried in extramural caves on the mound's eastern slope (Guy, 1938). The vessels studied here originated from two different contexts at the site, one representing intramural burials beneath houses (Area K) and the other featuring a monumental, stone chamber tomb, apparently associated with the nearby palatial complex (Area H).THE CONTEXTSBurials in Area K (Burials 18/K/24; 18/K/94; 18/K/95; 18/K/109; Installation 18/K/87)Area K is a sectional trench located on the edge of the southeaster sector of the mound (Figure 1). Excavation here has unearthed a sequence of domestic courtyard houses from the Middle Bronze Age to the Iron I Age (Martin, 2022). The houses had stone foundations with bricks for the upper courses of the walls; floors were made of plaster or beaten earth. The layout of the houses is typical of domestic areas in Middle Bronze settlements. Throughout the second millennium BCE, this area of the site was characterized by domestic industries—first and foremost metallurgy and flint knapping (Gersht, 2006; Yahalom‐Mack et al., 2017). The vessels sampled here came from four burials located under the floors of a Middle Bronze II house (Levels K‐12 and K‐13, c. 1750–1650 BCE; see Figure S1 for Middle Bronze III and Late Bronze I burials in this area; see Martin & Cradic, 2022; Martin et al., 2022). Installation 18/K/87, related to pit Burial 18/K/98, is of note. It consisted of a perpendicular alignment of stones into which a complete storage jar was integrated. The rim of the jar was somewhat lower than the top of the stone masonry, but was not covered, meaning that it would have been accessible from the surface above. A dipper juglet was found inside the jar. Due to the likelihood that the jar contained liquids related to the burial, it was included in our analysis.1FIGURETel Megiddo. (a) Map showing the location of Tel Megiddo in Israel. Created by Omer Ze'evi‐Berger. (b) Aerial photograph of Tel Megiddo, marking the two excavation areas, K and H. Courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition.A monumental tomb in Area H (Burial 16/H/50)Burial 16/H/50 (henceforth Tomb 50) is a subterranean, monumental, masonry‐constructed chamber tomb located in Area H, a sectional trench at the northeastern edge of the mound, adjacent to the palatial quarter (Loud, 1948, pp. 15–16, figure 380) (Figures 1 and S2). It dates to Level H‐16 of the Middle Bronze III, c. 1650–1550 BCE. The tomb was accessed from a dromos and consists of a single rectangular chamber with vaulted ceiling (Figure 2).2FIGURETomb 50. (a) Open platter 16/H/64/VS1 in situ with animal bones and charred remains. (b) Main vessel assemblage in the east of Tomb 50, facing south. (c) Detail of the main vessel assemblage in the east of Tomb 50, facing southeast. (d) Interior of Tomb 50 before excavation. A layer of mud wash that sealed the burial deposits is visible on the surface, facing northwest. Courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition.Tomb 50 contained the remains of at least 17 individuals: Three were in primary interment, laid in the front and center of the chamber, and 14 were found comingling in secondary deposits, at the rear of the chamber (Cradic, forthcoming; Kalisher, forthcoming). The primary individuals were richly decorated with bodily ornamentation that included bronze, silver, and gold jewelry; beads made from stone and faience; bronze and silver pins paired with gold brooches; and a belt or beaded textile made of hundreds of small perforated shells. An assemblage of caprine bones of both meat‐rich and meat‐poor portions of young and prime‐age individuals was also found (Sapir‐Hen, forthcoming), likely representing the remains of funerary feasts and/or offerings to the dead. Some of the faunal remains were found in situ within ceramic platters as if being served as a meal (Figure 2a) (Cradic, forthcoming; Sapir‐Hen, forthcoming). The burial assemblage included 32 ceramic vessels of a variety of shapes and types—bowls, plates, jugs, juglets, storage jars, and lamps (Figure 2b,c). Most of the vessels were found intact, standing upright in situ. They were concentrated at the entrance, on the same surface as the primary inhumations, but could not be linked to specific individuals.Preservation of organic materials in Tomb 50 was generally good. A layer of mud wash ~0.3 m deep covered the main deposit of burials and grave goods (Figure 2d). It may have disturbed the original deposits to a minor extent but at the same time served as a protective layer that effectively sealed the finds.MATERIALS AND METHODSArchaeological samplesThe bioarchaeological context of the burials reported here is summarized in Table 1, along with each vessel's position within the grave and its lab identification number.1TABLESummary of burial loci sampled in this study; bioarchaeological data from Kalisher, forthcoming.Burial locus (level)Age of the deceasedBody positionBurial typeVessel sampledVessel numberLab numberVessel position within the grave18/K/24 (K‐12)Child (10–14 years)Supine hyper‐flexedSimple pit with later ‐stone liningRed piriform jugletVS1M‐024‐02‐01Placed across the back. The mouth of the vessel is facing away from the mouth of the child, with the base up18/K/94 (K‐12)Infant (<1 year)Right lateral flexedJarJugVS1M‐094‐06‐01Vertically oriented, laying against the outside of the burial jar. The higher of two jugs was accessible from aboveJugVS2M‐094‐06‐02Vertically oriented, laying against the outside of the burial jar. The lower of two jugsJugletVS4M‐094‐06‐04was placed against the left side of the child's face18/K/95 (K‐13)Newborn (approx. 40 weeks gestation)N/AJarCarinated bowlVS1M‐095‐01‐01Above the head. The exact placement within the storage jar is unknown.Black polished jugletVS2M‐095‐01‐0218/K/109 (K‐13)Minimally five adults and two children: One articulated individual (older adult) and a commingling of individualsArticulated individual lying supine with its legs left lateral flexedSimple pitJugletVS1M‐109‐03‐01Placed with the comingling, to the left side (east) of juglet VS002JugletVS2M‐109‐01‐02Placed to the left side (east) of the primary individual's face.JugletVS3M‐109‐01‐03Juglet (VS003) lies to the right side (west) of the individual's face with rim facing individual's mouth. Was next to a carinated bowl (VS004) placed on the individual's right shoulderCarinated bowlVS4M‐109‐01‐04JugletVS5M‐109‐01‐05With mouths facing each other, the two lay to the left (east) of the individual's left arm.JugletVS6M‐109‐01‐06BowlVS7M‐109‐03‐07Placed on individual's left (east) torso, near to the left elbow, at the boundary between the articulated individual and the commingled remainsJugVS8M‐109‐03‐08Lies in the crevice of the individual's knee flexion.JugletVS9M‐109‐03‐09Placed with the comingled remains to the left (east) of the individual's left arm (?)18/K/87 associated with 18/K/98 (K‐12)Child (3–5 years)Supine or lateral flexedInstallation at the feet of inhumation, at a simple pit burialJarVS1M‐087‐03‐01Integrated into the installation16/H/62 (H‐16)Three primary inhumations in the front of the chamber: adult female, adult male (40–60 years old), and a child (8–10 years). Comingling disarticulated skeletal remains in the back (north) of the burial chamber represented the remaining individuals.Primary inhumations were placed along the western wall in the front (south) of the chamber immediately abutting the stepped entrance (female), and in the center of the chamber (male + child). Male was directly above child, with their bodies oriented in the opposite directionsMasonry‐constructed chamber tombLampVS7M‐062‐063‐07Clustered along the entrance and eastern wall of the chamber. Cannot associate with any particular individualJugVS8M‐062‐064‐08‐08JugVS3M‐062‐59‐08‐03JugVS1M‐062‐057‐01‐01Storage jarVS15M‐062‐154‐024‐015Carinated bowlVS12M‐062‐065‐08‐012BowlVS6M‐062‐062‐08‐0616/H/05 (H‐16)LampVS5M‐065‐092‐10‐0516/H/63 (H‐16)BowlVS2M‐063‐142‐07‐02Large open bowl/plater?VS1M‐063‐140‐06‐01Placed immediately southeast of the adult male's cranium, against the eastern wall.Sixteen vessels from four subfloor burials and a burial‐related installation in Area K were sampled for residue analysis: three bowls, one jar, three jugs, and nine juglets (Table 1).Fourteen vessels (out of 32) from Tomb 50 were sampled for residue analysis. Four juglets from the assemblage were analyzed in a previous study (Linares et al., 2019). In the current work, we analyzed 10 additional vessels, covering a variety of shapes and types: two lamps, four bowls, one jar, and three jugs (Table 1). Another criterion for the vessel selection, in addition to variety, was their condition: We preferred complete and intact vessels or mostly intact with some in situ breakage, which were determined to be reasonably free of contamination risk.Samples for residue analysis were taken from the interior base of each vessel. Samples of 1 g sediment from within or adjacent to the vessel were taken as controls according to procedures established previously (cf. Namdar et al., 2009). Fragments of 1 g were broken off the ceramic vessels using nitrile gloves and clean pliers, ground to a powder in an agate mortar and pestle, and transferred into 8‐mL vials. Vessel and control samples were subjected to total lipid extraction (TLE) followed by wine‐markers extraction.TLEThe extraction and analysis procedures of the lipids from the ceramic vessels followed Evershed et al. (1990) and Charters et al. (1993). To each vial of ceramic powder sample and control, 5.0 mL of dichloromethane (DCM) and methanol (2:1, v/v) were added, and the mixture was sonicated at 80°C for 15 min and then centrifuged at 3500 rpm for 10 min. The supernatant was transferred to a clean vial. The extraction steps were repeated two additional times. The remaining ceramic powder went on to wine‐markers extraction, whereas the solvent in the supernatant was evaporated to dryness under a gentle stream of nitrogen gas and mild heat of 40°C. This procedure afforded the extraction of hydrophobic organic molecules, whereas the polar water‐soluble hydroxyl acid wine markers remained within the ceramic matrix.Wine‐markers extractionThe extraction and analysis procedures of the wine markers from the ceramic vessels followed Garnier and Valamoti (2016). Each vial of the powder remaining from the TLE was mixed with 5.0 mL of boron trifluoride, butanol, and cyclohexane (1:2:4, v/v), and then the mixture was sonicated at 80°C for 2 h. This step facilitated esterification of the hydroxy acid wine markers, rendering them volatile for the gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC‐MS) analysis. The solution was then neutralized by an aqueous saturated solution of sodium carbonate, combined with 2.0 mL of DCM, vortexed for 1 min and centrifuged at 3500 rpm for 10 min. The supernatant was transferred to a clean vial, and the remaining powder was discarded. The DCM addition, vortex, and centrifugation steps were repeated. Next, 2.0 mL of distilled water was added for rinsing, and the mixture was vortexed for 1 min and centrifuged at 3500 rpm for 10 min. The result was two phases in each vial: an upper phase of water, which was discarded, and a lower phase of the extracted lipids. The distilled water rinsing steps were repeated. Anhydrous sodium sulfate was added to the vials in order to dry the samples from residual water. Finally, the lipid solution was removed to a clean vial, and the solvents were fully evaporated under a gentle stream of nitrogen gas and mild heat of 40°C.Derivatization by silylationFor the TLE samples, 100.0 μL of N,O‐bis(trimethyl)silyltrifluoroacetamide (BSTFA) containing 1% trimethylchlorosilane (TMC) was added to each vial and heated at 70°C for 30 min. The samples were then fully evaporated under a gentle stream of nitrogen gas and redissolved in 50.0 μL of hexane containing an internal standard (IS), dodecane (C12 n‐alkane; 0.0202 mg/mL), and vortexed for 30 s to ensure a homogeneous solution.For the wine‐markers extraction samples, 50.0 μL of BSTFA containing 1% TMC, 100.0 μL of DCM, and 4.0 μL of pyridine were added to each vial and heated at 40°C for 30 min. The samples were then fully evaporated under a gentle stream of nitrogen gas and redissolved in 50.0 μL of cyclohexane containing an IS, dodecane (C12 n‐alkane; 0.0202 mg/mL), and vortexed for 30 s to ensure a homogeneous solution.Analytical instrumentation, GC‐MSEight microliters of each sample was injected into the gas chromatograph (GC) coupled with a mass‐selective detector (MSD). An analytical blank was also prepared by the same method with each batch of ceramic samples.GC‐MS measurements were carried out using an HP6890 GC equipped with an MSD (HP5973; electron multiplier potential 2 kV, filament current 0.35 mA, electron energy 70 eV; the spectra were recorded every 1 s over the range m/z 50–800) and a splitless injection mode. A 30 m, 0.32 mm ID 5% cross‐linked phenylmethylsiloxane capillary column (HP‐5) with a 0.25 mm film thickness was used for the separation. Helium was used as a carrier gas at a constant flow of 1.0 mL/s. The injection temperature was 250°C. The oven temperature was initially set at 70°C (8 min isothermal hold), ramped to 180°C at 20°C min−1, and then to 280°C at 5°C min−1 (8 min isothermal hold).Peak identification, GC‐MSPeak assignments were based on comparisons with the National Institute of Standards and Technology library spectra (NIST 17; Agilent MassHunter Unknowns Analysis), spectra reported in the literature (see references for the identification of specific substances below), and on retention times of reference standards.Quantification of lipids using gas chromatography‐flame ionization detector (GC‐FID)Quantification of lipids was carried out using an Agilent HP6890 GC equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID). The samples were run as trimethylsilyl (TMS) or butylated derivatives and were injected in splitless injection mode. Helium was used as a carrier gas at a constant flow of 1.0 mL min−1. The same capillary column and method noted above were used. The FID detector temperature was 350°C. The identification of individual compounds was based on the elution order and comparison to the GC‐MS chromatograms and reference standards. Quantification of the amounts of lipids per 1 g ceramic was conducted by adding a known amount of IS, dodecane, to each sample before the injection to the GC‐FID and comparing the concentration of each molecule in the sample to the concentration of the IS by normalizing it to the number of carbons in the chains and the peak areas.RESULTSOrganic compounds appearing in the vessel samples but absent from the control samples are discussed here. The most common compounds identified are saturated fatty acids of 6–24 carbon atoms; unsaturated fatty acids of 18 and 16 carbon atoms; n‐alkanes of 20–31 carbon atoms; alcohols of 16–28 carbon atoms and glycerol; dicarboxylic acids; α‐hydroxy acids; monoacylglycerols of palmitic and stearic acids (MAG16:0 and MAG18:0, respectively). The overall amount of these compounds varies in the range of 0.04–88.7 μg/g sherd (Tables 2 and S1).2TABLESummary of vessels from Tomb 50 and Area K and their identified contents.PeriodExc. AreaContextLocusVessel typeSample #WaxAnimal fatPlant oilWineVanillaConiferous resinAmounts of compound per class (μg/g sherd)WMETLEMB IIIHTomb 50 (monumental, masonry‐constructed elite chamber tomb)16/H/62LampM‐062‐063‐07√2.40.1216/H/62JugM‐062‐064‐08‐08√√9.10.216/H/62JugM‐062‐59‐08‐03√39.60.0416/H/62JugM‐062‐057‐01‐01√13.2‐‐16/H/62Storage jarM‐062‐154‐024‐015√ (ruminant)√ (olive)√68.343.0316/H/62Carinated bowlM‐062‐065‐08‐012√√√10.90.8516/H/62BowlM‐062‐062‐08‐06√22‐‐16/H/63Large open bowlM‐063‐140‐06‐01√√?4.70.4516/H/63BowlM‐063‐142‐07‐02√ (bees)√√?4.80.6616/H/65LampM‐065‐092‐10‐05√√√3.80.416/H/65Dipper jugletTM‐063√√**16/H/65Dipper jugletTM‐116√√**16/H/65Dipper jugletTM‐056√√**16/H/65JugletTM‐140√**MB IIKIntramural single or multiple pit and jar burials. Located below floors, within the large domestic courtyardhouse.18/K/24Piriform jugletM‐024‐02‐01√√10.82.218/K/87Storage jarM‐087‐03‐01√√√√9.5318/K/94JugM‐094‐06‐01√√?9.51.58JugM‐094‐06‐02√√?1.30.44JugletM‐094‐06‐04√ (olive)9.91.4218/K/95Carinated bowlM‐095‐01‐01√√88.74.66Black polished jugletM‐095‐01‐02√2.21.6318/K/109JugletM‐109‐01‐06√ (olive)9.1‐‐JugletM‐109‐01‐02√ (bees)√ (olive)√11.58.13JugletM‐109‐01‐03√10.90.1JugletM‐109‐01‐05√ (olive)√43.7‐‐JugletM‐109‐03‐01√ (olive)3.5‐‐JugletM‐109‐03‐09‐‐‐‐BowlM‐109‐03‐07√√√1.81.65Carinated bowlM‐109‐01‐04√190.07JugM‐109‐03‐08√√√17.215.16Notes: Identifications in parenthesis are suggestions according to the molecular profile; they require further clarification. ? refers to vessels that contain tartaric acid but no other wine markers. * refers to not analyzed in the current study.Other compounds were detected sporadically in the samples; their identification was not verified by reference standards. These compounds are excluded from discussion but appear in the Supporting Information (for the detailed results of each vessel, see Figures S3 and S4 and Table S1).Fatty acids and dicarboxylic acids of 7–10 carbon atoms (pimelic, azelaic, suberic, sebacic acids) were detected in most vessel types in both Areas H and K. However, there is a difference in vessel types in which alkanes, long‐chained alcohols (those with carbon chains of 20 or more carbons), dicarboxylic acids, and α‐hydroxy acids were detected. In Tomb 50, n‐alkanes and alcohols were detected in open vessels—three bowls and one lamp. In Area K, however, these same compounds were detected mostly in closed storage vessels (two juglets, three jugs, one jar, and one bowl). Dicarboxylic and α‐hydroxy acids include tartaric, fumaric, malic, citric, malonic, maleic, glutaric, succinic, oxalic, glycolic, and lactic acids. These compounds were detected in the large storage vessels (three jugs and one jar) and in one carinated bowl from Tomb 50 and in small storage vessels (three juglets), two carinated bowls, and one jar from Area K. Tartaric acid was also detected in two bowls from Tomb 50 and in two jugs from Area K (for the discussion on the appearance of tartaric acid alone in these vessels, see below).DISCUSSIONThe variety of compounds and their distribution enable the identification of different substances in the vessels. The most common are wax, animal fats, plant oils, and wine. Table 2 summarizes the identified contents in all vessels.WineWine can be identified by a combination of compounds: tartaric, malic, maleic, succinic, malonic, fumaric, glutaric, citric, oxalic, lactic, and glycolic acids, together with glycerol (Figure 3b) (Amir et al., 2022; Biasoto et al., 2010; Garnier & Valamoti, 2016; Pecci et al., 2020). Vessels from Area K that have wine markers include a carinated bowl from a jar burial of a newborn (18/K/95), three juglets and one carinated bowl from a multiple pit burial (18/K/109), and a storage jar from Installation 18/K/87 related to Pit Burial 18/K/98. In Middle and Late Bronze Canaanite iconography, carinated bowls are thought to be used as drinking cups (Yasur‐Landau, 2005); the identification of wine markers in the Megiddo bowls adds further support to this reconstruction. During funerary rituals, these bowls may have been filled with wine and placed next to the dead as offerings, theoretically to be consumed in the afterlife; alternatively, the bowls may have been used in daily life for wine drinking and reused in burials as offerings.3FIGURERepresentative chromatograms. (a) Partial TLE chromatogram of juglet 109‐01‐02. (b) Partial wine‐markers extraction chromatogram of juglet 109‐01‐02. (c) Partial TLE chromatogram of jug 109‐03‐08. Cx, n‐alkane with x carbons in its chain; Cx:y, fatty acid with x carbons in its chain and y is the number of double bonds; Cxol, alcohol with x carbons in its chain; P, plasticizer; S, silane derivatives originated from GC column; u.i., unidentified peaks. Derivatization information was omitted for clarity. For details, see Figure S2.In the multiple inhumation context (18/K/109), the three juglets and the carinated bowl with wine markers were found around the sole primarily articulated individual: the dipper juglet (M‐109‐01‐03) lay to the right side (west) of the individual's face (next to carinated bowl M‐109‐01‐04); the second juglet (M‐109‐01‐02) lay on the left (east) of the individual's cranium; and the third juglet (M‐109‐01‐05) lay to the left (east) of the individual's left arm (Figure 4a,b). These vessels may have been intended for the personal consumption of the deceased.4FIGURETombs of Area K. (a) Tomb 18/K/109: Inhumations and vessels in situ. (b) Tomb 18/K/109: The assemblage in situ with vessel and lab numbers. (c) Jar Burial 18/K/94. The two jugs containing tartaric acid are vertically oriented near the burial. Courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition.The storage jar (M‐087‐03‐01) found in Installation 18/K/87 is the only large storage vessel from Area K that featured wine markers. The archaeological context points to its possible function for libation offerings during funerary rituals rather than as a burial offering. The use of wine libations is well attested in many archaeological and textual sources from the ancient Near East (Bretschneider & Van Lerbergh, 2008; Davies & Gardiner, 1915; Van den Hout, 1994).Two jugs (M‐094‐06‐01, M‐094‐06‐02) from Area K contained tartaric acid but no additional wine markers. These nearly identical vessels, placed vertically, were found near Jar Burial 18/K/94; they were found against the outside of the storage jar (Figure 4c). Thus, the rims of both jars were not covered and would have been accessible from above. The archaeological context of these vessels and the appearance of tartaric acid may attest to their use for wine libations in the burial ceremony rather than for storage; the fact that no other wine markers were detected may attest to a short‐term use of these jugs that did not allow preservation of the molecules from the libation fluids. However, tartaric acid, found in relatively large amounts in wine, may have preserved in the vessels.In Area H Tomb 50, wine markers were found in relatively large storage vessels (three jugs and one jar) and in the carinated bowl. The presence of wine in these large vessels suggests the storage of significant amounts of liquid, perhaps meant to supply the needs of the deceased over a long period of time or eternally (more below). Two bowls from the Tomb 50 assemblage contain tartaric acid but no other wine markers. Unlike the Area K jugs featuring only tartaric acid, these are open vessels. Therefore, the appearance of tartaric acid in these bowls could be the result of contamination from the burial environment, such as the spilling of wine from adjacent vessels (the small amounts of wine that contaminated the bowls led to the detection of tartaric acid alone; the concentrations of the other wine markers were under the detection limit of the GC).Comparing Tomb 50 to the burials of Area K, we note a distinction in the vessel types in which wine markers appear. In Tomb 50, wine was stored in large containers, whereas in Area K, it was stored in smaller vessels (mainly juglets; excluding the storage jar found in Installation 18/K/87, which was probably used in burial ceremonies rather than as an offering). However, it should be observed that larger vessels, like those in Tomb 50, are statistically rarer in the Area K vessels. Either way, the presence of larger vessels or the larger quantities of wine probably reflect different social classes to which the populations from areas H and K belonged, as indicated by other markers of material culture (see below). The differences may also indicate different use or access to resources that the populations from Area H and K provided for burial activities.Wax and animal fatWax is represented by a series of odd‐ and even‐numbered n‐alkanes of 20–31 carbon atoms (in piriform Juglet M‐024‐02‐01, there were shorter hydrocarbons of 17‐ and 18‐carbon atoms as well), alcohols of 20–28 carbon atoms, and long‐chain fatty acid of 24 carbon atoms (lignoceric acid) (Amir et al., 2021; Evershed et al., 1997; Namdar et al., 2009; Tulloch, 1970). Note that lignoceric acid is found in lignin and wood tar as well (Ali et al., 2013; Taylor, 1931), though the current archaeological and molecular contexts attest to its wax origin. Wax esters (C40 to C50) and hydroxyl wax esters (C42 to C54), which confirm the source of wax (beeswax or vegetal), are absent from the chromatograms due to instrumentation limits.The wax profile was not uniform in all vessels: Lignoceric acid appeared in a jar and a bowl from Tomb 50 and in a piriform juglet and a bowl from Burials 18/K/24 and 18/K/95 (respectively) in Area K. Long‐chained alcohols also appeared in the above vessels from Tomb 50, as well as in a lamp from the same context. They also appeared in a juglet, a bowl, and a jug from Burial 18/K/109 in Area K. Juglet M‐109‐01‐02 from Area K contained n‐alkanes with the predominance of odd‐to‐even‐numbered carbon chains, which is characteristic of beeswax (Figure 3a), whereas the other vessels did not show this distribution.Apart from waxes, the relatively high abundance of even‐numbered n‐alkanes and C18:0 (stearic acid) and the occurrence of cholesterol in many of the vessels attest to the presence of animal fat (Figure 3c) (Amir et al., 2021; Bogdanov, 2016; Charters et al., 1995; Evershed et al., 2002). Similar profiles detected in previous studies were suggested as having been a mixture of wax and animal fat, used as fuel or as coating/sealing material (Amir et al., 2021; Charters et al., 1995).All of the vessels containing wax biomarkers (bowls, a lamp, juglets, jars, and jugs), except for two juglets from Area K, seem to have contained this same mixture. In most of these vessels, the appearance of wax markers is conjugated with the indicators for animal fat and vice versa; that is, the animal fat markers only appeared in vessels that also contained wax markers. The storage jar from Tomb 50 (M‐026‐154‐024‐015) is exceptional because it contained fat markers without wax markers, that is, traces of C15:0, C16:1; 9, and C17:0, which are indicative for ruminant fat or milk (Evershed et al., 2002; Matheson et al., 2022).It is difficult to determine the intention of the wax and animal fat mixture and whether it was the same in all vessels, due to the wide variety of vessel forms and of other substances found in them. In general, the wax–animal fat mixture was mainly found in open vessels from Tomb 50 and in storage vessels from Area K graves. Its appearance in storage vessels from the Area K graves indicates either that it was stored in these vessels or was used to coat and seal their interiors. Its signature in open vessels from Tomb 50 may have been related to burial offerings (Baker, 2012; Cradic, 2017, 2018; Gonen, 1992; Parker Pearson, 1999) or had a different use, possibly associated with funerary procession and rituals such as treatment of the body prior to inhumation. In the ancient Near East, corpses have been known to be treated with waxes, resins, dyes, and other residues, for instance, in the Royal Hypogeum at Qatna dated to the Late Bronze Age (Evershed et al., 2011; James et al., 2009; Mukherjee et al., 2007; Pfälzner, 2016). Both waxes and animal fats are known ingredients in foods and personal toilette and had medical and industrial applications (Serpico & White, 2000). Considering that food and cosmetics are common burial accompaniments, one of these would probably be the best explanation.All in all, we cannot unequivocally decide if the wax and fat were added as a mixture or separately to the vessels either as sealants or as the primary substance. Another scenario is that wax was the original substance held in the open vessels, whereas the animal fat was contamination originated from the deceased. However, we see this as a less likely explanation because animal fat was found together with wax and not by itself and was not detected in the control samples.Plant oilsPlant oils are represented by a variety of molecules: saturated fatty acids of C6–C22 (including palmitic and stearic acids with the C16:0 > C18:0 ratio); saturated dicarboxylic acids of C7–C10 (in which suberic and azelaic acids are relatively abundant); unsaturated fatty acids of 18 carbon atoms; alcohols of 16 and 18 carbon chains; monoacylglycerols of palmitic and stearic acids (MAG16:0, MAG18:0, respectively). These molecules also appear in animal fat, but their occurrence with the other plant markers attests to their vegetal origin (Figure 3a,b) (Copley et al., 2005; Linares et al., 2019; Marković et al., 2020; Matheson et al., 2022; Namdar et al., 2018). Some vessels (five juglets: M‐094‐06‐04, M‐109‐01‐06, M‐109‐01‐02, M‐109‐01‐05, M‐109‐03‐01and jar M‐062‐154‐024‐015) seem to have chromatographic profiles characteristic to olive oil, containing C16:0, C18:0, C18:1; 9, and C20:0, in which the C18:1; 9 peak predominates the C18:0 peak (though other plant sources rich in oleic acid cannot be excluded). The relatively high abundance of azelaic and suberic acids in these vessels indicates the degradation of plant oil high in oleic acid (Marković et al., 2020), thus supporting the possibility that olive oil had been stored in these vessels. A more definitive identification of oleic acid depends on identifying markers that require different analytic procedures from the standard procedure used for residue analysis in the current study (Whelton et al., 2021).Plant oil markers appeared in many vessels of various forms from both Area K and Tomb 50. In most instances, they are found alongside other markers, such as the wax–fat mixture and wine. The appearance of plant oil together with wine markers in some vessels (Jug M‐062‐064‐08‐08, Jar M‐062‐154‐024‐015, Carinated bowl M‐095‐01‐01, Juglets M‐109‐01‐02, and M‐109‐01‐05) indicates that they held different types of liquids over the course of their use (Figure 3b) (Amir et al., 2022). This suggests that at least some of the vessels were reused as burial offerings rather than having been manufactured specifically for funerary purposes. In these cases, it is not entirely clear whether oil or wine was given as the burial offering, although the appearance of wine markers in other vessels lends some evidence to the latter possibility.Another explanation for the appearance of both plant oil residues and wine markers in storage vessels can be related to the way the wine was stored. Traditionally, in ancient Rome and Greco‐Roman Egypt, olive oil or other plant oils were added directly into the wine containers or as part of their sealing in order to prevent the oxidation and spoilage of the wine; the oil floated on top of the wine and prevented the wine from coming in contact with oxygen (Harutyunyan & Malfeito‐Ferreira, 2022). This tradition is later to the Middle Bronze Age to which the current vessels are dated, though this method may have been used in earlier periods as well.Coniferous resinsThe chromatogram of Bowl M‐109‐03‐07 found in a pit burial in Area K contained a small peak of dehydroabietic acid. This molecule is characteristic of coniferous diterpenic resins, though other characteristic molecules of these resins are absent from the chromatogram (Brettell et al., 2015; Buckley & Evershed, 2001; Marković et al., 2020; Matheson et al., 2022). The presence of dehydroabietic acid indicates that Bowl M‐109‐03‐07 held coniferous resin as a burial offering or that it played a role in the funerary ritual, perhaps as an incense or perfume (Serpico, 2000), or as material applied to the body as part of its treatment prior to inhumation (Buckley & Evershed, 2001; Evershed et al., 2011; McGovern, 2003, p. 131). Also possible is that coniferous resin was, like wax, applied to the bowl as a sealant during manufacture (McGovern et al., 2009; Reber & Hart, 2008).VanillaA study previously conducted on four juglets from Tomb 50 identified in three of them vanilla markers, namely, vanillin, 4‐hydroxybenzaldehyde, and acetovanillone, together with other compounds characteristic to plant oils. The authors proposed that the juglets contained a product for which vanilla was an aromatic and/or flavoring ingredient or different liquids at different times, suggesting that these juglets were in secondary use here (Linares et al., 2019).CONCLUSIONSThis study provides the first empirical information about the contents of ceramic vessels placed as offerings in intramural Middle Bronze burials in the Southern Levant. It also sheds light on the contents of pottery offerings in elite burials (adding to a previous study that provided evidence for vanilla in juglets from the same tomb) and on social differences at the site as revealed in burial customs.Ceramic vessels from the Middle Bronze Megiddo burials contained a variety of substances. The most unique find is the indication for wine; our study demonstrates, for the first time, that wine was used in Bronze Age burial contexts in the Southern Levant. To date, evidence for wine in eastern Mediterranean funerary contexts has mainly been detected in Egypt (cf. Guasch‐Jané et al., 2006; McGovern, 2003; McGovern et al., 2009).Palatial wine storage rooms are attested in the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean, Mesopotamia (Chambon, 2009), and the Levant. In the Southern Levant, wine is typically found in domestic and palatial contexts (cf. Amir et al., 2022; Koh et al., 2014; Marston & Birney, 2022). The Middle Bronze II palatial wine cellar in Tel Kabri (Koh et al., 2014) is one of the most outstanding examples in the region. The wine cellar belongs to Phase III (end of the MB II, c. 1700 BCE: Höflmayer et al., 2016), contemporary with the burials in Area K of Megiddo. The Kabri cellar shows that during the Middle Bronze II, wine played an important role in social and political life, and the wine in the burials of Area K at Megiddo suggest that this was true for the afterlife as well. Tomb 50 dates slightly later to the Middle Bronze III; it is located adjacent to Megiddo's palatial complex, indicating the importance of wine also in the funerary rites of the elites.The carinated bowl containing wine found in a burial of a newborn (18/K/95) is noteworthy. The presence of wine alongside an individual, who theoretically would not have consumed much of it in life, may signal the community's perception of the afterlife as a place where individuals continue to grow into adulthood in the afterlife and have adult needs; alternatively, the age of the deceased was irrelevant in the afterlife.Finally, the distribution of wine vessels in Tomb 50 and the Area K burials might correspond to differences in the social standing of the buried (differences between Areas H and K are also apparent in other fields of material culture in later centuries of the second millennium BCE; see Sapir‐Hen et al., 2016). All wine storage vessels were found in graves that contained multiple individuals (Tomb 50 and Burial 18/K/109). The vessels from Area K that held wine are small juglets and thus may have been intended for the personal use of the deceased. To differ, the vessels in Tomb 50 have a much bigger volume. This may reflect the “need” of the elite individuals interred there or ceremonies involving larger crowds during the interment. In the latter case, placing the vessels near the entrance to the tomb made it possible for the living to refill them before the ceremony or for subsequent interments. The differences between Tomb 50 and the Area K burials regarding wine consumption in the afterlife seem to represent social difference between the inhabitants of these sectors of the site. Beginning in the Middle Bronze Age and lasting until the Iron II, the part of the city excavated in Area K was used for domestic structures, whereas Area H revealed a long sequence of palatial quarters. Its inhabitants placed emphasis on the expression of their elite status through monumental architecture and high‐status material culture and substances during life and, as this study demonstrates, in death.AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSConceptualization: Israel Finkelstein. Data curation: Ayala Amir. Formal analysis: Ayala Amir. Investigation: Ayala Amir, Rachel Kalisher, Melissa S. Cradic, Mario A. S. Martin, and Matthew J. Adams. Methodology: Ayala Amir. Project administration: Ayala Amir and Israel Finkelstein. Supervision: Israel Finkelstein, Ronny Neumann, and Yuval Gadot. Writing—original draft: Ayala Amir, Rachel Kalisher, Melissa S. Cradic, and Mario A. S. Martin. Writing—review and editing: Ayala Amir, Israel Finkelstein, Yuval Gadot, Rachel Kalisher, Melissa S. Cradic, Ronny Neumann, and Matthew J. Adams.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSIn the seasons reported in this article, the Megiddo Expedition was kindly supported by the Dan David Foundation, the Shmunis Family Foundation, Jacques Chahine, and Mark Weissman. We would like to thank the Mass Spectrometry Division of the Department of Chemistry in Bar Ilan University for helping with the analysis of the MS spectra.DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENTAll information within this study is available within the manuscript and within the online supplementary material.PEER REVIEWThe peer review history for this article is available at https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1111/arcm.12877.REFERENCESAdams, M. J., & Cradic, M. S. (2022). The middle bronze age burials from area J. In I. Finkelstein & M. A. S. Martin (Eds.), Megiddo VI: The 2010–2014 seasons (Vol. 1). Tel Aviv University Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph 41. (pp. 189–225). Eisenbrauns & Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.Ali, F., Ali, I., Bibi, H., Malik, A., Stern, B., & Maitland, D. J. (2013). Qualitative and quantitative assessment of fatty acids of Buddleja asiatica by GC‐MS. Journal of the Chemical Society of Pakistan, 35(3), 840–845.Amir, A., Finkelstein, I., Shalev, Y., Uziel, J., Chalaf, O., Freud, L., Neumann, R., & Gadot, Y. (2022). Residue analysis evidence for wine enriched with vanilla consumed in Jerusalem on the eve of the Babylonian destruction in 586 BCE. PLoS ONE, 17(3), e0266085. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266085Amir, A., Gadot, Y., Weitzel, J., Finkelstein, I., Neumann, R., Bezzel, H., Covello‐Paran, K., & Sergi, O. (2021). Heated beeswax usage in mortuary practices: The case of Ḥorvat Tevet (Jezreel Valley, Israel) ca. 1000 BCE. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 36, 102904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.102904Baker, J. (2012). The funeral kit: Mortuary practices in the archaeological record. Routledge.Biasoto, A. C. T., Catharino, R. R., Sanvido, G. B., Eberlin, M. N., & da Silva, M. A. A. P. (2010). Flavour characterization of red wines by descriptive analysis and ESI mass spectrometry. Food Quality and Preference, 21(7), 755–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.07.005Bogdanov, S. (2016). Beeswax: Production, properties, composition, control. Bee Product Science. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304012435_Beeswax_Production_Properties_Composition_ControlBretschneider, J., & Van Lerberghe, K. (2008). Tell Tweini, ancient Gibala, between 2600 B.C.E. and 333 B.C.E. In J. Bretschneider & K. Van Lerberghe (Eds.), In search of Gibala: An archaeological and historical study based on eight seasons of excavations at Tell Tweini (Syria) in the A and C fields (1999 2007). Aula Orientalis—Supplementa 24. (pp. 11–68). Editorial AUSA.Brettell, R. C., Schotsmans, E. M. J., Walton Rogers, P., Reifarth, N., Redfern, R. C., Stern, B., & Heron, C. P. (2015). ‘Choicest unguents’: Molecular evidence for the use of resinous plant exudates in late Roman mortuary rites in Britain. Journal of Archaeological Science, 53, 639–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.11.006Buckley, S. A., & Evershed, R. P. (2001). Organic chemistry of embalming agents in pharaonic and Graeco‐Roman mummies. Nature, 413(6858), 837–841. https://doi.org/10.1038/35101588Chambon, G. (2009). Les archives du vin à Mari. Société pour l'étude du Proche‐Orient ancien.Charters, S., Evershed, R. P., Blinkhorn, P. W., & Denham, V. (1995). Evidence for the mixing of fats and waxes in archaeological ceramics. Archaeometry, 37(1), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1995.tb00730.xCharters, S., Evershed, R. P., Goad, L. J., Leyden, A., Blinkhorn, P. W., & Denham, V. (1993). Quantification and distribution of lipid in archaeological ceramics: Implications for sampling potsherds for organic residue analysis and the classification of vessel use. Archaeometry, 35(2), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1993.tb01036.xCopley, M. S., Bland, H. A., Rose, P., Horton, M., & Evershed, R. P. (2005). Gas chromatographic, mass spectrometric and stable carbon isotopic investigations of organic residues of plant oils and animal fats employed as illuminants in archaeological lamps from Egypt. Analyst, 130(6), 860–871. https://doi.org/10.1039/b500403aCradic, M. S. (2017). Embodiments of death: The funerary sequence and commemoration in the bronze age Levant. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 377, 219–248. https://doi.org/10.5615/bullamerschoorie.377.0219Cradic, M. S. (2018). Residential burial and social memory in the middle bronze age Levant. Near Eastern Archaeology, 81(3), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.5615/neareastarch.81.3.0191Cradic, M. S. (forthcoming). Area H: Tomb 50 and burial 16/H/45. In M. S. Cradic, I. Finkelstein, & M. J. Adams (Eds.), Megiddo VII: The 2016‐2018 seasons. Tel Aviv University Press.Davies, N. D. G., & Gardiner, A. H. (1915). The tomb of Amenemhet (No. 82), London.Evershed, R. P., Dudd, S. N., Copley, M. S., Berstan, R., Stott, A. W., Mottram, H., Buckley, S. A., & Crossman, Z. (2002). Chemistry of archaeological animal fats. Accounts of Chemical Research, 35(8), 660–668. https://doi.org/10.1021/ar000200fEvershed, R. P., Heron, C., & Goad, L. J. (1990). Analysis of organic residues of archaeological origin by high‐temperature gas chromatography and gas chromatography‐mass spectrometry. Analyst, 115(10), 1339. https://doi.org/10.1039/an9901501339Evershed, R. P., James, M. A., Mukherjee, A. J., Musselle, C. J., Robertson, F., & Pfälzner, P. (2011). Organic residue analysis of ceramic and stone vessels, resinous artefacts and anthropogenic sediments from the royal tomb. In P. Pfälzner (Ed.), Interdisziplinäre Studien zurKönigsgruft von Qaṭna (pp. 411–447). Harrassowitz.Evershed, R. P., Vaughan, S. J., Dudd, S. N., & Soles, J. S. (1997). Fuel for thought? Beeswax in lamps and conical cups from late Minoan Crete. Antiquity, 71(274), 979–985. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00085860Garnier, N., & Valamoti, S. M. (2016). Prehistoric wine‐making at Dikili Tash (northern Greece): Integrating residue analysis and archaeobotany. Journal of Archaeological Science, 74, 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2016.03.003Gersht, D. (2006). The Flint assemblage from area K. In I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, & B. Halpern (Eds.), Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 seasons. Tel Aviv University Press.Gonen, R. (1992). Burial patterns and cultural diversity in late bronze age Canaan. American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series 7. Eisenbrauns.Guasch‐Jané, M. R., Andrés‐Lacueva, C., Jáuregui, O., & Lamuela‐Raventós, R. M. (2006). First evidence of white wine in ancient Egypt from Tutankhamun's tomb. Journal of Archaeological Science, 33(8), 1075–1080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.11.012Guy, P. L. O. (1938). Megiddo tombs. University of Chicago Press.Harutyunyan, M., & Malfeito‐Ferreira, M. (2022). Historical and heritage sustainability for the revival of ancient wine‐making techniques and wine styles. Beverages, 8(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages8010010Höflmayer, F., Yasur‐Landau, A., Cline, E. H., Dee, M. W., Lorentzen, B., & Riehl, S. (2016). New radiocarbon dates from Tel Kabri support a high middle bronze age chronology. Radiocarbon, 58(3), 599–613. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.27James, M. A., Reifarth, N., Mukherjee, A. J., Crump, M. P., Gates, P. J., Sandor, P., Robertson, F., Pfälzner, P., & Evershed, R. P. (2009). High prestige royal purple dyed textiles from the bronze age royal tomb at Qatna, Syria. Antiquity, 83(322), 1109–1118. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00099397Kalisher, R. (forthcoming). The human skeletal remains from tomb 50. In M. S. Cradic, I. Finkelstein, & M. J. Adams (Eds.), Megiddo VII: The 2016‐2018 seasons. Tel Aviv University Press.Koh, A. J., Yasur‐Landau, A., & Cline, E. H. (2014). Characterizing a middle bronze palatial wine cellar from Tel Kabri, Israel. PLoS ONE, 9(8), e106406. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106406Linares, V., Adams, M. J., Cradic, M. S., Finkelstein, I., Lipschits, O., Martin, M. A. S., Neumann, R., Stockhammer, P. W., & Gadot, Y. (2019). First evidence for vanillin in the old world: Its use as mortuary offering in middle bronze Canaan. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 25, 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.03.034Loud, G. (1948). Megiddo II. Seasons of 1935–1939. Text and plates. Oriental Institute Publications 62. University of Chicago Press.Marković, M., Mezzatesta, E., Porcier, S., Vieillescazes, C., & Mathe, C. (2020). Chemical characterization of embalming materials of four ibis mummies from the Musée des confluences, Lyon. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 34, 102624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102624Marston, J. M., & Birney, K. J. (2022). Hellenistic agricultural economies at Ashkelon, southern Levant. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 31(3), 221–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-021-00850-1Martin, M. A. S. (2022). Area K: Summary of architecture and function from the MB III to the late iron I. In I. Finkelstein & M. A. S. Martin (Eds.), Megiddo VI: The 2010–2014 seasons. Monograph series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 41. (pp. 51–62). Tel Aviv University.Martin, M. A. S., & Cradic, M. S. (2022). Area K: Tomb 100 (level K‐10). In I. Finkelstein & M. A. S. Martin (Eds.), Megiddo VI: The 2010–2014 seasons. monograph series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 41. (pp. 308–401). Tel Aviv University.Martin, M. A. S., Cradic, M. S., & Kalisher, R. (2022). Area K: Intramural pit and jar burials (level K‐10). In I. Finkelstein & M. A. S. Martin (Eds.), Megiddo VI: The 2010–2014 seasons. monograph series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 41. (pp. 226–307). Pennsylvania State University Press.Matheson, C. D., Vickruck, C. R., McEvoy, C. J., Vernon, K. K., & Mason, R. (2022). Composition of trace residues from the contents of 11th‐12th century sphero‐conical vessels from Jerusalem. PLoS ONE, 17(4), e0267350. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267350McGovern, P. E. (2003). Ancient wine: The search for the origins of viniculture. Princeton University Press.McGovern, P. E., Mirzoian, A., & Hall, G. R. (2009). Ancient Egyptian herbal wines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(18), 7361–7366. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0811578106Mukherjee, A. J., James, M. A., Pfälzner, P., & Evershed, R. P. (2007). Biomolecular analysis of ceramic containers, skeletal remains, anthropogenic sediments and organic artefacts from the royal tomb at Qanta. In D. Morandi Bonacossi (Ed.), Urban and natural landscapes of an ancient Syrian capital settlement and environment at tell Mishrifeh/Qatna in Central‐Western Syria. Proceedings of the international conference held in Udine, 9‐11 December 2004, Studi Archeologicisu Qatna. (pp. 189–197). Forum.Namdar, D., Amrani, A., Ben‐Ami, D., Hagbi, M., Szanton, N., Tchekhanovets, Y., Uziel, J., Dag, A., Rosen, B., & Gadot, Y. (2018). The social and economic complexity of ancient Jerusalem as seen through choices in lighting oils. Archaeometry, 60(3), 571–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12316Namdar, D., Neumann, R., Goren, Y., & Weiner, S. (2009). The contents of unusual cone‐shaped vessels (cornets) from the chalcolithic of the southern Levant. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36(3), 629–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.10.004Parker Pearson, M. (1999). The archaeology of death and burial. Texas A&M University Anthropology Series. United States: Texas A&M University Press.Pecci, A., Borgna, E., Mileto, S., Dalla Longa, E., Bosi, G., Florenzano, A., Mercuri, A. M., Corazza, S., Marchesini, M., & Vidale, M. (2020). Wine consumption in bronze age Italy: Combining organic residue analysis, botanical data and ceramic variability. Journal of Archaeological Science, 123, 105256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2020.105256Pfälzner, P. (2016). Royal corpses, royal ancestors and the living: The transformation of the dead in ancient Syria. In C. Felli (Ed.), How to cope with death: Mourning and funerary practices in the ancient near east (pp. 241–270). ETS.Reber, E. A., & Hart, J. P. (2008). Pine resins and pottery sealing: Analysis of absorbed and visible pottery residues from Central New York state*. Archaeometry, 50(6), 999–1017. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2008.00387.xSapir‐Hen, L. (forthcoming). food offerings in a royal tomb: Faunal remains from Megiddo tomb 50 and burial 16/H/45. In M. S. Cradic, I. Finkelstein, & M. J. Adams (Eds.), Megiddo VII: The 2016‐2018 seasons. Tel Aviv University Press.Sapir‐Hen, L., Sasson, A., Kleiman, A., & Finkelstein, I. (2016). Social stratification in the late bronze and early iron ages: An intra‐site investigation at Megiddo. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 35(1), 47–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/ojoa.12078Serpico, M. (2000). Resins, amber and bitumen. In P. T. Nicholson & I. Shaw (Eds.), Ancient Egyptian materials and technology (pp. 430–474). Cambridge University Press.Serpico, M., & White, R. (2000). Oil, fat and wax. In P. T. Nicholson & I. Shaw (Eds.), Ancient Egyptian materials and technology (pp. 390–429). Cambridge University Press.Taylor, F. A. (1931). The tetracosanoic acid of peanut oil. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 91(2), 541–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(18)76565-4Tulloch, A. P. (1970). The composition of beeswax and other waxes secreted by insects. Lipids, 5(2), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02532476Ussishkin, D. (2018). Megiddo‐Armageddon: The story of the Canaanite and Israelite city. Israel Exploration Society.van den Hout, T. (1994). Death as a privilege: The Hittite royal funeral ritual. In J. M. Bremer, T. P. J. van den Hour, & R. Peters (Eds.), Hidden futures: Deathand immortality in ancient Egypt, Anatolia, the classical biblical and Arabic Islamic world. (pp. 37–75). Amsterdam University Press.Whelton, H. L., Hammann, S., Cramp, L. J. E., Dunne, J., Roffet‐Salque, M., & Evershed, R. P. (2021). A call for caution in the analysis of lipids and other small biomolecules from archaeological contexts. Journal of Archaeological Science, 132, 105397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2021.105397Yahalom‐Mack, N., Eliyahu‐Behar, A., Martin, M. A. S., Kleiman, A., Shahack‐Gross, R., Homsher, R. S., Gadot, Y., & Finkelstein, I. (2017). Metalworking at Megiddo during the late bronze and iron ages. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 76(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1086/690635Yasur‐Landau, A. (2005). Old wine in new vessels: Intercultural contact, innovation and Aegean, Canaanite and Philistine foodways. Tel Aviv, 32(2), 168–191. https://doi.org/10.1179/tav.2005.2005.2.168 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archaeometry Wiley

Burial offerings in intramural tombs at Middle Bronze Age Megiddo

Download PDF
21 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/burial-offerings-in-intramural-tombs-at-middle-bronze-age-megiddo-jWmf4UczUA

References (53)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2023 University of Oxford
ISSN
0003-813X
eISSN
1475-4754
DOI
10.1111/arcm.12877
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

INTRODUCTIONAt the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 2000–1900 BCE), a new burial custom appeared in the Southern Levant in which the dead were interred beneath the floors of occupied houses (Baker, 2012; Cradic, 2017, 2018). Individuals of all ages, from newborns to older adults, were buried alone or in groups, in simple pits sometimes stone‐lined, storage jars (mainly in the case of children), or in masonry‐constructed subterranean chambers. Funerary objects found in the burials attest to the social status of those interred. The most common offerings were ceramic vessels. Though hundreds of such burials have been unearthed, traditional archaeology has fallen short of identifying the contents of these vessels. Here, we report the results of residue analysis of ceramic vessels retrieved from intramural Middle Bronze burials at Tel Megiddo, Israel; it provides the first empirical evidence for the contents of these containers.Megiddo is a major type site for the Middle Bronze Levant (Ussishkin, 2018, pp. 171–199). The tradition of intramural burials is well attested there throughout the Middle Bronze and through the Late Bronze I (Adams & Cradic, 2022; Loud, 1948; Martin et al., 2022). By the Late Bronze IIA (starting c. 1400 BCE), the practice abruptly ended, and the city's dead were buried in extramural caves on the mound's eastern slope (Guy, 1938). The vessels studied here originated from two different contexts at the site, one representing intramural burials beneath houses (Area K) and the other featuring a monumental, stone chamber tomb, apparently associated with the nearby palatial complex (Area H).THE CONTEXTSBurials in Area K (Burials 18/K/24; 18/K/94; 18/K/95; 18/K/109; Installation 18/K/87)Area K is a sectional trench located on the edge of the southeaster sector of the mound (Figure 1). Excavation here has unearthed a sequence of domestic courtyard houses from the Middle Bronze Age to the Iron I Age (Martin, 2022). The houses had stone foundations with bricks for the upper courses of the walls; floors were made of plaster or beaten earth. The layout of the houses is typical of domestic areas in Middle Bronze settlements. Throughout the second millennium BCE, this area of the site was characterized by domestic industries—first and foremost metallurgy and flint knapping (Gersht, 2006; Yahalom‐Mack et al., 2017). The vessels sampled here came from four burials located under the floors of a Middle Bronze II house (Levels K‐12 and K‐13, c. 1750–1650 BCE; see Figure S1 for Middle Bronze III and Late Bronze I burials in this area; see Martin & Cradic, 2022; Martin et al., 2022). Installation 18/K/87, related to pit Burial 18/K/98, is of note. It consisted of a perpendicular alignment of stones into which a complete storage jar was integrated. The rim of the jar was somewhat lower than the top of the stone masonry, but was not covered, meaning that it would have been accessible from the surface above. A dipper juglet was found inside the jar. Due to the likelihood that the jar contained liquids related to the burial, it was included in our analysis.1FIGURETel Megiddo. (a) Map showing the location of Tel Megiddo in Israel. Created by Omer Ze'evi‐Berger. (b) Aerial photograph of Tel Megiddo, marking the two excavation areas, K and H. Courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition.A monumental tomb in Area H (Burial 16/H/50)Burial 16/H/50 (henceforth Tomb 50) is a subterranean, monumental, masonry‐constructed chamber tomb located in Area H, a sectional trench at the northeastern edge of the mound, adjacent to the palatial quarter (Loud, 1948, pp. 15–16, figure 380) (Figures 1 and S2). It dates to Level H‐16 of the Middle Bronze III, c. 1650–1550 BCE. The tomb was accessed from a dromos and consists of a single rectangular chamber with vaulted ceiling (Figure 2).2FIGURETomb 50. (a) Open platter 16/H/64/VS1 in situ with animal bones and charred remains. (b) Main vessel assemblage in the east of Tomb 50, facing south. (c) Detail of the main vessel assemblage in the east of Tomb 50, facing southeast. (d) Interior of Tomb 50 before excavation. A layer of mud wash that sealed the burial deposits is visible on the surface, facing northwest. Courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition.Tomb 50 contained the remains of at least 17 individuals: Three were in primary interment, laid in the front and center of the chamber, and 14 were found comingling in secondary deposits, at the rear of the chamber (Cradic, forthcoming; Kalisher, forthcoming). The primary individuals were richly decorated with bodily ornamentation that included bronze, silver, and gold jewelry; beads made from stone and faience; bronze and silver pins paired with gold brooches; and a belt or beaded textile made of hundreds of small perforated shells. An assemblage of caprine bones of both meat‐rich and meat‐poor portions of young and prime‐age individuals was also found (Sapir‐Hen, forthcoming), likely representing the remains of funerary feasts and/or offerings to the dead. Some of the faunal remains were found in situ within ceramic platters as if being served as a meal (Figure 2a) (Cradic, forthcoming; Sapir‐Hen, forthcoming). The burial assemblage included 32 ceramic vessels of a variety of shapes and types—bowls, plates, jugs, juglets, storage jars, and lamps (Figure 2b,c). Most of the vessels were found intact, standing upright in situ. They were concentrated at the entrance, on the same surface as the primary inhumations, but could not be linked to specific individuals.Preservation of organic materials in Tomb 50 was generally good. A layer of mud wash ~0.3 m deep covered the main deposit of burials and grave goods (Figure 2d). It may have disturbed the original deposits to a minor extent but at the same time served as a protective layer that effectively sealed the finds.MATERIALS AND METHODSArchaeological samplesThe bioarchaeological context of the burials reported here is summarized in Table 1, along with each vessel's position within the grave and its lab identification number.1TABLESummary of burial loci sampled in this study; bioarchaeological data from Kalisher, forthcoming.Burial locus (level)Age of the deceasedBody positionBurial typeVessel sampledVessel numberLab numberVessel position within the grave18/K/24 (K‐12)Child (10–14 years)Supine hyper‐flexedSimple pit with later ‐stone liningRed piriform jugletVS1M‐024‐02‐01Placed across the back. The mouth of the vessel is facing away from the mouth of the child, with the base up18/K/94 (K‐12)Infant (<1 year)Right lateral flexedJarJugVS1M‐094‐06‐01Vertically oriented, laying against the outside of the burial jar. The higher of two jugs was accessible from aboveJugVS2M‐094‐06‐02Vertically oriented, laying against the outside of the burial jar. The lower of two jugsJugletVS4M‐094‐06‐04was placed against the left side of the child's face18/K/95 (K‐13)Newborn (approx. 40 weeks gestation)N/AJarCarinated bowlVS1M‐095‐01‐01Above the head. The exact placement within the storage jar is unknown.Black polished jugletVS2M‐095‐01‐0218/K/109 (K‐13)Minimally five adults and two children: One articulated individual (older adult) and a commingling of individualsArticulated individual lying supine with its legs left lateral flexedSimple pitJugletVS1M‐109‐03‐01Placed with the comingling, to the left side (east) of juglet VS002JugletVS2M‐109‐01‐02Placed to the left side (east) of the primary individual's face.JugletVS3M‐109‐01‐03Juglet (VS003) lies to the right side (west) of the individual's face with rim facing individual's mouth. Was next to a carinated bowl (VS004) placed on the individual's right shoulderCarinated bowlVS4M‐109‐01‐04JugletVS5M‐109‐01‐05With mouths facing each other, the two lay to the left (east) of the individual's left arm.JugletVS6M‐109‐01‐06BowlVS7M‐109‐03‐07Placed on individual's left (east) torso, near to the left elbow, at the boundary between the articulated individual and the commingled remainsJugVS8M‐109‐03‐08Lies in the crevice of the individual's knee flexion.JugletVS9M‐109‐03‐09Placed with the comingled remains to the left (east) of the individual's left arm (?)18/K/87 associated with 18/K/98 (K‐12)Child (3–5 years)Supine or lateral flexedInstallation at the feet of inhumation, at a simple pit burialJarVS1M‐087‐03‐01Integrated into the installation16/H/62 (H‐16)Three primary inhumations in the front of the chamber: adult female, adult male (40–60 years old), and a child (8–10 years). Comingling disarticulated skeletal remains in the back (north) of the burial chamber represented the remaining individuals.Primary inhumations were placed along the western wall in the front (south) of the chamber immediately abutting the stepped entrance (female), and in the center of the chamber (male + child). Male was directly above child, with their bodies oriented in the opposite directionsMasonry‐constructed chamber tombLampVS7M‐062‐063‐07Clustered along the entrance and eastern wall of the chamber. Cannot associate with any particular individualJugVS8M‐062‐064‐08‐08JugVS3M‐062‐59‐08‐03JugVS1M‐062‐057‐01‐01Storage jarVS15M‐062‐154‐024‐015Carinated bowlVS12M‐062‐065‐08‐012BowlVS6M‐062‐062‐08‐0616/H/05 (H‐16)LampVS5M‐065‐092‐10‐0516/H/63 (H‐16)BowlVS2M‐063‐142‐07‐02Large open bowl/plater?VS1M‐063‐140‐06‐01Placed immediately southeast of the adult male's cranium, against the eastern wall.Sixteen vessels from four subfloor burials and a burial‐related installation in Area K were sampled for residue analysis: three bowls, one jar, three jugs, and nine juglets (Table 1).Fourteen vessels (out of 32) from Tomb 50 were sampled for residue analysis. Four juglets from the assemblage were analyzed in a previous study (Linares et al., 2019). In the current work, we analyzed 10 additional vessels, covering a variety of shapes and types: two lamps, four bowls, one jar, and three jugs (Table 1). Another criterion for the vessel selection, in addition to variety, was their condition: We preferred complete and intact vessels or mostly intact with some in situ breakage, which were determined to be reasonably free of contamination risk.Samples for residue analysis were taken from the interior base of each vessel. Samples of 1 g sediment from within or adjacent to the vessel were taken as controls according to procedures established previously (cf. Namdar et al., 2009). Fragments of 1 g were broken off the ceramic vessels using nitrile gloves and clean pliers, ground to a powder in an agate mortar and pestle, and transferred into 8‐mL vials. Vessel and control samples were subjected to total lipid extraction (TLE) followed by wine‐markers extraction.TLEThe extraction and analysis procedures of the lipids from the ceramic vessels followed Evershed et al. (1990) and Charters et al. (1993). To each vial of ceramic powder sample and control, 5.0 mL of dichloromethane (DCM) and methanol (2:1, v/v) were added, and the mixture was sonicated at 80°C for 15 min and then centrifuged at 3500 rpm for 10 min. The supernatant was transferred to a clean vial. The extraction steps were repeated two additional times. The remaining ceramic powder went on to wine‐markers extraction, whereas the solvent in the supernatant was evaporated to dryness under a gentle stream of nitrogen gas and mild heat of 40°C. This procedure afforded the extraction of hydrophobic organic molecules, whereas the polar water‐soluble hydroxyl acid wine markers remained within the ceramic matrix.Wine‐markers extractionThe extraction and analysis procedures of the wine markers from the ceramic vessels followed Garnier and Valamoti (2016). Each vial of the powder remaining from the TLE was mixed with 5.0 mL of boron trifluoride, butanol, and cyclohexane (1:2:4, v/v), and then the mixture was sonicated at 80°C for 2 h. This step facilitated esterification of the hydroxy acid wine markers, rendering them volatile for the gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC‐MS) analysis. The solution was then neutralized by an aqueous saturated solution of sodium carbonate, combined with 2.0 mL of DCM, vortexed for 1 min and centrifuged at 3500 rpm for 10 min. The supernatant was transferred to a clean vial, and the remaining powder was discarded. The DCM addition, vortex, and centrifugation steps were repeated. Next, 2.0 mL of distilled water was added for rinsing, and the mixture was vortexed for 1 min and centrifuged at 3500 rpm for 10 min. The result was two phases in each vial: an upper phase of water, which was discarded, and a lower phase of the extracted lipids. The distilled water rinsing steps were repeated. Anhydrous sodium sulfate was added to the vials in order to dry the samples from residual water. Finally, the lipid solution was removed to a clean vial, and the solvents were fully evaporated under a gentle stream of nitrogen gas and mild heat of 40°C.Derivatization by silylationFor the TLE samples, 100.0 μL of N,O‐bis(trimethyl)silyltrifluoroacetamide (BSTFA) containing 1% trimethylchlorosilane (TMC) was added to each vial and heated at 70°C for 30 min. The samples were then fully evaporated under a gentle stream of nitrogen gas and redissolved in 50.0 μL of hexane containing an internal standard (IS), dodecane (C12 n‐alkane; 0.0202 mg/mL), and vortexed for 30 s to ensure a homogeneous solution.For the wine‐markers extraction samples, 50.0 μL of BSTFA containing 1% TMC, 100.0 μL of DCM, and 4.0 μL of pyridine were added to each vial and heated at 40°C for 30 min. The samples were then fully evaporated under a gentle stream of nitrogen gas and redissolved in 50.0 μL of cyclohexane containing an IS, dodecane (C12 n‐alkane; 0.0202 mg/mL), and vortexed for 30 s to ensure a homogeneous solution.Analytical instrumentation, GC‐MSEight microliters of each sample was injected into the gas chromatograph (GC) coupled with a mass‐selective detector (MSD). An analytical blank was also prepared by the same method with each batch of ceramic samples.GC‐MS measurements were carried out using an HP6890 GC equipped with an MSD (HP5973; electron multiplier potential 2 kV, filament current 0.35 mA, electron energy 70 eV; the spectra were recorded every 1 s over the range m/z 50–800) and a splitless injection mode. A 30 m, 0.32 mm ID 5% cross‐linked phenylmethylsiloxane capillary column (HP‐5) with a 0.25 mm film thickness was used for the separation. Helium was used as a carrier gas at a constant flow of 1.0 mL/s. The injection temperature was 250°C. The oven temperature was initially set at 70°C (8 min isothermal hold), ramped to 180°C at 20°C min−1, and then to 280°C at 5°C min−1 (8 min isothermal hold).Peak identification, GC‐MSPeak assignments were based on comparisons with the National Institute of Standards and Technology library spectra (NIST 17; Agilent MassHunter Unknowns Analysis), spectra reported in the literature (see references for the identification of specific substances below), and on retention times of reference standards.Quantification of lipids using gas chromatography‐flame ionization detector (GC‐FID)Quantification of lipids was carried out using an Agilent HP6890 GC equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID). The samples were run as trimethylsilyl (TMS) or butylated derivatives and were injected in splitless injection mode. Helium was used as a carrier gas at a constant flow of 1.0 mL min−1. The same capillary column and method noted above were used. The FID detector temperature was 350°C. The identification of individual compounds was based on the elution order and comparison to the GC‐MS chromatograms and reference standards. Quantification of the amounts of lipids per 1 g ceramic was conducted by adding a known amount of IS, dodecane, to each sample before the injection to the GC‐FID and comparing the concentration of each molecule in the sample to the concentration of the IS by normalizing it to the number of carbons in the chains and the peak areas.RESULTSOrganic compounds appearing in the vessel samples but absent from the control samples are discussed here. The most common compounds identified are saturated fatty acids of 6–24 carbon atoms; unsaturated fatty acids of 18 and 16 carbon atoms; n‐alkanes of 20–31 carbon atoms; alcohols of 16–28 carbon atoms and glycerol; dicarboxylic acids; α‐hydroxy acids; monoacylglycerols of palmitic and stearic acids (MAG16:0 and MAG18:0, respectively). The overall amount of these compounds varies in the range of 0.04–88.7 μg/g sherd (Tables 2 and S1).2TABLESummary of vessels from Tomb 50 and Area K and their identified contents.PeriodExc. AreaContextLocusVessel typeSample #WaxAnimal fatPlant oilWineVanillaConiferous resinAmounts of compound per class (μg/g sherd)WMETLEMB IIIHTomb 50 (monumental, masonry‐constructed elite chamber tomb)16/H/62LampM‐062‐063‐07√2.40.1216/H/62JugM‐062‐064‐08‐08√√9.10.216/H/62JugM‐062‐59‐08‐03√39.60.0416/H/62JugM‐062‐057‐01‐01√13.2‐‐16/H/62Storage jarM‐062‐154‐024‐015√ (ruminant)√ (olive)√68.343.0316/H/62Carinated bowlM‐062‐065‐08‐012√√√10.90.8516/H/62BowlM‐062‐062‐08‐06√22‐‐16/H/63Large open bowlM‐063‐140‐06‐01√√?4.70.4516/H/63BowlM‐063‐142‐07‐02√ (bees)√√?4.80.6616/H/65LampM‐065‐092‐10‐05√√√3.80.416/H/65Dipper jugletTM‐063√√**16/H/65Dipper jugletTM‐116√√**16/H/65Dipper jugletTM‐056√√**16/H/65JugletTM‐140√**MB IIKIntramural single or multiple pit and jar burials. Located below floors, within the large domestic courtyardhouse.18/K/24Piriform jugletM‐024‐02‐01√√10.82.218/K/87Storage jarM‐087‐03‐01√√√√9.5318/K/94JugM‐094‐06‐01√√?9.51.58JugM‐094‐06‐02√√?1.30.44JugletM‐094‐06‐04√ (olive)9.91.4218/K/95Carinated bowlM‐095‐01‐01√√88.74.66Black polished jugletM‐095‐01‐02√2.21.6318/K/109JugletM‐109‐01‐06√ (olive)9.1‐‐JugletM‐109‐01‐02√ (bees)√ (olive)√11.58.13JugletM‐109‐01‐03√10.90.1JugletM‐109‐01‐05√ (olive)√43.7‐‐JugletM‐109‐03‐01√ (olive)3.5‐‐JugletM‐109‐03‐09‐‐‐‐BowlM‐109‐03‐07√√√1.81.65Carinated bowlM‐109‐01‐04√190.07JugM‐109‐03‐08√√√17.215.16Notes: Identifications in parenthesis are suggestions according to the molecular profile; they require further clarification. ? refers to vessels that contain tartaric acid but no other wine markers. * refers to not analyzed in the current study.Other compounds were detected sporadically in the samples; their identification was not verified by reference standards. These compounds are excluded from discussion but appear in the Supporting Information (for the detailed results of each vessel, see Figures S3 and S4 and Table S1).Fatty acids and dicarboxylic acids of 7–10 carbon atoms (pimelic, azelaic, suberic, sebacic acids) were detected in most vessel types in both Areas H and K. However, there is a difference in vessel types in which alkanes, long‐chained alcohols (those with carbon chains of 20 or more carbons), dicarboxylic acids, and α‐hydroxy acids were detected. In Tomb 50, n‐alkanes and alcohols were detected in open vessels—three bowls and one lamp. In Area K, however, these same compounds were detected mostly in closed storage vessels (two juglets, three jugs, one jar, and one bowl). Dicarboxylic and α‐hydroxy acids include tartaric, fumaric, malic, citric, malonic, maleic, glutaric, succinic, oxalic, glycolic, and lactic acids. These compounds were detected in the large storage vessels (three jugs and one jar) and in one carinated bowl from Tomb 50 and in small storage vessels (three juglets), two carinated bowls, and one jar from Area K. Tartaric acid was also detected in two bowls from Tomb 50 and in two jugs from Area K (for the discussion on the appearance of tartaric acid alone in these vessels, see below).DISCUSSIONThe variety of compounds and their distribution enable the identification of different substances in the vessels. The most common are wax, animal fats, plant oils, and wine. Table 2 summarizes the identified contents in all vessels.WineWine can be identified by a combination of compounds: tartaric, malic, maleic, succinic, malonic, fumaric, glutaric, citric, oxalic, lactic, and glycolic acids, together with glycerol (Figure 3b) (Amir et al., 2022; Biasoto et al., 2010; Garnier & Valamoti, 2016; Pecci et al., 2020). Vessels from Area K that have wine markers include a carinated bowl from a jar burial of a newborn (18/K/95), three juglets and one carinated bowl from a multiple pit burial (18/K/109), and a storage jar from Installation 18/K/87 related to Pit Burial 18/K/98. In Middle and Late Bronze Canaanite iconography, carinated bowls are thought to be used as drinking cups (Yasur‐Landau, 2005); the identification of wine markers in the Megiddo bowls adds further support to this reconstruction. During funerary rituals, these bowls may have been filled with wine and placed next to the dead as offerings, theoretically to be consumed in the afterlife; alternatively, the bowls may have been used in daily life for wine drinking and reused in burials as offerings.3FIGURERepresentative chromatograms. (a) Partial TLE chromatogram of juglet 109‐01‐02. (b) Partial wine‐markers extraction chromatogram of juglet 109‐01‐02. (c) Partial TLE chromatogram of jug 109‐03‐08. Cx, n‐alkane with x carbons in its chain; Cx:y, fatty acid with x carbons in its chain and y is the number of double bonds; Cxol, alcohol with x carbons in its chain; P, plasticizer; S, silane derivatives originated from GC column; u.i., unidentified peaks. Derivatization information was omitted for clarity. For details, see Figure S2.In the multiple inhumation context (18/K/109), the three juglets and the carinated bowl with wine markers were found around the sole primarily articulated individual: the dipper juglet (M‐109‐01‐03) lay to the right side (west) of the individual's face (next to carinated bowl M‐109‐01‐04); the second juglet (M‐109‐01‐02) lay on the left (east) of the individual's cranium; and the third juglet (M‐109‐01‐05) lay to the left (east) of the individual's left arm (Figure 4a,b). These vessels may have been intended for the personal consumption of the deceased.4FIGURETombs of Area K. (a) Tomb 18/K/109: Inhumations and vessels in situ. (b) Tomb 18/K/109: The assemblage in situ with vessel and lab numbers. (c) Jar Burial 18/K/94. The two jugs containing tartaric acid are vertically oriented near the burial. Courtesy of the Megiddo Expedition.The storage jar (M‐087‐03‐01) found in Installation 18/K/87 is the only large storage vessel from Area K that featured wine markers. The archaeological context points to its possible function for libation offerings during funerary rituals rather than as a burial offering. The use of wine libations is well attested in many archaeological and textual sources from the ancient Near East (Bretschneider & Van Lerbergh, 2008; Davies & Gardiner, 1915; Van den Hout, 1994).Two jugs (M‐094‐06‐01, M‐094‐06‐02) from Area K contained tartaric acid but no additional wine markers. These nearly identical vessels, placed vertically, were found near Jar Burial 18/K/94; they were found against the outside of the storage jar (Figure 4c). Thus, the rims of both jars were not covered and would have been accessible from above. The archaeological context of these vessels and the appearance of tartaric acid may attest to their use for wine libations in the burial ceremony rather than for storage; the fact that no other wine markers were detected may attest to a short‐term use of these jugs that did not allow preservation of the molecules from the libation fluids. However, tartaric acid, found in relatively large amounts in wine, may have preserved in the vessels.In Area H Tomb 50, wine markers were found in relatively large storage vessels (three jugs and one jar) and in the carinated bowl. The presence of wine in these large vessels suggests the storage of significant amounts of liquid, perhaps meant to supply the needs of the deceased over a long period of time or eternally (more below). Two bowls from the Tomb 50 assemblage contain tartaric acid but no other wine markers. Unlike the Area K jugs featuring only tartaric acid, these are open vessels. Therefore, the appearance of tartaric acid in these bowls could be the result of contamination from the burial environment, such as the spilling of wine from adjacent vessels (the small amounts of wine that contaminated the bowls led to the detection of tartaric acid alone; the concentrations of the other wine markers were under the detection limit of the GC).Comparing Tomb 50 to the burials of Area K, we note a distinction in the vessel types in which wine markers appear. In Tomb 50, wine was stored in large containers, whereas in Area K, it was stored in smaller vessels (mainly juglets; excluding the storage jar found in Installation 18/K/87, which was probably used in burial ceremonies rather than as an offering). However, it should be observed that larger vessels, like those in Tomb 50, are statistically rarer in the Area K vessels. Either way, the presence of larger vessels or the larger quantities of wine probably reflect different social classes to which the populations from areas H and K belonged, as indicated by other markers of material culture (see below). The differences may also indicate different use or access to resources that the populations from Area H and K provided for burial activities.Wax and animal fatWax is represented by a series of odd‐ and even‐numbered n‐alkanes of 20–31 carbon atoms (in piriform Juglet M‐024‐02‐01, there were shorter hydrocarbons of 17‐ and 18‐carbon atoms as well), alcohols of 20–28 carbon atoms, and long‐chain fatty acid of 24 carbon atoms (lignoceric acid) (Amir et al., 2021; Evershed et al., 1997; Namdar et al., 2009; Tulloch, 1970). Note that lignoceric acid is found in lignin and wood tar as well (Ali et al., 2013; Taylor, 1931), though the current archaeological and molecular contexts attest to its wax origin. Wax esters (C40 to C50) and hydroxyl wax esters (C42 to C54), which confirm the source of wax (beeswax or vegetal), are absent from the chromatograms due to instrumentation limits.The wax profile was not uniform in all vessels: Lignoceric acid appeared in a jar and a bowl from Tomb 50 and in a piriform juglet and a bowl from Burials 18/K/24 and 18/K/95 (respectively) in Area K. Long‐chained alcohols also appeared in the above vessels from Tomb 50, as well as in a lamp from the same context. They also appeared in a juglet, a bowl, and a jug from Burial 18/K/109 in Area K. Juglet M‐109‐01‐02 from Area K contained n‐alkanes with the predominance of odd‐to‐even‐numbered carbon chains, which is characteristic of beeswax (Figure 3a), whereas the other vessels did not show this distribution.Apart from waxes, the relatively high abundance of even‐numbered n‐alkanes and C18:0 (stearic acid) and the occurrence of cholesterol in many of the vessels attest to the presence of animal fat (Figure 3c) (Amir et al., 2021; Bogdanov, 2016; Charters et al., 1995; Evershed et al., 2002). Similar profiles detected in previous studies were suggested as having been a mixture of wax and animal fat, used as fuel or as coating/sealing material (Amir et al., 2021; Charters et al., 1995).All of the vessels containing wax biomarkers (bowls, a lamp, juglets, jars, and jugs), except for two juglets from Area K, seem to have contained this same mixture. In most of these vessels, the appearance of wax markers is conjugated with the indicators for animal fat and vice versa; that is, the animal fat markers only appeared in vessels that also contained wax markers. The storage jar from Tomb 50 (M‐026‐154‐024‐015) is exceptional because it contained fat markers without wax markers, that is, traces of C15:0, C16:1; 9, and C17:0, which are indicative for ruminant fat or milk (Evershed et al., 2002; Matheson et al., 2022).It is difficult to determine the intention of the wax and animal fat mixture and whether it was the same in all vessels, due to the wide variety of vessel forms and of other substances found in them. In general, the wax–animal fat mixture was mainly found in open vessels from Tomb 50 and in storage vessels from Area K graves. Its appearance in storage vessels from the Area K graves indicates either that it was stored in these vessels or was used to coat and seal their interiors. Its signature in open vessels from Tomb 50 may have been related to burial offerings (Baker, 2012; Cradic, 2017, 2018; Gonen, 1992; Parker Pearson, 1999) or had a different use, possibly associated with funerary procession and rituals such as treatment of the body prior to inhumation. In the ancient Near East, corpses have been known to be treated with waxes, resins, dyes, and other residues, for instance, in the Royal Hypogeum at Qatna dated to the Late Bronze Age (Evershed et al., 2011; James et al., 2009; Mukherjee et al., 2007; Pfälzner, 2016). Both waxes and animal fats are known ingredients in foods and personal toilette and had medical and industrial applications (Serpico & White, 2000). Considering that food and cosmetics are common burial accompaniments, one of these would probably be the best explanation.All in all, we cannot unequivocally decide if the wax and fat were added as a mixture or separately to the vessels either as sealants or as the primary substance. Another scenario is that wax was the original substance held in the open vessels, whereas the animal fat was contamination originated from the deceased. However, we see this as a less likely explanation because animal fat was found together with wax and not by itself and was not detected in the control samples.Plant oilsPlant oils are represented by a variety of molecules: saturated fatty acids of C6–C22 (including palmitic and stearic acids with the C16:0 > C18:0 ratio); saturated dicarboxylic acids of C7–C10 (in which suberic and azelaic acids are relatively abundant); unsaturated fatty acids of 18 carbon atoms; alcohols of 16 and 18 carbon chains; monoacylglycerols of palmitic and stearic acids (MAG16:0, MAG18:0, respectively). These molecules also appear in animal fat, but their occurrence with the other plant markers attests to their vegetal origin (Figure 3a,b) (Copley et al., 2005; Linares et al., 2019; Marković et al., 2020; Matheson et al., 2022; Namdar et al., 2018). Some vessels (five juglets: M‐094‐06‐04, M‐109‐01‐06, M‐109‐01‐02, M‐109‐01‐05, M‐109‐03‐01and jar M‐062‐154‐024‐015) seem to have chromatographic profiles characteristic to olive oil, containing C16:0, C18:0, C18:1; 9, and C20:0, in which the C18:1; 9 peak predominates the C18:0 peak (though other plant sources rich in oleic acid cannot be excluded). The relatively high abundance of azelaic and suberic acids in these vessels indicates the degradation of plant oil high in oleic acid (Marković et al., 2020), thus supporting the possibility that olive oil had been stored in these vessels. A more definitive identification of oleic acid depends on identifying markers that require different analytic procedures from the standard procedure used for residue analysis in the current study (Whelton et al., 2021).Plant oil markers appeared in many vessels of various forms from both Area K and Tomb 50. In most instances, they are found alongside other markers, such as the wax–fat mixture and wine. The appearance of plant oil together with wine markers in some vessels (Jug M‐062‐064‐08‐08, Jar M‐062‐154‐024‐015, Carinated bowl M‐095‐01‐01, Juglets M‐109‐01‐02, and M‐109‐01‐05) indicates that they held different types of liquids over the course of their use (Figure 3b) (Amir et al., 2022). This suggests that at least some of the vessels were reused as burial offerings rather than having been manufactured specifically for funerary purposes. In these cases, it is not entirely clear whether oil or wine was given as the burial offering, although the appearance of wine markers in other vessels lends some evidence to the latter possibility.Another explanation for the appearance of both plant oil residues and wine markers in storage vessels can be related to the way the wine was stored. Traditionally, in ancient Rome and Greco‐Roman Egypt, olive oil or other plant oils were added directly into the wine containers or as part of their sealing in order to prevent the oxidation and spoilage of the wine; the oil floated on top of the wine and prevented the wine from coming in contact with oxygen (Harutyunyan & Malfeito‐Ferreira, 2022). This tradition is later to the Middle Bronze Age to which the current vessels are dated, though this method may have been used in earlier periods as well.Coniferous resinsThe chromatogram of Bowl M‐109‐03‐07 found in a pit burial in Area K contained a small peak of dehydroabietic acid. This molecule is characteristic of coniferous diterpenic resins, though other characteristic molecules of these resins are absent from the chromatogram (Brettell et al., 2015; Buckley & Evershed, 2001; Marković et al., 2020; Matheson et al., 2022). The presence of dehydroabietic acid indicates that Bowl M‐109‐03‐07 held coniferous resin as a burial offering or that it played a role in the funerary ritual, perhaps as an incense or perfume (Serpico, 2000), or as material applied to the body as part of its treatment prior to inhumation (Buckley & Evershed, 2001; Evershed et al., 2011; McGovern, 2003, p. 131). Also possible is that coniferous resin was, like wax, applied to the bowl as a sealant during manufacture (McGovern et al., 2009; Reber & Hart, 2008).VanillaA study previously conducted on four juglets from Tomb 50 identified in three of them vanilla markers, namely, vanillin, 4‐hydroxybenzaldehyde, and acetovanillone, together with other compounds characteristic to plant oils. The authors proposed that the juglets contained a product for which vanilla was an aromatic and/or flavoring ingredient or different liquids at different times, suggesting that these juglets were in secondary use here (Linares et al., 2019).CONCLUSIONSThis study provides the first empirical information about the contents of ceramic vessels placed as offerings in intramural Middle Bronze burials in the Southern Levant. It also sheds light on the contents of pottery offerings in elite burials (adding to a previous study that provided evidence for vanilla in juglets from the same tomb) and on social differences at the site as revealed in burial customs.Ceramic vessels from the Middle Bronze Megiddo burials contained a variety of substances. The most unique find is the indication for wine; our study demonstrates, for the first time, that wine was used in Bronze Age burial contexts in the Southern Levant. To date, evidence for wine in eastern Mediterranean funerary contexts has mainly been detected in Egypt (cf. Guasch‐Jané et al., 2006; McGovern, 2003; McGovern et al., 2009).Palatial wine storage rooms are attested in the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean, Mesopotamia (Chambon, 2009), and the Levant. In the Southern Levant, wine is typically found in domestic and palatial contexts (cf. Amir et al., 2022; Koh et al., 2014; Marston & Birney, 2022). The Middle Bronze II palatial wine cellar in Tel Kabri (Koh et al., 2014) is one of the most outstanding examples in the region. The wine cellar belongs to Phase III (end of the MB II, c. 1700 BCE: Höflmayer et al., 2016), contemporary with the burials in Area K of Megiddo. The Kabri cellar shows that during the Middle Bronze II, wine played an important role in social and political life, and the wine in the burials of Area K at Megiddo suggest that this was true for the afterlife as well. Tomb 50 dates slightly later to the Middle Bronze III; it is located adjacent to Megiddo's palatial complex, indicating the importance of wine also in the funerary rites of the elites.The carinated bowl containing wine found in a burial of a newborn (18/K/95) is noteworthy. The presence of wine alongside an individual, who theoretically would not have consumed much of it in life, may signal the community's perception of the afterlife as a place where individuals continue to grow into adulthood in the afterlife and have adult needs; alternatively, the age of the deceased was irrelevant in the afterlife.Finally, the distribution of wine vessels in Tomb 50 and the Area K burials might correspond to differences in the social standing of the buried (differences between Areas H and K are also apparent in other fields of material culture in later centuries of the second millennium BCE; see Sapir‐Hen et al., 2016). All wine storage vessels were found in graves that contained multiple individuals (Tomb 50 and Burial 18/K/109). The vessels from Area K that held wine are small juglets and thus may have been intended for the personal use of the deceased. To differ, the vessels in Tomb 50 have a much bigger volume. This may reflect the “need” of the elite individuals interred there or ceremonies involving larger crowds during the interment. In the latter case, placing the vessels near the entrance to the tomb made it possible for the living to refill them before the ceremony or for subsequent interments. The differences between Tomb 50 and the Area K burials regarding wine consumption in the afterlife seem to represent social difference between the inhabitants of these sectors of the site. Beginning in the Middle Bronze Age and lasting until the Iron II, the part of the city excavated in Area K was used for domestic structures, whereas Area H revealed a long sequence of palatial quarters. Its inhabitants placed emphasis on the expression of their elite status through monumental architecture and high‐status material culture and substances during life and, as this study demonstrates, in death.AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSConceptualization: Israel Finkelstein. Data curation: Ayala Amir. Formal analysis: Ayala Amir. Investigation: Ayala Amir, Rachel Kalisher, Melissa S. Cradic, Mario A. S. Martin, and Matthew J. Adams. Methodology: Ayala Amir. Project administration: Ayala Amir and Israel Finkelstein. Supervision: Israel Finkelstein, Ronny Neumann, and Yuval Gadot. Writing—original draft: Ayala Amir, Rachel Kalisher, Melissa S. Cradic, and Mario A. S. Martin. Writing—review and editing: Ayala Amir, Israel Finkelstein, Yuval Gadot, Rachel Kalisher, Melissa S. Cradic, Ronny Neumann, and Matthew J. Adams.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSIn the seasons reported in this article, the Megiddo Expedition was kindly supported by the Dan David Foundation, the Shmunis Family Foundation, Jacques Chahine, and Mark Weissman. We would like to thank the Mass Spectrometry Division of the Department of Chemistry in Bar Ilan University for helping with the analysis of the MS spectra.DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENTAll information within this study is available within the manuscript and within the online supplementary material.PEER REVIEWThe peer review history for this article is available at https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1111/arcm.12877.REFERENCESAdams, M. J., & Cradic, M. S. (2022). The middle bronze age burials from area J. In I. Finkelstein & M. A. S. Martin (Eds.), Megiddo VI: The 2010–2014 seasons (Vol. 1). Tel Aviv University Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph 41. (pp. 189–225). Eisenbrauns & Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.Ali, F., Ali, I., Bibi, H., Malik, A., Stern, B., & Maitland, D. J. (2013). Qualitative and quantitative assessment of fatty acids of Buddleja asiatica by GC‐MS. Journal of the Chemical Society of Pakistan, 35(3), 840–845.Amir, A., Finkelstein, I., Shalev, Y., Uziel, J., Chalaf, O., Freud, L., Neumann, R., & Gadot, Y. (2022). Residue analysis evidence for wine enriched with vanilla consumed in Jerusalem on the eve of the Babylonian destruction in 586 BCE. PLoS ONE, 17(3), e0266085. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266085Amir, A., Gadot, Y., Weitzel, J., Finkelstein, I., Neumann, R., Bezzel, H., Covello‐Paran, K., & Sergi, O. (2021). Heated beeswax usage in mortuary practices: The case of Ḥorvat Tevet (Jezreel Valley, Israel) ca. 1000 BCE. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 36, 102904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.102904Baker, J. (2012). The funeral kit: Mortuary practices in the archaeological record. Routledge.Biasoto, A. C. T., Catharino, R. R., Sanvido, G. B., Eberlin, M. N., & da Silva, M. A. A. P. (2010). Flavour characterization of red wines by descriptive analysis and ESI mass spectrometry. Food Quality and Preference, 21(7), 755–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.07.005Bogdanov, S. (2016). Beeswax: Production, properties, composition, control. Bee Product Science. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304012435_Beeswax_Production_Properties_Composition_ControlBretschneider, J., & Van Lerberghe, K. (2008). Tell Tweini, ancient Gibala, between 2600 B.C.E. and 333 B.C.E. In J. Bretschneider & K. Van Lerberghe (Eds.), In search of Gibala: An archaeological and historical study based on eight seasons of excavations at Tell Tweini (Syria) in the A and C fields (1999 2007). Aula Orientalis—Supplementa 24. (pp. 11–68). Editorial AUSA.Brettell, R. C., Schotsmans, E. M. J., Walton Rogers, P., Reifarth, N., Redfern, R. C., Stern, B., & Heron, C. P. (2015). ‘Choicest unguents’: Molecular evidence for the use of resinous plant exudates in late Roman mortuary rites in Britain. Journal of Archaeological Science, 53, 639–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.11.006Buckley, S. A., & Evershed, R. P. (2001). Organic chemistry of embalming agents in pharaonic and Graeco‐Roman mummies. Nature, 413(6858), 837–841. https://doi.org/10.1038/35101588Chambon, G. (2009). Les archives du vin à Mari. Société pour l'étude du Proche‐Orient ancien.Charters, S., Evershed, R. P., Blinkhorn, P. W., & Denham, V. (1995). Evidence for the mixing of fats and waxes in archaeological ceramics. Archaeometry, 37(1), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1995.tb00730.xCharters, S., Evershed, R. P., Goad, L. J., Leyden, A., Blinkhorn, P. W., & Denham, V. (1993). Quantification and distribution of lipid in archaeological ceramics: Implications for sampling potsherds for organic residue analysis and the classification of vessel use. Archaeometry, 35(2), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1993.tb01036.xCopley, M. S., Bland, H. A., Rose, P., Horton, M., & Evershed, R. P. (2005). Gas chromatographic, mass spectrometric and stable carbon isotopic investigations of organic residues of plant oils and animal fats employed as illuminants in archaeological lamps from Egypt. Analyst, 130(6), 860–871. https://doi.org/10.1039/b500403aCradic, M. S. (2017). Embodiments of death: The funerary sequence and commemoration in the bronze age Levant. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 377, 219–248. https://doi.org/10.5615/bullamerschoorie.377.0219Cradic, M. S. (2018). Residential burial and social memory in the middle bronze age Levant. Near Eastern Archaeology, 81(3), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.5615/neareastarch.81.3.0191Cradic, M. S. (forthcoming). Area H: Tomb 50 and burial 16/H/45. In M. S. Cradic, I. Finkelstein, & M. J. Adams (Eds.), Megiddo VII: The 2016‐2018 seasons. Tel Aviv University Press.Davies, N. D. G., & Gardiner, A. H. (1915). The tomb of Amenemhet (No. 82), London.Evershed, R. P., Dudd, S. N., Copley, M. S., Berstan, R., Stott, A. W., Mottram, H., Buckley, S. A., & Crossman, Z. (2002). Chemistry of archaeological animal fats. Accounts of Chemical Research, 35(8), 660–668. https://doi.org/10.1021/ar000200fEvershed, R. P., Heron, C., & Goad, L. J. (1990). Analysis of organic residues of archaeological origin by high‐temperature gas chromatography and gas chromatography‐mass spectrometry. Analyst, 115(10), 1339. https://doi.org/10.1039/an9901501339Evershed, R. P., James, M. A., Mukherjee, A. J., Musselle, C. J., Robertson, F., & Pfälzner, P. (2011). Organic residue analysis of ceramic and stone vessels, resinous artefacts and anthropogenic sediments from the royal tomb. In P. Pfälzner (Ed.), Interdisziplinäre Studien zurKönigsgruft von Qaṭna (pp. 411–447). Harrassowitz.Evershed, R. P., Vaughan, S. J., Dudd, S. N., & Soles, J. S. (1997). Fuel for thought? Beeswax in lamps and conical cups from late Minoan Crete. Antiquity, 71(274), 979–985. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00085860Garnier, N., & Valamoti, S. M. (2016). Prehistoric wine‐making at Dikili Tash (northern Greece): Integrating residue analysis and archaeobotany. Journal of Archaeological Science, 74, 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2016.03.003Gersht, D. (2006). The Flint assemblage from area K. In I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin, & B. Halpern (Eds.), Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 seasons. Tel Aviv University Press.Gonen, R. (1992). Burial patterns and cultural diversity in late bronze age Canaan. American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series 7. Eisenbrauns.Guasch‐Jané, M. R., Andrés‐Lacueva, C., Jáuregui, O., & Lamuela‐Raventós, R. M. (2006). First evidence of white wine in ancient Egypt from Tutankhamun's tomb. Journal of Archaeological Science, 33(8), 1075–1080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.11.012Guy, P. L. O. (1938). Megiddo tombs. University of Chicago Press.Harutyunyan, M., & Malfeito‐Ferreira, M. (2022). Historical and heritage sustainability for the revival of ancient wine‐making techniques and wine styles. Beverages, 8(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages8010010Höflmayer, F., Yasur‐Landau, A., Cline, E. H., Dee, M. W., Lorentzen, B., & Riehl, S. (2016). New radiocarbon dates from Tel Kabri support a high middle bronze age chronology. Radiocarbon, 58(3), 599–613. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.27James, M. A., Reifarth, N., Mukherjee, A. J., Crump, M. P., Gates, P. J., Sandor, P., Robertson, F., Pfälzner, P., & Evershed, R. P. (2009). High prestige royal purple dyed textiles from the bronze age royal tomb at Qatna, Syria. Antiquity, 83(322), 1109–1118. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00099397Kalisher, R. (forthcoming). The human skeletal remains from tomb 50. In M. S. Cradic, I. Finkelstein, & M. J. Adams (Eds.), Megiddo VII: The 2016‐2018 seasons. Tel Aviv University Press.Koh, A. J., Yasur‐Landau, A., & Cline, E. H. (2014). Characterizing a middle bronze palatial wine cellar from Tel Kabri, Israel. PLoS ONE, 9(8), e106406. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106406Linares, V., Adams, M. J., Cradic, M. S., Finkelstein, I., Lipschits, O., Martin, M. A. S., Neumann, R., Stockhammer, P. W., & Gadot, Y. (2019). First evidence for vanillin in the old world: Its use as mortuary offering in middle bronze Canaan. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 25, 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.03.034Loud, G. (1948). Megiddo II. Seasons of 1935–1939. Text and plates. Oriental Institute Publications 62. University of Chicago Press.Marković, M., Mezzatesta, E., Porcier, S., Vieillescazes, C., & Mathe, C. (2020). Chemical characterization of embalming materials of four ibis mummies from the Musée des confluences, Lyon. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 34, 102624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102624Marston, J. M., & Birney, K. J. (2022). Hellenistic agricultural economies at Ashkelon, southern Levant. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 31(3), 221–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-021-00850-1Martin, M. A. S. (2022). Area K: Summary of architecture and function from the MB III to the late iron I. In I. Finkelstein & M. A. S. Martin (Eds.), Megiddo VI: The 2010–2014 seasons. Monograph series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 41. (pp. 51–62). Tel Aviv University.Martin, M. A. S., & Cradic, M. S. (2022). Area K: Tomb 100 (level K‐10). In I. Finkelstein & M. A. S. Martin (Eds.), Megiddo VI: The 2010–2014 seasons. monograph series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 41. (pp. 308–401). Tel Aviv University.Martin, M. A. S., Cradic, M. S., & Kalisher, R. (2022). Area K: Intramural pit and jar burials (level K‐10). In I. Finkelstein & M. A. S. Martin (Eds.), Megiddo VI: The 2010–2014 seasons. monograph series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 41. (pp. 226–307). Pennsylvania State University Press.Matheson, C. D., Vickruck, C. R., McEvoy, C. J., Vernon, K. K., & Mason, R. (2022). Composition of trace residues from the contents of 11th‐12th century sphero‐conical vessels from Jerusalem. PLoS ONE, 17(4), e0267350. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267350McGovern, P. E. (2003). Ancient wine: The search for the origins of viniculture. Princeton University Press.McGovern, P. E., Mirzoian, A., & Hall, G. R. (2009). Ancient Egyptian herbal wines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(18), 7361–7366. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0811578106Mukherjee, A. J., James, M. A., Pfälzner, P., & Evershed, R. P. (2007). Biomolecular analysis of ceramic containers, skeletal remains, anthropogenic sediments and organic artefacts from the royal tomb at Qanta. In D. Morandi Bonacossi (Ed.), Urban and natural landscapes of an ancient Syrian capital settlement and environment at tell Mishrifeh/Qatna in Central‐Western Syria. Proceedings of the international conference held in Udine, 9‐11 December 2004, Studi Archeologicisu Qatna. (pp. 189–197). Forum.Namdar, D., Amrani, A., Ben‐Ami, D., Hagbi, M., Szanton, N., Tchekhanovets, Y., Uziel, J., Dag, A., Rosen, B., & Gadot, Y. (2018). The social and economic complexity of ancient Jerusalem as seen through choices in lighting oils. Archaeometry, 60(3), 571–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12316Namdar, D., Neumann, R., Goren, Y., & Weiner, S. (2009). The contents of unusual cone‐shaped vessels (cornets) from the chalcolithic of the southern Levant. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36(3), 629–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.10.004Parker Pearson, M. (1999). The archaeology of death and burial. Texas A&M University Anthropology Series. United States: Texas A&M University Press.Pecci, A., Borgna, E., Mileto, S., Dalla Longa, E., Bosi, G., Florenzano, A., Mercuri, A. M., Corazza, S., Marchesini, M., & Vidale, M. (2020). Wine consumption in bronze age Italy: Combining organic residue analysis, botanical data and ceramic variability. Journal of Archaeological Science, 123, 105256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2020.105256Pfälzner, P. (2016). Royal corpses, royal ancestors and the living: The transformation of the dead in ancient Syria. In C. Felli (Ed.), How to cope with death: Mourning and funerary practices in the ancient near east (pp. 241–270). ETS.Reber, E. A., & Hart, J. P. (2008). Pine resins and pottery sealing: Analysis of absorbed and visible pottery residues from Central New York state*. Archaeometry, 50(6), 999–1017. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2008.00387.xSapir‐Hen, L. (forthcoming). food offerings in a royal tomb: Faunal remains from Megiddo tomb 50 and burial 16/H/45. In M. S. Cradic, I. Finkelstein, & M. J. Adams (Eds.), Megiddo VII: The 2016‐2018 seasons. Tel Aviv University Press.Sapir‐Hen, L., Sasson, A., Kleiman, A., & Finkelstein, I. (2016). Social stratification in the late bronze and early iron ages: An intra‐site investigation at Megiddo. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 35(1), 47–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/ojoa.12078Serpico, M. (2000). Resins, amber and bitumen. In P. T. Nicholson & I. Shaw (Eds.), Ancient Egyptian materials and technology (pp. 430–474). Cambridge University Press.Serpico, M., & White, R. (2000). Oil, fat and wax. In P. T. Nicholson & I. Shaw (Eds.), Ancient Egyptian materials and technology (pp. 390–429). Cambridge University Press.Taylor, F. A. (1931). The tetracosanoic acid of peanut oil. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 91(2), 541–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(18)76565-4Tulloch, A. P. (1970). The composition of beeswax and other waxes secreted by insects. Lipids, 5(2), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02532476Ussishkin, D. (2018). Megiddo‐Armageddon: The story of the Canaanite and Israelite city. Israel Exploration Society.van den Hout, T. (1994). Death as a privilege: The Hittite royal funeral ritual. In J. M. Bremer, T. P. J. van den Hour, & R. Peters (Eds.), Hidden futures: Deathand immortality in ancient Egypt, Anatolia, the classical biblical and Arabic Islamic world. (pp. 37–75). Amsterdam University Press.Whelton, H. L., Hammann, S., Cramp, L. J. E., Dunne, J., Roffet‐Salque, M., & Evershed, R. P. (2021). A call for caution in the analysis of lipids and other small biomolecules from archaeological contexts. Journal of Archaeological Science, 132, 105397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2021.105397Yahalom‐Mack, N., Eliyahu‐Behar, A., Martin, M. A. S., Kleiman, A., Shahack‐Gross, R., Homsher, R. S., Gadot, Y., & Finkelstein, I. (2017). Metalworking at Megiddo during the late bronze and iron ages. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 76(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1086/690635Yasur‐Landau, A. (2005). Old wine in new vessels: Intercultural contact, innovation and Aegean, Canaanite and Philistine foodways. Tel Aviv, 32(2), 168–191. https://doi.org/10.1179/tav.2005.2005.2.168

Journal

Archaeometry – Wiley

Published: Dec 1, 2023

Keywords: burial offerings; Megiddo; Middle Bronze; residue analysis; social stratification; wine

There are no references for this article.