Aphek-antipatris II: The Remains on the Acropolis 9652660256, 9789652660251

Citation preview

APHEK-ANTIPATRIS II THE REMAINS ON THE ACROPOLIS

THE MOSHE KOCHAVI AND PIRHIYA BECK EXCAVATIONS

TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY SONIA AND MARCO NADLER INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY

MONOGRAPH SERIES NUMBER 27

Executive Editor: Editorial Board:

Manuscript & Production Editor: Guest Manuscript Editor:

Israel Finkelstein Moshe Fischer Avi Gopher Ze’ev Herzog Benjamin Sass Itamar Singer Shirley Gassner Eliot Braun

APHEK-ANTIPATRIS II THE REMAINS ON THE ACROPOLIS

THE MOSHE KOCHAVI AND PIRHIYA BECK EXCAVATIONS YUVAL GADOT AND ESTHER YADIN

With contributions by Gabriella Bachi, David Ben-Shlomo, Elisabetta Boaretto, Eyal Bozaglo, Assaf Yasur-Landau, Rafael Frankel, Ayelet Gilboa, Yuval Goren, Marta Guzowska, Liora Kolska Horwitz, Mordechai E. Kislev, Nir Lalkin, Omri Lernau, Nili Liphschitz, Yael Mahler-Slasky, Mario A.S. Martin, Henk K. Mienis, Nadav Naanach (Lapp 1969:12-13). It includes a treading floor and two drainage channels connected to a collection vat. Very similar installations are found from later times as well, dating as late as the Byzantine period and even up to modern times. One interesting example is an installation cut into, and therefore later than, the steps of a Roman road (Kallai 1965:195-6; Pl. 38B). Rock-cut installations have many advantages. They are easier to make than constructed installations, are less liable to seepage and more durable. Large numbers of such installations are often found together on stone outcrops located in, or at the edges of valleys, doubtless to serve vineyards planted nearby because fields, by definition, lacked stone surfaces in which presses could be hewn (e.g., Raban 1982: sites 58, 72 and 82). Constructed winepresses have been found at such sites where suitable bedrock outcrops were not available. Nearby examples dating from the Iron Age include those at Tell Qasile (Ayalon 1990-1993) and Tel Michal (Herzog 1989a), while another at Tel Michal dates to the Hellenistic period (Herzog 1989b). In later periods, more elaborate winepresses developed alongside the simple types that continued to be used. These later winepresses still consisted primarily of a treading floor and a collecting vat. However, other elements were added, such as lever or screw presses (that served to press the grapesstones and skins after treading), intermediate vats, secondary treading floors, compartments, etc. Eventually, regional types emerged. For example, the remarkable winepresses of the Negev Highlands (Mazor 1981) are different from those of the central regions (e.g., Kh. Boreq; Dar 1986: Fig 46) and those of the Jerusalem area (e.g., Bethphage; Saller and Testa 1961:27-41; Frankel 1999:139-158). While the type of winepress with a large vat is very common particularly in the southern Levant and apparently throughout the entire Levant and North Africa, it is rare in Europe. Some examples of winepresses with collecting vats have been reported from Europe, nearly all in buildings (e.g., Germany, Neyes 1979; Crimea, Gaidukavych 1958). However, the dominant technical tradition there is that of collecting must in pottery vessels (e.g., a winepress on the Acropolis at Athens, Dorpfeld 1895:169; cf. depictions on Roman reliefs and mosaics, Lancha 1981: Pl. CXVIII; Beyer and Lietsmann 1930: Pl. 27). This technique apparently originated in the practice of treading grapes in vineyards on movable tables and collecting must in pottery vessels. This method is illustrated in numerous Attic vase paintings (Sparkes 1976; Fig 4.6). The difference between the techniques used in Europe and those used in the Levant is almost certainly explained by the differences in climate. In the Levant, it hardly rains during the vintage season, while in Europe rain occurs frequently. The winepresses at Tel Aphek are on the mound at the edge of the Acropolis (Fig. 4.1) where there were no bedrock outcrops, therefore their location represents a deliberate decision to place them there and to construct rather than quarry them. It is postulated that the reason for this particular location, in 80

CHAPTER 4: LATE BRONZE AGE W INEPRESSES

rather close proximity to the Egyptian Governors’ Residence, was administrative. The question that arises, therefore, is whether these winepresses were Egyptian or Canaanite in character, and whether certain features of these installations can help determine their possible socio-ethnic associations. Since no wine-producing installations in Egypt earlier than the first millennium BCE have yet been identified, there are no good comparanda for determining the answers to these questions. Instead one must turn to corollary evidence from wall paintings found in many Egyptian tombs, particularly from the period of the New Kingdom that depict wine production (e.g,. Fig. 4.8) in a particularly vivid manner. These usually show a raised treading platform, often covered by a roof or canopy supported by pillars, sometimes with lotus capitals and hanging ropes grasped by those treading to aid in keeping their balance (see above). Must flowed through a pipe into a collecting vat also raised above ground (Taylor and Griffith 1894: Pl. IV; Davies 1907: Pls. XXII; XXIII; XXVI; Davies 1923: Pl. XXX; Davies 1933: Pl. XLVIII; Davies 1943: Pl. XLV). However, Montet (1913:118) has suggested that vats of Egyptian winepresses were actually not raised but rather sunken in the ground, and that the manner in which they were depicted in tomb paintings was merely a convention that allowed painters to show details. Several rock-cut winepresses from the Roman period have been published from Egypt (Adams 1966) and these obviously have sunken, collecting vats, as do all winepresses in the southern Levant. However several built winepresses have been found in “Graeco-Roman” and Byzantine sites there (Monneret de Villard 1927: Figs. 19, 95-96; Lefebure 1910:169-170, Pl. III; Kaufman 1910: Figs. 7-8) that are similar to the winepresses depicted in earlier Egyptian tomb paintings in one important aspect. Their vats are built above ground level and they have steps outside that lead up to their treading floors. Details of these late winepresses suggest Montet was mistaken, and it seems clear that these examples from Late Antiquity continue a tradition enshrined in earlier representations in tomb paintings. They suggest that raised vats were characteristic of Egyptian-built winepresses from sometime in the Bronze Age down to and including the Byzantine period. There also appears to be a good reason for this characteristic that may be associated with conditions particular to Egypt. Vats of Egyptian wine-presses were probably raised because they stood in vineyards in irrigated fields where, if they had been sunken into the ground, they would have been penetrated by water. Raised collecting vats had other advantages, for example, in an installation from Tipasa, Algeria in which the collecting vat is also raised above the ground (Gsell 1901:31-34; Fig. 91), there is an outlet at the bottom of the vat, obviously a very useful device allowing must to flow out into vessels instead of being drawn out from above. It also makes cleaning the vat an easy operation. Such an outlet is only possible when the vat is raised. It is interesting to note, in contrast, that among hundreds of winepresses reported from the southern Levant from the same periods, none has a raised collecting vat. Therefore, it seems clear that the winepresses at Tel Aphek are Canaanite in character and were not influenced by Egyptian types despite their almost certain connection with an Egyptian administration. However, there is, of course, no way of determining whether Egyptian-type sack (torsion) presses were used at Tel Aphek. In other periods there is evidence for agricultural installations that incorporate devices that were introduced into the southern Levant from afar (Frankel, Patrich and Tsafrir 1990). These observations shed some light on the character of the Egyptian administration in Canaan, especially since these winepresses are exceptional in several ways. They are not located in the midst of the vineyards as is usual, but rather they were deliberately placed on the acropolis close to the governor’s residence. As presses, they are comparatively large (c.f., Iron Age winepresses at Tel Qasile, Ayalon 1990-1993) and reflect the centralized economic system of the Egyptian administration at Tel Aphek. So too, does their unusual production of white wine (Chapter 20) which was, apparently, a luxury commodity associated with the high status of the residence’s inhabitants. 81

RAFAEL FRANKEL, YUVAL GADOT AND GABRIELLA BACHI

REFERENCES Adams, W.Y. 1966. The vintage of Nubia, Kush. Journal of the Sudan Antiquities 14:262-283. Adriani, A. 1939. Le gobelet en argent des amours vendangeurs du Musée d`Alexandria. Alexandria. Ahlström, G.W. 1978. Wine-presses and cup-marks in the Jenin Megiddo survey. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 231:19-49. Amouretti,M-C. and Brun, J-P., eds. 1993. Oil and Wine Production in the Mediterranean Area (Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Supplément XXVI). Paris. Ayalon, E. 1990-1993. Iron Age winepresses around Tell Qasile. In: Israel: People and Land. pp. 7-8:53-66. (Hebrew with English summary) Beckh, H. ed. 1895. Geoponica Sive Cassiani Bassi Scholastici de Re Rustica Eclogae. Leipzig. Ben Ya`akov, Y. 1979. The Vine and the Winepress on Mount Hebron and in the Written Sources. Kefar `Etsiyon. (Hebrew) Beyer, H.W. and Lietzman, H. 1930. Judische Katakombe der Villa Tolonia in Rom. Berlin. Billiard, R. 1913. La Vigne dans l`Antiquité. Lyon. Brun, J-P. 2003 Le vin et l’huile dans la Méditerranée antique. Paris. Brun, J-P. 2004a. Archéologie du vin et de l’huile, de la préhistoire a l’époque hellénistique. Paris. Brun, J-P. 2004b. Archéologie du vin et de l’huile, dans l’empire romain. Paris. Brun, J-P. 2005. Archéologie du vin et de l’huile en Gaule (with references for Brun, J-P 2003, 2004a, 2004b). Paris. Dar, S. 1986. Landscape and Pattern. An Archaeological Survey of Samaria, 800 BCE-636 CE. Oxford. Davies, N.D.G. 1907. The Tomb of Nakht at Thebes. New York. Davies, N.D.G. 1923. The Tomb of Two Officials of Thutmoses the Fourth. Numbers 75 and 90. London. Davies, N.D.G. 1933. The Tomb of Nefer-Hotep at Thebes. New-York. Davies, N.D.G. 1943. The Tomb of Rekh-mi-Re’ at Thebes II. New York Dorpfeld, W. 1895. Die Ausgrabugen am Westabhange der Akropolis II. Mittheilungen der Kaiserlich Deutschen Archäeologischen Institut 20:161-206. Frankel, R. 1999. Wine and Oil Production in Antiquity in Israel and Other Mediterranean Countries. Sheffield. Frankel, R., Patrich, J. and Tsafrir, Y. 1990. The oil presses at Horvat Beit Loya. In: Bottini, C., Di-Signu, L. and Alliata, E., eds. Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land, New Discoveries. Essays in Honour of Virgilio C. Corbo. Jerusalem. pp. 287-300. Gaidukevych, V.F. 1958. Vinodele na Bospore. In: Gaidukevych, V.F. and Knipovych, T.N., eds. Bosporkiye Topoda II. Moscow. pp. 352-457. Gsell, S. 1901. Les Monuments de L`Algérie II. Paris. Heltzer, M. 1979. Dimtu – gt – Pyrgos. An essay about the non-etymological sense of these terms. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 11:31-35. Heltzer, M. 1982. The Internal Organization of the Kingdom of Ugarit. Wiesbaden. Herzog, Z. 1989a. A complex of Iron Age winepresses (Strata XIV-XIII). In: Herzog, Z, Rapp, G. and Negbi, O. 1989., eds. Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel. (Publications of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 8) Tel Aviv. pp.73-75. Herzog, Z. 1989b. Hellenistic stratigraphy and architecture (Strata V-III). In: Herzog, Z, Rapp, G. and Negbi, O. 1989. eds. Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel. (Publications of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 8) Tel Aviv. pp. 165-176. 82

CHAPTER 4: LATE BRONZE AGE W INEPRESSES

Kallai, Z. 1965. Remains of the Roman road along the Mevo Beitar highway. Israel Exploration Journal 15:195-203. Kaufmann, K.M. 1910. Die Menasstadt I. Leipzig. Kochavi, M. 1989. Aphek-Antipatris. Five Thousand Years of History. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew) Lancha, J. 1981. Recueil des mosaiques de la Gaulle III/2. Paris. Lapp, P.W. 1969. The 1968 Excavations at Tell Ta`annek. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 195:2-49. Lefebure, G. 1910. Egypte Gréco-Romain II. Crocodopolis (Suite et Théadelphie). Annales des Antiquités de l`Egypte 10:115-172. Lefebure, G. 1923-24. Le Tombeau de Petosiris. Le Caire. Loud, G. 1948. Megiddo II. Seasons of 1935-1939. Chicago. Mazor, G. 1981. The winepresses of the Negev. Qadmoniot 53-54:51-60. (Hebrew) Monneret de Villard, U. 1927. Il Monnastario di S. Simeons Presso Aswan I. Descrizione Archaeologica. Milano. Montet, P. 1913. La fabrication du vin dans les tombeaux anteriors au nouvel empire. Recueil de traveaux relatifs à la philologie et à l`archàologie egyptiennes et assyriennes 35:117-124. Neyes, A. 1979. Drei Neuentdeckte Gallio-Römische Weinkelterhauser in Moselgebiet. Antike Welt 10:56-59. Raban, A. 1982. Archaeological Survey of Israel. Nahalal Map (28). Jerusalem. Rainey, A.F. 1966. Gath of the Philistines. Christian News from Israel 7/2-3:30-38. Reeves, J.C. 1992. The feast of the first fruit of wine and the ancient Canaanite calendar. Vetus Testamentum 42:350-361. Renan, E. 1874. Mission en Phénicie. Paris. Saller, S. and Testa, E. 1961. The Archaeological Setting of the Shrine of Bethphage. Jerusalem. Seltman, C.T. 1957. Wine in the Ancient World. London. Sparkes, B.A. 1976. Treading the grapes. Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 51:47-64. Taylor, J.J. and Griffith, F.L. 1894. The Tomb of Paheri at el-Kab. London. Urmann, D. 1974. Winepresses for the production of grape syrup in the Golan. Teva Vaaretz 16:173-176. (Hebrew) White, K.D. 1970. A Bibliography of Roman Agriculture. Reading.

83

CHAPTER 5

LATE BRONZE AGE STONE-BUILT TOMB Yuval Gadot

In the course of the 1974 season, a trial sounding, designated Area G, one square in size, 5 x 5 m wide, was excavated at the southwestern edge of the mound (Kochavi, Beck and Yadin 2000: Fig. 1.5). There a portion of a tomb (Locus 1200) dated to the Late Bronze Age was found. Following is a report on this tomb based on all available information provided by its excavators.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TOMB The tomb, in a location (Area G) a considerable distance from the Acropolis (Area X), lay outside the settled portion of the mound in the Late Bronze Age. On typological grounds, the tomb and its contents are assigned to the time span of Strata X13 and X12. It was an apsidal stone-built structure (Fig. 5.1) with remains of eight individuals interred within (Kochavi 1989:77-78), as well as grave goods consisting of dozens of pottery vessels, jewellery and other metal objects (see details below). Only part of its stone floor and the lower courses of its walls survived.

Fig. 5.1: Plan of Tomb 1200.

84

CHAPTER 5: LATE BRONZE AGE STONE -BUILT TOMB

The floor was only partially unearthed over an area measuring approximately 2 x 3 m (Fig. 5.1, Fig. 5.2). It is likely that the remainder of the structure continued farther to the west where due to the natural slope, no more of it was preserved. The floor, composed of natural flagstones of different sizes forms a small apse at its southern edge. Only a few stones in the lowest courses of the wall segments on the south and east and the inner face of the northern wall were unearthed. Since the superstructure of the tomb was not preserved, there is no way to know whether the tomb may have originally been completely subterranean (and perhaps lay beneath a building) or whether it protruded in part or wholly above ground.

THE TOMB ASSEMBLAGE Numerous grave goods were found within the structure. Included in the assemblage are more than 60 complete pottery vessels found lying in irregular heaps along the walls (Fig. 5.3). Following is an inventory of those objects, many of which are illustrated in Chapters 8, 12 and 13 (see below: Table 5.1). TABLE 5.1: POTTERY FROM TOMB 1200 Pottery Types

No.

Illustrations

Bowls of local types Egyptian-Styled bowl Cypriote bowl Cypriote Jugs and juglets Flasks Local jugs Lamp Mycenaean vessels Pyxides

8 1 1 4 3 17 1 4 2

Fig. 8.43:13-20 Fig. 8.43: 21 Fig. 8.47: 8 Fig. 8.47: 9-11, 13 Fig. 8.47: 5-7 Fig. 8.45 Fig. 8.47: 2 Fig. 8.47: 14-17; Ch. 9 Fig. 8.47: 3-4

TABLE 5.2: INVENTORY OF NON-CERAMIC OBJECTS FROM TOMB 1200 Type of Object

No.

Illustration and/or Reference

Scarabs Bone objects Mace-head Bronze ring Beads Dagger Bronze bracelets Bronze bowl Bronze Mirror Stone weight Loom weight

4 2 1 1 8 1 2 1 1 1 1

Ch. 14: Nos. 17-19 Fig. 12.10:8-9 Fig. 12.10:10 Fig. 13.11:4 Fig. 12.10:1-7 Fig. 13.2; Kochavi 1990:21 Fig. 13.11:1, 3 Fig. 13.14 Fig. 13.12 Not illustrated Not illustrated

85

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 5.2: The stone floor of Tomb 1200 after clearing, looking west.

Fig. 5.3: Pottery in situ on the floor of Tomb 1200.

DISCUSSION Constructed tombs of the Middle Bronze and Late Bronze Ages have been found in Israel at Tel Dan and Tel Megiddo (Gonen 1992a). The tomb at Tel Dan was cut into earlier deposits and was richly furnished with grave goods (Biran 1994:101; Ben-Dov 2002). According to Ben-Dov (2002:226) it was situated near dwellings inside the town, and used throughout the 14th and 13th centuries BCE. The Tel Dan tomb was trapezoidal in plan, had a floor made of basalt fieldstones, a corbelled ceiling, and probably an entrance through its roof. At Megiddo, three constructed tombs were found. Two were encountered by Schumacher (1908) in his early excavations, while another was unearthed by Loud (1948: Figs. 27-31) in the excavations of the Oriental Institute. Entrance to these tombs was through shafts leading into narrow corridors. The central rooms in the three tombs at Megiddo were rectangular (c. 1.8 x 2.0 m in all tombs) in plan with corbelled roofs. Although the Megiddo tombs were found inside the town, their stratigraphic affiliation is unclear. The two tombs excavated by Schumacher were found adjacent to one of the city’s Bronze Age palaces, a building he named “Mittelburg”. Schumacher and other scholars assumed the tombs were constructed underground and used by dwellers of buildings above them (Gonen 1992a:131). The stratigraphy of one of the Megiddo tombs was recently checked by a Tel Aviv University team headed by I. Finkelstein and D. Ussishkin. Ussishkin (personal communication.) suggests it was constructed above ground level, and served as part of a major building of either Stratum VIIA, dated to the end of the Late Bronze Age, or of Stratum VI dated to Iron I. This second possibility is not unlikely despite such relatively late date because the culture of Megiddo VIA is Canaanite in nature and preserves traditions of the Late Bronze Age (Finkelstein 2003; Ben-Tor 2003; Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2000:595). Other constructed Late Bronze Age tombs in the Levant are known at Ugarit and Enkomi and further west at Mycenaea (Gonen 1987; Ben-Dov 2002:222). For a time it was commonly believed the royal tombs at Mycenaea provided the original inspiration for of all constructed Levantine tombs of this era. However, Gonen (1992b:27) analyzed resemblances and disparities between tombs at Mycenaea and those in the Levant and dismissed the assumption of a Mycenaean origin. In her view, constructed tombs developed in the Levant. More recently, Ben-Dov (2002:222) showed the custom of burial in constructed tombs appeared as early as the Middle Bronze Age in the Levant and further indicated the so-called “Mycenaean” tombs in the Aegean are, in fact, derived from Levantine prototypes. 86

CHAPTER 5: LATE BRONZE AGE STONE -BUILT TOMB

The constructed tomb at Tel Aphek is similar in most features to the other tombs found at Tel Dan and Tel Megiddo, but unlike them, it is located outside a settlement. Since its superstructure did not survive, we cannot know if it was corbelled, as were other constructed tombs of this era. We also do not know the position of its entrance nor whether the tomb was constructed above ground or if it might have been partially or completely subterranean. The location of this tomb beyond the fringe of the settlement can perhaps be accounted for by a mixture of practical and symbolic reasons. During the Late Bronze Age, large parts of the population in Canaan used rock-hewn caves over spans of time for serially interring their dead (Gonen 1992b). Since there are no bedrock outcrops at Tel Aphek that would have been convenient for hewing such caves, it is possible the site’s inhabitants, desiring to maintain a similar tradition of serial burial, constructed an underground chamber on the slope of the mound as a kind of artificial cave. Little more may be said of this burial or its greater context since Tomb 1200 remains, for the present, the only evidence of Late Bronze Age mortuary behaviour found at Tel Aphek. REFERENCES Beck, P. and Kochavi, M. 1993. Aphek (in Sharon). In: Stern, E., ed. In: The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy land Vol. I. Jerusalem. pp. 64-72. Ben-Dov, R. 2002. The Late Bronze Age ‘Mycenaean’ tomb. In: Biran, A. and Ben-Dov, R., eds. Dan II. A Chronicle of the Excavations and the Late Bronze Age ‘Mycenaean’ Tomb. Jerusalem. pp. 33-248. Ben-Tor, A. 2003. Old Canaan-New Israel. Eretz-Israel 27:50-54. (Hebrew with English Summary) Biran, A. 1994. Biblical Dan. Jerusalem. Finkelstein, I. 2003. City-states to states: Polity dynamics in the 10th-9th centuries B.C.E. In: Dever, W.G. and Gitin, S., eds. Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past. Winona Lake, Wis. pp. 75-83. Finkelstein, I. and Ussishkin, D. 2000. Archaeological and historical conclusions. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B., eds. Megiddo III. The 1992-1996 Seasons. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 18) Tel Aviv. pp. 576-602. Gonen, R. 1992a. Structural tombs in the second millennium B.C. In: Kempinski, A. and Reich, R., eds. The Architecture of Ancient Israel. Jerusalem. pp. 151-160. Gonen, R. 1992b. Burial Patterns and Cultural Diversity in Late Bronze Age Canaan. Winona Lake. Keel, O. 1997. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel. Freiburg. Kochavi, M. 1989. Aphek-Antipatris. Five Thousand Years of History. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew) Kochavi, M. 1990. Aphek in Canaan. The Egyptian Governor’s Residence and its Finds. (Israel Museum Catalogue No. 312). Jerusalem. Loud, G. 1948. Megiddo II. Chicago. Schumacher, G. 1908. Mound el-Mutesellim I. Leipzig.

87

CHAPTER 6

IRON AGE (STRATA X11-X6) 1 Yuval Gadot

STRATUM X11 THE PALACE QUARTER Palace VI of Stratum X12, completely destroyed in a conflagration (Chapter 3), was not rebuilt and it is possible that part of the mound was left unoccupied for some span of time. There is no way to determine if, and for how long that part of the site may have been abandoned, but after the destruction of Palace VI it was eventually reoccupied, but in a remarkably different way in the succeeding stratum. Architecture and orientation of the new buildings in the renewed occupation in Stratum X11 were particularly varied with differentiation visible in three precincts of Area X, in the north, in the centre and in the south. In the south two construction phases, Stratum X11a and Stratum X11b, were encountered, the former superimposed on the latter. A claim could be made that these are actually two separate strata, but since all the remains attributed to this level, sandwiched between Stratum X12 below and Strata X10 and X9 above, belong to the same chronological horizon, and since this stratification is only a highly localized phenomenon, the separate levels are identified as phases of one stratum. The area of the palace remained unoccupied, and a modest retaining wall was built around its ruins, probably to prevent them from eroding beyond. Fragments of this wall (Wall Q244), oriented north-south, were traced, in Squares O24 and R24 and in Square N24, where it was oriented east-west. The wall is made of one to two parallel rows of fieldstones of uneven size; the level of its foundation is 4.9 - 4.7 m, about 1.0 m higher than the nearby foundation of Palace VI. Wall Q244 was, in places, inserted into the bricky debris of Palace VI, indicating the ruins of the palace were exposed to the inhabitants of Stratum X11, who consciously and conspicuously avoided locating their dwellings above them. Such a phenomenon is known at Tel Hazor, where ruins of the Canaanite town and Temple in Area A were left untouched, while a new settlement was erected around them (Ben-Tor and Rubiato 1999; Ben-Ami 2001:167-8 with additional references). The decision to avoid building in an area of large, ruined structures may have been the result of symbolic as well as practical considerations (Ben Ami 2001:168). Domestic quarters were found on both sides of the former palace, to its northwest and to its southeast. The character and quality of architectural features is different in both quarters. The stratigraphy in these precincts is based on the following observations. Stratum X11 was found ‘sandwiched’ between Strata X12, X10 and X9. Walls and floors of new buildings were established on top of a burnt layer of displaced bricky debris from Palace VI and beneath ash layers of Strata X10 and X9, encountered, for example, in several floors (Loci 2953 and 2954) and walls (Walls N241 and N242; Figs. 6.3 and 3.25). This sequence was most visible in Square N22 (Fig. 6.3), where Wall N241 of Stratum X11 was sealed beneath a layer of soil (Locus 3805) associated with a threshing floor of Stratum X9 and was built above a stone pavement and stone basin of Palace VI (Stratum X12). 1. Elevations given below are measured from an arbitrary datum point (‘0.0’), the highest elevation on the mound, chosen by the excavators at the start of the project. Accordingly, all elevations cited here are lower (Kochavi, Beck and Yadin 2000:6), although expressed in terms of positive numbers.

88

C HAPTER 6: I RON A GE (S TRATA X11-X6)

Fig. 6.1: Plan of Stratum X11 – southeastern precinct.

89

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 6.2: Plan of Stratum X11 – northwestern precinct.

90

C HAPTER 6: I RON A GE (S TRATA X11-X6)

Fig. 6.3: Superposition of Strata X8-X12 in Square N24. The Piazza and the limestone basin of Building 1104 (Stratum X12) under wall N241 of Stratum X11. Ash layer 2924 of Strata X9 threshing floor is seen in the section. The Iron Age silo of Stratum X8 is visible in the left foreground. Looking west.

THE NORTHWESTERN QUARTER Northwest of the precinct where Palace VI had formerly stood, two stone structures (Figs. 3.13, 6.2) were exposed. The better-preserved Building 2942 (Fig. 6.4), has a roughly square, tripartite plan (8.0 x 9.5 m) divided into an anteroom and two posterior chambers. In places where its walls were removed they could be traced in the layout of robber trenches, which allowed for a reconstruction of the entire plan of the building. The width of its outer walls is ca. 1.0 m, and that of its inner walls, ca. 0.7 m. One posterior room (Locus 4402) measures 1.8 x 2.6 m, while the other (Locus 3496) measures 2.4 x 3.3 m. The anteroom is larger, measuring 4.5 x 6.0 m. Entrance to the building was through the middle of its eastern wall, where a stone door socket was found in situ. The floors of these rooms were not found. One stair led down from the entrance towards a stone paved Piazza 2944. Not all the piazza remained, but it clearly extended further to the north along the walls of a Building 3619 (see below) and in the direction of the southeastern quarter. A clay-lined tabun (Locus 3638) was found in the piazza next to a wall of Building 2942. North of Building Locus 2942, and adjacent to it, stood another structure, Building 3619. It was quite poorly preserved and the suggested reconstruction of its plan is based mainly on a comparison with the plan of Building 2942. Segments of its walls can be restored from robber trenches and it seems that Building 3619 was also square in plan, with an inner wall (Wall K223) that divided it into two chambers, one approximately twice the size of the other. The entrance to the building was not preserved, but it is believed to have been in the northern wall. Thus, according to this writer’s interpretation the two buildings stood together, but their entrances did not face the same direction. 91

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 6.4: Reconstruction of buildings 2942 and 3619. (After Kochavi 1989: Fig. 47).

The paved piazza continued north (Loci 4630 and 4626) and east (Locus 3631) of Building 3619. A portion of a floor, plastered and not paved as the rest of the piazza was found in Square G23 (Locus 1439) at the same relative level. These different flooring techniques may imply renovations or expansion of the piazza northward in a later chronological phase. Stratification of features east of the piazza remains unclear. It has been suggested that Wall G251 may have belonged to either Stratum X14a or Stratum X11 (Chapter 3). As previously stated (Chapter 3) Wall H251 is located above Wall G251 and oriented differently (Fig. 3.8) and thus it is apparent these walls were not contemporary; Wall H251 is obviously dated later. However, their stratigraphic associations are problematic because these two walls are isolated from other architectural features which could indicate their stratigraphy. If Wall G251 is associated with Stratum X14a, then based on the shared orientation with walls in the southeastern quarter (Fig. 6.1 and below), Wall H251 should be considered associated with Stratum X11. A second interpretation suggests that Wall G251 is of Stratum X11, since just as the walls of Buildings 2942 and 3619 are, so too it is oriented east-west, and is of a similar width (ca 1.40 m) and mode of construction. If the second interpretation is correct, then a third building would have existed to the east of the piazza. The square plan of Buildings 2942 and 3619, interpreted as houses, was thought to be exceptional for architectural traditions of the southern Levant in the second millennium BCE Bronze Ages and 92

C HAPTER 6: I RON A GE (S TRATA X11-X6)

Early Iron Age, and led scholars to suggest these buildings are related to the appearance of the ‘SeaPeoples’ (Kochavi 1989:80; Singer 1994:297). Notably, similar houses were first documented at Tell Abu-Hawam Stratum IV by Hamilton (1935; cf. Balensi 1980). More recently, houses of similar plan have been discerned and unearthed at additional second millennium BCE sites. In the southern Levant they are now known at Tell Batash Stratum VIA (Mazar 1997:76,253) and at Tel Hazor Stratum 1a-b (Building 6061 in Area C; Yadin et al. 1960:98, Pl. CCVIII). Similar buildings have also been found at sites in Egypt (e.g., Wright 1985:290, Figs. 33,235; Foucault-Forest 1996; Bietak 2002:56, Plan 13). Thus, it appears that there is no particular reason to interpret the architecture of these houses as evidence for foreign immigration. Seemingly, the square plan was common and not associated with any one ethnic group. THE SOUTHEASTERN QUARTER Plans of the buildings in the Southeastern Quarter are unclear, because the remains are very fragmented walls and floors that belong to two building phases (Strata X11b and X11a). Although this quarter lacks physical continuity with the Northwestern Quarter, it is assigned to Stratum X11 on the basis of its stratigraphic location and its material culture. It is superimposed above burnt brick debris of Palace VI (Stratum X12) and below pits of Stratum X10 and a threshing floor of Stratum X9 (see below). Pottery found in these two quarters, dates to the same chrono-cultural horizon. Walls of buildings composed of a single row of bricks (Walls O271, P263-4, R255, R273, R266 and R267), or of a single row of small and medium-sized fieldstones (Walls N241, N242, N252, O261, P273 and R252-3; Fig. 6.3) belong to Phase X11b, the earlier phase of Stratum X11. Walls of this phase are ca. 0.5 m wide, except Wall O261, which is 1.2 m wide and built of two rows of fieldstones. Evidence of some few floors was found near these walls, including a stone pavement in Squares O-P/25, O-P/26 and O-P/27 (Fig. 6.5). Walls R267 and R273 form a corner of a room which had a floor of beaten earth (Locus 5022, Fig. 6.1). A cluster of objects, obviously fishing paraphernalia, including seven lead weights and one hook, was discovered on this floor. Walls N251, O262, P262, and P272 are dated to Stratum X11a, the later phase. Construction of these walls replaced parts of the earlier structures (Including floors). Wall N251 was built above Wall N252, while Wall O262 damaged the stone pavement in Square N25 and possibly obviated the function of Wall O261.

STRATA X10 AND X9 Two groups of deposits found above Stratum X11 were originally assigned to two separate strata within a single chrono-stratigraphic sequence, although they were encountered in different precincts of the site and were not superimposed. The excavators (Beck and Kochavi 1993:68) believed that the material culture of these stratigraphic units were not contemporary and they assigned the numbers 10 and 9 according to their interpretation of the dating of the deposits derived from them. Thus, the appellation of Stratum X10 was assigned to a series of pits, the excavation of which yielded objects, including Philistine pottery, believed to be earlier than object derived from a nearby series of ash layers and fills associated with a building. These last features, believed to post date the fill within the pits, but not superimposed above them, were assigned to another stratum labelled X9. What is eminently clear from the excavation records is that major elements of both Strata X10 and X9 were ‘sandwiched’ between Stratum X11 below, and Stratum X8 above. However, this writer’s more recent examination of the finds indicates it is not possible to determine which of the two elements is earlier, based on the finds associated with them. Thus, it is possible that what were formerly Strata 93

Y UVAL GADOT

X10 and X9, are actually two functionally different precincts of the same chrono-cultural stratigraphic unit. However, these deposits cannot be definitively conflated into one stratigraphic unit due to lack of pertinent information on the relationship between them. Accordingly, they retain their original nomenclature, but it should be understood that their stratigraphic association remains uncertain.

Fig. 6.5: Square O27, Brick wall O271 and the western stone pavement Stratum X11. Looking west.

STRATUM X10: SIX PITS Six pits, found in a cluster, are assigned to Stratum X10. They are Locus 1146 (In Square P-Q/23), Locus 1700 (in Square P22, Fig. 6.4), Locus 2718 (in Square Q24), Locus 4018 (in square P25), Locus 5027 (in Square Q27) and Locus 6139 (in Square H25). Excavation of all these pits yielded finds typical of Philistine material culture, including Philistine Bichrome pottery (Chapter 8) and ‘Ashdoda’ figurines (Chapter 11). Finds from all these pits are similar and obviously contemporary, and accordingly their creation and their contents are assigned to the same stratum, X10. Several pits (Loci 1146, 1700 and 2718 ) cut into the debris of Palace VI (Stratum X12), and are obviously later (Figs. 6.6, 6.7 and Fig 3.25). The uppermost reaches of these pits were originally discerned by the excavators at the level of the modern surface, and so were not sealed by later strata. It is not known from what level they were originally dug, because the uppermost deposits on the mound were removed when the Ottoman fort was constructed (Strata X2 and X1). That these pits preceded Stratum X8 is based on an analysis of the typology of pottery found in them, which is definitively dated earlier than the pottery of Stratum X8. The cutting of two additional pits (Loci 4018, and 5027) damaged the architecture of Stratum X11 (Fig. 6.1), indicating they are obviously later intrusions. One pit (Locus) 6139 located somewhat outside the cluster, at a distance from all the other pits assigned to this stratum, was north of the ash layers. Its precise contours are unknown, but it was originally excavated into the fill of Stratum X14. 94

C HAPTER 6: I RON A GE (S TRATA X11-X6)

95

Fig. 6.6: Plan of Strata X10 and X9. The ash layer 2924 is represented schematically to indicate its extent in the squares where it was exposed.

Y UVAL GADOT

All these pits were filled with alternating layers of burnt earth, rich in organic material and coloured black and white, probably the result of decay and burning of the organic material (Fig. 6.7). The pits also contained fragments of pottery, mostly pieces of utilitarian vessels such as bowls and cooking-pots. It seems, therefore, that these were pits for disposal of waste. The spatial distribution of the pits near the area of ash layers suggests these two depositional elements may have been contemporary. Accordingly, with no clear artifactual evidence of non-contemporaneousness, Strata X10 and X9 may be assigned to roughly the same chronological horizon.

STRATUM X9: ASH LAMINAE—REMAINS OF THRESHING OF GRAIN A sequence of thin superimposed laminae of organic matter was found throughout the northwestern parts of the acropolis, encompassing an area of some 500 m 2 (Figs. 6.6 and 6.8), consistently ca. 60 cm deep (Between elevations 4.80 and 4.20). These layers, composed of packed earth and much organic material, were dark coloured with spots of light brown and light grey earth, some of which appeared to be burnt or to contain burnt material. When viewed in section the layers making up the laminae were not horizontal but slanted at a rather sharp angle. The amount of organic material from within the ashy laminae was considerable, and it is the key to understanding them. Analyses have revealed that this organic material derives from many species of plants, gathered from nearby fields. The material is identified with waste from threshing activity (Chapter 20). These laminae served as an important stratigraphic indicator, since they were always discovered beneath elements of Strata X8-X6, while in turn they sealed the northwestern quarter of Stratum X11 and the northern parts of Palace VI (Figs. 3.27, 6.6, 6.9, 6.10) beneath them. Comparable layers of ash and burnt organic material have been found in excavations at several other sites including Tel Gezer (Dever 1986:73, note 120), over a wide part of Area VI on the acropolis. Adjacent

Fig. 6.7: Southern section of Pit 1700 Stratum X9 with ash layers of organic material.

96

C HAPTER 6: I RON A GE (S TRATA X11-X6)

Fig. 6.8: Square L24 (Locus 2906). Segment of Ash Layer 2944 of Stratum X10-X9. Looking south.

Fig. 6.9: Section drawing of southern baulk in Square K22. Pavement 3613 of Stratum X11 at the base covered by Stratum X9 Ash Layer 2944 (Locus 3606). Silo 3605 of Stratum X8 cuts it.

97

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 6.10: Section drawing of the eastern baulk in Square K22.

to these layers was a large courtyard house which, according to the excavators, served as a storage place for wheat. Others claim it was a typical dwelling (e.g., Kempinski 1993). The house and ash layers were dated to Stratum VI, a level following destruction of the Canaanite town and prior to the appearance of the Philistines at the site. Recently, stratified layers of ash located near a courtyard house was excavated at Megiddo in Stratum VIA (Gadot et al. 2006). Ash layers have also been found near the temples at Tell Qasile, but Mazar (1980:16, note 4) did not think that they were related to threshing and the question of their significance remains open; analyses of the nature of those deposits have not yet been published. A SIMPLE DWELLING Part of a simple dwelling was found in Squares J-K/20-J-K/21 (Locus 6161, Figs. 6.11-12). Its extant walls (one course) were built of a single row of fieldstones. Two square rooms of this building were excavated as well as part of a stone-paved courtyard. The plan of this house is not complete, but it seems that to be part of a four-room house. A small segment of the house’s courtyard was exposed in Square J20. The floors of the two rooms (Loci 6077 and 6161) were of beaten earth at the elevation of 5.12 m, approximately half a metre lower than the bottom of the ash layers outside the building. That juxtaposition of deposits would suggest the ash layer might have been later than the house. However, the following observations suggest that the building and the ashy layers were, nevertheless, contemporary: 98

C HAPTER 6: I RON A GE (S TRATA X11-X6)

1. The ash layers were found around the walls of the building, but never inside or below them (Fig. 6.6). 2. Floors and walls of the building were found sealed under architecture of Stratum X8 and above robber trenches of walls of buildings of Stratum X11. 3. The assemblage found on the building’s floors includes many fragments of ‘Philistine’ type pottery, similar to the assemblage associated with the ash layers. At Tel Gezer and Tel Megiddo, large gaps between the levels of floors of buildings and of ash layers were also noted (Dever 1986; Gadot et al. 2006), suggesting the house floors were slightly subterranean. The different levels are perhaps due to varying rates of accumulation of debris on floors of buildings as opposed to that on surfaces of open areas used for agricultural activities. The three elements described above (ash layers, waste pits and a dwelling) are indications of an agriculture-based village at Tel Aphek in the period represented by Strata X10 and X9. Since no finds were discovered from this period anywhere else on the mound, it seems that settlement in this period or periods was limited in size. The nature of this settlement was also very different from that of the preceding Middle and Late Bronze Ages, when Area X was the location of palaces and buildings associated with a ruling elite.

Fig. 6.11: Square J20. Courtyard 6179 of Building 6161 Stratum X9. Looking east.

Fig. 6.12: Square K21. Walls of Building 6161 of Stratum X9. Looking south.

99

Y UVAL GADOT

STRATA X8-X6 Because of condensed stratigraphy and later earth levelling in this precinct of the site, features of these strata were encountered more or less below the modern surface. Strata X8 through X6 are represented by fragments, mostly unconnected, of architectural remains, walls and associated f loors, and a large number of pits (Figs. 6.13-14). Since these walls and f loors were mostly found directly below the modern surface and were very poorly preserved, it was not always possible to deduce their exact stratigraphic positions in what is known to be three occupational phases. Only in relatively rare instances could superimposed deposits be assigned to these strata (see below). However, all these elements were associated with typical Iron IIA pottery (Chapter 8) and so they can be related to a time span within a single chrono-cultural horizon. Remains of Strata X8-X6 represent a gradual development of a rural settlement through time, a progression recognized at other contemporary or nearly contemporary sites within the region. Building in these strata at Tel Aphek often involved dismantling of earlier remains and abandonment of entire structures. Such radical alterations are the rationale for dividing this continuous period of occupation into three separate strata (X8, X7 and X6) rather than considering them as three phases of a single stratum. Notably, additional buildings of the same time span were found in Area A (Kochavi 1989:86). Some floors of these houses were found sealed under destruction debris, described below. The key to understanding the stratigraphy of these strata lies in Squares K22 and K23, where remains of Stratum X8 are pits (Loci 3605 and 3608) which cut into remains of Strata X9 through X11). There, Wall L221 was constructed above a pit (Locus 3605; Fig. 6.10), and Wall L231 above another pit (Locus 3608). Associations of these walls with nearby floors in Square L23 indicate they are of two different strata. Wall L221 existed with a floor (Locus 2916) at elevation 4.04 m and is assigned to Stratum X7. Wall L231 existed with a higher floor (Loci 2903 and 2904; Fig. 6.15), found at the same elevation as the wall’s foundation (3.78 m). On this floor was a tabun. Hence Wall L231, a floor (Loci) 2903/2904 and the tabun (Locus 2910), are the latest elements of the Iron IIA occupation and are associated with Stratum X6, the last in the tripartite stratigraphic sequence. Additional remains, which cannot be definitively associated with a specific stratum, but belong to this chrono-cultural horizon, are assigned the general designation Strata X8-X6.

THE ARCHITECTURE OF STRATUM X8 Segments of a paved area and 37 silos (pits for grain storage) are associated with this stratum. Two pits (Loci 3605 and 3608), noted above, are key elements for defining this stratum. Near the two pits was a stone pavement, portions of which (Loci 3601 and 4817) were found over a considerable area (In Squares K22-24; Figs. 6.13 and 6.16). The pavement was close to three other circular silos (Loci 4807, 4813 and 3620), all similar in their stone linings (Fig. 6.17), with diameters of 1.0 – 2.0 m, and depths of ca. 2.0 m. In a few instances the bottoms of silos were paved with white plaster, pebbles or shells (see below). Often earlier floors, mostly plastered surfaces of the large Middle Bronze Age palaces, encountered when the silos were first excavated and constructed, were re-used as their floors. The degree of similarity in the features of all the silos suggests they all are contemporary and should be assigned to Stratum X8. While most of these stone-lined silos were found devoid of finds, complete jars (Fig. 8.87) filled with grain were discovered in three silos lacking stone linings (Loci 4015, 4026 and 4622; Figs. 6.18-19). Based on these finds, the assumption is that stone-lined silos were used to store grain in bulk, whereas jars were used in silos lacking such lining, thus explaining the discovery of jars only in unlined silos. 100

101

Fig. 6.13 Plan of Stratum X8.

Fig. 6.14: Plan of Strata X7 and X6.

102

C HAPTER 6: I RON A GE (S TRATA X11-X6)

Many of the silos are organized in straight rows around a floor (Fig. 6.13), suggestive of a special area for grain-storage. Silos are common at many Iron I sites in Israel. For example, 43 silos were found at >Izbet êartah (Finkelstein 1986:18), while at Tel Dan, many silos were found in Area B-West, where Finkelstein (1988:266; see also Ilan 1999:117) assumed they were part of a public granary. Similar silos are known from Iron II deposits at Moza, west of Jerusalem (Greenhut and de Groot 2002). Several floors and walls seem also to belong to Stratum X8 as well, although this ascription is not certain. One such floor, very fragmentary, was found in Square Q25 (Locus 4008 at elevation 4.40 m). Pits from Strata X7 or X6 (Loci 4006, 4007, 4010 and 4011) penetrated this floor indicating it to be associated with Stratum X8. Another floor was found in Square M21 (Locus 3477, at elevation 4.40 m). Walls M213-M214 of Strata X7 and X6 were built above this floor. Both floors were of packed earth on which were found layers of vegetal material white in colour, composed mostly of phytoliths. These floors are known only from small, unconnected patches and thus little is understood of them. Other architectural features may also have belonged to X8, but since their stratigraphy is not certain, they are described below under the heading of Strata X7-X6. Table 6.1 is a descriptive list of all pits related to Stratum X8.

Fig. 6.15: Square L23. Wall L231 with Floor 2904 in the east and Oven 2910 in the west, Stratum X6. Wall L221 of Stratum X7 in the background. Looking west.

103

Y UVAL GADOT

TABLE 6.1 SILOS AND STORAGE PITS OF STRATA X8-X6 Locus

Stratum

Square

Description

Diameter (m)

Depth (m)

1102

X8

O23

Stone-lined pit, plastered floor

1.5

2.06

1142

X8

N21

Stone-lined pit, shell floor

1.0

1.15

1143

X8(?)

M21

Unlined pit

Unknown

1 or more

1712

X8

Q23

Stone-lined pit

1.0

Unknown

1450

X8,

G21

Unlined pit

Unknown

More than 0.4

1462

X8

G23

Stone-lined pit, plastered floor

2.0

More than 0.8

2947

X8

L23

Unlined pit

Unknown

Unknown

3467

X8-X6

Q21

Unlined pit

Unknown

Unknown

3605

X8

K22

Stone-lined pit

1.0

More than 1

3607

X8-X7

K23

Unlined pit

Unknown

More than 0.3

3608

X8

K23

Unlined pit

1.

More than 0.3

3620

X8

K23

Stone-lined pit

Unknown

More than 0.6

3636

X8

L21

Unlined pit

Unknown

Unknown

3804

X8

N24

Stone-lined pit, pebble floor, loom weights

1.5

More than 1.45

3813

X8

O24

Stone-lined pit, pebble floor

2.

More than 1.3

3815

X8

O24

Stone lined pit, pebble floor

1.5

More than 0.5

3828

X8-X6

M25

Unlined pit

Unknown

More than 0.5

4013

X8?

R25

Stone-lined pit, layer of phytoliths on floor

1.5

Unknown

4015

X8?

R25

Unlined pit, jars, jugs, arrowheads

Unknown

More than 0.7

4026

X8?

R25

Unlined pit, jars

Unknown

More than 0.7

4028

X8-X6

R25

Unlined pit

Unknown

More than 1

4622

X8

J23

Unlined pit, jars, bowls

Unknown

More than 0.4

4807

X8

K24

Stone-lined pit

1.5

1.53

4813

X8

K24

Stone-lined pit

2.0

1.50

5003

X8

Q26

Unlined pit,

Unknown

More than 0.6

5007

X8

Q26

Stone-lined pit, layer of phytoliths on floor

Unknown

More than 1

5013

X8

R26

Unlined pit

1.5

Unknown

5039

X8

R27

Stone-lined pit

1.5

Unknown

6059

X8

G23

Stone-lined pit

1

More than 1

6099

X8?

H24

Unlined pit

Unknown

Unknown

6121

X8?

H25

Stone-lined pit, stone-paved floor

1

Unknown

6204

X8

F24

Stone-lined pit stone-paved floor

1

More than 1

6206

X8

F25

Stone-lined pit, pebble floor

1

More than 1

6262

X8

H21

Stone-lined pit, pebble floor, complete pottery 1 vessels

Unknown

7007

X8

N23

Unlined pit

Unknown

Unknown

7014

X8

O23

Stone-lined pit, plaster floor

Unknown

More than 1

7101

X8?

F25

Unlined pit

Unknown

Unknown

104

C HAPTER 6: I RON A GE (S TRATA X11-X6)

Fig. 6.16: Square K22. Wall K221 of Stratum X7 in the front. Stone pavement 3601 with Silo 3606 of Stratum 8 under Wall L221 of Stratum X7 in the background. Looking south.

Fig. 6.17: Square O24. Silos 3813 and 3815 of Stratum X8. Looking south.

Fig. 6.18: Storage jars found filled with grain in Silo 4015.

105

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 6.19: Silo 4026, storage jars in situ.

THE ARCHITECTURE OF STRATUM X7 The key to defining this stratum, as noted above, is Wall L221, built above a silo (Locus 3605) of Stratum X8 (Figs. 6.10 and 6.16), and therefore, postdating it. Other segments (Walls M231 and L232), that seem to be continuations of this wall were found in Squares L-M/22-23, are built of a single row of fieldstones to form a rectangular structure. Wall K221 is part of the same building. A floor (Locus 2916) in Square L23 (at an elevation of 4.04 m) is probably associated with the foundation of these walls, and could also be of the same stratum. A fragmented floor (Locus 2623) found further to the west in Square K21, was also attributed to this stratum because of its relative elevation.

THE ARCHITECTURE OF STRATUM X6 The sole remains definitively associated with this stratum are Wall L231 built of stones, two beaten earth floors (Loci 2903 and 2904) on both sides of this wall and associated with it, and a clay tabun (Locus 2910; Fig. 6.15) found on a floor (Locus 2903). These earthen floors (Loci 2903 and 2904), the excavation of the surface of which yielded fragments of Iron Age vessels, covered an earlier floor (Locus 2916) of Stratum X7. Two floors (Loci 2903 and 2905), found at similar elevations, seem to be segments of the same floor of this stratum.

ADDITIONAL FEATURES ASSIGNED TO STRATA X7-X6 Some additional features can be generally ascribed to Strata X7-X6. They include a number of walls (Walls L211, L212, L222, M213, M214), all of which are perhaps part of one structure most visible in Square L21. These walls, composed of two parallel rows of fieldstones, were associated with floors of beaten earth, which when exposed, were found to be devoid of finds. Since Wall M214 was built above a floor (Locus 3477) of Stratum X8, it and all walls related to it, must be dated later, to either Stratum X7 or Stratum X6. Two floors of beaten earth (Loci 3622 and 3628) were found in the open space to the west of Wall L212 and to the south of Wall L211 in Square L21. The two floors were strewn with Iron II pottery sherds. Their relative elevations, at 4.20 m and 4.13 m respectively, are higher than that of a nearby floor, (Locus 3477) of Stratum X8 (elevation 4.40 m) and therefore, they are assigned to either Stratum X7 or X6. Thirteen pits excavated in various places in Area X are also assigned to Strata X7-X6. With a single exception they are all irregular in form, have no signs of linings or special flooring and are quite 106

C HAPTER 6: I RON A GE (S TRATA X11-X6)

different from the silos of Stratum X8. Apparently they were not used to store grain and their function remains obscure. The exception, Locus 1711 in Square N23, that may have had a lining and a plaster floor, was cut by a later pit dated to the Ottoman period. The remaining pits were in scattered locations: Loci 2908 and 2911, in Square L24, Locus 2915, in Square L22, Locus 3634, and 6177 in Square K21, Locus 6263 in Square H21. Four additional pits (Loci 4006, 4007, 4010 and 4011) were found in Square Q25 where they cut into an earlier floor, Locus 4008 of Stratum X8.

REFERENCES

Balensi, J. 1980. Les fouilles de R.W. Hamilton à Tell Abu Hawam. Niveaux IV et V. Ph. D. dissertation University of Strasbourg. Beck, P. and Kochavi, M. 1993. Aphek (in Sharon). In: Stern, E., ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy land. Vol. 1. Jerusalem. pp. 64-72. Ben-Ami, D. 2001. The Iron Age I at Tel Hazor in light of the renewed excavations. Israel Exploration Journal 51:148-170. Ben-Tor, A. and Rubiato, M.T. 1999. Excavating Hazor Part II. Did the Israelites destroy the Canaanite city? Biblical Archaeological Review 25/3:22-39. Bietak M. 2002. The function and some archaeological roots of the Fosse Temple at Lachish. Beer-Sheva XV: 56-85 (Aharon Kempinski Memorial Volume). Dever, W.G. 1986. Gezer IV. The 1969-1971 Seasons in Field VI. The “Acropolis”. Jerusalem. Finkelstein, I. 1986. >Izbet êartah. An Early Iron Age Site Near Rosh Ha’ayin, Israel. (British Archaeological Reports International Series 299). Oxford. Finkelstein, I. 1988. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem. Foucault-Forest, C. 1996. L`Habitat Privé en Palestine au Bronze Moyen au Bronze Récent. Oxford. Gadot, Y., Martin, M., Blockman, N. and Arie, E. 2006. Area K (Levels K-5 and K-4, the 1998-2002 Seasons). In: Finkelstein, I,. Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B., eds. Megiddo IV. The 1998-2002 Seasons. (Monograph Series Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University, No. 24) Tel Aviv. pp. 87-103. Greenhut, Z. and de Groot, A. 2002. Moza. A Bronze and Iron Age village west of Jerusalem. Qadmoniot 123:12-17. (Hebrew) Hamilton, R.W. 1935. Excavations at Tell Abu Hawam. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 4:1-69. Ilan, D. 1999. Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I. Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives. (Ph D dissertation, Tel Aviv University) Tel Aviv. Kempinski, A. 1993. Gezer. Re-excavating ancient sites in Israel. Review article. Israel Exploration Journal 43:174-180. Kochavi, M. 1989. Aphek-Antipatris. Five Thousand Years of History. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew) Mazar, A. 1980. Excavations at Tell Qasile I. The Philistine Sanctuary. Architecture and Cult Objects. (Qedem 12). Jerusalem. Mazar, A. 1985. Excavations at Tell Qasile II. The Philistine Sanctuary. Various Finds, the Pottery, Conclusions, Appendixes. (Qedem 20) Jerusalem. Mazar, A. 1997. Timnah (Tel Batash) I. Stratigraphy and Architecture. (Qedem 37) Jerusalem. 107

Y UVAL GADOT

Rosen, B. 1994. Subsistence economy in Iron Age I. In: Finkelstein, I. and Na`aman, N., eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy. Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem. pp. 339-351. Singer, I. 1994. Egyptians, Canaanites, and Philistines in the period of the emergence of Israel. In: Finkelstein, I. and Na`aman, N., eds., From Nomadism to Monarchy. Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem. pp. 282-338. Wright, G.R.H. 1985. Ancient Buildings in South Syria and Palestine. Leiden, Köln. Yadin, Y. et al. 1960. Hazor II. An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956. Jerusalem.

108

PART II THE FINDS

109

110

CHAPTER 7

MIDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY Esther Yadin

MB IIA remains in Area X were limited to about 100 m 2 in the upper strata and reduced to 50 m 2 for the lowest MB IIA levels, Strata X19-X18. Especially significant is the information obtained from the pottery of the earliest occupations of this period, Strata X19 and X18, the earliest MB IIA remains found at Tel Aphek. The only additional precinct where similar early MB IIA material was found is Stratum B VI (Area B), which yielded only scarce pottery remains (Beck 2000:112). The succeeding occupation, Stratum X17, is most probably a continuation of nearby Stratum B V. It is also contemporary with Strata A XVII-A XV (Table 7.1) in Area A. Only two complete storage jars that could be restored in these early levels from occupational contexts were found. They come from a room (Locus 7120) of Palace I. Additional restorable vessels were uncovered in two burials, Loci 7195 and 7151. All other MB IIA pottery recovered was in the form of sherds found either in accumulations on floors, or in deliberately placed fills as foundations for later surfaces. Material derived from ‘good’ loci, i.e., loci of reliable stratigraphic associations, was insufficient to make statistical quantification of sherds recovered from them worthwhile. This work builds upon previous studies conducted by Beck (1975; 1985; 2000a; 200b) and the author (Yadin 2002). The typology used for this discussion is based mainly on general forms of the vessels from Tel Aphek, with less attention paid to detailed shapes of rims. Treatment of painted wares is according to Bagh (2000). The MB IIA pottery of Tel Aphek was divided into four main chrono-stratigraphic phases (Beck 2000; 200b; Yadin 2002). Only two of those phases, the earliest, were encountered in Area X and thus, only they are dealt with here. Table 7.1 indicates the correlation of MB IIA strata and the ceramic phasing in the different areas of the mound. TABLE 7.1: CORRELATION BETWEEN MB IIA STRATA AND CERAMIC PHASES Ceramic Phase Area A Stratum

Area B Stratum

Area X Stratum

Phase 1

B VI (Pre city wall)

X 19 (Pre Palace I)

Phase 1

X18 (Construction fill for Palace I)

Phase 2

A XVII - A XV (Pre-Palace II), A XIVc (Fill under floor of Palace II)

B V (City Wall C250)

Phase 3

A XIVa - A XIVb (Palace II)

B IV (City Wall C261)

Phase 4

A XIII - A XII (Post-Palace II)

X 17 (Palace I)

111

ESTHER YADIN

THE CERAMIC PHASES OF THE MB IIA PHASE 1

Almost all the pottery of the Phase 1, the earliest, was found in Area X in Pre-Palace I Strata X19 and X18. The material comes from floors and construction fills. No complete vessels were found in this level. Storage jars are the predominant vessel type found there. As is common in MB IIA assemblages, the pottery is wheel-turned and well fashioned with the exception of cooking-pots, which are handmade. Many storage jar sherds and some of the bowls were covered with a white wash of uneven thickness. Some were covered with shallow pattern combing, resembling pattern combing of Early Bronze Age ‘metallic ware’, but in this instance, the combing is shallower. Decoration in this phase was mainly by incising and relief; painted examples are few. Since the assemblage consists predominantly of sherds, types can be assumed only from incomplete forms. BOWLS In contrast to bowls of later MB IIA phases, no red slip was applied to the bowls of this phase. The bowls of this phase maybe divided into three main groups. Hemispherical Bowls These are bowls with thin walls and plain1, slightly inverted rims (Fig. 7.2:1-2). The type is common in later phases in Areas A and B, but not present in the Post-Palace II phase in Area A. As most of the PrePalace II pottery, the type is not slipped. Large Open Bowls This type is notable for its thick walls (Figs. 7.1:1, 7.2:3-6). Some examples are deeper and have rounded walls and inverted rims, while others are shallower, have thicker walls and thickened, everted rims. S-profile Bowls Bowls of this type (Figs. 7.1:3, 7.2:8-12) were produced in various sizes. Some have a white wash, a treatment that becomes common in Phase 2 (Figs. 7.8:1, 7.9:1-3). A unique specimen has a double loop handle (Fig. 7.2:12). KRATERS Several types of these vessels were encountered. Holemouth Kraters These vessels are similar to those known from later MB IIA phases. They have several rim types including outwardly folded, rounded rims and internally or externally projecting rims (Fig. 7.2:13-16). Incised and relief decorations were sometimes applied to their bodies. Open Kraters These kraters with gutter rims (Figs. 7.1:4, 7.3:4-5) are very similar in form to contemporary cookingpots. However, they are made of different clays that produced fabrics that indicate alternate functions. Sub-types have plain, everted (Fig. 7.2:17-19) or externally projecting rims (Fig. 7.3:1-3). Like some holemouth kraters, so too are some examples of this type decorated, either in relief and/or with incisions. (Figs. 7.2:17, 18; 7.3:4).

1. The term ‘plain’, once widely found in the literature, indicates a rim that is either rounded or slightly tapered and rounded, with no special, additional features.

112

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

COOKING-POTS Rims of two types of cooking-pots were found. One is a handmade type (Figs. 7.1:6-7, 7.3:8-11); the other a wheel-made type (Figs. 7.1:4, 7.3:6-7) with gutter rim. These two types appear throughout the entire period, although in this early phase the gutter rim of the wheel-made cooking-pot is less pronounced than in the next phases. Two sub-types of the wheel-made type are known. One is smallish and has a rounded form, the other is larger and egg-shaped in the manner and size of storage jar of the period (e.g., Beck 2000: Fig.10.2:14). As only rim fragments of wheel-made type cooking-pots were found, there was no way to tell whether they belonged to one or the other sub-type. STORAGE VESSELS Rims of all types of storage vessels, pithoi, two-handled storage jars and large and medium-sized jars without handles were found in this phase. Pithoi One type of pithos, Type SJ6, (Fig. 7.3:23-24) has a thick, wide rim folded outwards and externally, double-ridged profile. Only a few rim sherds of this type of pithos were found at Tel Aphek, and those only in early (Phases 1 and 2) MB IIA strata. However, the type is known in the northern Sharon region in later phases of MB IIA (Kochavi et al. 1979: Figs. 12:4, 18:5, 20.). Figures 7.3:25-26 are drawings of Pithoi (Type SJ8) with thin square rims, a type rare at Tel Aphek and found only in Phase 1. Storage Jars Three different types of storage jars were discerned in the assemblage. Each type was assigned a code (SJ) and numbered according to the typology published in Aphek Antipatris I (Beck 2000). The discussion of these types for Area X is based only on rim types and utilizes Beck’s typology. Type SJ1: This type has a triangular rim (Figs. 7.1:8-12, 7.3:12-13). Better-preserved examples are large and have flaring necks. (Beck 2000: Figs. 10.1:7, 10.2:1,2,4,16). Few rims of this type were found in this phase and even fewer were found in the following phase. None was associated with Phase 3. Type SJ2: This type (Figs. 7.1:13-14, 7.3:14-20) has a large ovoid form and elongated, folded rim. The majority of storage jars rims unearthed in this phase were of this type, but the pronounced ridge at the edge of the rim (Fig. 7.3:15), so common in the following phases at Tel Aphek, was represented in this phase by very few specimens. This type is identified as belonging to a type with folded rim, slanting shoulder, ovoid body, two loop handles and flattened base. It becomes the most common type at Tel Aphek in later MB IIA. Based on the evidence from Area X, it seems that the type without ridge was more common in the earliest phase. The numbers of folded rims with ridges recovered increased in Stratum X17 and was nearly 100% of all storage jars associated with Stratum X17a. Type SJ3: This is a medium-sized handle-less storage jar with thickened rim (Figs. 7.1:16, 7.3:21-22). Rims of these jars vary in length and thickness; most are externally rounded and have concave, inner profiles. DECORATION All decorated pottery encountered was in the form of body sherds (Figs. 7.1:18-25, 7.4:1-11), most of which are shoulder fragments. Three kinds of decoration, painted, applied and incised, adorned these vessels. Incised and Incised-Relief Decoration Bands of clay were applied to vessels in all manner of positions. Decoration was incised either into these bands or directly into vessels’ bodies. Decoration imitating rope consists of one, two or more parallel lines (Figs. 7.1:18, 24, 7.2:16-17, 7.4:10-11). Other incised motifs are slanted diagonal lines incised by a pointed instrument into walls of vessels (Figs. 7.1:19, 23, 7.2:18, 7.3:4, 7.4:9). Less common are different patterns of incised horizontal 113

ESTHER YADIN

or diagonal parallel bands (Fig. 7.4:7). Some have wavy, vertical lines (Fig. 7.4:8), while others are horizontal bands of short incisions (Fig. 7.1:21). An example of a herringbone pattern was also incised directly into the wall of one vessel (Fig. 7.1:22). Still other forms of decoration are horizontal wavy designs (Fig. 7.1:25). A unique decoration of circles was made by a tubular instrument, possibly a reed (Fig 7.2:13). An interesting technical detail was observed on a body sherd of a krater (Fig. 7.4:10). The impression of a handle which became detached indicated the appendage was applied after the vessel was decorated. Only a few storage jar handles with potters` marks were found (Figs. 7.1:29, 7.4:14). Other sherds had different symbols incised on them (Figs. 7.1:26, 27, 7.4:12-13). A few painted sherds are probably pieces of jugs or small, handleless storage jars (Figs. 7.1:28, 7.4:1-5). Their designs are geometrical, consisting of horizontal lines, horizontal cross-hatched bands or lozenges. Paint is reddish brown or red and black (i.e., bichrome). In Area X, most of the painted sherds are associated with Phase 1, while only two tiny painted sherds are associated with Phase 2. However, painted vessels of Phase 2 were found in Area A (e.g., Beck 2000: Figs. 10.2:7-10, 10.4:3,5,7) and in a burial excavated by Ory (e.g., 1938: Fig: 80, 82) in Area O. A detailed discussion below builds on Beck’s work, which pointed out the chronological importance of decorated pottery and its connection with western Syria. Painted Decoration The motif of a horizontal cross-hatched band 2 on a body sherd (Fig. 7.4:1) has parallels in painted designs on handleless storage jars from the early phases at Tel Ifshar. Other examples of this design are on elongated, folded rim storage jars from Tell Beit Mirsim and on a monochrome decorated body sherd from Tel Dan. This design is found also on jugs from tombs at Tel Nami, Tel >Amr and Tel Sukas in Syria. Two additional monochrome examples of this motif were found at Tell el-Dab>a in Egypt. TABLE 7.2: COMPARANDA FOR CROSS-HATCHED BANDS OF DECORATION Site

Reference

Stratum/Period

Tel Ifshar Tell Beit Mirsim Tel Dan Tel Nami tombs Tell >Amr Tell Sukas Tell el-Dab>a

Paley and Porath 1997: Figs. 13.6:5, 13.6:4 Albright 1933: Pl. 4:13 Ilan 1996b: Fig. 7:5 Bagh 2000: Fig.114: j Druks 1982: Fig 3.10; Thrane 1978: Fig. 92 Bagh 2000: Figs. 98: TD200, TD138

Ph. 4 G-F XI MB IIA MB IIA end Level 3 D/2, E/3-F

The lozenge motif (Fig. 7.4:2) is not common but some bichrome and monochrome examples can be found in MB IIA pottery assemblages. A decorated body sherd, probably from a handleless storage jar was found at Tel Na‘ama in the Hula Valley. Monochrome samples are found on jugs from Tel Gezer, Beirut and Qatna (Bagh 2000:133). She points out that these three examples may be a mixture of three styles, Levantine Painted Ware (henceforth LPW), Syro-Cilician shapes and Khabur-style decoration. TABLE 7.3: LOZENGE MOTIF Site Reference Na>ama Gezer Qatna Beirut

Greenberg et al. 1998: Fig. 18.10 Macalister 1912: Fig. 158:7 du Mesnil du Buisson 1927: Fig.49 Saideh 1993-94: Pl.16.3

2. Bagh used the term “criss-cross pattern” for this design.

114

Stratum Phases 3-4 MB IIA MB IIA MB IIA

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

The small monochrome painted sherd (Fig. 7.1:28) may come from a dipper juglet or jug. It is decorated with two thick horizontal lines and a wavy band attached to one of them, a common motif on different types of LPW juglets. Bands of this style can be of different widths, heights and densities. Some examples of thinner band decorations come from Tel Ifshar, while others with thicker band decorations are from Late Stratum XII at Tel Dan. Additional examples of these motifs are from Byblos. Comparanda for these last examples are found in Egypt at Lisht in LI001, Tomb 756, where they are dated to the midXIIth Dynasty and from Kom el-Hisn possibly dated to the XIIIth Dynasty. The wavy band motif appears together with concentric circles on a jug from a tomb at Tel Megadim dated to MB IIA, and a parallel from Tell el-Dab’a F/I, Stratum d/2. Later appearances of this motif are on juglets. One is from Tomb 1 at Qatna. Others are from Tomb XXXVI at Ras Shamra and Tomb LVII at the same site, which is dated to “finale du niveau II” and where a mixture of Syro-Cilicean Style and LPW can be observed. An example of this motif was also found on a small storage jar from Tel Aphek in Phase 2 Area A (Beck 2000, Fig. 10.2:7). TABLE 7.4: HORIZONTAL LINES AND A WAVY BAND Site Reference Tel Ifshar Tel Dan Byblos Lisht Kom el-Hisn Tel Megadim Tell el-Dab>a Qatna Ras Shamra

Paley and Porath 1997: Fig.13.5:5 Ilan 1996a: Figs. 4.105:12, 4.106:4,8, Dunand 1954: Fig. 457; 1958: Fig. 598 Bagh 2000: Fig.118 Hamda and Farid 1947: Fig. 15 Bagh 2000: Fig. 114: a Bagh 2000: Fig. 96: TD019-023 Schaeffer 1948: Fig. 100:11,24 Schaeffer 1938: Figs. 6:E, 26:Z, 36:M, Tomb XXXVI; 1948: Fig. 107:2 Tomb LVII

Stratum/Period Phase B/C XII (late) Lev. IX, Lev XI Dyn. XII 1st int. Period MB IIA F/I, Stratum d/2 MB IIA? Niv. II

One painted body sherd (Beck 1985: Fig 3:9) recovered in a foundation trench of an MB IIB wall (Locus 7133) is worthy of special note. It has small, dark brownish-black, oblique lines attached to a vertical line, probably a schematic tree. This design can be found on Khabur ware as well as on SyroCilician pottery and, for example on a small handleless storage jar from Chagar Bazar Level I, where this motif appears together with triangles filled with cross hatching. Other examples with this motif were found at Alalakh Level XIV on a Syro-Cilician bowl and on a decorated jug from Ebla. TABLE 7.5: ‘SCHEMATIC TREE’ DESIGN Site

Reference

Stratum

Chagar Bazar Ebla

Mallowan 1937: Fig.21:8 Heinz 1992: Taf. 85:3b and Taf. 94d respectively

Level I

Two small painted sherds (Fig. 7.10:8-9), which are examples of LPW, were found in Locus 7133 of Stratum X17a, and assigned to Phase 2. Because these are such tiny fragments, it is impossible to determine whether those contexts are indicative of their chronological origins or whether they might derive from earlier deposits, especially since vessels of LPW were also found in Area A in assemblages of Phase 2. The vessel shown in Figure 7.10:8 may represent another example of the lozenge motif, while that in Fig. 7.10:9 is decorated in bichrome with triangles filled with cross-hatching in two rows. Judging by the thickness of this sherd it is seemed to be part of a handleless storage jar. Notably, the triangle with cross-hatching is a common design on LPW, as well as on vessels of Khabur Ware, but less so on Syro115

ESTHER YADIN

Cilician Ware. One row of triangles with cross-hatching is known on a vessel from of Phase B/C at Tel Ifshar. Another example of decoration of triangles in two rows is found on a vessel of Khabur Ware from Level I at Chagar Bazar. More frequently, this design appears on jugs and juglets, usually in a single row together with other decorative motifs. (e.g., from Tel Aphek). TABLE 7.6: DIFFERENT CROSS HATCHING FILL Site

Reference

Stratum

Tel Ifshar Chagar Bazar Tel Aphek

Paley and Porath 1997: Fig. 13.5:3 Mallowan 1937: Fig. 21:8 Ory 1938: Pl. XXV

Phase B/C

Bagh (2000:29,61-62), following Tubb`s (1983) terminology, uses the term LPW for painted examples from Tel Aphek. Tubb tried to distinguish between two traditions of MB IIA painted pottery, Amuq-Cilician Ware, found in south-eastern Anatolia and inland Syria, and LPW, found along the coast of Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, and the inland regions south of the Orontes Valley. Bagh (2000:45) preferred to use the term Syro-Cilician pottery for painted wares found in inland Syria. Another group of painted pottery of the same period is Khabur Ware, first defined by Mallowan (1937:102) at Chagar Bazar. There is some confusion in these different approaches that deal with the three major painted pottery styles of the MB IIA in the Near East. It is obvious that there is a connection between them, but there is no clear information as to the chronological order in which they appear, nor have their exact relationships to one another been defined. According to Bagh (2000:170) “from the present evidence it seems that all three styles co-existed”.3 Glenn Schwartz (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003:294) noted that “Both Syro-Cilician and Ebla Common Painted Wares can be distinguished from Khabur Ware, found in the Jezireh, and from what Tubb has designated LPW, which was common on the coast and in southern Syria and Palestine.” Schwartz (ibid.: 2003:309) unequivocally indicated Khabur Ware to have been current during the reign of Shamshi-Adad I (the turn of the 18th century BCE), but it is not known how much earlier it appeared. He (ibid.: 322-323) further noted in his summary on general trends in Middle Bronze Syrian complex societies that: “...the different painted pottery traditions (Khabur ware, Syro-Cilician Painted Ware, Ebla Common Painted Ware, Levantine Painted Ware) often have similar motifs or shapes that indicate the frequent communication of decorative ideas throughout the eastern Mediterranean world in this period”. He continued to note that “… the many similarities of Syrian and Palestinian material culture, ranging from ceramics, fortifications, temples, and metal types, also bear witness to an eastern Mediterranean culture continuum”. Beck (1985:196-201; 2000:248-251) in her discussion of MB IIA pottery touched on foreign relations and the origin of certain pottery types found at Tel Aphek. She concluded that certain vessels such as small, handleless jars attributed to an inland Syrian origin, appeared at Tel Aphek solely during the early phases of MB IIA, while others such as carinated bowls existed there throughout the period. Contacts with the north Levantine littoral are also in evidence from the earliest phases at Tel Aphek and apparently intensified shortly before the construction of Palace II. Eventually these contacts become more important in later MB IIA. What is noteworthy at Tel Aphek is that these painted wares do not appear to indicate contacts with specific localities in Greater Syria, but rather they appear to derive from multiple locations, possibly in what Beck termed “two separate streams”, one from the coastal plain and the other from 3. For a summary discussion on these three styles see Bagh (2000:29-51).

116

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

inland Syria. Possibly some styles were a mixture from these two regions which converged before they reached Tel Aphek. Beck’s further observations of the selective borrowing by Canaanites of Syrian styles is noteworthy, as is her observation that local traditions far outweigh those that might be considered imported. PHASE 2

This phase, called “Pre-Palace” in preliminary publications (Beck 1975; Kochavi 1975), was encountered in Area A in Strata A XVII-XV, in Area B in Stratum B V, and in Area X in Stratum X17 (Palace I). It is now labelled Pre-Palace II. The assemblage from Stratum X17 includes mainly sherds, but also a few complete vessels from a burial (Locus 7195) and storage jars exposed in one room (Locus 7120). As most of the pottery types are represented only by sherds, they could only be studied by relating them to comparanda from assemblages derived from other areas of the excavation. BOWLS Hemispherical Bowls This is one of the most common bowl types of this phase at Tel Aphek (Figs. 7.5:2, 7.6:1-2, 7.7:1, 7.11:1). Examples are of different sizes, rim forms and styles of bases. Rims are usually plain, but sometimes they are tapered or thickened. Some of these bowls have a new feature unknown in the previous phase, red burnishing (Figs. 7.5:2, 7.7:1, 7.11:1), a characteristic that later came to be a hallmark of bowls of this period. S-profile Bowls Examples of this bowl type are known from Phase 1 (Figs. 7.8:1, 7.9:1-3, 7.11:2). Their absence in Area A Strata A XVII and A XVI is probably due to chance, as examples were found in the bedding of the floor of Palace II, and in Phase 2 assemblages of Stratum B V. As in the case with the hemispherical bowl, the type is not represented in the following phases at Tel Aphek. Carinated Bowls Bowls of this type (Fig. 7.6:4, 7.12:1) that epitomize later MB IIA, make their first appearance in this phase. The two specimens recovered from Area X are not the typical red burnished, carinated type with gutter rim of later MB IIA. One (Fig. 7.12:1) has a rounded ‘carination’ similar to a bowl found in Area B (Beck 2000: Fig. 8.16:5), while the other (Fig. 7.6:4) is a small carinated example with a simple rim without gutter. Large open bowls Bowls of this type (Figs. 7.6:2-3, 7.8:2) vary in overall form, but have large diameters and are relatively shallow. Usually this type has a simple rounded rim, but sometimes it is thickened and may be either inverted or everted. Most examples are neither slipped nor burnished. Bowls of this type were not found in Area B. Rounded Deep Bowls These are deep bowls with thick walls (Figs. 7.6:5, 7.9:4-5). Two (Fig. 7.9:4-5) have profiled rims with internal and external projections. Another (Fig. 7.6:5) has an out folded rim. It is noteworthy that this type of rim was not found in any other area, although deep rounded bowls with thin walls (e.g., Beck 2000: Fig. 8.10:1) were found in Area B. Ridged and Knobbed Bowls These bowls (Fig. 5:1) were well fired and red burnished. Similar bowls were found in a burial (Tomb/ Locus 576) in Area A, Stratum A XVII (Beck 2000: Fig. 10.4:1), and in another tomb at the site excavated by Ory (Beck 2000: Fig 10.27:8-9). The type is also well known in the following phase in areas where it was encountered (Beck 2000: Figs. 10.10:14-17, 10.12:13, 10.13:15). 117

ESTHER YADIN

KRATERS Holemouth Kraters In this phase these vessels (Fig. 7.6:8) have thickened, everted, wide, ledge-like rims (Fig. 7.11:3) or rounded rims. Gutter-rim Kraters This type has an everted rim, sometimes with a pronounced, internal gutter (Fig. 7.6:7). The type is not found in following phases of MB II. COOKING-POTS As noted above, two types of cooking-pots are known in MB IIA. One is wheel-made and the other handmade. The two types are contemporary. Wheel-made Cooking-pots This type has either an inner, gutter rim (Figs. 7.7:2, 7.9:8) or a slightly flaring rim (Fig. 7.9:7). Handmade Cooking-pots This type, known from Areas A and B in this phase, as well as in the following phases, was not found in Area X. Apparently it is due to the limited excavated Area And the nature of the finds there. STORAGE JARS Storage jars from this phase are assigned to five main types. Some made their first appearance in this phase, while others continued from the previous phase. Large Jars with Triangular Rim (Type SJ1) This type (Fig. 7.6:9-11), known from the previous phase, continues to be manufactured, but it is not found in following phases. Large Ovoid Jars with Elongated, Folded Rims (Type SJ2) This type of jar (Figs. 7.6:12-17, 7.7:3-4, 6-8, 7.8:4, 6, 7.9:12-15, 7.10:1-4, 7.11:6-7, 7.12:4-5) is the most common type in MB IIA at Tel Aphek. Rims of these jars are folded and vary in size. Most have a ridge at the end of their folds. By the end of this phase (Stratum X17A), this type represents almost 100% of the large jars found. Many sherds of this type are decorated with pattern combing. Handleless Jars Rims of medium-sized, handleless jars were found as early as Phase I in Area X. They were also found in deposits of Phase 2, but not in deposits associated with Phases 3 and 4. Medium-sized Jars with Thickened Rims (Type SJ3) Only one complete specimen of this type was found, it derives from a burial (Tomb/Locus 7195; Fig. 7.5:3). This jar has all features typical to this type, a rounded body, convex base and thickened rim. All the other examples of this type encountered in the excavation were merely rim sherds (Figs. 7.6:18, 7.10:5, 7.11:8-10, 7.12:6). Rims vary in diameter and thickness; some also have inner, concave profiles (Figs. 7.6:19, 7.11:8-10). Pithoi with Thick, Wide, Outwardly Folded Rims with Double-ledged Profiles This type of pithos (Figs. 7.7:5, 7.8:5) was represented by only a few specimens at Tel Aphek. Its earliest appearance is in Phase 1 of Stratum X18, but the type remained in use (Fig 7.3:23) into Stratum B Vc (Beck 2000: Fig. 8.12:27-28), which is equivalent to Phase 2.

118

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

Pithoi with Heavy Rounded Rims This type of pithos (Fig. 7.6:20) was also relatively rare in this phase. They differ from two examples with thickened rims (Fig. 7.3:25-26) from Phase 1. JUGS AND JUGLETS A few fragments of these vessel types were found in the Phase 2 assemblage of Area X. Dipper Juglets Two flaring rims (Figs. 7.8:3, 7.12:3) with parts of their handles still attached were found in Stratum X17. They probably belong to juglets of a type with small flat bases such as one found in Tomb 43 in Area A (Beck 2000: Fig. 10.18:8). Beck (2000:211) dated that tomb according to the pottery by comparing it to the Pre-Palace II assemblage of Phase 2. Jugs with Trefoil Mouths One example (Fig 7.9:9) of this type discovered in Stratum X17a is undecorated and has a rounded body. It can be compared to a painted jug found in Area A of the Pre Palace II phase, in Tomb 568 (Beck 2000: Fig. 10.4:5). DECORATED BODY SHERDS A number of decorated body sherds were found in Stratum X17. As in the assemblages of Phase 1, the motifs were either applied or incised (Figs. 7.6:21-22, 7.10:6-7, 10). One storage jar handle with a potter’s mark (Fig. 7.8:7) as well as different symbols incised into the body of other storage jars (Figs. 7.6:23, 7.7:6, 8, 7.8:8) were found. Body sherds of LPW (Fig. 7.10:8-9), also included in this group, and are discussed in association with the painted body sherds of Phase 1 (see above).

SUMMARY OF MB II A The importance of the MB IIA pottery assemblage excavated in the pottery sequence of Area X lies in finds from the earliest Strata X19 and X18, assigned to Phase 1. Although excavation in a small area yielded only a small assemblage of pottery, some conclusions can be made in relation to the assemblages of later MB IIA phases excavated at Tel Aphek. Four such phases were distinguished in the development of MB IIA pottery at the site in all areas. Each phase has its own distinct types, which have been noted in the quantities in which they were recovered. The sequence clearly indicates evolution of some types over time and the disappearance and appearance of others. Each pottery type had its own starting point within one of the phases, usually it appears in small quantities which tended to increase in quantity in the following phase, then decrease in quantity and finally disappear from the repertoire (Fig. 7.13) over time. PHASE 1

Following is a brief discussion of the main types of pottery found at Tel Aphek, with special attention to their appearance, the history of their utilization at the site, and their chronological association with MB IIA. Hemispherical bowls are also common in the following phases of Areas A and B, but were no longer present in the Post-Palace II Phase. S-profiled bowls were found in Phase 2 contexts but not at Tel Aphek in Phases 3 and 4. Large, open, bowls of various sizes and walls of varying thicknesses were found throughout the MB IIA period. The holemouth krater type of this phase is found in Phase 3, but not in Phase 4, although its later absence may be the result of the chances of discovery. With the exception of a few sherds from Phase 2 in Area X, an open guttered rim type was found at Tel Aphek in Phases 1 and 2, while a type with an open, simple, everted rim is, for the present, associated only with Phase 1. Kraters of all variations were decorated with incised and relief bands, features that are also known on other types associated with Phase 2. 119

ESTHER YADIN

Handmade cooking-pots are found in Phases 2 and 3 at Tel Aphek. They are of a type that continues to be made in MB IIB, which suggests its absence in Phase 4 is due to nature of the sample excavated, one that has yielded little evidence of domestic vessels 4. Wheel-made cooking-pots were found throughout MB IIA. Because only sherds of this second type were found it is not possible to determine whether they are fragments of storage jars or a globular sub-type of cooking-pot. Type SJ2 remained in use throughout the period. In Phase 1 most examples of this type lacked the ridge, but it is found on some few examples. In Phase 2 and throughout the period most examples of this type had this ridge. By contrast, not many rims of jar Type SJ1 were found, which apparently indicates it was a less popular type in Phase 2, and disappeared from the assemblage during Phase 3. Pithoi with double-ledged, profiled rims were not found in Phases 3 and 4, but they are known from other sites in the region, which date later in MB IIA. Type SJ3, handleless storage jars were still common in the following Phase 2, but during the end of that phase the moulded rim (Beck 2000: Fig. 10.8:1,2,7,8) appeared and displaced the thickened rim, which became popular in Phase 3. Body sherds of LPW from Phase 1 probably are fragments of Type SJ3. PHASE 2

The limited assemblage of Stratum X17 does not include all pottery types known from Areas A and B at Tel Aphek. However, earlier studies indicate that all ceramic forms of Phase 1 did continue into Phase 2, with the addition of some new features that appear in the assemblage of Stratum X17. They are also known from the assemblages of Phase 2 in Areas A and B. The use of red slip, one of the hallmarks of MB IIA vessels, appears for the first time in this phase. Vessels from Phase 2, slipped in red and burnished, include a hemispherical bowl type (The form is known in Phase 1, but lacks a red slip) and an open ridged and knobbed bowl, a type that does not appear prior to this phase. The carinated bowl, which was to become one of the characteristic bowl types of MB IIA, first appeared in this phase. The earliest MB IIA jugs and juglets found are in Stratum X17, but it is unknown whether they made their appearance at the site earlier in MB IIA. They were not recovered in the limited nature of the assemblages of Strata X19 and X18. In Areas A and B most of the Phase 2 examples of these vessels were red slipped or red painted. With the exception of one jug with trefoil mouth, only rims or bases of this type were found. Bases were flat or disc-shaped, and were red slipped or lack a slip. Many folded jar rims typical to MB IIA were found, but some outsized examples are associated only with deposits in Area X. They are longer and wider than the most others found at the site are. From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the importance of the ceramic assemblages from Area X lies especially in the assemblages of Strata X19 and X18. They are the earliest and sole evidence excavated to date at the site, of the chronological horizons they represent. In Area A the deposits below the earliest MB II A level date to the Early Bronze Age, while in Area B, there are only a few poorly preserved remains of these early MB IIA horizons. Although the assemblages of these phases are very limited, they do offer some important evidence. Analysis of the four pottery phases at Tel Aphek (Beck 1985; 2000:239-254; Yadin 2002:196-225) indicates that in no phase were all types currently in use. Forms and features of the different types changed and evolved over time, while their lines of development were subject to regional variations. Despite the presence of LPW in the earliest MB IIA level at Tel Aphek, its appearance there does not offer any new, substantial contribution to the question of the absolute dating of the earliest MB IIA stratum (Stratum X19), beyond indicating its relatively early date within that period. 4. Most of the pottery of Phase 4 derives from tomb assemblages in Area A, which generally do not have cooking-pots.

120

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

Fig. 7.1: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X19.

121

ESTHER YADIN FIG. 7.1: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X19 No. Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Sub-type

Elevation Notes

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Bowl Bowl Bowl Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar

60376/1 60372/1 60422/1 60382/1 60379/1 60394/1 60395/1 60378/3 60436/1 60396/1 60386/4

7203 7202 7222 7202 7203 7206 7206 7202 7222 7206 7202

Hemispherical (large) Open S-profile Globular, gutter rim Globular Upright wall Upright wall SJ1: flaring neck, triangular section rim SJ1: flaring neck, triangular section rim SJ1: flaring neck, triangular section rim SJ1: triangular section rim

9.65 9.82 10.20 10.00 9.80 10.20 10.20

13 14 15 16 17 18

Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Krater

60398/1 60386/1 60426/4 60387/1 60373/1 60383/1 60422/2

7206 7202 7222 7202 7202 7202 7222

SJ2: elongated folded rim SJ2: elongated folded rim SJ2: elongated folded rim Simple rim, Ridged neck SJ3: handleless, medium size, thickened rim

10.74 10.00 10.51 10.16 9.82 10.00 10.43

19 20 21 22 23 24

Cooking-pot Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar

60382/4 60389/1 60393/1 60436/2 60375/2 60398/2

7202 7206 7206 7222 7203 7206

10.00 10.16 10.20 10.74 9.64 10.35

25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Jug Storage jar Stopper stopper

60382/1 60386/ 3 60382/7 60382/2 60372/2 60386/2 60382/5

7202 7202 7202 7202 7202 7202 7202

10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 9.82 10.00 10.00

10.35 10.35

FIG. 7.2: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X18, LOCUS 7199 No. Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Sub-type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

60264/1 60308/2 60365/1 60300/1 60283/1 60364.1 60265.1 60355/1 60311/2 60351/2 60359/3 60301/1 60348.1 60352.2 60309.3 60352.5 60365.2 60352.2 60328.2

7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199

Hemispherical Hemispherical Open Open large Open large Open large Three loops base S-profile S-profile S-profile S-profile S-profile Holemouth, folded rim out Holemouth, folded rim out Holemouth, ledge rim Holemouth, thickened rim Open, everted rim Open, everted rim Open, everted rim

122

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Krater Krater Krater Krater Krater Krater Krater

Handmade Handmade

Elevation 8.75 9.01 9.53 8.81 8.70 9.53 8.75 9.40 9.01 9.61 9.33 9.48 9.40 9.61 9.01 9.61 9.53 9.61 9.36

Base Dec. incised relief band Dec. incised Dec. incised Dec. incised Dec. incised Dec. Incised Dec. incised relief band Dec. incised Dec. incised Dec. incised Dec. incised Potter’s mark

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

13

Fig. 7.2: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X18, Locus 7199.

123

ESTHER YADIN

Fig. 7.3: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X18, Locus 7199.

124

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

Fig. 7.3 (contd.): Pottery from Area X, Stratum X18, Locus 7199.

FIG. 7.3: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X18, LOCUS 7199 No. Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Sub-type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

60331/1 60328/1 60340/2 60309/2 60359/5 60283/2 60363/1 60349/2 60349/1 60242/3 60355/2 60329/1 60352/1 60340/1 60332/1 60262/1 60285/3 60242/1 60308/1 60265/2 60242/2 60309/1 60359/1 60311/1 60333/1 60359/8

7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199

Open, modelled rim Open, modelled rim Open, modelled rim Open, gutter rim Open, gutter rim Globular, gutter rim Globular, everted rim Upright walls Upright walls Upright walls Upright walls SJ1: flaring neck, triangular section rim SJ1: flaring neck, triangular section rim SJ2: elongated folded rim SJ2: elongated folded rim SJ2: elongated folded rim SJ2: elongated folded rim SJ2: elongated folded rim SJ2: elongated folded rim SJ2: elongated folded rim SJ3: handleless, medium size, thickened rim SJ3: handleless, medium size, thickened rim SJ6: pithoi, double ledge profile rim SJ6: pithoi, double ledge profile rim SJ8: pithoi, thin square rim SJ8: pithoi, thin square rim

Krater Krater Krater Krater Krater Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Pithoi Storage jar Pithoi Pithoi

Elevation 9.53 9.36 9.33 9.01 9.33 8.70 9.53 9.40 9.40 8.68 9.40 9.53 9.61 9.33 9.53 8.58 9.06 8.68 9.01 8.75 8.68 9.01 9.33 9.01 9.53 9.33

Notes

Handmade Handmade Handmade Handmade

125

ESTHER YADIN

Fig. 7.4: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X18, Locus 7199.

126

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

FIG. 7.4: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X18, LOCUS 7199 No/ Type

Reg. No.

Locus

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

60285/1 60313/1 60359/7 60352/4 60285/2 60359/9 60352/2 60311/3 60249/3 60350/1 60328/3 60295/1 60352/6 60359/4

7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199 7199

Storage jar Storage jar Jug Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Krater Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar

Elevation 9.06 9.01 9.33 9.61 9.06 9.33 9.61 9.01 8.26 9.61 9.36 9.37 9.61 9.33

Notes Red dec. Red and black dec. Black dec. Red and black dec. Red dec. Black dec. Incised dec. Incised dec. Incised dec. Incised relief band Incised dec. Incised Incised Incised

FIG. 7.5: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X17C, TOMB 7195 No. Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Sub-type

1 2 3

60299/1 60305/1 60303/1

T7195 T7195 T7195

Open ridged and knobbed hemispherical SJ3: handleless, medium size, thickened rim

Bowl Bowl Storage jar

Elevation 9.40 9.48 9.48

Notes Red burnished Red burnished

127

ESTHER YADIN

Fig. 7.6: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X17c, Locus 7169.

128

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

FIG. 7.6: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X17C, LOCUS 7169 No. Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Sub-type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

60247/3 60241/2 60280/1 60239/1 60255/1 60250/2 60271/1 60272/1 60271/2 60280/2 60234/1 60240/1 60240/2 60239/2 60250/1 60247/2 60282/1 60234/2 60240/3 60271/3 60247/1 60241/1 60240/4

7169 7169 7169 7169 7169 7169 7169 7169 7169 7169 7169 7169 7169 7169 7169 7169 7169 7169 7169 7169 7169 7169 7169

hemispherical Open, rounded Open, large Small carinated Deep bowl, modelled rim Open, everted rim Open, gutter rim Holemouth, folded rim out SJ1: flaring neck, triangular section rim SJ1: flaring neck, triangular section rim SJ1: flaring neck, triangular section rim SJ1: elongated folded rim, ridged SJ2: elongated folded rim, ridged SJ2: elongated folded rim, ridged SJ2: elongated folded rim, ridged SJ2: elongated folded rim, ridged SJ2: elongated folded rim, ridged SJ3: handleless, medium size, thickened rim SJ3: handleless, medium size, thickened rim SJ7: pithoi, ring rim

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Krater Krater Krater Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Pithoi Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar

Elevation 8.46 8.33 8.70 8.36 8.58 8.20 8.63 8.63 8.63 8.70 8.20 8.68 8.68 8.36 8.20 8.46 8.70 8.20 8.68 8.63 8.46 8.33 8.68

Notes

Dec base Dec base Incised base

FIG. 7.7: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X17B, LOCUS 7120 No. Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Sub-type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

60057/1 60093/1 6066/1 60137/1 60083/1 60137/3 60137/2 60124/2

7120 7120 7120 7120 7120 7120 7120 7120

hemispherical Open, gutter rim SJ1: flaring neck, triangular section rim SJ2: elongated folded rim, ridged SJ7: pithoi, grooved rim SJ2: elongated folded rim, ridged SJ2: elongated folded rim, ridged SJ2: elongated folded rim, ridged ?

Bowl Cooking-pot Storage jar Storage jar Pithoi Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar

Elevation 7.69 7.98 7.71 8.26 7.85 8.26 8.26 8.26

Notes

Potter’s mark on shoulder Potter’s mark on shoulder

FIG. 7.8: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM 17B, LOCUS 7153 No. Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Sub-type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

60128.3 60128.1 60128.4 60186.1 60128.2 60176.1 60191.1 60190.1

7153 7153 7153 7153 7153 7153 7153 7153

Carinated bowl Open bowl Flaring rim SJ2: elongated folded rim, ridged SJ6: pithoi, double ledge profile rim

Bowl Bowl Juglet Storage jar Pithos Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar

SJ2

Elevation 7.94 7.94 7.94 8.22 7.94 8.23 8.28 8.38

Notes

Potter’s mark Potter’s mark

129

ESTHER YADIN

Fig. 7.7: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X17b, Locus 7120.

130

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

Fig. 7.8: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X17b, Locus 7153.

FIG. 7.9: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X17A, LOCUS 7133 No. Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Sub-type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

60045/2 60033/2 60033/3 60120/4 60120/3 60094/1 60062/1 60118/1 60079/2 60854/1 60129/1 60134/1 60126/1 60079/1 60104/1 60129/2

7133 7133 7133 7133 7133 7133 7133 7133 7133 7133 7133 7133 7133 7133 7133 7133

s-profile s-profile s-profile Large bowl, modelled rim Large bowl, modelled rim

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Jug Jug Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar

Open, gutter rim Open, gutter rim Trefoil mouth SJ2: elongated folded rim, ridged SJ2: elongated folded rim, ridged SJ2: elongated folded rim, ridged SJ2: elongated folded rim, ridged

Elevation 7.38 7.20 7.20 7.88 7.88 7.59 7.64 7.85 7.52 7.36 7.90 7.95 7.95 7.52 7.70 7.90

Notes

Red painted Red burnished Red burnished, base

Base Base

131

ESTHER YADIN

Fig. 7.9: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X17a, Locus 7133.

132

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

FIG. 7.10: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X17A, LOCUS 7133 No. Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Sub-type

1 2 3 4 5

Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar

60045/1 60148/2 60120/1 60098/1 60081/1

7133 7133 7133 7133 7133

SJ2: elongated folded rim, ridged SJ2: elongated folded rim, ridged SJ2: elongated folded rim, ridged SJ2: elongated folded rim, ridged SJ3: handleless, medium size, thickened rim

6 7 8 9 10

Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar

60033/1 60108/1 60096/1 60126/2 60071/1

7133 7133 7133 7133 7133

Elevation

Notes

7.38 7.84 7.88 7.80 7.73 7.20 7.87 7.77 7.95 7.49

Decorated Decorated Decorated Decorated base Decorated

133

ESTHER YADIN

FIG. 7.11: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X 17A, LOCUS 7105 No. Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Sub-type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

60195/1 60025/1 60029/5 60027/1 60029/3 60005/1 60029/1 60019/4 60026/1 60029/6

7119 7119 7119 7119 7119 7119 7119 7119 7119 7119

Hemispherical S-profiled Holemouth, ledge rim SJ2: elongated folded rim, ridged SJ2: elongated folded rim, ridged SJ3: handleless, medium size, thickened rim SJ3: handleless, medium size, thickened rim SJ3: handleless, medium size, thickened rim

134

Bowl Bowl Krater Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Jug

Elevation 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.50 7.63 7.57 7.63 7.63 7.63 7.63

Notes

Base Base

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

FIG. 7.12: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X17A, LOCUS 7119 AND TOMB 7151 No. Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Sub-type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

60048/1 60048/2 60037/1 60037/2 60049/1 60048/3 60153/1

7119 7119 7119 7119 7119 7119 T7151

carinated Hemispherical, folded outward rim Flaring rim Storage jar 2: elongated folded rim, ridged Storage jar 2: elongated folded rim, ridged

Bowl Bowl Jug Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar

Elevation

Notes

7.63 7.63 7.74 7.74 7.63 7.63 7.93

135

ESTHER YADIN

Fig. 7.13*: Bowl types as seen at Aphek in the MB IIA and MB IIB periods (across facing pages). * All complete vessels and rims are drawn on a scale of 1:10. The complete large storage jars are drawn on a scale of 1:20.

136

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

137

ESTHER YADIN

Fig. 7.13 (contd.): Bowl types as seen at Aphek in the MB IIA and MB IIB periods (across facing pages). 138

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

139

ESTHER YADIN

Fig. 7.13 (contd.): Bowl types as seen at Aphek in the MB IIA and MB IIB periods (across facing pages).

140

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

141

ESTHER YADIN

Fig. 7.13 (contd.): Krater types as seen at Aphek in the MB IIA and MB IIB periods (across facing pages). 142

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

143

ESTHER YADIN

Fig. 7.13 (contd.): Cooking-pot types as seen at Aphek in the MB IIA and MB IIB periods (across facing pages). 144

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

145

ESTHER YADIN

Fig. 7.13 (contd.): Storage jar types as seen at Aphek in the MB IIA and MB IIB periods (across facing pages).

146

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

147

ESTHER YADIN

Fig. 7.13 (contd.): Storage jar types as seen at Aphek in the MB IIA and MB IIB periods (across facing pages). 148

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

149

ESTHER YADIN

Fig. 7.13 (contd.): Storage jar types as seen at Aphek in the MB IIA and MB IIB periods (across facing pages). 150

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

151

ESTHER YADIN

Fig. 7.13 (contd.): Juglet types as seen at Aphek in the MB IIA and MB IIB periods. 152

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

Fig. 7.13 (contd.): Juglet types as seen at Aphek in the MB IIA and MB IIB periods.

153

ESTHER YADIN

Fig. 7.13 (contd.): Jug types as seen at Aphek in the MB IIA and MB IIB periods.

154

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE IIB POTTERY OF AREA X (STRATA X16 AND X15) Excavation of Area X yielded the most evidence for MB IIB architecture and pottery from Tel Aphek. Two construction phases of an MB IIB palace were exposed, an early phase, Stratum X16, known as Palace III, and a later, rebuilt phase, Stratum X15, known as Palace IV. Only the northern wings of these buildings were exposed. They had courtyards or vestibules (such as Locus 6174) opening onto large halls (such as Locus 6107) surrounded by smaller rooms. Changes from the plan of Palace III, noted in the plan of Palace IV were traced in the layout of Locus 6107. Although architectural elements of the two palaces are very impressive, the pottery assemblages their excavation yielded are rather poor. Finds include two complete vessels (Fig. 7.19:10-11) and a small quantity of MB IIB sherds mixed with earlier pottery. The fragmentary state of these finds limited most of the study to shapes of rims. Unfortunately, these limited assemblages do not allow for very accurate conclusions concerning the dating of the associated structures, nor would statistical analyses of them yield significant data. The dearth of pottery may be explained by later activity (from the Late Bronze Age through the Ottoman period) which despoiled earlier deposits and interfered with the continuity of stratigraphy by penetrating down to floors of Palaces III and IV. Palace IV floors were usually built right atop those of Palace III, and in some areas the earlier floors were just reused, thus, even the quantities of fill within these palatial constructions was severely limited. The two ceramic assemblages are so limited in scope and so very similar, they are discussed here as a single assemblage. BOWLS The bowls in this assemblage belong to two major groups of forms, open and carinated types. Open Bowls The most common MB IIB vessel type in these assemblages is the open bowl, which appears in a variety of forms, sizes and rims. Bowl forms vary from hemispherical to more open, shallow forms. Most have rounded walls with everted, inverted or folded rims. These bowls are not slipped, although a few are decorated with red lines on their rims. One example has what appears to be remains of a red painted cross on its interior. There are several groups of variants on the open bowl form discussed below. Small Rounded Bowls with Plain, Rounded or Tapered Rims This type (Figs. 7.14:1, 7.22:9), although found in small numbers, especially related to Stratum X12 at Tel Aphek, continues into the Late Bronze Age, where Gadot has labelled them Type BH1a (Chapter 8; Fig. 8.8:16). However, his later examples tend to be somewhat larger and deeper than those discussed here are. Middle Bronze Age parallels for this type are found at Tel Shiloh in Stratum VIII (Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993:86, Fig. 6.5:6), at Tel Lachish in Stratum Level P-4 (Singer-Avitz: 2004: Fig. 16.22:3), in Stratum R5a at Tel Beth-Shean, (Maier 1997: Pl. 1:3, Type 1a) and in Strata XII-XI at Tel Batash (Panitz-Cohen 2006: Pl. 5:1). Open Bowls with Simple, Rounded Rims This is an open, shallow type (Fig. 7.19:1) of which only a few examples were found. Several have slightly everted rims (Fig. 7.21:12). Similar bowls, but more hemispherical in form, have been found at the site in MB IIA contexts. Additional similar bowls are also found in Late Bronze Age levels, where they are known as Type BO1 (Chapter 8). They were mostly recovered in Stratum X14.

155

ESTHER YADIN

Shallow Bowls with Inverted Rims Two examples of this type are noteworthy. One is a small example and has red ‘lipstick’ painted decoration on its rim inside and out (Fig 7.14:2), while the other has a thick inverted rim (Fig. 7.14:3). ‘Lipstick’ type decoration is uncommon on MB IIB bowls at Tel Aphek. One parallel for this type of decoration is found at Tel Batash in a context cited as “Strata XII-XI” (Panitz-Cohen 2006: Pl. 5:2). Others are from Stratum VIII at Tel Shiloh (Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.10:2-3). This type first appeared in MBIIA contexts at Tel Aphek in Stratum A XV (Beck 2000: Fig. 10.8:4), but is not found in Late Bronze Age contexts at the site. Cut-rim Bowls One example is a shallow bowl (Fig. 7.14:5), another has thick walls (Fig. 7.21:11), and a third, with completely preserved profile, has a rounded form and disc base (Fig. 7.14:4). These shallow bowls are derived from types known from Stratum A XIVa at Tel Aphek, dated to MB IIA (Beck 2000: Fig. 10.16:9). As only a few rims of these bowls were found, it is possible they are residual from earlier deposits. According to Bonfil (2003:278, Fig. 113:13-14,) this type (Her Type BIVb) with inverted, cut rim, occurs at Tel Qashish in Strata X-VIII and is dominant there in Stratum IXB. However, two fragments from Tel Qashish (Bonfil 2003: Fig. 98:2-3) found in Stratum VIII are not exact parallels to this type and may be intrusive in that context. Thus, the chronological range of this type at that site may be somewhat shorter than that Bonfil assigned to it. Rounded-wall Bowls with Inward Folded Rim This variant (Figs. 7.14:7, 7.19:2, 7.21:1, 7.22:10) has a long history, is found throughout MB IIB and continues into the Late Bronze Age (Chapter 8, Type BO3). Relevant parallels from Shechem (Cole 1984: Pl. 5: e-h) are Type Bp.61 there, with “elongated, inverted rim” and “rounded external edge”. According to Cole these bowls appeared as early as Strata XX-XVIII and increase in numbers during Late MB IIB, Cole’s (1984:42-43) MB IIC. At Tel Qashish only small examples of this type appear in MB IIB strata, while the larger versions are known only from Late Bronze Age contexts (Bonfil 2003:278). This type appears in a larger version with loop handles in Stratum R3 at Tel Beth-Shean. Relevant comparisons are bowls from MB IIB deposits at Tel Lachish in Levels P-4 and P-3 (Singer-Avitz 2004: Figs. 16.15:8, 16.22:1-2; 16.30:1, 16.34:1) and in Stratum E at Tel Beit Mirsim (Albright 1933: Pl. 10:5). Bowls with Everted Rims Most open bowls (Figs. 7.14:9-22, 7.18:3-4, 7.19:3, 7.20:1, 7.21:13-14, 7.22:2, 11) have everted rims, which are known in several slight variations. Some rims are plain rounded and everted, while others have thickened everted or everted ledge rims. It is interesting to note that while these bowls are common at Tel Aphek, they are a relatively small part of ceramic assemblages at other sites. This type (Type BO2; Chapter 8), with variations in size and proportions, continues to appear into and throughout the Late Bronze Age. In the Tel Qashish assemblage, this type (Labelled BV) is divided into Sub-types BVa and BVb (Bonfil 2003: Figs. 86:1-2, 89:1, 96:1-2). Type BVa at Tel Qashish has a long lifespan lasting from Stratum IXA through Stratum VI (Throughout the Middle Bronze and Late Bronze Ages). There, small bowls are associated with all those strata, but larger bowls were recovered only from Strata IXA-VIII. At Tel Megiddo, as at Tel Qashish, only a few examples of this type were found in Stratum XI (Loud 1948: Pl.37:19). A similar situation characterizes assemblages from Tel Lachish Levels P-4 and P-3 (Singer-Avitz 2004: Figs. 16.15:2,6 and 16.33:1, 16.34:2). Cole (1984: Fig. 2: uppermost) noted that at Shechem this 156

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

rim type was found only in MB IIC (Late MB IIB) contexts, but he also reported that it has parallels in MB IIB strata at Tell Beit Mirsim and Tel Megiddo (ibid.:42). At Tel Batash some bowls of this type (There Type 53a) were found in MB IIB levels (Panitz-Cohen 2006: Pls. 5:4, 6:3), while all other bowls of similar mien from that site (Other variants of Type 53) are known from all phases of the Late Bronze Age (ibid.: 29-36) and Iron I contexts there as well. Only a few samples of these bowls have been found in more northerly region. They are known from Stratum 4 in Area D on the high mound at Hazor (Yadin Y et al. 1958: Pl. CXIX:12). A related type is an open bowl with red slip, also from Tel Hazor, but recovered in Stratum 3 in Area C (Yadin et al. 1959: Pl. CIX:3). Examples of open types with rounded walls and everted rims are not found in MB II A deposits at Tel Aphek; their first appearance is in MB IIB. They continue to appear in Late Bronze Age and Iron I assemblages at the site (Chapter 8). Bowls with Inverted Rims Examples of this type (Fig. 7.18:2), but with thinner walls, first appeared at Tel Aphek in MB IIA contexts in Stratum A XIV (Beck 2000: Figs. 10.10:10-11, 10.14:11). Bowls with Inverted and Everted Rims This type (Fig. 7.14:23-24) also has its origins in MB IIA, but those early examples were usually decorated with red slip or have ‘lipstick’ decoration on their rims, as do some from Stratum A XIV (Beck 2000: Figs. 10.12:9,12, 10.13:9, 10.14:11). Comparanda are found at Tel Shiloh in Stratum VIII (Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.8:8) and at Shechem in Strata XX-XVIII (Cole 1984: Pl. 5: a-d) where they are known as Type Bp 53. According to Cole (ibid: 42), that type is found only in MB IIB contexts and not later. He suggested it is one of the least frequently appearing and reported types at other sites. No exact parallels for the type with everted rim are known at MB IIB sites in the hill country. Deep Large Rounded Bowls One example illustrated (Fig. 7.15:18) has an everted rim, handles and an internal, vertical red line decoration, probably remains of a cross. Close comparanda for this vessel are rare. The form is probably derived from large MB IIA bowls with handles (Beck 2000: Fig. 10.29:1). Shallower bowls with different style rims were found at a site west of Tell Qasile (Kletter 2006: Figs. 19:2, 21:6, 22:3, 23:2,8, 29:8-9,11). Another large, two-handled bowl with similar decoration was found at Tel Aviv Harbour site at the mouth of the Yarkon River (Kaplan 1955: Fig. 4:11). At Tel Aphek the red, painted cross motif is also found on another large bowl with everted rim (Fig. 7.14:20). Remains of red painted decoration on the rim of yet another bowl (Fig. 7.14:11) are probably evidence of another example of this same pattern. It is noteworthy that this motif is not related to any special bowl type. Cole (1984:34-44) noted it appeared only at sites in the coastal plain or the Shephelah, including Tell Beit Mirsim, Tel Beth Shemesh, Ras el-`Ain (Tel Aphek), Tel Gezer and Tel Aviv, but was not found at sites beyond that region. Publications that are more recent only partly support his conclusions. This same motif was not found at Tel Shiloh, but was encountered at Tel Lachish (SingerAvitz 2004:915) as well as at Tel Qashish (Bonfil 2003: Fig. 78:1). Carinated Bowls Two main groups within this category were observed. Closed, carinated bowls are a generic form that is one of the hallmarks of MB II pottery assemblages. They are known in fine, red burnished wares from MB IIA contexts, while their latest variations are in un-burnished and un-slipped wares that date to the end of MB IIB.

157

ESTHER YADIN

Small, open, carinated bowls first appear in MB IIB. They are different from open carinated bowls with flaring necks and ‘rounded carination’ found in Stratum A XII Phase 4 (Beck 2000:213, Fig.10.21:1-2,7-8). The latter type is also known at Jericho (Kenyon 1960: Fig. 112) in contexts dated to the end of MB IIA, and in early MB IIB contexts at Shechem (Cole 1984: Pl. 14). Notably, this type was not encountered in the pottery assemblages of Strata X16 and X15 at Tel Aphek. Closed Carinated Bowls Only a few examples of this type were found (Fig. 7.15:1-2). Their upper walls are slightly curved inward and end in everted rims. They are a direct development of the gutter rim type of MB IIA. Their closest parallels are found at Tel Aviv at the Yarkon harbour site (Kaplan 1955: Fig. 2:5,8), at a site west of Tell Qasile (Kletter 2006: Fig.18:2) and at Tel Batash in Stratum XI (Panitz-Cohen 2006: Pl. 6:18-20). Bowls of this type with everted rims first occur at the end of MB IIA, and are found in diminishing quantities in earlier MB IIB contexts, but are no longer present in late MB IIB (MB IIC contexts; e.g. Bonfil 2003:280, Fig. 114:11). Open Carinated Bowls Most MB IIB carinated bowls are of this type (Figs. 7.15:3-14, 7.22:3), which shows variations in the forms of rims and upper walls. Most have simple, everted ledge rims. The degree of carination ranges between emphasized (Figs. 7.15:3-9) and virtually rounded. The forms of these bowls vary according to the degree of carination, which may be emphasized, rounded or deeply rounded (Fig. 7.15:10-14), and the angles and forms of their upper walls, which vary considerably. Some are curved slightly inward, giving their bodies semi-closed forms (Fig. 7.15:3), while others are outwardly curved (Fig. 7.15:5). Still others have vertical walls with everted rims (Fig. 7.15:8). None of these examples is slipped or burnished, while only one has ‘lipstick’ decoration (Fig. 7.15:13). There are no exact parallels for this type, probably because they are a regional variant. Some near parallels are known from sites in the nearby region, e.g., at the Yarkon Harbor site (Kaplan 1955: Fig. 2:6-8) and at a site west of Tell Qasile, where two comparanda (Kletter 2006: Fig. 17:1, 20:1) are carinated with simple everted rims. However, these last differ from the Tel Aphek samples in their red slipped finishes. An additional two examples of comparanda from the same site (Kletter 2006: Figs. 23:4, 27:8) are small, rounded bowls with ledge rims similar to those from Tel Aphek (Fig. 7.15:12-14). Some examples of these rounded bowls with everted rims are known from other regions, but they do not closely parallel the examples from Tel Aphek. A few bowls of similar aspect are found at Tel Beth-Shean, but as Maeir (1997:94, Pl. 5:12) has noted, the type is better known in the southern region. Carinated bowls with rounded shoulders and plain, everted rims, (As described by Cole 1984:56, Pl. 16:d) are found throughout MB II levels at Shechem. At Tel Lachish many small carinated bowls appear in MB IIB assemblages where they display great variety in their forms (Singer-Avitz 2004:915). As in the MB IIB assemblage of Tel Aphek, the degree of carination varies between sharp and rounded forms, but unlike the Tel Aphek bowls, most of those from Tel Lachish have inward sloping walls, while their rims vary in form from simple to everted. Some bowls with slightly rounded walls and everted rims were found at Tel Batash in Strata XII-XI (Panitz-Cohen 2006: Pl. 5:12, Pl. 6:16-17). One example of this type (Fig. 7.15:9) has an extraordinarily and uniquely thick wall for such a small vessel. Its rim is f lat and extends beyond the internal wall; externally it protrudes considerably well beyond the wall of the bowl.

158

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

Bowls with Sharply Pronounced Carination and Elongated Necks The form of this pronouncedly carinated type (Fig. 7.15:16-17) is substantially different from that of the carinated bowls discussed above. Notably, only a few examples were found at Tel Aphek. Two possible explanations for the rarity of this type seem likely. Either these bowls were not particularly favoured by its inhabitants, or the small sample that the excavation yielded does not adequately represent the actual assemblage of types of the period. Examples of bowls with sharp carination are found at a number of sites including one at a site west of Tell Qasile (Kletter 2006: Fig.22:1 with flaring neck) and others at Tel Megiddo in Stratum XI (Loud 1948: Pl. 37:3 with flaring neck and incurved rim,), Tel Beth-Shean in Stratum R5b (Maeir 1997:93-94, Pl. 4:11-12 with flaring neck), Tel Kabri (Kempinski, A., Gershuny, L. and Scheftelowitz, N. 2002: Figs. 5.43:10, 5.60:12) and Shechem (Cole 1984:56-58, Pl. 17). The sharply carinated bowls from Shechem are similar but not exact parallels to the examples from Tel Aphek. Unfortunately, the two examples from Tel Aphek lack bases and so it is uncertain whether they might have had trumpet bases, a style known from other MB IIB assemblages. To this group of carinated vessels belongs a small, votive example (Fig. 7.15:15) with pronounced carination, everted rim and slightly flaring upper wall. Small Wide Open Carinated Bowls Two bowls of this type (Fig. 7.21:15-16) were found in Stratum X15. They have thin walls, are slightly carinated and their simple rims are widely flared. A similar example was found at Tel Lachish Level P-5 (Singer-Avitz 2004: Fig.11:6). Other bowls with similar profiles but everted rims were found at a site west of Tell Qasile (Kletter 2006: Fig. 23:3). STANDS One complete profile of a stand was preserved in a large fragment (Fig. 7.18:6). It has a flaring rim at one end, and a simple cutoff rim at the other end, probably indicating it was the base. Some sherds with simple rims (Fig. 7.19:4-5) may possibly be fragments of similar objects. Thicker and larger examples (Fig. 7.17:29-30) are probably fragments of larger stands. GOBLETS OR STANDS (?) A number of fragmentary objects are notable, but of uncertain type (Fig. 7.15:19-20, Figs. 7.19:4, 7.21:2). Based on the morphologies of their rims, they may have belonged to goblets, but equally they may be fragments of stands. KRATERS Two main types of kraters are known from the MB IIB assemblages, one open and the other closed. Only a few rims of kraters were found in the excavation, all of which are of a closed, neckless type. It does appear that during MB IIB there is a trend for the morphology of these vessels to change from closed to open; the latter type is mostly associated with Late MB IIB contexts. Kraters with Thickened Everted Rim (Holemouth type) This is a common type (Figs. 7.18:7, 7.21:5) known in MB IIA contexts, but which is absent in late MB IIB assemblages. Examples are known from sites throughout the southern Levant. Similar kraters have been found nearby at a site west of Tell Qasile (Kletter 2006 Fig 30:13-14). Other examples are known from Tel Qashish. Bonfil (2003:283) noted this type was found only in Strata IXA-IXB, and that its last appearance was in Stratum IXA, when the open type krater was common. Only a very few rim sherds of

159

ESTHER YADIN

this type, Cole’s (1984: Pl. 10: a-g “holemouth bowls with folded-out rims”) Type Bd C.32, were found at Shechem in MB IIC (late MB IIB) contexts. Most vessels of this type were found in MB IIB contexts. A variant of this type from Tel Aphek (Fig. 7.22:12) has a folded rim and is more similar to an MB IIA variant (Beck 2000 Fig10.10:18), which suggests the former may have derived from an earlier stratum. Kraters with Simple Thickened Rims No exact parallels to the one illustrated example (Fig. 7.22:5) could be found. This example from Tel Aphek is an unusual variation on the type. Kraters with Modelled Rim One rim (Fig. 7.20:3) with a distinctive profile belongs to a large krater and should be identified as an example of a group of ‘closed kraters’. No exact parallel for it could be found but similar, smaller examples with everted square ledge rims (Bonfil 1997: Fig. II.8:8-10) are known from Tel Hazor and Stratum VIII at Tel Qashish (Bonfil 2003: Fig 116:3). Although there are only a few examples of kraters, known only from rims from relevant phases at Tel Aphek, it is obvious that they are fragments of the closed type, which is more common in the early part of the period when there is no evidence for open types. These last become common later and continue into the Late Bronze Age. COOKING-POTS Two main groups known from MB IIB continue MB IIA traditions. The globular, wheel made cooking-pot and the handmade type with vertical walls. There is no evidence in the excavation of Area X for the latter type. However, the handmade type, albeit in relatively small quantities, is known from MB IIB contexts at other sites including Shechem (Cole 1984:61-63), Tel Shiloh (Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993:89) and additional sites in the Jordan and Jezreel Valleys, and in the Northern Coastal Plain. At Tel Qashish, for example, they were found only in early MB IIB contexts, Strata IXC and IXB (Bonfil 2003:283). Thus, the overall evidence supports the assumption that the handmade cooking-pot decreased in popularity towards the end of MB IIB, especially at more southerly sites. This type is absent from the MB IIB pottery assemblages of Tel Lachish (Singer-Avitz 2004:916) and is rare at Tel Batash, although that could be a function of the relatively small quantity of MB IIB pottery found there (Panitz-Cohen 2006:65). By contrast, at Jerusalem and Tell Beit Mirsim, this type is the most common cooking-pot up to the end of MB IIB, while globular wheel-made cooking-pots are lacking at those sites. The absence of this type at Tel Aphek may be a function of the limited MB IIB assemblage, either a function of the ‘palatial’ nature of the assemblage, or of regional distribution. Another type of cooking-pot absent at Tel Aphek is the wheel-made open type with modelled rim, Type CPII of the Tel Qashish excavations (Bonfil 2003:285). According to her (Bonfil 2003: Fig. 119:3-6), this type, which was found in Stratum VIII, is a fossile directeur for the end of MB IIB. It has also been found at other sites such as Tel Yoqne>am, Tel Beth-Shean and Tel Shiloh in the highlands. The reason for the absence of the open cooking-pot at Tel Aphek may be considered the same as that for the absence of the handmade cooking-pot; they are possibly functions of regional distribution of certain types. Alternately, it may also be explained by the date of the Tel Aphek assemblage, which may not end as late as the final phase of MB IIB.

160

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

Wheel-made Cooking-pots This category includes some variants in forms of rim shapes and sizes. Two main types are known, the open cooking-pot with everted rim (Fig. 7.16:1-2) and the holemouth cooking-pot (Fig. 7.16:3-11). Everted Rim Cooking-pot Two subtypes are known. a ‘Gutter rim’ Type: This type (Figs. 7.16:1, 7.19:6) is known from MB IIA assemblages and it is uncertain whether these examples derive from earlier contexts or should be dated by their find spots. This type is not found in MB IIB contexts at such sites as Tel Shiloh and Shechem. At Tel Lachish a large quantity of everted rim cooking-pots, some with an inner gutter, was found, but those examples are thinner walled and have longer bodies in comparison to the vessels from Tel Aphek. This type has parallels at Tel Qashish (Type GCPIa; Bonfil, 2003:284 Fig. 118:1) but, unfortunately, even there most of the examples were found in fills which do not allow for good stratigraphic ascription. Bonfil attributes them to the MB IIA assemblage of that site. Another variation is represented by a unique, completely preserved cooking-pot (Fig 7.19:10) with a simple, guttered rim from Tel Aphek. This vessel has a globular body and rim, which has origins in MB IIA. However, no exact parallels for it are known, although a few similar vessels were recovered at Tel Lachish in Level P-4 (Singer-Avitz 2004: Fig. 16.25:5) and at a site west of Tell Qasile (Kletter 2006: Fig 15:5). b Plain Everted Rim Type: This type (Figs. 7.16:2, 7.20:4, 7.22:6) may have developed from the earlier MB IIA ‘gutter rim’ type. It is the forerunner of Late Bronze cooking-pot forms. Large numbers of rims of these plain, everted cooking-pots was found at Tel Lachish (Singer-Avitz 2004:916, Fig. 16.25:10) and at Tel Shiloh in Stratum 8 (Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993:89, Fig. 6.6:7). However, only one rim of this type was found at Shechem (Cole 1984: Pl 26:e), where it is dated to the last phase of MB IIB. Cole (ibid.: 65-67) summarized a discussion on its chronological association by noting the type is found earlier at sites in the coastal plain and in the north, while at Shechem and at Tell Beit Mirsim and other sites in the central and southern hill regions, it was adopted only at the end of the period, i.e., in Late MB IIB (Cole’s MB IIC). However, the assemblages from Tel Shiloh and Tel Lachish prove the type actually appeared early in MB IIB (Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993:89; Singer-Avitz 2004:916). It is a prototype of the carinated cooking-pot with everted triangular rim, which appears at the end of the period in the north at Tel Hazor (Yadin et al. 1958: Pl. CXVI:7,12) and Beth-Shean Stratum R1 (Maeir 1997: Pl. 15:2) and which became common in LB I. Holemouth Cooking-pots Cooking-pots of this category are notable for the variations in their folded rims and in their sizes. Rim variations include simple rounded, folded examples (Fig. 7.16:5-9), thickened triangular rims (Figs. 7.16:3-4, 10, 7.18:8-9) and a unique example with inverted, triangular, folded rim (Fig. 7.16:11). Figure 7.16:3 illustrates a special type, intermediate between the everted rim and the holemouth type. It has a gutter and thickened everted rim, triangular in section. This type has it roots as early as MB IIA in Phase 3 at Tel Aphek (Yadin 2002: Fig 23:10). The holemouth folded rim type is found in early and late MB IIB assemblages; changes in its form are evidence of chronological differences. At Shechem (Cole 1984:25, 63-65; Pls. 24: c-f), they are of different sizes and represented in all strata from XX to XVII, or well into Late MB IIB. At Tel Shiloh, this type shows a gradual increase in popularity during the last phase of MB IIB (Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993:89). At Tel Qashish this type is represented in Strata IX-VIII, a span of time during 161

ESTHER YADIN

which the type evolves. Absent at that site is a type with simple rounded rim. However, types with squared, triangular and modelled rims are found there (Bonfil 203:284-285, Fig. 118:2-7). Bonfil noted that ‘gutter rim’ cooking-pots occur beginning in Stratum X and continue in use through Stratum IXB (i.e., at the beginning of MB IIB), while other types were in use throughout the period. At Beth-Shean this type is known as Type CP6 (Maier 1997:104,143, Pls. 16:7-8, 17:3-5) with its variants that have rounded and triangular rims, paralleled in vessels from Tel Aphek. In his discussion of regionality, Maier notes this type is limited to specific regions. In the north, it appears in the coastal plain and in the Jezreel Valley, but significantly, it is neither reported at Tel Hazor nor Tel Dan. In the south, it is found at Jericho and in the central hill region at Shechem and Tel Shiloh, but rarely farther south. To Maier’s regional conclusions can be added information from Tel Batash, where cooking-pot rims of this type were found to be the most common in Strata XII and XI dated to MB IIB (PanitzCohen 2006: Pls. 5:16, 7:9-14). By contrast, there are no vessels of this type reported from Tel Lachish. It appears there that the carinated cooking-pot type with everted rim, a type that continued in use into LB I, fulfilled the function of this type instead. BAKING TRAY Figure 7.16:12 illustrates a simple, undecorated baking tray. STORAGE JARS / PITHOI These vessels are represented, with one exception, by only rim sherds of various sizes. The same rim profiles are found on large and medium sized vessels with two handles as well as on large jugs with only single handles on their shoulders. Thus, it is often impossible to determine precisely which types of vessels these rim fragments derive from. Storage jar rims can be divided in two major types based on size. They are either from very large jars or pithoi, or from medium sized jars or jugs. Judging by the recovered assemblage from Tel Aphek, during MB II the number of pithoi tended to increase, while the number of smaller storage jars tended to decrease. Large and Medium Sized Storage Jars Type SJ2 (Yadin 2002: Fig.3:1-10) storage jar with elongated, folded rim known from the MB IIA period was also found in MB IIB assemblages. However, a study of ceramic assemblages from other sites suggests this type either disappeared or almost disappeared in this period. It is likely that rims of this type represent intrusions from earlier (MB IIA) levels. In any event, by the end of MB IIA there is a decline in the frequency of jars of this type. Since no complete vessel with this rim type has been found in situ in deposits of this period, while only fragments of this type have been published from such contexts (e.g., Bonfil 2003: Fig. 122:8,12), their MB IIB association is far from certain. At other sites there are some variant types of MB IIB storage jars that appear to continue the tradition of the Type SJ2 Tel Aphek jar. At Tel Batash they are known in Stratum XII and continue in use throughout Stratum X (Panitz-Cohen 2006: Pls. 5:20, 21, 8:4, 5 12:8, 15:9, 11). However, while having characteristics that suggest a comparison with Type SJ2, they differ in details. They have elongated, folded rims, sometimes with ridges located at the lower edges of the rims. Although such jars were not encountered at Tel Aphek, their absence may be a function of the limited area of the excavation and the small assemblage it yielded; alternately, it may be due to limited geographical distribution of the type. Everted rim fragments of large and medium sized storage jars (Figs. 7.17:1-3, 7.21:19) with long necks were found at Tel Aphek. Figure 7.17:1 is a drawing of a simple, rounded, everted rim, while Fig. 162

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

7.17:2-3 are renderings of slightly thickened, everted rims. Parallels are found in small, two-handled storage jars at Tel Lachish in Area P, Level P-4 (Singer-Avitz 2004 Fig 16.26:6) and in large, one handled jugs of a type found at Megiddo in Strata XIII-X (Loud 1948: Pls. 20:19, 20, 23:6-8, 31:9-12). This type was also found in an MB IIB burial in Area G at Tel Aphek. As the period advanced, simple rims were replaced by more elaborate and profiled rims. At Tel Shiloh in Stratum VII, a single handled type storage jar with long neck and simple everted rim (Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig.20:1) is usually an earlier type, while examples with short necks and wide shoulders are later variants (ibid. :91). No complete example with this rim type was found at Shechem, but fragments of similar rims were attributed by Cole (1984: Pl. 40:b) to this type or to a similar type jug. According to him (ibid. 1984:77), the simple rim was apparently a “declining species” during MB IIB-C. Fig. 7.21:19 is a drawing of a thin, simple, everted rim of a two handled storage jar. The rim is a direct extension of the jar neck, for which no exact parallel is known. Large Storage Jars and/or Pithoi This group of vessels (Figs. 7.17:4-24, 7.18:10-11, 7.19:11, 7.20:5-6, 7.21:7-10, 18, 7.22:13, 14) includes the majority of storage jars in the MB IIB assemblages of Tel Aphek. It is obvious that at Tel Aphek, as at other sites, the frequency of the appearance of pithoi increases in MB IIB as the frequency of smaller storage jars decreases. Although the assemblage of pithoi from Tel Aphek is represented mostly by sherds, it can be assumed that most of them were handleless as is one complete vessel recovered (Fig. 7.19:11) and other MB IIA type pithoi from Tel Aphek (Yadin 2002: Fig. 24:14-20, 28:5-8). The assumption that these vessels were handleless is reinforced by studying assemblages from other sites and according to research by Bonfil (2003:292). ‘Handleless’ pithoi are the dominant type at sites in the Jezreel Valley, the Shephelah and the coastal plain (e.g., at Tel Lachish and Tel Qashish), while in the central hill country and central Jordan Valley (e.g., at Tel Shiloh and Tel Beth-Shean) pithoi may be handleless or may have either two or four handles. Most of the Tel Aphek examples have short necks. Their rims can be divided into three main groups: a) moulded rims; b) ridged rims and c) riled rims. Most popular were rims with moulded profiles, either triangular or square in section. Most of those rims are profiled both internally and externally. However, those with triangular sections are only profiled externally. They are similar to MB IIA forms from Tel Aphek, but while the earlier types were made of metallic ware, MB IIB examples are of regular, well or medium-fired wares. A study of the assemblage of pithoi rims from Tel Aphek indicates a tendency towards modification from elegant forms of “handleless” pithoi in MBIIA, to more coarsely fashioned, less shapely forms during MB IIB. A few of the rims recovered have ridges on their lower portions (Fig. 7.17:20, 22-23) or riling (Fig. 7.17:24). A study of pithoi rims from other sites indicates some chronological development. At Tel Shiloh Bunimovitz (Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993:91-92) noted the possibility of a shift from elegant, elaborately shaped rims in MB IIB (Bunimovitz’s MB II) to less profiled rims in Late MB IIB (his MB III), which is, in fact a continuation of the same tendency seen at Tel Aphek between MB IIA and MB IIB. Although there is a large degree of similarity between rim forms, of these pithoi types at the two sites, there are differences in the appearance of each group. At Tel Shiloh, the most popular type in the MB II assemblages is that with ridged rim, while the second most popular type has a profiled ‘square’ rim. As Bunimovitz noted, the later type may be restricted to the early to middle phases of his MB II. At Tel Aphek, the most prominent group is that with moulded, profiled rim, either triangular or squared in section, while only a few examples of ridged rims were found. It is noteworthy that rims of completely

163

ESTHER YADIN

preserved pithoi from Stratum VII at Tel Shiloh (Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Figs. 6.15-6.20) are paralleled at in the Tel Aphek assemblage. However, only a few are very close parallels. At Shechem Cole (1984:73-76, Pl. 32-36) classified pithoi rims according to four basic groups based on profiles: 1) plain; 2) profiled externally; 3) profiled internally and 4) profiled both internally and externally. Within these classifications, an additional division was made according to treatment of the edges of rims that may be rounded, flattened, tapered and elaborate. A study of relevant material from Shechem shows that as at Tel Shiloh, there are some regional differences, which can be perceived through the relative popularity of the different types within the respective assemblages. ’Normative’ rims at Shechem are rim types of Groups 2, 3 and 4, each with ridges underneath, while at Tel Aphek the ridge is a relatively rare feature. According to Cole, the standard rim form for the period at Shechem is Group 4, while rims of Groups 2 and 3 are derivations of it. Of the different treatments of edges of rims, the tapered variation is the one favoured throughout the period. With the exception of the elaborate edge variety (Cole 1984: Pl. 36: j-m), all these rim types appeared as early as Stratum XX and, as at Tel Aphek, they were already part of the ceramic repertoire in MB IIA. The elaborate edge rim (ibid.: Pl. 36: j-m) made its earliest appearance at Shechem only in Stratum XVIII, but continued to appear throughout MBIIC there. As noted above, most pithoi from Tel Aphek had short necks, a feature that is likely to be useful in dating pithoi within the MB II period. Cole (1993:75), after studying the evidence from other sites, noted that while short necked storage jars are found throughout MB II, the high necked variety may well be characteristic of late MB IIB-MB IIC. Bonfil’s (2003:292, Fig.123-124) classification of the Tel Qashish pithoi is based on a combination of neck length and rim shape. Her Types PI through PVI are short necked types, while her Types PVII-PVIII have high necks, all with different type rims. Most of the pithoi of these last types (i.e., long necked types) at Tel Qashish are found in Stratum VIII, while only one came from Stratum IXA. They are dated to the middle and late phases of MB IIB. No pithoi of the short neck types were found in Stratum VIII. Evidence of completely preserved pithoi from Tel Lachish suggest that most which come from Levels P-4 and P-3 are short neck types, but they appear alongside a few examples with long necks. At Tel Batash, as at Tel Aphek, the pithos is the most common type of storage vessel in Strata XII through XI (Panitz-Cohen 2006: Pls. 5:5-8,17-18, 8:1-3). However, most of the rims of such vessels at that site were found without their necks, so it is difficult to know whether they are of the long or short neck types. Those with preserved portions of necks are of the long necked type and probably should be dated to the end of the period. The increase in the frequency of pithoi with long necks and ridged ledges on their rims is noteworthy in late MB IIB at other sites. For example, they are found at Tel Shiloh in Stratum VII (Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Figs. 6.15:3, 6.16:7, 6.17:1, 6.18:2-3,) together with short neck pithoi (ibid.: Figs. 6.15:5,6, 6.18:4, 6.19:4), at Tel Beit Mirsim in Stratum D (Albright 1933: PL.14:10), as well as other sites. As noted above, only a few rims of this type were found at Tel Aphek. For most of the region the handleless type of pithos first appeared in MB IIA, increased in frequency during MB IIB, and, with one exception 5, disappeared in LB I. This pithos type reappeared in LB IIB and continued into Iron I. Two complete, handleless pithoi of late MB II types were found at Tell Batash in Stratum X, dated by the excavators to LB IA (Panitz-Cohen 2006: Pl. 12:1-2). However, as Panitz-Cohen noted, they are of 5. The sole exception is found in the upper Jordan Valley where a different type of pithos with raised plastic decoration appeared there as early as MB IIB and continued throughout LB I.

164

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

an MB II type and were found together with other vessels of MB IIB date. Her date for the destruction of Stratum X at Tel Batash is between the end of the 16th century BCE and the first quarter of the 15th century BCE. Gadot (Chapter 8: Fig. 8.39:11-18) cites a group of similar pithoi rims from Stratum X14 at Tel Aphek, but indicates these potsherds derive from fills that do not necessarily date to the stratum from which they were extracted. He noted: “The pottery from the fill represents the range of the Middle Bronze Age II and early Late Bronze Age.” Thus, from the discussion above, it appears that all these pithoi rims, with the possible exception of Tel Batash, should be dated to MB IIB. Storage Jar Decoration One completely preserved storage jar is decorated with incised lines on its shoulder (Fig. 7.19:11). Additional decorated body sherds of storage jars are also represented in the assemblage (Fig. 7.18:12-14). Three examples are decorated with wavy lines incised around the shoulders of the jars prior to firing. This type of decoration is not very common in MB IIB. However, when it is encountered, the wavy line motif is a relatively common form of decoration. In some examples, these lines are framed between two straight, horizontal lines, as for example on vessels from Tel Shiloh Stratum VII (Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Figs. 6.15:5, 6.16:4, 6.17:1; and another, but without a frame (Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.19:4). At Tel Qashish in Strata IXA and VIII (Bonfil 2003: Figs. 87:3, 90:14, 92:7) wavy line decorations similar to those from Tel Aphek appear on vessels, but without frames. JUGS AND JUGLETS Only a few rims or bases of jugs and juglets were found, but unfortunately, they are not complete enough to allow for any but the most general of comments concerning them. Several examples include one (Fig. 7.21:20) with a flaring thick rim, that has a parallel in a rim of a globular jug type with handle on shoulder from Megiddo (Loud 1948: Pl. 31:6). The type has a history beginning in MB IIA with red burnished examples. Two additional sherds are rims of dipper juglets (Fig. 7.21:21), a type that also has a long history of utilization beginning in MB IIA. LAMPS A typical round bowl with flattened base, pinched on one side is obviously a lamp (Fig. 7.18:15). This type has its origins in MB IIA assemblages. The type continues into the following MB IIB period, when it is found at such sites as Jericho (e.g., Kenyon 1965: Fig. 170:10, Group III) and Lachish Level P-5 (Singer-Avitz 2004: Fig. 16.11:11-13).

DISCUSSION Unfortunately, the MB II ceramic assemblage from Tel Aphek was neither rich nor well preserved enough to allow for a serious study of the typological development in the pottery of the period. In contrast to the pottery from the MB IIA levels, the stratigraphic associations in the latter part of MB II were neither sufficiently plentiful nor of such quality to allow for a real understanding of the MB IIB sequence contained within the remains of Strata X16 and X15. Most of the material was very fragmentary and sherds from these levels constitute a rather homogenous assemblage, which does not allow for any meaningful chrono-cultural distribution. Comparisons of this material with that from other sites also were based only on rim forms and are, consequently, of limited utility for chrono-cultural analyses. A further problem was encountered in the search for additional assemblages of well defined MB IIB material; few were found, especially since large assemblages of MB IIB vessels were found in tombs that usually do not have good stratigraphic indications. 165

ESTHER YADIN

In spite of all these caveats, some conclusions can be derived from the discussion above. It is clear that there is a general similarity between the MB IIB pottery of Tel Aphek and that of other areas in the immediate region. There is evidence of localized development that may be understood from the appearance of some types of vessels in particular areas or at certain sites, which are not found at other sites or in other regions. It is not; however, always evident that if one or another type is missing that it is a function of regional differentiation. That could, as well, be the result of limited excavation, as at Tel Aphek. For example, handmade cooking-pots, unknown in the Tel Aphek MB IIB assemblage, are found at other sites. Small, closed carinated or round bowls are types found only at Tel Aphek and sites in its vicinity, but remain unknown further afield. A comparison with the evidence of the MB IIA ceramic repertoire indicates several trends in ceramic production during these periods. Among them is a marked decrease in the number of decorated vessels, especially in the tradition of red burnishing. Also notable is a transition from a penchant for closed vessels towards the use of open vessels such as carinated bowls and cooking-pots. Small storage jars decrease in relative numbers and the long, folded rim, common in MB IIA, almost disappeared in MB IIB. Concurrently, pithoi, which show continuity in the tradition of the type of rim from the previous period, increase in numbers and in the number of variations. It is difficult to date accurately the MB IIB assemblage from Area X. Based on all comparisons it does appear mostly to date to the earlier and middle phases of the period, and not to Late MB IIB, what other scholars have labelled MB IIC or MB III. This dating is as much based on material encountered as on the absence of certain vessel types, especially thin walled, carinated bowls and pithoi with long necks and ridged rims. However, since the ceramic repertoire of these levels is rather limited, it is not necessarily representative of the time span during which Strata X16 and X15 existed. It should be noted that in other areas at Tel Aphek additional evidence of the MB IIB period was encountered in several burials, which yielded vessels typical to the end of the period. Such finds could indicate a somewhat poor, post palace phase of settlement not found in Area X, but extant elsewhere on the mound or, alternately some form of human activity beyond the area of the palace in that time span. Such finds could even indicate a somewhat later date for the end of the palace phase of activity, which is not evident in the finds from Area X.

166

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

Fig. 7.14: Stratum X16. Open bowls, Locus 6107.

167

ESTHER YADIN

Fig. 7.14 (contd.): Stratum X16. Open bowls, Locus 6107

FIG. 7.14: STRATUM X16 - OPEN BOWLS, LOCUS 6107 No. Type

Reg. No.

Locus Sub-type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

52360/2 45557/1 45488/2 52301/ 45553/ 47529/4 52301/1 52379/6 52361/1 52302/5 45553/1 52302/6 52379/5 47532/2 52330/1 52301/2 52301/3 47525/1 52302/4 47505/1 52329/1 52329/2 52313/1 52305/1

6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107

168

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl bowl Bowl bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl

Open small- rounded , cut rim Open small- shallow, inverted rim Open small –shallow, thick inverted rim Open rounded, cut rim Open shallow, cut rim Open rounded, inward folded rim Open, everted rim Open, everted rim Open, everted rim Open, everted rim Open, everted rim Open, everted rim Open, everted rim Open, everted rim Open, everted rim Open, everted rim Open small, everted rim Open small, everted rim Open, everted rim Open, everted rim Open, everted rim Open, everted rim Open, everted and inverted rim Open, everted and inverted rim

Elevation 5.86 6.25 6.10 5.57 6.25 6.32 5.57 6.16 5.86 5.57 6.25 5.57 6.16 6.32 5.64 5.57 5.57 6.35 5.57 6.18 5.67 5.67 5.67 5.57

Notes

Red decoration Red decoration

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

Fig. 7.15: Stratum X16. Carinated bowls, Locus 6107.

169

ESTHER YADIN

FIG. 7.15: STRATUM X16- CARINATED BOWLS, LOCUS 6107 No. Type

Reg. No.

Locus Sub-type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

52294/1 52302/1 52335/1 45513/1 52360/1 52294/2 47510/2 45513/2 52264/3 52302/3 47538/1 52372/2 47532/1 57312/1 45552/1 45538/1 52379/4 47522/1 52379/3 52302/2 52262/2

6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Goblet? Goblet? Bowl

Closed carinated A Closed carinated A Closed carinated B Closed carinated B Closed carinated B Closed carinated B Closed carinated B Closed carinated B Closed carinated B Closed carinated C, rounded Closed carinated C, rounded Closed carinated C, rounded Closed carinated C, rounded Closed carinated C, rounded Small sharp pronounced carination Sharp pronounced carination Sharp pronounced carination Deep large bowl Vot

Elevation 5.57 5.57 5.80 6.26 5.86 5.57 6.13 6.73 5.33 5.57 6.32 6.03 6.32 5.67 6.25 6.10 6.16 6.35 6.16 5.57 5.32

Notes

Red decoration

FIG. 7.16: STRATUM X16, COOKING-POTS, LOCUS 6107 No. Type

Reg. No. Locus

Sub-type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

52379/2 47535/1 52300/1 47488/1 45552/1 52300/2 47535/2 47510/1 52379/1 52372/1 52373/1 45513/1

Everted, gutter rim Everted, plain rim Everted, thickened gutter rim Holemouth, thickened gutter rim Holemouth, folded rounded rim Folded rounded rim Holemouth, folded rim Folded rounded rim Holemouth, folded rim Holemouth , folded triangular rim Holemouth, inturned folded triangular rim

170

Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Baking tray

6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107

Elevation 6.16 6.32 5.57 5.93 6.25 5.57 6.32 6.13 6.16 6.03 6.03 6.26

Notes

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

Fig. 7.16: Stratum X16. Cooking-pots, Locus 6107.

171

ESTHER YADIN

Fig. 7.17: Stratum X16. Storage jars, Locus 6107.

172

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

FIG . 7.17: STRATUM X16 - STORAGE JARS, LOCUS 6107 No. Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Sub-type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Jug Juglet Juglet Dipper jug. Stand Stand

45488/1 45546/1 45513/4 45546/2 45530/1 45557/2 47522/2 47529/1 45513/3 45538/3 47525/2 52299/2 52379/2 52379/1 47488/2 52329/1 52250/1 52293/1 52379/11 52372/1 52313/2 47485/1 52331/1 47538/2 52299/3 52373/3 47510/3 52262/3 47535/3 52387/1

6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107 6107

Storage jar, everted simple rim Storage jar, everted folded rim Storage jar, everted folded rim Large storage jar/ pithos, moulded rim Large storage jar/ pithos, moulded rim Large storage jar/ pithos, moulded rim Large storage jar/ pithos, moulded rim Large storage jar/ pithos, moulded rim Large storage jar/ pithos, moulded rim Large storage jar/ pithos, moulded rim Large storage jar/ pithos, moulded rim Large storage jar/ pithos, moulded rim Large storage jar/ pithos, moulded rim Large storage jar/ pithos, moulded rim Large storage jar/ pithos, moulded rim Large storage jar/ pithos, moulded rim Large storage jar/ pithos, moulded rim Large storage jar/ pithos, moulded rim Large storage jar/ pithos, moulded rim Large storage jar/ pithos, ridged rim Large storage jar/ pithos, moulded rom Large storage jar/ pithos, ridged rim Large storage jar/ pithos, ridged rim Large storage jar/ pithos, riled rim Simple rim

31

Stopper

52379/4

6107

Elevation Notes 6.10 6.27 6.26 6.27 6.26 6.25 6.35 6.32 6.26 6.10 6.35 5.57 6.16 6.16 5.93 5.64 5.13 5.57 6.16 6.03 5.67 5.93 5.65 6.32 5.57 6.03 6.13 5.32 6.32 6.25

Base Base, red burnished Base Baes

6.16

FIG. 7.18: STRATUM X16, LOCUS 6212 No. Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Sub-type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

52484/1 52488/3 52488/4 52517/1 52490/1 52488/1 52484/3 52488/2 52484/2 52501/2 52502/1 52494/2 52494/1 52501/1 52501/1 52488/5

6212 6212 6212 6212 6212 6212 6212 6212 6212 6212 6212 6212 6212 6212 6212 6212

Open small Open thick inverted rim Open everted rim Open large, thick everted rim Open large, thickened rim

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Stand Krater Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Lamp Stopper

Holemouth Holemouth, thickened gutter rim Holemouth, thickened gutter rim Large storage jar/pithos, moulded rim Large storage jar/pithos, ridged rim

Elevation 6.70 7.10 7.10 8.39 7.10 7.10 6.70 7.10 6.70 8.02 8.02 7.79 7.79 8.02 8.02 7.10

Notes

Incised decoration Incised decoration Incised decoration

173

ESTHER YADIN

Fig. 7.18: Stratum X16. Locus 6212.

174

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

Fig. 7.19: Stratum X16. Locus 6174.

175

ESTHER YADIN

FIG. 7.19: STRATUM X16, LOCUS 6174 AND LOCUS 6274 No. Type

Reg. No. Locus

Sub-type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

45651/1 45613/2 49651/2 45613/1 45651/4 45612/1 45613/3 45612/2 45651/3 45809/1 45824/1

Open Open, inward folded rim Open, everted rim

Bowl Bowl Bowl Goblet/stand Goblet/stand Cooking-pot Jug/storage jar Storage jar Juglet Cooking-pot Storage jar/ pithoi

6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6174 6274 6274

Elevation Notes

6.08 6.15 6.08 6.15 6.08 Open, gutter rim 6.15 6.15 Large storage jar/ pithoi, moulded rim 6.15 6.08 Wheelmade, everted rim 6.03 Handleless, moulded rim profile 6.28

FIG. 7.20: STRATUM X16 No. Type

Reg. No. Locus

Sub-type

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6

45735/1 45718/2 45729/1 45721/1 45718/1 45735/1

Large open Open, thickened rim Closed, modeled everted rim Everted, simple rim Large storage jar/pithos, Moulded rim Large storage jar/pithos, moulded rim

6.01 6.20 5.95 6.20 6.20 6.01

176

Bowl Bowl Krater Cooking-pot Storage jar Storage jar

6240 6240 6240 6240 6240 6240

Decorated, Cypriote

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

Fig. 7.21: Stratum X16. Loci 6148 and 7161.

177

ESTHER YADIN

FIG. 7.21: STRATUM X16, LOCI 6148 AND 7161 No. Type

Reg. No.

Locus Sub-type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

45597/3 45637/1 45595/1 45637/2 45597/2 45596/1 45570/1 45599/1 45597/1 45597/1 60625/4 60623/1 52391/2 60620/1 60628/2 60628/1 52391/1 60625/3 60625/1 60625/2

6148 6148 6148 6148 6148 6148 6148 6148 6148 6148 7161 7161 7161 7161 7161 7161 7161 7161 7161 7161

52391/3 60625/4

7161 7161

21 22

Bowl Goblet Goblet Goblet Krater Krater Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Storage jar Storage jar Jug/small storage jar Juglet Stopper

Large open, inward folded rim

Holemouth Holemouth Large storage jar/ pitos, moulded rim Large storage jar/ pitos, moulded rim Large storage jar/ pithoi, everted simple rim Large storage jar/ pithoi Open large, cut rim Open large Open large, everted rim Open large, everted rim Small wide open, carinated Small wide open, carinated Small wide open, carinated Large storage jar/ pitos, moulded rim Storage jar, simple thin rim Everted, folded round rim

Elevation 5.85 5.95 5.88 5.95 5.85 5.81 5.85 5.85 5.85 5.85 6.41 6.41 6.33 6.41 6.41 6.41 6.33 6.41 6.41 6.41 6.33 6.41

FIG.7.22: STRATUM X15, LOCI 6153 AND 7144 No. Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Sub-type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

52355/4 52367/2 52355/3 52367/4 52355/2 52355/1 52367/1 52367/1 60586/1 60580/1 60580/5 60580/4 60580/2 60580/3

6153 6153 6153 6153 6153 6153 6153 6153 7144 7144 7144 7144 7144 7144

Open large Open, everted rim Carinated

178

Bowl Bowl Bowl Goblet Krater Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Stopper Bowl Bowl Bowl Krater Storage jar Storage jar

Holemouth Everted , plain rim Everted , plain rim Open Open, inward folded rim Open, everted rim Holemouth, inturned thickened triangular rim Large storage jar/ pithos, moulded rim Large storage jar/ pithos, moulded rim

Elevation 5.92 6.15 5.92 6.15 5.92 5.92 6.15 6.15 6.18 6.17 6.17 6.17 6.17 6.17

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

Fig.7.22: Stratum X15. Loci 6153 and 7144.

179

ESTHER YADIN

REFERENCES Akkermans, P.M.M.G. and Schwartz, G.M. 2003. The Archaeology of Syria. From Complex Hunter-gatherers to Early Urban Societies (c. 16,000-300 BC). Cambridge. Albright, W.F. 1933. The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim IA: The Bronze Age Pottery of the Fourth Campaign. (Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 13) Chicago. pp. 155-127. Bagh, T. 2000. The Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Egypt and the Levant. A Study of So-called Levantine Painted Ware and Related Painted Pottery Styles of the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, Focusing on Chronology. (Ph. D. dissertation, The Carsten Niehbur Institute of Near Eastern Studies, University of Copenhagen) Copenhagen. Beck, P. 1975. The pottery of the Middle Bronze Age IIA at Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 2:27-84. Beck, P. 1985. The Middle Bronze Age IIA pottery from Aphek, 1972-1984. First summary. Tel Aviv 12:181-203. Beck, P. 2000. Area B: pottery. In: Kochavi, M., Beck, P. and Yadin, E., eds. Tel Aphek-Antipatris I. Excavations of Area A and B, the 1972-1976 Seasons. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 19) Tel Aviv. pp. 93-133. Beck, P. 2000. Area A: Middle Bronze IIA pottery. In: Kochavi, M., Beck, P. and Yadin, E., eds. Tel AphekAntipatris I. Excavations of Area A and B, the 1972-1976 Seasons. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 19) Tel Aviv. pp. 173-238. Bonfil, R. 1997. Middle Bronze Age to Persian period. In: Ben-Tor, A., Bonfil, R. Garfinkel, Y., Greenberg, R., Maier, A., Mazar, A. Hazor V. An Account of the Fifth Season of Excavation, 1968. Jerusalem. pp. 25-176. Bonfil, R. 2003. Pottery typology of the Middle Bronze Age II and the Late Bronze Age. In: Ben-Tor, A., Bonfil, R. and Zuckerman, S. Tel Qashish. A Village in the Jezreel Valley. (Qedem Reports 5) Jerusalem. pp. 277-318. Bunimovitz, S. and Finkelstein, I. 1993. Pottery. In: Finkelstein, I., Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z., eds. Shiloh, the Archaeology of a Biblical Site. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 10) Tel Aviv. pp. 81-196. Cole, D.P. 1984. Shechem I. The Middle Bronze IIB Pottery. Winona Lake, Indiana. Druks, A. 1982. Early tombs on Tel >Amr. >Atiqot (Hebrew Series) 8:1-5. Dunand , M. 1954. Fouilles de Byblos, 1933-1938. Tome II. Texte, partie. 1. Paris Greenberg, R., Horwitz, L.K., Lernau, O., Mienis, H.K., Halaily, H. and Marder, M. 1998. A sounding at Tel Na’ama in the Hula Valley. >Atiqot XXXV:9-35. Hamda, A. and Farid, Sh. 1947. Excavations at Kom el-Hisn, Season 1945. Les annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte 46:195-205. Heinz, M. 1992. Tel Atchana/Alalakh. Die Schichten VII-XVII. (Alter Orient und Altes Testament. Veröffentlichungen zur Kultur und Geschichte des Orients und des Alten Testaments. Band 41) Neukirchen-Vluyn. Ilan, D. 1996a. The Middle Bronze Age tomb. In: Biran, A., Ilan, D. and Greenberg, R. Dan I. A Chronicle of the Excavations, the Pottery Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age Tombs. Jerusalem. pp. 161-329. Ilan, D. 1996b. Middle Bronze Age painted pottery from Tel Dan. Levant 28:157-172. Kaplan, J. 1955. A cemetery of the Bronze Age discovered near Tel Aviv harbour. >Atiqot 1:1-12.

180

CHAPTER 7: M IDDLE BRONZE AGE POTTERY

Kempinski, A., Gershuny, L. and Scheftelowitz, N. 2002. Middle Bronze Age. In: Kempinski, A. Tel Kabri. The 1986-1993 Excavation Seasons. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 20) Tel Aviv. pp. 109-175. Kenyon, K.M. 1960. Excavations at Jericho I. London Kenyon, K.M. 1965. Excavations at Jericho II. London Kletter, R. 2006. A Middle Bronze Age II site west of Tell Qasile. >Atiqot 53:65-128. Kochavi, M. 1975. The first two seasons of excavations at Aphek-Antipatris: Preliminary report. Tel Aviv 2:17-42. Kochavi, M., Beck, P. and Gophna, R. 1979. Aphek-Antipatris, Tel-Poleg, Tel Zeror and Tel Burga. Four fortified sites of the Middle Bronze Age IIA in the Sharon Plain. Zeitschrift des Deutschen PalästinaVereins 95:121-165. Loud, G. 1948. Megiddo II. Seasons of 1935-39. (Oriental Institute Publications 62) Chicago. Macalister, R.A.S. 1912. The Excavation of Gezer. Vol. III. London. Maier, A.M. 1997. The Material Culture of the Central Jordan Valley during the Middle Bronze II Period. Pottery and Settlement Patterns. (Ph. D. dissertation, Hebrew University) Jerusalem. Mallowan, M.E.L. 1937. The excavations at Tell Chagar Bazar and an archaeological survey of the Habur region. Second campaign, 1936. Iraq 4:91-177. du Mesnil du Buisson, R. 1927. Les ruines de`el Misrifé au nord-est de Homs (Èmèse). Syria 8:13-33, 277-301. Ory, J. 1938. Excavations at Ras el >Ain II. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 6:99-120. Paley., S.M. and Porath., Y. 1997. Early Middle Bronze IIA remains at Tel el-Ifshar, Israel. A preliminary report. In: Oren, E.D., ed. The Hyksos, New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives. (University Museum Symposium Series 8; University Museum Monograph 96) Philadelphia. pp. 369-357. Panitz-Cohen, N. 2006. The pottery of Strata XII-V at Tel Batash. In: Panitz-Cohen, N. and Mazar, A. Timnah (Tel Batash) III. The Finds from the Second Millennium BCE. (Qedem 45) Jerusalem. pp. 9-150, 334-500. Saideh, R. 1993-1994. Beirut in the Bronze Age. The Kharji tombs. Berytus 41:137-210. Singer-Avitz, L. 2004. The Middle Bronze Age pottery from Areas D and P. In: Ussishkin, D. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994). Volume III. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 22) pp. 900-965. Schaeffer, C.F.A. 1938. Le fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit. Neuvième campagne (printemps 1937). Rapport sommaire. Syria 19:193-255. Schaeffer, C.F.A. 1948. Stratigraphie comparée et chronologie de l`Asie occidentale. Oxford. Thrane, H. 1978. Sukas IV. A Middle Bronze Age Collective Grave on Tell Sukas. (Publications of the Carlsberg Expedition to Phoenicia 5) Copenhagen. Tubb, J.N. 1983. The MBIIA period in Palestine. Its relationship with Syria and its origins. Levant 15:49-62. Yadin, E. 2002. The pottery. In: Bietak, M., ed. The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant. Wien. pp. 196-227. Yadin, Y. et al. 1958. Hazor I. An Account of the First Season of Excavations, 1955. Jerusalem. Yadin, Y. et al. 1959. Hazor II. An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956. Jerusalem.

181

CHAPTER 8

LATE BRONZE AND IRON AGE POTTERY Yuval Gadot

This chapter considers the pottery of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages from Tel Aphek found in Area X within its local and greater chronological and regional contexts. It presents a series of chronostratigraphic assemblages based on the stratigraphy of Area X and the results of a two tiered, comparative, typological study of the material from a number of relevant, excavated sites. Primarily, it considers the pottery from Tel Aphek within the context of its general locality, the Central Coastal Plain. The present study emphasizes the relationship between Tel Aphek and four key sites in that region that have yielded ceramic assemblages particularly useful for comparison. They are Tel Michal, Tell Qasile, Tel Gerisa1 and >Izbet êartah. In addition, when appropriate, the discussion includes sites located farther afield. For purposes of this study, the terms ‘Canaanite’ and ‘local’ are used interchangeably for the Late Bronze and Iron Ages to represent pottery with roots in Middle Bronze Age traditions and with no apparent contemporary foreign affinities. In addition, the term ‘simple’, a rather vague descriptor, has been used frequently in the literature (e.g., Killebrew 1988:83) to describe forms of rims. The term indicates a rim that is either rounded or slightly tapered and rounded, with no other special features. The typology used as the basis for the following discussion was developed by the author specifically for the study of the material from Tel Aphek. It adopts the criterion of function as the primary attribute for categorization of pots into types, with a tri-part sub-division into ‘kitchen vessels’, ‘storage vessels’, and vessels of ‘other’ types. This scheme follows Killebrew’s (1998) notion that a typology should acknowledge vessels’ functions within the contexts in which they were used. Kitchen vessels were defined according to specific types: bowls, chalices, goblets, kraters and cooking-pots. Storage vessels, including all types likely to be used as more than just temporary containers, were similarly typed and identified as juglets, jugs, pyxides, flasks, storage jars and pithoi. Additional types, not in the two above-mentioned categories include lamps, cups, saucers, scoops and pot-stands. After being defined within this primary grouping, vessels were sorted according to basic forms (Table 8.5) and then further assigned to sub-types according to more specific forms of vessels and rim shapes. The logic of each division is explained below. This chapter further includes copious references to the excavation reports of Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985) and >Izbet êartah (Finkelstein 1986) and their ceramic typologies. Tables, 8.5, 8.33 and 8.43 present comparisons between vessel types recognized at Tel Aphek and the excavator-defined types at these sites. Additional studies by Killebrew (1998; 2005) provide points of reference for the discussion below. She considers four sites of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages, representing what are assumed 1. The author wishes to thank Z. Herzog and L. Singer-Avitz (Tel Aviv University) for providing detailed information on this site.

182

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

to be three different ethnic groups, Egyptians (at Beth-Shean and Deir el-Balaú), Philistines (at Tel Miqne-Ekron) and Israelites (at Giloh). Notably, the ceramic assemblages of Strata X14-X6 appear to some extent to reflect something of this ethnic mixture. As for vessels of Aegean inspiration (Tables 8.6 and 8.34), typological schemes formerly proposed by colleagues have been maintained. Those vessels were typed in accordance with a scheme initiated by Dothan (1982) and further developed by Mazar (1985) following his excavations at Tell Qasile. Additional use was made of Killebrew’s typological study of Aegean-style pottery, part of her wider study described above. Each type is identified by a coded, descriptive acronym such as B for bowl, or CP for cooking-pot. Bowls with particularly wide apertures, ‘open bowl’, a sub-category was designated BO, while further differentiation in the typology is indicated by a number, sometimes followed by a (-) and an additional number, indicating a further subdivision of a type. Thus, Type BO1 indicates a particular type of open bowl, while Types BO1-2 and BO1-3 are two even more specific variation of Type BO1. Since Tel Aphek is a multi-layered and multi-period site, this work attempts to use criteria of unassailable bona fides for interpreting the chrono-stratigraphic profile of the site. Thus, it places emphasis on complete vessels or large fragments of vessels likely to represent the archaeological contexts from which they derive. It further endeavors to avoid, as much as possible, relying on diminutive sherds for interpretation because such objects may well have been recovered in contexts that do not reflect their ultimate chronological origin. Thus, use of information derived from the presence of mere sherds for this study was restricted to only those instances in which no nearly complete or complete vessels representing relevant types were found. Accordingly, quantitative data and a discussion of their interpretation are restricted only to those vessels defined as complete or nearly so. The extent to which they are representative of a specific moment in time, i.e., precisely a day of destruction, or abandonment of an occupation within a very short time span, may vary, dependent upon vagaries of historical occurrences and post depositional factors. Obviously, all such factors influence the nature of any archaeological assemblage (Schiffer 1983; 1985; Finkelstein, Zimhoni and Kafri 2000:245). The pottery assemblage was first divided into groups according to their likely origins and the sources which influenced their manufacture. These groups include: 1) local pottery (see above: Terminology); 2) locally manufactured pottery influenced by Egyptian styles and techniques; 3) Egyptian imports; 4) Cypriote imports and; 5) Mycenaean imports. This chapter presents and discusses only locally manufactured pottery and Cypriote imports. Mycenaean imports are the subject of Chapter 9, while ‘Egyptian-style’ vessels and imports are discussed in Chapter 10.

THE CONTEXTS OF THE TEL APHEK CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGES The Tel Aphek assemblage discussed in this chapter includes a total of 368 complete or nearly complete vessels (Fig 8.1) inclusive of Stratum X14 through Stratum X6. Most originated in three primary contexts: 1) a favissa of Stratum X14 (Locus 7225) that yielded 96 complete vessels; 2) the ruins of Palace VI (Stratum X12) in which 140 vessels were discovered; 3) a tomb (Locus 1200; Chapter 5) associated with Stratum X13 and/or Stratum X12, which yielded 41 vessels. The remaining complete vessels derive from additional contexts (see below) of lesser concentrations of pottery.

183

Y UVAL GADOT 41 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 tomb

96

34 4

28

1 12

Fig. 8.1: Distribution of complete vessels according to strata.

140

STRATUM X14

Because remains of Stratum X14 were so poorly preserved, most of the finds were recovered from sub-structures and fills where there was neither clear evidence of floors nor of occupational contexts indubitably contemporary with the lifetime of the stratum. Indeed, most loci associated with this stratum yielded finds from fills or from near drainage channels (Figs. 8.36:2-14, 8.37-8.38, 8.39:1-6), which, unfortunately, are of little use in determining the true nature of the assemblage associated with this occupation. It is uncertain whether this material from those fills was deposited coevally with the occupation, was residual, or intrusive. An exception is a favissa (Locus 7225), a pit full of an intentionally buried cache of objects, the sole secure context of Stratum X14. It yielded the greatest number and concentration of ceramic finds (Figs. 8.23-8.34) from this stratum. Another good context for Stratum X14 is Locus 7029 in Square Q21, associated with a segment of a white plaster floor sealed beneath a floor of Palace VI of Stratum X12 (Figs. 8.39:7-14, 8.40:1-10) and below a floor of Stratum X13. TABLE 8.1: SELECTED DIAGNOSTIC LOCI OF STRATUM X14 Loci

Squares

1459 (1430, 1445) G21-23 7029 Q21 7225 F26

Description

Notes

Construction fill Floor in probe under Palace VI Favissa

Representative selection of pottery types Representative pottery types Complete vessels

STRATUM X13

Nothing associated with Stratum X13 may be claimed to have been found in situ (i.e., as primary deposits where they were last used). Indeed, relatively little material could be associated with this stratum because of a number of factors. The primary reason for this was that floors of Palace V (Stratum X13) continued to be used in Palace VI (Stratum X12), and thus were obviously devoid of earlier material. Most of the material recovered above these floors was in a layer of burnt brick material, originating in the destruction of Stratum X12 and so it cannot be associated with Stratum X13. Material definitively associated with Stratum X13 was found in a building (Locus 2746) and on a floor (Locus 7010) sealed by a later floor of a hall (Locus 1721) of Palace VI. Because of the dearth of material definitively associated with Stratum X13, only a small number of sherds (see Fig. 8.40:11-8.42), those deemed to be representative of this stratum, are illustrated. Other material from fills cannot be definitively assigned to Stratum X13 because it is not possible to discern the separation between Strata X13 and X12 in places which were not sealed by floors constructed in Stratum X12 2 . Because of the 2. See Chapter 3 for details of contexts of finds from Stratum X12.

184

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

uncertain stratigraphic origin of this material, it is possible that some finds ascribed to Stratum X12 (see below) may actually have originated in Stratum X13. STRATUM X12 AND OF EITHER STRATUM X13 OR STRATUM X12.

The excavation of Stratum X12 was basically unearthing remains of Palace VI. Vessels definitely associated with Stratum X12, encountered while clearing the destruction debris above the floors of the palace, were found in three contexts: 1) above floors, 2) within destruction debris and 3) below destruction debris. Some vessels were found above floors inside two halls (Loci 1721 and 1731) and within three, smaller, square rooms (Loci 1726, 1107 and 1193). A second context is within debris found around the palace to the north, east and south (Loci 2959, 2753 and 2731 respectively, and possibly in Locus 11503). The third type of context is a large concentration of vessels including 63 pots (Locus 3827) found below a layer of burnt mudbrick debris east of Palace VI. The most probable explanation for this last concentration is that these vessels were originally assembled together in an upper storey of the building and the room in which they had been placed collapsed in a heap of debris from which they were recovered. An alternate interpretation suggests these vessels were originally cached where they were found and was later covered by debris. Other locations in this stratum which also yielded pottery include a foundation deposit (Locus 7020) and two courtyards (Loci 1130 and 1137). In additional instances, because of problems in interpreting the difficult stratigraphy of the destruction of the palace, it was impossible to determine whether vessels actually originated in Stratum X13 or in Stratum X12 (see above). In such cases the vessels were ascribed to either stratum, designated as Strata ‘X13-12’. Such contexts include vessels found in Tomb 1200 (Chapter 5), pottery associated with the winepresses (Locus 3216; Chapter 4), pottery found above a floor (Locus 1150) of the courtyard north of Palace VI (Probably built originally in Stratum X13), and a floor located below the built staircase of Palace VI (Locus 1724). STRATUM X11

Despite the number of buildings associated with Stratum X11, almost no pottery vessels or other finds were recovered in situ in them, i.e., in primary deposition where they were last used. That is interpreted as evidence for the gradual desertion of this stratum. Representative types of artefacts are presented here, mostly from contexts that include floors. However, since the material is rather fragmentary, the ascription of these objects to this stratum, and their association with its final phase, is not certain. Descriptions of relevant contexts and additional information are indicated in Table 8.2. TABLE 8.2: SELECTED DIAGNOSTIC LOCI OF STRATUM X11 Locus

Square

Description

2942 2944 2954 3631 4020 5004 5022

L22 L23 M24 K23 R25 P26 R26

Dwelling Floors not found; some finds perhaps residual related to earlier brick debris below. Piazza Beaten earth floor Piazza 2944 Floor of a building Floor of a building Floor of a building Group of objects (fishing gear) found on floor

3.

Notes

However, vessels from this locus might actually have originated in Stratum X13.

185

Y UVAL GADOT

STRATA X10 AND X94

None of the elements associated with Strata X10 and X9 (Chapter 6) produced complete or even restorable pottery vessels. However, excavation of the pits (Stratum X10) yielded many sherds, presumably of vessels thrown into them as refuse. Apart from ceramic vessels, a few additional items were also retrieved from these pits, including a scarab of Ramesses IV, a fragment of a crucible, and a fragment of an ‘Ashdoda’ figurine (Chapter 11). Two additional fragments of ‘Ashdoda’ figurines, found elsewhere on the site, can also be related to this stratum (Chapter 11). Many sherds were found on the floors of the dwelling in Stratum X9 and in the ash layers nearby. A representative selection of them was chosen for publication without any attempt at statistically analyzing them, since these sherds are in non-primary contexts and mostly reflect patterns of disposal, probably over a considerable span of time. Notable additional finds from this stratum include a group of thick metal needles, probably used to fix sacks or fishing nets, (Chapter 13) found adjacent to the dwelling, as well as a plaque inscribed with an unknown script (Chapter 16). It should be noted that the artefact assemblage from this stratum may also include residual sherds derived from earlier contexts. TABLE 8.3: SELECTED DIAGNOSTIC LOCI FROM STRATA X10 AND X9 Context

Stratum

Pits X10 Floor of House X9 Ash layer 2924 X9

Loci

Selected Finds

1146, 1700, 4018, 5027, 6139 6161, 6066, 1111, 1156, 2902, 2912, 2935, 3606, 3609, 3635, 4615, 4800, 6160, 6162

Fragments of vessels, ‘Ashdoda’ figurine Sherds Sherds, metal needles, incised tablet in unknown language

STRATA X8-X6

The pottery of these strata represents a limited period of utilization in Iron II A, during which few changes could be perceived. Accordingly, the assemblages of these strata are considered as representing a single chrono-cultural unit assigned to all three strata. Finds from Strata X8-X6 came from three types of contexts, floors of beaten earth, stone lined silos, and non-lined silos (essentially pits which contained ceramic jars for storage of grains). The vessels found on these floors are fragmentary and are illustrated in Figs. 8.84-8.85:14 (floors of Stratum X8), Figs. 8.88:5-8.89 (Floors of Strata X7-X6). Complete or large portions of vessels were found in silos, but why fragmentary vessels came to be deposited there is not completely clear, although, as Ilan (1999:115) has noted, broken vessels were sometimes thrown into disused silos. Such vessels do not necessarily represent an exact period of use of either a silo or a jar (see also Ben-Ami 2001). Exceptionally, one pit (Locus 4015) was definitively used for storage; it contained seven complete jars full of grain (Figs. 8.85:15-19, 8.86- 8.87). Finds from Stratum X8 presented in this report were found in the following loci: 3601 (a stone pavement in Square K22), 3477 (an earthen floor in Square M21), 4008 (an earthen floor, in Square Q25) and 4015, 4026 and 4622 (underground storage places in Squares R25 and J23). Finds published are from several silos, i.e., Loci 1102, 1462, 1712, 3804, 3813, 3815, 3620, 5013, 5039 and 6202 (see Table 6.3). Finds from Stratum X7 were chosen from two floors, Loci 2916 (in Square L23) and Locus 3623 (in Square K21). Locus 2905, a floor in Square Locus 22, represents Stratum X6. Some few finds were additionally chosen for publication from less well stratigraphically defined loci, which can not be ascribed with certainty to one or another of these strata. Two such loci are floors (Locus 4. The designation (Strata X10-X9) is a composite of two stratigraphic elements, both found sandwiched between Strata X11 and X8, but not superimposed. Stratum X10 is a series of pits in one precinct of the excavation, while Stratum X9 is a series of ashy layers and one building in another precinct of Area X. These strata are likely to be contemporary; each representative of a different utilization within roughly the same span of time.

186

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

2919 in Square L22, and Locus 3628 in Square L21) that could be ascribed to any stratum from X8 through X6. Others are another floor segment (Locus 3622 in Square L21) associated with either Stratum X8 or Stratum X7, and a pit (Locus 2908 in Square L24) either of Stratum X7 or of Stratum X6 (in Square L24).

REGIONAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL CONTEXTS OF THE LATE BRONZE AND IRON AGE POTTERY Following is a discussion on the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age pottery assemblages of Tel Aphek within contexts of sites contemporary in time and located within the site’s primary geographical milieu, the Central Coastal Plain. Table 8.4 indicates correlations between the stratigraphy and chronology of these sites. In addition, brief descriptions are offered of those sites. >IZBET êARTA Of the relevant sites, the closest to Tell Aphek is ‘Izbet êarta, a small rural community excavated by the Tel Aphek expedition as part of its regional study (Finkelstein 1986). The earliest settlement at the site is Stratum III, a small settlement usually associated with the early Israelites (Finkelstein 1988). Opinions differ over the absolute date of this stratum (Chapter 25). The present writer understands it to have been first settled at the time of Tel Aphek Stratum X11, and have continued to exist for some time after the demise of the latter occupation. After a hiatus in occupation of uncertain duration, the site was re-settled in Iron IB (Stratum II). Stratum I is known from a re-organization of the main house at ‘Izbet êarta and is only slightly later than Stratum II (Finkelstein 1986:13,27,44). The two final levels represent continuity in occupation and, for purposes of the present discussion, are considered as representing a single chrono-cultural horizon. TABLE 8.4: COMPARATIVE STRATIGRAPHY AND CHRONOLOGY OF SITES IN THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN5 Period LBIa LBIb LBIIA

Tel Aphek Finds X14

>Izbet êartah

Tel Gerisa 11 10 lower

Tell Qasile Tel Michal Tell Jaffa 16 VI 15 V

X13 9b LB IIB (XIXth Dynasty) X12 End X12 X11 LB II/Iron I (LBIII) =XXth Dynasty Hiatus Iron IA X10-X9 Iron IB X10-X9

III III III III

9a 8? 8

XII

7 6

XI

II-I Iron IIA

X8 X7 X6

IVb IVa

IIIb

X Winepress, sherds 5

IX

14

4 3

VII

13

5. The table is reproduced in Chapter 25, in which absolute dates for the various chrono-cultural stages are also presented. In this chapter the emphasis is placed on the relative sequence of strata at the sites discussed. The stratigraphy and chronology of Jaffa is included because of its importance for the region and the period. However, since pottery from the site has not been published, the site is omitted from the following discussion.

187

Y UVAL GADOT

TEL GERISA (TELL el-JERISHE) A second site considered is Tel Gerisa, located at the juncture of the two main rivers of the region, the Ayalon and the Yarkon. The mound, first excavated by Sukenik (1935, 1938, 1944; Geva 1982), and later by Herzog (1993; Herzog and Tsuk 1995), has nine strata (11-3) relevant to the present discussion.6 TELL QASILE Tell Qasile is located west of Tel Gerisa and was first settled by Philistine-related peoples during Iron I. Since publication of the finds associated with a series of temples at that site, (Mazar 1985), it ceramic sequence has become the key for any typological and chronological discussion of the Early Iron Age, especially for the Central Coastal Plain. Relevant are Strata XII-IX, all typified by Philistine-related bichrome pottery, (which is known to have appeared later than the end of Stratum X11 of Tel Aphek and is mostly contemporary with Tel Aphek Strata X10 and X9). TEL MICHAL Pottery from Tel Michal, a site partially contemporary with Tel Aphek (Negbi 1989; Singer-Avitz 1989) includes significant ceramic comparanda. The earliest strata at Tel Michal date to the end of the Middle Bronze Age and the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (Strata 16 and 15). After a long hiatus in occupation Tel Michal was re-settled in Iron IIA (Strata 14 and 15). TELL JAFFA (TEL YAFO) Tell Jaffa is known to have been settled in the same periods (Kaplan and Ritter-Kaplan 1993) but unfortunately the finds from the site have not yet been published and therefore can not be taken into consideration in the present discussion.

THE TEL APHEK LATE BRONZE AND IRON AGES CERAMIC TYPOLOGY As noted above, the ceramic typology for Late Bronze and Iron Age Tel Aphek in Area X stresses the function of vessels. These are drawn here on the standard scale used in this report. Accordingly, three major categories were observed in the assemblages from relevant strata. The discussion is organized around those categories. CATEGORY I: VESSELS FOR COOKING, SERVING AND CONSUMPTION OF FOOD

To this category are assigned various vessel types including cooking-pots, bowls, kraters, chalices and goblets. As indicated above, vessels in this category are distinguished by traditions from which they ultimately derive (e.g., local or Canaanite and Aegean--mostly Mycenaean). Excluded from this discussion are vessels associated with an Egyptian tradition, discussed separately in Chapter 10. Imported Cypriote bowls were also not included in this category, since they seem not to have been used as kitchen ware. These last are understood to have fulfilled a different function at Tel Aphek and are discussed below, separately.

BOWLS OF CANAANITE (LOCAL) TRADITION These bowls were perceived to be of three main types in accordance with their morphology: 1) open bowls (BO); 2) hemispherical bowls (BH); 3) and carinated bowls (BC). A further division into sub6.

The author wishes to thank the excavators of Tel Gerisa for allowing him to study its unpublished material and to cite their stratigraphic scheme.

188

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

types was done in accordance with rim shapes. A fourth, Type Bimi, includes bowls that imitate foreign imports in their morphology. Bases and techniques or styles of decoration, which vary within types, were not used for formal divisions, but are noted in the text. TABLE 8.5: KITCHEN-RELATED POTTERY TYPES OF CANAANITE TRADITION IN THREE TYPOLOGICAL SYSTEMS Type BO1 BO2 BO3 BH1a BH1b BH2 BH3 BH4 BH5 BH6 BH7 BH8 BH9 BC1 BC2 BC3 BC4a BC4b Bimi1 Bimi2 CH1 CH2 G1 KR1 KR2 KR3 CP1a CP1b CP1c CP1d Cp1e

Killebrew 1998 CA3 CA1 CA2 CA6 CA4 CA7 CA7 CA14a CA14b CA12 CA10 CA18a CA19a CA19b -

CP1f CP1g

CA20

Mazar 1985 Finkelstein 1986 F1 BL1 F5 BL1 F8 BL4 BL7 BL6 BL3 BL5 Fig 11: 2,5 BL8 F3 BL8 F6 CH1 CH2 F10 + F2 KR4 R9 F11 CP1a F12 CP1b F13 Most of F14 CP1c Unspecified F15 Unspecified F16

Description Open bowl with simple rim Open bowl with everted rim Open bowl with thickened, inverted rim Rounded bowl with simple rim Rounded bowl with simple rim, slipped/burnished Rounded deep bowl Rounded bowl with thickened rim Rounded bowl with thickened, everted rim Rounded bowl with slightly inverted simple rim, omphalos base Small rounded bowl (probably votive) Rounded bowl with grooved rim Rounded bowl with slightly inverted, wide rim. Bowl-krater Sharply carinated bowl with extended rim Vestigial carinated bowl with simple rim Large slightly carinated bowl with S-shaped profile Small slightly carinated bowl with S-Shaped profile Small slightly carinated bowl (S-Shaped profile) slipped, burnished Bowl-imitation of Cypriote ‘milk bowl’ Bowl-imitation of Mycenaean bowl with loop handle Chalice with overhanging, drooping, simple rim Chalice, S-shaped profile Goblet with high ring base Carinated krater, upper part incurving, beveled, thickened rim Carinated krater (variety of rims and of different proportions) Krater, sometimes slipped and burnished, ‘hammer’ rim S-Shaped to carinated cooking-pot, thickened, everted rim S-Shaped to carinated cooking-pot, thickened, triangular rim S-Shaped to carinated cooking-pot, thickened, triangular, vertical rim S-Shaped to carinated cooking-pot, inverted, thin, triangular rim S-Shaped to carinated cooking-pot, simple, thickened rim S-Shaped to carinated cooking-pot, with simple rim, horizontal ridge S-Shaped to carinated cooking-pot, with thickened rim with horizontal ridge

TABLE 8.6: KITCHEN-RELATED POTTERY TYPES OF AEGEAN INSPIRATION Type

Description

Killebrew 1998

Dothan 1982/Mazar 1982

AB1 AB2 AKR1 ACP1

Bell-shaped bowl Lekane- Deep bowl with handles Bell-shaped krater Cooking-pot

AS4 AS6 AS5 AS10

Type 1 Type 2 -

OPEN BOWLS A number of sub-types are found within this generally defined group. As they differ in their overall morphology, they are discussed separately below. 189

Y UVAL GADOT

Type BO1 (Fig. 8.2:1-3) Description: This is an open type bowl more than 18.0 cm in diameter, with a simple rim. The wide angle of the juncture of its wall with its base gives this type its open form. The degree of this angle can vary significantly. Most examples have ring bases, but some have concave or flat disc bases, while others have completely flat bases. Most bowls of this type lack decoration or any surface special treatment, but one exceptional example is painted with red spirals. Fifty three bowls of this type (e.g., Fig. 8.23) were found, most in a favissa (Locus 7255) of Stratum X14. Seven additional examples were discovered under the ruins of Palace VI (Stratum X12, e.g., Figs. 8.58:9, 8.60:11), while two more were found in Tomb 1200 (Fig. 8.43:13-14). Bowls of this type from Stratum X14 are larger and have wider openings than those from Stratum X12 (e.g., Fig. 8.58:9). A similar development over time, from larger to smaller bowls, is known in comparable assemblages from other sites.

BO 1

3 2

1

X12

X13-X12

X14

BO 2

4

5

X14

X13-X12

BO 3

6

X14

7

Fig. 8.2: Open bowls.

190

8

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Only a few such bowls are known at Tel Michal in Strata 16 and 15, some of which are decorated with painted horizontal bands (Negbi 1989: Fig. 5.8.1, 5.5.6). Bowls of this type were also found at Tel Gerisa Stratum 11. All these last deposits, except Tel Aphek Stratum X12, which is later, date to the early years of the Late Bronze Age. General Distribution: This type of bowl is typical of Canaan from the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, and is commonly encountered in contexts dating to the end of the Late Bronze Age (Amiran 1969: Pls. 26,38). Such bowls were popular throughout the region and were especially common in the first stage of the Late Bronze Age. Towards the end of this period diameters of bowls of this type were significantly smaller. Bowls of this type are completely lacking in transitional contexts (e.g., Tell Keisan Stratum 11, Megiddo Stratum VI and Lachish Stratum VI) that date between the end of the Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age. The sole exception where this group of bowls has been found to date to this time span is at Gezer Stratum 13 (Dever 1986:81). TABLE 8.7: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE BO1 BOWLS BEYOND THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN7 Site Shephelah Miqne/Ekron Gezer

Context

Reference

X 16-13 and Tomb I.10A

Killebrew 1996: Pl. 1:2 Dever, Lance and Wright 1970: Pl. 29:21-22; Dever 1986: Pls. 10:1, 14:2,4, 22:19, 26:5-7; Seger and Lance 1988: Pls. 13:3, 18:2 Harasim Inbar 1992: Fig. 10:1,8-9 Batash X-VIIA Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pls. 9:13, 16:1,2, 21:4, 37:1-3, 38:1-4, 52:1. Beit Mirsim C Albright 1932: Pl. 47:5-6. Safi/Gath E4 Gadot and Uziel, Forthcoming: Type BL 2.5 Lachish LB I, Phases S3-S1, VII Tufnell 1958: Class G; Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Plate XXXVII; and Fosse Temple I-III Singer-Avitz 2004: Fig. 18.4:1 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod IXX-XIV Dothan 1971: Fig. 32:1-7, 35:15, 81:3; Dothan & Porath 1993: Figs. 6:1,4, 8:1-3 Zippor IX-VIII Yannai 2000b: Fig. 6:2 Northern Sharon Plain Mevorakh XI-X Guz-Zilberstein 1984: Figs. 1:1-9, 5:1-16 Jatt Tomb Yannai 2000a: Fig. 1:1-15 Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Abu Hawam V Balensi 1980: Pl. 68-71; Hamilton 1935: Nos. 219-220,224,264-5, 289-90,294 Megiddo X-VIIb Ilan, Hallote and Klein 2000: Figs. 9.1, 9.10:23; Finkelstein and Zimhoni 2000: Figs. 10.4:4, 10.12:4; Gadot, Yasur-Landau and Ilan 2006: Figs. 12.1:4, 12.2:2-4,9 Beth-Shean VIII-VII, Tombs James and McGovern 1993: Fig. 12:10-11; Oren 1973: Types A-E Central Highlands Shiloh VI Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.30 Bethel LB Phase 1 Kelso 1968: Pl. 52:8 Gibeon Tombs 10A and 10B Pritchard 1963: Figs. 7:2, 9:6

Type BO2 (Fig 8.2:4-5) Description: Most of the features of this bowl type are similar to Type BO1 described above, but these bowls have thickened, everted rims. The type has a wide opening usually more than 20.0 cm in 7.

Comparanda are listed by in a geographical arrangement by region, first identifying the site and then its specific context.

191

Y UVAL GADOT

diameter. Three bowls of this type were found in an installation (Locus 7255) of Stratum X14, two have ring bases, while the third has a concave, disc base (Fig. 8.29:1-2). Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: A relatively large corpus of bowls was discovered at Tel Michal in Strata 16 and 15. Some were decorated with concentric circles in black and red (Negbi 1989: Fig. 5.5:2,4,6). The bases of these bowls were not recovered, and it is possible that these are fragments of chalices and not of bowls. General Distribution: Table 8.8 presents the known examples of Type BO2 bowls beyond the Central Coastal Plain. While their distribution seems to cover all of the area studied, it is noteworthy to state that bowls of this type where not found in sites such as Jatt and Tel Mevorakh in the northern Sharon Plain. With those notable exceptions, neither spatial nor chronological differences in the distribution of Types BO1 and BO2 bowls could be discerned. It appears that Type BO2 is a minor variant of Type BO1; differences between them are only in the shapes of their rims. TABLE 8.8: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE BO2 BOWLS BEYOND THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Context Reference Shephelah Miqne/Ekron X Killebrew 1996: Pl. 2:2 Gezer XIII Dever et al. 1974: Pl. 27:4 Harasim 5 Inbar 1992: Fig. 10:5 Batash VIII Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pl. 34:1 Lachish VIII-VI Tufnell 1958: Class J; Yannai 2004: Figs. 19.36:2-3, 19.41:1-6. Safi/Gath E4a-b Gadot and Uziel, Forthcoming: Type BL 2.1 Yarmuth VI Jasmin 1999: Pl. 71:2, 4 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod XVII Dothan 1971: Fig. 32:8 Mor VI-V Barako 2007: Fig. 3.8:9 IX-VII Killebrew 1998: Figs. II:38:19-24, II.42:13-16 Deir el-Balaú Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Beth-Shean VII, Tombs James 1966: Fig. 31:19; Oren 1973: Fig. 27:17 Tombs Pritchard 1980: Type 2 Tell es-Sa>idiyeh Central Highlands Gibeon Tomb 10A Shiloh VI

Pritchard 1963: Fig. 7:6 Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.32:1

Type BO3 (Fig 8.2:6-8) Description: This is an open type bowl, also similar in form to Type BO1, but with a thickened, inner rim. Bases of these bowls are usually flat or concave discs, though some have ring bases. There are no known examples with special surface finish or decoration. Two bowls of Type BO3 were discovered in Locus 7225 of Stratum X14 (Fig. 8.29:3), while fragments of only two more were retrieved from Stratum X13 (e.g., Fig. 8.42:14). However, the type became more common in Stratum X12, (e.g., Fig. 8.49:1-2) as evidenced by nine complete examples of them recovered. Another complete example (Fig. 8.67:1), and many fragments of additional bowls of this type, were recovered from Stratum X11. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: This type was popular at Tel Gerisa, mainly in Strata 9A-B. At >Izbet êartah this bowl type is typical to Stratum III; afterwards (Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 11:15-16) it is not found in the ceramic repertoire of the site. It is interesting that this type is completely lacking at two nearby sites, Tel Michal Strata 16 and 15, and Tell Qasile Stratum 12, a fact that may denote the chronological range of these bowls. 192

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

General Distribution: Most bowls of this type appear at sites in the southern region; only a few have been found at more northerly sites. Albright (1932:39) early on noted these bowls were very common at Tell Beit Mirsim in Stratum C, but that they were not found in the following occupation, Stratum B. Killebrew (1998:82) stressed these bowls were lacking in assemblages in which Philistine Monochrome pottery made its first appearance, such as Tel Miqne-Ekron Stratum 7 and Tel Ashdod Stratum 13. However, these bowls were abundant in the assemblages of Tel Aphek Stratum X11, >Izbet êartah Stratum III, and Tel Lachish Stratum VI. This information may be important in regard to a debate concerning the first appearance of Philistine related Monochrome pottery (Ussishkin 1985; Finkelstein 1995; Bunimovitz and Faust 2001). According to Ussishkin (1985) the lack of Philistine Monochrome pottery in Stratum VI at Tel Lachish proves the Philistines must have settled in the Coastal Plain only after the destruction of that stratum. Others have rejected his conclusion and insist on dating the earliest Philistine settlements at Tel Miqne-Ekron and Tel Ashdod, typified by Monochrome pottery, to the time of Tel Lachish VI. The presence of bowls of Type BO3 may shed some light on one aspect of this debate. A comparison of local, Canaanite pottery found in the same chronological context as Philistine Monochrome pottery at Tel Miqne-Ekron and Tel Ashdod, with local types found at Tel Lachish Stratum VI and other contemporary settlements that do not have Philistine Monochrome, may indicate some degree of contemporaneousness. If indeed bowls of Type BO3 went out of circulation at the time when Monochrome pottery just began to appear, it may be stated that Late Bronze Age contexts that have yielded this type of bowl, are to be dated earlier than those that have yielded Philistine Monochrome pottery. The validity of this hypothesis remains, however, to be further tested, although as noted above, there appears to be some evidence to support it (Killebrew 1998:82). TABLE 8.9: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE BO3 BOWLS BEYOND THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Shephelah Miqne/Ekron Gezer Harasim Batash

Context

Reference

IX-VIII, absent in VII XV-XIII 5 IX-VI

Killebrew 1998:82, Pls. III.II: 4:9, 9:4 Dever et al. 1974: Pls. 23:8, 24:24, 26-7, 26:13-14, 23 Feldstein 1991: Fig. 1:3 Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pls. 16:10-11, 27:2-10, 38:7,9, 55:3-6, 58:8,10. Safi/Gath E4a-b Gadot and Uziel, Forthcoming: Type BL 2.3 Lachish VIII-VI and Fosse Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pl. 38:43; Tufnell 1958: Pl. 70:593; Temple III-I and LB I Singer-Avits 2004: Figs. 18.1:1-2, 18.2:2; Yannai 2004: Fig. 19.42: Phase-Area P 8,11 Beit Mirsim C-B1 Albright 1932: Pl. 21:12-18; Greenberg 1987: Figs. 4:5, 5:12 Yarmuth VI-V Jasmin 1999: Pls. 70:1, 73:3, 76:2 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod XVIII-XVI Dothan and Porath 1993: Figs. 7:1, 8:6, 9:9 Mor VI-V Barako 2007: Fig. 3.8:13 Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo IX-VIII Loud 1948: Pl. 45:3, Ilan Hallote and Klein 2000: Fig. 9.10:18 Central Highlands Gibeon Tomb 10B Pritchard 1963: Fig. 9:11,13 Shiloh VI Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.31:26 Bethel LB Phase 1 Kelso 1968: Pl. 52:6,15,20

193

Y UVAL GADOT

H EMISPHERICAL BOWLS Type BH1 (Fig. 8.3:1, 2) Description: This bowl type is hemispherical and has a simple rim. Examples have ring or concave disc bases. Depths and circumferences of these bowls vary, but the general tendency over time is for bowls of this type to be made in smaller sizes. Two subtypes appear to have chronological associations, with Sub-type BH1b, the later. Sub-type BH1a lacks slip and burnishing, while Type BH1b is slipped and may or may not be burnished. Of 19 complete bowls of Type BH1a at Tel Aphek, all but one were discovered in Stratum X12. The exception is a bowl from a pit (Locus 5027, Fig. 8.74:11) of Stratum X10. Sub-type BH1b at Tel Aphek is represented by only relatively small sherds. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: This type is very common at Tell Qasile in Strata XII and XI, but examples continue to appear in Strata X and IX, though not in the same frequency (Finkelstein 1986: Table 3.5). A few bowls of this type from Tell Qasile have bar handles (Mazar 1985:37 Type 1c) or ledge handles (Mazar 1985:36, Type 1b). Such bowls are decorated with circles of black and red paint internally and on their rims. A complete example of this type was found at Tell Qasile Stratum X. At >Izbet êartah such bowls were common mainly in Stratum III, but fragments of them were found in later contexts. Notably, there are no complete comparable vessels from Tel Michal and Tel Gerisa. Bowls of Sub-type BH1b were typical to Strata II and I at >Izbet êartah, and Strata XI-IX at Tell Qasile. At the last site the type appears with horizontal handles; a few examples are decorated in black and red. General Distribution: Detailed examination of the spatial and chronological distribution of this type has shown that it is extremely common in different regions of the study region, and in contexts that range from LB II to Iron II A (Mazar 1985:33-38; Finkelstein 1986:54-56; Killebrew 1998:83). As noted by Mazar (1985:33-38) and Finkelstein (1986:54-56), certain attributes of these bowls appear to have limited chronological significance. Although slipped and hand-burnished examples are more typical of early Iron Age contexts, and are later than bowls that lack any special surface finish, there is some chronological overlap of the sub-types, such that individual examples cannot be relegated to one or the other period. Type BH2 (Fig. 8.3:3) Description: This is a deep (on average 7.0 cm in depth) type of bowl with curving sides and relatively wide (ca 16.0 cm in diameter) aperture. The type is similar to Type BH1, but is a more open form. Most rims on this type are simple, but one also finds examples with thickened, inverted rims, and external grooves below their rims (e.g., Fig. 8.31:2). The type has ring or concave disc bases. These bowls lack any form of decoration. Seventeen examples of this type have been found at Tel Aphek, all in the favissa (Locus 7225) of Stratum X14. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Two bowls with similar features were found at Tell Qasile in Strata XII-XI (Mazar 1985:38, Type BL4). General Distribution: Bowls of Type BH2 are lacking not only at sites located in the Central Coastal Plain, but at other neighboring sites such as Tel Gezer and Tel Ashdod to the south or Jatt and Tel Mevorakh to the north. Most comparanda for these bowls (Table 8.10) are derived from contexts dating to LB I-II, at sites located to the south of Tel Aphek, with Tel Shiloh and Tel Beth-Shean as notable exceptions.

194

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

BH1b

BH1a

BH2

2

1

X12

X10-X9

3

X12

BH3

4

BH4b

BH4a

5

X10-X9

6

X10-X9

BH7

BH6

BH5

X10-X9

7

9

X12

X8

8

X12

BH9

BH8

11

10

X10-X9

X10-X9

Fig. 8.3: Hemispherical bowls.

195

Y UVAL GADOT

TABLE 8.10: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE BH2 BOWLS BEYOND THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Shephelah Miqne/Ekron Batash Lachish

Context

Reference

X Killebrew 1996: Pl. 2:6 VIII Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Figs. 21:1, 27:1 Fosse Temple II, VIIA Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pls. 37:23-3, 38:38, 42:137; Yannai 2004: Fig. 18.37:6 Beit Mirsim C Albright 1932: Pl. 47:3-4; 1933: Pl. 16:4 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Mor XI-IX Barako 2007: Fig. 3.6:4 Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Beth-Shean VII James and McGovern 1993: Fig. 8:1 Central Highland Gibeon Tomb 10B Pritchard 1963: Fig. 9:4-5 Shiloh VI Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.33:13

Type BH3 (Fig. 8.3:4) Description: This is a deep type bowl with curving sides and thickened rim. Since there are no complete examples from Tel Aphek, it is not possible to precisely define this type for this typology. Some examples are red-slipped and burnished. Fragments of these bowls have been found only in pits of Stratum X10 (Figs. 8.72:4, 8.73:4). Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Seven examples of this type are known from Tell Qasile Strata X-VIII (Mazar 1985:39, Type BL7). General Distribution: This type is rare, and the few examples at sites beyond the Shephela and the Coastal Plain (Table 8.11) that have been identified, date to the end of Iron I B and to Iron II. TABLE 8.11: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE BH3 BOWLS BEYOND THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Context Reference Shephelah Gezer XI Dever et al. 1974: Pl. 30:12 Batash IV-III Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Type BL28 Lachish V Zimhoni 1997: Fig. 3.13:5 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod XI-X Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 43:9 Northern Sharon Plain Mevorakh VII Stern 1978: Fig. 12:26 Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo VIIA and VIA Loud 1948: Figs. 65:11, 78:19

Type BH4 (Fig. 8.3:5-6) Description: This type includes rounded bowls with thickened and everted rims. Complete examples are lacking in the assemblage recovered from Tel Aphek, and hence some features of the type are unclear. Identified examples are red-slipped and hand-burnished. At Tel Aphek only a few fragments were found in Strata X10 and X9. 196

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Four bowls of this type were found at Tell Qasile, two in Stratum X11, and two in Stratum X (Mazar 1985:39, Type BL6). All but one were red-burnished. Some fragments of this type were discovered at >Izbet êartah in Strata II-I. These last are probably included in examples of Finkelstein’s (1986: Figs. 22:16, 19, 20:4) Types F5 and F8. General Distribution: Only a few examples were identified in Iron IB contexts (Table 8.12). TABLE 8.12: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE BH4 BOWLS BEYOND THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Context Reference Shephelah Batash V Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pls. 67:14, 78:2 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod XI-X Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 43:8 Northern Sharon Plain Mevorakh VII Stern 1978: Fig. 12:25 Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo VIIA and post VIIA Loud 1948: Fig. 65:7; Finkelstein and Zimhoni 2000: Fig. 10.2:12

Type BH5 (Fig. 8.3:7) Description: This type has curving sides, a concave, rounded, omphalos base, and slightly inverted rim. The general morphology of the type seems to imitate that of Cypriote milk bowls. Type BH5 is different from Type BH1 only in the form of its base (omphalos as apposed to ring, disc or concave), making it possible to identify only when diagnostic portions of their profiles are preserved. Two bowls of this type were found at Tel Aphek Stratum X12. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Bowls of this type were found at Tell Qasile Strata XII-X (Mazar 1985:7, Type BL2). Four bowls were discovered on the floor of Temple 200 of Stratum XI, while three, red-slipped and burnished examples originated in Stratum X. All these bowls from Tell Qasile are red-slipped; four have horizontal or bar handles and are decorated with black painted, concentric spirals and circles. General Distribution: Bowls similar to Type BH5 have been recovered from several contexts dated to the latter part of the Late Bronze Age (Table 8.12). It seems that this type was the precursor of later Iron Age types, such as those cited above from Tell Qasile. TABLE 8.13: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE BH5 BOWLS BEYOND THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Shephela Gezer Yarmuth Dor Ashdod

Context

Reference

XV III Iron IIA XV-XVI8

Dever 1986: Pl. 14:12 Jasmin 1999: Pl. 87:17 Gilboa 2001: Pl. 5.70:3 Dothan and Freedman 1967: Fig. 22:5

Type BH6 (Fig. 8.3:8) Description: These are small bowls with everted rims and flat bases. Two examples from Tel Aphek were found on the floor of a room (Locus 1193) of Stratum X12 (Fig. 8.58:1-2). They are decorated, one has an internally painted red cross and a red painted rim; the other has only a red-painted rim. Another small, undecorated example was discovered in a hall (Locus 1721) of Palace VI. Its form is more open than that of the other two examples. 8. Yannai (1996:312) has shown convincingly that Stratum B1 does not exist. Remains attributed to it are actually contemporaneous with Strata B2 and B3.

197

Y UVAL GADOT

Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain and Beyond: Undecorated bowls of similar form are known from Late Bronze Age strata at Tel Ashdod (Dothan and Freedman 1967: Fig. 25:3, 5) and Tel Mor (Barako 2007: Fig. 3.5). Examples of small bowls are known from Tell Qasile Strata XII and X, where they were found on floors of temples. The bowls from Tell Qasile are either hemispherical or carinated variations. They lack decoration and have flat, rope-cut bases (Mazar 1985:38, Type BL6 and BL10). Mazar has suggested these bowls were used for bearing gifts to the temples. Type BH7 (Fig. 8.3:9) Description: These bowls have curving sides and grooved rims. Fragments of the type have been found in Stratum X8, but since no complete example has been discovered, the type’s overall features remain somewhat unclear. Examples discovered are red-slipped and hand-burnished. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Two fragments of this type were discovered at Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985:38, Type BL5). Similar rims are also known from Tel Michal Stratum XIV (SingerAvitz 1989: Fig. 7.1.3), but notably the type is absent in the recovered assemblage of >Izbet êartah. General Distribution: This type was popular in Iron II A, especially at sites of the Southern Coastal Plain and the Shephelah. According to Mazar and Panitz-Cohen (2001:37), a proliferation of grooves on external sides of the rims of some examples is a chronological hallmark of the period. In later phases of the Iron Age the number of grooves gradually diminishes (Mazar 1985: note 28; Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001:37). TABLE 8.14: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE BH7 BOWLS BEYOND THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Context Shephelah Gezer VI Batash IV Lachish V-IV Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod Xa Northern Sharon Plain Mevorakh VII Dor Iron IB

Reference Dever, Lance and Wright 1970: Pl. 34:13 Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 37 Zimhoni 1997: Types B4-B5 Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 45:9 Stern 1978: Fig. 12:24 Gilboa 2001: Pl. 5.29:10

Type BH8 (Fig. 8.3:10) Description: This is less of a type than a selection of bowls which share a single feature, an unusually wide, inverted rim. All examples were all found in a pit (Locus 5027) of Stratum X10. These bowls are decorated with horizontal bands of red paint. Bases are missing from all recovered examples and so complete forms of these bowls remain obscure. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain and Beyond: This type appears to be the same as Killebrew’s (1998:86, cf. Wood 1985:376, Pl. 7) Type CA6. As comparanda indicate (Table 8.15), these bowls made their appearance in LB IIA (e.g., in a tomb at Gibeon) and continued to be made in Iron IB.

198

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

TABLE 8.15: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE BH8 BOWLS BEYOND THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Location Shephelah Miqne/Ekron X Gezer XIII Lachish VI Beit Mirsim B2 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod XV Zippor VI Northern Sharon Plain Dor Iron IIA Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo VIIA and VIA Keisan Central Highlands Gibeon Tomb 10B Shiloh V Giloh Late Bronze- Iron Age I Bethel Iron Age I

Reference Killebrew 1996: Pl. 2:11 Dever, Lance and Wright 1970: Pl. 28:5; Dever 1986: Pl. 29:4 Yannai 2004: Fig. 19.42:12 Greenberg 1987: Fig. 9:12 Dothan and Freedman 1967: Fig. 19:1; Dothan 1971: Fig. 81:4; Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 11:14 Yannai 1996: Fig. 4:9 Gilboa 2001: Pl. 5.77:7 Loud 1948: Fig. 78:2; Arie 2006: Fig. 13.66:2. Briend and Humbert 1980: Pl. 66:9 Pritchard 1963: Fig. 10:26,30 Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.46:1 Mazar 1990: Fig. 6:1 Kelso 1968: Pl. 60:16

Type BH9 (Fig. 8.3:11) Description: This type is a large, carinated, krater-like bowl, known only from fragments found in Stratum X10 and X9 at Tel Aphek. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: A large, red-slipped example of this type was discovered at >Izbet êartah in Strata II (Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 15:1). A bowl of similar size and shape with a flat base was excavated at Tel Gerisa. General Distribution: This type of bowl is found at sites throughout the entire Coastal Plain, in contexts dated to Iron I. TABLE 8.16: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE BH9 BOWLS BEYOND THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Context Reference Shephelah Gezer XII-XI Dever 1986: Pl. 41:20-21 Harasim V Inbar 1992: Fig. 15:12 Batash V Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Pl. 79:2 Lachish VI Yannai 2004: Fig. 19.42:13 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod XV-XIV Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 11:15-16 Northern Sharon Plain Mevorakh VII Stern 1978: Fig. 12:27 Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo VIA Arie 2006: Figs. 13.66:4, 13.69:1 Central Highlands Shiloh V Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.57:2

199

Y UVAL GADOT

CARINATED BOWLS The angle of carination was chosen as a factor for determining the typology of carinated bowls from Late Bronze Age Tel Aphek. Most early examples of this type exhibit a slight carination, while only few are sharply carinated. In bowls found in later strata, only rims are carinated. Notably, bowls with carination in the upper third of their bodies (a generic morphological trait leads them to resemble some examples of ‘Chocolate on White Ware’ bowls; e.g., Amiran 1969: Pl. 49:1-4), were not found at Tel Aphek. Bowls of that type, one example of which was found at Tel Michal (Negbi 1989: Fig. 5.5:11), are typical of LB IIA. Type BC1 (Fig. 8.4:1) Description: Bowls of this type have a sharp carination, a slightly everted rim and ring base. Two examples were found in Stratum X14 at Tel Aphek. The bowls lack evidence of specialized surface treatment, such as slipping and/or burnishing. Bowl No. B60507/1 is somewhat exceptional in form (Locus 7225, Fig. 8.31:8). Its sharp carination gives it a squat appearance. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Bowls of this type were discovered at Tel Gerisa in Stratum 11 and at Tel Michal in Strata 16 and 15 (Negbi 1989: Fig. 5.5:9), where they date to early in the Late Bronze Age. General Distribution: These sharply carinated bowls are typical of the later Middle Bronze Age, but quite a few examples derive from contexts dating to the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (Amiran 1969: Pl. 39:1-3, Table 8.17). Manufacture of this type ceased sometime during LB IIA. TABLE 8.17: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE BC1 BOWLS BEYOND THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Context Reference Shephelah Harasim 6c Inbar 1993: Fig. 14:1 Batash X-IX Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pls. 10:3-4, 20:13-14 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod IXX Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 6:2 Northern Sharon Plain Mevorakh XI and X Guz-Zilberstein 1984: Figs. 1:13-14, 5:19-20 Jatt Tomb Yannai 2000a: Fig. 2:16-20 Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo VIII Loud 1948: Fig. 61:5, 8

Type BC2 (Fig. 8.4:2-4 ) Description: This is a type of bowl with slight carination and simple rim. This type actually continues a Middle Bronze Age tradition of carinated bowls but in the Late Bronze Age the carination has become less pronounced and sometimes even hardly exists. Most examples have concave disc bases. Six complete bowls of Type BC2 were discovered in Stratum X14 at Tel Aphek, but only fragments of the type (Fig. 8.40:16) were found in the succeeding Stratum X13 occupation, suggesting they may have originated in earlier levels. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Bowls of this type were found in fills of Strata 16 and 15 at Tel Michal (Negbi 1989: Fig. 5.5:10). Since such fills may also have contained pottery which

200

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

originated in MB strata, an exact dating of them at that site is impossible. No such bowls have been recognized in the Late Bronze Age strata of Tel Gerisa. General Distribution: This type appears to be the same as Killebrew’s (1998:84) Type BC4 (cf. Wood 1985:376). In a preliminary publication of the Tel Aphek Stratum X12 assemblage, Beck and Kochavi (1985:33) dedicated considerable discussion to the date and geographic distribution of these bowls. They appear in the last Late Bronze Age stratum at Tel Hazor, as well as in Tel Aphek Stratum X14, but not at Tel Aphek Stratum X12, suggesting production of the type ceased during the early 13th century BCE. This was one of the points that brought Beck and Kochavi to the conclusion that the final destruction of Late Bronze Age Hazor preceded the construction of Tel Aphek X12, and should be dated to the early 13th century BCE (Beck and Kochavi 1985:38). Comparanda noted below (Table 8.18), including information published after Beck and Kochavi’s work, strengthen their suggestion. The only site where such carinated bowls were found in contexts dated to the end of the Late Bronze Age is Tel Gezer (Wood 1985: Fig. 5:2, and more references below). However, the Tel Gezer material consists mainly of fragments, not complete vessels and their stratigraphic contexts are not secure. Notably, the bowls from Tel Gezer Area VI local Level 7 (General Stratum XIV) were found in trenches (Loci 24098 and 26086). The complete bowl found in Stratum 6c/b is part of a foundation deposit and therefore dates earlier then the architecture of the stratum to which it was assigned. TABLE 8.18: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE BC2 BOWLS BEYOND THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Shephelah Miqne/Ekron Gezer

Context

Reference

IX XVI-XIII

Killebrew 1996: Pl. 5:1 Dever, Lance and Wright 1970: Pls. 29:3, 23; Dever 1986: Pls. 14:11, 15:7, 22:13 Harasim V Feldstein 1991: Pl. 6:3,5 Batash X-VII Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pls. 10:3,9, 38:15-16 Lachish Fosse Temple II-III, P2 Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pl. 41:101-105,112-115; Clamer 2004: Fig. 20.15:17 Safi/Gath E4b Gadot and Uziel, Forthcoming: BL 3. Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod XVIII-XVII Dothan and Porath 1993: Figs. 7:3, 8:4 Zippor VI Yannai 2000b: Fig. 4:14 Mor XI-IX Barako 2007 Northern Sharon Plain Jatt Tomb Yannai 2000a: Figs 2:24-30, 9:101 Mevorakh XI and X Guz-Zilberstein 1984: Figs. 1:11, 5:17-18 Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo VIIB Loud 1948: Fig. 65:14-15 Central Highlands Shiloh VI Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.32:1-12 Gibeon Tomb 10A and 10B Pritchard 1963: Figs. 7:7, 10:36 Bethel Late Bronze phases 1-2 Kelso 1968: Pls. 52:9, 53:20

201

Y UVAL GADOT

BC 1

1

X14

BC 2

3

2

4

X13

X14

X14

BC 3

5

X13-X12

6

X12

7

8

X12 Fig. 8.4: Carinated bowls.

202

X12

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Type BC3 (Fig. 8.4:5-8) Description: This type is a large slightly carinated bowl with an S-shaped profile. Whereas the carination of the two former types (BC1 and BC2) was located on the lower part of the bowl, on this type it is located just below the rim. These bowls have low ring or f lat bases. Four intact examples of this type were found at Tel Aphek, two in Tomb 1200 and two in Palace VI. One of the last is painted red internally (Fig. 8.53:6) in a similar fashion known from most examples originating from other sites where the internal red-painted decoration is divided into segments. Some examples are decorated in paint with the well known ‘palm tree and ibex’ motif. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: One undecorated example was discovered at Tel Gerisa, on the f loor of a room of Stratum 9b. A few fragments of decorated bowls were retrieved from loci of Stratum 9A at the same site. Bowls of this type appear neither in Late Bronze Age contexts at Tel Michal nor at >Izbet êartah Stratum III. General Distribution: These bowls continue a tradition of carinated bowls (Amiran 1969: Pl. 39:14,18; Wood 1985:377, Pls. 9-10) that reaches back into the Middle Bronze Age (Amiran 1969:94). Numerous comparanda indicate this type was particularly popular during LB IIB and remained so into the early Iron Age. Amiran (1969: Pl. 61) noticed that this type first made its appearance in the southern region, and became popular farther to the north only in the later Late-Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (her Iron Age I). During the Iron Age there was a tendency for these bowls to be made in smaller sizes, while the slight carination near the rim gradually became more prominent. TABLE 8.19: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE BC3 BOWLS BEYOND THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Context Reference Shephelah Miqne/Ekron VIII Killebrew 1996: Pl. III.III.2:4 Gezer XIV-XI Dever, Lance and Wright 1970: Pls. 26:19, 28:10; Dever 1986: Pls. 24:4, 30:4-5, 36:1 Batash VIIA Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pl. 52:4-5 Lachish VII-VI Yannai 2004: Figs. 19.30:10, 19.46:12 Safi/Gath E4b Gadot and Uziel, Forthcoming: Type BL 4 Beit Mirsim C-B2 Albright 1932: Pl. 47:7; Greenberg 1987: Fig. 6:15 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod XV Dothan 1971: Fig. 81:6-7 Zippor VI-V Yannai 2000b: Figs. 3:12, 4:15-16 Sera‘ IX Oren 1985: Fig. 4:7,12 Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo VIIA and post VIIA Loud 1948: Fig. 65:3; Finkelstein and Zimhoni 2000: Fig. 10.3:12 Central Highlands Gibeon Tomb 10B Pritchard 1963: Fig. 10:37

Types BC4a, BC4b (8.5:1-4) Description: These are variations on a small generic type carinated bowl with morphological traits similar to those of Type BC3. However, the size range of these sub-types runs to smaller, the bowl form is more closed and the carination near the rim, sharper. These bowls have either flat or low ring bases. Finkelstein (1986:40) distinguished within this type bowls that lack slip and/or burnish (his Type F3) from bowls that are slipped and/or burnished (his Type F6), claiming the division to be 203

Y UVAL GADOT

chronologically significant. Accordingly, the type in the present study is divided into two subtypes, BC4a (Lacking slip and/or burnish) and BC4b (Slipped and/or burnished by hand). Both sub-types are often decorated with red and/or black painted lines on their rims, on bands below their rims, or as spiral bands in the bowl’s interiors (see Mazar 1985:40-41 for a discussion of this type). Type BC4a was found in Strata X11-X9 at Tel Aphek, while Type BC4b was common in Strata X10 and X9. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Bowls of Type BC4a are very common at >Izbet êartah Stratum III (Finkelstein 1986:40) and at Tel Qasile Stratum XII (Mazar 1985: Fig. 11:7-8). In the succeeding strata at these two sites the number of these bowls decreases. A few bowls of this type were also found at Tel Gerisa in Strata 7 and 6. Sub-type BC4b is more typical to Strata II and I at >Izbet êartah (Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 21:18) and at Tell Qasile Strata XI and X (Mazar 1985: Table 4). A bowl of this type but of somewhat degenerated style was also discovered at Tel Michal in a Strata 14/13 context (Singer-Avitz 1989: Fig. 7.5:3). General Distribution: Albright (1932:30, Figs. 47:7,64), in an early publication of Tell Beit-Mirsim, concluded that bowls were a fossile directeur of the Iron Age. Their presence and patterns of distribution have been studied in detail by (Mazar 1985:40) in relation to Tell Qasile, and by Finkelstein (1986:48-52, Types 3 and 6 and Table 3.4) in his report on excavations at >Izbet êartah. These scholars have shown the type appeared for the first time as early as the Late Bronze Age. In contexts dating to the early stages of the Iron I examples lacked slips or burnishing. In the course of Iron I, slipped and later burnished examples became more common. Numerous comparanda from reports available after these scholars did their work (Table 8.20), strengthen their conclusions. TABLE 8.20: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE BC4 BOWLS BEYOND THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Shephelah Miqne/Ekron Gezer

Context

Reference

VIA-V XIV-XII

Dothan 1998: Pls. 8:4, 11:5-8 Dever, Lance and Wright 1970: Pl. 26:18; Dever et al. 1974: Pl. 28:11-13; Dever 1986: Pls. 24:5-7,30:6 Inbar 1995: Fig. 11:5-6; 1997: Fig. 11:1-2 Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pls. 61:10-11, 83:15-16. Yannai 2004: Fig. 19.47:3. Greenberg 1987: Fig. 6:18-19

Harasim9 V Batash V Lachish VI Beit Mirsim B2 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod XV-XII Mor IV-III Zippor IV Northern Sharon Plain Mevorakh VII Dor Iron Age I Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo VIB and VIA only type BC4a Keisan IXc Central Highlands Bethel Iron Age I

Dothan and Porath 1993: Type BC4a, Figs. 10:7, 12:9, 16:5, 33:9-14 Barako 2007: Fig. 3.10:1-5 Yannai 2000b: Fig. 2:12-13 Type BC4b- Stern 1978: Fig. 12:20 Type BC4a only- Gilboa 2001: Types 23-24 Loud 1948: Figs. 74:3, 78:5 Briend and Humbert 1980: Pl. 79 Kelso 1968: Pl. 60:3-4

9. The appearance of these bowls in association with some cooking-pots, hints of the possibility that Stratum IV at Tel Harasim, dated to the 10th century BCE, also includes vessels of earlier date.

204

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

BC 4a

2

1

X10

X11

3

X10

BC 4b

4

X10

Bimi2

Bimi1

6

5

X12

X12

CH 1

CH 2

7

8

X12

X10

G

9

X14 Fig. 8.5: Carinated bowls, Imitations of impoted bowls, chalices and goblets.

205

Y UVAL GADOT

I MITATIONS OF I MPORTED BOWLS (TYPES BIMI1 AND BIMI2) Type Bimi1 (Fig. 8.5:5) Description: This type of bowl imitates the hemispherical morphology and wishbone handle of Cypriote ‘milk bowls’, but may, or may not be decorated. One bowl of this type was found in the foundation deposit of Palace VI (Locus 7020). Unlike most other examples of this type it is not decorated (e.g., Amiran 1969: Pl. 56:4). Similar bowls are known from Lachish Strata VII-VI (Tufnell 1958: Pl. 82:909-913). Type Bimi2 (Fig. 8.5:6) Description: This type apparently imitates a Mycenaean type open bowl with disc base and loop handle. One intact example of Type Bimi2 was found in Stratum X12 (Locus 2753), very close to a concentration of imported Mycenaean vessels. Possibly it derives from the same stratigraphic context. It may have been included in the group and become separated from it during destruction of the palace. An imported Mycenaean bowl of this form was recovered at Tell Abu-Hawwam (Amiran 1969: Photo 193).

CHALICES AND GOBLETS (TYPES CH1-G1) Type CH1 (Fig. 8.5:7) Description: This type of vessel is an open chalice (a bowl on a pedestal) with an overhanging, drooping, simple rim. Two fragments of this type were discovered in Stratum X12 at Tel Aphek, both of which lacked pedestal and base. Based on examples of more complete vessels of this type found at other sites, the shape of the pedestal and base are likely to have been simple, or with a ledge. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Three chalices were found at Tell Qasile in Strata XI and X (Mazar 1985:48). General Distribution: Most of the comparanda for this type of chalice are from LB IIA and LB IIB contexts. Amiran (1969:134; cf. Wood 1985:386) noted this type of chalice was especially indicative of a date in the later part of the Late Bronze Age. Yet, as Mazar (1985:48) has shown, the existence of this type in Stratum XI at Tell Qasile, dated to Iron IB, is not exceptional. Therefore the chronological range of this particular type is apparently longer than what Amiran recognized. Noteworthy is the lack of this type of chalice in assemblages that date to earlier phases of the Late Bronze Age, such as Tel Mevorakh Stratum XI (Guz-Zilberstein 1984: Fig. 7:6-8) and Tel Gezer, Tomb 10a (Seger and Lance 1988:75-76). TABLE 8.21: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE CH1 CHALICES OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Shephelah Gezer Harasim Batash Beit Mirsim Yarmuth Lachish

206

Context

Reference

XI V VIII B2 VI Fosse Temple III

Dever 1986: Pl. 42:16 Inbar 1992: Fig. 10:15 Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pl. 34:10 Greenberg 1987: Fig. 7:3 Jasmin 1999: Pl. 70:3 Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pl. 46:215

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod XVII Dothan 1971: Fig. 32:11 Zippor III (II) Biran & Negbi 1966: Fig. 6:8 Northern Sharon Plain Jatt Tomb Yannai 2000a: Fig. 9:108 Mevorakh X Guz-Zilberstein 1984: Fig. 1:23 Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo VIIA Loud 1948: Fig. 65:11 Dothan Tomb Cooley & Pratico 1995: Pls. 21:1,3, 26:1-6, 30:1-6 Beth-Shean VII James and McGovern 1993: Fig 20:3 Keisan IXc Briend and Humbert 1980: Pl. 80:2 Central Highlands Gibeon Tomb 10B Pritchard 1963: Fig. 13:78

Type CH2 (Fig. 8.5:8) Description: This type is a chalice with an S-shaped profile, similar to that of Type BC3 bowls (see above). The foot is usually stepped. Fragments of this type were discovered in Strata X10-X8 at Tel Aphek (Figs. 8.68:15-16, 8.75:5). A complete example was unearthed in the Iron IIA destruction layer of Area A at Tel Aphek (E. Yadin, personal communication). Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Chalices such as these were found in all strata at >Izbet êartah, but were most common in Stratum II (Finkelstein 1986:62). The type is also common at Tell Qasile in Strata XI and IX (Mazar 1985:48, Type CH2). Some chalices from Tell Qasile are decorated in red or red-black paint. A complete chalice with pedestal and stepped base was discovered at Tel Gerisa in Level 7. Other published examples of this type derive from Tel Michal Strata 14/13 (Singer-Avitz 1989: Fig. 7.5:5). General Distribution: This type was most common in Iron IB and Iron IIA as has been demonstrated by a number of scholars (Mazar 1985:48; Finkelstein 1986: Type 10; Killebrew 1998:97). The type’s popularity may be further deduced from additional comparanda found in more recent publications (Table 8.22). TABLE 8.22: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE CH2 CHALICES OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Context Reference Shephelah Miqne/Ekron VII-VIA Killebrew 1998: Pl. III.III.5:6; Dothan 1998: Pl. 8:16 Gezer XIII-XII Dever 1986: Pls. 24:9, 38:11 Batash V Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pl. 72:12 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod X-VIII Dothan 1971: Fig. 44:4; Dothan and Porath 1982: Figs. 5:1-2, 8:7,10 Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo VIA-VB, VA-IVB Arie 2006: Fig. 13.53:3; Lamon and Shipton 1939: Fig. 33:20; Loud 1948: Fig. 90:5 Central Highlands Giloh LB III – IA I Mazar 1990: Fig. 6:2 Bethel Kelso 1968: Pl. 55:6

Type G1 (Fig. 8.5:9) Description: This type is a goblet with a high ring base, a straight body and a plain rim. The undecorated base of such a goblet was discovered in fill associated with Stratum X14 at Tel Aphek (Fig. 8.39:11). 207

Y UVAL GADOT

Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: This type of goblet is rare at sites in the Central Coastal Plain. However, parts of two such goblets were found on the southern slope of Tel Michal. They are decorated with red-painted lines, and one has a representation of a palm tree and ibex motif (Negbi 1989: Fig. 5.8:9). Similar goblets were found at Tell Lachish in Fosse Temple III (Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pl. 47:234), at Tel Mevorakh Strata XI-X (Guz-Zilberstein 1984: Figs. 1:13, 7:4), at Tel Beth-Shean Stratum VII (James and McGovern 1993: Fig. 41:4) and Tel Shiloh Level VI (Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.35:4). A Type Missing at Tel Aphek: It is noteworthy that a type of goblet with high-pedestal and bottle-shaped body has not come to light in the excavations of Tel Aphek. Such goblets are, however, typical to Tell Qasile Strata XII-X (Mazar 1985:51) and Tel Gerisa Stratum 5. Obviously this type has a limited area of distribution. Mazar (1985:51) suggested that it had a specific cultic function. If that is indeed the case, it is possible that the lack of this type at Tel Aphek and >Izbet êartah has ethnic and/or cultural significance related to the populations of these sites.

BOWLS DERIVED FROM A EGEAN TRADITION (TYPES AB1 AND AB2) Type AB1 (Fig. 8.15:1-3) Description: This type of bowl is bell-shaped and adorned with two horizontal handles. It is the same as Type 1 of Dothan (1982:98-106) and Mazar’s (1985:87) typology. Four complete examples and fragments of many more were found in different contexts in Strata X10 and X9 at Tel Aphek. These bowls were whitewashed and usually decorated with black painted spirals combined with red (For a detailed discussion of such bowls from Tell Qasile see Mazar 1985:87-90). A number of fragments (Fig. 8.83:10) recovered from the ash layers of Stratum X9 at Tel Aphek were red-slipped. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: These bell-shaped bowls were found in all Iron Age I strata in the region of Tel Aphek. They are known from Tell Qasile Strata XII-X, >Izbet êartah Strata III-I, Tel Gerisa and Azor (Dothan 1982:102). Their relative quantity within the overall assemblage of bowls at >Izbet êartah is lower in relation to that of comparable assemblages from Tel Aphek and Tell Qasile. Type AB2 (Fig. 8.15:4) Description: This is a large bowl of the Lekane type with two horizontal handles. The shape is similar to that of deep basins. One fragment of such a bowl was discovered in a pit (Locus 1146) of Stratum X10. Similar bowls were found at Ashdod in Area G Strata 12 and 11 (Dothan and Porath 1993:88, Figs. 24:2, 41:5) and at Tel Miqne-Ekron in Area X Stratum VIIIA, which date to early Iron I (Dothan 1998: Pl. 3:13; Killebrew 1998: Form AS6). The morphology of these bowls has a clear Aegean inspiration. Many examples of this type are also known from Cyprus (Dothan and Porath 1993:88, Note 11; Killebrew 1998:178).

K RATERS DERIVED FROM CANAANITE TRADITION TYPES KR1, KR2 AND KR3) These types are all variations on a generic type krater, but since the many examples represented are recognizable only from rims, identification of the different types is problematic. Mazar (1985:45) encountered a similar problem at Tell Qasile, noting the variety of rim forms as too great to allow for detailed descriptions of any one type. The same is true in trying to characterize kraters from >Izbet êartah. It seems that using a rim as a criterion for typological sorting of kraters forces a scholar to choose between the extremes of either crude categorization that gives each type a wide degree of variation in form, and one that is overly detailed which considers each minute variation to be a different type. 208

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Since the latter typology is virtually without meaning, the former, more simple approach has been adopted for this study. Type KR1 (Fig. 8.6:1) Description: This type is carinated with an incurving upper wall ending in a beveled and thickened rim. One undecorated example of this type was documented as deriving from fills associated with Tel Aphek Stratum X14 (Fig. 8.36:8). Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: A number of similar but decorated kraters have been found at >Izbet êartah (Finkelstein 1986: Type 2). A fragment of a krater from Tell Qasile XII resembles the form of this type (Mazar 1985: Fig. 17:1). General Distribution: Similar kraters were found at various sites of the LB I and II periods. During LB III these kraters were common only in the northern region (Yannai 1996:228, Pls. 52-54). >Izbet êartah is perhaps the southernmost site where this type appears. A few kraters from Tel Gezer Stratum 13 (Dever 1986: Pls. 18:9-11, 22:4, 31:8) as well as the fragment from Tell Qasile Stratum XII cited above, indicates the type did not disappear from the repertoire of Iron IA and Iron IB occupations. TABLE 8.23: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE KR1 KRATERS OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Context Reference Shephelah Gezer XVI-XV Dever, Lance and Wright 1970: Pls. 28:24, 29:1,10,24 Harasim V Feldstein 1991: Pl. 4:5 Batash VII Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pl. 39:7,9 Lachish Fosse Temple III Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pl. 48:249-250 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod XVI-XV Dothan and Freedman 1967: Figs. 16:6, 19:6-9; Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 10:13 Northern Sharon Plain Jatt Tomb Yannai 2000a: Fig. 10:113 Mevorakh X Guz-Zilberstein 1984: Fig. 2:1 Dor Late Iron IA Gilboa 2001: Pl. 5.5:18 Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo VIIA Loud 1948: Pls. 69:13,70:2 Central Highlands Shiloh VI Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.34:3, 5

Type KR2 (Fig. 8.6:2-4)

Description: This is a generic type of krater with a carinated body, a variety of rim forms and usually a disc or ring base. Some of these kraters have handles (e.g., Mazar 1985:45 Type KR1). Eight complete or nearly complete kraters of this type were found throughout all the Late Bronze Age strata at Tel Aphek. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: An undecorated krater with ring base and two handles was found at Tel Michal in Stratum 15 (Negbi 1989: Fig. 5.5:13). Kraters of the same type were also found at Tell Qasile in Strata XII-X (Mazar 1985: Fig. 16:8) and at Tel Gerisa in Stratum 9A and 9B (rounded forms). They are unknown at >Izbet êartah. Kraters of a similar shape, but with a painted 209

Y UVAL GADOT

KR 1

X14

1

KR 2

3

2

X12

4

KR 3

6 5

Fig. 8.6: Kraters.

210

X8 X10-X9

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

spiral ‘Philistine’ type decoration, were found at Tell Qasile Stratum X (Mazar 1985: Fig. 40:7) and at Tel Gerisa (Dothan 1982: Fig. 60:2). Dothan (1982: Type 18; cf. Mazar 1985: Type KR1b) saw these kraters as combining local traditions in morphology and Philistine traditions of decoration, a combination that marked the final phase of ‘Philistine’ pottery in Canaan in her view. General Distribution: Comparable kraters were retrieved from almost all relevant sites in the Shephelah and Coastal Plain, in all strata dating to the Late Bronze Age (see Killebrew 1998:90). The discovery of this type of krater at Tell Qasile Strata XII-X, Tel Gezer Stratum 13 and Tel Megiddo Stratum VIA indicates the type continued to be common in Iron I (Mazar 1985:47). TABLE 8.24: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE KR2 KRATERS OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Context Reference Shephelah Miqne/Ekron IX-VII Killebrew 1998: Pls. III.III:3:3, 4:5-6 Gezer XV-XIII Dever et al. 1974: Pl. 23:4; Dever 1986: Pls. 14:3,15, 19:21, 25:1 Harasim V Feldstein 1991: Pl. 4:2,4 Batash X-V Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pls. 11:4, 21:10, 39:4-6, 61:13-14 Lachish LB I, VI Singer-Avits 2004: Fig. 18.1:7; Yannai 2004: Figs. 19.43:6, 19.47: 4 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod XV Dothan and Freedman 1967: Fig. 22:8; Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 11:3 Sera‘ IX Oren 1985: Fig. 5:1-2 Zippor VI-IV Yannai 2000b: Figs. 2:8, 3:15-16, 4:18-19 Northern Sharon Plain Jatt VIa and tomb Porath, Yannai and Kasher 1999: Fig. 8:4-10; Yannai 2000a: Fig. 10:12 Mevorakh XI, X and VIII Guz-Zilberstein 1984: Figs. 1:13-14, 5:19-20; Stern 1978: Fig. 20:5 Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo VIII-VIA Ilan, Hallote and Klein 2000: Fig. 9.11:6; Loud 1948: Figs. 66:3, 69:16 Beth-Shean VII Killebrew 1998: Pl. III.II.70:4-5 Central Highlands Shiloh VI Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.34:8-9

Type KR3 (Fig. 8.6:5-6) Description: This type of krater has a ‘hammer’ shaped, thickened and slightly inverted rim. The krater is sometimes red slipped and burnished. Fragments of this type were found in Strata X10, X9 and X8 at Tel Aphek. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: These kraters are known from Tell Qasile Strata IX and VIII (Mazar 1985: Fig. 54:9,11), Tel Michal Strata 14 and 13 (Singer-Avitz 1989: Figs. 7.1:5, 7.3:2) and >Izbet êartah Strata II and I (Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 22:21). General Distribution: These kraters were most common in the southern region in Iron IIA contexts, but are not found at sites located north of Tel Aphek such as Jatt, Tel Mevorakh and Tel Megiddo. Mazar (1985:47) suggested the type first appeared in later Iron IB. This suggestion is corroborated by the discovery of similar kraters at >Izbet êartah Strata II and I and at Tel Aphek Strata X10 and X9.

211

Y UVAL GADOT

TABLE 8.25: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE KR3 KRATERS OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Context Reference Shephelah Gezer X-VIII Dever et al. 1974: Pl. 31:22; Dever 1986: Pl. 43:6 Batash VI-V Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pls. 55:12-14, 61:17-18 Harasim IV Inbar 1997: Fig. 12:4 Lachish V-IV Zimhoni 1997: Types B25-26 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod X Dothan and Porath 1982: Fig. 2:14

K RATERS DERIVED FROM A EGEAN TRADITION OR OF A EGEAN I NSPIRATION TYPE AKR1) Type AKR1 (Fig. 8.15:5-6) Description: This type is a bell shaped krater with horizontal handles. Two half preserved kraters of this type were found in pits of Stratum X10. One found in Locus 6139 (Fig. 8.77:2) is a wide vessel, decorated on its upper part in red paint filled with spirals inside metopes. A geometric bird is portrayed above the spirals (cf. Dothan 1982:20) and horizontal red lines decorate the central part of this krater. A second example was discovered in Locus 5027 (Fig. 8.75:14) and also bears a spiral decoration, but without red filling and birds. These kraters are comparable to bell-shaped kraters from Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985: Type 2), Azor (Dothan 1982:114) and Tel Gerisa.

COOKING -POTS DERIVED FROM CANAANITE TRADITION (TYPES CPI A - CPIG) During both the Late Bronze Age and Iron I, the most commonly used cooking-pots were those with globular to carinated shaped bodies and rounded bases. Fabrics used in their manufacture differ from those of all other vessels and so are easily identified, even in small sherds. Earlier studies noted development of rim forms of this type during the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age (Amiran 1969:227; Finkelstein 1986:64). According to those studies, rims of cooking-pots tended to become more inverted over time. Although that observation may be reliable, it does not enable precise dating of individual vessels since changes in size of vessels are gradual and there is always overlapping between the disappearance of one rim form and the introduction of a new one. A notable absence in the Tel Aphek assemblage is the ‘cooking jar’, a type (Mazar 1985: Type CP2, Fig. 26:11; Singer-Avitz 1989:8) common at other sites in the Central Coastal Plain. Type CP1a (Fig. 8.7:1) Description: This type with thickened everted rim includes variations on body forms that range between S-shaped and carinated in profile. Roughly half of two cooking-pots and many additional fragments of others of this type were found in Stratum X14 at Tel Aphek (Fig. 8.33:2-3,5). Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Similar cooking-pots were discovered at Tel Michal Strata 16 and 15 (Negbi 1989: Fig. 5.6:2,4) and Tel Gerisa Stratum 10. General Distribution: This cooking-pot type, continuing a Middle Bronze Age tradition, was common at many sites of the early Late Bronze Age (Amiran 1969:165, Pl. 42:7-8; Table 8.26).

212

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

TABLE 8.26: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE CP1A COOKING-POTS OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Context Reference Shephelah Harasim VI-V Inbar 1992: Fig. 15:2-6 Batash X-IX Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pl. 18:1,2 Lachish Fosse Temple I Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pl. 55:353-359 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod XVIII Dothan 1971: Fig. 31:8-10 Northern Sharon Plain Mevorakh XI Guz-Zilberstein 1984: Fig. 7:9-11 Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo VIII Ilan, Hallote and Klein 2000: Fig. 9.11:18 Central Highlands Shiloh VI Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1999: Fig. 6.35:8-14

Type CP1b (Fig. 8.7:2-3) Description: This type with thickened triangular rim includes variations on body forms that range between S-shaped and carinated in profile. Six examples of this type were found in Strata X14-X12 at Tel Aphek. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Similar cooking-pots are known from Tel Michal Strata 16-15 (Negbi 1989: Fig. 5.6:5,10), Tel Gerisa, and >Izbet êartah Stratum III (Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 10:16). A few rims of this type of cooking-pot were also found at Tell Qasile, first settled in Iron I (Mazar 1985: Fig. 25:16). General Distribution: As noted by Amiran (1969: Pl.13-17), the elongated concave rim of the type is typically associated with cooking-pots from LB IIA to LB III contexts. However, various comparanda, from contexts dating to the Iron Age, such as Tell Qasile (see above), Tel Gezer and Tell Beit Mirsim (Table 8.27), indicate that cooking-pots of Type CP1b continued to be produced in Iron I. TABLE 8.27: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE CP1B COOKING-POTS OUTSIDE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Shephelah Miqne/Ekron Gezer Harasim

Context Late Bronze Age XV-XIII IV

Reference Killebrew 1998: III.II.9:6-9 Dever 1986: Pls. 14:8, 16:21, 20:14; Dever et al. 1974: Pls. 23:7, 25:5 Inbar 1997: Fig. 11:5-6; 1998: Fig. 11:8-10; Feldstein 1991: Pl. 4:8, 5:3-5,7, passim. Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pls. 18:3, 21:11-15, 40:3, 56:3,5,11 Gadot and Uziel, Forthcoming: Type C2. Yannai 2004: Figs. 19.1:10, 19.16:7, 19.25: 5, 19.47: 7 Greenberg 1987: Figs. 4:6-7, 5:17-18 Jasmin 1999: Pl. 70:5

Batash IX-VI Safi/Gath E4b Lachish S3-VI Beit Mirsim B-C Yarmuth VI Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod XIIIb-VIII Dothan and Freedman 1967: Figs. 17:7, 19:4-5, 22:2; Dothan 1971: Figs. 31:11, 81:8-10; Dothan and Porath 1993: Figs. 16:15, 17:6 Zippor IX-VI Yannai 2000b: Figs. 5:4, 6, 6:7 Sera‘ IX Oren 1985: Fig. 5:3-5 Tell Mor XII-VII Barako 2007: Figs. 3.17, 3.18, 3.19

213

Y UVAL GADOT

CP 1a

1

X12

CP 1b

2

3

X14

X12

CP 1c

X10-X9

4

CP 1d

5

6

X10-X9

X10-X9

CP 1e

CP 1f

8

7

X7

X10-X9

CP 1g

9

Fig. 8.7: Cooking-pots.

214

X10-X9

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY Northern Sharon Plain Jatt VIIa Mevorakh X-VIII Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo IX-VIII Central Highlands Giloh Late Bronze – Iron Age I Shiloh VI-V Bethel Late Bronze Phase II Gibeon Tomb 10B

Porath, Yannai and Kasher 1999: Fig. 6:7-8 Guz-Zilberstein 1984: Fig. 2:3, Stern 1978: Fig. 20:8 Ilan, Hallote and Klein 2000: Fig. 9.11:9,11; Gadot et al. 2006: Fig. 12.3:5-8 Mazar 1981: Fig. 7:5; Mazar 1990: Fig. 6:10-11 Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Figs. 6.36:7, 6.50:1 Kelso 1968: Pl. 54:15-17 Pritchard 1963: Fig. 11:52,54

Type CP1c (Fig. 8.7:4) Description: This type with a thickened triangular, vertical rim includes variations on body forms that range between S-shaped and carinated in profile. The earliest appearances of this type at Tel Aphek are in fragments retrieved from Strata X10 and X9. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Similar cooking-pots were found at Tell Qasile, especially in Stratum XII, but they were also found, albeit in lesser quantities in Strata XI and X (Mazar 1985: Fig. 27:20). The type is known from Tel Gerisa Stratum 7 and all strata at >Izbet êartah (Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 16:6). The absence of this type at Tel Aphek in Stratum X12, on the one hand, and in Iron IIA strata at Tel Michal, on the other, seems to define its chronological range to Iron I. General Distribution: Earlier studies (Mazar 1985:52; Finkelstein 1986:65; Killebrew 1998:107) as well as newer publications (Table 8.28) indicate these cooking-pots were common in all regions during Iron I. TABLE 8.28: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE CP1C COOKING-POTS OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Context Reference Shephelah Miqne/Ekron VII-VI Killebrew 1998: Pl. III.II.26:12 Gezer XIII-X Dever 1986, Pls. 22:9, 44:19,21, 46:1 Beit Mirsim B2 Greenberg 1987: Fig. 10:19 Batash V Panitz-Cohen and Mazar, Forthcoming: Pl. 62:10 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod XIII-XII10 Dothan 1971: Fig. 84:11 Mor VI Barako 2007: Fig. 3.20:7, 9 Northern Sharon Plain Dor Iron IB Gilboa 2001: Pls. 5.18:35, 5.31:17, 5.47:11, 5.56:2 Mevorakh VII Stern 1978: Fig. 14:9 Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo VIA Finkelstein, Zimhoni and Kafri 2000: Fig. 11.2:9,10,12 Beth-Shean VI Yadin and Geva 1986: Fig. 11:7 Central Highlands Giloh Late Bronze - Iron Age I Mazar 1981: Fig. 7:9,12 Shiloh V Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.50:2 Bethel Kelso 1968: Pl. 57:14-16 10. For the date of the relevant strata at Tel Ashdod see Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz (2001:237).

215

Y UVAL GADOT

Type CP1d (Fig. 8.7:5-6) Description: This type with an inverted and thin triangular rim includes variations on body forms that range between S-shaped and carinated in profile. Fragments of this type were commonly found in Strata X10-X9 at Tel Aphek. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: This type is found at Tell Qasile Strata XI-VIII (Mazar 1985: Fig. 25:13). At >Izbet êartah most of the vessels of this type derive from Stratum III, but some were also discovered in Stratum II (Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 24:13). A example of this type was also found in Iron Age contexts on the northern hill of Tel Gerisa. General Distribution: As demonstrated by Mazar (1985:52) and Finkelstein (1986:65), this type of cooking-pot appeared in all regions of the southern Levant from the early days of Iron I and remained popular in Iron IIA. TABLE 8.29: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE CP1D COOKING-POTS OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Context Shephelah Miqne/Ekron Iron Age I Gezer XIII-XII Batash V Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod X Northern Sharon Plain Jatt VIa Dor Iron IB Mevorakh VII Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo VI Central Highland Giloh Late Bronze - Iron Age I

Reference Killebrew 1998: Pl. III.III.8:6 Dever, Lance and Wright 1970: Pls. 27:1-3 Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pls. 66:3, 81:16 Dothan and Porath 1982: Fig. 3:3 Porath, Yannai and Kasher 1999: Fig. 9:2-8 Gilboa 2001: Pl. 5.24:13 Stern 1978: Fig. 14:10 Arie 2006: Fig. 13.59:6 Mazar 1981: Fig. 7:15-16

Type CP1e (Fig. 8.7:7) Description: This type with a simple and thickened rim includes variations on body forms that range between S-shaped and carinated in profile. The inner rims of some of these vessels are concave. Only rims of this type were found in Stratum X7 (Iron IIA) at Tel Aphek. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Examples of this type were found at >Izbet êartah, mainly in Strata II-I (Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 15:8) and at Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985: Fig. 23:14). General Distribution: Finkelstein (1986:68) once noted these cooking-pots were common mainly at sites in the Negev. However, it is now clear they were also common in Iron IB and Iron IIA contexts at sites in the Shephelah such as Tel Gezer (Table 8.30) and at one coastal site considerably to the north, Tel Mevorakh, but that appears to be the northerly extent of their distribution. Notably, they were not found at coastal sites such as Tel Ashdod and Tel Dor, nor have they been documented at Tel Megiddo and Tel Shiloh.

216

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

TABLE 8.30: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE CP1E COOKING-POTS OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Shephelah Gezer Batash Beit Mirsim Mevorakh

Context

Reference

XIII-VIII V-IV B2 VIII-VII

Dever, Lance and Wright 1970: Pls. 26:9, 34:12; Dever 1986: Pls. 25:14, 34:10, 43:9 Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Type CP20 Greenberg 1987: Figs. 10:20,26 Stern 1978: Figs. 20:4, 14:7-8

Type CP1f (Fig. 8.7:8) Description: This type has an S-Shaped to carinated profile with a simple rim ending in a horizontal ridge. Rims of this type have been found Tel Aphek in Strata X10, X9 and X8, as well as on floors of Iron IIA houses in Area A (E. Yadin, personal communication). Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Cooking-pots with this style rim have been found at most sites in the region. At >Izbet êartah they are very common in Strata II and I (Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 23:2). At Tell Qasile these cooking-pots were not defined as a separate type, but it seems that they were common as early as Stratum XI (Mazar 1985: Figs. 24:17, 45:5,7). One example of this type is known from Tel Michal Stratum 14 (Singer-Avitz 1989: Fig. 7.1:8). General Distribution: The geographic and temporal distribution of these cooking-pots was considerable (Table 8.31). Their appearance (represented by rims) at >Izbet êartah and at Tel Aphek Strata X10 and X9 indicates they first appeared in Iron I, although they became much more common in Iron IIA. TABLE 8.31: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE CP1F COOKING-POTS OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Context Shephelah Gezer XI Batash V Beit Mirsim B1-2 Northern Sharon Plain Dor Iron IB Mevorakh VIII-VII Jatt Va Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo VIA- IVa Central Highlands Giloh LB - Iron I Shiloh V

Reference Dever 1986: Pl. 37:19 Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pl. 79:15 Greenberg 1987: Fig. 8:22 Gilboa 2001: Pls. 5.24:12, 5.31:12 Stern 1978: Figs. 14:1-6, 20:7 Porath, Yannai and Kasher 1999: Fig. 11:7-10 Arie 2006: Fig. 13.69:3; Finkelstein, Zimhoni and Kafri 2000: Figs. 11.19:1-5, 11.22:1-5 Mazar 1981: Fig. 7:17; Mazar 1990: Fig. 3:7 Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.52:12,14

Type CP1g (Fig. 8.7:9)

Description: This type has an S-Shaped to carinated profile with a thickened and horizontal ridge. Rims of this type of were found at Tel Aphek Strata X10 and X9. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: These cooking-pots were discovered at Tell Qasile Stratum X (Mazar 1985: Fig. 44:11) and in all strata at >Izbet êartah (Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 14:3). General Distribution: It seems that this type of cooking-pot was first introduced in Iron IB and continued in use in Iron IIA. The presence of this type of cooking-pot at >Izbet êartah III, is chronologically 217

Y UVAL GADOT

exceptional and may be indicative of the lengthy lifetime of this stratum. Geographically this type of cooking-pot is restricted to central and more northerly sites (Table 8.32). Notably, the type has not been reported at sites to the south or east of the Central Coastal Plain. TABLE 8.32: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE CP1G COOKING-POTS OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Context Northern Sharon Plain Dor Iron I-II Mevorakh VII Jatt Va Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Beth-Shean VI Megiddo Vb

Reference Gilboa 2001: Pls. 5.56:18-19 Stern 1978: Fig. 14:13,14 Porath, Yannai and Kasher 1999: Fig. 11:11 Yadin and Geva 1986: Fig. 25:2 Lamon and Shipton 1939: Fig. 40:19

COOKING -POTS DERIVED FROM AN A EGEAN TRADITION (TYPE ACP1) Type ACP1 (Fig. 8.16:1) Description: This cooking-pot has a globular form, a narrow neck in proportion to its body, a rounded rim and one or two handles on a f lat or ring base. Only one fragment of this type, from a pit (Locus 1146), was found at Tel Aphek. Killebrew (1998:183) suggested this type of cookingpot appeared at the time of Tel Miqne-Ekron Stratum VII and Ashdod Stratum XIIIb. In her opinion the form of these cooking-pots is different from that of all Canaanite cooking-pot types and, based on comparanda, she suggests the inspiration for Type ACP1 as Cypriote and therefore affiliates it with an immigrant Philistine population (Killebrew 1998:184). Cookingpots with rounded or everted rims were discovered at Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985: Types CP2-CP3), but in the publication were not recognized as a ‘Philistine’ type mainly because the examples from Tel Miqne-Ekron and Tel Ashdod had yet to be discovered and so the ethnic relationship of these types was unknown. It seems such examples should be recognized as equivalent to cooking-pot Type ACP1 in this typology. CATEGORY II - STORAGE VESSELS

The following discussion deals with storage vessels from Tel Aphek. Table 8.33 indicates the different types of vessels in this category and their parallel designations in the ceramic typologies of three scholars. That is followed by descriptions of each type, their distribution and significant attributes. TABLE 8.33: STORAGE VESSELS DERIVED FROM THE CANAANITE TRADITION--LIST OF TYPES ACCORDING TO THREE TYPOLOGICAL SYSTEMS Type

Killebrew 1998

Mazar 1985

Finkelstein 1986

Description

JTD1 JTD2 J1

CA15a CA15b CA16b

JT1 JT2 J1

-

J2

CA16a

J4

F17

Short dipper juglet with tapered base Dipper juglet with sack-like body and rounded base Jug with ‘stove-pipe’ neck, globular body, handle extends from rim to shoulder Jug with long and splayed neck, oval body and flat or rounded base

218

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY Type

Killebrew 1998

Mazar 1985

Finkelstein 1986

Description

J3 J4

-

J3

-

J5 J6 J7 J8

CA35 CA17 -

J5 -

-

PYX1 PYX2 FL1 FL2 SJ1 SJ2

CA33 CA34 CA28a-b CA21

PYX1 PYX2 FL1 -

F24 F20

SJ3

-

SJ1

F22-23

SJ4 P1

CA25

SJ6

F21

Globular jug, red slipped and decorated (unique) Jug, neck-less, wide, folded rim, globular body, handle extends from rim to shoulder and narrow ring base Jug, imitation of Cypriote ‘bilbil’ Jug with biconical body, usually decorated Strainer jug Generic rim forms of jugs and/or jars; one with bow rim, one with, thickened grooved rim Pyxis, carinated to rounded squat body, rounded base Pyxis, elongated and oval body, rounded base Small flask, lentoid body, sometimes decorated Large flask lentoid body, decorated Small ovoid jar Jar, ovoid body, long sloping shoulders and narrow, thickened, convex base. Jar, elongated, ovoid body, rounded shoulders, short neck and simple rim Jar, sack-shaped narrow neck Collared-rim pithos

TABLE 8.34: STORAGE VESSELS OF AEGEAN-STYLE Type

Description

Dothan 1982 /Mazar 1985

AJ1 AJ2 APIX

Jug with basket handle Cylindrical or horn-shaped bottle Pyxis

Types 6/7 Types 9/10 Type 4

J UGLETS DERIVED FROM THE CANAANITE TRADITION (TYPES JTD1-2) Type JTD1 (Fig. 8.8:1-3) Description: This type is a dipper juglet with tapered base, short body and trefoil rim. Three examples of this type were found at Tel Aphek in three different contexts. That discovered in Tomb 1200 is from the earliest context (Fig. 8.47:1). Another was found in Stratum X11 (Fig. 8.67:8), while the third was recovered in Stratum X9 (Fig. 8.77:7). Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Comparanda for these juglets are known at Tel Gerisa Stratum 9, Tel Michal Strata 16 and 15 (Negbi 1989: Fig. 5.7:6,8) and Tell Qasile Strata XII and X (Mazar 1985: Figs. 11:24, 30:16-17). Few juglets of this delicate type have survived in occupation contexts, because of their fragility. Since they are often not well preserved in occupation contexts, it is difficult to draw any typo-chronological conclusions as to their presence or absence in Stratum X12 at Tel Aphek and at >Izbet êartah. General Distribution: These short dipper juglets appear to have developed out of a Middle Bronze Age tradition of elongated dipper juglets (e.g., Amiran 1969:34:9-10). Comparanda (Table 8.35) seem to confirm the observations of A. Mazar (1985:70), which indicate that this type first appeared in the early phases of the Late Bronze Age, became a common type that continued to be made throughout that period and into the early stages of Iron I.

219

Y UVAL GADOT

JTD2

JTD1

3

2

1

X13-X12

4

X10-X9

X11

J1

X8 5

X8

J2

J3

7

8

X12

X8

6

J5

X14

J4

9

10

X14 Fig. 8.8: Juglets and jugs.

220

12

11

X13-X12

X13-X12

X12

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

TABLE 8.35: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE JTD 1 OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Context Reference Shephelah Gezer Tomb 10a Seger and Lance 1988: Pl. 9:1 Harasim V Feldstein 1991: Pl. 3:2; Inbar 1995: Pl. 15:6 Batash VIII-VII Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pls. 23:8, 44:9-11 Lachish Fosse Temple III Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pl. 52:298 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod XVIII-XV Dothan 1971: Fig. 31:16; Dothan and Porath 1993: Figs. 7:5, 10:9 Zippor V Yannai 2000b: Fig. 3:18-20 Sera‘ IX Oren 1985: Fig. 4:10 Mor XI Barako 2007: Fig. 3.28:5-7 Northern Sharon Plain Dor Iron I A-B Gilboa 2001: Pls. 5.4:5, 5.26:12 Mevorakh XI- VII Guz-Zilberstein 1984: Fig. 8:9; Stern 1978: Fig. 16:9 Jatt Tomb Yannai 2000a: Fig. 4:49-50 Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo VIII-VIA Loud 1948: Figs. 58:7, 67:16, 63:5, 73:4, 75:16 Beth-Shean VIII-VI James and McGovern 1993: Fig. 22 Central Highlands Gibeon Tomb 10A Pritchard 1963: Fig. 7:15-16 Shiloh VI Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.36:8-13

Type JTD2 (Fig. 8.8:4) Description: This type is a globular juglet with a trefoil rim, wide neck and a sack-like lower body atop a rounded base. Three examples of this type were found at Tel Aphek on floors of Stratum X8 (Figs. 8.84:8, 8.85:9) and Stratum X7 (Fig. 8.89:11). Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Examples of these juglets were discovered at Tel Michal Stratum 13 (Singer-Avitz 1989: Fig. 7.3:6-7) and Tell Qasile Strata XI and X (Mazar 1985: Figs. 20:8, 50:4). General Distribution: These juglets are known from various parts of the southern Levant and it is likely they made their first appearance during Iron IB, as at Tell Qasile Stratum XI. They became more common during Iron IIA (Mazar 1985:70, Table 8.36). TABLE 8.36: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE JTD 2 OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Context Reference Shephelah Gezer XIII Dever 1986: Pls. 19:15, 26:2 Lachish Fosse Temple III Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pl. 52:318 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod X Dothan and Porath 1982: Fig. 11:9, Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 46:3 Northern Sharon Plain Dor Iron IIA Gilboa 2001: Pls. 5.76:8 Mevorakh VIII-VII Stern 1978: Figs. 16:7-8, 10, 20:11-12 Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo VIA-VB Arie 2006: Fig. 13.60:4; Lamon and Shipton 1939: Fig. 5:121,141

221

Y UVAL GADOT

J UGS DERIVED FROM THE CANAANITE TRADITION (TYPES J1-J8) Type J1 (Fig. 8.8:5) Description: This type is a globular jug with a ‘stove-pipe’ neck, and a handle which extends from rim to shoulder. The type designation is somewhat ‘generic’ because of the wide range of variation in size and form within this group. Two examples of this type were found in a pit (Locus 4015) of Stratum X8 at Tel Aphek. One has a rounded rim, the other a trefoil rim (Fig. 8.85:18-19). Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Several similar jugs, but of different proportions, were discovered at Tell Qasile Stratum X (Mazar 1985: Type J1, e.g., Fig. 36:3). Some of them were decorated with red and black bands of paint (e.g., Mazar 1985: Fig. 41:9). General Distribution: Comparanda for this type are generic only. They suggest such vessels were first introduced in the later part of the Late Bronze Age (Yannai 1996:243; Killebrew 1998:101) and continued to be popular in Iron I (Mazar 1985:61; Table 8.37). TABLE 8.37: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE J1 OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Context Reference Shephelah Gezer XI Dever et al. 1974: Pl. 29:22 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod X Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 46:1 Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Beth-Shean VI-V Yadin and Geva 1986: Fig. 27:1; James 1966: Fig. 56:2 Megiddo VIB-VIA Loud 1948: Figs. 73:2, 75:1-5

Type J2 (Fig. 8.8:6-7)

Description: This type is a Jug with long and splayed neck, oval body and flat or rounded base. Some examples have trefoil rims. Seven such vessels were found at Tel Aphek, five of which have flat bases. Three examples were recovered in Stratum X14 (Figs. 8.33:10, 8.34:1-2) but only the base of one of those was preserved. Another trio of this type was excavated in Stratum X12 (Figs. 8.51:11, 8.59:6, 8.60:9), and a single example was recovered in Stratum X11 (Fig. 8.67:11). Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Jugs of this type were discovered only in Iron I and IIA contexts at such sites as Tel Gerisa Stratum 8, Tell Qasile Stratum X (Mazar 1985: Fig. 41:10), >Izbet êartah II and I (Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 22:8) and Tel Michal Stratum 13 (Singer-Avitz 1989: Fig. 7.3:5). General Distribution: Jugs of this type are typical to ceramic assemblages of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (Killebrew 1998:100). In discussing the pottery repertoire of the central highlands, Bunimovitz and Finkelstein (1993:157) noted these jugs in that region were evenly distributed throughout time and space. TABLE 8.38: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE J2 OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Shephelah Gezer Batash Lachish

222

Context

Reference

Tomb I.10a Seger and Lance 1988: Pl. 15:11 VIII-VII Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pls. 23:1-2, 43:1-4 Fosse Temple I and VI Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pl. 51:277-8; Yannai 2004: Fig. 19.48:1

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Mor VII-VI Barako 2007: Fig. 3.27:8 Ashdod XV-XIV Dothan 1971: Fig. 81:11 Northern Sharon Plain Mevorakh XI Guz-Zilberstein 1984: Fig. 8:5 Jatt Tomb Yannai 2000a: Fig. 10:116 Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo VIII Loud 1948: Fig. 59:4 Beth-Shean VI Killebrew 1998: Pl. III.III.74:6 Central Highlands Shiloh V Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.47:8

Type J3 (Fig. 8.8:8)

Description: This type is a jug of globular form, red slipped and decorated in red and black bands of paint in what is known as ‘Cypro-Phoenician-style’. One example was found in a pit (Locus 4015) of Stratum X8 at Tel Aphek. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: To the best of this writer’s knowledge, no jugs of this type have been found at Tell Qasile, Tel Michal or at Tel Gerisa. The morphology of this type jug and its decoration technique resembles that of some known examples decorated in ‘Cypro-Phoenician’style (Gilboa 1999; 2001: Ch. 12), but exact parallels to this jug are unknown to this writer. Type J4 (Fig. 8.8:9) Description: This type is globular, lacks a neck, has a wide, folded rim and a handle that extends from rim to shoulder; it usually has a ring base. One intact example of this type from Tel Aphek was found in a fill layer associated with Stratum X14 (Fig. 8.36:14). A fragment of what seems to be the upper part of another example was discovered on a floor of Stratum X8 (Locus 3601, Fig. 8.85:10). There is great morphological similarity between this jug type and the ‘Philistine’ type cooking-pot (Type ACP; see above) as defined by Killebrew (1998:183; cf. Yannai 1996:227), which is actually a type of jug used for cooking. It seems that the only difference between these two types is to be found in their fabrics, such that if exact descriptions of fabrics are not noted in publications, it is impossible to distinguish between Type J4 jugs and ‘Philistine’ type cooking-pots. Distribution: Jugs of this type are known from Tell Qasile, where one was recovered in Stratum XI (Mazar 1985: Fig. 25:17) and three additional examples were found in Stratum X (e.g., Mazar 1985: Fig. 49:12). Another of this type is associated with early Iron Age contexts at Tel Gerisa in Area D. In other regions, especially in the south, jugs of this type were found in Iron I contexts, (e.g., Dever 1986: Pls. 23:15, 35:12; see Mazar 1985:63 with references). The association of one of these jugs to Stratum X14 at Tel Aphek suggests the type appeared as early as LB I, although it is possible that particular object was intrusive. Type J5 (Fig. 8.8:10-12) Description: This type of jug imitates Cypriote Base-Ring II style jugs. Seventeen examples of this type were found at Tel Aphek. Fourteen originated in Tomb 1200, while three additional examples were discovered under the ruins of Palace VI in Stratum X12. Most of these jugs from Tel Aphek are decorated with red paint on their bodies and handles. One example (Fig. 8.45:5) is decorated with red and black lines, another is covered with red paint (Fig. 8.45:3) while six lack decoration. 223

Y UVAL GADOT

General Distribution: Comparanda for this type are found in LB IIA tombs and occupation deposits (Yannai, Gorzalcany and Peilstöcker 2003 with references) and in LB III contexts (Killebrew 1998:134-5). These last include vessels from Lachish Stratum VII (Yannai 2004: Fig. 19.31:4 ), Tel Sera‘ Stratum 9 (Oren 1985: Fig. 7:3) and Tel Batash Stratum VI (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pl. 57:8). Type J6 (Fig. 8.9:1) Description: This type has a biconical shaped body with a wide aperture and a handle extending from rim to shoulder. One jug of this type was found at Tel Aphek in the favissa of Stratum X14. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: With the exception of late Middle Bronze strata at Tel Michal (Negbi 1989: Fig. 5.9:10), no sites in the region yielded comparanda for this type. The absence of this type of jug from published assemblages of the central Coastal Plain may be merely the result of poor preservation, as the jugs are common in all other regions throughout the Late Bronze Age. General Distribution: Information culled from a number of publications (e.g., Amiran 1969: Pl. 47; Yannai 1996:242; Killebrew 1998:102) suggests this was a common type of vessel throughout the Late Bronze Age. TABLE 8.39: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE J6 OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Context Reference Shephelah Gezer Tomb 10a Seger and Lance 1988: Pl. 14:1 Batash VIII-VI Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pls. 37:12, 44:7, 54:1 Lachish VII-VI Yannai 2004: Figs. 19.31: 9, 19.48: 4 Safi/Gath E4b Gadot and Uziel, Forthcoming Beit Mirsim C Albright 1932: Pl. 47:5 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod XVI Dothan and Freedman 1967: Fig. 20:5 Sera‘ IX Oren 1985: Fig. 6:1 Northern Sharon Plain Mevorakh X Guz-Zilberstein 1984: Fig. 2:2 Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo IX-VIIA Gadot et al. 2006: Fig. 12.4:1; Ilan, Hallote and Klein 2000: Fig. 9.12:18; Loud 1948: Figs. 64:5, 67:17 Dothan Tomb Cooley and Pratico 1995: Fig. 20:1-5 Beth-Shean VII-VI Killebrew 1998: Pl. III.II.74:4, 82:4 Central Highlands Gibeon Tomb 10B Pritchard 1963: Fig. 12:71 Shiloh VI Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.36:14

Type J7 (Fig. 8.9:2) Description: Only small fragments of this type of strainer jug were found at Tel Aphek, so their overall morphological features, beyond the evidence of the strainer feature and some generic attributions of jugs, are unclear. One notable fragment was discovered in Locus 1146 of Stratum X10 (Fig. 8.70:18). Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: The ceramic assemblage from Tell Qasile Stratum X includes a large number of jugs of this type, in a variety of forms. Mazar (1985:64-67) distinguished seven sub-types according to forms of handles and kinds of decoration (cf. Amiran 1963: Pls. 86-87). Fragments of a red-slipped, burnished jug were also discovered in a silo of Strata II-I at >Izbet êartah (Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 19:75, Pl. 10:5). 224

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

J8

J7

J6

2

X10-X9

X10-X9

3

4

X10-X9 1

X14

PYX2

PYX1

5

7

6

X13-X12

X8

X10-X9

8

X8

FL1

9

10

X13-X12

11

X13-X12

X10-X9

Fig. 8.9: Jugs, pyxides and flasks.

225

Y UVAL GADOT

Type J8 (Fig. 8.9:3) Description: This type is used for generic rim forms of jugs and/or jars; one with bow rim and one with, grooved, thickened rim. The type was identified only from rim fragments found in Strata X10 and X9 at Tel Aphek. Dever (1986:78 note 127) called such vessels at Gezer “Water Jars” and noted they were common in Stratum 13. A rim of this type of jar was published from Jatt Stratum A-VI, dated to Iron I (Porath, Yannai and Kasher 1999: Fig. 9:17, with references to similar vessels from Megiddo, Tell Keisan and Tel Qiri).

PYXIDES IN THE CANAANITE TRADITION (TYPES PYX1-PYX2) Type PYX1 (Fig. 8.9:5-7) Description: This is a squat pyxis with a rounded base. Seven examples of this type were found at Tel Aphek, three in Tomb 1200 (Figs. 8.47:3-4, 8.48:5), one in Stratum X11 (Fig. 8.66:13) and the remaining example (Figs. 8.91:10, 8.93:2) in pits of Stratum X8. All of the above examples lack decoration. Fragments of another pyxis, decorated with red bands on its body and handles, were discovered in a pit (Locus 1146) of Stratum X10 (Fig. 8.71:21). Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: This type of pyxis was found at Tell Qasile Stratum XI (Mazar 1985: Fig. 27:21) and Tel Gerisa Stratum IV (Area D). General Distribution: Pyxides of this type were common at many sites throughout the region (Mazar 1985:77). Their appearance at Tel Aphek emphasizes the wide distribution of this vessel type. It first appeared in LB IIB, in Stratum X12 at Tel Aphek and remained in use well into Iron IIB. TABLE 8.40: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE PYX1 OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Context Reference Shephelah Gezer XIII-XII Dever 1986: Pls. 25:6, 29:18, 38:5 Harasim 4-5 Inbar 1994: Pl. 15:4; Inbar 1998: Fig. 12:9-12 Batash VII Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pl. 54:14 Lachish Fosse Temple III Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pl. 54:344 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod XV-XIV Dothan 1971: Fig. 81:12. Northern Sharon Plain Dor Iron IA Gilboa 2001: Pl. 5.4:4 Jatt Tomb Yannai 2000a: Fig. 11:121 Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo VIIA-VA-IVB Loud 1948: Pl. 77:7 Beth-Shean VI James 1966: Fig. 50:3 Central Highlands Gibeon Tomb 10B Pritchard 1963: Figs. 8:23, 12:66-67 Shiloh V Bunimovitz and Finkelstein 1993: Fig. 6.50:8

Type PYX2 (Fig. 8.9:8) Description: This is a pyxis with an elongated, oval body and rounded base. One example of this type was found at Tel Aphek in a pit (Locus 4015) of Stratum X8. The pronounced length of the body of this type distinguishes it from Type PYX1. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: A decorated pyxis with a ring base was found at Tell Qasile Stratum X (Mazar 1985: Fig. 42:17). Another is known from Tel Gerisa Stratum III (Area D). 226

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

General Distribution: This type of pyxis is relatively rare in early Iron Age contexts. Most known examples were found at sites in the Northern Sharon and Coastal Plain as at Jatt (Yannai 2000a: Fig. 11:122) and Tel Dor (Gilboa 2001: Pl. 5.47:19). Some come from the Northern Valleys as at Tel Megiddo Stratum VI (Loud 1948: Fig. 73:12, Finkelstein Zimhoni and Kafri 2000: Fig. 11.3:5) and Tel Beth-Shean Stratum VI (James and McGovern 1993: Fig. 25:4).

FLASKS DERIVED FROM THE CANAANITE TRADITION (TYPES FL1-FL2) Type FL1 (Fig. 8.9:9-11) Description: This type is a small flask with lentoid body. Seven examples were found at Tel Aphek, five of which were decorated with red-painted, concentric circles. Of the seven examples, three were discovered in Tomb 1200 (Fig. 8.47:5-7), one in Stratum X11 (Fig.8. 67:6) and the remainder in pits of Strata X10 (Figs. 8.70:14-16, 19-20, 8.76:8). Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Small flasks of this type, decorated and undecorated, were found at Tell Qasile Strata XII-X (Mazar 1985: Figs. 15:10, 37:3) and at >Izbet êartah, mainly in Stratum II (Finkelstein 1986:88, Fig. 10:20). One complete flask of this type was discovered at Tel Gerisa, in an Iron I level. General Distribution: Killebrew (1998:217, Note 344) has demonstrated that these flasks appeared at many sites throughout the region in 14th-13th centuries BC contexts. Information from the sites located in the central Coastal Plain described above indicates that flasks of this type were still made during Iron I. TABLE 8.41: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE FL1 OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Context Reference Shephelah Miqne/Ekron VII Killebrew 1998: Pl. III.II.25:21 Lachish Fosse Temple III Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pl. 54:351 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod XV/XIV-XII Dothan and Porath 1993: Figs. 12:12, 32:9-13,15, 41:11 Mor Barako 2007: Fig. 3.29:4, 5 Sera‘ IX Oren 1985: Fig. 4:11 Northern Sharon Plain Dor Iron IA-B Gilboa 2001: Pl. 5.3:5, 6 Jatt Tomb Yannai 2000a: Fig. 11:123-127

Type FL2 (Fig. 8.10:1-3) Description: This type is a large flask with lentoid body, painted with red concentric circles. Two complete examples and one fragment of another of this type were found at Tel Aphek in Stratum X12 (Figs. 8.51:12, 8.55:1, 8.65:6). Another was found in Stratum X11 (Fig. 8.67:7). The spout of one of these flasks (Fig. 8.55:1) is thickened externally. Distribution: Comparanda from other sites in this region are unknown. Table 8.42 indicates comparanda from regions further afield. Apparently large flasks were common in contexts dating to the latest phases of the Late Bronze Age.

227

Y UVAL GADOT

FL2

2

1

X11

X12

3

X12 Fig. 8.10: Flasks.

228

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

TABLE 8.42: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE FL2 OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Shephelah Gezer Beit Mirsim Lachish

Context

Reference

XII Dever 1986: Pl. 33:5 C Albright 1932: Pl. 47:14 Fosse Temple III and Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pl. 54:349, Yannai 2004: Figs. 19.32:8, Stratum VII-VI 19.44:8 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Ashdod XV/XIV-XVIII Dothan 1971: Fig. 82:1; Dothan and Porath 1993: Fig. 23:8 Mor VI Barako 2007: Fig. 3.29:11, 12 Northern Sharon Plain Dor Iron IA-b Gilboa 2001: Pl. 5.17:3 Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Keisan IXc Briend and Humbert 1980: Pl. 75 Megiddo VIIA Finkelstein and Zimhoni 2000: Fig. 10.9:4 Central Highlands Gibeon Tombs 10A and 10B Pritchard 1963: Figs. 8:25, 12:70

STORAGE JARS DERIVED FROM THE CANAANITE TRADITION (TYPES SJ1-SJ4) Type SJ1 (Fig. 8.11:1-2) Description: This type is a small ovoid jar which usually has a convex base. Two jars of this type are known from Tel Aphek, each, however, lacks a rim and a neck. One was found in an installation (Locus 7225) of Stratum X14 (Fig. 8.34:4), while the other was recovered in Stratum X12 (Fig. 8.65:3). The latter example is covered by red painted, horizontal lines on its body. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: A jar of this type, also decorated with red painted lines, was discovered at Tel Michal Strata 16-15 (Negbi 1989: Fig. 5.9:1). General Distribution: Amiran (1969:142) called vessels of this type “decorated jars”. Many examples of the type are known from sites throughout the southern Levant (e.g., from the Tel Lachish Fosse Temple II; Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pl. VLII: 393). Other comparanda were found at sites more distant from Tel Aphek (e.g., Tel Megiddo, Tel Hazor and even Tel Dan Stratum VII; Amiran 1969: Pl. 44; Biran 1989: Fig. 4:10).

Type SJ2 (Fig. 8.11:3-9) Description: This type has an ovoid body, long sloping shoulders and is represented by many variations on forms of rims and bases. The most common are folded rims, which often have ridges and are occasionally painted red (Fig. 8.52:1-20). Stump bases are the most common, but some bases are narrow and convex (e.g., Fig. 8.11:7-9). Three complete examples of this type were found at Tel Aphek Stratum X12, all within Palace VI. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Jars of this type were discovered at >Izbet êartah III (Finkelstein 1986: Type 20), Tel Gerisa, and even Tell Qasile Stratum XII. General Distribution: This type, commonly known as the ‘Canaanite jar’, is typical of the Late Bronze Age of the southern Levant (Amiran 1969: Pl. 43). Jars of this type from Tel Aphek are more 229

Y UVAL GADOT

SJ1

2

X12

1

X14

SJ2

4

8

5

3

X12

9

7

6

X12

X12

SJ3 SJ4

0

10

11

X8 Fig. 8.11: Storage jars.

230

10 cm

X8

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

globular than examples from nearby sites such as Tel Gezer Strata 15-13 (Dever et. al 1974: Pl. 23:1-3; Dever 1986: Pls. 26:1,3, 27:1-4), Tel Batash Strata IX-VI (Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006:77, Type SJ2) or even Tel Sera‘ (Oren 1985: Fig. 5:6). Jars discovered at Tel Lachish have either carinated shoulders (Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pl. LVII:387) or curving shoulders (Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pl. LVII:385), which are more similar to the Tel Aphek examples. It is important to note that variants of this type, either with four handles, or with carinated rather than rounded shoulders (giving a triangular shape to their bodies) are not found at Tel Aphek. These last features are usually typical of the end of the Late Bronze Age. Notably, such jars have been documented at >Izbet êartah Stratum III (Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 9:2), Tel Gerisa Strata 9a-b and Tell Qasile Stratum XII (Mazar 1985: Fig. 26:14). Type SJ3 (Fig. 8.11:10) Description: This elongated jar type has a simple rim, ovoid body, rounded shoulders, short neck, and a rounded base. Nine examples of this type were found at Tel Aphek, two in pits (Loci 1146 and 4018) of Stratum X10 (respectively Fig. 8.71:1 and Fig. 8.74:1) and seven in pits of Stratum X8. Of those last, six were found in Locus 4015 (Fig. 8.87:1-6) and one in Locus 4026 (Fig. 8.88:1). The jars from Locus 4015 were filled with grain (Chapter 20). Two of the jars have special features that set them apart from the other jars of this type. One (Fig. 8.87:6) has ridges on its neck; the other (Fig. 8.88:1) has an elongated neck similar to northern types common in Iron I at such sites as Megiddo Stratum VI, (Finkelstein, Zimhoni and Kafri 2000: Fig. 11.8:11,16) and Beth-Shean Stratum VI (Yadin and Geva 1986: Figs. 28-29). Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Type SJ3 in this author’s typology is equal to Mazar’s (1985:54, Fig. 48:2) Type SJ1 at Tell Qasile, found mainly in Strata XI and X. Similar jars were found at Tel Michal Strata 14-13 (Singer-Avitz 1989: Fig. 7.2:11) and at >Izbet êartah II (Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 23:20). General Distribution: The type first appears in Iron IB and continues to be part of the Iron II (Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: Type 21a-b, with additional references) repertoire. Mazar (1985:54) has demonstrated that this type of jar is typical to the central and southern regions, and with few exceptions is not found at northern sites such as Tel Megiddo. Type SJ4 (Fig. 8.11:11) Description: This sack-shaped type has a narrow neck and a rounded base. Two examples were found at Tel Aphek. One was recovered from a pit of Stratum X10 (Fig. 8.74:8), the other in a pit (Locus 4015) of Stratum X8 (Fig. 8.87:7). Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: No jars of this type have been found at other sites in this region. Their absence is particularly notable at Tell Qasile, where many other types of jars have been recovered in the excavation of contemporary Iron Age levels. General Distribution: Jars of this type have been found at sites farther to the north, for example at Tel Mevorakh (Stern 1978: Figs. 11:1-2, 19:3) and Tel Megiddo (Loud 1948: Figs. 73:8; 76:3-4; Finkelstein Zimhoni, and Kafri 2000: Fig. 11.4:1-11). They are not, however, found at sites in the Shephelah and the Southern Coastal Plain, where another type of jar (Type SJ3) is common in more or less contemporary contexts. One can conclude that jars type SJ4 are typical to Iron IB through Iron IIB occupations in the northern region.

231

Y UVAL GADOT

P1

X12

1 0

10 cm

Fig. 8.12: Pithoi.

PITHOI DERIVED FROM THE CANAANITE TRADITION (TYPE P1) Type P1 (Fig. 8.12:1) Description: This type is the well known ‘collared-rim’ pithos. One complete example was discovered at Aphek Stratum X12, in the destruction debris of Palace VI of the Late Bronze Age. Rims of pithoi of this type were also retrieved from Strata X10 and X9 (Fig. 8.71:7), though in small quantities. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Collared-rim pithoi were found at Tell Qasile (Maisler 1951: Fig. 10c; Mazar 1985:57) and in all strata at >Izbet êartah (Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 9:1). General Distribution: Many scholars have dealt with the distribution and dating of the collared-rim jar (e.g., Finkelstein 1986:77-84; Cohen-Weinberger and Wolff 2001). In the past, these vessels were commonly dated to narrow time limits within Iron I, while culturally, they were related to sites inhabited by ‘Israelites’. In view of this, the discovery of one such pithos of this type in the ruins 232

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

of Palace VI (culturally related to Canaanites and Egyptians, and dated to late in LB IIB) seemed quite exceptional when first encountered (Beck and Kochavi 1985:34). However, since that discovery additional pithoi of this type have been discovered in similar chronological contexts at Tel Nami (Artzy 1994; 1995) and Tell es-Sa>idiyeh (Tubb 1988), dated to the Late Bronze age and not likely to be settlements of ‘Israelites’. Nowadays collared-rim pithoi are believed to represent a phase in the typological development of Middle and Late Bronze Age jar types (Amiran 1963:232; Yadin et al. 1958:131; 1960:85; Pilides 2000). Thus, there is no need to search beyond the borders of Canaanite material culture for the origin of these jars. Distribution in the central Coastal Plain: Mazar noted two types of jugs with basket handles at Tell Qasile. One has a strainer (Mazar 1985: Type 6), while the other is notable for its spout (Mazar 1985:97, Type 7).

STORAGE V ESSELS DERIVED FROM AN A EGEAN TRADITION (TYPES ATJ1, AJ2, APIX) These types are locally made but have morphologies obviously derived from Aegean prototypes, which are morphologically distinct from local, Canaanite types. They are generally associated with ‘Philistine’ material culture. Complete storage vessels of Philistine style are lacking at Tel Aphek, and the fragments noted here are not diagnostic enough to allow for identification of specific types. All these fragments were found in refuse pits of Stratum X10. Type AJT1 (Fig. 8.16:2) Description: This is a generic type of jug with basket handle. Two fragments of this type were found at Tel Aphek Stratum X10 (Figs. 8.70:17, 8.72:19), one of which is decorated with lines of red paint. Nothing more may be said of the morphology of these vessels due to the small nature of the fragments. Type AJ2 (Fig. 8.16:3-4) Description: This is a generic designation for a type or types of bottles, the overall morphologies of which remain unknown. Two fragments, possibly of bottles, were found at Tel Aphek Stratum X10 (Figs. 8.70:13, 8.76:7). Both are painted in lines of red and black. At Tell Qasile two types of bottles, cylindrical (Mazar 1985: Type 9) and horn-shaped (Mazar 1985, Type 10) are known. The examples from Tel Aphek are too fragmentary to be further classified as of one or another sub-type. Type APIX (Fig. 8.16:5) Description: This type is a pyxis with horizontal handles. Only one fragment of the type from Stratum X10 (Fig. 8.76:6) was found at Tel Aphek. It is decorated with bands of red paint on its lower body and it is similar to Mazar (1985) Type 4 at Tell Qasile.

233

Y UVAL GADOT

CATEGORY III – MISCELLANEOUS TYPES OF VESSELS OF VARIOUS FUNCTIONS TABLE 8.43: VARIOUS VESSELS FASHIONED IN THE CANAANITE TRADITION--LIST OF TYPES Type

Killebrew 199811

Description

L1 C&S Scoop BT Stand 1 Stand 2

CA38 -

Lamp, open spout Cup and saucer Asymmetric bowl with handles on lower body Baking tray Simple, squat stand Fenestrated stand

LAMPS Type L (Fig. 8:13:1-4) Description: This type has a spout and either a flat or a round base. Although the assemblage of lamps represents types in use from LB I to Iron IIA, there are few marked differences in morphology that may be discerned over the course of time. Twenty-two lamps were found at Tel Aphek, most of them in Stratum X12. One lamp from Stratum X14 (Fig. 8.31:13) has a particularly wide spout and a high base, features which recall those of Middle Bronze Age lamps (Amiran 1969: Pl. 59). Another lamp (Fig. 8.58:16) was recovered in the foundation deposit (Locus 7020) placed under the walls of Palace VI. It lacks a spout and is very similar to a shallow bowl. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Lamps of this type were found at all the sites of the Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age in the Central Coastal Plain (e.g., Negbi 1989: Fig. 7.2:9; Mazar 1985: Fig. 20:16). General Distribution: Despite scholars’ attempts (e.g., Cooley and Pratico 1995:159-160) at achieving a meaningful typological distinction with chronological indications for lamps, it appears that lamps maintained unity of form over long periods, and that changes in their morphology were slow and are difficult to discern. Hence, lamp morphology is not a useful indicator of chronology. TABLE 8.44: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE L OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Context Reference Shephelah Gezer XVI-XII Dever, Lance and Wright 1970: Pl. 28:12; Dever 1986: Pls. 22:12,18, 38:12-13 Harasim 5-4 Inbar 1994: Pl. 15:5, 1995: Pl. 15:12, 1998: Fig. 1:11 Batash IX-V Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pls. 19:7, 26:6, 63:12 Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Sera‘ IX Oren 1985: Fig. 4:9 Northern Sharon Plain Mevorakh XI-X, VII Guz-Zilberstein 1984: Figs. 2:13-14, 7:12; Stern 1978: Fig. 13:11 Jatt Tomb Yannai 2000a: Fig. 11:128-131 Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo VIII-VIA Loud 1948: Figs. 67:1, 80:5; Finkelstein, Zimhoni and Kafri 2000: Fig. 11.1:3

11. There are no additional comparanda.

234

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

L

C&P

1

3

2

X14

X14

5

4

X12

X11

X12

Fig. 8.13: Lamps.

CUP AND SAUCER (TYPE C&S) Type C&S (Fig. 8.13:5) Description: This specialized type is a bowl with a smaller inner bowl, a cup or lamp attached internally to the centre of the larger bowl. According to Killebrew (1998:1139) these vessels were used to burn incense. Only two fragments of this type were found at Tell Aphek, both in Stratum X12. Distribution in the Central Coastal Plain: Comparanda are found at Tel Gerisa Stratum 11 and Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985:78-9, Fig. 45:2). No cup and saucer was found in the Late Bronze Age strata of Tel Michal, probably for chronological reasons, as the Late Bronze Age strata of Tel Michal date earlier than Tel Aphek Stratum XII. Neither was this type found at >Izbet êartah, although a chronological explanation for its absence at that site, partly contemporary with Tel Aphek Stratum X12, must be discounted. General Distribution: Yannai (1996:245) noted that the ‘cup and saucer’ appears for the first time in the Late Bronze Age at the time Egyptian-style pottery was introduced. Comparanda (Table 8.45) indicate this type continued in use at coastal sites into Iron I. Notably, the type remains unknown at Central Highland sites such as Giloh and Shiloh. As noted above, the type was also not found at >Izbet êartah and there seems to be a pattern to the distribution of such vessels. Since no physical barriers exist which could explain why Type C&S is absent at highland sites, it seems reasonable to suggest that is absence is due to cultural preference. Since these vessels were for burning of incense, a cultic function is suggested for them. Therefore, it is tentatively suggested that C&S incense burners were preferentially shunned by highland dwellers, while populations living in the coastal Plain and the Shephelah chose and/or produced them for that purpose. The possible inference is of some sort of ethnological distinction between these populations.

235

Y UVAL GADOT

TABLE 8.45: DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE C&S OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Site Context Reference Shephelah Gezer XIII Dever 1986: Pl. 20:20-21 Harasim 5-4 Inbar 1994: Pl. 15:2; Inbar 1998: Fig. 8:12 Batash VI Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: Pl. 55:11 Lachish Fosse Temple II-III Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pl. 44:179-183 Safi/Gath E4b Gadot and Uziel, Forthcoming Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Sera‘ IX Oren 1985: Fig. 4:6 Northern Sharon Plain Mevorakh VII Stern 1978: Fig. 13:12 Jatt AV II and a tomb Porath, Yannai and Kasher 1999: Pl. 6:4-5; Yannai 2000a: Fig. 11:132 Northern Valleys and Coastal Plain Megiddo VIIB, VA-IVB Loud 1948: Figs. 67:7, 69:2, 79:12; Lamon and Shipton 1939: Fig. 38:6

BAKING TRAYS , SCOOPS AND STANDS Type BT (Fig. 8.14:1-2) This type is a baking tray, of which three fragments were found at Tel Aphek. One was discovered in Locus 7225 of Stratum X14 (Fig. 8.31:12). It is concave and missing part of its rim. A second fragment was found in Stratum X12 (Fig. 8.51:6) and a third in a Stratum X10 pit (Fig. 8.72:25). The surfaces of this tray were perforated with a sharpened tool. Similar trays are known from >Izbet êartah (Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 12:11) and Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985: Figs. 26:20, 54:24). Type Scoop (Fig. 8.14:3) The scoop is an asymmetric bowl with two external loop handles on its lower side. Only one example was found at Tel Aphek, in a silo of Stratum X8 (Fig. 8.92:21). No additional scoops have been found in the Central Coastal Plain. Gitin (1993) meticulously studied the distribution and chronology of scoops and concluded they were mainly related to administrative centres where they were probably used for distribution of commodities (grains?). Since the scoop from Tel Aphek was found discarded in a silo, its stratigraphic origin is uncertain. The most likely contexts for its origin are either Stratum X12, during which Aphek functioned as an administrative centre, or Stratum X8 with its many grain silos. Type Stand 1 (Fig. 8.14:4) This small, squat, cylindrical type was used as a stand for bowls. Fragments of this type were found at Tel Aphek in Stratum X14 (Fig. 8.36:12-13), Stratum X11 (Fig. 8.66:16) and in Strata X10 and X9 (Figs. 8.80:14, 8.82:7). Comparanda are found at Late Bronze Age sites in the vicinity of Tel Aphek, such as Tel Michal Strata 16 and 15 (Negbi 1989: Figs. 5.7:13, 5.8:10). They are also known at sites outside the Central Coastal Plain such as Tel Ashdod Stratum 16 (Dothan and Freedman 1967: Fig. 18:2), Lachish Fosse Temple I (Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pl. 53:342) and Fosse Temple III (Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pl. 53:333). Type Stand 2 (Fig. 8.14:5) This type of stand is fenestrated. Only one example was found at Tel Aphek, where it was recovered on a floor of a house of Stratum X9. Stands of this type were discovered at Tel Michal in both Strata 16 and 15 (Negbi 1989: Fig. 5.7:12) of the Late Bronze Age, and in Strata 14 or 13 (Singer-Avitz 1989: Fig. 7.5:7) of the Iron Age. Many similar stands were used in the temple at Tell Qasile (Mazar 1980: Chap. 12:87-100). 236

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

BT

2

1

X14

X10-X9

Scoop

3

X8(?)

Stand 1

Stand 2

5

4

X14

X10-X9

Fig. 8.14: Baking trays, scoops and stands.

CATEGORY IV - IMPORTED CYPRIOTE VESSELS

Fifteen imported Cypriote vessels were recovered at Tel Aphek. Some were complete and others are represented by large, diagnostic fragments. They were discovered in three contexts, a favissa (Locus 7225) in Stratum X14, Tomb 1200 (Strata X13-X12) and the ruins of Palace VI (Stratum X12). Additional fragments (Fig. 8.22) of such vessels were found as residual material in pits in Area A (unpublished). Since they are of special significance, even though no evidence of this ware was found in Area X, they have been included in this discussion.

CYPRIOTE BICHROME WARE A single fragment of a jug of imported Cypriote Bichrome Style Ware (Fig 8.22:1) was found at Tel Aphek, in a pit in Area A. This vessel bears painted decoration that is reminiscent of the spokes of a wheel, a description first suggested by Epstein (1966:57), The decoration consist of ‘spoke wheel’ (Epstein 1966:57). The surviving fragment of this vessel is too small to allow for proper identification of the original form of the complete vessel. A few fragments of this ware are known from Tel Michal (Negbi 1989:59) and Tel Gerisa (unpublished). 237

Y UVAL GADOT

AB1

3

1

2

X10-X9

X10-X9

X10-X9

AB2

4

X10-X9

AK1

5 6

X10-X9 Fig. 8.15:Bowls and kraters in Aegean tradition.

238

X10-X9

AJ1

ACP

2

1

X10-X9

X10-X9

AJ2

APIX1

4

3

X10-X9

5

X10-X9

X10-X9

Fig. 8.16: Vessels in Aegean tradition.

WHITE SLIP WARE The White Slip Ware family is only represented at Tel Aphek by fragments of bowls. Unfortunately the diminutive sizes of these fragments preclude identification of most of the morphological features of the types of vessels they represent. Accordingly, the following discussion focuses on the styles in which these sherds were decorated. Most bowls of this type were found in Strata X14, X13 and X12, or in nonprimary contexts in Area A. Two fragments from Stratum X14 (Fig. 8.34:5,8) are decorated in the early, White Slip I Style. Bowls with decoration comparable to that of a bowl fragment (Fig. 8.34:5) have been found at Alalakh (Bergoffen 2005: Pl. 38c).12 The decoration on the fragment illustrated in Fig. 8.34:8 is made up of a wavy line bounded by straight lines (Gittlen 1977:371, Pl. 14). Bowls with comparable decoration are known from Tell el->Ajjul (Bergoffen 2001:150; 2002:28). Most of these bowls are decorated in the White Slip II Style, which usually includes simple ladder motifs (Figs. 8.34:7, 8.40:9, 10, 8.41:9). Vessels of this style have been found at most Late Bronze Age sites in the southern Levant. Sites near Tel Aphek, where such vessels have been discovered, include Tel Michal (Negbi 1989: Fig. 5.10) and Tel Gerisa (unpublished). One fragment, found in Area A (Fig. 8.22:3), is decorated in a relatively rare manner composed of a wavy line and dots bounded by straight lines. Popham (1972:455, Pl. LXXXIV:9) indicates this type of decoration is not mainstream White Slip II Style; Russel (1989:2, Fig. 4:K-AD 914-15) calls it the “parallel line style”. A similar decoration appears on a bowl from Tell Abu Hawam (Artzy 2001). The vessel fragment in Fig. 8.34:5 is a uniquely decorated vessel. Four bowls decorated in late White Slip II Style (cf. Popham 1972: Pl. LXXXVI:1-3) were retrieved from within the ruins of Palace VI (Figs. 8.55:12, 13, 8.60:7, 8.63:15). These bowls were carelessly decorated, apparently only with wavy lines. This sub-type appears to be typical to the later part of the Late Bronze 12 The author wishes to thank Dr. Celia Bergoffen for her help in recognizing this specific decorative pattern.

239

Y UVAL GADOT

Age. Yannai (1996:249-50) noted they have been found at sites that date as late as the time of the Egyptian XXth Dynasty. In the Central Coastal Plain such bowls are known only at Tel Gerisa; notably they have not been found at Tel Michal (where a variety of other white slip bowl types has been found).

BASE RING WARE BOWLS One complete bowl of this ceramic family was found in Tomb 1200 (Fig. 8.47:8) at Tel Aphek. It belongs to Gittlen’s (1977:194, Pl. 7 with references) Type IF, undecorated bowls with ring bases and wishbone handles. A small fragment of another example with raised plastic decoration, found on a floor (Locus 7029) of Stratum X14 (Fig. 8.40:7), could not be typologically identified because too little of it was recovered. Base Ring Ware bowls have been documented in all phases of LB II, in tombs as well as in occupational levels. These bowls also appear in contexts of the Late Bronze III period (Yannai 1996:249).

BASE RING WARE JUGS AND JUGLETS Five jugs and one juglet of this ware were found in Area X. Three of the former, and the juglet were discovered in the favissa (Locus 7225) of Stratum X14. The juglet (Fig. 8.34:10) and two of the jugs (Fig. 8.34:9,12) bear raised plastic decoration. The neck and rims of these jugs are shaped like a candlestick. The third jug from Locus 7225 (Fig. 8.34:11) is somewhat cruder than the other two and is decorated by bands of white slip. Two more jugs decorated with bands of white slip were found in Tomb 1200 (Fig. 8.47:9,11). Petrographic analysis has revealed that an accepted typological division between jugs with plastic decoration (Type BRI) and jugs with white painted decoration (Type BRII, see Gittlen 1977: Chap. 1) can be refined beyond merely morphological features to include technological aspects (Vaughan 1991). Vessels of this type have been found in many tombs and occupation deposits in the southern Levant (Amiran 1969: Pl. 54; Yannai 2000a, with references). Oren (1969) suggested that the importation of Base Ring Ware began only in the period he terms ‘Late Bronze Age Ib’, and that these wares do not appear in the earliest phase of the Late Bronze Age. Their appearance at Tel Aphek in Stratum X14 has led the author to conclude this stratum should be dated to the second half of LB I.

BUCCHERO WARE JUG One jug of this special ware was found in Tomb 1200 (Fig. 8.47:10). Gittlen (1977:291), counted 26 Bucchero jugs from sites in Israel, including one found in a tomb near Tel Gerisa (Ory 1944: Pl. XII: 4). He (Gittlen 1981:51) stressed the observation these jugs were found in ‘LB IIa’ contexts (i.e., 14th century BCE in his system), though in Cyprus their manufacture reached its peak later, that is, in contexts contemporaneous with LB IIB and the Early Iron Age. Gittlen’s conclusion should be treated with care because in most cases the jugs were found in tombs with chronological ranges, in which dating of individual objects is far from secure. Among examples of Bucchero Ware found in occupation contexts, one from Stratum X12 at Tel Aphek, and another from Lachish Fosse Temple III (Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pl. LII:313), dated to LB IIB are noteworthy.

WHITE SHAVED WARE JUGLETS Three juglets of White Shaved Ware were discovered at Tel Aphek. Two were found in Palace VI (Figs. 8.55:14, 8.58:8) and one was recovered in Tomb 1200 (Fig. 8.47:13). Handles of two of these juglets were applied to their bodies rather than inserted into them, as was the more common method. Juglets of the type with applied handles are also known from a cemetery at Palmahim, dated to the 14th century BCE (Singer-Avitz and Levi 1992:17*, Fig. 5:1-7). Fabrics of juglets from Palmahim with applied handles were examined petrographically and found to be exactly like wares of juglets with inserted handles (ibid.: appendix). Therefore, it can be concluded that both types of the White Shaved Ware juglets were 240

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

manufactured in Cyprus and that the difference in technique may be related to specific workshops or potters, or groups of potters who produced these somewhat unusual variants. Gittlen (1977:348-353, 1981:51) thought these juglets typical to the 14th century BCE, but as he later proved, they are still found in contexts dated to LB IIB (Gittlen 1993:113), equivalent to the 13th century BCE, which appears to be the end of their chronological range. By LB III (The beginning of the 12th century BCE), these juglets are no longer found in ceramic assemblages of the southern Levant.

A CHRONO-STRATIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF LOCAL POTTERY Following is a discussion of continuity and change in the styles of pottery vessels at Tel Aphek and other sites located in the Central Coastal Plain during the chronological phases represented in this study, LB I through Iron IIA. The discussion centres on local wares, since they form the bulk of the pottery of every stratum. Quantitative data are given for sites for which they are available, Tel Aphek, Tell Qasile and >Izbet êartah. Spatial and chronological distributions of the various types of pottery are summarized in Fig. 8.21. LBI – LB IIA

At Tel Aphek 74 bowls were found, 50 of which have open forms and simple inverted, or inverted and thickened rims (Types BO1-3, Fig. 8.17). Apart from these, 16 hemispherical bowls (Type BH2), and 8 carinated bowls (Type BC) were also found. Most (43) bowls in this period had ring bases (e.g., Fig. 8.18), but 18 others had disc bases and 11 others had flat bases. Although no precise quantitative data on bowls from Tel Michal are available, the overall ratio of types appears to be similar. There are numerous open and carinated bowls with ring-bases. Other hallmarks of early Late Bronze Age ceramic assemblages are carinated kraters, carinated cooking-pots with thickened everted or triangular rims, and trefoil-rim jugs, all of which continue morphological traditions of the Middle Bronze Age, albeit with slightly altered rim shapes. By and large local ceramic styles at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age continue those of the preceding Middle Bronze Age. This trend is evident in the overall morphology of many types of vessels. How then may bowls of the Late Bronze Age be distinguished from those of the preceding period? It appears that the main differences between pottery types of the Middle Bronze Age and those of the Late Bronze Age are in quality and technological features. In general it may be stated that Late Bronze Age bowl types appear much cruder and mostly lack the excellent surface treatment of their Middle Bronze Age predecessors. The bowls from Late Bronze Tel Aphek particularly emphasize the lesser care taken in the manufacturing process. This is most evident in the way Late Bronze Age potters at Tel Aphek did not filter out large, crude limestone grits in the clay they used, but rather let them remain where they often protrude from surfaces of bowls. Two phenomena in the development of pottery in this period are particularly worthy of discussion. One is the appearance of ‘Palestinian Bichrome Decoration’, a kind of painting mode in red and black. It seems that this style of decoration is a local variant of a bichrome style which originated in Cyprus (Epstein 1966; Aström 2001). A wide variety of vessels decorated in this manner has been discovered in early Late Bronze Age contexts at nearby sites such as Tel Michal (Negbi 1989:54) and Tel Gerisa. At Tel Aphek only one such decorated vessel was found, a jug (Type J6; see above) of biconical form. Decorated vessels in this style from Tel Michal and Tel Gerisa include kraters with horizontal handles (e.g., Negbi 1989: Fig. 5.8:11,14), goblets (e.g., Negbi 1989: Fig. 5.8:9) and bowls (e.g., Negbi 1989:5.8:1-8). Most of the motifs on this ware are straight or wavy lines, but the palm tree and ibex motif is also found. 241

Y UVAL GADOT

50 45 40 35 30 25

X14 X12

Number

20 15 10 5 0 other

EB

BC

BH

BO

Types Fig. 8.17: Frequency of bowl types: Stratum X14 vs. Stratum X12.

50 45 40

30

X14 X12

25 20 15 10 5 0

Flat

Disc

Ring

Base type Fig. 8.18: Frequency of bowl base types: Stratum X14 vs. Stratum X12.

9%

17%

BO BH BC EB other

18% 54%

Fig. 8.19: Distribution of bowls by type, Stratum X12.

242

2%

Number

35

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

The second phenomenon concerns vessels of Egyptian-Style manufactured locally, as proven by petrographic analyses. Two such vessels were found at Tel Aphek Stratum X14 and additional examples are known from Tel Michal (Negbi 1989: Fig. 5.7:14) and from Tel Gerisa. Egyptian-style pottery did not appear earlier in the region, and it became much more prominent in the following phase (LB IIB; see below). Egyptian-style vessels of the same chronological horizon come from Beth-Shean and Deir el-Balaú in both cases from contexts dating from LB I through LB IIA (Killebrew 1998). LB IIB

The transition to LB IIB is marked by stylistic continuity in most types. Differences are relatively slight and may be found in such features as profiles of rims or bases or a tendency towards production of smaller vessels. Forty-four bowls were discovered at Tel Aphek Stratum X12. Most (52%) of the bowls, unlike in the assemblage of bowls in the preceding period, are hemispherical (Type BH, Figs. 8.17, 8.19). Whereas in the former period open bowls (Type BO) made up 67% of the entire assemblage of bowls, in this period they are only the second most popular type, making up 40% of the assemblage. Notably, open bowls were more curving and smaller in this period. A second trend to be noted is that carinated bowls of Type BC1 and BC2 are absent in assemblages of this period. The latter type is also absent in Strata 9A-B at Tel Gerisa and are unknown in Tomb 1200 at Tel Aphek. Their functions may have been replaced by Type BC4 bowls, which have only carinated rims. Bases for bowls of this period are typically flat or concave discs; ring bases, so common in the former period, are found solely on bowls of Type BC4 (e.g., Fig. 8.18). Carinated cooking-pots continue into this period. They usually have thickened, triangular rims. Carinated kraters also maintain their popularity. Some new ceramic types appear for the first time in this period. They are large and small lentoid flasks (Types FL1 and FL2), squat pyxides with rounded bases (Type PYX1) and collared-rim pithoi (Type P1). The appearance of these vessel types may have chronological significance, although to rely on the relatively small assemblage of vessels of these types from Tel Aphek in this period as a basis for such a hypothesis, calls for caution as far as chronological conclusions are concerned. Red and black decoration on kraters, jugs, bowls, goblets and chalices becomes less common in this period. If vessels were decorated, then it was more often done in a red monochrome style using motifs such as wavy bands of colour and palm trees and ibexes. The most notable phenomenon in LB IIB ceramic assemblages in the central coastal Plain is the appearance of Egyptian-style pottery. Such vessels have been found in great numbers in occupations of this period at Tel Aphek, Tel Gerisa and Tell Jaffa. At Tel Aphek, for example, 35% of the complete or nearly complete vessels found in Stratum X12 are of Egyptian-Style, almost all of which are bowls (Figs. 8.19, 8.20). Other Egyptian-Style vessels are beer-jugs (represented by a number of bases found at Tel Gerisa) and an amphora at Tel Aphek. 1% 34% Local Style



Import 61%

Egptian Style 4% Fig. 8.20: Distribution of pottery vessels by source.

243

Y UVAL GADOT

LB II/IRON I (LB III)

Although Tel Aphek was occupied during LBII/Iron I, (Stratum X11), the rather poor assemblage of pottery recovered poorly reflects contemporary ceramic types and styles. Unfortunately, neither does the assemblage of the nearby >Izbet êartah Stratum III properly represent the pottery of those periods. >Izbet êartah was certainly first occupied during LB III, but as Stratum III continued to exist for a long time, its pottery assemblage includes types that date to much advanced phases of Iron I. Determining which vessels from this assemblage date to LB III and which to Iron I, depends upon typological comparisons with stratified pottery assemblages from other sites, and not upon local stratigraphic evidence. A smooth transition between the pottery styles of LB II and LB III is reflected at Tel Aphek Stratum X11 and at >Izbet êartah III in the remarkable continuity of many types such as open bowls with thickened rims (Type BO3), hemispherical bowls (BH), large and small flasks (Types FL1 and FL2) and piriform jars with folded rims (Type SJ2). Carinated Cooking-pots and carinated bowls continue to appear, though with changes in forms of rims. Developments in this period mainly include the introduction of some new ceramic forms and the disappearance from assemblages of others. The ‘cyma’-profiled bowl (Type BC4a), in unslipped and unburnished variations is an addition to the ceramic repertoire. This type is common both at Tel Aphek Stratum X11 and at >Izbet êartah Stratum III. Possibly the production of other types of vessels, such as open bowls with simple or everted rims, ceased in this period. However, it is difficult to know whether their absence is related to chronological factors, or is just due to the limited number of vessels available for study from the archaeological record as it is presently known. Another important observation regarding the ceramic assemblages of Aphek X11 and >Izbet êartah III, concerns types that disappear from the ceramic repertoires of this period. Both these assemblages practically lack any Egyptian-style pottery, which appears to reflect political developments accompanying the destruction of Egyptian centres of control in Canaan at Tel Jaffa Stratum IVa, at Tel Gerisa Stratum 9A and at Tel Aphek Stratum X12. The lack of Egyptian-style pottery in the Central Coastal Plain stands in sharp contrast to the situation in the Shephelah in occupation layers at Tel Lachish Stratum VI and in the northern Negev at Tel Sera‘ Stratum 9 (Oren 1985; Yannai 1996). Stratum X11 at Tel Aphek also lacks any evidence of either Monochrome or Bichrome Philistine pottery. Apparently this stratum at Tel Aphek should be dated later than an Egyptian presence, but prior to the arrival of the Philistines. The single sherd of a Philistine vessel reported from >Izbet êartah Stratum III, (Finkelstein 1986:91), should be related to late in the life of the stratum and not to its early years. This observation, together with the lack of Egyptian pottery, bears great significance for future chronological discussion of the archaeological record of the coastal Plain. IRON IA-B

This period is represented at Tel Aphek by Strata X10 and X9. Many new types and forms of vessels appear in this time span. Unfortunately, most of the vessels attributed to these strata were found in pits, that is, in non-primary contexts where they were discarded. Hence, the chronological value of the origin of these vessels in relation to the contexts of the pits from which they were recovered is uncertain. The assemblages from the period found at Tell Qasile Strata XII-X and at >Izbet êartah Strata II and I, include a large number of vessels types. A. Mazar (1985) in a very detailed study of the ceramic assemblages of Tell Qasile Strata XII-X, observed stylistic changes within the repertoires of both Philistine and local types. Finkelstein (1986) similarly studied the pottery of >Izbet êartah Strata II and I. Unfortunately, the Iron IIA-IIB ceramic assemblage from Tel Aphek is much more limited in its scope and does not change 244

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

the general picture as portrayed by the scholars cited above. Accordingly, the discussion below focuses on differences between the assemblages of these periods and those of the preceding ones. Typical Canaanite bowls of Iron IA-IB are small hemispherical types and bowls with S-shaped profiles (Types BH1, BC4). These types are found in earlier contexts but appear to be more common in this period; i.e., they make up greater proportions of the recovered ceramic assemblages. A type of hemispherical bowl found at Tell Qasile, to date uniquely found at that site, is noted for its unusual rim shapes (inverted or everted) and forms of bases (flat or omphalos). Included in the repertoire of this period is a new bowl type (Type BH8) as well as krater-bowls (Type BH9) and chalices with S-shaped profiles (Type CH2). Notably, open bowls with thickened, inverted rims (Type CH2) are not known in the assemblage of these periods. Kraters and cooking-pots of Iron I maintain the carinated forms of their Late Bronze Age counterparts, but changes are found in the forms of rims (see above various examples of CP1 as well as Mazar 1985:52; Finkelstein 1996: Types 11-16). The hemispherical cooking-pot, the form of which probably derives from Philistine influence on local traditions, appears for the first time during this period. However, the quantity of such cooking-pots is remarkably lesser in comparison to that of traditional types. Typical jars of this period have simple rims and elongated, ovoid bodies (Types SJ3 and SJ4) with rounded shoulders. A few examples of the ‘Canaanite jar’ with carinated shoulders (Type SJ2) have been discovered at Tell Qasile. This jar type was extremely common during the Late Bronze Age. Type SJ2 jars found at Tell Qasile, which was first settled in Iron I, indicate they continued to be manufactured in the transition between LB III and Iron I. Another vessel type of note is the Collared-rim pithos, which become very popular during this period. An early example of this type (Type P1) was found at Tel Aphek in Stratum X12, emphasizing that the transition between the two periods is marked by continuity in pottery traditions. The most important new feature in this time span is the sudden appearance of decorated, Aegeanstyle pottery, commonly referred to as ‘Philistine’. Many vessels of this style have been found at Tel Aphek and other sites in the region, with the notable exception of >Izbet êartah (One in stratum III and few more in Strata II and I). The appearance of these vessels in the assemblages of selected sites in the region discussed here was sudden. The types in this category display a wide variety of decorative motifs (Mazar 1985:102). Neutron Activation Analysis of such vessels from Tell Qasile has revealed that most were produced locally (Yellin and Gunneweg 1985), while others were apparently brought from manufacturing centres further to the south. Limited results of petrogaphic and chemical examination of some of the vessels from Tel Aphek (Chapters 16 and 17), have shown that these vessels also originated in two production centres, one in the environs of Tel Aphek, the other somewhere further to the south, possibly at Tel Ashkelon or Tel Miqne-Ekron. Gilboa (2001) has stressed the lack of painted decoration in ‘Canaanite’ assemblages of Iron I, in contrast to contemporary Philistine and Phoenician bichrome decoration. Indeed, at sites in the Central Coastal Plain the use of paint on local style vessels became less common in this period, although it did not altogether disappear. Decorated vessels include bowls (especially at Tell Qasile), jugs and flasks. At >Izbet êartah, decorated vessels are almost non-existent in the ceramic assemblage. Burnishing and red slip on bowls did appear in that period, but Mazar (1985:82-6) and Finkelstein (1986: Types 6-9) have demonstrated that burnishing or red slip on bowls is typical only for later stages of Iron I. Finally, imported vessels of this period have only been found at Tell Qasile. They include vessels from Cyprus, Egypt and from the Phoenician coast. One Phoenician-style vessel (Type J3) was found at Tel Aphek Stratum X8. 245

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 8.21: Frequency of Canaanite-style vessel types in Area X by stratum.

246

Fig. 8.21 (contd.): Frequency of Canaanite-style vessel types in Area X by stratum.

FIG. 8.22: POTTERY FROM AREA A, EARLY LATE BRONZE SHERDS FROM UNSTRATIFIED PITS No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

1 2 3

Jug? Bowl Bowl

1188/1 1654/1 1060/1

239 293 208

Square

Elevation

Notes Bichrome decoration Chocolate-on-white White Slip II – Horizontal decoration

247

FIG. 8.23: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X14, LOCUS 7225 No.

Vessel

Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl

BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1

60494/5 60487/3 60503/1 60493/7 60442/6 60522/2 60446/3 60447/2 60494/2 60504/1 60488/2 60489/2 60520/3 60493/1 60446/5 60515/1

7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225

F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26

6.75 6.55 6.90 6.37 6.37 7.00 6.37 6.37 6.75 6.92 6.55 6.55 7.00 6.60 6.45 7.00

248

Photo

Fig. 8.24:1 Fig. 8.24:2 Fig. 8.24:3 Fig. 8.24:4 Fig. 8.24:5 Fig. 8.24:6 Fig. 8.24:7 Fig. 8.24:8 Fig. 8.24:9 Fig. 8.24:10

8

3

2

1

4

5

6

7

9

10

Fig. 8.24: Pottery from Locus 7725, Stratum X14: 1) Bowl (Fig. 8.23:3); 2) Bowl (Fig. 8.23:5); 3) Bowl (Fig. 8.23:7); 4) Bowl (Fig. 8.23:9); 5) Bowl (Fig. 8.23:10); 6) (Fig. 8.23:11); 7) Bowl (Fig. 8.23:12); 8) Bowl (Fig. 8.23:14); 9) Bowl (Fig. 8.23:15); 10) Bowl (Fig. 8.23:16).

249

Y UVAL GADOT

FIG. 8.25: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X14, LOCUS 7225 No.

Vessel

Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

Photo

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl

BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1

60520/2 60487/1 60492/2 60488/1 60492/4 60442/3 60442/2 60507/2 60505/1 60491/3 60442/4 60492/3 60517/1 60442/5 60489/1

7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225

F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26

7.00 6.55 6.75 6.55 6.75 6.37 6.37 6.95 6.92 6.75 6.37 6.75 7.00 6.37 6.55

Fig. 8.26:1 Fig. 8.26:2 Fig. 8.26:3 Fig. 8.26:4 Fig. 8.26:5 Fig. 8.26:6

250

Fig. 8.26:7 Fig. 8.26:8 Fig. 8.26:9 Fig. 8.26:10 Fig. 8.26:11 Fig. 8.26:12 Fig. 8.26:13

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

7

9

11

10

0 12

10 13

Fig. 8.26: Pottery from Locus 7725, Stratum X14: 1) Bowl (Fig. 8.25:1); 2) Bowl (Fig. 8.25:2); 3) Bowl (Fig. 8.25:3); 4) Bowl (Fig. 8.25:4); 5) Bowl (Fig. 8.25:5); 6) (Fig. 8.25:6); 7) Bowl (Fig. 8.25:8); 8) Bowl (Fig. 8.25:9); 9) Bowl (Fig. 8.25:10); 10) Bowl (Fig. 8.25:12); Bowl (Fig. 8.25:13); 12) Bowl (Fig. 8.25:14); 13) Bowl (Fig. 8.25:15).

251

Y UVAL GADOT

FIG. 8.27: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X14, LOCUS 7225 No.

Vessel

Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

Photo

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl

BO1 BO1 BO1 B BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO2

60516/1 60472/4 60472/7 60465/5 60446/6 60494/1 60487/2 60489/3 60465/2 60517/2 60491/2 60491/4 60492/1 60472/6 60518/1

7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225

F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26

7.00 6.55 6.55 6.45 6.37 6.75 6.55 6.55 6.45 7.00 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.55 7.00

Fig. 8.28:1

252

Fig. 8.28:2 Fig. 8.28:3 Fig. 8.28:4 Fig. 8.28:6 Fig. 8.28:7 Fig. 8.28:8

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

1

2

3

4

5

6

10

0 7

8

Fig. 8.28: Pottery from Locus 7725, Stratum X14: 1) Bowl (Fig. 8.27:1); 2) Bowl (Fig. 8.27:5); 3) Bowl (Fig. 8.27:7); 4) Bowl (Fig. 8.27:9); 5) Bowl 60465/1 (N.D); 6) (Fig. 8.25:10); 7) Bowl (Fig. 8.25:11); 8) Bowl (Fig. 8.25:13).

FIG. 8.29: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X14, LOCUS 7225 No.

Vessel

Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl

BO2 BO2 BO3 BH2 BH2 BH2 BH2 BH2 BH2 BH2 BH2 BH2 BH2 BH2 BH2 BH2

60472/3 60522/1 60486/2 60472/5 60442/1 60513/1 60515/2 60472/1 60494/3 60493/2 60493/3 60486/1 60472/8 60491/1 60493/4 60488/2

7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225

F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26

6.55 7.00 6.55 6.55 6.37 6.95 7.00 6.55 6.75 6.60 6.60 6.55 6.55 6.75 6.60 6.37

Photo

Fig. 8.30:1 Fig. 8.30:2 Fig. 8.20:3 Fig. 8.30:4 Fig. 8.30:5 Fig. 8.30:6 Fig. 8.30:7 Fig. 8.30:8 Fig. 8.30:9 Fig. 8.30:10

253

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 8.29: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X14, Locus 7225.

254

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

2

1

3

5

4

6

7

9

8

10

10

0

Fig. 8.30: Pottery from Locus 7725, Stratum X14: 1) Bowl (Fig. 8.29:5); 2) Bowl (Fig. 8.29:6); 3) Bowl (Fig. 8.29:7); 4) Bowl (Fig. 8.29:8); 5) Bowl (Fig. 8.29:9); 6) (Fig. 8.29:10); 7) Bowl (Fig. 8.29:11); 8) Bowl (Fig. 8.29:14); 9) Bowl (Fig. 8.29:15); 10) Bowl (Fig. 8.29:16).

FIG. 8.31: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X14, LOCUS 7225 No.

Vessel

Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Krater Krater Baking tray Oil lamp Oil Lamp Oil lamp

BH2 BH2 BH2 BC1 BC2 BC2 BC2 BC1 EgB7a KR1 KR1 BT L L L

60447/1 60520/1 60446/2 60523/1 60446/1 60448/1 60513/2 60507/1 60522/4 60505/4 60522/6 60519/1 60465/3 60475/1 60493/5

7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225

F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26

6.37 7.00 6.37 7.00 6.37 6.37 6.95 6.95 7.00 6.92 7.00 7.00 6.45 6.45 6.60

Photo Fig. 8.32:1 Fig. 8.32:2 Fig. 8.32:3 Fig. 8.32:4 Fig. 8.32:5 Fig. 8.32:6

Fig. 8.32:7 Fig. 8.32:8 Fig. 8.32:9

255

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 8.31: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X14, Locus 7225 256

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0

Fig. 8.32: Pottery from Locus 7725, Stratum X14: 1) Bowl (Fig. 8.31:2); 2) Bowl (Fig. 8.31:4); 3) Bowl (Fig. 8.31:5); 4) Bowl (Fig. 8.31:6); 5) Bowl (Fig. 8.31:7); 6) (Fig. 8.31:8); 7) Oil lamp (Fig. 8.31:13); 8) Oil lamp (Fig. 8.31:14); 9) Oil lamp (Fig. 8.31:15).

FIG. 8.33: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X14, LOCUS 7225 No.

Vessel

Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

Photo

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Jug Jug

CP1b CP1a CP1a CP1b CP1a CP1b CP1b CP1b CP1a J2 J6

60534/2 60497/1 60489/4 60512/1 60446/7 60494/4 60513/3 60505/2 60449/1 60488/3 60516/2

7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225

F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26

7.00 6.80 6.55 6.95 6.37 6.75 6.95 6.92 6.37 6.55 7.00

Fig. 8.35:1 Fig. 8.35:2 Fig. 8.35:3

257

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 8.33: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X14, Locus 7225.

258

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.34: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X14, Locus 7225.

259

Y UVAL GADOT

FIG. 8.34: POTTERY FROM APHEK AREA X, STRATUM X14, LOCUS 7225 No.

Vessel

Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

Photo

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Jug Jug Jug Storage jar Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Jug Juglet Jug Jug

J2 J2 EgJ1

60462/1 60465/4 60513/4 60516/3 60534/1 60491/5 60446/9 60446/8 60441/1 60441/3 60537/1 60441/2

7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225 7225

F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26 F26

6.45 6.45 6.95 7.00 7.00 6.75 6.37 6.37 6.37 6.37 7.00 6.37

Fig. 8.35:4 Fig. 8.35:5 Fig. 8.35:6

1

4

2

3

5

6 0

10

Fig. 8.35: Pottery from Locus 7225, Stratum X14: 1) Cooking pot (Fig. 8.33:9); 2) Jug (Fig. 8.33:10); 3) Jug (Fig. 8.33:11); 4) Jug (Fig. 8.34:1); 5) Jug (Fig. 8.34:2); 6) Jug (Fig. 8.34:3).

260

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.36: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X14, Loci 6138 and 1459.

261

Y UVAL GADOT

FIG. 8.36: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X14, LOCI 6138 AND 1459 No.

Vessel

Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Krater Krater Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Stand Stand Jug

BC2 BO3 BO3 BO1 BO1 BC1 KR2 KR1 CP1b CP1b CP1a

52319/1 14201/2 14188/1 14143/1 14201/1 14120/1 14110/1 14099/1 14111/1 14155/1 14141/1 14134/2 14134/1 14110/2

6138 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459

F24 G22 G22 G21 G22 G21 G21 G21 G21 G21 G21 G21 G21 G21

5.89 6.10 5.35 5.85 6.10 5.40 5.55 5.35 5.55 5.95 5.85 5.75 5.75 5.55

J4

FIG. 8.37: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X14, LOCUS 1459 No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Base Base Base Base

14094/3 14229/1 14229/2 14201/4 14154/1 14094/2 14201/5 14185/1 14126/2 45377/3 45375/4 14087/1 14110/3 45376/1 14111/2 45390/1 45373/1 45375/3 45388/3 45368/1 45348/2

1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459

G21 G22 G22 G22 G21 G21 G22 G22 G21 G23 G23 G21 G21 G23 G21 G23 G23 G23 G23 G23 G23

5.30 6.00 6.00 6.10 5.95 5.30 6.10 6.10 5.60 5.60 5.66 5.05 5.55 5.66 5.55 5.70 5.66 5.66 5.66 5.66 5.50

262

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.37: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X14, Locus 1459.

263

Y UVAL GADOT

FIG. 8.38: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X14, LOCUS 1459 No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Chalice Krater Krater Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar

45377/1 14082/1 45389/2 45388/2 45348/3 14095/2 45388/1 45389/1 45386/2 45376/2 14155/2 14095/1 14127/1 14134/3 45375/1 45376/3 45375/2

1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459

G23 G22 G23 G23 G23 G21 G23 G23 G23 G23 G21 G21 G21 G21 G23 G23 G23

5.60 5.15 5.66 5.66 5.50 5.30 5.66 5.66 5.66 5.66 5.95 5.30 5.60 5.75 5.66 5.66 5.66

264

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

FIG. 8.39: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X14, LOCI 1459 AND 7029 No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar: Base Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Goblet Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Krater

45394/1 14174/1 45387/1 45386/1 45377/4 14201/3 44219/3 44207/1 44142/2 44219/2 44196/1 44219/1 44181/1 44196/3

1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 1459 7029 7029 7029 7029 7029 7029 7029 7029

G22 G22 G23 G23 G23 G22 Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21

5.62 6.00 5.66 5.66 5.66 6.10 7.00 4.74 6.59 7.00 6.87 7.00 6.74 6.87

265

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 8.40: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X14, Locus 7029 (contd.); Stratum X13, Locus 7010.

266

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

FIG. 8.40: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X14, LOCUS 7029 (CONTD.); STRATUM X13, LOCUS 7010 No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Jug Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Bowl Bowl Jug Bowl Shard Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl B.R Jug Storage jar Krater Storage jar Cooking-pot Cooking pot Cooking-pot

44176/2 44139/1 44139/2 44176/1 44140/1 44141/1 44195/1 44140/2 44195/2 44142/1 44119/4 44100/3 44100/5 44059/3 44100/2 44059/2 44119/1 44118/2 44096/1 44059/4 44120/1 44119/3 44118/1

7029 7029 7029 7029 7029 7029 7029 7029 7029 7029 7010 7010 7010 7010 7010 7010 7010 7010 7010 7010 7010 7010 7010

Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21 Q21

6.74 6.59 6.59 6.74 6.59 6.59 6.87 6.59 6.87 6.59 6.47 6.46 6.46 6.27 6.46 6.27 6.47 6.47 6.46 6.27 6.47 6.47 6.47

FIG. 8.41: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X13, LOCUS 2746 No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Chalice Chalice Krater Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Storage jar Storage jar Handle

39404/1 39367/5 39403/2 39397/1 39367/6 39397/3 39406/4 39399/1 39406/1 39397/2 39411/2 39403/1 39417/1 39398/1 39367/4 39397/5 39398/2 39399/3 39402/2 39416/1 39389/5 39393/1 39367/3 39389/1

2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746

R25 Q25 R25 R25 Q25 R25 R25 R25 R25 R25 R25 R25 R25 R25 Q25 R25 R25 R25 R25 R25 R25 R25 Q25 R25

5.46 5.70 5.56 5.39 5.70 5.39 5.49 5.45 5.49 5.39 5.72 5.56 5.81 5.41 5.70 5.39 5.41 5.45 5.46 5.81 5.32 5.28 5.70 5.32

267

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 8.41: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X13, Locus 2746.

268

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.42: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X13, Loci 2746 and 4031.

269

Y UVAL GADOT

FIG. 8.42: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X13, LOCI 2746 AND 4031 No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Pithos Handle Bowl Bowl Bowl Jug Bowl Bowl Bowl Krater Cooking-pot ? Storage jar Storage jar Jug Bowl Kernos

39367/2 39411/3 39406/2 39403/3 39404/3 39402/1 39405/1 39411/1 39408/1 39389/2 39389/3 39405/2 39288/1 39395/1 39304/2 39394/2 39394/1 39394/3 39304/1 39223/1 39379/1 39236/1 39246/1

2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 2746 4031 4031 4031 4031 4031 4031 4031 4031 4031 4031 4031

Q25 R25 R25 R25 R25 R25 R25 R25 R25 R25 R25 R25 Q25 Q25 Q25 Q25 Q25 Q25 Q25 Q25 Q25 Q25 Q25

5.70 5.72 5.49 5.56 5.46 5.46 5.46 5.72 5.65 5.32 5.32 5.46 5.34 5.73 5.42 5.73 5.73 5.73 5.42 5.28 5.73 5.28 5.28

FIG. 8.43: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X13-X12, LOCI 1724, 1150; AREA A, LOCUS 3216; AREA G, LOCUS 1200 No.

Vessel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Storage jar base Storage jar base Storage jar base Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl

270

Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

Photo

1724 1724 1724 1150 1150 1150 1150 3216 3216 3216 3216 3216 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

N-O21 N-O21 N-O21 N23 N23 N23 N23

BO1 BO1 BH1a BH1a BH1a BH1a BC4 BC4 EgB2a

8785/1 5864/1 5849/1 8894/1 8890/1 8809/1 8812/1 31423/2 31142/1 31423/1 31434/1 31434/2 12047/2 12028/1 12016/2 12100/1 12016/1 12016/4 12028/2 12002/2 12002/1

5.70 5.20 5.05 6.00 6.02 5.75 5.75 8.42 7.71 8.42 8.45 8.45 10.35 10.20 10.20 10.05 10.20 10.20 10.20 10.05 10.05

Fig. 8.44:1 Fig. 8.44:2 Fig. 8.44:3 Fig. 8.44:4 Fig. 8.44:5 Fig. 8.44:6 Fig. 8.44:7 Fig. 8.44:8 Fig. 8.44:9

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.43: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X13-X12, Loci 1724, 1150; Area A, Locus 3216; Area G, Locus 1200.

271

Y UVAL GADOT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

10

Fig. 8.44: Pottery from Tomb 1200, Stratum X13-X12: 1) Bowl (Fig. 8.43:13); 2) Bowl (Fig. 8.43:14); 3) Bowl (Fig. 8.43:15); 4) Bowl (Fig. 8.43:16); 5) Bowl (Fig. 8.43:17); 6) Bowl (Fig. 8.43:18); 7) Bowl (Fig. 8.43:19); 8) Bowl (Fig. 8.43:20); 9) Bowl (Fig. 8.43:21).

272

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.45: Pottery from Area G, Stratum X13-X12, Locus 1200 (contd.).

273

Y UVAL GADOT

FIG. 8.45: POTTERY FROM AREA G, STRATUM X13-X12, LOCUS 1200 (CONTD.) No.

Vessel

Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Elevation

Photo

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Jug Jug Jug Jug Jug Jug Jug Jug Jug Jug Jug Jug Jug Jug

J5 J5 J5 J5 J5 J5 J5 J5 J5 J5 J5 J5 J5 J5

12011/1 12106/3 12016/3 12017/2 12023/3 12106/1 12069/1 12010/1 12106/2 12030/1 12017/1 12001/2 12009/1 12065/1

1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

10.05 10.35 10.20 10.20 10.20 10.35 10.05 10.05 10.35 10.28 10.20 10.05 10.05 10.35

Fig. 8.46:1 Fig. 8.46:2 Fig. 8.46:3

1

2

5

6

9

10

Fig. 8.46:4 Fig. 8.46:5 Fig. 8.46:6 Fig. 8.46:7 Fig. 8.46:8 Fig. 8.46:9 Fig. 8.46:10 Fig. 8.46:11

3

4

7

8

0

10 11

Fig. 8.46: Pottery from Tomb 1200, Stratum X13-X12: 1) Jug (Fig. 8.45:1); 2) Jug (Fig. 8.45:2); 3) Jug (Fig. 8.45:3); 4) Jug (Fig. 8.45:6); 5) Jug (Fig. 8.45:7); 6) Jug (Fig. 8.45:8); 7) Jug (Fig. 8.45:9); 8) Jug (Fig. 8.45:10); 9) Jug (Fig. 8.45:11); 10) Jug (Fig. 8.45:13); 11) Jug (Fig. 8.45:14).

274

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.47: Pottery from Area G, Stratum X13-X12, Locus 1200.

275

Y UVAL GADOT

FIG. 8.47: POTTERY FROM AREA G, STRATUM X13-X12, LOCUS 1200 (CONTD. No.

Vessel

Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Elevation

Photo

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Juglet Oil lamp Pyxis Pyxis Flask Flask Flask Bowl Jug Jug Jug Handle Juglet Pyxis Pyxis Stirrup jar Stirrup jar

JTd1 L Pyx1 Pyx1 Fl Fl Fl CypB CypJ CypJ CypJ CypB CypJt

12097/1 12042/1 12072/2 12056/1 12008/1 12001/1 12035/1 12014/1 12014/2 12006/1 12014/3 12010/1 12012/1 12007/1 12047/1 12072/1 12015/1

1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

10.35 10.28 10.35 10.35 10.05 10.05 10.28 10.20 10.20 10.05 10.20 10.05 10.20 10.05 10.35 10.35 10.20

Fig. 8.48:1 Fig. 8.48:2 Fig. 8.48:3 Fig. 8.48:4 Fig. 8.48:6 Fig. 8.48:7 Fig. 8.48:8 Fig. 8.48:9 Fig. 8.48:10 Fig. 8.48:11 Fig. 8.48:12 Fig. 8.48:13 Fig. 8.48:14

3

1

2

4

7

8

11

12

13

0

5

6

9

10

14

10

Fig. 8.48: Pottery from Tomb 1200, Stratum X13-X12: 1) Juglet (Fig. 8.47:1); 2) Oil lamp (Fig. 8.47:2); 3) Pyxis (Fig. 8.47:3); 4) Pyxis (Fig. 8.47:4); 5) Pyxis (Reg. No. 1203/1, n.d.); 6) Flask (Fig. 8.45:5); 7) Flask (Fig. 8.47:7); 8) Bowl (Fig. 8.47.8); 9) Jug (Fig. 8.47:10); 10) Juglet (Fig. 8.47:13); 11) Pyxis (Fig. 8.47:14); 12) Pyxis (Fig. 8.47:15); 13) Stirrup jar (Fig. 8.47:16); 14) Stirrup jar (Fig. 8.47:17).

276

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.49: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X12, Locus 1721.

277

FIG. 8.49: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X12, LOCUS 1721 No.

Vessel

Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Chalice Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl

BO3 BO3 BO1 BH1a BH1a BH1a BH1a BH1 BH1a BH5a BH5a BC4 ? Ch1 ? EgB2a EgB3 EgB3 EgB3 EgB2a

33614/1 33612/3 33518/1 33676/1 52072/1 33612/2 33667/2 33571/1 27417/1 52045/1 27357/1 33644/1 52063/1 33676/2 33496/1 52035/1 52089/1 27390/1 33573/1 52036/1

1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721

R22 R22 Q21 P21 Q-P21 R22 P21 Q21 Q22 Q-P21 Q22 P21 Q-P21 P21 Q21 Q21-22 Q21 Q22 P21 Q-P21

5.57 5.61 5.57 5.62 5.66 5.61 5.40 5.49 5.80 5.42 5.62 5.48 5.50 5.62 4.90 5.53 5.84 5.66 5.43 5.16

1

Photo

Fig.8.50:1

Fig. 8.50:2

2

3

5

4 0

6 10

Fig. 8.50: Pottery from Locus 1721, Stratum X12: 1) Bowl (Fig. 8.49:5); 2) Bowl (Fig. 8.49:17); 3) Jug (Fig. 8.51:11); 4) Flask (Fig. 8.51:12); 5) Amphora (Fig. 8.52:21); 6) Amphora (Fig. 8.52:23).

278

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.51: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X12, Locus 1721 (contd.).

279

Y UVAL GADOT

FIG. 8.51: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X12, LOCUS 1721 (CONTD.) No.

Vessel

Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Baking tray Decorated sherd Oil lamp Oil lamp Oil lamp Jug Flask Votive Clay object

EgB4 EgB4 EgB4 EgB5

51006/1 51006/2 33630/1 27311/1 27390/2 27365/1 33538/1

1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721

Q21 Q21 R22 Q22 Q22 Q22 R22

5.76 5.76 5.67 5.60 5.66 5.74 5.17

52046/1 33619/1 33606/1 33609/1 33536/1 52068/1 33573/2

1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721

Q-P21 R22 R22 P21 R22 Q-P21 P21

5.42 5.57 5.54 5.44 5.48 5.50 5.43

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

B.T L L L J2

Photo

Fig. 8.50:3 Fig. 8.50:4

FIG. 8.52: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X12, LOCUS 1721 (CONTD.) No.

Vessel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Amphora Cup Amphora

280

Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

EgJ2 EgC1 EgJ4

51005/2 51005/1 33504/1 33667/1 34564/2 52042/1 52077/1 33600/1 33564/1 33547/1 33580/1 52041/1 33609/2 33570/1 52072/2 52048/1 52046/2 52044/1 33589/1 52046/3 33580/2 27446/1 33675/1

1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721 1721

Q21-22 Q21-22 Q21 Q21-22 R22 Q21-22 P-Q21 R22 R22 P21 P21 Q21 P21 R22 P-Q21 P-Q21 P-Q21 P-Q21 P21 P-Q21 P21 Q22 P21

5.75 5.75 5.45 5.40 5.08 5.52 5.68 5.55 5.08 5.17 5.43 5.52 5.44 5.52 5.66 5.42 5.42 5.29 5.47 5.42 5.43 5.89 5.62

Photo

Fig. 8.50:5 Fig. 8.50:6

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.52: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X12, Locus 1721 (contd.)

281

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 8.53: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X12, Locus 1731.

282

FIG. 8.53: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X12, LOCUS 1731 No.

Vessel

Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Krater Cooking-pot Oil lamp Oil lamp Jug Jug

BO3 BO3 BO3 Bh1a BH5a BC3 EgB2a EgB1 EgB1 EgB4

52033/1 51039/1 33646/1 27054/1 5767/1 8935/1 33548/1 52025/1 33578/1 27041/1 8732/1 8806/1 27055/1 33602/1 8946/1 8944/1

1731 1731 1731 1731 1731 1731 1731 1731 1731 1731 1731 1731 1731 1731 1731 1731

P21 P21 O-P21 P22 P22 P22 O-P21 P21-22 O-P21 P22 P22 P22 P22 O-P21 P22 P22

5.97 5.97 5.63 5.75 5.31 5.50 5.23 5.75 5.41 5.75 5.30 4.55 5.75 5.46 5.50 5.50

J5 J5

Photo

Fig. 8.54:1 Fig. 8.54:2 Fig. 8.54:3 Fig. 8.54:4

Fig. 8.54:5 Fig. 8.54:6 Fig. 8.54:7

4

1

5

3

2

6

7

0

10 8

9

Fig. 8.54: Pottery from Locus 1731, Stratum X12: 1) Bowl (Fig. 8.53:4); 2) Bowl (Fig. 8.53:5); 3) Bowl (Fig. 8.53:6); 4) Bowl (Fig. 8.53:9); 5) Oil lamp (Fig. 8.53:13); 6) Jug (Fig. 8.53:15); 7) Jug (Fig. 8.53:16); 8) Flask (Fig. 8.55: 1); 9) Flask (Reg. No. 33584/1, n.d.).

283

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 8.55: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X12, Locus 1731 (contd.).

284

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

FIG. 8.55: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X12, LOCUS 1731 (CONTD.) No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

Photo

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Flask Kernos Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Pithos Bowl Bowl Juglet

52021/1 52024/1 33642/1 8951/2 8951/1 8935/2 5872/1 5872/2 5731/1 33665/1 8916/1 5872/3 5910/1 33583/1

1731 1731 1731 1731 1731 1731 1731 1731 1731 1731 1731 1731 1731 1731

P21-22 P21-22 O-P21 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 O-P21 P22 P22 P22 O-P21

5.27 5.56 5.60 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.82 5.82 5.16 5.75 5.40 5.82 5.85 5.26

Fig. 8.54:8

FIG. 8.56: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X12, LOCI 1130 AND 1137 No.

Vessel

Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Bowl Bowl Bowl Oil lamp Oil lamp Cooking-pot Storage jar Storage jar Cup Bowl Krater Storage jar Storage jar

BH EgB3 EgB8 L L

8386/1 5582/1 5641/1 5538/1 44077/1 5532/1 5592/1 44086/1 8303/1 8285/1 8455/2 8296/1 8455/1

1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1130 1137 1137 1137 1137 1137

O22-23 O22-23 O22-23 O22-23 O23-24 O22-23 O22-23 O23-24 N22-23 N22-23 O23 N22-23 O23

4.20 4.51 4.82 5.00 5.27 5.10 4.59 5.42 5.70 5.70 5.60 5.70 5.55

EgB4

Photo

Fig. 8.57:1 Fig. 8.57:2 Fig. 8.57:3 Fig. 8.57:4

285

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 8.56: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X12, Loci 1130 and 1137.

286

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

1 3

2 0

10 cm

0

4

3 cm

5

0

6

10 cm

7

9

8

10

11

14

13 0

15

10

12

Fig. 8.57: Pottery from Palace VI, Stratum X12: 1) Storage jar (Fig. 8.56:8); 2) Bowl – Votive (Fig. 8.56:9) 3) Bowl (Fig. 8.56:10); 4) Storage jar (Fig. 8.56:12); 5) Bowl (Fig. 8.58:5); 6) Oil lamp (Fig. 8.58:7); 7) Bowl (Fig. 8.58:12); 8) Bowl (Fig. 8.58:15); 9) Oil lamp (Fig. 8.58:17); 10) Oil lamp (Fig. 8.58:16); 11) Cooking-pot (Fig. 8.59:2); 12) Jug (Fig. 8.59:6); 13) Bowl (Fig. 8.59:10); 14) Flask (Fig. 8.59:11); 15) Stirrup jar (Fig. 8.59:12).

287

FIG. 8.58: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X12, LOCI 1193, 1726, 1732 AND 7020 No.

Vessel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Krater Oil lamp Juglet Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Oil lamp Storage jar Bowl Oil lamp Oil lamp

Type

EgB2a

EgB2a EgB4 EgB2b

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

8457/2 8457/1 8466/3 8466/2 8485/1 8562/1 8470/1 8466/1 27341/2 27550/1 27550/2 27308/1 27341/1 8741/1 44208/2 44208/1 44208/3

1193 1193 1193 1193 1193 1193 1193 1193 1726 1726 1726 1726 1726 1732 7020 7020 7020

P-Q23 P-Q23 P-Q23 P-Q23 P-Q23 P-Q23 P-Q23 P-Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 N23 P23-24 P23-24 P23-24

4.46 4.46 4.80 4.80 4.80 5.70 4.70 4.70 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.71 5.75 5.81 5.67 5.67 5.67

Photo

Fig. 8.57:5 Fig. 8.57:6

Fig. 8.57:7 Fig. 8.57:8 Fig. 8.57:9 Fig. 8.57:10

FIG. 8.59: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X12, LOCI 2731, 2959 AND 2753 No.

Vessel

Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Bowl Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Pyxis Bowl Jug Bowl Bowl Oil lamp Bowl Flask Stirrup jar

EgB5

27503/1 27699/1 33597/1 33596/1 37037/1 37018/1 27474/1 27470/1 26453/1 27606/1 27459/1 27362/1

2731 2731 2731 2731 2959 2959 2753 2753 2753 2753 2753 2753

R24 R23 R22 R22 L24 L24 P24 P24 Q24 P24 P24 Q24

5.05 5.74 5.75 5.79 5.69 4.67 4.68 4.89 5.30 5.00 4.84 5.15

J2

Photo Fig. 8.57:11

Fig. 8.57:12

Fig. 8.57:13 Fig. 8.57:14 Fig. 8.57:15

FIG. 8.60: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X12, LOCI 2753 (CONTD.), 1107 AND 3827 No.

Vessel

Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Bowl Cup and saucer Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Bottle (votive) Bowl Oil lamp Jug Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl

EgB7b C&S

27401/1 27377/1 27239/1 27482/1 27464/1 27384/1 5514/1 5698/1 5738/1 37257/2 37195/1 37204/1 37247/2 37305/1 37247/1 37300/1 37317/1

2753 2753 2753 2753 2753 2753 1107 1107 1107 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827

Q24 Q24 Q24 P24 P24 Q24 P22-23 P-O23 P-O23 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24

5.31 5.15 5.00 4.96 4.85 5.20 4.50 6.10 6.13 5.05 4.92 4.95 5.03 5.14 5.03 5.14 5.24

288

J2 BO1 BO1 BO1 BO3 BO3 BO3 BH2 BH1a

Photo

Fig. 8.62:1 Fig. 8.62: 2

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.58: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X12, Loci 1193, 1726, 1732 and 7020.

289

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 8.59: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X12, Loci 2731, 2959 and 2753.

290

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.60: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X12, Loci 2753 (contd.), 1107 and 3827.

291

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 8.61: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X12, Locus 3827 (contd.).

292

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

FIG. 8.61: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X12, LOCUS 3827 (CONTD.) No.

Vessel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Bowl Bowl Chalice Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl

Type

Ch EgB5 EgB1 EgB1 EgB1 EgB2a EgB2a EgB2a EgB2a

EgB4 EgB4

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

38207/1 37236/1 37205/2 37286/1 37184/1 37227/1 37256/2 37219/1 37252/1 37254/1 37202/2 37286/3 37253/1 37253/2 37284/3 37434/1 37206/1 37316/1

3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827

O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24

4.95 5.00 4.95 4.96 4.84 4.98 5.05 4.98 5.03 5.03 4.95 4.96 5.03 5.03 4.96 5.50 4.95 5.20

Photo

Fig. 8.62:3 Fig. 8.62:4

FIG. 8.63: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X12, LOCUS 3827 (CONTD.) No.

Vessel

Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Amphora Cup and saucer Oil lamp Oil lamp Oil lamp

EgB4 EgB4 EgB4 EgB4 EgB4 EgB5 EgB4 EgB4

37189/1 37177/1 37237/1 37286/2 37256/1 37247/3 37284/2 37299/1 37202/1 37236/2 37299/3 37208/1 37298/1 37257/1 37205/1 37140/1 37299/2 37234/1 37221/1 37284/1

3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3814 3827 3827 3827 3827

O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24

4.90 4.70 5.00 4.96 5.05 5.03 4.96 5.14 4.95 5.00 5.14 4.95 5.14 5.05 4.95 5.09 5.14 5.00 4.98 4.96

EgB4 EgB5 EgB5 EgJ3 C&S L L L

Photo

Fig. 8.62:5 Fig. 8.62:6

Fig. 8.62:7

293

Y UVAL GADOT

3

2

1

5

4

7

6

8

9

0

10

Fig. 8.62: Pottery from Locus 3827, Stratum X12: 1) Bowl (Fig. 8.60:12); 2) Bowl (Fig. 8.60:14); 3) Bowl (Fig. 8.61:11); 4) Bowl (Fig. 8.61:13); 5) Bowl (Fig. 8.63:13); 6) Bowl (Fig. 8.63: 15); 7) Oil lamp (Fig. 8.63:20); 8) Krater (Fig. 8.64:4); 9) Krater (Fig. 8.64:5).

294

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.63: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X12, Locus 3827 (contd.).

295

Y UVAL GADOT

FIG. 8.64: POTTERY FROM APHEK AREA X, STRATUM X12, LOCUS 3827 (CONTD.) No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Krater Krater Krater, decorated Krater Krater Cooking-pot Cooking-pot

37305/5 37254/2 37221/2 37226/1 37315/1 37370/1 37205/3

3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827

O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24

5.14 5.03 4.98 4.95 5.20 5.33 4.95

296

Photo

Fig. 8.62:8 Fig. 8.62:9

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

FIG. 8.65: POTTERY FROM APHEK AREA X, STRATUM X12, LOCUS 3827 (CONTD.) No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Jug Jug Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Flask Storage jar base Storage jar base Storage jar base

37372/1 37286/4 37254/3 37305/3 37235/1 37205/4 37221/4 37201/1 37237/2

3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827 3827

O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24

5.34 4.96 5.03 5.14 5.00 4.95 4.95 4.95 4.95

297

Y UVAL GADOT

FIG. 8.66: POTTERY FROM APHEK AREA X, STRATUM X11, LOCUS 2939 No.

Vessel

Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Krater Pyxis Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Stand

BO3 BO3 BO3 BH1a BH1a BH1a BC5 BC5 BC5 BC5

29179/1 29190/2 29174/2 29186/2 29213/1 29180/3 29174/1 29180/1 29199/1 29190/1 29160/1 29180/2 29178/1 29186/3 29180/4 29174/3

2939 2939 2939 2939 2939 2939 2939 2939 2939 2939 2939 2939 2939 2939 2939 2939

L24 L24 L24 L24 L24 L24 L24 L24 L24 L24 L24 L24 L24 L24 L24 L24

4.67 4.74 4.64 4.74 4.77 4.67 4.64 4.67 4.85 4.74 4.48 4.67 4.67 4.74 4.67 4.64

298

Pyx1

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.67: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X11, various loci.

299

Y UVAL GADOT

FIG. 8.67: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X11, VARIOUS LOCI No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Baking-Tray Flask Flask Juglet Jug Jug Jug Jug Jug Oil lamp Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar

49187/1 49186/1 37380/1 37340/1 39355/1 39211/1 47320/1 49224/1 49187/1 37291/2 29261/1 39199/1 39182/1 37291/1 29269/1 29268/1 49186/7

5022 5022 3846 3836 4020 4020 4821 5035 5022 3836 2954 4020 4020 3836 2954 2954 5022

R26 R26 O25 N25 R25 R25 K24 P26 R26 N25 M24 R25 R25 N25 M24 M24 R26

4.70 4.70 4.49 5.12 4.64 5.19 4.65 4.70 4.60 4.71 4.48 4.46 4.60 4.71 4.71 4.70

FIG. 8.68: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X10, LOCUS 1146 No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Handle Handle Chalise Chalise Handle Handle Krater? Krater Krater Krater Krater

8193/3 8384/1 8233/1 8217/1 8209/1 8385/2 8439/1 8209/2 8382/1 8193/2 8307/1 8156/1 8193/4 8583/2 8583/1 8404/1 8402/1 8307/2 8463/1 8382/2 8177/1 8385/1 8164/2

1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146

Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23

4.15 5.22 5.00 5.00 4.93 4.20 5.25 4.93 5.22 4.15 4.80 4.30 4.15 4.45 4.45 4.65 4.65 4.80 6.00 5.22 4.10 4.20 4.17

300

Photo

Fig. 8.69:1 Fig. 8.69:2

Fig. 8.69:3 Fig. 8.69:4 Fig. 8.69:5

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.68: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X10, Locus 1146.

301

Y UVAL GADOT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

0

0

10 cm

9

10

13

11

0

10

Fig. 8.69: Pottery from Pit 1146, Stratum X10: 1) Bowl (Fig. 8.68:3); 2) Bowl (Fig. 8.68:4); 3) Bowl (Fig. 8.68:9); 4) Bowl (Fig. 6.68:10); 5) Bowl (Fig. 6.68:11); 6) Flask (Fig. 8.70:16); 7) Flask (Fig. 8.70:20); 8) Bowl Votive (Fig. 8.70:21; 9) Storage jar (Fig. 74:1); 10) Storage jar (Fig. 74:8); 11) Krater (Fig. 8.77:2).

302

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.70: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X10, Locus 1146 (contd.).

303

Y UVAL GADOT

FIG. 8.70: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X10, LOCUS 1146 (CONTD.) No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Krater Krater Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Jug cooking? Jug Flask? Bottle Flask Flask Flask Bottle Jug Flask Flask Bowl - votive

8154/1 8421/1 8222/1 8203/2 8424/1 8290/1 8420/1 8404/2 8164/1 8402/2 8217/4 8268/1 8217/3 8383/1 8885/1 8193/1 8425/1 8155/1 8205/1 8226/1 8355/1

1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146

Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23

4.30 4.17 5.05 5.00 4.23 5.00 4.37 4.65 4.17 4.65 5.00 4.23 5.00 5.22 5.60 4.15 4.23 4.30 5.00 4.93 5.75

Photo

Fig. 8.69:6

Fig. 8.69:7 Fig. 8.69:8

FIG. 8.71: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X10, LOCUS 1146 (CONTD.) No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Pithos Jar/Jug Jar/Jug Jar/Jug Jar/Jug Jar/Jug Jar/Jug Jar/Jug Jar/Jug Jar/Jug Storage jar base Storage jar base Baking tray Jug? Pyxis Stand

8358/1 8203/1 8217/2 8420/2 8228/1 8423/1 8189/1 8194/1 8204/1 8193/5 8222/2 8153/1 8127/1 8204/2 8423/2 8245/1 8454/1 8194/2 8144/1 8377/1 8154/2 8117/1

1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146 1146

Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23 Q23

4.85 5.00 5.00 4.37 4.66 4.23 4.20 4.15 5.00 4.15 5.05 4.30 4.66 5.00 4.23 5.15 4.46 4.15 4.18 4.95 4.30 4.46

304

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.71: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X10, Locus 1146 (contd.).

305

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 8.72: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X10, Locus 1700.

306

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

FIG. 8.72: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X10, LOCUS 1700 No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Krater Jug Juglet Jar/Jug Jar/Jug Jar/Jug Flask Baking tray

8667/2 8667/5 8667/3 8575/1 8708/3 8691/2 8667/4 8643/1 8589/1 8667/7 8690/1 8691/1 8621/3 8667/6 8621/1 8690/3 8621/2 8667/1 8704/1 8708/1 8703/1 8708/2 8667/8 8690/4 8688/1

1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700

P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22

4.80 4.80 4.80 4.30 5.05 5.00 4.80 4.55 4.10 4.80 4.92 5.00 4.35 4.80 4.35 4.92 4.53 4.80 5.00 5.05 5.00 5.05 4.80 4.92 4.78

FIG. 8.73: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X10, LOCUS 4018. No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Krater Krater? Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot

39181/3 39105/6 39188/1 39138/3 39195/3 39185/1 39117/1 39195/7 39181/1 39164/2 39138/5 39138/4 39320/1 39190/1 39103/1 39117/2 39187/1 39117/4 39299/1 39103/3 39195/8 38117/3

4018 4018 4018 4018 4018 4018 4018 4018 4018 4018 4018 4018 4018 4018 4018 4018 4018 4018 4018 4018 4018 4018

P25 P25 P25 P25 P25 P25 P25 P25 P25 P25 P25 P25 P25 P25 P25 P25 P25 P25 P25 P25 P25 P25

4.81 4.31 5.00 4.41 5.00 4.81 4.33 5.00 4.81 4.48 4.41 4.41 5.68 5.00 4.30 4.33 5.00 4.33 5.51 4.30 5.00 4.33 307

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 8.73: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X10, Locus 4018.

308

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.74: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X10, Locus 4018 (contd.); Locus 5027.

309

Y UVAL GADOT

FIG. 8.74: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X10, LOCUS 4018 (CONTD.); LOCUS 5027 No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

Photo

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl

39226/1 39308/1 39164/4 39195/9 39103/2 39195/5 39181/2 39225/2 39117/5 39138/4 49199/2 49143/3 49197/4 49134/3 49143/4 49134/2 49143/5 49199/3 49171/1

4018 4018 4018 4018 4018 4018 4018 4018 4018 4018 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027

P25 P25 P25 P25 P25 P25 P25 P25 P25 P25 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27

5.25 5.40 4.48 5.00 4.30 5.00 4.81 5.26 4.33 4.41 5.30 4.63 5.30 4.52 4.63 4.52 4.63 5.30 4.66

Fig. 8.69:9

Fig. 8.69:10

FIG. 8.75: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X10, LOCUS 5027 (CONTD.) No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Chalice Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Handle Krater Sherd Sherd Krater

49181/2 49208/1 49181/1 49208/4 49259/1 49201/1 49260/1 49143/1 49240/2 49208/7 49199/5 49208/8 49197/5 49208/2 49172/2 49199/4 49197/1

5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027

O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27

4.99 5.51 4.99 5.51 5.57 5.51 5.57 4.63 5.22 5.51 5.30 5.51 5.29 5.51 5.02 5.30 5.29

310

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.75: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X10, Locus 5027 (contd.).

311

Fig. 8.76: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X10, Locus 5027 (contd.).

312

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

FIG. 8.76: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X10, LOCUS 5027 (CONTD.) No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Jug Pyxis Bottle Flask Jug/Jar Jug/Jar Jug/Jar Jug/Jar Jug/Jar Jug/Jar Jug/Jar Jug/Jar Jug/Jar Storage jar

49143/2 49172/1 49240/6 48240/1 49208/5 49208/3 49208/9 49134/1 49197/2 49153/1 49199/6 49197/3 49120/1 49180/1 49260/2 49199/7 49199/1 49242/1

5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027 5027

O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27 O27

4.63 5.02 5.22 5.22 5.51 5.51 5.51 4.52 5.29 4.67 5.30 5.29 4.60 4.99 5.57 5.30 5.30 5.27

FIG. 8.77: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X10, LOCUS 6139; STRATUM X9, LOCUS 1156; 3635. PIT 6139 (X10-X9) No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Votive Krater Bowl Bowl Bowl Cooking-pot Juglet Flask Storage jar Bowl Bowl Bowl Cooking-pot Pithos Storage jar

52338/1 52215/1 5816/4 5815/2 5816/1 5775/1 8348/1 5620/1 5816/2 35167/5 35167/1 35167/6 35167/2 35167/3 35167/4

6139 6139 1156 1156 1156 1156 1156 1156 1156 3635 3635 3635 3635 3635 3635

H25 H25 O22 O22 O22 O22 O22 O22 O22 L21 L21 L21 L21 L21 L21

5.33 4.69 4.95 4.95 4.95 4.70 4.71 4.38 4.95 4.53 4.53 4.53 4.53 4.53 4.53

Photo Fig. 8.69:11

313

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 8.77: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X10, Locus 6139; Stratum X9, Locus 1156; 3635. Pit 6139 (X10-X9).

314

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.78: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X9, Loci 2935 and 2902.

315

Y UVAL GADOT

FIG. 8.78: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X9, LOCI 2935 AND 2902 No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Bowl Storage jar Chalice Krater Bowl Bowl Bowl Krater Krater Krater Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Jar-Jug Jar-Jug Jar-Jug Jar-Jug Jar-Jug Jar-Jug Baking-tray Flask?

29173/2 29177/3 29176/1 29193/1 29002/1 29004/1 29004/2 29016/1 29016/3 29016/5 29002/3 29002/6 29004/3 29016/2 29002/5 29022/1 29011/1 29002/2 29014/1 29002/4 29016/4

2935 2935 2935 2924 2902 2902 2902 2902 2902 2902 2902 2902 2902 2902 2902 2902 2902 2902 2902 2902 2902

L23 L23 L23 L22 L24 L24 L24 L24 L24 L24 L24 L24 L24 L24 L24 L24 L24 L24 L24 L24 L24

4.30 4.31 4.31 4.60 3.72 3.80 3.80 3.82 3.82 3.82 3.72 3.72 3.80 3.82 3.72 3.80 3.85 3.72 3.83 3.72 3.82

FIG. 8.79: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X9, LOCI 2912 AND 3606 No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Bowl Bowl Krater Krater Storage jar Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Kernos Krater Krater Krater Cooking-Pot Cooking-Pot Cooking-Pot Cooking-Pot Cooking-Pot Cooking-Pot Flask Jug Decorated sherd Pithos Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar

29093/1 29122/1 29093/2 29108/1 29064/1 35032/1 35058/2 35057/4 35057/6 35057/8 35052/1 35050/2 35048/1 35050/1 35036/1 35057/3 35064/1 35057/2 35042/1 35057/7 35057/5 35057/1 35058/3 35058/1 35050/3 35050/4 35050/5

2912 2912 2912 2912 2912 3606 3606 3606 3606 3606 3606 3606 3606 3606 3606 3606 3606 3606 3606 3606 3606 3606 3606 3606 3606 3606 3606

L24 L24 L24 L24 L24 K22 K22 K22 K22 K22 K22 K22 K22 K22 K22 K22 K22 K22 K22 K22 K22 K22 K22 K22 K22 K22 K22

4.12 4.20 4.12 4.18 3.95 4.41 4.80 4.57 4.57 4.57 4.57 4.44 4.53 4.44 4.41 4.57 4.75 4.57 4.53 4.57 4.57 4.57 4.80 4.80 4.44 4.44 4.44

316

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.79: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X9, Loci 2912 and 3606.

317

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 8.80: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X9, Loci 3609 and 4615.

318

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

FIG. 8.80: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X9, LOCI 3609 AND 4615 No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Bowl Bowl Bowl Chalice Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Storage jar Storage jar Tripod Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Stand Handle Handle Dec. shard Krater Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Flask Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar

35034/2 35034/3 35055/1 35034/4 35054/2 35040/1 35055/2 35026/1 35040/2 45175/2 45141/2 45190/1 45189/1 45157/1 45173/1 45151/1 45175/1 45107/1 45120/1 45151/3 45151/2 45173/2 45141/1 45184/1

3609 3609 3609 3609 3609 3609 3609 3609 3609 4615 4615 4615 4615 4615 4615 4615 4615 4615 4615 4615 4615 4615 4615 4615

K23 K23 K23 K23 K23 K23 K23 K23 K23 J23 J23 J23 J23 J23 J23 J23 J23 J23 J23 J23 J23 J23 J23 J23

4.57 4.57 4.51 4.57 4.76 4.68 4.81 4.38 4.68 4.85 4.63 4.85 4.85 4.69 4.85 4.70 4.85 4.55 4.66 4.70 4.70 4.85 4.63 4.95

FIG. 8.81: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X9, LOCI 6162 AND 6160 No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Krater Krater Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Jug/Jar Jug/Jar Bowl Bowl Dec. shard Krater Krater Krater Krater Krater

43424/1 43432/2 43506/1 43506/2 43432/1 43506/3 43424/2 43502/2 35260/1 35261/1 35224/1 43502/3 35249/2 35194/1 35223/1

6162 6162 6162 6162 6162 6162 6162 6160 6160 6160 6160 6160 6160 6160 6160

K20 K20 K20 K20 K20 K20 K20 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21

4.86 4.89 4.97 4.97 4.89 4.97 4.86 4.97 4.93 4.65 4.55 4.97 4.73 4.43 4.58

319

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 8.81: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X9, Loci 6162 and 6160.

320

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.82: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X9, Locus 6160 (contd.); Locus 6066.

321

Y UVAL GADOT

FIG. 8.82: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X9, LOCUS 6160 (CONTD.); LOCUS 6066 No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cultic stand Bowl Stand Stand Jug/Jar Jug/Jar Jug/Jar Bowl Krater Jug/Jar Jug/Jar Cooking-pot Cooking-pot

35249/1 35259/1 35203/2 35222/1 35250/1 35203/1 43502/1 35260/2 35265/1 35260/3 43357/2 43357/1 43357/4 43374/1 43357/3 43392/1

6160 6160 6160 6160 6160 6160 6160 6160 6160 6160 6160 6066 6066 6066 6066 6066

K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K20 K20 K20 K20 K20

4.73 4.65 4.31 4.58 4.62 4.62 4.97 4.93 4.65 4.93 4.76 4.76 4.76 4.80 4.76 4.90

FIG. 8.83: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X9, LOCUS 6161 No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl? Handle Krater Krater Krater Cooking-pot SJ/Krater Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar

43028/2 43033/1 43504/1 43504/2 43052/1 43505/2 43047/1 43042/1 43504/3 43024/1 43034/1 43040/2 43026/2 43047/2 43040/1 43505/1 43505/3 43026/1 43004/1 43028/1 43504/4

6161 6161 6161 6161 6161 6161 6161 6161 6161 6161 6161 6161 6161 6161 6161 6161 6161 6161 6161 6161 6161

K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21

4.80 4.68 4.96 4.96 4.97 4.96 4.88 4.86 4.96 4.85 4.80 4.90 4.85 4.88 4.90 4.96 4.96 4.85 4.95 4.80 4.96

322

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.83: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X9, Locus 6161.

323

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 8.84: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X8: Floors, Loci 4008, 3477 and 3601.

324

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

FIG. 8.84: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X8: FLOORS, LOCI 4008, 3477 AND 3601 No.

Vessel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Bowl Bowl Krater Krater Krater Krater Cooking-pot Juglet Storage jar Storage jar Jug Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Krater Krater

Type EgB8

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

39108/1 39056/1 39042/1 39056/2 39051/3 39041/2 38051/2 39051/1 39041/1 39062/1 33222/1 45414/2 45418/1 45400/2 35000/1 45400/3 35000/2 35001/1 35006/2 35021/1 45419/1 45414/1

4008 4008 4008 4008 4008 4008 4008 4008 4008 4008 3477 3601 3601 3601 3601 3601 3601 3601 3601 3601 3601 3601

Q25 Q25 Q25 Q25 Q25 Q25 Q25 Q25 Q25 Q25 M21 K-L23 K22-23 K-L23 K23 K-L23 K23 K22 K23 K22 K22-23 K-L23

4.77 4.39 4.33 4.39 4.39 4.30 4.39 4.39 4.30 4.46 4.20 4.25 4.55 4.25 3.82 4.25 3.82 3.85 4.14 4.30 4.55 4.25

FIG. 8.85: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X8, LOCUS 3601 (CONTD.) AND SUBTERRANEAN STOREROOMS: LOCUS 4015 No.

Vessel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Krater Krater Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Juglet Jug Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Bowl Pyxis Jug Jug Jug

Type

EgB6 J3 J1 J1

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

45414/3 35022/1 35006/3 35006/4 45400/1 35001/3 35017/1 45419/3 45416/1 45419/2 45400/4 35023/1 35006/1 35001/2 39166/1 39221/1 39156/1 39089/1 39077/1

3601 3601 3601 3601 3601 3601 3601 3601 3601 3601 3601 3601 3601 3601 4015 4015 4015 4015 4015

K-L23 K23 K23 K23 K-L23 K22 K22 K22-23 K22-23 K22-23 K-L23 K22 K23 K22 R25 R25 R25 R25 R25

4.24 4.38 4.14 4.14 4.14 3.85 4.19 4.55 4.16 4.55 4.25 4.20 4.14 3.85 4.56 4.60 4.56 4.30 4.30

Photo

Fig. 8.86:1 Fig. 8.86:2

325

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 8.85: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X8, Locus 3601 (contd.) and Subterranean Storerooms: Locus 4015.

326

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

1

0

10 2

4

5

3

6

8

7

11 0

9

0

10 cm

10

10

Fig. 8.86: Pottery from Locus 4015, Stratum X8: 1) Bowl (Fig. 8.85: 15); 2) Jug (Fig. 8.85:17); 3) Storage Jar (Fig. 8.87:1); 4) Storage Jar (Fig. 8.87:2); 5) Storage Jar (Fig. 8.87:3); 6) Storage Jar (Fig. 8.87:4); 7) Storage Jar (Fig. 8.87:5); 8) Storage Jar (Fig. 8.87:6); 9) Storage Jar (Fig. 8.87:7); 10) Storage jar (Fig. 8.88:2); 11) Bowl (Fig. 8.88:3).

327

FIG. 8.87: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X8, SUBTERRANEAN STOREROOMS: LOCUS 4015 (CONTD.) No.

Vessel

Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

Photo

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar

SJ3 SJ3 SJ3 SJ3 SJ3 SJ3 SJ4

39169/1 39121/1 39120/1 39122/1 39132/1 39123/1 39168/1

4015 4015 4015 4015 4015 4015 4015

R25 R25 R25 R25 R25 R25 R25

4.56 4.49 4.49 4.49 4.49 4.49 4.56

Fig. 8.86:3 Fig. 8.86:4 Fig. 8.86:5 Fig. 8.86:6 Fig. 8.86:7 Fig. 8.86:8 Fig. 8.86:9

328

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.88: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X8, Subterranean Storerooms: Loci 4026 and 4622; Stratum 7 floors: Locus 3623.

329

Y UVAL GADOT

FIG. 8.88: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X8, SUBTERRANEAN STOREROOMS: LOCI 4026 AND 4622; STRATUM X7 FLOORS: LOCUS 3623 No.

Vessel

Type

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Storage jar Storage jar Bowl Cooking-pot Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Krater Krater Krater Krater Cooking-Pot Storage jar Storage jar

SJ3 SJ3 EgB6

39265/1 39267/1 45180/1 45180/2 35122/2 35112/2 35122/3 35122/1 35131/1 35131/2 35134/2 35131/3 35134/1 35137/1 35131/4

4026 4026 4622 4622 3623 3623 3623 3623 3623 3623 3623 3623 3623 3623 3623

R25 R25 J23 J23 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21 K21

4.82 4.82 4.95 4.95 3.79 3.74 3.79 3.79 3.85 3.85 3.85 3.85 3.85 3.93 3.85

EgB8

Photo Fig. 8.86:10 Fig. 8.86:11

FIG. 8.89: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X7 FLOORS, LOCUS 2916; FINDS FROM VARIOUS FLOORS No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Bowl Bowl Krater Krater Cooking-pot Storage jar Storage jar Bowl Bowl Krater Juglet Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Oil lamp

29069/1 29085/1 29079/1 29030/1 29094/2 29094/1 29068/1 35165/1 29114/1 35145/1 29036/1 35165/2 35125/1 29060/1 29075/1

2916 2916 2916 2916 2916 2916 2916 3628 2919 3628 2905 3628 3622 2908 2908

L23 L23 L23 L23 L23 L23 L23 L21 L22 L21 L22 L21 L21 L24 L24

3.98 3.90 3.90 3.88 4.07 4.07 3.88 4.39 4.07 4.20 3.77 4.39 4.14 4.05 4.05

330

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.89: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X7 floors, Locus 2916; Finds from various floors

331

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 8.90: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X8, Silos 5039 and 5013.

332

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

FIG. 8.90: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X8, SILOS 5039 AND 5013 No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Bowl Krater Krater Cooking-pot Flask Storage jar Storage jar Oil lamp Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar Storage jar

49279/1 49269/1 49278/1 49269/2 49278/2 49074/1 49073/1 49081/1 49081/2 49083/1 49061/1 49071/1 49082/1 49081/4 49081/3 49080/1 49083/2 49073/2 49084/1 49061/2

5039 5039 5039 5039 5039 5013 5013 5013 5013 5013 5013 5013 5013 5013 5013 5013 5013 5013 5013 5013

R27 R27 R27 R27 R27 R26 R26 R26 R26 R26 R26 R26 R26 R26 R26 R26 R26 R26 R26 R26

4.65 4.49 4.65 4.49 4.65 4.58 4.58 4.76 4.76 4.76 4.37 4.58 4.76 4.76 4.76 4.76 4.76 4.58 4.76 4.37

FIG. 8.91: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X8, SILOS 1712, 1102, 3804 AND 3813 No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Jug Bowl Cooking-pot Jug/Jar Bowl Bowl Cooking-pot Jug/Jar Storage jar Pyxis Bowl Chalice Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot

8702/1 5509/1 5507/1 5512/1 37032/2 37032/4 37032/1 37032/3 37103/1 37407/1 37072/1 37088/2 37088/1 37082/4 37066/1 37088/3

1712 1102 1102 1102 3804 3804 3804 3804 3804 3813 3813 3813 3813 3813 3813 3813

Q23 O23 O23 O23 N24 N24 N24 N24 N24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24

4.50 5.75 5.60 6.20 4.02 4.02 4.02 4.02 5.31 5.22 4.77 5.15 5.15 5.00 4.48 5.15

333

Y UVAL GADOT

Fig. 8.91: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X8, Silos 1712, 1102, 3804 and 3813.

334

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Fig. 8.92: Pottery from Area X, Stratum X8, Silos 3815, 3620, 1462 and 6206.

335

Y UVAL GADOT

FIG. 8.92: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X8, SILOS 3815, 3620, 1462 AND 6206 No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

Elevation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Bowl Bowl Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Jug/Jar Jug/Jar Jug/Jar Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Jug/Jar Jug/Jar Storage jar Bowl Bowl Bowl Cooking-pot Cooking-pot Cooking-pot

37141/2 37083/2 37100/1 37141/3 37083/4 37100/4 37100/2 37130/2 37100/3 37130/1 37083/1 37083/3 37141/1 35018/1 35101/1 35101/2 35101/3 14308/1 14307/1 52483/7 52483/2 52483/5 52483/4 52483/3

3815 3815 3815 3815 3815 3815 3815 3815 3815 3815 3815 3815 3815 3620 3620 3620 3620 1462 1462 6206 6206 6206 6206 6206

O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 O24 K23 K23 K23 K23 G22 G22 F24 F24 F24 F24 F24

4.64 4.53 4.59 4.64 4.53 4.59 4.59 4.70 4.59 4.70 4.53 4.53 4.64 4.64 5.07 5.07 5.07 6.25 6.26 6.84 6.84 6.84 6.84 6.84

FIG. 8.93: POTTERY FROM AREA X, STRATUM X8, SILOS 6262 No.

Vessel

Reg. No.

Locus

Square

1 2 3

Krater Pyxis Storage jar

47669/1 47630/1 47662/1

6262 6262 6262

H21 H21 H21

336

Elevation

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

REFERENCES Albright, W.F. 1932. The Excavations of Tell Beit Mirsim Vol. I: The Pottery of the First Three Campaigns (Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 12). New Haven. Albright, W.F. 1933. The excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim IA. The Bronze Age pottery of the fourth campaign. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 13:55-128. Amiran, R. 1969. Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Jerusalem. Arie, E. 2006. The Iron Age I pottery. Levels K-5 and K-4 and an intra-site spatial analysis of the pottery from Stratum VIA. In: Finkelstein I., Ussishkin, D. and Halpern B., eds. Megiddo IV. The 1998-2000 Seasons. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University, No. 24) Tel Aviv. pp. 191-298. Artzy, M. 1994. Incense, camels and collared rim jars. Desert trade routes and maritime outlets in the second millennium. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 13:121-147. Artzy, M. 1995. Nami. A second millennium international maritime trading centre in the Mediterranean. In: Gitin, S., ed. Recent Excavations in Israel. A View to the West. Dubuque. pp.17-40. Artzy, M. 2001. White Slip Ware for export? The economics of production. In: Karageorghis, V., ed. The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus. Wein. pp.107-125. Aström, P. 2001. The Chronology of Base-ring Ware and Bichrome Wheel-Made Ware. Stockholm. Balensi, J. 1980. Les fouilles de R.W. Hamilton à Tell Abu Hawam. Niveaux IV et V. (Ph.D. dissertation, the University of Strasbourg) Strasbourg. Barako, T.J. 2007. Tel Mor: The Moshe Dothan Excavations, 1959-1960. (IAA Reports No. 32) Jerusalem. Beck, P. and Kochavi, M. 1985. A dated assemblage of the late 13th century B.C.E. from the Egyptian Residency at Aphek. Tel Aviv 12:29-42. Ben-Ami, D. 2001. The Iron Age I at Tel Hazor in light of the renewed excavations. Israel Exploration Journal 51:148-170. Bergoffen, C.J. 2001. The Proto White Slip and White Slip I Pottery from Tell el-Ajjul. In: Karageorghis, V., ed. The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus. Wein. pp. 145-155. Bergoffen, C.J. 2002. Early Late Cypriot ceramic exports to Canaan. White Slip I. In: Ehrenberg, E., ed. Leaving No Stone Unturned. Winona Lake, Wis. pp. 23-41. Bergoffen, C.J. 2005. The Cypriot Bronze Age Pottery from Sir Leonard Wooley’s Excavations at Alalakh (Tel Atchana). Wein. Biran, A. 1989. The collared-rim jars and the settlement of the Tribe of Dan. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 49:71-96. Biran, A. and Negbi, O. 1966. The stratigraphical sequence at Tel Sippor. Israel Exploration Journal 16:160-173. Briend, J. and Humbert, J.B. 1980. Tell Keisan (1971-1976). Fribourg, Suisse. Bunimovtiz, S. and Faust, A. 2001. Chronological separation, geographical segregation, or ethnic demarcation? Ethnography and the Iron Age low chronology. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 322:1-10. Bunimovitz, S. and Finkelstein, I. 1993. Pottery. In: Finkelstein, I., Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z., eds. Shiloh. The Archaeology of a Biblical Site. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University, No. 10) Tel Aviv. pp. 81-196. Clamer, C. 2004. The Pottery from Levels P-2 and P-1 in Area P. in Ussishkin D., ed. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish. Volume III. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University, No. 22) Tel Aviv. pp. 1155-1234. 337

Y UVAL GADOT

Cohen-Weinberger, A. and Wolff, S.R. 2001. Production centres of collared-rim pithoi from sites on the Carmel coast and Ramat Menashe regions. In: Wolff, S.R., ed. Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization No. 59/ASOR Book Series No. 5) Chicago. pp. 639-657. Cooley, R.E., and Pratico, G.D. 1995. Tell Dothan. The western cemetery, with comments on Joseph Free`s excavations, 1953 to 1964. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 52:147-190. Dever, W.G. 1986. Gezer IV. The 1969-1971 Seasons in Field VI. The ‘Acropolis’. Jerusalem. Dever, W.G., Lance H.D. and Wright, G.E. 1970. Gezer I. Preliminary Report of the 1964-1966 Seasons. Jerusalem. Dever, W.G., Lance, H.D., Bullard, R.G., Cole, D.P. and Seger, J.D. 1974. Gezer II. Jerusalem. Dothan, M. 1971. Ashdod II-III (>Atiqot IX-X). Dothan, M. and Freedman, D.N. 1967. Ashdod I. The First Season of Excavations 1962 (>Atiqot VII, English Series). Dothan, M. and Porath, Y. 1982. Ashdod IV. Excavations of Area M (>Atiqot 15, English Series). Dothan, M. and Porath, Y. 1993. Ashdod V. Excavations of Area G (>Atiqot 23). Dothan, T. 1982. The Philistines and their Material Culture. Jerusalem. Dothan, T. 1998. The pottery. In: Bierling, N., ed. Tel Miqne-Ekron. Iron Age I Text and Data Base. Jerusalem. pp. 20-49. Epstein, C. 1966. Palestinian Bichrome Ware. Leiden. Feldstein, A. 1991. The pottery of Area E/3. In: Givon, S., ed. The First Season of Excavation at “Tel Harasim” 1990. Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv. pp. 17-23. (Hebrew) Finkelstein, I. 1986. >Izbet êartah. An Early Iron Age Site Near Rosh Ha’ayin, Israel. (British Archaeological Reports International Series 299). Oxford. Finkelstein, I. 1988. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem. Finkelstein, I. 1995. The date of the settlement of the Philistines in Canaan. Tel Aviv 22:213-239. Finkelstein, I. and Zimhoni, O. 2000. The pottery from the Late Bronze gate. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B., eds. Megiddo III. The 1992-1996 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University, No. 18). Tel Aviv. pp. 223-243. Finkelstein, I., Zimhoni, O. and Kafri, A. 2000. The Iron Age pottery assemblages from Areas F, K and H and their stratigraphic and chronological implications. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B., eds. Megiddo III. The 1992-1996 Seasons. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University, No. 18) Tel Aviv. pp. 244-324. Finkelstein, I. and Singer-Avitz, L. 2001. Ashdod revisited. Tel Aviv 28:231-259. Gadot. Y., Yasur-Landau A. and Ilan D. 2006. The Middle Bronze III and Late Bronze I pottery from Areas F and N. In: Finkelstein I., Ussishkin D. and Halpern B., eds. Megiddo IV. The 1998-2000 Seasons. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 24) Tel Aviv. pp. 171-190. Gadot, Y. and Uziel, J. Forthcoming. The local pottery from the Late Bronze Age in Area E: Strata E4a and E4b. In: Maeir A.M., ed. Tell es-Safi/Gath I (Aegypten und Altestestament). Munich. Geva, S. 1982. Tell Jerishe. The Sukenik Excavations of the Middle Bronze Age Fortifications (Qedem 15). Jerusalem. Gilboa, A. 1999. The dynamics of Phoenician bichrome pottery. A view from Tel Dor. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 316:1-22.

338

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Gilboa, A. 2001. Southern Phoenicia during Iron Age I-IIA in the Light of the Tel Dor Excavations. The Evidence of Pottery. (Ph. D dissertation, the Hebrew University) Jerusalem. (Hebrew) Gitin, S. 1993. Scoops. Corpus, function and typology. In: Heltzer, M., Segal, A. and Kaufman, D., eds. Studies in the Archaeology and History of Ancient Israel in Honour of Moshe Dothan. Haifa. pp.99-126. Gittlen, B.M. 1977. Studies in the Late Cypriot Pottery found in Palestine. (Ph. D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania) Gittlen, B.M. 1981. The cultural and chronological implications of the Cypro-Palestinian trade during the Late Bronze Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 241:49-59. Gittlen, B.M. 1993. The Cypriot pottery. In: James, F.W. and McGovern, P.E., eds. The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan. A Study of Levels VII and VIII. Philadelphia. pp. 111-115. Greenberg, R. 1987. New light on the Early Iron Age at Tell Beit Mirsim. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 265:55-80. Guz-Zilberstein, B. 1984. The local pottery of the Late Bronze Age. In: Stern, E., ed. Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973-1976). Part Two. The Bronze Age. (Qedem 18) Jerusalem. pp. 10-16. Hamilton, R.W. 1935. Excavations at Tell Abu Hawam. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 4:1-69. Herzog, Z. 1993. Gerisa, Tel. In: Stern, E., ed. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Vol. 2:480–484. Herzog, Z. and Tsuk, T. 1995. Tel Gerisa 1991/1992. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 15:60-62. Ilan, D. 1999. Northeastern Israel in the Iron Age I. Cultural, Socioeconomic and Political Perspectives. (Ph. D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University) Tel Aviv. Ilan, D., Hallote, R. and Cline, E.H. 2000. The Middle and Late Bronze Age pottery from Area F. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B., eds. Megiddo III. The 1992-1996 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University, No. 18). Tel Aviv. pp. 186-222. Inbar, D. 1992. The pottery of Area E/3. In: Givon, S., ed. The Second Season of Excavation at Tel Harasim’ 1991. Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv. pp. 20-29. (Hebrew) Inbar, D. 1993. The Pottery. In: Givon, S., ed. The Third Season of Excavation at ‘Tel Harasim’ 1992. Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv. pp. 15-23. (Hebrew) Inbar, D. 1994. The pottery. In: Givon, S., ed. The Fourth Season of Excavation at Tel Harasim (Nahal Barkai) 1993. Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv. pp. 25-34. (Hebrew) Inbar, D. 1995. The pottery. In: Givon, S., ed. The Fifth Season of Excavation at Tel Harasim (Nahal Barkai) 1994. Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv. pp. 25-39. (Hebrew) Inbar, D. 1997. The pottery from Stratum IV. In: Givon, S., ed. The Seventh Season of Excavation at Tel Harasim (Nahal Barkai) 1996. Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv. pp. 28-36. (Hebrew) Inbar, D. 1998. The Pottery from Stratum IV. In: Givon, S., ed. The Eighth Season of Excavation at Tel Harasim (Nahal Barkai) 1997. Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv. pp. 33-38. (Hebrew) James, F.W. 1966. The Iron Age at Beth Shan. A Study of Levels VI-IV. Philadelphia. James, F.W. and McGovern, P.E. 1993. The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan. A Study of Levels VII and VIII. Philadelphia. Jasmin, M. 1999. L`etude de la Transition du Bronze Récent au Fer I en Palestine. (Ph. D. dissertation, Sorbonne University) Paris. Kaplan, J. and Ritter-Kaplan, H. 1993. Jaffa. In: Stern, E. ed. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Vol. 2. Jerusalem. pp. 655-659.

339

Y UVAL GADOT

Kelso, J.L. 1968. The Excavations of Bethel (1934-1960). (Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research XXXIX) Killebrew, A. 1996. Tel Miqne-Tel Miqne-Ekron Report of the 1985-1988 Excavations in Field INE. Areas 5,6,7. The Bronze and Iron Ages. Jerusalem. Killebrew, E. A. 1998. Ceramic Craft and Technology during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages. The Relationship between Pottery Technology, Style, and Cultural Diversity. Ph. D. thesis. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Killebrew, E.A. 2005. Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity. An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300-1100 B.C.E. (Archaeology and Biblical Studies No. 9).Atlanta. Lamon, R.S. and Shipton, G.M. 1939. Megiddo I. Seasons of 1925-34, Strata I-V. Chicago. Loud, G. 1948. Megiddo II. Seasons of 1935-39. Chicago. Maisler, B. 1951. The excavations at Tell Qasile. Preliminary reports. Israel Exploration Journal 1:61-76,125-140,194-218. Mazar, A. 1980. Excavations at Tell Qasile I. The Philistine Sanctuary. Architecture and Cult Objects (Qedem 12). Jerusalem. Mazar, A. 1981. Giloh. An early Israelite settlement site near Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 31:1-36. Mazar, A. 1985. Excavations at Tell Qasile II. The Philistine Sanctuary. Various Finds, the Pottery, Conclusions, Appendixes. (Qedem 20) Jerusalem. Mazar, A. 1990. Iron I and II towers at Giloh and the Israelite settlement. Israel Exploration Journal 40:77-101. Mazar, A. and Panitz-Cohen, N. 2001. Timnah (Tel Batash) II. (Qedem 42) Jerusalem. Negbi, O. 1989. Bronze Age Pottery (Strata XVII-XV). In: Herzog, Z., Rapp, G. Jr. and Negbi, O., eds. Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel. (Publications of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 8) Tel Aviv. pp. 43-63. Oren, E.D. 1969. Cypriot imports in the Palestinian Late Bronze I context. Opuscula Atheniensia 9:127-150. Oren, E.D. 1973. The Northern Cemetery of Beth-Shan. Leiden. Oren, E.D. 1985. Architecture of Egyptian ‘Governors` Residencies’ in Late Bronze Age Palestine. Eretz Israel 18:183-199. (Hebrew with English summary) Ory, J. 1944. A Late Bronze Age tomb at Tell Jerishe. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 10:55-57. Panitz-Cohen, N. and Mazar, A., eds. 2006. Timnah (Tel Batash) III. The Finds from the Second Millennium. (Qedem 45) Jerusalem. Pilides, D. 2000. Pithoi of the Late Bronze Age in Cyprus. Nicosia. Popham, M.R. 1972. The White Slip Ware. In: Aström, P. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition Vol. IV, Part 1c. The Late Cypriot Bronze Age. Lund. pp. 431-471. Porath, Y., Yannai, E. and Kasher, A. 1999. Archaeological remains at Jatt. >Atiqot XXXVII: 1-78. (Hebrew with English Summary) Pritchard, J.B. 1963. The Bronze Age Tomb at Gibeon. Philadelphia. Pritchard, J.B. 1980. The Cemetery at Tell es-Sa`idiyeh, Jordan. Philadelphia. Russell, P. 1989. The Fine Ware ceramics. The settlement deposits in the west, central, east and south-east areas. In: Todd, I.A., ed. Vasilikos Valley Project 3. Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios II. Götenborg. pp. 1-11. Schiffer, M.B. 1983. Towards an Identification of Formation Processes. American Antiquity 48:675-706. Schiffer, M.B. 1985. Is there a ‘Pompeii Premise’ in Archaeology? Journal of Anthropological Research 41:18-41. Seger, J.D. and Lance, H.D., eds. 1988. Gezer V. The Field I Caves. Jerusalem. 340

CHAPTER 8: LATE BRONZE AND I RON AGE POTTERY

Singer-Avitz, L. 1989. Iron Age pottery (Strata XIV-XII). In: Herzog, Z., Rapp, G. Jr. and Negbi, O., eds. Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel. Tel Aviv. pp. 76-87. Singer-Avitz, L. 2004. The pottery of the Late Bronze I phase. In: Ussishkin D., ed. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish. Volume III. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 22) Tel Aviv. pp. 1012-1022. Singer-Avitz, L. and Levy, Y. 1992. Two Late Bronze Age tombs at Palmahim. ‘Atiqot XXI: 15*-26*, 174-175. (Hebrew with English Summary) Stern, E. 1978. Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973-1976). Part One. From the Iron Age to the Roman Period. (Qedem 9) Jerusalem. Sukenik, E.L. 1935. Tell el Jerishe. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 4:28-29. Sukenik, E.L. 1938. Tell el Jerishe. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 6:225. Sukenik, E.L. 1944. Tell el Jerishe. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 10:198-199. Tubb, J.N. 1988. Tell es-Sa`idiyeh. Preliminary report on the first three seasons of renewed excavations. Levant 20:23-88. Tufnell, O. 1958. Lachish IV. The Bronze Age. London. Tufnell, O., Inge, C.H. and Harding, L. 1940. Lachish I. The Fosse Temple. London. Ussishkin, D. 1985. Levels VII and VI at Tel Lachish and the end of the Late Bronze Age in Canaan. In: Tubb, J.N., ed. Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell. London. pp. 213-230. Vaughan, S. 1991. Material and technical characterization of Base Ring Ware. A new fabric typology. In: Barlow, J.A., Bolger, D.L., and Kling, B., eds. Cypriot Ceramics. Reading the Prehistoric Record. Philadelphia. pp. 119-130. Wood, B.G. 1985. Palestinian Pottery of the Late Bronze Age. An Investigation of the Terminal LB IIB Phase. ( Ph. D. dissertation, University of Toronto) Toronto. Yadin, Y., Aharoni, Y., Amiran, R., Dothan, T., Dunayevsky, I. and Perrot, J. . 1958. Hazor I. An account of the first season of excavations, 1955. Jerusalem. Yadin, Y., Aharoni, Y., Amiran, R., Dothan, T., Dunayevsky, I. and Perrot, J. 1960. Hazor II. An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956. Jerusalem. Yadin, Y. and Geva, S. 1986. Investigations at Beth-Shean. (Qedem 23) Jerusalem. Yannai, E. 1996. Aspects of the Material Culture of Canaan during the Egyptian XXth Dynasty (1200-1130 BCE). (Ph. D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University) Tel Aviv. Yannai, E. 2000a. A Late Bronze Age Tomb at Jatt. `Atiqot 39:49-82. Yannai, E. 2000b. A Re-evaluation of the Late Bronze Pottery from Tel Zippor. Israel Exploration Journal 50:203-215. Yannai, E. 2004. The Late Bronze Age pottery from Area S. In: Ussishkin D., ed. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish III. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 22) Tel Aviv. pp 1032-1146. Yannai, E., Gorzalcany, A. and Peilstöcker, M. 2003. A group of vessels from the Syrian coast found in the Coastal Plain of Israel. Levant 35:101-116. Yellin, J. and Gunneweg, J. 1985. Provenience of pottery from Tell Qasile Strata VII, X, XI and XII. In: Mazar, A., ed. Excavations at Tell Qasile II. The Philistine Sanctuary. Various Finds, the Pottery, Conclusions, Appendixes (Qedem 20). Jerusalem. pp. 111-117. Zimhoni, O. 1997. Lachish Levels V and IV. Comments on the material culture of Judah in the Iron Age II in the light of the Lachish pottery repertoire. In: Zimhoni, O., ed. Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel. Tel Aviv. pp. 57-178.

341

CHAPTER 9

MYCENAEAN POTTERY Marta Guzowska and Assaf Yasur-Landau

This is a study of the corpus of imported Mycenaean pottery from Strata X13-X11 in Area X and from Tomb 1200 in Area G. The corpus includes 57 objects, complete vessels and sherds, found within loci clearly associated with Late Bronze Age and Iron IA1 contexts. The objects in this study were recovered in Stratum X13 within the confines of a Canaanite palace (Palace V) of the Amarna Age (dated to LB IIA, roughly the 14th century BCE), and within Palace VI, sometimes called the ‘Egyptian Residency’ or ‘the residence’ of Stratum X12, which is roughly dated to the 13th century BCE (LB IIB). In addition, the corpus includes a quantity of Mycenaean ceramic objects interpreted as residual elements in late contexts, found in Stratum X11, dated to the 12th century BCE.2 Although some elements of this corpus, mainly complete vessels from the Stratum X12 Residency have been summarily treated in preliminary reports (Beck and Kochavi 1985:35-36; Kochavi 1990), and referred to in studies related to Aegean chronology and Mycenaean pottery in the Levant (Warren and Hankey 1989; Leonard 1994), the present study is the first comprehensive publication of the stratigraphically relevant corpus of Mycenaean pottery from Tel Aphek. It consists of a catalogue, including descriptions and typological identification according to Furumark (1941), spatial analyses of find-spots, as well as conclusions relating to aspects of chronology and trade.

CATALOGUE TABLE 9.1: MYCENAEAN POTTERY FROM AREA X No. Type (FS)

Stratum Square Locus Reg. No.

Aegean Chronology

Fig. No.

1

Amphoroid krater (FS 53)

X12

Q23

2753

LH IIIA2

Fig. 9.1:1

2 3 4 5

Amphoroid krater (FS 53) Krater (FS 9 or 281) Krater (FS 9 or 282) Krater

X12 X11 X12 X12

P21 R25 Q24 P24

1731 4020 2753 2753

LH IIIA2 LH IIIB2 LH IIIB2 LH IIIA-B

Fig. 9.1:2 Fig. 9.1:3 Fig. 9.2:1 Fig. 9.2:2

6 7 8 9 10

Krater Krater Krater Krater? Mug (FS 226)

X12 X13 X12 X12 X12

R24 J23 R23 Q24 R24

2731 6054 2731 2753 2753

LH IIIB LH IIIA2(Late)–B? LH IIIB1

Fig. 9.2:3 -

27394/1, 27425/1 33157/1 39318/1 27316/1 27494/1, 27481/1 27508/1 45457/1 27597/1 27668/1 39347/1

1. Ed. Note: Elsewhere in this volume Stratum X11 is characterized as LB III or Transitional LB II/Iron I. 2. This study does not refer to any residual Mycenaean sherds deriving from later Iron Age, Hellenistic and Roman occupations in Area X.

342

CHAPTER 9: M YCENAEAN POTTERY No. Type (FS)

Stratum Square Locus Reg. No.

Aegean Chronology3

Fig. No.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Open vessel (Deep bowl FS 284?) Open vessel Open vessel Open vessel Open vessel Open vessel Stirrup jar, globular (FS 173-175) Piriform jar

X2 X12 X12 X12 X11 X11 X12 X12

R22 Q21 O23 R22 M21 R25 Q24 Q24

2729 1721 1137 2731 3496 4020 2753 2753

LH IIIA2-B2 LH IIIB LH IIIA2-B1

Fig. 9.2.4 Fig. 9.2:5 Fig. 9.2:6 Fig. 9.2.7

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Stirrup jar, small Stirrup jar Stirrup jar? Jug (FS 133 or 136) Flask, vertical (FS 188-189) Flask, vertical (FS 188-189) Flask, vertical (FS 188-189) Flask, vertical (FS 188-189)

X12 X12 X12 X13 X12 X11 X12 X12

P21 M21 R23 R25 P24 N25 Q24 P24

1731 4400 2731 2746 2753 3832 2753 2753

LH IIIA2-B LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2-B1 LH IIIA2-B1 LH IIIA2-B1 LH IIIA2-B1

Fig. 9.2.8 Fig. 9.2.9 Fig. 9.3:1 Fig. 9.3:2 Fig. 9.3:3

27 28 29

Flask, vertical (FS 188-189) Flask, vertical (FS 188-189) Flask, vertical (FS 188-189)

X12 X13 X12

R22 J23 P24

2731 6054 2753

LH IIIA2-B1 LH IIIA2-B1 LH IIIA2-B1

-

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

Flask, vertical (FS 188-189) Flask, vertical (FS 188-189) Alabastron, straight-sided (FS 94) Closed vessel (Piriform jar?) Closed vessel (Piriform jar?) Closed vessel (Piriform jar?) Closed vessel, large Closed vessel Closed vessel, small Closed vessel Closed vessel, small Closed vessel, small Closed vessel Closed vessel, large Closed vessel Closed vessel Closed vessel Closed vessel Closed vessel Closed vessel Closed vessel Closed vessel, small Closed vessel Closed vessel

X14b X2 X12 X13 X13 X12 X12 X12 X2 X11 X13 X13? X12 X11 X11 X11 X12 X12 X12 X13 X12 X12 X12 X11

G22 R22 R22 Q25 K23 Q23 R24 Q24 R22 N25 L21 Q21 R24 R25 N25 R25 Q22 Q24 P24 L23 Q21 R23 R24 R25

1459 2729 2731 2746 4602 1726 2731 2753 2729 3832 4430 5213 2731 4020 3832 4020 1721 2753 2753 3603 1721 2731 2731 4020

LH IIIA2-B1 LH IIIA2-B1 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2-B1 LH IIIA2-B1 LH IIIA2-B1 LH IIIB? LH IIIA-B LH IIIA-B LH IIIA-B LH IIIA-B LH IIIA2-B1 LH IIIA-B LH IIIA-B LH IIIA-B LH IIIA-B LH IIIA-B LH IIIA-B LH IIIA-B -

Fig. 9.3:4 Fig. 9.3:5 Fig. 9.3:6 Fig. 9.3:7 Fig. 9.3:8 Fig. 9.3:9 -

27692/1 52084/1 5876/1 34555/1 33540/1 39318/2 27362/1 39356/1, 37294/1 33356/1 43119/1 27511/1 39398/1 27459/1 37288/1 27613/1 27462/1, 27421/1 33599/1 45428/1 27448/1, 27455/1 45664/1 27657/1 33596/1 39367/7 45502/1 8858/1 27649/1 27348/1 27657/2 37288/2 43074/1 52006/1 27644/1 39318/3 37301/1 39318/1 52013/1 27533/1 27462/2 35240/1 33643/1 27596/1 27631/1 39318/5

TABLE 9.2: MYCENAEAN POTTERY FROM TOMB 1200 No. Type (FS)

Locus

Reg. No.

Aegean Chronology

Fig. No.

54 55 56 57

1200 1200 1200 1200

12015/1 12072/1 12007/1 12074/1

LH IIIA-B LH IIIA2-B1 LH IIIA2-B LH IIIA2-B

Fig. 9.4:1 Fig. 9.4:2 Fig. 9.4:3 Fig. 9.4:4

Stirrup jar, squat (FS 178 or 180) Stirrup jar, squat (FS 178 or 180) Alabastron, straight-sided (FS 94) Alabastron, straight-sided (FS 94)

343

M ARTA GUZOWSKA AND ASSAF YASUR-LANDAU

Fig. 9.1: Mycenaean amphoroid krater.

344

CHAPTER 9: M YCENAEAN POTTERY

Fig. 9.2: Mycenaean vessels.

345

M ARTA GUZOWSKA AND ASSAF YASUR-LANDAU

Fig. 9.3: Mycenaean vessels.

346

CHAPTER 9: M YCENAEAN POTTERY

Fig. 9.4: Mycenaean vessels.

347

M ARTA GUZOWSKA AND ASSAF YASUR-LANDAU

No. 1 (Fig. 9.1:1) Sherds from a rim and a handle of an amphoroid krater (FS 53). Rim diameter ca. 23.0 cm; handle width 4.0 cm; body thickness 0.6 cm. Very pale brown to reddish yellow clay (10YR 8/4 to 5YR 7/6)3; lustrous paint, dark reddish brown to red (5YR 3/4 to 2.5YR 5/8). Paint on rim, with reserved band filled with groups of vertical strokes, paint on neck inside and outside; handle with plastic ridge and two wide bands of paint down the sides; two small piercings on juncture of rim and handle. Parallels: Berbati, dated Late Helladic (henceforth LH) IIIA2 (Åkerström 1987: Pl. 1, no.1), Tel Dan (Ben-Dov 2002:110-111, Pl. I, 2.69, 2.70). No. 2 (Fig. 9.1:2) Body sherds of an amphoroid krater (FS 53). Thickness 0.8 cm. Very pale brown clay (10YR 7/4); very pale brown slip (10YR 7/4); lustrous paint, black to yellowish red (10YR 2/1 to 5YR 5/6), partly worn off. Fragment of FM 39 chariot: chariot box filled with rows of dots with fragmentary torsos of two figures, their cloaks outlined with fine strokes of paint and also filled with rows of dots. The figure of the driver has a shoulder partly marked by a wide band. Parallels: Enkomi, dated LH IIIA2 (Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982: IV.13); unknown provenance, dated LH IIIA2 (ibid.: IV.19); Cyprus, dated LH IIIB1 (ibid.: V.4); Enkomi dated LH IIIB1 (ibid.: V.13); Dan, dated LH IIIA2 (Ben-Dov 2002:110-111, Pl. I, 2.69, 2.70). No. 3 (Fig. 9.1:3) Rim and body sherds of a krater (FS 9 or 281). Rim diameter ca. 30.0 cm; body thickness 0.6-0.8 cm. Reddish yellow clay (5YR 6/6); pink slip (7.5YR 7/4); matt to semi-lustrous paint, red (10R 4/8), partly worn off. Wide band on rim inside and outside; wide bands encircling lower body. Main body decoration unidentified. No. 4 (Fig. 9.2:1) Rim sherd of a krater (FS 9 or 282). Diameter of rim ca. 34.0 cm; body thickness ca. 0.6 cm. Very pale brown clay (10YR 7/3); lustrous paint, dark reddish grey (2.5YR 3/1), largely worn off. Wide bands of paint separated by reserved zones on rim, wide band outside below rim. Preserved fragment of FM 75 panel with large lozenge and FM 61:5 zigzag. Parallels: Trygliph with ‘double axe’ has parallels in Cyprus, on a bell krater from Enkomi (Dikaios 1969-71:285-7, Pl. 124:20) and on an amphoroid krater in Levantine style from Kition (Karageorghis 1981: 8, Pl. XIII). No. 5 (Fig. 9.2:2) Body sherds of a krater. Body thickness ca. 0.7 cm. Very pale brown clay (10YR 7/3); very pale brown slip (10YR 7/3); lustrous paint, very dark greyish brown (10YR 3/2), largely worn off. Preserved fragment of unidentified motif, wide, parallel, encircling bands decorating lower body. No. 6 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of a krater (?). Body thickness ca. 0.6 cm. Medium coarse clay, pink (7.5YR 7/4); lustrous slip, very pale brown (10YR 7/3); matt paint, very dark grey (7.5YR 3/1), partly worn off. Preserved fragments of wide, parallel, encircling bands. No. 7 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of a krater. Body thickness ca. 0.8 cm. Reddish yellow clay (5YR 6/6); lustrous slip, pink (7.5YR 7/4). Fragment undecorated. 3.

348

Colour codes are according to Munsell 2000.

CHAPTER 9: M YCENAEAN POTTERY

No. 8 (Not illustrated) Sherd from a vertical handle of a krater. Handle thickness 1.2 cm. Pink clay (7.5YR 7/4); very pale brown slip (10YR 7/4); lustrous paint, black (5YR 2.5/1), flaking. Handle with raised plastic ridge and two wide bands of paint down the sides. No. 9 (Fig. 9.2:3) Body sherd of a krater. Body thickness ca. 0.7 cm. Medium coarse clay, very pale brown (10YR 7/4); very pale brown slip (10YR 7/4); lustrous paint, reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4). Preserved fragment of unidentified motif. No. 10 (Not illustrated) Rim sherd of a mug (FS226). Rim diameter 14.0-15.0 cm; body thickness ca. 0.3 cm. Reddish yellow clay (5YR 6/6); reddish yellow slip (5YR 6/6); lustrous paint, red (10R 4/8), partly worn off. Band on rim inside and outside; FM 58 chevron outside, below rim. No. 11 (Fig. 9.2:4) Rim sherd of an open vessel (possibly a deep bowl FS 284). Rim diameter ca. 17.0 cm; body thickness ca. 0.4 cm. Light, reddish brown clay (5YR 6/4); semi-lustrous paint, yellowish red-to-red (5YR 5/6 to 2.5YR 4/8). Inside and outside of rim monochrome or decorated with wide band. Parallels: Ialysos, dated LH IIIA2 (Mountjoy 1986: Fig. 9.108.1). No. 12 (Not illustrated) Vertical strap handle of a cup or kylix. Handle width ca. 1.4 cm; body thickness ca. 0.4 cm. Light brown clay (7.5YR 6/4); very pale brown slip (10YR 7/3). Undecorated.

No. 13 (Fig. 9.2:5) Body sherd of an open vessel. Body thickness ca. 0.7 cm. Medium coarse clay, light grey (10YR 7/2); light grey slip (10YR 7/2); matt paint, dark grey (5YR 4/1). Fragment of an unidentified motif. No. 14 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of an open vessel. Body thickness ca. 0.4 cm. Light brown to brown clay (7.5YR 6/4 to 7.5YR 5/2); lustrous paint, yellowish red (5YR 4/6). Fragment of an unidentified motif. No. 15 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of an open vessel. Body thickness ca. 0.6 cm. Pink clay (7.5YR 7/4); very pale brown slip (10YR 7/3); matt paint: outside red (2.5YR 5/6), inside reddish brown (2.5YR 4/3). Wide encircling bands decorating the body inside and outside. No. 16 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of a small, open vessel. Body thickness ca. 0.4 cm. Pink clay (7.5YR 7/4); lustrous paint, red to very dusky red (2.5YR 4/8 to 2.5 YR 2.5/2). Outside body decorated with thin encircling lines, inside with a wide band. No. 17 ( Fig. 9.2:6) Upper parts of a globular stirrup jar (FS 173-175). Maximum body diameter ca. 12.1 cm; preserved height 11.6 cm; width of handles 1.2 cm. Reddish yellow clay (7.5YR 7/6); lustrous slip, very pale brown (10YR 7/4); lustrous paint, dark reddish brown (5YR 3/2), worn off in places. Disc decorated with large dot surrounded by three encircling lines. Bands surrounding base of false neck, and base and lip of spout. Handles monochrome with small reserved triangles near disc. Shoulder zone decorated with FM 73 lozenge. Alternating wide bands and groups of thin encircling lines on main body. 349

M ARTA GUZOWSKA AND ASSAF YASUR-LANDAU

Parallels: Tomb IV at Minet el-Beida, dated LH IIIB (Schaeffer 1949: Pl. 57:24; Midea: Walberg 1998: Pl. 74.302 and 304). References: Beck and Kochavi 1985: Fig. 9.2.8; Warren and Hankey 1989:155-156 (FS 171), Fig. 9.10; Kochavi 1990: Pls. on pp. 32 and 33; Leonard 1994: No. 613 (FS 173).

No. 18 (Fig. 9.2:7) Body sherds of a small piriform jar. Body thickness ca. 0.4-0.6 cm. Light grey clay (2.5Y 7/2); lustrous paint, brown, partly worn off (10YR 4/3). Fragment of an FM 64 foliate band preserved on a shoulder zone. Wide bands alternating with groups of thin encircling lines on the main body. Parallels: Phylakopi, on a stirrup jar FS 171, dated Late LH IIIA2 (Mountjoy 1986: Fig. 9.93:3). No. 19 (Fig. 9.2:8) Body sherds of a small stirrup jar. Body thickness ca. 0.3-0.5 cm. Reddish yellow clay (7.5YR 7/6); reddish yellow slip (7.5YR 7/6); semi-lustrous paint, dark brown (7.5YR 3/2), worn off in places. Shoulder zone decorated with FM 19 multiple stem, bordered from below with a wide encircling band. No. 20 (Fig. 9.2:9) Disc from stirrup of a jar. Disc diameter 2.9 cm; handle width 1.2 cm; diameter of a false neck 1.3 cm. Very pale brown clay (10YR 8/3); lustrous paint, very dark greyish brown (10YR 3/2), partly worn off. Large dot in centre of disc, surrounded by two concentric bands. Parallels: Mycenae, dated LH IIIA2 (Mountjoy 1999: Fig. 9.28.190); Prosymna, dated LH IIIB1 (Mountjoy 1999: Fig. 9.34:255). No. 21 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of a stirrup jar (?). Body thickness ca. 0.6 cm. Very pale brown clay (10YR 7/4); lustrous slip, very pale brown (10YR 7/4); lustrous paint, black to strong brown (7.5YR 2.5/1 to 7.5YR 5/8), partly worn off. Wide and thin encircling bands surrounding body. No. 22 (Fig. 9.3:1) Body sherd of a jug (FS 133 or 136). Body thickness ca. 0.5 cm. Pink clay (7.5YR 7/4 to 5YR 7/4); lustrous slip, pale yellow (2.5Y 8/2); lustrous paint, red (2.5YR 4/8); details in matt white. Preserved fragment of FM 21 octopus. Parallels: Ialysos, dated LH IIIA2 (Mountjoy 1999: Fig. 9.404:28; Prosymna T. 28.413 (Mountjoy 1999: 119, No. 557). No. 23 (Fig. 9.3:2) Body sherds of a vertical flask (FS 188-189). Reconstructed body diameter ca. 12.0 cm; handle width 1.2 cm; body thickness ca. 0.5 cm. Pink clay (7.5YR 7/4); lustrous slip, very pale brown (10YR 7/4); lustrous paint, red (2.5YR 4/8). Wide strokes of paint on the sides of the handles. Concentric bands on body, in alternating groups of wide and narrow. No. 24 (Not illustrated) Body sherds of a vertical flask (FS 188-189). Body thickness ca. 0.7 cm. Very pale brown to pink clay (10YR 7/4 to 5YR 7/4); very pale brown slip (10YR 7/4); lustrous paint, red (2.5YR 4/8), worn off in places. Body decorated with thin concentric lines. No. 25 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of a vertical flask (FS 188-189). Maximum body diameter 11.0 cm; body thickness 0.4 cm. Very pale brown to reddish yellow clay (10YR 7/4 to 5YR 6/6); very pale brown slip (10YR 7/4); lustrous paint, brown to dark brown (7.5YR 4/4 to 7.5YR 3/3). Body decorated with thin concentric lines. 350

CHAPTER 9: M YCENAEAN POTTERY

No. 26 (Fig. 9.3:3) Body sherds of a vertical flask (FS 188-189). Body thickness ca. 0.6-0.5 cm. Light brown clay (7.5YR 6/4); same slip; matt paint, red (10R 4/6), partly worn off. Body decorated with wide and narrow concentric bands. No. 27 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of a vertical flask (FS 188-189). Body thickness 0.5 cm. Light brown clay (7.5YR 6/3); reddish yellow slip (5YR 6/6); lustrous paint, red (10R 4/8). Body decorated with thin concentric lines. No. 28 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of a vertical flask (FS 188-189). Body thickness 0.4 cm. Pink clay (7.5YR 7/4); very pale brown slip (10YR 7/4); lustrous paint, red (2.5YR 4/6). Wide and narrow concentric bands. No. 29 (Not illustrated) Body sherds of a vertical flask (FS 188-189). Body thickness 0.5 cm. Light brown clay (7.5YR 6/4); lustrous slip, very light brown (10YR 7/3); matt paint, red (2.5YR 5/8), partly worn off. Fragment of a wide encircling band and a group of narrow encircling lines. No. 30 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of a vertical flask (FS 188-189). Body thickness 0.6 cm. Very fine clay, pale brown (10YR 6/3); pale yellow slip (2.5Y 7/4); semi-lustrous paint, strong brown (7.5YR 5/6), worn off. Thin concentric lines, irregularly drawn. No. 31 (Not illustrated) Body sherds of a vertical flask (FS 188-189). Body thickness 0.5 cm. Reddish yellow clay (5YR 6/6); same slip; lustrous paint, red (2.5YR 4/8). Fragment of a group of wide and narrow concentric bands. No. 32 (Fig. 9.3:4) Body sherds and a handle of a straight-sided alabastron (FS 94). Body thickness 0.6 cm. Very pale brown clay (10YR 7/3); lustrous slip, same colour; lustrous paint, dark brown to dark yellowish brown (7.5YR 3/3 to 10YR 4/4). Handle monochrome; zone between handles decorated with FM 19 multiple stem, angular. Above decorated zone a group of narrow encircling lines; a wide encircling band below. No. 33 (Fig. 9.3:5) Rim and neck sherd of a closed, wide mouth vessel (probably a piriform jar FS 39 or FS 44-45). Rim diameter 12.0 cm; body thickness 0.4 cm. Pink to light red clay (7.5YR 7/4 to 2.5YR 7/6); lustrous paint, red to dark reddish brown (2.5YR 4/8 to 5YR 3/3). Group of thin encircling bands on rim, solid paint on neck inside and outside. Parallels: Piriform jars FS 39 and FS 44 from Mycenae, dated LH IIIA2 and LH IIIB respectively (Mountjoy 1999: Fig. 9.23:146, Fig. 9.30:222). No. 34 (Fig. 9.3:6) Rim and neck sherd of a closed, wide mouth vessel (probably a piriform jar FS 39 or 44-45). Rim diameter ca. 12.0 cm; body thickness ca. 0.4 cm. Pale yellow clay (2.5Y 7/4); lustrous paint, very dark grey (5YR 3/1), partly worn off, flaking. Group of thin encircling lines on rim, neck monochrome inside and outside. No. 35 (Fig. 9.3:7) Rim and neck sherd of a closed, wide mouth vessel (probably a piriform jar FS 39 or 44-45). Rim diameter ca. 14.0 cm; body thickness ca. 0.35 cm. Reddish yellow clay (5YR 7/6); lustrous slip, reddish yellow 351

M ARTA GUZOWSKA AND ASSAF YASUR-LANDAU

(7.5YR 7/6); lustrous red to dark reddish brown paint (2.5YR 4/6 to 5YR 2.5/2). Neck monochrome inside and outside, thin encircling lines on lip.

No. 36 (Fig. 9.3:8) Body sherd of a large, closed vessel. Body thickness 0.8 cm. Coarse clay, pale brown (10YR 6/3); very pale brown slip (10YR 7/3); lustrous paint, black (5YR 2.5/1), largely worn off. Wide encircling bands; preserved fragment of unidentified motif. No. 37 (Fig. 9.3:9) Body sherd of a closed vessel. Body thickness 0.6 cm. Very pale brown clay (10YR 7/4); same slip; lustrous paint, dark red to red (2.5YR 3/6 to 2.5YR 5/8). Body decorated with wide encircling bands and an unidentified motif, probably a spiral with very thin coils. No. 38 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of a small, closed vessel. Body thickness 0.4 cm. Pink clay (7.5YR 7/4); very pale brown slip (10YR 8/4); lustrous paint, red (2.5 YR 4/8). Fragment of an FM 19 multiple stem. No. 39 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of a closed vessel. Body thickness 0.5 cm. Pink clay (7.5YR 7/4); lustrous slip, pink (7.5YR 7/4); lustrous paint, red (2.5YR 4/8). Fragment of an FM 19 multiple stem. No. 40 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of a small, closed vessel. Body thickness 0.4 cm. Pale yellow clay (2.5Y 7/3); lustrous slip, same colour; lustrous paint, very dark grey (10YR 3/1). Preserved fragment of a wide band and of a group of narrow concentric lines. No. 41 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of a small, closed vessel. Body thickness 0.4 cm. Reddish yellow clay (7.5YR 7/6); pink slip (7.5YR 7/4); lustrous paint, red (2.5YR 5/8). Encircling lines of varying width, irregularly drawn on the main body zone. No. 42 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of a closed vessel. Body thickness 0.3-0.4 cm. Very pale brown to pink clay (10YR 7/4 to 5YR 7/4); lustrous slip, very pale brown (10YR 7/4); lustrous paint, red to very dark grey (10R 4/8 to 5YR 3/1). Fragment of a wide encircling band and group of thin encircling lines. No. 43 (Not illustrated) Body sherds of a large, closed vessel. Body thickness 0.5 cm. Medium coarse clay, reddish yellow (5YR 6/6); reddish yellow slip (5YR 6/6); semi-lustrous paint, red (10R 4/8). Preserved fragment of two wide, encircling bands. No. 44 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of a closed vessel. Body thickness 0.5 cm. Medium coarse, pink clay (7.5YR 7/4); light reddish brown slip (5YR 6/4); matt paint, red (10R 5/8). Decoration of encircling bands. No. 45 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of a closed vessel. Body thickness 0.5 cm. Reddish yellow clay (5YR 6/6); same slip; semilustrous paint, red (10R 4/8 to 10R 5/8). Preserved fragment of a wide encircling band.

352

CHAPTER 9: M YCENAEAN POTTERY

No. 46 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of a closed vessel. Body thickness 0.5 cm. Very pale brown clay (10YR 7/4); lustrous slip, very pale brown (10YR 8/4); lustrous paint, red to dark red (2.5YR 5/8 to 2.5YR 3/6). Fragment of a wide encircling band and a group of narrow encircling lines. No. 47 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of a closed vessel. Body thickness 0.5 cm. Pink clay (7.5YR 7/4); lustrous slip, same colour; lustrous paint, very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/2), partly worn off. Fragment of a wide encircling bands and a group of narrow encircling lines. No. 48 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of a closed vessel. Body thickness 0.35 cm. Pink clay (7.5YR 7/4); lustrous slip, same colour; lustrous paint, red to dark red (2.5YR 5/8 to 2.5YR 3/6). Fragment of a wide encircling band separated by a group of narrow encircling lines. No. 49 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of a closed vessel. Body thickness 0.3 cm. Pink clay (7.5YR 7/4); very pale brown slip (10YR 7/3); red paint (2.5YR 4/8). Preserved fragment of a wide encircling band. No. 50 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of a closed vessel. Body thickness 0.4 cm. Very pale brown slip (10YR 8/4); lustrous paint, yellowish red (5YR 4/4), partly worn off. Preserved fragment of an unidentified motif. No. 51 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of a closed vessel. Body thickness 0.4 cm. Pink clay (7.5YR 7/4); lustrous slip, pale yellow (2.5Y 8/3), partly worn off; brown paint, worn off. Fragment of an unidentified motif. No. 52 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of a closed vessel. Body thickness 0.4 cm. Pink clay (7.5YR 7/4); lustrous slip, very pale brown (10YR 7/4); lustrous paint, red (2.5YR 5/8). Preserved fragment of an unidentified motif. No. 53 (Not illustrated) Body sherd of a closed vessel. Body thickness 0.5 cm. Pink clay (5YR 7/4); lustrous slip, very pale brown (10YR 7/3); lustrous paint, red (2.5YR 5/8). Preserved fragments of wide encircling bands. No. 54 (Fig. 9.4:1) Squat stirrup jar (FS 178 or 180). Non vidi, object lost. Body decorated with wide encircling bands alternating with groups of narrow encircling lines. Shoulder zone undecorated. References: Kochavi 1981: Pl. on p. 81; Kochavi 1990: Pl. on pp. 32 and 33; Leonard 1994: No. 711 (LH IIIA2-B). No. 55 (Fig. 9.4:2) Squat stirrup jar (FS 178 or 180); false neck, handles and spout missing. Maximum body diameter 12.6 cm; preserved height 7.5 cm. Reddish yellow clay (5YR 7/6); semi-lustrous slip, pink (7.5YR 7/4); semi-lustrous paint, red (10R 5/8). Linear decoration of alternating wide bands and groups of narrow encircling lines. Shoulder zone undecorated. References: Kochavi 1981: Pl. on P. 81; Kochavi 1990: Pl. on pp. 32 and 33; Leonard 1994: No. 710 (LH IIIA2-B).

353

M ARTA GUZOWSKA AND ASSAF YASUR-LANDAU

No. 56 (Fig. 9.4:3) Straight-sided alabastron with two handles (FS 94), one handle missing. Rim diameter 6.2 cm; maximum body diameter 9.8 cm; height 7.8 cm. Pink clay (7.5YR 7/4); semi-lustrous slip, very pale brown (10YR 7/3); lustrous paint, brown (7.5YR 4/2), largely worn off. Neck monochrome inside and outside with thin reserved lines on a lip. Group of thin encircling lines on shoulder. FM 64 foliate band decorating the zone between handles. Handles monochrome. Lower body decorated with wide encircling bands. Three narrow encircling lines on a base. Parallels: Alalakh, dated LH IIIA2 (Wooley 1955:371, Pl. CXXVIIIc; Leonard 1994: No. 394), Ugarit Tomb XIII (Leonard 1994: No. 396), Tell Abu Hawam, dated LH IIIA2 (?) (Hamilton 1935: Pl. 38:25, 153:5; Leonard 1994: No. 398). References: Kochavi 1981: Pl. on pp. 81; Kochavi 1990: Pl. on pp. 32 and 33; Leonard 1994: No. 474 (referred to as local). No. 57 (Fig. 9.4:4) Straight-sided alabastron with two handles (FS 94). Non vidi, object not available. Body decorated with alternating wide bands and groups of thin encircling lines. Zone between handles undecorated (?). References: Kochavi 1981: Pl. on P. 81; Kochavi 1990: Pl. on Pp. 32 and 33; illustration on Pp. XXIII; Leonard 1994: No. 475 (referred to as local). Note: An almost complete cup from the residence published by Beck and Kochavi (1985:56, Fig. 2.7) was cited by Warren and Hankey (1989:156) as a Mycenaean cup FS 220. After close examination, it is now known to be an imitation in local clay of Mycenaean shape and decoration and therefore, has been excluded from this catalogue and discussion. PROVENANCE OF THE MYCENAEAN POTTERY The earliest occurrence of Mycenaean pottery in occupation levels at Tel Aphek is associated with Palace V (Chapter 3). Unfortunately, only a small portion of the structure was uncovered, no overall plan is available for it, and no pottery could be directly associated with its floors. Only a few Mycenaean sherds were found in this level (Fig. 9.5), all of which are very small and were probably not recovered in their primary contexts. Nothing may be stated with certainty about their original functions within the pottery assemblage of this palace. By contrast, most Mycenaean sherds at Tel Aphek were found in Stratum X12, associated with Palace VI (cf. Fig. 9.6). This building was destroyed in a single violent event and its destruction debris sealed the deposits assigned to Stratum X12. Only two restorable Mycenaean vessels from the destruction of that stratum were recovered, a stirrup jar (No. 17, Fig. 9.2:7) and a vertical flask (No. 23, Fig. 9.3:2). It seems likely that at the moment of destruction of the residence, these were the only two complete Mycenaean vessels associated with it. Notably, they were found outside, adjacent to one of its outer walls, where they probably fell into the street together with the remains of the building’s upper storey. These vessels were sealed from above by debris from the collapsed roof. Additional Mycenaean sherds ascribed to this stratum were found concentrated outside the building, especially in a narrow alley next to its eastern wall (Wall P234, in Loci 2753, 2747 and 2731). Other groups of sherds come from within the residence (Loci 1137, 1731, 1721 and 1726), while only a few additional sherds were found elsewhere in scattered locations some distance from the building. Almost all the Mycenaean pottery recovered from Stratum X12 is in the form of small sherds, each representing a single vessel, dating mainly to LH IIIA2-B1. Although there is no precise date for the construction of the Governor’s Residence, which probably took place sometime during the long reign of 354

CHAPTER 9: M YCENAEAN POTTERY

Ramesses II during the 13th century BCE (Chapter 3), it is likely that some of the Mycenaean pottery found within Stratum X12 is residual, having arrived at the site in earlier times. Indeed, such may very well be the case for all LH IIIA2 material found within Stratum X12. Possibly, it arrived at the site, was in use, was broken and was discarded during the lifetime of Palace V of Stratum X13. Many of the small fragments could have been mixed into mudbricks and incorporated into the walls of the residence, either during its original construction or during subsequent repairs, and then been deposited where they were found as post destruction debris. At least two examples of such residual pottery, clearly in secondary contexts, are fragments of a LH IIIA2 chariot krater (No. 2, Fig. 9.1:2) found inside the ruined wall of the residence (Wall P224). Quantities of LH IIIB pottery probably arrived at the site later, during the lifetime of Palace VI. However, similar problems of deposition outside primary contexts are observed in relation to this material. It is likely that sherds of LH IIIB pottery (e.g., krater No. 4, Fig. 9.2:1) belonged to vessels broken during the lifetime of the residence and were discarded before its violent destruction. A new settlement in Stratum X11 saw construction of small rectangular houses on the summit of the mound. Stratum X11 is dated to the 12th century BCE by local pottery assigned to it (Chapters 6 and 24). This stratum also yielded Mycenaean pottery (Fig. 9.7), but since none of the vessels was complete, and none was clearly dated later than LH IIIB, it must be assumed that all Mycenaean pottery from Stratum X11 is residual and was recovered from secondary contexts. Thus, it is believed to have arrived at the site during the period of the Governor’s Residence (Stratum XII) and perhaps incorporated into Stratum XI within its mudbricks or as the result of excavation of pits into earlier debris, eventually being unearthed in our excavations.

Fig. 9.5: Location of Mycenaean pottery found in Strata X13 and X14.

355

Fig. 9.6: Location of Mycenaean pottery found in Stratum X12.

Fig. 9.7: Location of Mycenaean pottery found in Stratum X11.

356

CHAPTER 9: M YCENAEAN POTTERY

PATTERNS OF UTILIZATION OF MYCENAEAN POTTERY AT TEL APHEK It is possible to gain some insight into utilization of Mycenaean pottery at Tel Aphek from an overview of the assemblages of Strata X13, X12 and X11.4 The Mycenaean pottery assemblage from the settlement strata discussed here consists of 43 closed shapes and 10 open shapes of partial and complete vessels. They represent a ratio of ca. 80% closed vessels, i.e., containers, to ca. 20% open vessels including kraters and small drinking vessels. This ratio conforms to those published from other sites in the Levant (Steel 2002:31; Killebrew 1998:160). According to Sherratt, in a discussion of a paper by Killebrew (1998:169), ca. 30% of Mycenaean imports to the Levant were non-containers, although most published deposits actually indicate lower figures for this category. At Beth-Shean, an Egyptian stronghold during the Late Bronze Age (Hankey 1993:103), only 15% of imported Mycenaean vessels (from Strata VIII and VII) were open shapes. At Tel el->Ajjul (Steel 2002:33, Fig. 3), less than 10% of the imported Mycenaean pottery were open forms. Notably, flasks greatly outnumber stirrup jars as indicated by their respective ratios at Alalakh and Tell el Amarna (Koehl 2005). The ratio of open to closed types is 18% to 82% of the ceramic assemblage from the ‘Mycenaean’ tomb at Tel Dan (Ben-Dov 2002:98-118), associated with an elite population of the 14th and 13th centuries BCE, and notably the closest to the Tel Aphek ratio. Small and medium-sized closed forms, comprising the majority of imports to the Levant, were, argued Leonard (1981:91-100), containers for oils and unguents. However, work in the Aegean region on residue analysis (Tzedakis and Martlew 1999:152,173,196) has demonstrated that wine was also stored in medium-and large-size stirrup jars, and therefore a commodity also potentially shipped to the Levant. The small number of items of imported tableware in the Tel Aphek assemblage invites the question of use of Mycenaean tableware by Levantine elites. Specialized forms of such tableware, most notable of which are ‘chariot kraters’ (Leonard 1994:22–33; South and Todd 1997:75; Åkerström 1987:117ff.; Mountjoy 1993:73; Halstead 1994:208; Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982:8-9), were manufactured in mainland production centres such as Berbati, from which they were exported to Cyprus and the Levant (Gunneweg et al. 1994). The scenes depicting chariots with Mycenaean elite on these kraters offer a complex message combining elite status with consumption of wine from Aegean tableware. The message is most explicit in a case of a krater fragment from Enkomi (Furumark 1941: Fig. 75; Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982: III.21; Wright 1996:304), on which a Mycenaean dignitary with his servant appear behind a chariot, surrounded by a complete Mycenaean drinking kit, including a rhyton, ladle or cup, goblet or krater, a jug and a chalice. The message is probably intended to mean something of this sort: “use of such vessels is the mark of a true Aegean nobleman; you too can be noble if you acquire the complete Mycenaean drinking kit”! Imported kraters and smaller drinking forms found at Tel Aphek may reflect a phenomenon similar to that at Kalavassos/Ayios Dhimitrios in Cyprus (South and Russel 1993:306-308) during Late Cypriote (henceforth LC) IIC, where imports of Aegean fine tableware pottery were associated with high-status dwellings, while more numerous, closed vessel types were found in more varied contexts. The Cypriote case indicates more restricted access to high-status imported tableware than to closed forms. A similar generalization for patterns of use of Mycenaean pottery in Cyprus was made by Steel (1998:296): “… on the one hand, the dinner services and pictorial style were appropriated by the elite as status symbols 4. Because it is impossible to differentiate between Mycenaean pottery used during the existence of Stratum X12, and residual pottery associated with it, but which may have originated in Stratum X13, it would be unwise to draw conclusions based on differences in patterns of Mycenaean importation of ceramics between the 14th and 13th centuries BCE.

357

M ARTA GUZOWSKA AND ASSAF YASUR-LANDAU

to define their own exclusivity. On the other hand, the small, more widely available unguent containers were adopted by those members of Cypriote society who chose to emulate the elite but did not have access to the more highly valued Red Lustrous perfume bottles”. Judging from the elite residential area in which the open vessels were found at Tel Aphek, and the discovery of sherds of chariot kraters in what appears to be an elite area at Tel el->Ajjul (Steel 2002:36-38), it is likely the situation in the southern Levant was very much the same as that in Cyprus. However, while it is possible that Aegean drinking vessels were used by Late Bronze Age Canaanite and Egyptian (?) elites at Tel Aphek, they were perhaps of lesser importance than Canaanite or Egyptianstyle, bronze wine kits (Yasur-Landau 2005a). Bronze bowls and other vessels have been found in tombs containing Mycenaean pottery at Tell el-Far>ah South (Braunstein 1998:262,282-283), Tel el->Ajjul (Steel 2002:41-42) and Tel Dan (Gershuny 2002:200-203). A bronze drinking bowl found at Tel Aphek in Tomb 1200 (Chapter 5) suggests a similar phenomenon. Another option for understanding the role of Aegean open forms in relation to Canaanite drinking habits is the possibility that Canaanite elites’ drinking kits sometimes included both Aegean and Canaanite forms. In two representations of Canaanite drinking feasts on carved ivories of the 13th century BCE from Megiddo (Loud 1939: No. 2 and No. 162; Liebowitz 1980, Pl. 6.1),5 a prestigious Canaanite ‘drinking kit’ is depicted. It consists of a krater, round, handle-less cups, and zoomorphic rhyta. While it is impossible to know whether bronze or ceramic kraters were intended to be depicted, it is possible to assume a situation in which an exotic, Aegean chariot krater appears in one of these elite sets. Such may have been the case in the elite ‘Mycenaean’ tomb at Tel Dan, which included both Aegean ceramic drinking vessels and Canaanite bronze drinking bowls. Tellingly, it contained no bronze kraters, only three kraters of local manufacture and an imported Mycenaean chariot krater (Ben-Dov 2002:67).

CHRONOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS The destruction of Palace VI has a terminus post quem indicated by a letter from Ugarit, written between the fifth and the sixth decade of the reign of Ramesses II, i.e., between 1229 and 1219 BCE (Singer 1983; Chapter 15). Petrographic analysis performed by Yuval Goren, confirmed the letter from Ugarit was a locally made copy (Chapter 15). As such, it may have well been kept for a rather long time in the Governor’s Residence before that building was destroyed. As noted above, only two restorable Mycenaean vessels from the Stratum X12 Egyptian residence were recovered, a stirrup jar (No. 17, Fig. 9.2:7) and a vertical flask (No. 23, Fig. 9.3:2), and it is likely that of the Mycenaean vessels, only these were complete at the moment of the building’s destruction. These vessels are of different dates; the flask dates to LH IIIA2-B1, whereas the stirrup jar derives from LH IIIB. Warren and Hankey (1989:156) linked the stirrup jar chronologically, identified by them to be “mature LH IIIB”, to the letter from Ugarit, and thus assigned a destruction date late within the rule of Ramesses II, i.e., an advanced stage of LH IIIB. However, there is some reason to question whether the date of the context in which the stirrup jar was found is necessarily close to its date of manufacture. Two phenomena hinder any definitive chronological conclusion to be obtained from the Tel Aphek assemblage of Mycenaean pottery. The first is hoarding of Mycenaean pottery over extended spans of time, a practice known to have been common in the Levant. The second is the abrupt cessation of Mycenaean imports during the 13th century BCE. These phenomena are discussed below.

5.

358

For a theory of a Canaanite rather than Syrian origin of these ivories see Liebowitz (1987:5-6).

CHAPTER 9: M YCENAEAN POTTERY

1. HOARDING Different dates given to both complete vessels found in Stratum X12 suggest the residence at Tel Aphek contained vessels acquired and curated over a long period of time. This was not an isolated case in the Levant (Yasur-Landau, 2005b), as may be noted from two examples. The Late Bronze Age temple at the Amman Airport (Hankey 1974) was built during the time when LH IIIB pottery was in use, yet it contained a very impressive array of Mycenaean imports dating from LH IIA to LH IIIB. Some of those were two hundred year old heirlooms or ‘antiques’. At Tell Deir >Alla, two Mycenaean vessels, a flask (FS 192; Hankey 1967:131, Fig. 9.5:b) and a stirrup jar (FS 180; Hankey 1967:131, Fig. 9.5:a) were first described by Hankey (1967:132) as dated to LH IIIA2. Later they were dated by Warren and Hankey (1989:161) to LH IIIB1. This latter date indicates they were already in use for several decades or possibly more than half a century, before destruction of the temple. 2. THE END OF IMPORTS OF MYCENAEAN POTTERY There are no Mycenaean pottery imports later than LH IIIB2 at sites south of the Jezreel Valley. Thus, for example, no LH IIIC pottery has been found at Lachish, although Stratum VI at the site was destroyed in the days of Ramesses IV, if not later (Krauss 1994)6. It is thus impossible to use Mycenaean vessels to date levels deposited later than the 13th century BCE. In addition, no scarabs containing royal names of the XIXth and XXth Dynasties have been found in the Late Bronze Age strata at Tel Aphek.7 Thus, from the point of view of Mycenaean pottery as well as Egyptian finds, it is theoretically possible that Stratum XII at Tel Aphek was destroyed either at the end of the 13th century BCE, at the beginning, or even as late as the middle of the 12th century BCE.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to express warm thanks to the late Prof. Moshe Kochavi and Dr. Yuval Gadot, who invited them to publish the Mycenaean pottery from Tel Aphek, and who facilitated their work. They are also grateful to Dr. Elisabeth B. French and Dr. Penelope Mountjoy for a discussion following the authors’ lecture at a conference in Vienna in May 2003, and for their extremely helpful comments on this chapter. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Robert Koehl for allowing them to cite his unpublished paper. REFERENCES Åkerström, A. 1987. Berbati II. The Pictorial Pottery. Stockholm. Beck, P. and M. Kochavi. 1985. A dated assemblage of the late 13th century B.C.E. from the Egyptian Residency at Aphek. Tel Aviv 12:29-41. Ben-Dov, R. 2002. The Late Bronze Age ‘Mycenaean” Tomb’. In: Biran, A. and Ben-Dov, R. Dan II. A Chronicle of the Excavations and the Late Bronze Age ‘Mycenaean’ Tomb. Jerusalem. Pp. 33-248. Braunstein, S.L. 1998. The Dynamics of Power in an Age of Transition. An analysis of the Mortuary Remains of Tell el Far’ah (South) in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. (Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia University) 6. However, LH IIIC pottery, probably originating in Cyprus was found at Beth-Shean (Yasur-Landau, 2003), which was also destroyed during the days of Ramses IV. That is a further indication that the lack of a certain imported pottery type in a particular deposit may also reflect patterns of trade, rather than be just indicative of chronology. 7. One scarab (Chapter 14: No. 7) from Locus 4805 in Stratum X5 contains the throne name of Ramses II (Keel 1997:89, No. 30). Another (Chapter 14: No. 14) from Locus 4018 in Stratum X10 was read by Kitchen to include the name of Ramses IV R‛-mss m3 ‛tj (Keel 1997: 84 No. 17). However, that reading was questioned by Uehlinger (1988:21, No. 63), but confirmed in renewed readings by N. Lalkin.

359

M ARTA GUZOWSKA AND ASSAF YASUR-LANDAU

Dikaios, P. 1969-71. Enkomi Excavations 1948-59. Mainz. Furumark, A. 1941. The Mycenaean Pottery. Analysis and Classification. Stockholm. Gershuny, L. 2002. The bronze vessels. In: Biran, A. and Ben-Dov, R. 2002. Dan II. A Chronicle of the Excavations and the Late Bronze Age ‘Mycenaean’ Tomb. Jerusalem. Pp. 200-207. Gunneweg, J., Asaro, F., Michel, H.V. and Perlman, I. 1994. On the origin of a Mycenaean IIIA chariot krater and other related Mycenaean pottery from Tomb 387 at Laish-Dan (by Neutron Activation Analysis). Eretz Israel 23:54*-63*. Halstead, P. 1994. The north-south divide. Regional paths to complexity in prehistoric Greece. In: Mathers, C. and Stoddart, S. Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age (Sheffied Archaeological Monographs 8). Sheffield. pp. 195-219. Hamilton, R.W. 1935. Excavations at Tell Abu Hawam. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 4:1-69. Hankey, V. 1967. Mycenaean pottery in the Middle East. Notes on finds since 1951. Annual of the British School at Athens 62:107-147. Hankey, V. 1974. A Late Bronze Age temple at Amman. Levant 6:131-178. Hankey, V. 1993. The Mycenaean pottery. In: James, F.W. and McGovern, P.E., eds. The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan. A Study of Levels VII and VIII (University Museum Monograph 85). Philadelphia. pp. 103-110. Karageorghis, V. 1981. Excavations at Kition IV. The Non-Cypriote Pottery. Nicosia. Keel, O. 1997. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel. Katalog Band I: Von Tell Abu Farag bis ‘Atlit. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 83) Göttingen. Killebrew, A. 1998. Mycenaean and Aegean-style pottery in Canaan during the 14th-12th centuries BC. In: Cline, E. and Harris-Cline, D., eds. The Aegeans and the Orient in the Second Millennium. (Aegaeum 18). Liège. pp. 158-166. Kochavi, M. 1981. The history and archaeology of Aphek-Antipatris, biblical city in the Sharon plain. Biblical Archaeologist 44/2:75-86. Kochavi, M. 1990. Aphek in Cannaan. The Egyptian Governor’s Residence and its Finds. Jerusalem. Koehl, R. 2005. Observations on the unpublished Mycenaean pottery from Woolley’s depot at Tell Atchana (Ancient Alalakh). In: Laffineur, R. and Greco, E., eds. Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference. Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14-18 April 2004 (Aegaeum 25). Liège. pp. 415-422. Krauss, R. 1994. Ein Wahrscheinlicher Terminus Post Quem für das Ende von Lachisch VI. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft zu Berlin 126:123-130. Leonard, A. Jr. 1981. Consideration of morphological variations in the Mycenaean pottery from the southeastern Mediterranean. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 241:87-101. Leonard, A. Jr. 1994. An Index to the Late Bronze Age Aegean Pottery from Syria-Palestine. (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 114) Jonsered, Sweden. Liebowitz, H. 1980. Military and feast scenes on Late Bronze Palestinian ivories. Israel Exploration Journal 30:162-169. Liebowitz, H. 1987. Late Bronze II ivory work in Palestine. Evidence of a cultural highpoint. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 265:3-24. Loud, G. 1939. The Megiddo Ivories. Chicago. Mountjoy, P.A. 1986. Mycenaean Decorated Pottery. A Guide to Identification (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 73) Göteborg. 360

CHAPTER 9: M YCENAEAN POTTERY

Mountjoy, P.A. 1993. Mycenaean Pottery. An Introduction. (Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph No. 36) Oxford. Mountjoy, P.A. 1999. Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery. Rahden/Westfalia. Munsell, A.H. 2000. Munsell Soil Colour Charts. Baltimore. Schaeffer, C.F.A. 1949. Ugaritica II. Nouvelles études relatives aux découvertes de Ras Shamra. (Mission de Ras Shamra, Vol. V) Paris. Singer, I. 1983. Takuhlinu and Haya. Two governors in the Ugarit letter from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 10:3-25. South, A. and Todd, I.A. 1997. The Vasilikos valley and the Aegean from the Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age. In: Hadjisavvas, Y., ed., Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference Cyprus and the Aegean in Antiquity. From the Prehistoric period to the 7th century A.D. Nicosia 8-10 December 1995. Nicosia. pp.71-77. South, A. K. and Russel, P.J. 1993. Mycenaean pottery and social hierarchy at Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios. In: Zerner, C., Zerner, P. and Winder, J., eds. Proceedings of the International Conference Wace and Blegen. Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989. Held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, December 2-3 1989. Amsterdam. pp. 303–310. Steel, L. 1998. The social impact of Mycenaean imported pottery in Cyprus. Annual of the British School of Archaeology at Athens 93:285-296. Steel, L. 2002. Consuming passions. A contextual study of the local consumption of Mycenaean pottery at Tell el->Ajjul. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 15/1:25-51. Tzedakis, Y. and Martlew, H. 1999. Minoans and Mycenaeans. Flavours of their Time. National Archaeological Museum 12 July - 27 November 1999. Athens. Uehlinger, C. 1988. Der Amun-Tempel Ramses’ III. in [p3-Kncn], seine südpalästinischen Tempelgüter und der Übergang von der Ägypter- zur Philisterherrschaft. Ein Hinweis auf einige wenig beachtete Skarabäen. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 104:6-25. Vermeule, E. and Karageorghis, V. 1982. Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting. Cambridge, MA. Walberg, G. 1998. Excavations on the Acropolis of Midea. Results of the Greek-Swedish Excavations. Vol. I. The Excavations on the Lower Terraces 1985-1991. Stockholm. Warren, P. and Hankey, V. 1989. Aegean Bronze Age Chronology. Bristol. Wooley, L. 1955. Alalakh. An account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937-1949. (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London No. XVIII) Oxford. Wright, J.C. 1996. Empty cups and empty jugs. The social role of wine in Minoan and Mycenaean societies. In: McGovern, P.E., Fleming, S.J. and Katz, S.H., eds. The Origins and Ancient History of Wine. Amsterdam. pp. 287-309. Yasur-Landau. A. 2003. The absolute chronology of the LH IIIC period: A view from the Levant. In: Deger-Jalkotzy, S. and Zavadil, M., eds. LH IIIC Chronology and Synchronisms. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, May 7th and 8th , 2001. Vienna. pp. 235-244. Yasur-Landau, A. 2005a. Old wine in new vessels. Intercultural contact, innovation and Aegean, Canaanite and Philistine foodways. In: Cohen, Y. and Yasur-Landau, A. eds. Between East and West. Eretz Israel and the Ancient Near East. Intercultural Ties and Innovations in the Second Millennium BCE. The Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Annual Symposium, April 29, 2004 . Tel Aviv 32/2:168-191. Yasur-Landau, A. 2005b. The chronological use of imported Mycenaean pottery in the Levant. Towards a methodological common ground. Egypt and the Levant XIV:339-346. 361

CHAPTER 10

IMPORTED EGYPTIAN AND LOCAL EGYPTIAN-STYLE POTTERY FROM LATE BRONZE AND IRON AGE STRATA Mario A.S. Martin, Yuval Gadot and Yuval Goren

A quantity of pottery with Egyptian associations has been found at Tel Aphek and is the subject of this chapter. Since this study indicated a typology of ceramic forms including both Egyptian imports and locally produced Egyptian-style vessels (see below), a distinction is made between these two groups of objects. ‘Egyptian’ signifies true Nilotic imports, while ‘Egyptian-style’ indicates vessels of Egyptian morphology, but produced locally using Egyptian-related technology. Since both categories have Egyptian form and characteristics, they are labelled ‘Egyptian’ types. While pottery with Egyptian associations recovered from the excavation of Tel Aphek includes several actual imports, the bulk of this specialized assemblage is categorized as of Egyptian-style. Egyptian-style assemblages are well known from Egyptian garrison sites in the southern Levant such as Tel Beth-Shean, Tel Sera c and Deir el-Balaú (Martin 2004). A code for designating different types based on morphology is employed in this discussion. Egyptian bowl forms are designated Type EgB, while Type EgJ indicates Egyptian jar forms. Variations within these categories were assigned additional numerical designations (e.g., Type EgB2). Egyptian handled cups are designated Type EgC. The presentation of various pot types is followed by analyses of their fabrics and wares and of techniques employed in their manufacture. They are the basis for a discussion of the cultural implications of the Egyptian-associated ceramic assemblage from Tel Aphek. Egyptian-style vessels at Tel Aphek are not only Egyptian in form and display Egyptian technological traits, most are also petrographically distinct from vessels of local Canaanite forms. This Egyptian-style group, termed the terra rossa family, includes fabrics derived from local soil that have pronounced similarities with those produced from Nilotic clays. By contrast, the few actual Egyptian imports recovered are all of Marl D clay as defined in the Vienna System of Classification (cf. Nordström and Bourriau 1993). Most examples of the actual Egyptian imports and the locally produced Egyptian-style vessels were recovered in the ruins of Palace VI of Stratum X12 (Chapter 3).

EGYPTIAN FORMS – A TYPOLOGY As at the Egyptian garrison sites cited above, the Egyptian-style assemblage from Tel Aphek comprises mostly simple bowls ranging from shallow to deep forms (Types EgB1-EgB6). Walls vary from curving to straight, while rims are mainly rounded or flaring and bases rounded (including convex) or flat. Elsewhere these bowls have been discussed exhaustively (e.g., Martin 2005; 2006a). The Egyptianassociated assemblage from Tel Aphek includes types of a few closed shapes made locally, as well as a small collection of imported vessels. Below is a brief discussion of each of those types accompanied by 362

CHAPTER 10: I MPORTED EGYPTIAN AND LOCAL EGYPTIAN-STYLE POTTERY

a table indicating selected comparanda and relevant data concerning their provenances and their dating according to chrono-stratigraphic contexts for the southern Levant and Egyptian dynasties. At present three main typologies are used by scholars for classifying Egyptian and Egyptian-style pottery in the southern Levant in the Late Bronze Age. Two are generalized and may be applied to all sites. One was developed by Killebrew (2005) and another by Martin (2005). A third site-specific typology, developed by A. Mazar and refined by Martin (2006a1) for recent excavations at Tel BethShean, is also applicable for the present discussion because it was the site of an Egyptian garrison of major importance and much Egyptian and Egyptian-style pottery was found there. Since all three typologies are of relevance to the present discussion, Table 10.1 correlates the types of Egyptian forms from Tel Aphek with those at other sites. TABLE 10.1: COMPARATIVE TYPOLOGIES OF EGYPTIAN FORMS Description

Tel Aphek

Beth-Shean (Martin 2006a, Forthcoming a)

Killebrew (2005)

Martin (2005)

Shallow bowl, flat base, flaring rim Shallow bowl, rounded base, flaring rim Shallow bowl, rounded base, flanged rim Medium-deep bowl, flaring rim Rounded bowl, rounded base, rounded rim Rounded bowl, flat base, rounded rim Deep bowl, rounded base, flaring rim Large open bowl, ledged rim Large open bowl, squared rim Spinning bowl Slender ovoid jar, rounded base, everted rim Small locally made amphora, two handles, slender body Imported medium-sized amphora, two handles Imported small amphora, two handles, ovoid to globular body Imported handled cup

EgB1 EgB2a EgB2b EgB3 EgB4 EgB5 EgB6 EgB7a EgB7b EgB8 EgJ1 EgJ2

BL73 BL73 BL74 BL73 BL70 BL70 BL80 BL80 BL79 -

EG1b EG3 EG3 EG2 EG4 EG5 EG6 EG18 -

BL13b BL13b BL14 BL13a BL10a BL10a BL13c BL21 BL20 BL30 JR11 AM10d

EgJ3 EgJ4

SJ83 -

EG16-17 -

AM10a-c AM10e

EgC1

SJG

EG8

CU10

TYPE EGB1 (FIG. 10.1:1)

These are shallow, straight-sided bowls with flaring rims and flat bases. Five complete profiles of this type were found in Stratum X12. TABLE 10.2: COMPARANDA FOR TYPE EGB1 Site

Context

Reference

Chronology

Qantir Tell el-Amarna Malqata Tell es-Sa>idiyeh Beth-Shean

Stratum B3/B2 Tombs 104 and 117 Levels VII and ‘Late VII’ Stratum IX Tomb 118

Aston 1998: Nos. 725-728 Peet and Woolley 1923: Pl. XLVII: vii/1003 Hope 1989:21, Fig. 1g Pritchard 1980: Figs. 7:2, 21:2-7 James and McGovern 1993: Figs. 8:8, 49:9-11

XIXth Dynasty Mainly late XVIIIth Dynasty Amenophis III LB IIB LB IIB - early 12th century BCE 12th century (first half)2 LB II

Tel Sera> Deir el-Balaú

Oren 1984: Fig. 4:2 Dothan 1979:55, Illus. 126-127

1. This typology is almost complete. A few additional types will appear in Martin, Forthcoming a. 2. This period is alternately referred to as LB IIB, LB III or Iron IA. To avoid confusion the century was indicated instead.

363

M ARIO A.S. M ARTIN, Y UVAL GADOT AND Y UVAL G OREN

TYPE EGB2A (FIG. 10.1:2-3)

These are shallow, straight-sided bowls with flaring rims and rounded bases. Nine complete profiles of this type come from Stratum X12. TABLE 10.3: COMPARANDA FOR TYPE EGB2A Site

Context

Reference

Chronology

Qantir Qantir (Area Q IV)

Stratum B3/2 Strata Bb-Bc

Aston 1998: Nos. 624-627, 641, 692-698 Aston and Pusch 1999: Nos. 51, 60, 74-76

Saqqara

Tomb of Paser and Ra’ia Tomb of Tia and Tia -

Bourriau and Aston 1985: Nos. 4-7

XIXth Dynasty Late XIXth-early XXth Dynasties Ramesses II

Saqqara Tell el-Amarna

Aston 1997: Nos. 8-10 Peet and Woolley 1923: Pl. XLVII: v/85

Ramesses II Mainly late XVIIIth Dynasty Thebes/Valley of Kings Tomb of Ramesses IV Aston, Aston and Brock 1998: No. 96 Ramesses IV Thebes/Valley of Kings Tomb of Ramesses VII Aston, Aston and Brock 1998: Nos. 344, Ramesses VII 346 Deir el-Medineh Nagel 1938: Pls. VII-VIII, Type X Mainly XIXth-XXth Dynasties Tomb 109 south Pritchard 1980: Fig. 13:2 LB IIB Tell es-Sa>idiyeh Beth-Shean Levels VII and ‘Late James and McGovern 1993: Figs. 13:2, LB IIB - early 12th century VII’ 36:3, 48:2 BCE Tomb 118 T. Dothan 1979: 55, Illus. 126-127 LB II Deir el-Balaú

TYPE EGB2B (FIG. 10.1:4)

This is a shallow bowl with a flanged rim and rounded base. Only a single bowl of this type was found at Tel Aphek (Fig. 8.58:12). While this type is similar to Type EgB2a bowls in its overall morphology, its everted rim is not flared but was evolved into a pronounced flange with flattened top. TABLE 10.4: COMPARANDA FOR TYPE EGB2B Site

Context

Reference

Chronology

Qantir Tell el-Amarna Deir el-Medineh Elephantine Beth-Shean Beth-Shean

Stratum B3/2 Phase IIa Northern Cemetery Level ‘Late VII’

XIXth Dynasty Mainly late XVIIIth Dynasty Mainly XIXth-XXth Dynasties XXth-XXIst Dynasties LB IIB-12th century Early 12th century BCE

Deir el-Balaú

Strata VIII-VI

Aston 1998: Nos. 416-419 Rose 1984: Fig. 10.1:6 lower Nagel 1938: Pl. VIII, Type XI Aston 1999: Nos. 259, 365, 398 Oren 1973: Figs. 43:15, 47a: 2, 48a: 4 James and McGovern 1993: Figs. 50:6, 51:1-2 Gould, Forthcoming: Type IB

LB II

TYPE EGB3 (FIG. 10.1:5)

These bowls are medium-deep and straight sided with flaring rims and flat or slightly convex bases. They tend to be smaller in diameter than the shallow bowl types discussed above. Sometimes the everted portion of the rim is not very pronounced, but the wall is flaring. Four complete profiles of this type were found in Stratum X12.

364

CHAPTER 10: I MPORTED EGYPTIAN AND LOCAL EGYPTIAN-STYLE POTTERY

TABLE 10.5: COMPARANDA FOR TYPE EGB3 Site

Context

Reference

Chronology

Qantir Tell el-Amarna Deir el-Medineh

Stratum B1 -

Aston 1998: No. 2405 Peet and Woolley 1923: Pl. XLVII: vii/1003h Nagel 1938: Pl. XV Type XXII

Beth-Shean

Levels VII and ‘Late VII’ -

James and McGovern 1993: Figs. 27:9, 49:13

XXth-XXIst Dynasty Late XVIIIth Dynasty Mainly XIXth and XXth Dynasties LB IIB - early 12th century BCE

Gould, Forthcoming: Types IE1-IE2

Mainly LB II

Deir el-Balaú

TYPE EGB4 (FIG. 10.1:6)

These bowls have rounded walls, are of medium-size with rounded or, rarely, slightly tapered rims and rounded bases. Seventeen complete profiles of this type were found in Stratum X12 at Tel Aphek. TABLE 10.6: COMPARANDA FOR TYPE EGB4 Site

Context

Reference

Chronology

Qantir Qantir (Area Q IV) Tell el-Amarna Thebes/Valley of the Kings Thebes/Valley of the Kings Deir el-Medineh Malqata Elephantine Tell es-Sa>idiyeh Beth-Shean

Stratum B3/B2 Stratum Bb Tomb of Merneptah Tomb of Ramesses IV Phase IIa Tomb 105 lower Levels VII and ‘Late VII’ Tomb 116

Aston 1998: Nos. 322, 348-350, 740-752, 776-782 Aston and Pusch 1999: Nos. 7, 20-24 Rose 1984: Fig. 10.1:5 Aston, Aston and Brock 1998: No. 25

XIXth Dynasty Late XIXth-early XXth Dynasty Mainly Late XVIIIth Dynasty Merneptah

Aston, Aston and Brock 1998: No. 92

Ramesses IV

Nagel 1938: Pl. I, Type II Hope 1989:21, Fig. 1: h-j Aston 1999: Nos. 88-90 Pritchard 1980: Fig. 9:4 James and McGovern 1993: Figs. 12:8, 12:13, 48:10 Dothan 1979:38 Illus. 83

Mainly XIXth and XXth Dynasties Amenophis III XXth-XXIst Dynasty LB IIB LB IIB - early 12th century BCE LB II

Deir el-Balaú

TYPE EGB5 (FIG. 10.1:7)

This type is a rounded, medium-sized bowl with rounded or, rarely, slightly tapered rim and flat base. It is the most common vessel type in all Egyptian-style assemblages in the southern Levant (Martin 2005). However, while the other pottery types presented in this chapter can unequivocally be linked to an Egyptian tradition based only on their morphological characteristics, this very basic shape requires some further proof of an Egyptian affiliation, as it probably also evolved independently in the southern Levant. Additional factors, such as ware, fabric or other technological traits generally tip the balance in favour of one or the other association. Almost all bowls of this general type from Stratum X12 were produced in terra rossa. Since at Tel Aphek fabrics from that type of clay were restricted to Egyptian forms, those bowls can be confidently related to an Egyptian pottery tradition and therefore should be characterized as of Egyptian-style. Five complete profiles from Stratum X12 are attributed to this group. However, vessels of this generic type were also in use in Stratum X14 (e.g., bowl 60494/1, Fig. 8.27:6). As those examples were not made of terra rossa, it could not be definitively determined whether they were actually inspired by Egyptian proto-types or not. Since there is no evidence for a strong Egyptian influence in Stratum X14, the authors decided (on the basis of fabric) to designate those bowls from Stratum X14 as local Type BO1 (Chapter 8). Notably, those earlier examples are generally heavier and thicker-walled, have steeper sidewalls and are less rounded than bowls of Type EgB5. 365

M ARIO A.S. M ARTIN, Y UVAL GADOT AND Y UVAL G OREN

TABLE 10.7: COMPARANDA FOR TYPE EGB5 Site

Context

Reference

Qantir Tell el-Amarna

Stratum B3/B2 -

Thebes/Valley of the Kings Deir el-Medineh Malqata Tell es-Sa>idiyeh Beth-Shean

Tomb of Merneptah Tomb 105 lower Levels VII and ‘Late VII’ Stratum IX -

Aston 1998: Nos. 787-790 XIXth Dynasty Peet and Woolley 1923: Pl. XLVII: Mainly late XVIIIth Dynasty vi/1002 Aston, Aston and Brock 1998: Nos. 45-48 Merneptah

Tel Sera> Deir el-Balaú

Nagel 1938: Pls. IX-X Type XIV Hope 1989: 21, Fig. 1: k Pritchard 1980: Fig. 9:3 James and McGovern 1993: Figs. 12:9, 48:1-9 Oren 1984: Fig. 4:3 Gould, Forthcoming: Type IC

Chronology

Mainly XIXth-XXth Dynasties Amenophis III LB IIB LB IIB - early 12th century BCE 12th century (first half) Mainly LB II

TYPE EGB6 (FIG. 10.1:8)

This is a deep, straight-sided bowl type with flaring rim and rounded base. Its most distinct trait is its considerable depth, emphasized by the steep angle of its walls. In Egypt, bowls of this type were made beginning with the XXth Dynasty and became most popular in the Third Intermediate Period (ca. 11th-7th centuries BCE). At Tel Aphek, two almost intact examples of this type were found in pits attributed to Stratum X8 (Loci 4015 and 4622; Figs. 8.85:15; 8.88:3). While there is no chronological impediment for bowls of this type to be found in Iron Age contexts, it is somewhat puzzling that they appear as late as Stratum X8, an occupation in which, apart from spinning bowls (Type EgB8), other Egyptian forms are absent. Notably, these examples were made of the characteristic terra rossa fabric, which is otherwise not attested in Stratum X8. Understanding them as residuals from Stratum X12 would date the destruction of Palace VI at Tel Aphek to the XXth Dynasty. However, as two almost intact vessels cannot easily be explained as residual objects, there are no other good grounds for questioning their attribution to Stratum X8.3 TABLE 10.8: COMPARANDA FOR TYPE EGB6 Site

Context

Reference

Tanis Qantir Tell Nebesheh Memphis Saqqara

Brissaud 1987:99, Fig. 21: No. 276 Aston 1998: Nos. 2307, 2486 Petrie 1888: Pl. II:c Aston 1996: Fig. 68:5 Aston 1997: No. 180

Tell el-Amarna

Stratum B1 Tomb of Tia and Tia -

Thebes

-

Elephantine

-

Chronology

XXth-XXIst Dynasties XXth-XXIst Dynasties “1050-1000 BCE” 11th-10th centuries BCE Late Third Intermediate – Early Saite Period Peet and Woolley 1923: Pl. XLVII: v/103 Third Intermediate Period (cf. Aston 1996:43) Quibell 1898: Pl. XII: 1 Late New Kingdom – Third Intermediate Period (cf. Aston 1996:50) Aston 1999: No. 529 XXIInd-XXIVth Dynasties

SUMMARY DISCUSSION ON BOWL TYPES EGB1-EGB6

Judging from their overall shapes, sizes, manufacturing techniques and certain fabric characteristics (below), these bowls as a group have parallels in New Kingdom Egypt (Tables 10.2-10.8) and Nubia, where they form the main component of every ceramic assemblage. The rounded or flaring rims of 3. Egyptian ceramic forms do appear in the advanced Iron Age in the southern Levant, such as in Stratum X at Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985: 56-57; Figs. 47:13, 48:9) and Phase 6a in Area G at Tel Dor (Gilboa 2001:171, Pl. 5.78: 2). However, apart from spinning bowls (see below), they are generally imported, closed vessels.

366

CHAPTER 10: I MPORTED EGYPTIAN AND LOCAL EGYPTIAN-STYLE POTTERY

this group contrast with the more internally thickened rims of simple, local LB bowls from Tel Aphek (Chapter 8). Analogous to their Egyptian counterparts, rim diameters of the simple Egyptian-style bowls at Tel Aphek vary between 20.0 and 29.0 cm, with larger variants in this range more common. Base diameters range between 5.0 and 10.0 cm in diameter. An interesting feature of the assemblage of bowls of these types at Tel Aphek is a significant difference from analogous assemblages from other sites, such as Tel Sera> (Martin, Forthcoming b), Tel Mor (Martin 2005:77; Martin and Barako 2007:134-135), and Tel Beth-Shean (Martin 2006a:142). Notably, rounded rather than flat bases are more common for these types at Tel Aphek; they are found on 60% of the entire assemblage of these bowls. A prevalence for rounded bases can also be noted for Ramesside Egypt (Aston pers. comm.). At those other south Levantine sites noted above, these bowl types mostly have flat bases, while the occurrence of rounded bases is extremely rare. Indeed, the Tel Aphek examples are most similar to their Egyptian counterparts in almost all primary aspects including shape, size, fabric, and colour, when compared with specimens from other Egyptian-style assemblages.4 Egyptian-style simple bowls with flaring rims (Types EgB1, EgB2a, EgB3) are of chronological significance. In Egypt such bowls were not popular before the Amarna period. In the southern Levant, with few possible exceptions, they were not known before the 13th century BCE, while their widest distribution is attested in 12th century BCE contexts (Martin 2006a:143). TYPE EGB7A (FIG. 10.1:9)

This type is a large open bowl with ledged rim. Large bowls with ledged rims are well known in Egypt during the New Kingdom (Aston and Pusch 1999:41; Aston 2001:169). The distinctive ledge is created by fashioning a ridge below the rim or by simply folding the rim over and pinching a ledge at the lower end of the fold; the fold is generally 3.0 cm in length or longer. Ring bases are most common in this group. Rim diameters generally range between 40.0 and 50.0 cm. One rim fragment from Stratum X14 (diameter 50.0 cm) was attributed to this type. There are two or three impressed horizontal bands on its exterior sidewalls, which can be identified as impressions of leaves (see below). The fabric of this fragment is neither of Egyptian clay, nor does it belong to the locally produced terra rossa group. Its surface appears yellowish-green, while in section it exhibits large amounts of quartz and limestone and some completely burnt out straw. In Egypt, ledged rim bowls appear in XVIIIth and XIXth Dynasty contexts, after which they seem to go out of style and are no longer found (Aston, Aston and Brock 1998:137-214). TABLE 10.9: COMPARANDA FOR TYPE EGB7A Site

Context

Reference

Chronology

Qantir Qantir (Area Q IV) Tell el-Amarna Thebes/Valley of the Kings Deir el-Medineh Malqata Beth-Shean Megiddo Tel Mor Lachish

Stratum B3/2 Stratum Bb Tombs KV 27 and 45

Aston 1998: Nos. 333, 429, 729 Aston and Pusch 1999: No. 31 Peet and Woolley 1923: Pl. XLVII: ix/242 Aston, Aston and Ryan 2000: Nos. 14, 46-7

XIXth Dynasty Between Seti II and Ramesses III Late XVIIIth Dynasty XVIIIth Dynasty

Stratum R-1b Level F-9 Strata XI-VII Fosse Temple III

Nagel 1938: Pl. VII: K.2.123 Hope 1989: 21, Fig. 1n Mullins 2007:446-447, Type BL4b Ilan, Hallote and Cline 2000:209, Fig. 9.10:26 Martin and Barako 2007: Fig. 4.7:1-3, 7-8 Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pl. 38:55-56

XIXth Dynasty Amenophis III LB IB LB II LBI-LB IIB LB IIB

4. This observation is based on first-hand experience by Martin, one of the authors of this work, who has studied all these assemblages.

367

M ARIO A.S. M ARTIN, Y UVAL GADOT AND Y UVAL G OREN

TYPE EGB7B (FIG. 10.1:10)

This type is a large open bowl with slightly squared and stepped rim. One fragmentary example comes from Stratum X12 (Fig. 8.60:1). Its distinctive rim distinguishes it from bowls of Type EgB7a. It should be included in the general group of large open Egyptian bowls with rounded, squared or modelled (but not ledged) rims. Such bowls were very popular throughout the New Kingdom, particularly starting in the later XVIIIth Dynasty. Similar to the large bowl from Stratum X14 (see above: Type EgB7a), the bowl from Stratum X12 has five rows of impressed bands in its external wall. TABLE 10.10: COMPARANDA FOR TYPE EGB7B Site

Context

Reference

Period

Qantir Tell el-Amarna Deir el-Medineh Elephantine Beth-Shean

Stratum B1 Tomb 356 Levels VII-VI

Aston 1998: No. 2417 Rose 1984: Fig. 10.1:11 Nagel 1938: Fig. 2:41-42 Aston 1999: No. 503 Martin, Forthcoming a

XXth-XXIst Dynasties Mainly late XVIIIth Dynasty XIXth Dynasty XXth-XXIst Dynasties LB IIB-12th century

TYPE EGB8 (FIG. 10.1:11)

‘Spinning bowls’ are rather deep vessels with one to four loop handles attached to their interior bases. The variant with two centred handles is the most common and the sole type represented in the assemblage under review. In general, these bowls may have disc, flat or ring bases. However, at Tel Aphek only flat and ring bases are attested for this type. In Egypt these vessels were also produced in stone. The first to recognise a connection between these bowls and the spinning process were Peet and Woolley (1923:61,137, Pl. XLVIII). T. Dothan (1963), Vogelsang-Eastwood (1987-88), and more recently Allen (1997), have discussed the distribution and use of this type at length. In Egypt spinning bowls are well known from representations in tomb scenes from the late XIth Dynasty to the New Kingdom, and from tomb models dated to the XIth and XIIth Dynasties (For references see: Allen 1997:30-32, Tables 1-2). Full size stone and pottery bowls are found from the XIIth Dynasty to the Late Period (8th to 4th centuries BCE), with the bulk originating in New Kingdom contexts.5 Based on studies of tomb scenes and models, as well as observations of actual vessels, it has been deduced that these bowls were used to spin thread from flax roves (which were placed inside or beside the vessels), to plait already spun thread, or for both these functions. To make thread, flax fibres had to be spun when damp. Therefore these bowls are believed to have contained water when in use. It appears the interior handles were for anchoring threads, supplying necessary tension and also probably for preventing them from becoming entangled. Spinning bowls were introduced to, and seem to persist in regions under strong Egyptian influence in the Late Bronze Age. Their introduction into the southern Levant in LB IIA, and their distribution during early LB IIB, are clearly related to Egyptian activity. Numerous occurrences of this type have been noted by T. Dothan (1963:97-107) and more recently, by Martin (2005:102-103). In the southern Levant pottery spinning bowls continue in use long after Egyptian domination ended. They are continuously attested to until the 7th century BCE and not merely as stray sherds. Thus, this genuinely Egyptiantype object, and its related production technique, was co-opted and became integral to south Levantine pottery and textile working traditions. 5. For a catalogue of such objects with dating, descriptions of fabrics, context, and references see: Allen 1997:33-36 (Appendix 2).

368

CHAPTER 10: I MPORTED EGYPTIAN AND LOCAL EGYPTIAN-STYLE POTTERY

At Tel Aphek one fragmentary spinning bowl derives from Stratum X12 (Fig. 8.56:3). Three additional fragments were associated with Stratum X8 (Figs. 8.84:2; 8.88:8; 8.92:19), where, if they were not residual from earlier levels, they are further evidence for the continuation of this bowl type well into the Iron Age. All spinning bowls found at Tel Aphek were produced of fabrics generally used for local Canaanite vessel types. This is particularly noteworthy for the example from Stratum X12, which one might have expected, given its Egyptian association, to have been made of terra rossa.6 Within the context of this discussion, a fragmentary spinning bowl from Stratum III at nearby >Izbet êarta (Finkelstein 1986: Fig. 8:11) is noteworthy.7 Possibly, the vessel originated at Tel Aphek. However, if locally produced at >Izbet êarta, we may regard its production a result of the Egyptian influence in the region. TYPE EGJ1 (FIG. 10.2:1)

This is a type of exceptionally slender jar with ovoid body, rounded base and everted rim. An almost intact example was found in a context attributed to Stratum X14 (Locus 7225). It is made of terra rossa clay and the only specimen of such a fabric found in Stratum X14.8 In Egypt such slender ovoid jars are well known and occur during the Hyksos Period (Middle Bronze Age) and the XVIIIth Dynasty, after which they ceased to be made. In the southern Levant these jars appear during the first half of the Late Bronze Age. TABLE 10.11: COMPARANDA FOR TYPE EGJ1 Site

Context

Reference

Period

Qantir Tell el-Amarna Malqata Beth-Shean Megiddo

Stratum C Strata R-2–R-1a Tomb 26 Stratum VIII Stratum XI Fosse Temple I Stratum XI Tomb 168

Aston and Pusch 1999: No. 97 Frankfort and Pendlebury 1933: Pl. LIII: xv/13 Hope 1989:22, Fig. 2g-h Mullins 2007:449-450, Type JR5 Guy and Engberg 1938: Pl. 57:9 Loud 1948: Pl. 60:7 Dothan 1960: Pl. 9:1 Tufnell, Inge, and Harding 1940: Pl. LIV (Type 335) Martin, Forthcoming b e.g., Petrie 1931: Pl. XLII: 31H7

XVIIIth Dynasty Late XVIIIth Dynasty Amenophis III LB IA-IIA LB II LB IIA LB I LB IB LB (IB-)IIA First half of Late Bronze Age

Tel Mor Lachish Tel Sera> Tell el->Ajjul

TYPE EGJ2 (FIG. 10.2:2)

This is a type of small, locally produced, two-handled jar with pointed base. Its slender and tapered form closely recalls Egyptian two-handled storage jars or ‘amphorae’, as Egyptologists term these vessels. Rather small in size, the Tel Aphek example should be typed as an example of Category 1c of Hope’s (1989:86-117) treatment of miniature Egyptian amphorae. That this small amphora from Stratum X12 was produced from terra rossa clay may be regarded as highly exceptional, as generally only morphological types traditionally made of silt clay in Egypt were reproduced in the southern Levant. Amphorae, typically made of marly clay in Egypt, which are found in the southern Levant are almost always imports. 6. Either this specimen can already be linked with a Canaanite cultural tradition or, from a functional point of view the less porous fabric used for Canaanite vessels was regarded as more suitable for retaining water during the spinning process. 7. Stratum III at >Izbet êartah covers the period from the end of the 13th century BCE until the first half of the 11th century BCE (Finkelstein 1986:198-200). 8. The fabric of the slender jar is characterized by an abundance of limestone particles, not commonly associated with this class of fabric. Terra rossa fabrics are only common in Stratum X12. Since only a single vessel from Stratum X14 is known to have been produced in this fabric, its existence might argue for an origin from another site where such a clay source was already in use. Tell Jaffa, which is known to have been under Egyptian influence by the 14th century BCE (EA 294), would be a good candidate for such a site.

369

M ARIO A.S. M ARTIN, Y UVAL GADOT AND Y UVAL G OREN

Fig. 10.1: Egyptian bowl forms.

370

CHAPTER 10: I MPORTED EGYPTIAN AND LOCAL EGYPTIAN-STYLE POTTERY

Fig. 10.2: Egyptian closed forms.

371

M ARIO A.S. M ARTIN, Y UVAL GADOT AND Y UVAL G OREN

TYPE EGJ3 (FIG. 10.2:3)

Figure 8.63:16 is the wall and handle of an imported Egyptian amphora, but unfortunately, not enough of the vessel was recovered to determine precisely to which of two possible variants or sub-types it belonged. It was fashioned from Egyptian Marl D (see below for a description of this fabric). It was given a cream-coloured slip and then burnished, two characteristic treatments of Marl D wares. It was found in a street (Locus 3814) in Stratum X12. Typologically, the piece may either belong to a slender type of Egyptian Marl D amphora with tapering body and pointed base (i.e., a larger version of Type EgJ2), or to a type with wider body (Aston and Pusch 1999:43-45). The more slender type occurs from the mid-XVIIIth Dynasty onwards, while the broad-bodied type evolved in northern Egypt during the XIXth Dynasty. Nineteenth Dynasty examples of the latter type are characterised by slightly convex, generally mould-made bases with rounded or pointed tips and a soft carination between base and body wall, from which it derives the term ‘carinated’ base (Aston 1998:51). In the period between Seti II (1200-1194 BCE) 9 and Tewosret (1188-1186 BCE),10 the wide-bodied amphora type with carinated base develops into its classical XXth Dynasty form with longer neck and completely rounded base. TABLE 10.12: COMPARANDA FOR TYPE EGJ3 (SLENDER VARIANT) Site

Context

Reference

Period

Thebes/Valley of the Kings Tomb of Tutankhamun Holthoer 1993:44-56; Fig. L; Pls. 5-9, 26-32 Tutankhamun Deir el-Medineh Mainly XIXth Dynasty Nagel 1938: passim Tomb 114 T. Dothan 1979:10,12-14, Illus. 14, 16 LB IIB Deir el-Balaú

TABLE 10.13: COMPARANDA FOR TYPE EGJ3 (WIDE VARIANT WITH CARINATED BASE) Site

Context

Reference

Chronology

Qantir Qantir (Area Q IV)

Stratum B3/B2 Stratum Bd

Aston 1998: Nos. 1786-1791 Aston and Pusch 1999: No. 87

Saqqara Saqqara

Tomb of Jurudef Tomb of Tia and Tia

Aston 1991: passim Aston 1997: passim

XIXth Dynasty Late XVIIIth-early XIXth Dynasty Ramesses II Ramesses II

TABLE 10.14: COMPARANDA FOR TYPE EGJ3 (WIDE VARIANT WITH ROUNDED BASE) Site

Context

Qantir Qantir (Area Q IV)

XXth-XXIst Dynasties Between Seti II and Ramesses III Tomb Griffith 1890: Pl. XIV: 5 Ramesses III- Ramesses VI Tomb of Ramesses VII Aston, Aston, and Brock 1998: Nos. 335, Ramesses VII 383-384 Post 1200 BCE Stratum N-4 in Area N Killebrew 2005: Fig. 2:17 North11

Tell el-Yahudiyeh Thebes/Valley of Kings Beth-Shean

Stratum B1 Stratum Bb

Reference

Chronology

Aston 1998: Nos. 2498, 2511, 2513 Aston and Pusch 1999: No. 49

9. This chronology follows that of Kitchen (2000:49). 10. The change definitely takes place after the reign of Merneptah and was fully evolved by the time of Ramesses III. 11. Hebrew University excavations under the direction of Amihai Mazar.

372

CHAPTER 10: I MPORTED EGYPTIAN AND LOCAL EGYPTIAN-STYLE POTTERY

TYPE EGJ4 (FIGS. 10.2:4; 10.3)

This is an imported type of ‘amphoriskos’ or small amphora with ovoid to globular body.12 An intact example was found in a hall (Locus 1721) of the ground floor of Palace VI (see page 415). It is made of Egyptian Marl D and was recovered from the same context as an Egyptian handled cup of the same fabric (see Type EgC1). This vessel is 23.0 cm high, has a maximum body diameter of 16.5 cm and a rim diameter of 9.5 cm. As other vessels of Marl D (Types EgJ3, EgC1), this jar has a cream-coloured slip (i.e., a so-called ‘cream slip’) and was burnished. Due to varying firing conditions within the kiln on different portions of the vessel, the slip appears pinkish at several spots. The rim is rolled Fig. 10.3: Small Marl D amphora outwards, the body is almost globular, and the narrow, slightly convex from Stratum X12 base shows a soft carination between body and base. The handles are (Type EgJ4); scale 1:5. attached at the point of the maximal diameter of the body. This type, as may Type EgJ2, also be grouped into Hope’s (1989:95-96,115, Fig. 5:5-15; i.e., his miniature amphorae) Category 1c of Egyptian amphorae, which includes both slender, tapered, and ovoid to globular variants. Hope notes these small amphorae appear as early as the reign of Amenophis II (1989:95). Aston (1999:39) argues that the early examples, dating to at least as late as the reign of Horemheb, tend to have longer necks in relation to vessel height, while examples with shorter necks appear only from the time of the XIXth Dynasty. The example from Tel Aphek has a rather short neck and should therefore be designated as a later variant. Most comparanda of the type with ovoid to globular body come from XIXth Dynasty contexts and are characterised by a carination between a convex base and the body. One well-dated example from the time of Seti II, very late in the XIXth Dynasty, has a rounded base. Hence, while the corpus of small, ovoid to globular amphorae is somewhat limited, their bases may have undergone the same chronological development as those of their larger counterparts, the broad-bodied amphorae noted above in the discussion of Type EgJ3. A chronological paradigm for these vessels suggests that carinated bases were usual throughout most of the XIXth Dynasty, while rounded bases first appeared at the end of the XIXth Dynasty. Although the angle of the base on the example from Tel Aphek is less pronounced than that of bases on most of its Egyptian counterparts (Table 10.15), a XIXth Dynasty example from Elephantine is also characterised by a very slight change in that angle (Aston 1999: No. 39). On that basis, a date in the XIXth Dynasty for this vessel from Tel Aphek is indicated (before the evolution of rounded bases). The closest parallels to these small amphorae are noted in Table 10.15, with only one known likely parallel (from Deir el-Balaú) found in the southern Levant. Only its base and lower body are preserved, but its identification as a small ovoid to globular amphora is nevertheless more than likely. Furthermore, it was identified as Egyptian ‘White Burnished Slip Ware’ by Yellin, Dothan and Gould (1990). Evidently it is of Marl D fabric or a closely related mixed marl-and-silt clay (see Aston 1998:68). Like the vessel from Tel Aphek, the fragmentary jar from Deir el-Balaú also has a slightly carinated base. Unfortunately no stratigraphic provenance is given for the latter fragment.

12. The term amphoriskos is not particularly apt in this context, but is retained here since it was used in a preliminary report by Beck and Kochavi (1985:35).

373

M ARIO A.S. M ARTIN, Y UVAL GADOT AND Y UVAL G OREN

TABLE 10.15: COMPARANDA FOR TYPE EGJ4 Site

Context

Reference

Period

Qantir Saft el-Henneh Saqqara Gurob

Stratum B3/B2 Tomb 328 Tomb of Jurudef -

Gurob Riqqeh Rifeh

-

Aston 1998: No. 1949 (Carinated base) Petrie 1906: Pl. XXXIXc: 70 (Carinated base) Aston 1991: No. 55 (Carinated base, Marl D) Brunton and Engelbach 1927: Pl. XXXVIII:46H (Carinated base, Marl D) Petrie 1891: Pl. XIX:2 (Rounded base) Engelbach 1915: Pl. XXXVII:46H (Carinated base) Petrie 1907: Pl. XXXVII L:408 (Carinated base)

Elephantine Deir el-Balaú

Phase I -

Aston 1999: No. 39 (Carinated base, Marl D) Yellin, Dothan and Gould 1990: Fig. 1:2

XIXth Dynasty XVIIIth Dynasty Ramesses II XIXth Dynasty (Hope 1989:105) Seti II XVIIIth-XIXth Dynasties XIXth Dynasty (Aston 1999: 22, Note 86) XIXth Dynasty Evidently LB IIB

TYPE EGC1 (FIG. 10.2:5)

This type is an imported cup with loop handle. Handled cups, also sometimes termed squat juglets or mugs are small, necked cups with handles attached to necks and bodies. The rim of this type is rolled outwards and the base is either narrow and flat, or rounded. This small vessel probably was used for containing precious ointments; possibly its ownership conferred prestige. Handled cups evolved in the late XVIIIth Dynasty (Amarna period), but they differ from later examples in having squat, wide bodies with relatively short necks and handles attached very high up on their necks (e.g., examples from Tell el-Amarna cited in Table 10.16). By the late XIXth Dynasty the vessel type had developed a more elongated and slender body with rounded contours and a higher neck. These traits become even more developed in the XXth Dynasty, while the handle tended to be attached at the base of the neck rather than higher up (Aston 1996:65). Handled cups were typically made of marl clays, but exceptional occurrences in Nile clays are known, although they do not seem to have appeared prior to the 12th century BCE. Such cups were made from Marl D, Marl A4 (Aston, Aston and Brock 1998:139), mixed marl-and-silt clays (Aston 1998:68) and Marl F (Aston 1996:65). In the southern Levant such cups appear at almost every site with strong Egyptian influence, albeit in small quantities. All specimens analysed were imported from Egypt (Martin 2006b:204-209). Judging from descriptions of the fabrics and surface treatments of all others published but not analyzed, they also appear to be imports (ibid.). A fragmentary specimen of such a cup of Egyptian Marl D was found in a hall (Locus 1721) of Palace VI. The vessel bears the typical cream-coloured slip and clearly discernible lines of vertical burnishing typical to this type of ware. Most of the vessel’s profile can be reconstructed although its handle and base are missing. This cup from Tel Aphek is difficult to date because of its fragmentary state. While its identification as a late XVIIIth Dynasty type can be ruled out, its not too high neck and not too slender body makes a XIXth Dynasty rather than a XXth Dynasty dating more plausible. TABLE 10.16: COMPARANDA FOR TYPE EGC1 Site

Context

Reference

Period

Qantir Qantir

Stratum B3/2 Stratum B1

Aston 1998: Nos. 1686-1690, 1917-1938 (Marl D) Aston 1998: No. 2496 (Marl A)

Qantir (Area Q IV)

Stratum Bb

Aston and Pusch 1999: No. 45 (Marl D)

Tell el-Yahudiyeh Saqqara

Tomb Tomb of Tia and Tia

Griffith 1890: Pl. XV: 10 Aston 1997: Pl. 119:158 (Marl D)

XIXth Dynasty XXth-XXIst Dynasties Between Seti II and Ramesses III Ramesses III-VI Ramesses II

374

CHAPTER 10: I MPORTED EGYPTIAN AND LOCAL EGYPTIAN-STYLE POTTERY Tell el-Amarna

-

Elephantine

Phase IIa

Nubia Tell es-Sa>idiyeh

Tomb 102

Beth-Shean

Level VI

Beth-Shean Northern Tomb 227 Cemetery Megiddo Stratum VIIA

Peet and Woolley 1923: Pl. LI: xlii/1009-1009B; Rose Late XVIIIth 1984:135, Fig. 10.1:25; Rose 1987: Fig. 10.5:63107 Dynasty Aston 1999: No. 145 (Nile B2) XXth-XXIst Dynasties Holthoer 1977: Pl. 21 Type JU 2 XVIIIth Dynasty Pritchard 1980: Figs. 5:1, 52:6 LB IIB James 1966: Fig. 123:4 Cohen-Weinberger 1998: Fig. 2:9 Oren 1973: Figs. 46:19, 74:11

12th century BCE

Loud 1948: Pl. 67:15

12th century BCE (first half) 12th century BCE (first half) Late XVIIIth Dynasty LB IIB

Tel Sera>

Stratum IX

Oren 1984: Fig. 7:4a, Pl. IIIa

Tell el->Ajjul

Tomb 419

Petrie 1933: Pl. XI: 67

Deir el-Balaú

Tomb 114

T. Dothan 1979: 13,16-17, Illus. 24, 29

12th century BCE

FABRICS EGYPTIAN IMPORTS

MARL D All three identified Egyptian imported types (EgJ3-EgJ4 and EgC1) from Tel Aphek come from Stratum X12. Their fabrics are identifiable as Marl D. The special qualities of this ware may be seen in a fresh section of the amphora fragment of Type EgJ3 in Fig. 10.4a (see page 414). Marl D is a very hard and dense fabric that probably derives from the Memphis-Fayoum region (Aston 1998:65-66; Aston, Aston and Brock 1998:139-140). Colours (Munsell 1954) of this fabric viewed in sections, range between red (2.5 YR 4/8), greyish brown (2.5 Y 5/2) and pale olive (5 Y 5/3). Very often they are also dark brown, and occasionally there are bands of red on either side at the inner and outer surfaces (Nordström and Bourriau 1993:181-182), while in some examples the entire section is red. Surfaces generally exhibit the same colours. All examples known to these writers are covered with a thick, cream (10 YR 8/3) to pink (7.5 YR 8/4) or pale olive coloured slip (i.e., so-called ‘cream slip’). Most characteristic of Marl D is a large quantity of irregular limestone particles scattered throughout the matrix, resulting in a gritty texture when viewed in a break. Finer inclusions such as sand, fine mineral particles and sometimes a little fine chaff, as well as the occasional air hole, are also attested in this fabric. Most vessels of this fabric were burnished. Beyond its region of origin, Marl D vessels are common in the eastern Delta and appear as far south as Elephantine (Aston 1999:5). The fabric is attested from the mid-XVIIIth Dynasty onwards. Numerous imports to the southern Levant have been noted by Martin (2006b). LOCALLY PRODUCED EGYPTIAN-STYLE VESSELS

While imports in the Tel Aphek assemblage attest to trade connections with Egypt, the collection of locally produced Egyptian-style vessels, mostly simple bowls, is more interesting for the insights it offers and the questions it poses on the cultural milieu of the site in selected periods. One of these questions concerns the identity of the potters who produced the Egyptian-style vessels found in association with Palace VI. Y. Goren’s petrographic analyses (see below) identified a distinct clay source used for most 375

M ARIO A.S. M ARTIN, Y UVAL GADOT AND Y UVAL G OREN

of the Egyptian-style vessels. It is terra rossa soil, found at the foot of the Samaria Hills. Notably, none of the definitively local forms at Tel Aphek was manufactured of this fabric. Indeed, at Tel Aphek, this fabric is only attested on Egyptian ceramic forms from Stratum X12, with the exception of a slender ovoid jar from Stratum X14 (EgJ1) and two Egyptian-style bowls from Stratum X8 (Type EgB6).13 The distinctive attributes of this clay, evident even through macroscopic examination, differ considerably from attributes of clays used for local Canaanite forms. While Egyptian-style vessels exhibit a reddish to reddish-brown surface colour, Canaanite forms are consistently yellowish. Apart from their occasional dark grey to black cores (see below), sections of Egyptian-style vessels exhibit the same colours as their surfaces (Fig. 10.4b).14 In numerous instances many elongated cavities cover the surfaces of Egyptian-style vessels. They are impressions left by combustion of vegetal temper (chopped straw or possibly animal dung with vegetal inclusions) intentionally added to clay, and which disappeared during firing. Remains of chopped straw are also visible in sections, when completely combusted they leave cavities also visible there; otherwise they are ascertainable in the form of incompletely combusted, whitish-yellowish fibres. Thus, the addition of straw temper makes this pottery very porous. That in many cases straw rods included in fabrics were not completely combusted suggests these vessels were fired at rather low temperatures. Referring to Mackenzie (1957), Nordström and Bourriau note that in an oxidising atmosphere the combustion of organic matter takes place at temperatures between 380-600°C (1993:155), which seems to be the case in this pottery. That often not all the organic temper was fully oxidised is also indicated by dark grey to black cores noticeable in many sections of these vessels. In contrast, local ceramic forms from Stratum X12 mostly exhibit yellowish sections (Fig. 10.4c). Their fabrics are denser than those of Egyptian-style vessels and the use of organic temper in them, especially in large amounts, is uncommon. If so tempered, organic inclusions are generally completely combusted. Inclusions in the fabrics of these local wares are an abundance of quartz particles and, occasionally, limestone. The characteristics of locally produced Egyptian forms described above closely relate them in overall appearance to Egyptian Nile silt fabrics (Especially Nile B2 or Nile E or the slightly coarser Nile C1 of the Vienna system; Nordström and Bourriau 1993:171-175). The Nile fabrics cited above are also characterised by the addition of large amounts of chopped straw and animal dung. Nile clays in general are ferrugineous and siliceous (Aston 1998:61-63) and therefore tend to fire to a reddish to reddishbrown colour; so too are analogous, ferrugineous, Egyptian-style wares found at Tel Aphek. The admixture of large amounts of chopped straw, apparently in imitation or expression of Egyptian Nile potting traditions, has also been observed at other sites which exhibit strong Egyptian influence including Tel Beth-Shean, Tel Mor, Tel Sera> (Martin 2004:274-276) and Deir el-Balaú (Killebrew 1998:273).15 Low firing temperatures of the Egyptian-style vessels have also been postulated for 13th and 12th century BCE vessels from Tel Beth-Shean (James and McGovern 1993:245; Cohen-Weinberger 1998:409; Martin, Forthcoming a)16 and Tel Mor (Martin and Barako 2007:133). Low firing temperatures of the Egyptian-style vessels from Tel Aphek are paralleled in vessels fashioned of Egyptian Nile clay. Nile silt pottery was generally fired at low temperatures (600–800°C)

13. Unfortunately, ceramic evidence from Stratum X13 is too scant for any definitive study. 14. Sections of the entire assemblage of Egyptian-style pottery were examined under a 20 x magnifying stereo microscope by M. Martin. Petrographic analyses conducted by Y. Goren were conducted on a sample of 10 Egyptian and Egyptian-style vessels. 15. A possible admixture of animal dung as temper has only been observed at Tel Aphek. 16. James and McGovern noted that pottery from Beth-Shean in the 13th century BCE is in general characterized by relatively low firing temperatures. They explain this as the result of Egyptian influence.

376

CHAPTER 10: I MPORTED EGYPTIAN AND LOCAL EGYPTIAN-STYLE POTTERY

as well as for shorter times than was finer, Egyptian marl pottery, which was fired at higher temperatures (800–1050°C) and for longer periods (Aston 1998:37). Examination of breaks, whether macroscopically or through a binocular microscope at 20x magnification, shows the fabrics of many Egyptian-style vessels from Tel Aphek to be almost indistinguishable to the naked eye from their Egyptian parallels.17 Sometimes only a petrographic analysis revealed their local origin. Sand grains in terra rossa clays are more finely sorted than in Nilotic clays. The latter exhibit the entire size range of grains scattered throughout the matrix without order while the former comprise well-sorted small-sized grains alternating with a few larger ones. Another distinguishing feature of terra rossa fabrics is the presence of nari, a local kind of limestone which often appears in relatively large particles. By contrast with local fabrics, Nilotic clays are micaceous and exhibit inclusions such as feldspar, hornblende, pyroxene and biotite. These minerals are absent in wares made from terra rossa. In summary, it appears that the fabrics of locally produced Egyptian-style pottery from Tel Aphek, derived from nearby clay sources, were chosen for properties that imitate those of Egyptian Nilotic clays. This information is well in accordance with the observation that local Egyptian forms at the various Egyptian-influenced sites in Canaan imitate only Egyptian household wares, typically fashioned of Nile silt. By contrast, vessel types produced of Egyptian marly clay were not locally imitated, but mostly imported. The Type EgJ2 (see above) locally produced amphora represents one of the few exceptions to this rule. The concurrent appearance of vessels of Egyptian shape, fabric characteristics, manufacturing techniques and styles of decoration is evidence for a strong Egyptian influence on potting traditions and appears to corroborate the assumption that potters producing those vessels were most likely Egyptians or, at least, to have been guided by Egyptians (cf. James and McGovern 1993:244-245; Cohen-Weinberger 1998:411; Killebrew 1998:275). A similar paradigm should now be assumed for the Egyptian-style vessels from Tel Aphek.

DECORATION Simple bowls of Egyptian-style (Types EgB1-EgB6) from Tel Aphek are undecorated, decorated with a red band on their rims or red slipped internally. A horizontal red band is located on both sides of rounded rims and only on the inner and upper sides on flaring rims. These decorative styles are also well known on Egyptian counterparts (Aston 1998:75,77,220). The hues used for painted decoration vary between light red and dark red. Undecorated specimens, by far the bulk of examples in the group, show no surface treatment beyond simple wet-smoothing. In the assemblage of Stratum X12, of 41 intact or Undecorated 80%

Fig. 10.5: Decoration of Egyptian-style simple

bowls (EgB1-5) in Stratum X12 (n=41; only complete profiles were included). Red slip (interior) 5%

Red rim 15%

17. The authors wish to thank D. Aston and I. Hein, who examined a number of fresh breaks on this kind of pottery and came to the same conclusions.

377

M ARIO A.S. M ARTIN, Y UVAL GADOT AND Y UVAL G OREN

largely preserved simple bowls, 33 (80%) are undecorated, six (15%) are decorated with a red rim, and two (5%) are red slipped (Fig. 10.5). Decoration on Egyptian-style simple bowls is similarly rare at Tel Mor (Martin 2005:183, Fig. 90) and at Tel Sera> (Martin, Forthcoming b), a rather astonishing observation given a certain renown in the literature for so-called Egyptian-style ‘lipstick bowls’. An entirely different situation prevailed at Tel Beth-Shean, where during the Ramesside period (Levels VII-VI), most Egyptian-style bowls were decorated (Martin, Forthcoming a). For instance, in Area S of the Hebrew University excavations there directed by A. Mazar, as much as 85-90% of the simple bowls in the assemblage of Egyptian-style vessels were decorated, either with a red painted rim or red slip (Strata S-5 to S-3).

MANUFACTURING TECHNIQUES The Egyptian forms from Tel Aphek were produced using the same techniques as those used to fashion their Egyptian counterparts. While certain manufacturing traits are common to both Egyptian and south Levantine potting traditions in the period under discussion, others are more typically Egyptian. THE TECHNIQUE OF ‘TURNING’

Horizontal grooves on the lower parts of the exterior sidewalls, and concentric circles on bases of simple bowls of Egyptian style, indicate the method by which these vessels were crafted (Fig. 10.6). Obviously, the degree to which a vessel was smoothed by the potter is in inverse ratio to the visibility of these grooves. Grooves on walls of these vessels are mostly confined to the lower third of the body; more rarely they cover the entire lower half of the vessel profile or even more of it. These grooves originate in a secondary stage of the manufacturing process, commonly referred to as ‘turning’. After a bowl was formed on a wheel it was removed by cutting with a string, and then dried to a ‘leather-hard’ state. Afterwards, it was returned to the wheel, this time upside down with its base on top. As the bowl was turned, superfluous clay was then scraped away from its base and lower body by the potter using a pointed tool, resulting in the grooves described above. On some bowls such secondary trimming was only executed on the lower part of the body, leaving the base ‘unworked’. In those instances, the marks the cutting string made remain in the form of an off-centre spiral. String cut marks are a general feature of Egyptian-style simple bowls and their Egyptian counterparts. Pronounced wheel marks on the lower body of the slender ovoid jar from Stratum X14 (Type EgJ1; Figs. 8.34:3, 10.7) point to a fabrication technique similar to the one described above. A protrusion on the inside of the base suggests that additionally the base was broken during ‘turning’. It was then wetted and closed again with a little finger (Arnold 378

Fig. 10.6: Trimming marks on base and lower body of Egyptian-style bowl (No. 12002/1); scale 1:3.

Fig.

10.7:

Horizontal wheel marks: Remains of secondary trimming (’turning’) on round-based Egyptian-style jar from Stratum X14 (Type EgJ1); scale 1:3.

CHAPTER 10: I MPORTED EGYPTIAN AND LOCAL EGYPTIAN-STYLE POTTERY

1993:66-68). That is also probably why no deep grooves of a cutting tool are noticeable at the very bottom of that particular vessel. The practice of ‘turning’ is prominent in Egyptian pottery traditions of the New Kingdom. According to Arnold it was introduced in the late Second Intermediate Period (Arnold 1993:63,66). As ‘turning’ is also a characteristic trait of south Levantine pottery manufacture prior to its introduction into Egypt, this technique might originally have been transplanted to Egypt from there. IMPRESSIONS OF LEAVES ON LARGE BOWLS

Both examples of large Egyptian-style bowls (Types EgB7a-EgB7b) have a series of external, evenly spaced, impressed, thin horizontal bands of different widths (but not exceeding 0.5 cm) encircling the upper parts of the vessels’ walls (Fig. 10.8). These bands were neither cut nor gouged with a tool, but appear to have been impressed into wet clay by leaves, clearly indicated by the shapes of their veins in the impressions. Judging from the appearance of these bands, N. Lipschitz Fig. 10.8: Impressions left by bands of leaves on large Egyptian(pers. comm.) suggests the thin leaves used for this purpose were of style bowl from Stratum date palms or certain Graminae, such as wheat, barley or reeds. X12 (Type EgB7b); scale Among the various Graminae noted, leaves of reeds seem best 1:2. fit the widths of the bands impressed in the clay of these bowls. The bands were fashioned of several such leaves (one for each impressed band) and evidently tied around the upper part of large bowls to hold them together during the drying process. Both palm and reed leaves are very strong and therefore suitable for this practice. These plants were probably easily obtained at Tel Aphek (Chapter 19). This practice can be related to ancient Egyptian potting traditions which employed twined ropes to tie around large, unbaked bowls of the same types as the specimens from Tel Aphek (Arnold 1993:91; Aston 1998:110). In Egypt the impressions they made are commonly found on finished products (for an example from Qantir see Aston 1998: No. 329). Such rope impressions commonly appear also on large Egyptian-style bowls at south Levantine sites with strong Egyptian influence such as Tel Beth-Shean (Martin, Forthcoming a) and Deir el-Balaú (Beit-Arieh 1985: Fig. 5:13).

OVERVIEW OF THE EGYPTIAN ASSEMBLAGE Only two Egyptian-style vessels were identified in Stratum X14 (Figs. 8.31:9, 8.34:3). They are probably a reflection of a low level of Egyptian influence in this period, owing to no more than sporadic connections. Unfortunately, ceramic evidence from Stratum X13, anyway very sparse, yielded no Egyptian material. In contrast, the bulk of the Egyptian assemblage originated in Stratum X12. It consists mostly of simple bowls (Types EgB1-EgB5) and includes a large collection of as many as 21 complete profiles of Egyptian-style bowls recovered in Locus 3827, possibly a favissa, but more likely a deposit of material originating in an upper storey of Palace VI (Chapter 3). The spatial distribution of the imported Egyptian and locally produced Egyptian-style vessels, in and around Palace VI, is shown in Fig. 10.9. Egyptian forms account for ca. 35% of the entire pottery collection within this building and in its immediate vicinity (see Fig. 8.20). Fig. 10.10 indicates the distribution of various Egyptian types within that restricted assemblage. 379

M ARIO A.S. M ARTIN, Y UVAL GADOT AND Y UVAL G OREN

Fig. 10.9: Distribution of Egyptian forms in Palace VI at Aphek, Stratum X12 (only complete profiles of simple bowls are displayed. Rounded-rim and flaring-rim sub-types are grouped together).

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 EgB 1

EgB 2a EgB 2b

EgB 3

EgB 4

EgB 5

EgB 7b

EgB 8

EgJ 2

EgJ 3

EgJ 4

EgC 1

Fig. 10.10: Distribution of Egyptian types in Stratum X12 (n=47). Only complete profiles of simple bowls were counted.

380

CHAPTER 10: I MPORTED EGYPTIAN AND LOCAL EGYPTIAN-STYLE POTTERY

While the destruction of Stratum X12 must have coincided with the end of the Egyptian dominion over Tel Aphek, the scant evidence of Stratum X11 does not allow us to demonstrate this hypothesis on the basis of material culture. The succeeding levels, only slightly better preserved, Strata X10 and X9, have failed to yield any additional Egyptian-style vessels, which definitively indicates the end of direct Egyptian influence at Tel Aphek. Three fragmentary spinning bowls (Figs. 8.84:2, 8.88:8, 8.92:19) recovered in Stratum X8 may be either residual objects from the Late Bronze Age, or evidence for the adoption of this type into the canon of south Levantine pottery traditions (see above, Type EgB8). REPERTOIRE AND FUNCTION OF THE ASSEMBLAGE

Egyptian pottery types at Egyptian-influenced sites in the southern Levant do not substitute local types but actually complement them. Therefore, their existence probably reflects the special preferences and traditions of resident Egyptians (Killebrew 1998:273; for ethnic considerations see below). When a comparison is made between the Egyptian ceramic assemblages from Tel Aphek, from Tel Beth-Shean (Martin, Forthcoming a) and from Deir el-Balaú (Gould, Forthcoming), the variety of locally produced Egyptian types at Tel Aphek is shown to be very restricted, even in Stratum X12. In Stratum X12 more than 90% of the Egyptian forms are open vessels, mostly simple bowls of Types EgB1-EgB5. While simple bowls also make up the overwhelming majority of the Egyptian assemblage at Tel Beth-Shean and Deir el-Balaú, those sites also have yielded a considerable variety of closed types, such as beer jars, small ovoid jars and funnel-necked jars, all of which rather strikingly are absent at Tel Aphek. Perhaps the relatively diminutive size and, possibly, a specific function of the Tel Aphek residency (see below), when compared to the Egyptian Installations at Tel Beth-Shean and Deir el-Balaú, can explain the differences in the makeup of the pottery assemblages at these sites. Simple bowls of Egyptian-style appear to have been used mainly as serving dishes, although an occasional symbolic or votive function of such bowls is, for instance, indicated by a number of specimens inscribed in Hieratic. The best preserved of these have been found at Tel Sera> (Groll 1973; Goldwasser 1984) and Lachish (Tufnell 1958:132-133, Pls. 44, 47; Gilula 1976; Goldwasser 1991a). That those inscriptions are not merely sherds used secondarily as ostraca is indicated by the existence of a number of complete vessel or profiles. The votive character of the complete vessels with inscriptions has been discussed by Gardiner and Sethe (1928:27). The inscriptions, mostly referring to collection and delivery of harvest taxes, indicate large amounts of grain destined for a pr, probably an Egyptian religious or secular institution possessing its own land and income in Canaan (Goldwasser 1984:84-85). One interpretation of such inscriptions suggests these bowls played a representative role in payment of harvest taxes to an Egyptian administration. Perhaps containing a ‘sample’ of grain, they might have functioned as representative offerings, i.e., symbolic shares of a tax to be paid (in sacks). It is also feasible that some of these bowls from Tel Aphek were inscribed, but the inscriptions were not preserved. In addition, bowls lacking inscriptions occasionally might also have served similar symbolic functions. Large numbers of Egyptian-style bowls stacked in store rooms or in pits might be an indication of such a function instead of representing caches of normal household vessels. Such storerooms are attested in the residency at Tel Sera> (Martin, Forthcoming b), while a pit full of Egyptian-style bowls was found near an administrative building at Tel Beth-Shean (Martin 2006a: 149-150). Locus 3827 at Tel Aphek, with its 25 Egyptian-style bowls, may now be added to a list of similar caches of Egyptian bowls, all of which may have had analogous functions. The three imported Egyptian vessels and the commodities they might have contained could have arrived at Tel Aphek as a present for, or on the personal order of a resident Egyptian official residing 381

M ARIO A.S. M ARTIN, Y UVAL GADOT AND Y UVAL G OREN

in Palace VI. Egyptian imports are rare in Canaan in general, and at inland sites such as Tel Aphek in particular. Even at such important garrison sites as Tel Beth-Shean and Tel Sera>, only a small number of these vessels was found (Martin 2005:314-319). Imported vessels are slightly more popular at coastal sites, indicating the sea was the main trading route. The scarcity of Egyptian imports in general supports the assumption that Egyptian garrisons were largely self-reliant for food. CHRONOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS

Well-dated Egyptian pottery types at Tel Aphek confirm the general dating of Strata X14 and X12. The late LB IB to early LB IIA date for Stratum X14 is supported by the slender ovoid jar (Type EgJ1), a well-known XVIIIth Dynasty type. It was most common in the time between the reign of Thutmose III and the Amarna period and thereafter disappears from the repertoire of ceramic types. In the southern Levant it is almost completely absent before the reign of Thutmose III. The Egyptian assemblage from Stratum X12 can, as a whole, be dated to the Ramesside period (the XIXth and XXth Dynasties), which is evident by the absence of XVIIIth Dynasty vessels. Most typical are flaring rim bowls, the handled cup (Type EgC1) and the ‘amphoriskos’ (Type EgJ4), all of which unequivocally belong to the pottery tradition of the above period. As noted above, the wall and handle fragment (Type EgJ3) originally belonged either to a slender amphora or to a wide-bodied one. The former type appeared as early as the XVIIIth Dynasty, while the latter appeared only in the XIXth Dynasty. Unfortunately Egyptian types are of little help in determining the date of the destruction of Palace VI. Apart from the imported ‘amphoriskos’ (Type EgJ4), all Egyptian-type vessels would well fit into both XIXth and XXth Dynasty assemblages. However, the carinated base of the amphoriskos may hint at a more precise date. Such bases are limited to the XIXth Dynasty on medium-sized, wide-bodied, Egyptian amphorae. At the very end of the XIXth Dynasty, somewhere in the time between the reigns of Seti II (1200-1194 BCE) and Tewosret (1188-1186 BCE), this type of amphora developed a rounded base. It seems also that the small, ovoid to globular Egyptian amphorae (Type EgJ4) underwent the same chronological development. If that assumption is correct, then the amphoriskos from Tel Aphek dates to the XIXth and not to the XXth Dynasty. Such a date would confirm the general chronological horizon suggested by the copy of a letter from Ugarit (Chapter 15). Unfortunately, the amphoriskos and the letter provide only a terminus post quem for the destruction of Stratum X12. Nevertheless it should be noted that the former vessel is one of the few intact and precisely dated pottery objects that were inside the palace during the time of its destruction. It is noteworthy that only two restorable Mycenaean imports were associated with Palace VI (Chapter 9).

CONSIDERATIONS ON ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN POTTERY AND ETHNICITY Evidence of a strong Egyptian involvement in the Stratum X12 occupation at Tel Aphek is in a number of remarkable finds, including the letter from Ugarit (Owen 1981; Singer 1983). The character of the Egyptian ceramic assemblage helps to highlight the nature of this involvement. Although the number of types in the vessel typology is very restricted, certain aspects of the locally produced Egyptian assemblage can be regarded as ethnic markers that argue for the physical presence of Egyptians at Tel Aphek (see Martin 2005:342-348 for a more detailed discussion). Among these aspects are some pottery manufacturing techniques, modes of decoration and foremost, properties of the terra rossa fabrics that argue for a close connection to Egyptian pottery traditions. As noted above, the actual potters producing the Egyptian assemblage were most likely Egyptians or, at the very least, worked under close Egyptian guidance. This interpretation is further corroborated by the 382

CHAPTER 10: I MPORTED EGYPTIAN AND LOCAL EGYPTIAN-STYLE POTTERY

observation that locally produced Egyptian forms can be characterized as mass-produced, utilitarian type, household wares, and therefore of relatively low prestige. This, and the fact that they appear together in the same assemblage, make it unlikely that they were imitated by Canaanite potters for Canaanites without any Egyptian initiative. Assuming a paradigm of physical presence of Egyptians in Stratum X12 at Tel Aphek, Palace VI, the ‘Residency’, should probably be understood as some kind of taxation post, possibly the centre of an Egyptian estate to which harvest taxes were delivered. The distinct clay sources used for Egyptian versus Canaanite forms, suggest the existence of at least two separate workshops supplying the residency (cf. Cohen-Weinberger 1998:411). Whether these workshops existed at the site or in its vicinity, remains obscure. Certainly it is conceivable that a centralised Egyptian pottery workshop provided specific pot types for sites with strong Egyptian influence within the region in which Tel Aphek, Jaffa and Tel Gerisa lie. Hopefully, future research will yield information that will shed further light on this hypothesis. It is emphasised that in Palace VI Egyptian forms always appear alongside Canaanite ones and that there are no ‘pure’ Egyptian contexts at Tel Aphek. This observation is valid for all sites in the southern Levant with strong Egyptian involvement (e.g., Deir el-Balaú, Tel Sera>, Tel Mor, and Tel Beth-Shean). Therefore, based on the ceramic evidence, it is inconceivable that any of these sites was inhabited only by Egyptians. The conclusion is that Egyptians and local peoples coevally dwelled in the same settlements, using Egyptian and south Levantine pot types (see James and McGovern 1993:239). REFERENCES Allen, S.J. 1997. Spinning bowls: Representation and Reality, In: Philipps, J., ed. Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Near East. Studies in Honour of Martha Rhoads Bell. San Antonio. pp. 17-38. Arnold, D. 1993. Techniques and Traditions of Manufacture in the Pottery of Ancient Egypt, In: Arnold, D., Bourriau, J.D., eds. An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery. Mainz. pp. 1-146. Aston, D.A. 1991. The Pottery. In: Raven, M.J., The Tomb of Jurudef, a Memphite Official in the Reign of Ramesses II. (Egypt Exploration Society Excavation Memoir 57). London. pp. 47-54. Aston, D.A. 1996. Egyptian Pottery of the Late New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 13) Heidelberg. Aston, D.A. 1997. The pottery. In: Martin, G.T. The Tomb of Tia and Tia at Saqqara (Egypt Exploration Society Excavation Memoir 58). London. pp. 83-103. Aston, D.A. 1998. Die Keramik des Grabungsplatzes Q I, Teil 1: Corpus of Fabrics, Wares and Shapes. (Forschungen in der Ramses-Stadt. Die Grabungen des Pelizaeus Museums Hildesheim in Qantir–Pi-Ramesse Band I). Mainz. Aston, D.A. 1999. Pottery from the Late New Kingdom to the Early Ptolemaic Period. Elephantine XIX (Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 95). Mainz. Aston, D.A. 2001. The pottery from H/VI Süd strata a and b. Preliminary report. Egypt and the Levant XI: 167-196. Aston, D.A. and Pusch, E. 1999. The Pottery from the Royal Horse Stud and its Stratigraphy. The Pelizaeus Museum Excavation at Qantir/Per-Ramesses, Sector Q IV. Egypt and the Levant IX: 39-75. Aston, D.A., Aston, B. and Brock E. 1998. Pottery from the Valley of the Kings – Tombs of Merenptah, Ramesses III, Ramesses IV, Ramesses VI and Ramesses VII. Egypt and the Levant VIII: 137-214. Aston, D.A., Aston, B. and Ryan, D. 2000. Pottery from the Valley of the Kings (Tombs KV 21, 27, 28, 44, 45, and 60). Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne 6:11-38. 383

M ARIO A.S. M ARTIN, Y UVAL GADOT AND Y UVAL G OREN

Beck, P. and Kochavi, M. 1985. A Dated Assemblage of the Late Thirteenth century BCE from the Egyptian Residency at Aphek. Tel Aviv 12:29-42. Beit-Arieh, I. 1985. Further burials from the Deir el-Balaú cemetery. Tel Aviv 12:43-53. Bourriau, J.D. 1981. Umm el-Ga’ab. Pottery from the Nile Valley before the Arab Conquest. Cambridge. Bourriau, J.D. and Aston, D.A. 1985. The Pottery. In: Martin, G.T. The Tomb Chapels of Paser and Rai‘a at Saqqara (Egypt Exploration Society Excavation Memoir 52). London. pp. 32-55. Brissaud, P., ed. 1987. Cahier de Tanis I. Paris. Brunton, G. and Engelbach, R. 1927. Gurob (Publications of the Egyptian Research Account and British School of Archaeology in Egypt 41). London. Cohen-Weinberger, A. 1998. Petrographic analysis of the Egyptian forms from Stratum VI at Tel Beth-Shean. In: Gitin, S., Mazar, A. and Stern, E., eds. Mediterranean Peoples in Transition. Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem. pp. 406-412. Dothan, M. 1960. Excavations at Tel Mor (1959 Season). Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society 24:120-132. (Hebrew) Dothan, T. 1963. Spinning Bowls. Israel Exploration Journal 13:97-112. Dothan, T. 1979. Excavations at the Cemetery of Deir el-Balaú. (Qedem 10) Jerusalem. Engelbach, R.E. 1915. Riqqeh and Memphis VI (Publications of the Egyptian Research Account and British School of Archaeology in Egypt 25). London. Finkelstein, I. 1986. Izbet Sarta. An Early Iron Age Site near Rosh Ha‘ayin, Israel (British Archaeological Reports International Series 299). Oxford. FitzGerald, G. 1930. The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan. Part II The Pottery (Publications of the Palestine Section of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania Vol. II: 2). Philadelphia. Frankfort, H. and Pendlebury, J. 1933. The City of Akhenaten II (Egypt Exploration Society 40) London. Gilboa, A. 2001. Southern Phoenicia during Iron Age I-IIa in the Light of the Tel Dor Excavations. The Evidence of Pottery. Ph. D dissertation. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Gilula, M. 1976. An Inscription in Egyptian Hieratic from Lachish. Tel Aviv 3:107-108. Gardiner, A.H. and Sethe, K. 1928. Egyptian Letters to the Dead. London. Goldwasser, O. 1984. Hieratic Inscriptions from Tel Sera‘ in Southern Canaan. Tel Aviv 11:77-93, Pls. 6-7. Goldwasser, O. 1991a. An Egyptian Scribe from Lachish and the Hieratic Tradition of the Hebrew Kingdoms. Tel Aviv 18:248-253. Goldwasser, O. 1991b. A Fragment of an Hieratic Ostracon from Tel Haror, Qadmoniot 24:19. (Hebrew) Goldwasser, O. and Wimmer, S. 1999. Hieratic Fragments from Tell el-Far‘ah (S). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 313:39-42. Gould, B. Forthcoming. Egyptian Pottery. In: Dothan, T., ed. Deir el-Balaú II. The Settlement. Jerusalem. Griffith, F.L. 1890. The Antiquities of Tell el-Yahûdîyeh (Egypt Exploration Fund Excavation Memoir 7). London. Groll, S. 1973. A Note on the Hieratic Texts from Tel Sera‘. Qadmoniot 6:22. (Hebrew) Guy, P.L.O. and Engberg, R.M. 1938. Megiddo Tombs. Chicago. Higginbotham, C. 2000. Egyptianization and Elite Emulation in Ramesside Palestine. Governance and Accommodation on the Imperial Periphery. Leiden, Boston, Köln. Holthoer, R. 1977. New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites. The Pottery (The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia 5/1). Lund. Holthoer, R. 1993. The Pottery. In: El Khouli, A., Holthoer, R., Hope, C.A., and Kaper, O., eds. Stone Vessels, Pottery and Sealings from the Tomb of Tut‘ankhamun. Oxford. pp. 37-85. Hope, C.A. 1989. Pottery of Ancient Egypt. Three Studies. Burwood, Australia. 384

CHAPTER 10: I MPORTED EGYPTIAN AND LOCAL EGYPTIAN-STYLE POTTERY

Ilan, D., Hallote, R.S. and Cline, E.H. 2000. The Middle and Late Bronze Age Pottery from Area F. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D., Halpern, B., eds. Megiddo III. The 1992-1996 Seasons. Tel Aviv. pp. 186-222. James, F.W. and McGovern, P.E. 1993. The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan: A Study of Levels VII and VIII. Text. Volume I. Figures and Plates. Vol. II (University Museum Monograph 85). Philadelphia. Kelley, A.L. 1976. The Pottery of Ancient Egypt. Dynasty I to Roman Times. Toronto. Killebrew, A. 1998. Ceramic Craft and Technology during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages. The Relationship between Pottery Technology, Style, and Cultural Diversity. Ph. D. Thesis. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Killebrew, A. 2005. Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity. An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300-1100 B.C.E. Atlanta. Kitchen, K.A. 2000. Regnal and genealogical data of ancient Egypt (absolute chronology I). The historical chronology of ancient Egypt, a current assessment. In: Bietak, M., ed. The Synchronization of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. Proceedings of an International Symposium at Schloß Haindorf and at the Austrian Academy. Vienna. pp. 39-52. Loud, G. 1948. Megiddo II. Seasons of 1935-1939. Chicago. Mackenzie, R.C., ed. 1957. The Differential Thermal Investigation of Clays. London. Martin, M.A.S. 2004. Egyptian and Egyptianized pottery in Late Bronze Age Canaan. Egypt and the Levant XIV: 265-284. Martin, M.A.S. 2005. The Egyptian and Egyptian-style Pottery. Aspects of the Egyptian Involvement in Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Canaan. A Case Study. Ph. D. Thesis. University of Vienna. Martin, M.A.S. 2006a. The Egyptianized pottery assemblage from Area Q. In: Mazar, A. Excavations at Tel BethShean 1989-1996 Vol. I.: From the Late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period. Jerusalem. pp. 140-157. Martin, M.A.S. 2006b. Cream-slipped Egyptian imports in Late Bronze Age Canaan. In: Czerny, E. Hein, I. Hunger, H. Melman, D. and Schwab. A., eds. Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak. Volume II (Orientalia Lovaniensa Analecta 146). Leuven, Paris, Dudley, Mass. pp. 197-212. Martin, M.A.S. Forthcoming a. The Egyptian-style pottery (Areas S, N North and N South at Tel Beth-Shean). In: Mazar, A. Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean III. Jerusalem. Martin, M.A.S. Forthcoming b. The Egyptian-style pottery at Tel Sera>. In: Oren, E.D. Excavations at Tel Sera>. Martin, M.A.S. and Barako, T.J. 2007. The Egyptian and Egyptianized pottery. In: Barako, T.J. Tel Mor: The Moshe Dothan Excavations, 1959-1960. (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports No. 32) Jerusalem. pp. 129-165. Mazar, A. 1985. Excavations at Tell Qasile. Part Two. (Qedem 20) Jerusalem. Mullins, R. 2007. The Late Bronze pottery. In: Mazar, A. and Mullins, R., eds. Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989-1996 Vol. II.: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R. Jerusalem. pp. 390-547. Munsell, A.H. 1954. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Baltimore. Nagel, G. 1938. La céramique du Nouvel Empire à Deir el Médineh I (Documents de fouilles publiés par les membres de l’institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire, Tome X) Le Caire. Nordström, H.A. and Bourriau, J.D. 1993. Ceramic Technology. Clay and Fabrics. In: Arnold, D. and Bourriau, J.D., eds. Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery. Mainz. pp. 144-190. Oren, E.D. 1973. The Northern Cemetery at Beth Shan. Leiden. Oren, E.D. 1984. Governors’ Residencies in Canaan under the New Kingdom. A Case Study of Egyptian Administration. Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities XIV: 37-56. Owen, D.I. 1981. Akkadian Letter from Ugarit at Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 8:1–17. Peet, E. and Woolley, C.L. 1923. The City of Akhenaten I (Egypt Exploration Society Excavation Memoir 38). London.

385

M ARIO A.S. M ARTIN, Y UVAL GADOT AND Y UVAL G OREN

Petrie, W.M.F. 1888. Nebesheh [Am] and Defenneh [Tahpanhes] (Egypt Exploration Fund Excavation Memoir 4). London. Petrie, W.M.F. 1891. Illahun, Kahun, and Gurob. London. Petrie, W.M.F. 1931. Ancient Gaza I (Tell el Ajjul) (Publications of the Egyptian Research Account and British School of Archaeology in Egypt 53). London. Petrie, W.M.F. 1933. Ancient Gaza III (Tell el Ajjul) (Publications of the Egyptian Research Account and British School of Archaeology in Egypt 55). London. Petrie, W.M.F. 1977. Gizeh and Rifeh (Double Volume) (Reprinted from: British School of Archaeology and Egyptian Research Account. Thirteenth Year, 1907). London. Petrie, W.M.F. 1989. Hyksos and Israelite Cities (Double Volume) (Reprinted from: British School of Archaeology and Egyptian Research Account. Twelfth Year, 1906). London. Pritchard, J.B. 1980. The Cemetery at Tell es-Sa>idiyeh, Jordan (University Museum Monograph 41). Philadelphia. Quibell, J.E. 1898. The Ramesseum (Publications of the Egyptian Research Account and British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 2nd Memoire). London. Rose, P.J. 1984. The Pottery Distribution Analysis. In: Kemp, B.J., ed. Amarna Reports I (Egypt Exploration Society Occasional Publications 1). London. pp. 133-153. Rose, P.J. 1987. The Pottery from Gate Street 8. In: Kemp, B.J., ed. Amarna Reports IV. (Egypt Exploration Society Occasional Publications 5). London. pp. 132-143. Singer, I. 1983. Takuhlinu and Haya. Two governors in the Ugarit letter from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 10:3-25. Tufnell, O., Inge, C., and Harding, L. 1940. Lachish II (Tell ed-Duweir). The Fosse Temple. London. Tufnell, O. 1958. Lachish IV (Tell ed-Duweir). The Bronze Age. London. Vogelsang-Eastwood, G.M. 1987-88. A note on the so-called “Spinning Bowls“. Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux 30:78-88. Yadin, Y. and Geva, S. 1986. Investigations at Beth-Shean. The Early Iron Age Strata (Qedem 23) Jerusalem. Yellin, J., Dothan, T. and Gould, B. 1990. The origin of Late Bronze White Burnished Slip wares from Deir elBalaú. Israel Exploration Journal 40:257-261.

386

CHAPTER 11

ANTHROPOMORPHIC FIGURINES Marta Guzowska and Assaf Yasur-Landau

This chapter presents studies on terra cotta anthropomorphic figurines from the acropolis of Tel Aphek (Area X). Part 1 considers a collection of female figurines of varied types, while Part 2 presents three figurines of the ‘Ashdoda’ type found in other areas of the mound. The catalogue of this assemblage presents basic information including catalogue numbers, manufacturing techniques, the provenance of each object according to stratum, square and basket material, descriptions, state of preservation and preserved dimensions in mm. All numerically colourcoded information on ceramics is based on a single standard (Munsell 2000). References and significant comparanda and their suggested dating accompany this information. Drawings are all on a scale of 1:2.

PART 1. TERRA COTTA ANTHROPOMORPHIC REPRESENTATIONS CATALOGUE NO. F1: SCULPTED HEAD OF A FEMALE(?) FIGURINE (FIG. 11.1)

Stratum X12; Square P24; Locus 2753; Reg. No. 27512/1. Material: Fine, reddish brown to dark grey (5YR 5/4 to 4/1) clay. Description: Crude “bird face” with protruding nose, no mouth, eyes marked with large dots surrounded by rings, broken ears with two holes. State of preservation: Fragmentary, ears partially broken. Height: 32; Width: 20. Iconographic parallels: Tell Abu Hawam, Stratum V (Hamilton 1935:55, Nos. 320, 321); Tel Lachish, Area S, Level S-1 (Kletter 2004: No. 13, Figs. 23.54:5, 23.56:12); Agios Theodoros Soleas-Alonia Cyprus, Tomb 2, Base Ring Ware, Late Cypriote (LC) II (Buchholz and Karageorghis 1971: Cat. No. 1722); Katydata, Cyprus, Tomb 28, LC II (Buchholz and Karageorghis 1971: Cat. No. 1727); No provenance, No. 1964/IX-8/8 in Cyprus Museum, Nicosia, LC II (Buchholz and Karageorghis 1971:1723). DISCUSSION This head is of the type of female, ‘bird-face’ figurines popular in Syria and Cyprus during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. This example from Tel Aphek is apparently more similar to Cypriote Fig. 11.1. types in which eyes are usually pierced and heads crowned by tall sometimes pierced headdresses, than to Syrian types. Examples of the Cypriote type have been found in the Levant at Megiddo (Sass 2000: Fig. 12.34.2) and el-Qitar (McClellan 1993; Schlossman 1981:252-3). In Cyprus the type is represented by a simple standing figurine with either a woman holding a baby or a bird in her arm (kourothrophos), or a sitting figurine with a babe-in-arms. The types have been discussed, with multiple parallels by Lena Åström (1972:513-514). 387

M ARTA GUZOWSKA AND ASSAF YASUR-LANDAU

NO. F2: MOULDED FEMALE FIGURINE (FIG. 11.2 AND PAGE 411)

Stratum X12; Square R24; Locus 2753; Reg. No. 39371/1. Description: Nude woman in upright position with hands stretched along torso, shoulder length hair held by headband, ears visible, large eyes and nose. Material: Fine very pale brown (10YR 7/4) clay. State of preservation: Fragmentary, part of feet chipped. Height: 97; Width: 35; Thickness: 24. Iconographic Parallels: Tel Yosef, clay relief, LB (Tzori 1958: Pl. 7:4; Winter 1983: Fig. 11); Tel BethShean, Level VII (James and McGovern 1993: Pl. 37:h, Fig. 77.2); Tel Masad, clay relief, LB (Tzori 1958: Pl. 7:2; Tadmor 1981: Fig. 11:6; Tadmor 1982: Fig. on p. 8, right; Winter 1983: Fig. 12); Ras Shamra, clay relief of 14th-13th century BCE (Barrelet 1958: Pl. II:b; Winter 1983: Fig. 13); Tel Megiddo, Level H-1, LB (Sass 2000:396, Fig. 12.35.1); No provenance, Hecht Museum, Haifa, No. H46 (Tadmor 1981: Fig. 11:8). References: Tadmor 1990:XXI, No. 14, Pl. on p. 38. DISCUSSION This is the simplest of several types of nude female figurines found in the Levant in Late Bronze Age contexts (e.g., Winter 1958:98-99; Holland 1975: Type C.IV.a, 219-20, Fig. 19:4,5, citing parallels from Gezer, Tell Abu Hawam, Tel Hazor, Tell Jemmeh, Jericho, Tel Megiddo and Shechem/Tell Balata). These figures are always nude, their only decoration being the elaborate hairstyles; their arms are stretched along sides of their bodies. Tadmor (1981:80) interpreted this type of figurine as representing a woman lying on a bed (not actually depicted), a concubine, rather than a divinity. The type probably derives from Egyptian prototypes in which female figures recline on representations of beds. This type differs from figurines of divinities portrayed standing and equipped with accessories such as snakes and lotus flowers.

Fig. 11.2.

NO. F3: MOULDED PLAQUE WITH REPRESENTATION OF FEMALE FIGURE (FIG. 11.3)

Stratum X12; Square O23/24; Locus 1130; Reg. No. 44079/1. Material: Very fine reddish yellow (5YR 7/6) clay. Description: Standing nude woman in frontal position, both hands raised to hold breasts, Hathor hair style divided in middle, ears visible, face features not marked, framed by two papyrus plants. State of preservation: Fragmentary, lower half missing. Height: 45; Width: 36; Thickness: 12. Iconographic parallels: Tel Gezer, LB (Macalister 1912a: Pl. 220:21, 221:5; Winter 1983: Fig. 54). References: Tadmor 1990:XXI, No. 16, Pl. on p. 38.

388

CHAPTER 11: A NTHROPOMORPHIC FIGURINES

DISCUSSION The plaque represents a mixture of two iconographic types, a woman holding one or both breasts, and the ‘Qudshu’ Type distinguished by its representation of a woman flanked by two lotus flowers (Winter 1983:117), notable for mixing Egyptian and Levantine stylistic elements. Representations of women holding their breasts in the Late Bronze Age Levant were popular and reproduced in both reliefs and figurines (Winter 1983:103-110; Fig. 11.3. Pritchard 1943: Nos. 40-97; Holland 1975:217, Type C.II.A, citing multiple examples from Tell el->Ajjul, Tel Ashdod, Bethel, Tel Beth Shemesh, Tel Gezer, Tel Hazor, Tell Jemmeh, Tell es-Safi/Tel Safit, Samaria and Tell Zakariya). The type gradually ceased to be represented in the Early Iron Age, but some examples such as a figurine from Tel Zeror (Ohata 1970: Pl. 47.3) and a plaque from Tel Ashdod (Dothan and Freedman 1967: Fig. 35:4 and Pl. XVII: 10) from those later periods are known. Their function is apparently replaced in later times by the ‘pillar’ figurine type (Winter 1983:107-109, Figs. 30-33). The ‘Hathor’-like wig or hairstyle of this type suggests Egyptian influence, while the position of hands on breasts, rare in Egypt, was widespread throughout the Levant (Holland 1974:133). The symbolism of this type of plaque remains a matter of dispute (cf. Holland 1974:133 and No. 6). The authors suggest they are likely representations of Astarte, probably, the most popular divinity in the Late Bronze Age Levant.

NO. F4: MOULDED FEMALE FIGURINE (FIG. 11.4)

Stratum X12; Square P24; Locus 2753; Reg. No. 27455/1. Material: Medium-fine red (2.5YR 5/6) clay with thin pale yellow matt slip (2.5Y 8/2). Description: Frontally represented woman, torso enclosed between arms with hands placed on crotch, two long locks of hair fall down to middle of chest, schematically outlined small breasts, figurines of small children at breasts or embryos in womb (?), crescent-shaped pendant on neck below chin. State of preservation: Fragmentary, only middle part of torso preserved. Height: 53; Width: 48; Thickness: 16. Iconographical Parallels: Surface find from vicinity of Kibbutz Revadim (environs of Tel Miqne). References: Beck 1990:XXI, No. 17, Pl. on p. 38; Beck 2002. DISCUSSION

Fig. 11.4.

This is a rare type of female figurine representing either a nursing or a pregnant woman. The sole known parallel to this type is cited above.

389

M ARTA GUZOWSKA AND ASSAF YASUR-LANDAU

F5: SCULPTED FEMALE FIGURINE (FIG. 11.5)

Stratum X11?; Square G24; Locus 4823; Reg. No. 47227/1. Material: Fine very pale brown (10YR 7/4) clay with grey core. Description: Frontally presented legs preserved below knees, with 3 bracelets on ankles. State of preservation: Fragmentary, lower part preserved. Height: 59; Width: 48; Thickness: 27. Iconographic parallels: Tel Hazor, Stratum V (Yadin et al. 1961: Pl. CCLIII:11); Tel Lachish, Area S, Level S-2 (Kletter 2004: No. 8, Figs. 23.53:8, 23.56:8). DISCUSSION

Fig. 11.5.

This fragment is of the same iconographic type as F2. It is probably a representation of a concubine symbolically reclining on a bed. NO. F6: MOULDED PLAQUE WITH REPRESENTATION OF FEMALE FIGURE (FIG. 11.6)

Stratum X9; Square O22; Locus 1156; Reg. No. 8337/1. Material: Fine pink (7.5YR 7/4) clay. Description: Frontally represented nude woman, with feet represented in profile, hands raised to the height of head, left hand holding long stemmed lily turned towards face, Hathor hair style, divided in middle showing prominent ears, face features not marked, figure framed by two papyrus plants. State of preservation: Fragmentary, one shoulder and part of frame broken off. Height: 67; Width: 42; Thickness: 19. Iconographic parallels: Tel Lachish, ca. 1300-1050 BCE (Tufnell 1958: Pl. 49:4; Winter 1983: Fig. 38); Tell Beit Mirsim (with feather-crown), LB (Albright 1939: Pl. A: 5; Winter 1983; Fig. 39); Tel Gezer, Stratum 13{?} (Dever, Lance and Wright 1970: Pl. 37:11, Pl. 25: A; Macalister 1912a: Fig. 498; 1912b: Pl. 220:22); Tel Lachish, Area S, Levels S-3, VIIb and VIIa {restored from three fragments} (Kletter 2004: No. 4, Figs. 23.53:4, 23.56:4); No provenance, Hecht Museum, Haifa, No. H426 (Tadmor 1981: Pl. 12:2); No provenance, collection of the Israel Antiquities Authority (Tadmor 1982: Fig. on p. 7, right). References: Tadmor 1990:XXI, No. 15, Pl. on p. 38. DISCUSSION This type is similar to the Egyptian ‘Qudshu’ Type of female representation in the nude of a woman with a Hathor type hairstyle or wig, shown en face, standing on a lion and holding snakes or lotus flowers in each hand (Winter 1983:110). Terra cotta reliefs with this motif are a highly simplified version of the Egyptian type. While they lack evidence for lions, in most cases the nude woman does hold lotus flowers. This motif was also frequently used for representations on metal pendants. One example from a Late Bronze Age tomb (B3) at Akko (BenArieh and Edelstein 1977: Pl. 6:1; Winter 1983: Fig. 40) is a 390

Fig. 11.6.

CHAPTER 11: A NTHROPOMORPHIC FIGURINES

bronze plaque with the figure standing on what may be the representation of a lion. Another is a gold pendant dated to the Late Bronze Age from Minet el-Beida. The figure depicted on it is standing on a stylized representation of a crescent moon and two stars (Negbi 1976: Fig. 117, No. 1699; Barrelet 1958: Pl. II:c; Winter 1958: Fig. 43). NO. F7: MOULDED FEMALE FIGURINE (FIG. 11.7)

Stratum X8; Square L21; Locus 3636; Reg. No. 35226/1. Material: Fine pink to very pale brown (7.5YR 8/4 to 10YR 8/3) clay. Description: Head represented frontally, with pronounced eyes (outlined with added clay), hair divided in middle and showing ears, polos head dress. State of preservation: Fragmentary, head only preserved, nose chipped. Height: 43; Width: 27; Thickness: 21. Iconographic parallels: Tel Megiddo: Tomb 26B, LB I-II (Guy 1938: Pl. 155, 9; Pritchard 1943: No. 62; Winter 1983: Fig. 22), Tomb 38, LB I (Guy 1938: Pl. 138:25), Tomb 989 B1, LB II (Guy 1938: Pl. 99:2), Stratum VIII (Loud 1948: Pl. 241:7, Pl. 242:8-10), Stratum VIIA (Loud 1948: Pl. 243:16), Stratum 5 palace (Schumacher 1908: Fig. 158a), surface find (Sass 2000:396, Fig. 12.35.2); Tel Qashish, surface find (Tadmor 2003: Fig. 155:1); No provenance (Tadmor 1982:9). DISCUSSION These heads probably are of a type of figurine very popular in the Late Bronze Age Levant, that of a woman holding her breast or breasts (see above F5). They were especially popular in south Levantine cities in the central and western Jezreel Valley. Feathered crowns similar to the one on this example appear on reliefs of unknown provenience Fig. 11.7. (Winter 1983: Fig. 23). Other examples of this type have recently been published by Tadmor (2003), who discusses them at length. The great similarity in size and detail (especially slight deformation of the left ear of the figurine) on the head from Tel Aphek (F7) to a fragmentary head from Tel Qashish (see above), suggests that both figurines were made in the same double mould. Technical considerations led Tadmor to argue the objects should be perceived as 3-dimensional, although they are undecorated in back. NO. F8: PLAQUE WITH FEMALE FIGURINE FORMED IN OPEN MOULD (FIG. 11.8)

Stratum X7; Square K21; Locus 3623; Reg. No. 35112/1. Material: Medium-fine yellowish red (5YR 6/6) clay. Description: Represented frontally, crudely formed facial features, hair divided in middle and showing ears, polos headdress. State of preservation: Head only preserved, facial features worn away. Height: 46; Width: 42; Thickness: 23. Iconographic parallels: Tel Gezer (Macalister 1912b: Pl. CCXX:16-18, CCXXI:1), Dever, Lance and Wright 1970: Pl. 15:B; Tell Beit Mirsim, Stratum C (Albright 1938: Pls. 26:3,5; 27:2,4; 1939: Pl. A: 3, 5).

Fig. 11.8.

DISCUSSION This plaque shares the iconography of head No. F7, but differs from it by having been formed in an open, rather than a double mould. 391

M ARTA GUZOWSKA AND ASSAF YASUR-LANDAU

PART 2. ‘ASHDODA’ FIGURINES Figurines A1-A3 (see page 418) (previously published in Beck and Kochavi 1993:68; Kochavi 1990: XXIV) are typical examples of the so-called ‘Ashdoda’ Type, first brought to light by Moshe Dothan (1982:234–249; M. Dothan 1971: Fig. 91:1) in his excavations at Tel Ashdod. Although only one complete example of this type was found, fragments of other figurines with very distinctive long necks, bird-like faces and flat, polos type headdresses, have attracted much attention since their first discovery, being a novelty of the Early Iron Age, and without roots in the coroplastic art of the Levant. Trude Dothan (1982:234)2 interpreted them as “...evidently a variant of the Mycenaean female figurine seated on a throne, and sometimes holding a child...”. Such figurines were found later at sites such as Tel Aphek, Tell Qasile (Mazar 1988: 259, Fig. 2, 260), Tel Batash/Timnah (Kelm and Mazar 1995: 83, Fig. C21) and Tel Gezer (Dever 1986: Pl. 62: 18). A detailed iconographic analysis of the origin, function, and identity of the goddess depicted in the ‘Ashdoda’ figurines by Yasur-Landau (2001), strongly supports Dothan’s notion that the prototype for the ‘Ashdoda’ figurines was indeed an Aegean earth goddess. A comparison of singular iconographical elements of the figurine to the painted ‘Ashdoda’ figurine from Ashdod, including its long neck with many necklaces, heavy pendant, dress exposing breasts, and polos headdress indicates it belongs to this group, which finds its best parallels in the Aegean area, specifically in Late Helladic (henceforth LH) IIIC figurines from Tiryns. NO. A1: HEAD OF ‘ASHDODA’ FIGURINE (FIG. 11.9)

Stratum X10; Square O27; Locus 5027; Reg. No.49251/1. Material: Medium-fine reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) clay. Description: Pronounced nose, no mouth, eyes and ears applied lumps of clay; top of polos concave. State of preservation: Fragmentary, head and neck. Height:58; Width: 42; Thickness: 41. References: Beck and Kochavi 1993:68; Kochavi 1990:XXIV.

Fig. 11.9.

NO. A2: HEAD OF ‘ASHDODA’ FIGURINE (FIG. 11.10)

Stratum X1; Square N22; Locus 1112; Reg. No.5616/1. Material: Medium-fine reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) clay. Description: Pronounced nose (tip broken), no mouth, eyes and ears applied lumps of clay; top of polos flat. State of preservation: Fragmentary, head and neck. Height:56; Width: 39; Thickness: 33. References: Beck and Kochavi 1993:68; Kochavi 1990:XXIV. 2.

Dothan made clear, however, that the ‘Ashdoda’ figurines were not “purely” Mycenaean in form, but also may reflect some Cypriote features.

392

Fig. 11.10.

NO. A3: HEAD OF ‘ASHDODA’ FIGURINE (FIG. 11.11)

Surface; Square R27; Locus 5019; Reg. No.49138/1. Material: Medium-fine reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) clay. Description: Pronounced nose (tip broken), no mouth, eyes and ears applied lumps of clay; top of polos concave. State of preservation: Fragmentary, head and neck. Height: 47; Width: 33; Thickness: 33. References: Beck and Kochavi 1993:68; Kochavi 1990:XXIV.

Fig. 11.11.

ICONOGRAPHIC PARALLELS

Tel Ashdod: Area C, locus 2001 (M. Dothan and Freedman 1967: Fig. 35:3 and Pl. XVII:12), Area H, locus 5032 (M. Dothan 1971: Fig. 91;1 and Pl. LXXXII), Area H., Locus R/6 (M. Dothan 1971: Fig. 91:2), Trench C1, surface find (M. Dothan 1971: Fig. 103:8). DISCUSSION

Of the 31 fragments of ‘Ashdoda’ figurines from Israel studied by Yasur-Landau (2001), ten were recovered from either unstratified or from surface contexts, while an additional nine came from pits and fills. Only seven derive from floor deposits3. The Aphek ‘Ashdodas’, two of which are unstratified and one of which comes from a pit, conform to a similar pattern of deposition, in which figurines are discarded without apparent ceremony after they were broken. Several ‘Ashdoda’ fragments found on floors of domestic structures at Tel Ashdod and Tell Qasile, as well as the fact that no ‘Ashdoda’ figurine was found within the Tel Qasile temples or the Tel Miqne cult rooms, suggests they were originally intended for domestic cultic use. Support for this notion comes from the pits in which these figurines were found at Ashdod and Tel Aphek, which did not contain any additional cultic objects. The change from Canaanite domestic cult, manifested in the use of ‘Qudshu plaques,’ to schematic Aegean-style, ‘Ashdoda’ figurines, has been interpreted (Yasur-Landau 2001) as resulting from the introduction of a new cult by Philistines. The presence of these figurines at Tel Aphek, as well as Aegean style cooking-pots in Early Iron Age levels (Chapter 8), suggests newcomers arriving from the Philistine heartland to the south of Tel Aphek. They brought not only their traditional cooking paraphernalia, but also their domestic cult. 3. See. also Dothan and Ben-Shlomo (2005: Fig. 3.115:3) for another ‘Ashdoda’ head from an unstratified context at Tel Ashdod.

393

M ARTA GUZOWSKA AND ASSAF YASUR-LANDAU

REFERENCES Albright, W.F. 1938. The Excavations of Tell Beit Mirsim. Vol. II. (Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research XVII) New Haven. Albright, W.F. 1939. Astarte plaques and figurines from Tell Beit Mirsim. In: Melanges Syriens offerts a M.R. Dussaud. Vol. 1. Paris. pp. 107-120. Åström, L. 1972. Other arts and crafts. In: The Swedish Cyprus Expedition Vol. IV:1D. The Late Cypriote Bronze Age. Lund. pp. 473-616. Barrelet, T.-Th. 1958. Deux déesses syro-phéniciennes sur un bronze du Louvre. Syria 35:27-44. Beck, P. 1990. Female figurines. In: Kochavi, M. Aphek in Canaan. The Egyptian Governor’s Residence and Its Finds. Jerusalem. Beck, P. 2002. A new type of female figurine. In: Beck, P. Imagery and Representation. Studies in the Art and Iconography of Ancient Palestine. Collected Articles. Tel Aviv: 385-391. Beck, P. and Kochavi, M. 1993. Aphek (in Sharon). In: Stern, E., ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land Vol. I. Jerusalem. pp. 64–72. Ben-Arieh, S. and G. Edelstein. 1977. Akko. Tombs Near the Persian Garden. ‘Atiqot 12:1-44. Buchholz, H.-G. and Karageorghis, V. 1971. Altägäis und Altkypros. Tübingen. Dever, W.G. 1986. Gezer IV: The 1969-71 Seasons in Field VI, the “Acropolis”. Part 2, Plates, Plans. Jerusalem.  Dever, W.G., Lance, H.D. and Wright, G.E. 1970. Gezer I: Preliminary Report of the 1964-66 Seasons (Annual of the Hebrew Union College and Archaeological School in Jerusalem). Jerusalem. Dothan, M. 1971. Ashdod II-III. The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations 1963, 1965. (‘Atiqot 9-10) Jerusalem. Dothan, M. and Ben-Shlomo, D. 2005. Ashdod VI. The Excavations of Areas H and K [1968-1969]. (IAA Reports 24) Jerusalem. Dothan, M. and Freedman, D.N. 1967. Ashdod I. The First Season of Excavations 1962. (‘Atiqot 7, English Series). Jerusalem. Dothan, T. 1982. The Philistines and Their Material Culture. Jerusalem. Guy, P.L.O. 1938. Megiddo Tombs. Chicago. Hamilton, R.W. 1935. Tell Abu Hawam. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 4:1-69. Holland, T.A. 1974. Appendix. C. A figurine plaque from Gezer. In: Dever, W.G., ed. Gezer II. Report of the 1967-70 Seasons in Fields I and II. (Annual of the Hebrew Union College and Archaeological School in Jerusalem) Jerusalem. pp. 133-4. Holland, T.A. 1975. A Typological and Archaeological Study of Human and Animal Representations in the Plastic Art of Palestine during the Iron Age. (Ph. D. dissertation, Oxford University) Oxford. James, F.W. and McGovern, P.E. 1993. The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan. A Study of Levels VII and VIII. Philadelphia. Kelm, G.L. and Mazar, A. 1995. Timnah, A Biblical City in the Sorek Valley. Winona Lake. Kletter, R. 2004. Section D. Clay figurines. In: Ussishkin, D., ed. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994). (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 22) Tel Aviv. pp. 1572-1583. Kochavi, M. 1990. Aphek in Canaan. The Egyptian Governor’s Residence and Its Finds. Jerusalem. Loud, G. 1948. Megiddo II. Seasons of 1935-39. Chicago. Macalister, R.A.S. 1912a. The Excavations of Gezer. Vol. II. London.

394

CHAPTER 11: A NTHROPOMORPHIC FIGURINES

Macalister, R.A.S. 1912b. The Excavations of Gezer. Vol. III. London. Mazar, A. 1988. “Some aspects of the “Sea Peoples” settlement.” In: Heltzer, M. and Lipinski E., eds. Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500 B.C.). Leuven. pp. 251-260. McClellan, T. 1993. No 316. Testa di figurina femminile. In: Rouault, O. and Masetti-Rouault, M.G., eds. L’Eufrate e il Tempo. Le Civiltà del Medio Eufvrate e della Gezira Siriana. Milan. p. 462. Munsell 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. 2000 Edition. Negbi, O. 1976. Canaanite Gods in Metal. Tel Aviv. Ohata, K. 1970. Tel Zeror. Vol. II. Tokyo. Pritchard, J.B. 1943. Palestinian Figurines in Relation to Certain Goddesses Known through Literature. Philadelphia. Sass, B. 2000. The small finds. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussiskin, D. and Halpern, B., eds. Megiddo III. The 1992-1996 Seasons. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University, No. 18) Tel Aviv. pp. 349-423. Schlossman, B.L. 1981. Frauenstatuetten. In: Länder der Bibel. Archäologische Funde aus dem vorderen Orient. Catalogue of the Exhibition o Köln, Römisch-Germanisches Museum, 8. Mai-25. Juli 1982. Mainz. pp. 251-253. Schumacher, G. 1908. Tell el-Mutesellim. Leipzig. Tadmor, M. 1981. Female relief figurines of Late Bronze Age Canaan. Eretz Israel 15:79-84. (Hebrew) Tadmor, M. 1982. Female figurines in Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. Qadmoniot 15/1 (57): 2-10. (Hebrew) Tadmor, M. 1990. Female figurines. In Kochavi, M. Aphek in Canaan. The Egyptian Governor’s Residence and Its Finds. Jerusalem. Tadmor, M. 2003. Female figurines from Tel Qashish. In Ben-Tor, A., Bonfil, R., Zuckerman, S. et al. Tel Qashish. A Village in the Jezreel Valley. Jerusalem. pp. 387-394. Tufnell, O. 1958. Lachish IV. The Bronze Age. London. Tzori, N. 1958. Cult figurines in the eastern plain of Esdraelon and Beth-Shean. Eretz Israel 5:52-54. (Hebrew) Winter, U. 1983. Frau und Göttin. Exegische und ikonographische Studien zum weiblichen Gottesbild im Alten Israel und in dessen Umwelt. Göttingen. Yadin, Y. et al. 1961. Hazor III. An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1957. Jerusalem. Yasur-Landau, A. 2001. The mother(s) of all Philistines. Aegean enthroned deities of the 12th-11th century Philistia. In: Laffineur, R. and Hägg, R., eds. Potnia. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age. (Aegaeum 22) Liège. pp. 329-343.

395

CHAPTER 12

FIGURINES AND SMALL FINDS Marta Guzowska

This chapter presents a series of studies on the small finds from the Acropolis of Tel Aphek (Area X) and from the Late Bronze Age Tomb in Area G (Chapter 5). It represents an eclectic collection of artefacts including anthropomorphic vessels, jewellery, and varia, fashioned from a wide range of raw materials. Discussion is arranged according to find spots designated within the excavation areas. Each object is given a specific catalogue number consisting of a letter designating the type of object, followed by an arbitrary number (F = figurine, V = zoomorphic vessel, B = bead, C = conuli, X = Ivory and bone object, Z = varia and P = pommel). All coded colour designations are based on Munsell (2000) soil colour charts. Provenances are indicated according to find spot, down to the field (i.e., basket number) followed by the registration number with a basket. All measurements are in millimeters. Figures are drawn on a scale of 1:2.

PART I: FINDS FROM AREA X ZOOMORPHIC VESSELS

NO. 1: BULL-SHAPED RHYTON (FIG. 12.1)

Stratum X12?; Square Q25; Locus 4025; Reg. No. 39237/1. Material: Fine, reddish yellow (5YR 6/6); matt slip reddish to dark reddish brown (5YR 5/2 to 5YR 3/2); matt paint, pale yellow (2.5Y 8/3); surface decorated with strokes of white paint; plastic ridge under the mouth, along the neck. Description: Eye formed with added lump of clay, muzzle pierced, another opening with crudely formed rim on back, Base Ring Ware. State of Preservation: Fragmentary head, neck, and part of back, ears, one eye broken. Height: 64; Width: 44.

Fig. 12.1.

396

CHAPTER 12: FIGURINES AND SMALL FINDS

NO. 2: BULL-SHAPED RHYTON (FIG. 12.2)

Unstratified; Square O27; Locus 5020; Reg. No. 49105/1. Material: Very fine, outside red (2.5YR 5/6), inside light brown (7.5YR 6/3) with grey core; white paint (2.5Y 8/1); surface carelessly burnished, decorated with strokes of paint. Description: Eye marked with dot and surrounding circle in added clay, pierced muzzle. State of Preservation: Fragmentary front of head. Height: 37; Width: 27.

Fig. 12.2.

NO. 3: BULL-SHAPED RHYTON (?) (FIG. 12.3)

Stratum X2; Square H26; Locus 6231; Reg. No. 45742/1. Material: Base Ring Ware, medium-fine, reddish grey (5YR 5/2); matt dark grey slip (10YR 4/1); surface decorated with strokes of matt, white paint (5Y 8/1). Description: Muzzle not pierced, eye marked with added dot of clay and surrounding circle, fragment of an eyelet (?) above muzzle. State of Preservation: Fragmentary head. Height: 50; Width:55. Parallels: Tell Abu Hawam, Stratum V, C, D6 (Hamilton 1935: Pl. XVII:286, 303, 304); Tel Gezer, Tomb 7 (Macalister 1912b:Pl. CXXV:21, Pl. CXXVI:23), Locus 10070.P dated to LB IB-IIA (Seger 1988: Pl. 23:12, Pl. 72A); Tel Lachish, Tomb 216 (Tufnell 1958: Pl. 80:839), Tomb 555 (Tufnell 1958: Pl. 80:839), Tomb 1003 (Tufnell 1958: Pl. 80:840), Tomb 501 (Tufnell 1958: Fig. 8:8); Megiddo, palace Stratum 5 (Schumacher 1908: Fig. 165, upper row, third from left and lower row, first from right, Pl. XXXI:q); Tell el->Ajjul, Tomb (Petrie 1931: Pl. XXVII:46). Parallels with an eyelet above the muzzle Tell Abu Hawam, Stratum V C.D. 6 (Hamilton 1935: Pl. XVII:302); Tell el>Ajjul, Tomb 366 (Petrie 1933: Pl. XL:366); Tel Beth Shemesh (Grant 1931: Pl. XI top left). Discussion Examples of zoomorphic rhyta in Base Ring I and II Wares have been thoroughly discussed by Åström (1972:191-194). These wares were produced in Cyprus and appeared in small quantities in the Levant early in LB IIA when apparently they reached the height of their limited popularity there. Gittlen Fig. 12.3. (1977:137) claims they became rarer in LB II B. According to his study, finds of this type were observed in the Levant in almost equal proportions in both habitation and burial contexts (1977:100). Their relative rarity in the Levant (calculated to be ca. 3% of the entire recovered assemblage of Base Ring II pottery) contrasts with their greater popularity in Cyprus, where they comprise ca. 15% of recovered Base Ring II pottery assemblages, and where they are more common than juglets (Gittlen 1977:100, also Chart 16). 397

M ARTA GUZOWSKA

NO. 4: BIRD HEAD FROM CULT BOWL (FIG. 12.4)

Stratum X11; Square Q25; Locus 4017; Reg. No. 39260/1 Material: Medium fine, reddish yellow (5YR 6/4 to 6/6); surface barely smoothed, with visible finger impressions Description: Protruding beak, eyes marked with applied clay pellets, comb on a top of head State of Preservation: Fragmentary head and neck Fig. 12.4. Height: 70; Width: 30 Parallels: Tel Ashdod, Area C, Locus 2001 (Dothan and Freedman 1967: Fig. 35, 1 and 2), Area H, Loci Q/5, S/5 and 5037 (Dothan 1971: Fig. 92:1-3); Tel Beth-Shean, Rooms 1021A and 1068, from the reigns of Amenhotep III and Ramesses III (Rowe 1940: Pl. XX:11-18), Levels VII and VII (James and McGovern 1993: Pl. 40:a-l , Figs. 86.2-86.4, 87.1, 87.3-87.4, 88.2, 88.4, 89.1-89.2); Tell Qasile, on bowls with stands from Shrine 300 (Mazar 1980: Pl. 33:1- 2, Pl. 34:1-2; on bowl from Temple 131 (Mazar 1980: Pl. 34:3-4); Tel Gezer (Macalister 1912b: Pl. CXXIV:10,16). Discussion: The head was probably originally attached to the centre of a bowl designed for cultic use. A collection of such bowls, sometimes with painted decoration, has been excavated at Tell Qasile (Mazar 1980:96-100). Mazar (1980:99) suggested prototypes for this bowl type are to be found in Egypt of the New Kingdom at Deir el-Medineh. Dothan and Freedman (1967:110) interpreted the bird as a swan, which they believe was paralleled by decorations on Philistine pottery. Hachlili (1971:131) describes these same representations as of ducks. The characteristic shape of a beak of one bird on a bowl from Tell Qasile allowed for its identification as a ‘shoveler’ duck (Anas Clypeata; Mazar 1980:97). Bowls decorated with duck heads are mainly found in Philistine contexts. At Tel Aphek they come from Stratum X11 dating to the 12th century BCE. NO. 5: ZOOMORPHIC HEAD FROM KERNOS (FIG. 12.5)

Stratum X12; Square O/P21; Locus 1731; Reg. No. 33543/1 Material: Fine light red (2.5YR 6/6); red slip (7.5R 5/6); surface burnished Description: Features crudely marked, pierced snout State of Preservation: Fragmentary head, ears broken Height: 30; Width: 35 Parallels: Tel Ashdod, Area H, Locus 5004 (Dothan 1971: Fig. 92:8). Discussion: This head of unidentified animal is probably a fragment of a ring-shaped kernos with several animal hollow heads mounted on it. Such vessels were probably used for libations (Hachlili 1971:132). They have been found in burial pits as offerings for the dead. This type of vessel enjoyed popularity in Cyprus and in the Levant, where they were adorned with heads of different birds and animals (Dothan and Freedman 1967: No. 53-62; Dothan 1971: Fig. 66 Nos. 9-13, Fig. 67-71, Fig. 96:7-9). 398

Fig. 12.5.

CHAPTER 12: FIGURINES AND SMALL FINDS

BEADS NO. 1: BEAD (FIG. 12.6:1)

Stratum X9; Square Q21; Locus 3432; Reg. No. 33086/50. Material: Carnelian: semi-transparent, striped, dark red to red (10R 3/6 to 10R 5/6). Description: Short barrel (Beck 1928: I.B.1.b) with single, chamfered perforation (Beck 1928: Type V). State of preservation: Complete. Length of axis: 7; Max. diam.: 9. NO. 2: BEAD (FIG. 12.6:2)

Stratum X12; Square P24; Locus 2753; Reg. No. 27578/71. Material: Carnelian: milky to semi-transparent, pale red to red (10R 7/3 to 10R 5/6). Description: Plano-convex with single plain perforation (Beck 1928: Type IV); convex side polished, on the flat side shallow incisions, carelessly drawn; in spite of the shallowness of the incisions the objects probably served as a seal. State of preservation: Complete. Length of axis: 15; Max. diam.: 9 x 5. NO. 3: BEAD (FIG. 12.6:3)

Stratum X12; Square Q22; Locus 1721; Reg. No. 52056/70. Material: Faience: very light blue (Grey2 8/10G), probably originally turquoise. Description: Long cylinder (Beck 1928: I.D.2.b.) with single, plain perforation (Beck 1928: Type IV). State of preservation: Fragmentary. Length of axis: 32; Max. diam.: 19. NO. 4: BEAD

Stratum X12; Square Q22; Locus 1721; Reg. No. 52057/70. Material: Faience: light grey, surface vitrified. Description: Barrel disc (Beck 1928: I.A.1.b), with single, plain perforation (Beck 1928; Type IV). State of preservation: Complete. Length of axis: 1; Max. diam.: 6. NO. 5: BEAD (FIG. 12.6:4)

Stratum X12; Square P24; Locus 2753; Reg. No. 27509/70. Material: Faience: discoloured, probably originally light green. Description: Barrel disc (Beck 1928: I.A.1.b) with single, plain perforation (Beck 1928: Type IV). State of preservation: Complete. Length of axis: 1; Max. diam.: 6. NO. 6: TWO BEADS

Stratum X12; Q/P21; Locus 1721; Reg. No. 52069/70. Material: Faience: light grey. Description: Barrel disc (Beck 1928: I.A.1.b) with single, plain perforation (Beck 1928: Type IV). State of preservation: Complete. Length of axis: 1; Max. diam.: 3-4. 399

M ARTA GUZOWSKA

NO. 7: BEAD

Stratum X12; Square Q/P21; Locus 1721; Reg. No. 52069/71. Material: Faience: light grey. Description: Double bead made of two barrel discs (Beck 1928: I.A.1.b) with single, plain perforation. State of preservation: Complete (Beck 1928: Type IV). Length of axis: 4; Max. diam.: 3. NO. 8: BEAD (FIG. 12.6:5)

Stratum X12; Square R24; Locus 2753; Reg. No. 39364/70. Material: Faience: discoloured. Description: Short barrel (Beck 1928: I.B.1.b) with single, plain perforation (Beck 1928: Type IV). State of preservation: Complete. Length of axis: 7; Max. diam.: 11. NO. 9: THREE BEADS

Stratum X12; Square Q/P21; Locus 1721; Reg. No. 52051/71. Material: Faience: light blue and turquoise. Description: Barrel disc (Beck 1928: I.A.1.b) with single, plain perforation (Beck 1928: Type IV). State of preservation: Complete. Length of axis: 1; Max. diam.: 4. NO. 10: BEAD (FIG. 12.6:6)

Stratum X10-X9; Square L23; Locus 2935; Reg. No. 29161/70. Material: Faience: discoloured, probably originally turquoise. Description: Short barrel (Beck 1928: I.B.1.b) with single, plain perforation (Beck 1928: Type IV). State of preservation: Complete. Length of axis: 9; Max. diam.: 13. NO. 11: BEAD (FIG. 12.6:7)

Stratum X8; Square L21; Locus 3636; Reg. No. 35235/50. Material: Carnelian: semi-transparent, striped, dark red to pale red (10R 3/6 to 10R 6/3). Description: Long barrel (Beck 1928: I.D.1.b) with single plain perforation (Beck 1928: Type IV). State of preservation: Complete. Length of axis: 13; Max. diam.: 7. NO. 12: BEAD (FIG. 12.6:8)

Stratum X7; Square L22; Locus 2905; Reg. No. 29027/70. Material: Glass, semi-transparent, dark blue. Description: Long pear-shape (Beck 1928: I.D.1.g) with single plain perforation (Beck 1928: Type IV). State of preservation: Complete. Length of axis: 12; Max. diam.: 10. NO. 13: NECKLACE (FIG. 12.6:9)

Stratum X12; Square P21; Locus 1721; Reg. No. 33661/80. Material: Faience: light grey, light blue and white. 400

CHAPTER 12: FIGURINES AND SMALL FINDS

Description: 52 complete beads and fragments of several broken; barrel disc (Beck 1928: I.A.1.b), convex biconical disc (Beck 1928: I.A.1.e) and standard barrel (Beck 1928: I.C.1.b), all with single, plain perforation (Beck 1928: Type IV). State of preservation: Beads complete and fragmentary. Length of axis: 2; Max. diam.: 5-6. Reference: Kochavi 1990: photos pp. 42,43. NO. 14: NECKLACE (see page 418)

Stratum X12; Square P/Q21; Locus 1721; Reg. No. 52049/70. Material: Faience: light blue and turquoise. Description: 52 complete beads and fragments of several broken; barrel disc (Beck 1928: I.A.1.b), with single, plain perforation (Beck 1928: Type IV). State of preservation: Beads complete and fragmentary. Length of axis: 1 -2; Max. diam.: 4-5. Reference: Kochavi 1990: photo p. 43 12.16.

Fig. 12.6: Beads.

401

M ARTA GUZOWSKA

CONULI NO. 1: CONULUS (FIG. 12.7:1)

StratumX12; Square O23/24; Locus 1130; Reg. No. 44111/50. Material: Dark, greyish-green stone. Description: Short convex cone (Beck 1928: I.B.1.c) with single plain decoration (Beck 1928: Type IV); convex side polished, shallow incised, encircling lines; cutting marks on the flat side. Length of Axis 11; Max. preserved diam.18. References: Kochavi 1990: photo on p. 41. NO. 2: CONULUS (FIG. 12.7:2)

Stratum X12; Square R24; Locus 2753; Reg. No. 39338/50. Material: Dark, greyish-green stone. Description: Short convex cone (Beck 1928: I.B.1.c) with single plain decoration (Beck 1928: Type IV); convex side polished, shallow incised, encircling lines; cutting marks on the flat side. Length of Axis 7; Max. preserved diam. 16. References: Kochavi 1990: photo on p. 41. NO. 3: CONULUS (FIG. 12.7:3)

Stratum X12?; Square M23/24; Locus 2959; Reg. No. 44090/50. Material: Dark, greyish-green stone. Description: Short convex cone (Beck 1928: I.B.1.c) with single plain decoration (Beck 1928: Type IV); convex side polished, shallow incised, encircling lines; cutting marks on the flat side. Length of Axis 9; Max. preserved diam. 15. References: Kochavi 1990: photo on p. 41. NO. 4: CONULUS

Stratum X12; Square Q21; Locus 1721; Reg. No. 33479/50. Material: Dark, greyish-green stone. Description: Short convex cone (Beck 1928: I.B.1.c) with single plain decoration (Beck 1928: Type IV); convex side polished; cutting marks on the flat side. Length of Axis 7; Max. preserved diam. 17. References: Kochavi 1990: photo on p. 41. PARALLELS Tel Lachish, D.II unit; FIII units in Temple Area and F.III, Late Bronze Age (Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pl. XXIX:29,30,32,33); Tell Abu Hawam, Strata III-V (Hamilton 1935: Pl. XXXVII:109,181,182,186,330); Tel Megiddo, Stratum VIA (Loud 1948: Pl. 172:39), Tomb 39, Early Iron Age I (Guy 1938: Pl. 166:14-15); Tel Beth-Shean, Locus 1267 (James and McGovern 1993: Fig. 108:2, 10), Locus 1243 (James and McGovern 1993: Fig. 108:6), Locus 1072, Level VII (James and McGovern 1993: Fig. 109:2). DISCUSSION Conuli found at Tel Aphek were manufactured from a soft, green-black stone often found in Minoan Crete, Mycenaean Greece and the Near East and commonly referred to as steatite. The term steatite often is used (incorrectly) to describe other stones such as serpentine and chlorite (Ostenso 1998:165). 402

CHAPTER 12: FIGURINES AND SMALL FINDS

The Tel Aphek conuli were most likely executed from a rock of volcanic origin. The conuli from Tel Aphek correspond to Iakovidis’ (1977: Fig. 1) Type 2. The type may also be assigned to Beck’s (1928) Type I.A.1.c. All conuli from Tel Aphek have well smoothed tapering sides and cut marks on their bases, a feature that has been observed on conuli from other Levantine sites (e.g., objects interpreted as spindle whorls at Beth-Shean; James and McGovern 1993:182). This type of object may have originated in Minoan Crete (Carington Smith 1992:685) and become particulary popular in the Mycenaean mainland. They have been found in different types of contexts, including graves, settlements, citadels and palaces (e.g., Iakovidis 1977:113, 115). The function of these objects, often referred to as conuli, or sometimes as whorls, has not been definitively determined. Carington Smith (1992:674,685,694, n. 4) has noted that a minimal weight of 10.0 grams, together with a diameter greater than 20.0 mm, and a diameter of a vertical piercing greater than 3.0 mm, are attributes necessary for whorls to be successfully used for spinning. She further argued that steatite conuli were never used for spinning (Carington Smith 1992:685-686; but see Andersson and Nosch, 2003 for an argument to the contrary). Iakovidis (1977:117-118) has suggested they may have played a role as dress accessories, e.g., buttons, but it seems more likely they were hem weights. The presence of conuli may reflect an Aegean or pan-Mediterranean style, somehow related to the presence of Mycenaean pottery at the site.

Fig. 12.7: Conuli.

IVORY AND BONE OBJECTS NO. 1: PIN (FIG. 12.8:1)

Stratum X14; Square G22; Locus 1458; Reg. No. 45314/40. Material: Bone. Description: Surface polished, shallow encircling incision 1 mm from the tip at the wider end. State of preservation: Very fragmentary. Length: 100; Diam.: 5. NO. 2: DISC (FIG. 12.8:2)

Stratum X12; Square O/P21; Locus 1731; Reg. No. 33565/40. Material: Bone. Description: Plano-convex, convex side decorated with carved rosette with cut top, flat side unworked. State of preservation: Small fragment missing. Length: 37; Diam.:10. 403

M ARTA GUZOWSKA

References: Kochavi 1990: photo on p. 41. Parallels: Tel Gezer (Macalister 1912a: Fig. 443:7); Enkomi (Dikaios 1969-71: Pl. 156.33); Tel Lachish, Area S, Level VI, and Area D, Level S-2 (Sass 2004: Figs. 23.23:4, 8). Discussion: This object is probably an unfinished rosette cut from a long bone of a large mammal. It may have served as a decoration of a dagger or other type of knife handle. NO. 3: DISC (FIG. 12.8:3)

Stratum X12; Square P21; Locus 1721; Reg. No. 33613/40. Material: Bone. Description: Plano-convex, flat side unworked, convex side well smoothed, with cutting marks. State of preservation: Complete. Length: 35; Diam.: 2. References: Kochavi 1990: photo on p. 41. Discussion: This object was probably cut out from a long bone of a large mammal. Its unworked ‘back’ or rear side suggests its use as an inlay. NO. 4: DISC (FIG. 12.8:4)

Stratum X12; Square Q24; Locus 2753; Reg. No. 27547/40. Material: Bone. Description: Incompletely worked. One side flat, bearing cutting marks and shallow circular line incision encircling the central piercing, other side smoothed. State of preservation: Complete. Width: 31; Thickness: 7. References: Kochavi 1990: photo on p. 41. Discussion: This fragment of a long bone of a large mammal prepared for cutting out a disc, may be similar to No. 2 discussed above. NO. 5: PIN (FIG. 12.8:5)

Stratum X12; Square M/N21; Locus 1137; Reg. No. 5759/40. Material: Bone. Description: Surface well polished, decorated with encircling groups of grooves and ledges separated with zones with alternating circle-and-dot and dot. State of preservation: Fragmentary. Length: 92; Diam.: 10. References: Kochavi 1990: photo on p. 41. NO. 6: PIN (FIG. 12.8:6) (SEE PAGE 419)

Stratum X12; Square P21; Locus 1731; Reg. No. 52090/40. Material: Ivory. Description: One side blackened, head formed to resemble duck head including an eye marked with a circle and a dot, and a beak, diagonal net incised pattern bordered at each end by 3 encircling incisions on the neck. State of preservation: Complete. Length: 196; Diam.:9. References: Misch-Brandl 1990; XXIII, Pl. p. 41. 404

CHAPTER 12: FIGURINES AND SMALL FINDS

Parallels: Kamid el Loz, the “Schatzhaus” (Miron 1990: Pl. 44:2,3,4). Discussion: The pin is of Klein’s (1990:189, Pl. 168:4,5) Type II.18A3. The object has been published by Mish-Brandl (1990), who dated it to after 1550 BC, and identified its origin as Egyptian. NO. 7: PIN (FIG. 12.8:7)

Stratum X12; Square Q23; Locus 1726; Reg. No. 27331/73. Material: Bone. Description: Surface well smoothed, on one end remains of a hope perpendicular to the main axis. State of preservation: Fragmentary. Length: 33; Diam.: 3. NO. 8: ANTLER (FIG. 12.8:8)

Stratum X12; Square R23; Locus 2731; Reg. No. 27490/40. Material: Antler. Description: Sawing marks at the broken end. State of preservation: Fragmentary. Length: 62; Diam.: 11. Parallels: Tel Beth-Shean, Level VII (James and McGovern 1993: Pl. 50:k and Fig. 136:6); Midea, Greece (Ostenso 1998:151, No. B10 and Pl. 107). NO. 9: PLAQUE (FIG. 12.8:9)

Stratum X8?; Square R25; Locus 4026; Reg. No. 39202/40. Material: Bone. Description: Rectangle with cut corners, round piercing in the centre. State of preservation: Complete. Length: 44; Length: 18; Diam.: 5. Parallels: Tel Beth-Shean, Locus 1399 (James and McGovern 1993: Fig. 140.5); Tel Megiddo, Stratum VIII (Loud 1948: Pl. 200:4); Tell el->Ajjul (Petrie 1934; Pl. XXVII:46-50); Tel Lachish, Area S, Levels S3, S2 and VIIa – V (Sass 2004, Fig. 23.13 Nos. 12-17). Discussion: A similar object with four holes from Tel Megiddo has been interpreted as a cover for a boat-shaped bowl. At Lachish similar objects may have served as weaving implements, especially shuttles. NO. 10: PENDANT (FIG. 12.8:10)

Stratum X8; Square K23; Locus 3601; Reg. No. 29134/40. Material: Bone. Description: Preserved part oval-rounded, piercing perpendicular to the main axis of the object. State of preservation: Fragmentary. Length: 45; 111. Parallels: Tel Megiddo, Stratum IX (Loud 1948: Pl. 287:3); Stratum V (Loud 1948; Pl. 216:128 and 125,127 decorated with ring-and-dot pattern); Stratum VA (Loud 1948: Pl. 218:130, 131-3 decorated with ring-and-dot pattern). Discussion: This pendant is of a type popular in the Iron Age Levant. It is one of a group of cylinder-like rods with piercing close to a narrower end, either plain or decorated with hatching or ring-and-dot pattern, used as pendants (Platt 1978). 405

M ARTA GUZOWSKA

Fig. 12.8: Ivory and bone objects.

406

POMMEL (FIG. 12.9:1) Stratum X12; Square P22; Locus1731; Reg. No. 5732/50. Material: Limestone. Description: Mushroom-shaped. State of preservation: Fragmentary. Height: 27; Diam.: 55. Parallels: Tel Lachish, Temple Area (Tufnell, Inge and Harding 1940: Pl. XXIX:21); Megiddo, Tomb 911, MB II (Guy 1938:2, Pl. 118); Tell el->Ajjul (Petrie 1934: Pl. XLI:110-111,113,115,118); Tel Gezer (Macalister 1912a: Fig. 474, left). STOPPERS NO. 1: STOPPER (FIG. 12.9:2)

Stratum X12; Square R23; Locus 2731; Reg. No.27651/1. Material: Fine fabric: light reddish brown to light reddish brown (5YR 6/4 to 2.5YR 6/4). Description: Probably served as a stopper for a vase or jar. State of preservation: Complete. Diam. 25; Thickness 11. NO. 2: STOPPER (FIG. 12.9:3)

Stratum X12?; Square M24; Locus 2959; Reg. No.37017/50. Material: Bone? State of preservation: Complete. Height 12; Thickness 13. Parallels: Midea (Ostenso 1998:163, Nos. L.54 and L.55 and Pl. 118).

Fig. 12.9: Pommel and stoppers.

PART II. FINDS FROM AREA G, TOMB 1200, STRATUM X13-12 BEADS NO. 1: BEAD (FIG. 12.10:1)

Reg. No. 12024/72. Material: Amber: transparent, dark red (10R 3/6), surface patina. Description: Irregular barrel disc (Beck 1928: I.A.1.b.) with single, plain perforation (Beck 1928: Type IV). State of preservation: Fragmentary. Length of axis 3; Diam. 17 x 15. 407

M ARTA GUZOWSKA

NO. 2: BEAD (FIG. 12.10:2)

Reg. No. 12098/70. Material: Carnelian: semi-transparent, with veins; dominating colour red (10R 4/8). Description: Circular (Beck 1928: I.C.1.a) with single, plain perforation (Beck 1928: Type IV). State of preservation: Complete. Length of axis 7; Diam. 7. NO. 3: BEAD (FIG. 12.10:3)

Reg. No. 12048/70. Material: Glass: transparent, colourless, surface iridescent. Description: Standard barrel (Beck 1928: I.C.1.b.), with single, plain perforation (Beck 1928: Type IV). State of preservation: Fragmentary. Length of axis 12; Diam. 12. NO. 4: BEAD (FIG. 12.10:4)

Reg. No. 12024/70. Material: Mother of pearl. Description: Irregular shape. State of preservation: Complete. Length of axis 15; Diam. 10. NO. 5: BEAD (FIG. 12.10:5)

Reg. No. 12024/71. Material: Mother of pearl. Description: Irregular shape. State of preservation: Complete. Length of axis 15; Diam. 10. NO. 6: BEAD (FIG. 12.10:6)

Reg. No. 12024/72. Material: Mother of pearl. Description: Irregular shape. State of preservation: Complete. Length of axis 10; Diam. 6. NO. 7: BEAD (FIG. 12.10:7)

Reg. No. 12051/40. Material: Bone. Description: Decoration encircled by 5 shallow, engraved lines. State of preservation: Fragmentary. Length of axis 18; Diam. 13. References: Kochavi 1990: photo, p. 41.

408

CHAPTER 12: FIGURINES AND SMALL FINDS

IVORY, BONE AND STONE OBJECTS ROD (FIG. 12.10:8)

Reg. No.12103/40. Material: Bone. Description: Pierced along axis, decoration of carved, encircling lines at one end. Length 77; Thickness 13. CYLINDER (FIG. 12.10:9)

Reg. No.12051/40. Material: Bone. Description: Narrowing towards one end; two shallow diagonal crosses incised on surface on opposite sides of the object. Length 30; Thickness 9. Parallels: Tel Beth-Shean, Level VIII (James and McGovern 1993: Pl. 50q and Fig. 109.11); Tel Megiddo, Stratum IX (Loud 1948: Pl. 210:45). Discussion: This simple bone cylinder bears two shallow cross incisions and may have been used as a bead. A similar object from Tel Beth-Shean has been interpreted as a spindle handle; another from Tel Lachish as a whistle (Aharoni 1975: Pl. 34.4). At Tel Megiddo a similar bone cylinder preserved a fragment of an iron tool in its centre (Loud 1948: Pl. 196:6), indicating its possible use as handle. POMMEL (FIG. 12.10:10)

Reg. No. 12076/6. Material: Green stone (slightly metamorphosed – silicified and chloritized-volcanite). Description: Egg-shaped with flattened top. State of preservation: Fragmentary. Height 40; Diam. 33; Diam. of piercing 10. Parallels: Beth-Shean, Level VII (James and McGovern 1993: Pl. 45:b and Fig. 114.11); Megiddo, variety of pommels from Strata XVIII, XVII, XV, XIV made from alabaster and limestone (Loud 1948: Pl. 270:4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12); Lachish, Area S, Level VII-VI – Sass 2004: Fig. 23.16:2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express her thanks to the late Professor Moshe Kochavi and to Yuval Gadot for inviting her to publish this group of artefacts from Tel Aphek. Gratitude is also owed Dr. Assaf YasurLandau for discussions on many of the finds, and to Professor Hans-Peter Uerpmann, Dr. Margarete Uerpmann, Canan Çakırlar and Peter Zidarov, all of Tübingen University, for their valuable comments on the bone and ivory objects. I am grateful to Dr. Farkas Pintér for discussing different types of rock with me.

409

Reconstructing Palace VI. (See Chapter 3)

A cuneiform lexical text. (See Chapter15)

410

A cuneiform administrative tablet. (See Chapter 15)

A Hittite bulla. (See Chapter 15)

Fragments of painted plaster in situ from the walls of Palace VI (See Chapter 3)

Bronze horse bridle. (See Chapter 13)

Mycenaean stirrup jar found in Palace VI. (See Chapter 9)

Female plaque figurine (See Chapter 11).

411

Fig. 12.10: Miscellaneous small finds from Area G, Tomb 1200, Strata X13-X12.

REFERENCES Aharoni, Y. 1975. Investigations at Lachish. The Sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish V). Tel Aviv. Andersson, E. and Nosch B., M.-L. 2003. With a little help from my friends. Investigating Mycenaean textiles with help from Scandinavian experimental archaeology. In: Polinger Foster, K. and Laffineur, R., eds. METRON. Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age Proceedings of the 9th International Aegean Conference. New Haven, Yale University, 18-21 April 2002 (Aegaeum 24). Liège. pp. 197-205. Åström, P. 1972. The Late Cypriote Bronze Age. Architecture and Pottery. Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Vol. IV:1C. Lund. Beck, H.C. 1928. Classification and Nomenclature of beads and Pendants. Oxford. Carington Smith, J. 1992. Spinning and Weaving Equipment. In: McDonald, W.A. and Wilkie, N.C., eds. Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece. The Bronze Age Occupation. Vol. II. Minneapolis. pp. 674-711. Dikaios, P. 1969. Enkomi Excavations 1948-59. The Architectural Remains. The Tombs. Vol. I. Mainz am Rhein. Dikaios, P. 1971. Enkomi Excavations 1948-59. Chronology, Summary and Conclusions. Catalogue. Appendices. Vol. II. Mainz am Rhein. Dothan, M. 1971. Ashdod II-III. The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations 1963, 1965 (‘Atiqot IX-X, English Series). Jerusalem. Dothan, M and Freedman, D.N.. 1967. Ashdod I. The First Season of Excavations 1962 (‘Atiqot VII, English Series). Jerusalem. 412

CHAPTER 12: FIGURINES AND SMALL FINDS

Gittlen, B.M. 1977. Studies in the Late Cypriote Pottery Found in Palestine. (Ph. D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Ann Arbor) (University Microfilms). Grant, E. 1931. Ain Shems Excavations. Vol. I. Haverford, Pa. Grant, E. 1932. Ain Shems Excavations. Vol. II. Haverford, Pa. Grant, E. 1934. Ain Shems Excavations. Vol. III. Haverford, Pa. Guy, P.L.O. 1938. Megiddo Tombs. Chicago. Hachlili, R. 1971. Figurines and Kernoi (Areas D, H, Trench C1). In: Dothan, M. 1971. Ashdod II-III. The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations 1963, 1965 (>Atiqot IX-X, English Series). Jerusalem. pp. 125-135. Hamilton, R.W. 1935. Tell Abu Hawam. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 4:1-69. Iakovidis, S. 1977. On the use of Mycenaean ‘buttons’. Annual of the British School at Athens 72:113-119. James, F.W. and McGovern, P.E. 1993. The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan. A Study of Levels VII and VIII. Philadelphia. Kertis, T. 1990. Beads. In: Kochavi, M. Aphek in Canaan. The Egyptian Governor’s Residence and Its Finds. Jerusalem. p. XXIII. Klein, H. 1990. Untersuchung zur Typologie Bronzezeitlicher Nadeln in Mesopotamien und Syrien (Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 4). Saarbrücken. Kochavi, M. 1990. Aphek in Canaan. The Egyptian Governor’s Residence and Its Finds. Jerusalem. Loud, G. 1948. Megiddo II. Seasons of 1935-39. Chicago. Macalister, R.A.S. 1912a. The Excavation of Gezer. Vol. II. London. Macalister, R.A.S. 1912b. The Excavation of Gezer. Vol. III. London. Mazar. A. 1980. Excavations at Tell Qasile I. The Philistine Sanctuary; Architecture and Cult Objects (Qedem 12). Jerusalem. Miron, R. 1990. Kamid el Loz. 10. Das ’Schatzhaus’ im Palastbereich. Die Funde (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 46) Bonn. Misch-Brandl, O. 1990. Jewelry. Ivory hairpin. In: Kochavi, M. Aphek in Canaan. The Egyptian Governor’s Residence and Its Finds. Jerusalem. p. XXIII. Munsell. A. H. 2000. Munsell Soil Colour Charts. Baltimore. Ostenso, A. 1998. The small finds. In: Walberg, G. 1998. Excavations on the Acropolis of Midea. Results of the Greek-Swedish Excavations. The Excavations on the Lower Terraces 1985-1991 Vol. I. Stockholm. pp. 150-167. Petrie, W.M.F. 1931. Ancient Gaza I. London. Petrie, W.M.F. 1932. Ancient Gaza II. London. Petrie, W.M.F. 1933. Ancient Gaza III. London. Petrie, W.M.F. 1934. Ancient Gaza IV. London. Platt, E. 1978. Bone pendants. Biblical Archaeologist 41/1:23-28. Rowe, A. 1940. Beth-Shan Excavations. The Four Canaanite Temples. (Publications of the Palestine Section of the University Museum, Vol. II) Philadelphia. Sass, B. 2004. Pre-Bronze Age and Bronze Age artefacts. Section A: Vessels, tools, personal objects, figurative art and varia. In: Ussishkin, D., The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994). (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 22) Tel Aviv. pp. 1450-1524. Schumacher, G. 1908. Tell el-Mutesellim. Leipzig. Seger, J.D. 1988. Gezer V. The Field I Caves. Jerusalem. Tufnell, O. 1958. Lachish IV. The Bronze Age. London. Tufnell, O., Inge, C. H. and Harding, L. 1940. Lachish II. The Fosse Temple. London. 413

A selection of Egyptian and Egyptian-style vessels with a Cypriote juglet (Courtesy of David Harris, Israel Museum). (See Chapter 10)

CHAPTER 10: IMPORTED EGYPTIAN AND LOCAL EGYPTIAN-STYLE POTTERY

Fig. 10.4: Close-up photographs of sections of selected ceramic vessels: a) Marl D fabric of a fragment of an Egyptian amphora from Stratum X12 (Type EgJ3); magnification x 4; b) Fabric of ‘terra rossa’ from an Egyptian-style bowl of Stratum X12 (No. 37208/1); magnification x 2; c) Local fabric (non-‘terra rossa’) of a Canaanite bowl of Stratum X12 (No. 37317/1); magnification x 3.

414

An imported Egyptian amphora. (See Chapter 10)

An Egyptian faience ring and a selection of scarabs. (See Chapter 14)

415

CHAPTER 13

METAL OBJECTS Naama Yahalom-Mack and Sariel Shalev

An assemblage of 86 metal objects (numbered consecutively in the catalogue presented in Tables 13.1-13.3) from Tel Aphek is the subject of this chapter. The study has a dual approach that includes typological analyses of these objects as well as metallurgical analyses.1 Most of the objects were found in Area X (the Acropolis) in Strata X13-X8, and therefore they relate to a time period spanning the end of the Late Bronze Age, Iron I and the beginning of Iron II (13th-10th centuries BCE). Included in this study are some additional artefacts from Area A not reported on in earlier publications, as well as finds from Tomb 1200 in Area G (Chapter 5). Most objects in the assemblage are copper-based, including weapons (i.e., projectile points, arrow and javelin heads and armour scales), small tools (i.e., needles, awls and fishing hooks) and jewellery. However, gold (jewellery), lead sinkers, and a lead bullet (for slings) are also included in this assemblage. Notably, no iron objects were found in stratified contexts of Iron I - IIA at Tel Aphek. A single fragmented crucible found in a pit (Locus 5027) of Stratum X10, is the only evidence for metallurgical activity at the site. Twenty copper-based metal artefacts were selected for metallurgical analysis. Samples were removed from the artefacts with a jeweller’s saw. Chemical analyses were made on a JEOL JXA 8800R electron microprobe (With a detection limit of 0.02Wt%) in the Department of Materials, University of Oxford, UK, with the help of C. Salter, using a wavelength dispersive spectrometer (WDS). Metallography was conducted on unetched and etched polished specimens, with an Olympus PME3 optical inverted metallurgical microscope, under incident and polarized light, with magnification of up to 1000. The preparation of the samples and the metallography took place in the archaeo-metallurgical laboratory at the Kimmel Center for Archaeological Sciences in the Weizmann Institute for Science. Two pieces of gold jewellery were also chemically analyzed in the above-mentioned archaeometallurgical lab using a Jordan Valley EX-310 LC X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyzer. The analyses were done on the surfaces of intact objects. The samples were excitated using a rhodium tube 35kv on a ca. 1.0 mm spot with an aluminum filter. TABLE 13.1: WEAPONS No. Type

Stratum Locus Reg. No. Length or Area

Width Thick. Weight

State of preservation

Fig.

1 2 3 4 5 6

X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 Mixed

1.1 1.4 1.1 1.5 1.0+ 1.3

Chipped and broken Broken tip and broken tang Broken, corroded Broken tang Broken blade Broken tip

13.1:1 13.1:2 13.1:3 13.1:4 13.1:5

Arrowhead Arrowhead Arrowhead Arrowhead Arrowhead Arrowhead

2731 2753 1137 2753 2731 5031

27656 27554 33531 27591 27703 49212

8.0+ 8.3+ 6.3+ 6.0+ 5.0+ 7.8+

0.1 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4

4.08 9.62 6.08+ 9.5+

1. The microstructure of various metal objects (Fig. 13.16:1-7) is shown in colour on page 422.

416

CHAPTER 13: M ETAL OBJECTS No. Type

Stratum Locus Reg. No. Length or Area

Width Thick. Weight

State of preservation

Fig.

7 8 9 10

Arrowhead Arrowhead Arrowhead Arrowhead

4020 2731 2746

27707 39167 27144 27553

10.4 4.7 8.6+ 8.1

1.4 0.8 1.3 1.0

0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3

Complete Chipped, corroded Complete Complete, bent

13.1:6 13.1:7 13.1:8 13.1:9

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Arrowhead Arrowhead Arrowhead Arrowhead Arrowhead Arrowhead Arrowhead Arrowhead

Surface X11 X12 X13 or X12 X12 X9 X9 X8 X8 X8 X8 A

2942 1111 4800 4015 4015 4015 4015 597

8716 8339 47141 39111 39135 39172 39134 10707

4.0+ 7.0 5.1+ 6.6+ 6.9 7.1 5.0+ 6.2

0.8 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.7

0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.7

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Arrowhead Spearhead Spearhead Spearhead tip? Dagger Tang Tang Tang Armour scale Armour scale Armour scale Lead bullet for sling

A X8 X8 X8 G Mixed G X15 X12 X1 A X11

597 4015 4015 4015 1200 3486 1200 1459 1721 1158 1308 5022

10547 39152 39150 39231 12019 33434 12049 47568 52058 33626 10798 49175

4.3+ 9.2 9.6 2.7+ 34.0 3.5+ 5.4+ 6.8+ 5.0 3.8+ 5.1 4.1

1.2 2.2 2.0 1.5 3.8 0.7 0.5 0.25 2.0 3.2 1.8 1.8

0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.25 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.8

3.5 12.68 6.2

4.9+ 9.0+

Blade fragment Complete Broken blade Broken tang Complete Complete Broken, corroded Complete, heavily burnt, organic matter impressed into corrosion Fragmented, same as No. 77 Complete Complete Broken Complete Broken Broken

7.59 56.5

Chipped Broken at both ends Broken corner Complete

3.6 4.6+ 8.5 6.9 8.8 4.4+

4.1+ 22.7 19.1 3.2+

13.1:10 13.1:11 13.1:12 13.1:13 13.1:14 13.1:15 13.1:16 13.1:17 13.1:18 13.1:19 13.2 13.3:1 13.3:2 13.3:3 13.4:1 13.4:2 13.4:3 13.5

*Measurements are in cm and refer to the maximum size (L- Length, W- Width, Th- Thickness, D- Diameter). Thickness of arrowheads is taken from blades. Weights are in grams. All objects are copper-based unless otherwise stated.

TABLE 13.2: TOOLS No. Type

Stratum Locus Reg. No. or Area

Length Width

Thick. Diam. Weight State of preservation

Fig.

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

X8 A X17 X8 X9 X9 X9 X12 X2 X9 ? X13 X9 X12 X9 X9 X8 X12 X12 X12 X11

8.4 9.2+ 6.9 3.3+ 13.8+ 14.2 8.0+ 16.0 14.3 7.0 7.0 5.7+ 7.0+ 9.5+ 5.9 2.7 4.3 6.3+ 6.0+ 4.8+ 4.5+

0.05 0.05 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 -

13.6:1 13.6:2 13.7 13.8:1 13.8:2 13.8:3 13.8:4 13.8:5 13.8:6 13.8:7 13.8:8

Thin blade Thin blade Tweezers Tweezers? Needle Needle Needle Needle Needle Needle Needle Needle Needle? Pointed rod Drill point Drill point Drill point Rod Pointed rod Pointed rod Pin

4622 597 7169 6059 6161 6161 6160 2753 2745 4615 6243 4430 3606 1731 6161 6161 6073 2753 2753 2753 2939

45164 10716 60268 47469 43027 43035 43517 27402 27492 45171 47733 43015 35033 5790 35254 35251 43513 39386 27610 39030 29185

5.0 4.3+ 1.1 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.8 -

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2

25.8+ 8.0+ 8.1 1.9 11.6 9.0

0.7 0.9 2.7+ 2.4+ 3.3 0.5 5.0 5.1 4.8

Broken corner Broken Broken Broken Broken tip Complete Broken lengthwise Broken eyelet Broken eyelet Broken eyelet Bent Broken Broken, bent Broken? Complete Complete Complete Broken, distorted Fragments Two attached Broken

13.9:1 13.9:2 13.9:3

417

Ashdoda figurines. (See Chapter 11)

Bead necklace in situ. (see Chapter 12)

418

Ivory duck-headed pin. (See Chapter 12)

Fish hooks and weights. (See Chapter 13)

419

NAAjjul (Keel 1997: >Ajjul 229, 230, 435, 907, 973), one at Gezer (Macalister 1912, 207:18) and the last one at Aphek. Date: This object, dated to the reign of Amenhotep III, was recovered in Stratum X2, an Ottoman context. References: Giveon 1988:52, No. 49; Kochavi 1989:62, No. 45; Keel 1997: Aphek 26. NO. 9. SCARAB (Fig. 14.3:1)

Reg. No. 43333; Stratum X2 Locus 6038 Material: Faience Dimensions: Broken, half is missing. L. 35.7 mm, W. 13.5 + mm, H. 15.2 mm Features: HC58(?)/EP32/26 Base: The prenomen of Amenhotep III – nb m3;t r; Discussion: Scarabs with the name of Amenhotep III were very common during this king’s reign. This scarab belongs to a group of middle size scarabs (between 34.0 and 45.0 mm in length) produced during the reign of Amenhotep III, all bearing the name of this king. Date: Based on the large size of this scarab and the name of the king, it is dated to the reign of Amenhotep III. It was recovered in Stratum X2, an Ottoman context. References: Giveon 1988:52, No. 50; Keel 1997: Aphek 27 4.

448

Scarabs of this group, bearing this king’s name, are dated to the Ramesside period, mostly to the reign of Ramesses II.

CHAPTER 14: SCARABS AND OTHER SEAL -AMULETS

Fig. 14.2: Scarabs from Area X (Nos. 5-8).

449

N IR LALKIN

NO. 10. RING (Fig. 14.3:2)

Reg. No. 27655/80, IAA. No. IAA 90-269; Stratum X12, Locus 2731 Material: Faience Dimensions: Lower part broken. L. 23 mm, W. 13 mm, H. 4 mm. Base: An inscription – imn-r; ;x3 8swt dw3 ncm nb – “Amun-Re rich in every favours, prayers and happiness” Discussion: Scarabs and other seal-amulets with inscriptions of praise to Amun-Re, as well as to other gods are known from New Kingdom contexts (Drioton 1951). While there is no exact parallel to the ring from Tel Aphek, it is part of a group of seal-amulets that have inscriptions with a common motif, all containing a basic formula praising Amun-Re. Some examples, as the one from Tel Aphek have an additional inscription. An inscription on a ring from Tel Gador (Ben-Arie 1981, Pl. 21:8) reads “Amun-Re lord of praises”5. An inscription on an oval plaque from Tel Lachish (Tufnell 1958, Pl. 32:34) reads “praise to Amun-Re”, while two rectangular plaques, one from Tel Lachish (Tufnell 1958 Pls. 37,38:318) and one from Tell el->Ajull (Keel 1997, >Ajjul 553), have inscriptions that read “Amun-Re beautiful of praise”. All these Plaques and Rings are dated to the New Kingdom, the plaques from the early XVIIIth Dynasty –– to the late XVIIIth – XIXth Dynasty. Ring were more common during the later phases of the XVIIIth Dynasty onwards. Date: Late XVIIIth - XIXth Dynasty is the preferred date since rings were more common during that time. This object was recovered from an LBIIB context. References: Giveon 1978:52; No. 4, Kochavi 1989:69, No. 52; Keel 1997, Aphek 8. NO. 11. SCARAB (Fig. 14.4:1)

Reg. No. 37004/80, IAA. No. 90-301; Stratum X12, Locus 2959 Material: Enstatite Dimensions: L. 13 mm, W. 9 mm, H. 4 mm. Features: HC12/ EP27/40 Base: An inscription – imn-r; nb – “Amun-re lord” Discussion: Scarabs with the name of the god Amun-Re comprise the largest group of scarabs dated to the Late Bronze Age. They first appear in the southern Levant during LB I (e.g., Keel 1997: >Ajjul 130, >Ajjul 243, Ashkelon 103) and they reach their peak during the Ramesside period, especially the XIXth Dynasty. There are many variants in the group. The scarab under discussion belongs to a sub-group inscribed with: imn-r; nb – “Amun-Re lord”, which appears for the first time sometime during LB IB-LB II (Keel 1997: >Ajjul 317; Tufnell 1940: Pls. 34-5:173), which, as is true for the entire group, was most common during the XIXth Dynasty (LB IB). Date: This scarab probably dates to the XIXth Dynasty, based on the popularity of this sub-type at that time. References: Giveon 1988, 50:46; Keel 1997, Aphek 23. NO. 12. SCARAB (Fig. 14.4:2)

Reg. No.14180.80 ; Stratum X4, Locus 1442 Material: Enstatite Dimensions: The scarab is broken at the back and bottom. L. 13* mm, W. 9.5 mm, H. 6 mm. Features: HC54/ EP32?/41 5. Brandl (1981:127) suggests the nb sign is only a space filler, and reads the inscription “praises to Amun-Re” or “chosen of Amun-Re”.

450

CHAPTER 14: SCARABS AND OTHER SEAL -AMULETS

Fig. 14.3: Scarabs from Area X (Nos. 9-10).

451

N IR LALKIN

Base: divided into three register: in the middle register an inscription – imn-r;– “Amun-re”. at the top and bottom, perpendicular strokes. Discussion: Scarabs with the name of the god Amun-Re comprise the largest group of scarabs dated to the Late Bronze Age. Scarabs with a composition that is divided into two or three registers, where the top or bottom registers are perpendicular strokes, were common during the XIXth Dynasty. Several scarab with that type of division and the name of Amun-re in the middle, are known from Canaan. Five scarabs with two registers were found at Tell el-Fa>rah South (Macdonald, Starkey and Harding 1932, Pls. 48:3, 53:186, 188, 57:382; Giveon 1985, 52:90). In all of them, in the upper register there are Perpendicular strokes and in the lower and bigger register, the name of Amun-Re. similar scarabs were found at Beth Shemesh (Rowe 1936, No. 762), Ashdod (Brandl 1993, 135-6: no. 9) and Gezer (MaCalister 1912, Pl. 207:35). Four more scarabs have the exact same division of composition, into three registers. All have the name of Amun-Re in the middle register, and perpendicular strokes in the upper and lower registers. One scarab was found at Tel Zeror (Unpublished, Reg. No. 285/1), and another from Tell el->Ajjul (Keel 1997, >Ajjul 1225). These two scarabs have similar composition to the Aphek scarab. The last two are from Tell Far>ah south (Macdonald, Starkey and Harding 1932, Pl. 38:46, 55:262). In addition to the division into three registers, they have a rope border encircling the composition, and the first one has a horizontal axis to the composition. All the parallels mentioned are dated to the XIXth Dynasty. Date: This scarab is dates to the XIXth Dynasty, based on the popularity of this sub-type during that time span, and its parallels. References: Giveon 1988, 50:46; Keel 1997, Aphek 23 NO. 13. COWROID (Fig. 14.4:3)

Reg. No. 27578; Stratum X12, Locus: 2753 Material: Carnelian Dimensions: L. 14.5 mm, W. 8 mm, H. 5 mm. Base: Three crossing lines, forming a star-like decoration Discussion: Scarabs and other seal-amulet of carnelian are not very common. Ward (1978:34) noted 12 carnelian scarabs dated to the late First Intermediate Period - Early Middle Kingdom. Eight of them were found in the Montet Jar at Byblos (Tufnell and Ward 1966:176-177). During the Middle Bronze Age carnelian was rare (Tufnell 1984, 39) and the same applies to the early Late Bronze Age. Only during the LB IIb did carnelian become popular and is found at numerous sites, especially in the form of beads and scaraboids.6 Carnelian Scarabs were also common during that phase. Ten examples are known to have the same star-like shape. They come from Beth Shemesh (Brandl 1980:81, No. 15; University Museum, Philadelphia Reg. Nos. 61-14-923, 61-14-925 – both unpublished), Tel Gerisa/Tell Jerishe (Ory 1944:13, No. 8,), Megiddo (Rowe 1936:10, No. 379), Deir el-Balaú (Brandl 1979:88, No. 213), Azeka (Keel 1997, Azeka 2), Ashdod (Brandl 1993:133, No. 6), Tell Far’ah South (Rowe 1936:20, No. 797). To this group should be added the cowroid from Tel Aphek and a ring from Deir el-Balaú (Brandl 1979, 90:219). Date: Based on parallels, this cowroid dates to LB IIB, which is the date of the context in which it was recovered. References: Keel 1997: Aphek 34. 6. For example, the Azeka hoard, which dates to LB IIb, had 81 carnelian objects. One of them is a scarab, eight are scaraboids, and the remainder are beads (Bliss and Macalister 1902:26-27).

452

CHAPTER 14: SCARABS AND OTHER SEAL -AMULETS

NO. 14. SCARAB 7 (Fig. 14.4:4)

Reg. No. 39284; Stratum X10, Locus 4018 Material: Enstatite Dimensions: L. 17 mm, W. 12.5 mm, H. ? mm. Description: Height and side type unknown. Features: HC11/ EP33/? Base: The name of Ramesses IV – r;-mss m3; .ty Discussion: The identity of the king’s name written on this scarab has been widely debated. Horn dated a similar scarab from Shechem (1965: Pl. 16.A:3) to the reign of Ramesses I, but in a later publication he suggested that it might not be limited to Ramesses I and could be associated with a later king with the name Ramesses (Horn 1966, 56). Giveon (1978a:16), in his first publication of the scarab, dated it to Ramesses IV, but afterward he dated it (Giveon 1988:46-48) to the time of Ramesses I or the early years of Ramesses II. Jaeger’s monumental work on the Menkhéperrê scarabs (1982), which shows a pair of Maat Feathers to be typical of the XVIIIth Dynasty (Giveon 1988, 46), was apparently the reason for Giveon’s change of mind. Recently, Brandl has shown that the name on the scarab is a valid variant of the name of Ramesses IV (2004:58). Two other scarabs of this type were found in Canaan, that from Shechem (cited above) and a second from Tel Reúov (Brandl 2004:59, Pl. 5:a). All three scarabs were found in Iron Age contexts. Date: This scarab is dated to the reign of Ramesses IV, based on a reading of its inscription. References: Giveon 1978a:15, No. 16; Uehlinger 1988:21, No. 63; Giveon 1988:46, No. 40; Keel 1997: Aphek 17. NO. 15. SCARAB (Fig. 14.4:5)

Reg. No. 37248/70, IAA No. 90-300; Stratum X12, Locus 1732 Material: Faience Dimensions: L. 14.0 mm, W. 11.0 mm, H. 6.0 mm Description: A schematic back comprised of wing cases and two diagonal lines that mark the head; sides are incised with deep lines Base: An X-like form with double lines Discussion: This is an unusual scarab for two reasons. The first is the form of the scarab, and the second is in the design it bears. While the precise shape has no parallels, the design is closely paralleled in rectangular plaques from Mit Rahineh (Anthes 1959:56, Pl. 33:326-328) and in ceramics, especially on Philistine wares (Dothan 1982: Fig. 57:11, 18-20). Giveon (1988:52) suggested the design originated in Crete or Anatolia and was adopted in the western Mediterranean at the end of the Late Bronze Age. Date: Since the form of the scarab is rare and no parallels are known, its dating is based on the chronological range of the design, which is somewhere within the LB IIB/Early Iron Age horizon. References: Giveon 1988, 52:48; Keel 1997, Aphek 25. NO. 16. ROUND SEAL (Fig. 14.5:1)

Reg. No. 60408; Stratum X1 or X2, Locus 7216 Material: Enstatite 7. As Note 2.

453

N IR LALKIN

Fig. 14.4: Scarabs from Area X (Nos. 11-15).

454

CHAPTER 14: SCARABS AND OTHER SEAL -AMULETS

Dimensions: L. 9.5 mm, W. 9 mm, H. 6 mm. Base: Three signs: mn, mry(?), n (or a simple line). Discussion: This type of round seal with lines emerging from the centre of the back (Type II in Keel’s 1995:82) is typical of Iron II. According to Keel the inscription is a short for mn 9pr r;, the throne name of Thutmose III (Keel 1997: Aphek 44). He compares it with a similar seal from Megiddo (Keel 1994: Pl. 9:15). While on the seal from Megiddo the beetle (9pr sign) is clear, that is not the case with this seal from Tel Aphek. Its sign resembles a mry sign rather than a beetle, and, with the n sign at the bottom, it could be read mry n mn, i.e., “Beloved of Amun”. Date: The shape of the seal suggests a date between 1000 and 850 BCE. References: Keel 1997: Aphek 44.

SCARABS FROM THE TOMB IN AREA G Three scarabs were found in a built tomb from area G. The tomb contained a rich 13th century BCE assemblage, which includes the three scarabs. NO. 17. SCARAB (Fig. 14.5:2)

Reg. No. 12058; Locus 1200 Material: Enstatite Dimensions: L. 16.0 mm, W. 11.0 mm, H. 7.0 mm Features: A4/ O/e10 Base: A striding antelope. Below its head, there is a debased uraeus. The antelope’s tail rises above the animal’s back merging into another depiction of a debased uraeus. Discussion: The antelope motif becomes popular only in the later Middle Bronze Age (Tufnell 1984:132; Ward and Dever 1994:178, Table 4; Keel: 1995, 190) although it first appears on scarabs already at the beginning of the Middle Kingdom. Two caprids appear in a téte bêche arrangement (Tufnell and Ward 1966: Fig. 2:5) on a scarab from the Montet Jar. A tail merging into an uraeus is a common feature in the Middle Bronze Age IIB scarab iconography. It can occur on antelopes (e.g.,Tufnell 1984: Pl. 36: 2481, 2485, 2495, 2508) or on lions (ibid. Pl. 40: 2606, 2611, 2620, 2643). These tails are turned up and merge with the uraeus motif above the animal’s back. The features of the scarabs, especially the plain back and side, are also common during the MB IIB. Date: The suggested date is MB IIB, based on the scarab features, the popularity of the antelope motif at that time, and the tail of the antelope merging into an uraeus. References: Giveon 1988, 40:30; Keel 1997, Aphek 6. NO. 18. SCARAB (Fig. 14.4:3)

Reg. No. 12039/80; Locus 1200 Material: Enstatite Dimensions: L. 13.0 mm, W. 8.0 mm, H. 5.0 mm Description: Features: B6/ O/d8 Base: Inside a spiral border, an anra formula comprising five signs: 9;, an unrecognizable sign, mn, ;, n. Discussion: Anra formula is a group name for several types of unreadable inscriptions where the main signs are: ; n r ;. Although many have tried to interpret the inscriptions (for a summary of the different suggestions see, Richards 2001:150-160), the meaning of these inscriptions remains unknown (Ben-Tor 1997, 171-175). anra formula makes it first appearance during the Middle 455

N IR LALKIN

Fig. 14.5: Scarab from Area X (No. 16); Scarabs from Area G (Nos. 17-19).

456

CHAPTER 14: SCARABS AND OTHER SEAL -AMULETS

Bronze Age (Hornung and Stahelin 1976, 51; Tufnell 1984, 121; Richards 2001:33-34). The inscription on the Aphek scarab has a unique feature. First, it uses the unrecognized sign (second from top), and second, the arm sign (second from bottom) has a particular shape with its open end turned inward and not to the top as in most anra formulas (for example: Tufnell 1984, pl. 16: 1698, 1726, 1728). There are few scarabs with the same features: (Tufnell 1984, pl. 16: 1705, 1719, 1721, 1748). All these scarabs are probably the product of the same workshop active during the last stages of the Middle Bronze Age. Date: MB III is the preferred date based on parallels. References: Giveon 1988, 42:29; Keel 1997, Aphek 5. NO. 19. SCARAB (Fig. 14.5:4)

Reg. No. 12066/80; Locus 1200 Material: Enstatite Dimensions: L. 18.0 mm, W. 13.0 mm, H. 4.0 mm Features: HC15/ EP3/12 Base: A falcon-headed figure of the god Re, holding a w3s sceptre and a sun disk above its head, facing a Maat feather. Below, a nb sign. Discussion: The god Re, standing and holding a w3s sceptre was a common design in the art of Ramesside scarabs. It can stand in front of an uraeus (Macdonald, Starkey and Harding 1932: Pls. 50:89, 52:160; Weinstein 1993. Fig. 166:4; Macalister 1912: Pls. 206:53, 207:34), a Maat feather (Macdonald, Starkey and Harding 1932: Pls. 55:288, 57:380) or alone (Petrie 1930. Pl. 12:167; Macdonald, Starkey and Harding 1932: Pls. 57:346). Although all of the scarabs cited here date to the Ramesside period, this composition might have appeared already during the last phase of the XVIIIth Dynasty. An impression of a scarab with the god Re standing alone and holding a w3s sceptre was found at Qatna which was destroyed by the Hittites around 1330 BCE and as far as we know was not rebuilt until the Iron Age (Ahrens 2004, 9-11 and fig.15). Other examples were found at Tell el-Amarna (Petrie 1894, Pl. 15:139, 140, 142). The impression from Qatna and the scarabs from Tell el-Amarna suggest an early date for the beginning of this composition. Nevertheless, the majory of scarabs with the similar composition are found in Ramesside contexts. The scarab from Aphek has a head type (HC15) that dates the scarab to the XIXth Dynasty (Brandl 2003, 255-257)8. Date: Based on the head type and on parallels, the scarab is dated to the XIXth Dynasty. References: Giveon 1988, 42:31; Keel 1997, Aphek 7. REFERENCES Ahrens, A. 2004. Skarabäen und Skarabäenabdrücke aus Tall Tall Mišrife / Qatna. Ugarit-Forschungen 35:1-27. Anthes, R. 1959. Mit Rahineh 1955. Philadelphia. Ben-Tor, D. 1997. The relations between Egypt and Palestine in the Middle Kingdom as reflected by contemporary Canaanite scarabs. Israel Exploration Journal 47:162-189.

8. While I disagree with Brandl's view that the scarabs originate in Canaan, I do accept his dating to the XIXth Dynasty. I believe that this type of head, as well as other types, was used both by Egyptian and Canaanite craftsmen.

457

N IR LALKIN

Ben-Tor, D. 2003. Egypto-Levantine relations and chronology in the Middle Bronze Age. Scarab Research. In: Bietak, M., ed. The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millenium B.C. II. Wien. pp. 239-248. Bliss, F.J. and Macalister, R.A.S. 1902. Excavations in Palestine during the Years 1898-1900. London. Brandl, B. 1979. The scarabs. In: Dothan, T., ed. Excavations at the Cemetery of Deir el-Balaú. (Qedem 10) Jerusalem. pp. 24-25, 44-45, 83-91. Brandl, B. 1980. Scarabs and Scaraboids from the Beth Shemesh Jewellery Hoard. The Israel Museum News 16:80-82. Brandl, B. 1993. Scarabs, a Scaraboid and a Scarab Impression from Area G (1968-1970). In: Dothan, M. and Porath, Y., eds. Ashdod V. Excavation of Area G. The Fourth-Sixth Seasons of Excavations 1968-1970 (‘Atiqot 23). Jerusalem. pp. 129-142. Brandl, B. 2003. The Cape Gelidonya Shipwreck scarabs reconsidered. In: Bietak, M., ed. The Synchronisation of civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millenium B.C. II. Wien:249-261. Brandl, B. 2004. Scarabs and Plaques Bearing Royal Names of the Early XXth Egyptian Dynasty Excavated in Canaan. From Sethnakht to Ramesses IV. In: Bietak, M. and Czerny, E, eds. Scarabs of the Second Millenium BC from Egypt, Nubia, Crete and the Levant. Chronological and Historical Implications. Wien. pp. 57-71. Dothan, T. 1982. The Philistines and their Material Culture. Jerusalem. Macalister, R.A.S. 1912. The excavation of Gezer III. London. Giveon, R. 1978a. Fouilles et travaux de l’Université de Tel-Aviv. Découvertes égyptiennes récentes. Bulletin de la Société Française d’Egyptologie 81:6-17. Giveon, R. 1978b. Two unique Egyptian inscriptions from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 5:188-191. Giveon, R. 1988. Scarabs from Recent Excavations in Israel. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 83) FribourgGöttingen. Horn, S.H. 1965. Shechem. History and excavations of a Palestinian city. Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux 18:284-306. Horn, S.H. 1966. Scarabs and Scarab Impressions from Shechem II. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 25:48-56. Jaeger, B. 1982. Essai de classification et datation des scarabées Menkhéperrê (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. Series Archaeologica 2). Fribourg-Göttingen. Keel, O. 1994. Studien zu Stemplesiegeln aus Palästina/Israel. Band IV. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 135) Freiburg-Göttingen. Keel, O. 1995. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel. Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit, Einleitung. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. Series Archaeologica 10) Freiburg-Göttingen. Keel, O. 1997. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel. Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit, Katalog. Band I. Von Tell Abu Farağ bis Atlit. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. Series Archaeologica 13) Freiburg-Göttingen. Kirkbride, D. 1965. Appendix E. Scarabs. In: Kenyon, K.M. Excavations at Jericho II. The Tombs Excavated in 1955-8. London. pp. 580-655. Kochavi, M. 1989. Aphek-Antipatris. Five Thousand Years of History. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew) Ory, J. 1944. A Late Bronze Age Tomb at Tell Jerishe. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 10:55-57. Petrie, F. W. M. 1894. Tell el Amarna . London. Petrie, F. W. M. 1930. Beth-Pelet I. London. 458

CHAPTER 14: SCARABS AND OTHER SEAL -AMULETS

Richards, F. 2001. The Anra Scarab: An Archaeological And Historical Approach. (BAR International Series 919) Oxford. Rowe, A. 1936. A Catalogue of Egyptian Scarabs, Scaraboids, Seals and Amulets in the Palestinian Archaeological Museum. Cairo. Tufnell, O., Inge, C.H. and Harding, L. 1940. Lachish II (Tell ed Duweir): The Fosse Temple. London. Tufnell, O. 1958. Lachish IV: The Bronze Age. London. Tufnell O. 1973. The Middle Bronze Age Scarab-seals from Burials on the Mound at Megiddo. Levant 5:69-82. Macdonald, E., Starkey, J.L. and Harding, L. 1932. Beth-Pelet II: Beth-Pelet Cemetery. London. pp. 22-32. Tufnell O. 1975. Seal Impressions from Kahûn town and Uronarti Fort. A Comparison. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 61:67-90. Tufnell, O. 1984. Studies on Scarab Seals. Volume II. Scarab Seals and Their Contribution to History in the Early Second Millennium B.C. Warminster. Tufnell, O. and Ward, W.A. 1966. Relations between Byblos, Egypt and Mesopotamia at the End of the Third Millenium B.C. A study of the Montet jar. Syria 43:165-241. Uehlinger, C. 1988. Der Amun-Tempel Ramses’ III. in P3 Knan, seine südpalästinischen Tempelgüter und der Übergang von der Ägypter-zur Philisterherrschaft: ein Hinweis auf einige wenig beachtete Skarabäen. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 104:6-25. Ward, W. A. 1978. Studies on Scarab Seals. Volume I. Pre-12th Dynasty Scarab Amulets. Warminster. Ward, W.A. 1993. Review of Giveon 1988. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 51:155-157. Weinstein, J. M. 1993. The scarabs, plaques, seals and rings. In: James, F. W. and McGovern, P. E., eds. The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth-Shean: A Study of Levels VII and VIII. Philadelphia. pp. 221-225.

459

CHAPTER 15

THE INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE EGYPTIAN RESIDENCE: A REASSESSMENT Nadav Na’aman and Yuval Goren1

Eight cuneiform tablets, two Egyptian inscriptions and a fragment of a Hittite sealing (Table 15.1) were found in the excavations of Building 1104 (Palace VI) at Tel Aphek (For additional discussions of these objects see: Singer 1983a; Kochavi 1990: xiv-xix, Pls. 29-31 Goren et al. 2006; for additional bibliography see Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006:29-38). The diversity in the kinds of documents (lexical and administrative tablets, letters, a bulla, a faience seal and a faience plaque) and languages in which they were written, Sumerian, Akkadian, Canaanite, Egyptian and Hittite, is unique for any Late Bronze Age site in Canaan, especially since the residence was quite small (ca. 400 m 2). Excavation of other much larger LB Canaanite palaces has yielded no more than a few cuneiform texts, with the notable exception of Kāmid el-Lōz, where nine cuneiform tablets have been discovered. However, the latter site was the main Egyptian centre of northern Canaan and its prominent place in the Egyptian administrative system, unlike the residence of Tel Aphek (not mentioned in any known texts), is well documented. Indeed, the diversity of texts and languages discovered at Tel Aphek, unparalleled at other Late Bronze Canaanite sites, calls for an historical explanation. The documents from Aphek must have originally been kept in its upper storey which, when it collapsed, were scattered throughout the residence. They have all been previously discussed and published in detail, so only a short presentation of each document is necessary in this study. This chapter surveys these inscriptions with regard to their textual evidence, their interpretation, and their probable places of origin as indicated by petrographic analyses of their clays and tempers.

ANALYSES: MATERIALS AND METHODS Petrographic examination of the cuneiform tablets and the Hittite bulla followed the preparation processes and method advocated by Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman (2004:4-22)2. Microphotographs of the thinsections (Figs. 15.1-15.6) are published on page 423. Tel Aphek is located in an area dominated by brown alluvial soils, or vertisols (Chapter 20), the soils of valleys and plains that developed on ancient alluvium of terra rossa in Mediterranean climatic zones. Their colours are typically dark tan; often they have reddish to dark grey shades due to their high iron content (Ravikovitch 1981:153-174). To the east, hard limestone and dolomite of the Bina Formation (Turonian) are exposed. This lithology is typically covered by terra rossa soils. 1. Na’aman authored the epigraphic aspects while Goren did the petrographic study. This chapter was submitted for publication in 2004. Although the article by Goren et al. appeared in 2006, it was based on this and not the reverse. 2. A petrographic study of the Tel Aphek texts was carried out as part of the research project: Provenance Study of the Corpus of Cuneiform Tablets from Eretz-Israel, supported by Israel Science Foundation Grant No. 817/02-25.0. The authors wish to thank the late Prof. M. Kochavi of the Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures, Tel Aviv University, H. Katz, Head of the National Treasuries Division of the Israel Antiquities Authority, and O. MischBrandl, Curator of Chalcolithic and Bronze Age Antiquities at the Israel Museum, for permitting samples of the tablets and the Hittite bulla to be analyzed.

460

CHAPTER 15: T HE I NSCRIPTIONS

FROM THE

E GYPTIAN R ESIDENCE

The petrographic study of selected pottery vessels from Tel Aphek (Chapter 10) indicates that brown alluvial or terra rossa soils (which cannot be differentiated in petrographic thin sections of ceramics) were constantly used as raw material for ceramic production at the site. Matrices of these ceramics contain high proportions of quartzitic silt with high contents of heavy minerals including hornblende, mica, feldspar, zircon, epidote and opaque minerals. Quartz also appears in sand-sized fractions, together with some limestone and nari (a local name for the hard calcareous crust capping calcareous formations in sub-humid Mediterranean zones of the southern Levant). The external source of silt-sized quartz grains is considered to be an aeolian contribution to the soil. Since the largest quantity of aeolian dust occurs in soils that developed on hard limestone and dolomitic limestone, in which residual material released from dissolution of rocks is only about 2% (Adan-Bayewitz and Wieder 1992). This overall profile is expected to represent local ceramic production at Tel Aphek. TABLE 15.1. THE INSCRIPTIONS Object Tablet, lexical text

Locus 1137

Reg. No. 5837/1

IAA Reg. No.# 90-251

Tablet, trilingual (Sumerian-AkkadianCanaanite) prism, list of liquids Tablet

1137

8151/1

90-254

1137

8552/1

Tablet

1137

8436/1

Tablet

1721

52060/1

Tablet, administrative

1137

5936/1

90-252

Tablet, letter from Ugarit 1721

52055/1

90-271

Fragment of tablet of unclear subject (letter dealing with real estate?) Bulla, in Hittite Finger ring, faience Egyptian plaque, faience

2753

27386/1

90-212

2753 2731 3456

27640/1 27655/70 33400/80

90-268 90-269 90-272

References Rainey 1975:125-128; Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006:29-31; Cohen 2008:85a Rainey 1976:137-139; Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006:31-32

Fig. 15.1; 15.7:1

Rainey 1976:139; Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006:32-33 Rainey 1976:140; Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006:33 Owen 1981:15; Singer 1983a:26; Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006:38 Rainey 1975:128; Kochavi 1990:29; Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006:31 Owen 1981; Arnaud 1981/82:214; Singer 1983a:22-26; Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006:35-38 Hallo 1981; Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2002:33-34

15.7:3

Singer 1977; 1983b: 5, Note 4 Giveon 1978:190 Giveon 1978; 1990

15.6; 15.8:2 15.8:3 15.8:4

15.2; 15.7:2

15.7:4 Not illustrated 15.3; 15.7:5 15.4; 15.7:6 15.5; 15.8:1

TWO LEXICAL TABLETS Two lexical tablets were discovered in the excavation of Tel Aphek. One (Aphek 1: IAA Reg. No. 90-251), is fragmented and contains the lower left part of a lexical text (Rainey 1975:125-128; Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006:29-31). On it, two columns are preserved with Sumerian words in the left hand column followed by a double Glossenkeil and a column of Akkadian words (Fig. 15.7:1). The Sumerian sequence of words includes some agricultural terms (ploughing, wheat, spade?, ox) as well as some additional nouns and adjectives (god, hand, large, battle?). Most of the Akkadian words are broken, but the three extant words may be restored thus: gišmar : gi-[iš?-mar?-ru?], ‘spade’ or gi-[dimmu], ‘spade’ (Cohen 2008:2005a); lú kúr : ta-a[m? -Æa? -ru?], ‘battle’ (Röllig et al. 1979:126), or ta-á[r ? gi? -gi?], ‘evildoer’ (Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006:30); gu4 : al-p[u], ‘ox’. The first restoration is based on the assumption that the determinative is included in the transcription (see below the writing d UTU-ši). The second restoration, if correct, indicates an unusual Akkadian equivalent for the Sumerian 461

NADAV NA’AMAN AND YUVAL GOREN

word. Another irregular trait in the Sumerian column is the complement -ši after dUTU (‘my Sun’, i.e., majesty). It reflects the influence of correspondence on the lexical, scribal tradition at Tel Aphek (Singer 1983a:20-21). It may be assumed that originally there was a third column with Canaanite words, as in the second lexical tablet (see below). Petrographic examination of this tablet reveals it was made of terra rossa soil with sand-sized inclusions of rounded quartz, nari and limestone (Fig. 15.1). The firing temperature is estimated at 800 oC (due to the alteration of hornblende into oxyhornblende and partial decomposition of calcite in inclusions that occur at this temperature). As stated above, the combination of terra rossa soil with this inclusion suit is typical of local ceramic production. Although terra rossa soil is widespread, the mineralogical composition of the silt and sand within it is particularly characteristic of the western piedmont of the Central Hill Country. Indeed, distribution of this petrographic group in ceramic assemblages is typical of the western foothills of the Judaean Incline (cf. Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004:284-285, with references). Hence a local origin for this object is readily suggested, indicating that the raw materials used for the production of this tablet are found within the exploitable range of Tel Aphek (for the definition and discussion on the term ‘local’, see Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004:4-9). The second text (Aphek 3: IAA 90-254) is a fragment of a prism on which five incomplete lines are preserved (Rainey 1976:137-139; Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006:31-32) in three columns (Fig. 15.7:2). It contains a trilingual (Sumerian-Akkadian-Canaanite) list of liquids: water (Canaanite mu-mi), wine (Canaanite ye-nu), oil (Canaanite word missing) and honey (Canaanite [d]u-uš-pu). Petrographically it is similar to Aphek 1 (Fig. 15.2) and should also be considered of local origin. A fragment of a trilingual (Sumerian-Akkadian-Canaanite) lexical text, the first two columns of which appear in the ïar-ra = Æubullu Mesopotamian series, was discovered at Late Bronze Ashkelon (Huehnergard and van Soldt 1999). However, unlike the tablet from Ashkelon, the trilingual lexical text of Aphek does not belong to any known series. The addition of a Canaanite (the vernacular language of Canaan) column to the Sumerian and Akkadian columns may be compared to the addition of the vernacular language in trilingual (Sumerian-Akkadian-Hurrian) and quadrilingual (Sumerian-Akkadian-Hurrian-Ugaritic) lexical texts from Ugarit, and trilingual (Sumerian-Akkadian-Hittite) texts from Boghazköy. In this context, mention is made of an Egyptian-Akkadian vocabulary discovered at Amarna (EA 368). However, unlike other lists in which the Sumerian column is written on the left side and the vernacular language on the right, in the Amarna vocabulary, Egyptian appears on the left side, indicating that it was written as an aid for learning Akkadian (Izre’el 1997:77-81). The double Glossenkeils written in the two lexical tablets of Aphek are usual at Ugarit and Phoenician sites, but are unusual for southern Canaan. By contrast, the single Glossenkeils that appear on the tablet from Ashkelon are common in southern Canaan (Artzi 1963:33-35).

AN ADMINISTRATIVE TEXT AND THREE ADDITIONAL FRAGMENTS Two fragmented tablets (Aphek 4: Reg. No. 8552/1; Aphek 5: Reg. No. 8436/1) discovered at Aphek (Figs. 15.7:3 and 15.7:4) are so small, and the inscribed signs so few, that their character cannot be established (Rainey 1976:139-140; Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006:32-33). A third tablet (Aphek 8: Reg. No. 52060/1) is fragmentary and in a fragile state of preservation (Owen 1981:15; Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006:38). It is mostly uninscribed, except for a few signs that open three lines and include the measurements PA ( parīsu) and BANES (½ imdu) possibly followed by fragmented personal names.3 Singer (1983a:26) has suggested the tablet was prepared for further writing in the future. 3. It is impossible to discern anything from the published photograph of the tablet.

462

CHAPTER 15: T HE I NSCRIPTIONS

FROM THE

E GYPTIAN R ESIDENCE

The fourth tablet (Aphek 2: IAA 90-252) is typically administrative and contains the beginning of four lines (Rainey 1975:128; Kochavi 1990:29): (1) “one thousand x [.…]”; (2) “four hundred (measures of) w[heat?? …]” (G[IG meš??...]); (3) “two hundred c[attle? .…] (a[l? -pu? -ú?])”;4 (4) “five thousand [….]”. It indicates that at least part of the administration at Tel Aphek was conducted (i.e., written) in Akkadian. Petrographic analysis of this tablet indicates that it is identical in clay, temper and firing temperature to Aphek 1 and Aphek 3 (Fig. 15.3). Therefore, it should be understood as a locally produced document. There is a small corpus of administrative texts recovered from sites in Canaan from different periods, which provides context for the Tel Aphek tablets. Six 15th-14th century BCE administrative tablets have been discovered to date at Tel Taanach, one tablet at Tel Hazor and one tablet at Tel Jericho (see literature cited by Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006: 82, 86, 135-139, 142-144, 148-149, 150-151). Administrative tablets of the 13th century BCE have so far only been discovered at Tel Aphek.

THE LETTER FROM UGARIT The letter (Aphek 7: IAA 90-271; Fig. 15.7:6), of unbaked clay, the only complete tablet found at Tel Aphek, has 41 lines written on both sides and on its edges (Owen 1981; Arnaud 1981/82:214; Singer 1983a:22-26; Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006:35-38). It was sent by TakuÆlinu, a high official (sākinu) in the court of Ugarit, to ïaya, the Egyptian governor of Canaan (For the offices, careers and date of the two officials see Singer 1983b:6-23; 1999:654-655; van Soldt 2001:588-590). Its contents may be summarized as follows: In the past Adduya, possibly a man of Acco (line 33 LÚ [A?]-ak-ka-a-a; Arnaud 1981/82:214) and a commercial agent of TakuÆlinu, delivered about 15 metric tons (250 parīsu) of wheat to Turshimati, probably a commercial agent of ïaya, in the Egyptian centre of Jaffa ([uruIa-p]u-ú) (lines 13-17). The wheat was sent at the request of ïaya who promised to give back the same amount of wheat (lines 18-21). In return for his good will in delivering the wheat, TakuÆlinu asks ïaya to fulfill a certain request (mēreštu) not specified in the tablet (lines 22-27). In light of the Amarna letters, we may guess the ‘request’ refers to a dispatch of gold. However, ïaya neither gave back the 250 parīsu of wheat nor fulfilled TakuÆlinu’s ‘request’, and the latter implores him to keep his promise (lines 28-33). TakuÆlinu further asks ïaya to deliver (favourable) judgment in a financial affair that Adduya, his agent, had with a certain ‘enemy’ (lines 34-38). The background of the dispute is not specified in the letter. The letter is closed by details of the present that TakuÆlinu dispatched to ïaya: one hundred shekels of blue wool and ten shekels of red wool (lines 39-41). The delivery of wheat from Ugarit to Canaan is exceptional. According to historical records it was Egypt that supplied large quantities of grain to Hatti in the closing decades of the Hittite Empire, when there was a severe food shortage and famine in vast areas of Anatolia (Klengel 1974; Singer 1983b:4-5; 1999:715-719). Noteworthy also is that a man of Acco (Adduya) was the agent of the prefect (sākinu) of Ugarit for commercial affairs. A maritime connection between Ugarit and Acco is attested in Ugaritic tablets (Heltzer 1978:151; Xella 1995:257-258; Vidal 2006:271-272), and TakuÆlinu must have deliberately selected a local Canaanite agent to promote his transactions in the land of Canaan. In addition to delivery of grain from Ugarit to Canaan, the letter has some additional remarkable traits. One, for example is the clay of the tablet, which unlike all other international letters, remained unbaked. Among its orthographic and linguistic peculiarities the writing ša-ki-LUGAL for the title sākinu (line 5), the omission of the determinative URU before the city Acco (line 33), and the unusual logogram SA 5 (instead of ïÉ.MED/ME.DA) for tabarru (line 40), are noteworthy. Exceptional also 4. Compare the broken sign in line 3 with the sign al in the lexical text in the photograph published by Kochavi 1990:29.

463

NADAV NA’AMAN AND YUVAL GOREN

Fig. 15.7: Tablets from Tel Aphek.

464

CHAPTER 15: T HE I NSCRIPTIONS

FROM THE

E GYPTIAN R ESIDENCE

are the expressions “my father (and) my lord” (line 2) and “your son (and) your servant” (line 5) in the introductory portion. They do not fit hierarchical relations between the Ugaritic sākinu and the Egyptian Governor of Canaan. Also remarkable is TakuÆlinu’s twice repeated request (mēreštu) from ïaya whose content is not specified in the letter. Finally, the discovery of a letter sent to ïaya, the Egyptian Governor of Canaan, at Tel Aphek is unexpected since the governor’s seat was at the Egyptian centre of Gaza. Petrographic analysis of this tablet reveals the same matrix and inclusions as all the previous documents, but the minerals are lacking any sign of change due to heating (Fig. 15.4). Moreover, as tested in the laboratory on a tiny fragment of its clay, it crumbles easily when wetted with distilled water. Hence, this tablet was obviously made at Aphek and was never fired. Thus, it is either a copy of an original Ugaritic letter deposited in another place, or a literary composition that imitates authentic Ugaritic letters. In light of the many exceptional traits noted above, it is assumed that the letter is a literary output based on various authentic elements the scribe borrowed from the reality of his time. Such model letters intended to teach young scribes and to serve for future correspondence are known from Egypt, in particular from the Ramesside period of the XIXth-XXth Dynasties (Caminos 1954; 1982: 243-244 with earlier literature). Recently Na’aman (2002:80-81) has suggested that some letters discovered in the Amarna archive served as a teaching model. Thus, the assumption that the Aphek letter is a kind of a model letter fits well with what is known to have been a common practice at Egyptian scribal schools in the time of the New Kingdom.

A FRAGMENT OF A TABLET OF UNCERTAIN CONTENT Hallo (1981) published a fragment of a tablet from Tel Aphek (Aphek 6: IAA 90-212) in which only the ends of the lines are preserved (Fig. 15.8:1). The script of the tablet looks archaic compared to all other tablets from Tel Aphek and Hallo’s decipherment of the eight line ends on the obverse and five on the reverse sides, suggested it is a letter dealing with real estate. More recently, Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders (2006:33-34), have suggested that it is a school text. The content of the tablet remains unclear and we concur with Edzard’s (1985:252) judgment that the text is “völlig unbestimmbar”. Petrographic examination of this tablet reveals the matrix is dense, appears yellowish-tan in planepolarized light, and contains hematite particles. Inclusions are made of badly sorted single rhombs of clear, idiomorphic dolomite, ranging in size between 25μm and 250μm (Fig. 15.5). Based on an extensive body of reference material (Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004:262-264, with references), this petrographic group is identified as originating from clay of the upper member of the Moza formation, mixed with dolomitic sand that was quarried from the capping ‘Amminadav formation. This petrographic group has been defined from pottery assemblages deriving from sites of different periods spread throughout the central hill country anticline. It has been recognized in tablets from the El Amarna archive, where it is typical of those sent by ‘Abdi-ïeba of Jerusalem and Lab’ayu of Shechem (Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004:262-269 with references). The origin of a tablet from the highlands east of Aphek may support Hallo’s identification of this text as a letter. Whether it was sent from Shechem or from Jerusalem, the two main urban centres of the central hill country, remains unknown.

A HITTITE BULLA The bulla (IAA 90-268; Fig. 15.8:2), about half of which was preserved, carries the stamp of a Hittite prince or princess whose name probably begins with Ar[…] (Singer 1977; 1983b 5, n. 4). It was impressed on some object, a document, perhaps a royal gift or an object of commerce. This is the only royal Hittite 465

NADAV NA’AMAN AND YUVAL GOREN

bulla discovered so far outside the Hittite Empire. Singer dated it to the second half of the 13th century BCE, associating it with the signing of a piece treaty between Egypt and Hatti (1258 BCE). The ultimate origin of the bulla was expected to be one of the Hittite administrative centres of the 13th century BCE, namely Bogazköy (Hattusha), Carchemish or Ras Shamra (Ugarit). Surprisingly, however, petrographic analysis demonstrates the material of the bulla was clay local to Tel Aphek (Fig. 15.6) and identical to that of the above-discussed lexical tablets. These results were checked against a comparative database from other research projects so as to ensure that the tablets could not have come from those other locales. Two sets of data on clay associated with Bogazköy were used for comparison. One comes from the geology of its environs, which are characterized by a Mesozoic ophiolitic suit containing limestone, spilite, dolerite, basalt, marl, radiolarite and serpentine (Ketin 1962:74). Nearby there are exposures of Neogene continental deposits of various lithologies, and Eocene flysch containing mainly sandstones and sandy schists (Ketin 1963:48). The other is obtained from the Hittite tablets in the El Amarna archive (Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004:31-32) from Bogazköy5, which were referenced for clays used for tablet production at the site. Petrographic analysis of a letter (tablet) from the King of Carchemish to the King of Ugarit (RS 8.333; Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004:56-57) was the reference for clay used at Carchemish for document production. A second set of data for reference is found in the geology of the region between Gaziantep and Carchemish. General as well as detailed geological mappings of that area indicate sediments around the sites and upstream along the Euphrates are quite homogeneous (Tolun and Pamir 1975; Ulu 1996a; 1996b). Carchemish, in particular, is located on recent fluvial sediments from the Euphrates. It lies next to the Upper Eocene Gaziantep Formation, which is composed of silty, clayey, chert bearing limestone or chalk with glauconite concentrations. North of Carchemish, one finds Quaternary ‘old alluvium’ with partly consolidated clay, sand and gravel. Since the petrographic traits of reference materials from Bogazköy, Ras Shamra, and Carchemish (as well as the geological setting of these sites), are markedly different from the materials of this bulla, this unexpected conclusion is well established. It allows for much speculation in accounting for the presence at Tel Aphek of a bulla made of local clay, bearing a Hittite inscription. One scenario for example, could suggest a Hittite prince or princess arrived at Tel Aphek with his or her stamp and used it to seal a certain object. For some reason, the bulla was broken and left at the site. Another scenario could suggest this personage was in the environs of Tel Aphek and sealed an object, perhaps a present, and dispatched it to an Egyptian official located at Tel Aphek. A third possible explanation for its presence at the site could be that it was a counterfeit object made by an expert artisan who knew what a royal Hittite seal should look like. The ramifications of any these scenarios are manifold but remain, it should be emphasized, completely within the realm of speculation. Accordingly, no conclusive explanation for this unique find can be suggested.

AN EGYPTIAN FAIENCE PLAQUE6 Giveon (1978; 1990) published a small faience tablet with royal names and epithets, probably of Ramesses II, and the Egyptian goddess, Isis of Dendera (Fig. 15.8:3). Since similar plaques bearing the names of a pharaoh and a god (or gods) were often placed as foundation offerings in temples, he assumed this plaque was a foundation offering for a temple of Isis built in Aphek by Ramesses II. 5. A research project on the composition and provenance of the Hittite archives from Bogazköy and Kültepe, carried out by Y. Goren, J. Klinger and H. Mommsen is currently underway. Sixty five tablets, now stored in the Vorderasiatisches Museen in Berlin, were already studied. They are the source of comparative data necessary for the present examination. 6. The authors are grateful to Dr. Deborah Sweeney (Tel Aviv University) for her useful comments on this object.

466

CHAPTER 15: T HE I NSCRIPTIONS

FROM THE

E GYPTIAN R ESIDENCE

Fig. 15.8: 1) A cuneiform tablet; 2) A Hittite bulla; 3) An Egyptian faience plaque; 4) An Egyptian faience ring..

The decipherment of the text published by Giveon was slightly corrected by Wimmer (1990:1094) who read it as follows: “The Good God [wsr]-M3‘t-R [stp-n-R‘], given life, beloved of the one Great-of-Magic, Lady of the sky, the one in Dendera?. Son of Ra R‘-[ms-sw mry]-Imn, like Ra, beloved of Isis the great, mother of the god, the one in Dendera? ”. As indicated by the inscription, the faience tablet was originally deposited at Dendera, and does not refer to an Egyptian temple at Tel Aphek (Weinstein 1981:19-20; Wimmer 1990:1095; 1998:103; Higginbotham 2000:45). It was found out of its original context in a 10th century BCE silo (Giveon 1978:188-189, N. 1) and hence the time at which it was brought to Tel Aphek and its function at the site, remain unknown. Wimmer (1990:1095) tentatively suggested it might have been used in some ceremonial context, but there is no corroborative evidence for such a scenario (Higginbotham 2000:45).

A FAIENCE FINGER RING This object (Fig. 15.8:4), found in Locus 2731 in the destruction debris of the Governor’s Residence (Palace VI) in Stratum X12, belongs to a large group of scarabs and rings expressing devotion to a specific god (Chapter 14 No. 10). Giveon (1978:190) read the inscription as follows: “Amon-Re abundant in every favour, praise and joy”. It is uncertain how this object came to be at Tel Aphek, but Giveon suggested that 467

NADAV NA’AMAN AND YUVAL GOREN

it made its way there through the medium of commerce, or that the ring was worn by an Egyptian who traveled to Canaan and deposited it in a dedication ceremony at Tel Aphek. However, since no evidence of any installation of cultic nature was encountered in the residence, the conditions of how the ring came to be deposited where it was found, remain obscure. Be that as it may, no cult place was discovered in the excavations of the residence and the original context of the ring remains unknown.

A REASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE TEL APHEK DOCUMENTS The diversity in the kind of texts and languages of the documents discovered in the relatively small residence of Aphek is without parallel in second millennium BCE sites excavated so far in the land of Canaan. It calls for some explanation. To give context to the discussion it is first necessary to compare the corpus of Akkadian texts unearthed at Tel Aphek with that of Kumidi (Kāmid el-Lōz), the Egyptian centre located in the Beqa> of Lebanon. Nine tablets and fragments from Kumidi have thus far been published. Eight are letters exchanged with neighbouring rulers (Edzard 1970; 1976; 1982; Wilhelm 1973; 1982; Arnaud 1991; 2003; Huehnergard 1996). Most or all of the letters were written in the second half of the 14th century BCE, shortly after the Amarna period (Na’aman 1988:179-191; Huehnergard 1996:98-100.). They demonstrate the centrality of Kumidi in the Egyptian system of government of northern Canaan after the conquest of êumur and Ullasa by Aziru of Amurru. The governor of Kumidi supervised northern Canaan and the coast of Lebanon, and whenever necessary, local rulers addressed him as the highest Egyptian authority of this vast region. The ninth tablet is a school text, the only tablet unearthed so far written at the site (Edzard 1980; Hallo 1992:80, Note 109; Na’aman 2005). Comparison of the two groups of texts emphasizes the differences between the two sites. Whereas all but one of the tablets from Kāmid el-Lōz are letters dispatched to the site, the tablets from Aphek are of different types and were all, but one (Aphek 6), written there. They indicate that Egyptian officials controlled the two sites, but that Tel Aphek fulfilled a function different from that provided by the Egyptian centre of Kumidi. During the 14th century BCE, Tel Aphek was annexed to the territory of the nearby Egyptian centre of Jaffa, thereby expanded the latter’s territory, extending it from the sand dunes south of the city northwards and eastwards to the sources of the Yarkon River. In the 13th century BCE an Egyptian residence was built on the ruins of the Canaanite palace at Tel Aphek. Since Jaffa was the harbour and main centre of government and supply, Tel Aphek must have filled a different function within this political entity. Tel Aphek at the headwaters of the Yarkon River, on the main north-south road that traversed the Land of Canaan (the so-called Via Maris), was selected by the Egyptians due to its strategic position and its location in the centre of a fertile agricultural region (Chapter 20). The inscriptions discovered at Tel Aphek point to an additional aspect of the Egyptian occupation of the site. The scholarly texts, some even trilingual, discovered in the residence prove a school for scribes of Canaanite origin was established there in the 13th century BCE. Part of their scribal activity was to produce administrative texts in Akkadian. Significantly, no text written in Egyptian hieratic has been discovered at Tel Aphek. It may be recalled that scribal activity in the time of the XIXth Egyptian Dynasty increased due to tightening of relations between Egypt and Hatti and the extensive correspondence held between the two royal courts after the 21st year of Ramesses II (1259 BCE). It is suggested that, as part of their growing involvement in the affairs of the Land of Canaan and the annexation of some of its territories to their direct control, the Egyptians established a central school of cuneiform study at Tel Aphek. Is it also possible that the Egyptians tried to monopolize the training of local scribes in the land of Canaan, 468

CHAPTER 15: T HE I NSCRIPTIONS

FROM THE

E GYPTIAN R ESIDENCE

thereby increasing their supervision over Canaanite rulers. Apparently only later, possibly in the time of the XXth Dynasty, after the residence at Tel Aphek was destroyed and abandoned, did the Egyptians start promoting the use of hieratic for writing administrative texts in southern Canaan (Gilula 1976; Goldwasser 1982; 1984; 1991a; 1991b; Goldwasser and Wimmer 1999; Wimmer 2008, with earlier literature). This scenario, admittedly hypothetical, might explain the unique assemblage of texts written in cuneiform signs discovered at Tel Aphek and the replacement of cuneiform Akkadian by hieratic texts in later times. Singer (1983b:23) tentatively dated the letter from Ugarit to about 1230 BCE. Most of the references to TakuÆlinu are dated to the reign of ‘Ammi¨tamru II (ca. 1260-1235 BCE; Singer 1999:678-683) and there is no evidence that he was in office in the time of ‘Ammi¨tamru’s successor (van Soldt 2001:588-590). ïaya was probably appointed to his mission in Canaan in about the 34th year of Ramesses II (1246 BCE; Singer 1983b:21-22). In light of this information, the assumed original letter dispatched by TakuÆlinu to ïaya may be tentatively dated to ca. 1240 BCE, a date that is a terminus post quem for destruction of the Aphek residence. REFERENCES Adan-Bayewitz, D. and Wieder, M., 1992. Ceramics from Roman Galilee. A comparison of several techniques for fabric characterization. Journal of Field Archaeology 19:189-205. Arnaud, D. 1981/82. Conference et travaux. Annuaire de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études 90:210-215. Arnaud, D. 1991. Une lettre de Kamid-el-Loz. Semitica 40:7-16. Arnaud, D. 2003. Remarques sur une lettre de Kāmid el-Lōz / Kumidi de l’époque dite d’el-Amarna. Studi Miceni ed Egeo-Anatolici 45:125-127. Artzi, P. 1963. The ‘Glosses’ in the Amarna Tablets (and in Ugarit). Bar-Ilan. Annual of Bar-Ilan University I. Jerusalem. pp. 24-57. (Hebrew) Caminos, R.A. 1954. Late Egyptian Miscellanies. London. Caminos, R.A. 1982. Musterbriefe. In: Helck, W. and Otto, E., eds. Lexikon der Ägyptologie IV. Wiesbaden. pp. 243-244. Cohen, Y. 2008. Book Review: Cuneiform in Canaan: Cuneiform sources from the Land of Israel in ancient Times. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 349: 83-86. Edzard, D.O. 1970. Die Tontafeln von Kāmid el-Lōz. In: Edzard, D.O. et al., eds. Kāmid el-Lōz - Kumidi. Schriftdokumente aus Kāmid el-Lōz. (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 7). Bonn. pp. 55-62; Edzard, D.O. 1976. Ein Brief an den “Grossen” von Kumidi aus Kāmid el-Lōz. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 66:62-67. Edzard, D.O. 1980. Ein neues Tontafelfragment (Nr. 7) aus Kāmid el-Lōz. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 70:52-54. Edzard, D.O. 1982. Ein Brief an den “Grossen” von Kumidi aus Kāmid el-Lōz. In: Hachmann, R. et al., eds. Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in Kāmid el-Lōz in den Jahren 1971 bis 1974 (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 32). Bonn. pp. 131-135. Edzard, D.O. 1985. Amarna und die Archive seiner Korrespondenten zwischen Ugarit und Gaza. In: Amitai, J., ed. Biblical Archaeology Today. Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem April 1984. Jerusalem. pp. 248-259. Gilula, M. 1976. An inscription in Egyptian Hieratic from Lachish. Tel Aviv 3:107-108. Giveon, R. 1978. Two unique Egyptian inscriptions from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 5:188-191. Giveon, R. 1990. Egyptian inscriptions. In. Kochavi, M., ed. Aphek in Canaan. The Egyptian Governor’s Residence and Its Finds. (The Israel Museum, Catalogue No. 312). Jerusalem. p. xiv, pl. 30.

469

NADAV NA’AMAN AND YUVAL GOREN

Goldwasser, O. 1982. The Lachish Hieratic bowl once again. Tel Aviv 9:137-138. Goldwasser, O. 1984. Hieratic inscriptions from Tel Sera‘ in southern Canaan. Tel Aviv 11:77-93. Goldwasser, O. 1991a. An Egyptian scribe from Lachish and the Hieratic tradition of the Hebrew kingdoms. Tel Aviv 18:248-253. Goldwasser, O. 1991b. A fragment of an Hieratic ostracon from Tel Haror. Qadmoniot 24:19. (Hebrew) Goldwasser, O. and Wimmer, S. 1999. Hieratic fragments from Tell el-Far‘ah (South). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 313:39-42. Goren, Y., Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N. 2004. Inscribed in Clay. Provenance Study of the Amarna Letters and Other Near Eastern Texts. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 23) Tel Aviv. Goren, Y., Na’aman, N., Mommsen, H. and Finkelstein, I. 2007. Provenance study and re-evaluation of the cuneiform documents from the Egyptian Residency at Tel Aphek. Ägypten und Levante 16: 161-171. Hallo, W.W. 1981. A letter fragment from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 8:18-24. Hallo, W.W. 1992. The Syrian contribution to cuneiform literature and learning. In: Chavalas, M.W. and Hayes, J.L., eds. New Horizons in the Study of Ancient Syria. (Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 25) Malibu. pp. 69-88. Heltzer, M. 1978. Goods, Prices and the Organization of the Trade in Ugarit. Wiesbaden. Higginbotham, C.R. 2000. Egyptianization and Elite Emulation in Ramesside Palestine. Governance and Accommodation on the Imperial Periphery. (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 2) Leiden. Horowitz, W., Oshima, T. and Sanders, S. 2006. Cuneiform in Canaan. Cuneiform Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient Times. Jerusalem. Huehnergard, J. 1996. A Byblos letter, probably from Kāmid el-Lōz. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 86:97-113. Huehnergard, J. and van Soldt, W. 1999. A cuneiform lexical text from Ashkelon with a Canaanite column. Israel Exploration Journal 49:184-192. Izre’el, S. 1997. The Amarna Scholarly Tablets. (Cuneiform Monographs 9) Groningen. Ketin, I. 1962. 1:500,000 Ölçekli Türkiye Jeoloji Haritalsi, Explanatory Text of the Geological Map of Turkey, Sinop. Ankara. Ketin, I. 1963. 1:500,000 Ölçekli Türkiye Jeoloji Haritalsi, Explanatory Text of the Geological Map of Turkey, Kayseri. Ankara. Klengel, H. 1974. “Hungerjahre” in Hatti. Altorientalische Forschungen 1:165-174. Kochavi, M., ed. 1990. Aphek in Canaan. The Egyptian Governor’s Residence and Its Finds. (The Israel Museum, catalogue No. 312). Jerusalem. Na’aman, N. 1988. Biryawaza of Damascus and the date of the Kamid el-Lōz ‘Apiru letters. Ugarit-Forschungen 20:179-193. Na’aman, N. 2002. Dispatching Canaanite maidservants to the Pharaoh. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 39:76-82. Na’aman, N. 2005. On two tablets from Kāmid el-Lōz. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 42:312-317. Owen, D.I. 1981. An Akkadian letter from Ugarit at Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 8:1-17. Rainey, A.F. 1975. Two cuneiform fragments from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 2:125-129. Rainey, A.F. 1976. A tri-lingual cuneiform fragment from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 3:137-140. Ravikovitz, S. 1981. The Soils of Israel: Formation, Nature, and Properties. Tel-Aviv. (Hebrew with English summary) Röllig, W. 1979. M. Kochavi et al. Aphek Antipatris 1974-1977. The Inscriptions. Tel Aviv 1978. Die Welt des Orients 10:126-127. Singer, I. 1977. A Hittite hieroglyphic seal inscription from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 4:178-190. Singer, I. 1983a. The Aphek Inscriptions. Cathedra 27:19-26. (Hebrew) Singer, I. 1983b. TakuÆlinu and ïaya: Two governors in the Ugarit letter from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 10: 3-25. 470

CHAPTER 15: T HE I NSCRIPTIONS

FROM THE

E GYPTIAN R ESIDENCE

Singer, I. 1999. A political history of Ugarit. In: Watson, W.G.E. and Wyatt, N., eds. Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (Handbuch der Orientalistik I/39) Leiden. pp. 603-733. Tolun, N. and Pamir, H.N. 1975. 1:500,000 ölçekli A Türkiye Jeoloji Haritalsi, Hatay (with explanatory notes). Ankara. (Turkish and English) Ulu, Ü. 1996a. 1:100,000 ölçekli Açinsama Nitelikli Türkiye Jeoloji Haritalari Serisi No 43, Suruç – L 25 Paftasi. Ankara. (Turkish with English abstract) Ulu, Ü. 1996b. 1:100,000 ölçekli Açinsama Nitelikli Türkiye Jeoloji Haritalari Serisi No 42, Urfa – K 25 Paftasi. Ankara. (Turkish with English abstract) van Soldt, W. 2001. Studies on the sākinu-official (1). The spelling and the office holder at Ugarit. UgaritForschungen 33:579-599. Vidal, J. 2006. Ugarit and the southern Levantine sea-ports. Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient 49:269-279. Weinstein, J.M. 1981. The Egyptian Empire in Palestine. A Reassessment. Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research 241:1-28. Wilhelm, G. 1973. Ein Brief der Amarna-Zeit aus Kāmid el-Lōz (KL 72:600). Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 63:69-75. Wilhelm, G. 1982. Die Fortsetzungstafel eines Briefes aus Kāmid el-Lōz (KL 72:600). In: Hachmann, R. et al., eds. Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in Kāmid el-Lōz in den Jahren 1971 bis 1974 (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 32). Bonn. pp. 123-129. Wimmer, S. 1990. Egyptian temples in Canaan and Sinai. In: Israelit-Groll, S., ed. Studies in Egyptology Presented to Miriam Lichtheim. Jerusalem. pp. 1065-1106. Wimmer, S. 1998. (No) more Egyptian temples in Canaan and Sinai. In: Shirun-Grumach, I., ed. Jerusalem Studies in Egyptology. (Ägypten und Altes Testament 40). Wiesbaden. pp. 87-123. Wimmer S.J. 2008. A new Hieratic ostracon from Ashkelon. Tel Aviv 35: 65-72. Xella, P. 1995. Ugarit et les Phéniciens. Identité culturelle et rapports historiques. In: Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O., eds. Ugarit: Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung. Band I: Ugarit und seine Altorientalische Umwelt. Münster. pp. 239-266.

471

CHAPTER 16

A FRAGMENTARY TABLET BEARING AN UNKNOWN SCRIPT Itamar Singer

STRATIGRAPHIC CONTEXT In the first excavation seasons at Tel Aphek, an inscribed clay fragment (Reg. No. 47111.1) was found in an Early Iron Age context, Stratum X9, above Late Bronze Age strata.1 Stratum X9 (Locus 4800) is characterized by thick layers of ash containing organic material and a mixture of Middle Bronze, Late Bronze and Early Iron Age sherds, including some Philistine pottery. ‘Ashdoda’ type figurines, as well as Philistine pottery were also recovered from Stratum X10 in a nearby precinct, a series of pits with deposits thought to be contemporary or nearly contemporary with the Stratum X9 deposits (Chapter 6). This extensive burnt layer, lacking recognizable evidence of occupation, was identified by the excavators as a threshing floor covering the entire surface of the higher mound. It is sandwiched between Late Bronze Age fills and Iron Age II silos, and is roughly dated to the 11th century BCE (Beck and Kochavi 1985:30). Despite its clear stratigraphic situation, the fragment was not found in a sealed context, and therefore it might also be residual from an earlier level. Petrographic analysis performed by Goren (Chapter 17) indicates that its clay probably originated in Philistia.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TABLET FRAGMENT The ca. 35 x 30 mm fragment (Figs. 16.1-16.2) is probably the upper left corner of a rectangular clay tablet which was fired either deliberately or by accident when the threshing floor was scorched. The broken section reveals the method by which the tablet was modeled (Figs. 16.1c, 16.2c). A sheet of lightbrown clay was folded over and pressed together to form a plano-convex tablet ca. 12 mm thick. The inscribed obverse has a slightly convex surface, whereas the uninscribed reverse is flat. The writing continues on the partly preserved left edge and is cut abruptly (Figs. 16.1d, 16.2d). From the break to the preserved part of the reverse there is an eroded surface ca. 7 mm wide, which must have contained one or two more signs in each line. The flat reverse is coarse and bears traces of fingerprints (Fig. 16.1d). On the upper edge, there is a series of wedge-like incisions (Figs. 16.1b, Fig. 16.2b). This could be simply a decoration, or perhaps some kind of ‘tallying’, a rough summing up of units prior to writing a total on the tablet itself. Such a counting method has been noted, for example, on Linear B tablets (Bennett 1955:117). The three preserved lines of the inscription are divided by two guidelines. The first

1. The fragment was mentioned in preliminary publications (Kochavi 1981:80-81; Singer 1983:26) and a partial drawing was published in the catalogue of the Aphek exhibition at the Israel Museum (Kochavi 1990:xxiv). The publication of the fragment was first assigned to Prof. David Owen, who participated in the Aphek excavations and he later passed it on to me, for which I am grateful to him and to Prof. Kochavi. The photographs were made by Pavel Shrago and the drawings by Rodica Penchas, both of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University.

472

Fig. 16.1.

was drawn on the tablet, ca. 15 mm from its upper edge, before writing was begun. This is clearly shown by the word-divider, which cuts into the first guideline, separating the first and second compartments. Whether the second guideline was also drawn before writing, or only after the first line was already written, cannot be established. Both guidelines continue to the edge, not as simple prolongations of the long lines, but rather as subsequently added extensions. The vertical word-dividers take up the whole width of the line and divide it into rectangular compartments of varying size. Six compartments can be distinguished (numbered from I to VI), only one of which (IV) is fully preserved (Fig. 16.2d). The signs, numbered from 1 to 15, are written close to the upper margin of the compartment, and one of them, No. 11, actually cuts into the guide-line. Some of the signs nearly touch others, but unfortunately, none of them actually cuts into a neighbouring sign (which could have helped in establishing the direction of writing). The characters were impressed or punched into wet clay with a thin stylus. Consisting of short strokes without any curved lines, they resemble cuneiform signs more than linear scripts.2 This observation is best 2.

This observation supersedes the preliminary reports in which the fragment was described as linear.

473

Fig. 16.2.

demonstrated by the configuration of the composite signs, the trident-shaped No. 6 and the cross-shaped Nos. 2 and 11. Both were executed by four impressions of the stylus rather than by dragging two long intersecting lines. A wedge-like form is typical mainly for signs which may conceivably be identified as numerals (Nos. 8 and 12), less so in the remaining characters which lack a thickened head of a wedge. It is impossible to determine the original size and shape of the tablet, but the fact that it contained at least three lines seems to indicate a ‘page-shaped’ tablet, rather than an elongated ‘leaf-shaped’ (‘barshaped’) tablet (to use Linear A/B terminology). The latter form, which is found in the Aegean region and is also represented by the Tell Deir >Alla tablets and some of the Ugaritic tablets (including those from Beth-Shemesh and Tell Ta>anek), usually contains only one or two lines.

ORIENTATION AND DIRECTION OF READING How the tablet should be held for reading, whether as portrayed in the figures, or whether ‘upside down’, is not obvious. Several observations prompted me to opt for the first possibility: (1) The wedgelike incisions on the edge of the tablet (Figs. 16.1b, 16.2b), whatever their purpose, would be more ‘in place’ on the upper side of the tablet. (2) The first inscribed line has a guideline under it, but not above 474

CHAPTER 16: A FRAGMENTARY TABLET BEARING AN U NKNOWN SCRIPT

it. This is quite normal in ruled tablets, wherein the last line is usually followed by a guideline. (3) In impressed scripts, such as cuneiform, characters are closer to the upper edge of the register whereas in linear scripts, such as ruled Linear B tablets, characters ‘sit’ at the bottom of the register. Since, as noted above, the characters on this tablet are impressed and not drawn, the inscription looks more ‘natural’ in this position than it does upside-down. (4) The sharpened ends of the wedge-like signs would normally face downwards rather than upwards. In conclusion, I am quite confident that the fragment is the upper left corner of a tablet, and not its lower right corner. Establishing the direction of reading is more difficult. As noted above, I have painstakingly sought (by means of a stereoscopic microscope) evidence for overlapping (signs cutting into each other), but none of the marginal cases seems to be sufficiently convincing.3 My preference for a right-to-left direction is based mainly on the continuation of the writing at the left edge. Except in cases of later additions 4, I am not aware of any examples in which a scribe would deliberately begin his lines at the edge of a tablet. On the other hand, continuing a line at the edge (or even on the reverse) is commonplace in cuneiform writing, and is also found occasionally on Cypro-Minoan tablets from Ugarit (RS 20.25; Masson 1974:31). In Aegean scripts, there is no spilling over to the edges of a tablet. If an entry turned out to be too long for the available space, scribes preferred to add missing words in smaller characters above the line into which they would not fit (Ventris and Chadwick 1973:111-112).

THE CHARACTERS Only 15 characters are fully or partially preserved on the fragment. Discounting repeated signs and some uncharacteristic traces, we are left with only 9 different signs, three of which (or possibly four) are most probably numerals. Obviously, there remains very little to start with in searching for the origins of the script of this tablet. Yet before we set out on this unpromising venture, it is expedient to add some brief observations on the graphic properties of each character and to attempt some tentative restorations. No. 1 is the head of a vertical stroke. It could in fact be the beginning of a word-divider, but since it is almost on the same level as No. 2, it seems more likely that it belonged to a sign. Nos. 2 and 11 are probably identical. As noted above, the four arms of this cross-shaped sign were executed separately by impressing the stylus, rather than drawing two intersecting lines as in linear scripts. On No. 11, one can discern that the scribe drew the arms in a clockwise direction, with the upper vertical arm cutting into the left horizontal one. Nos. 3 and 4 are two identical T-shaped characters. Their heads are almost touching each other, producing a Π-shape. However, a close examination shows that they fall short of actually touching each other, and appear to be two identical but separate characters. No. 13 is probably the same sign, but the horizontal and the vertical are more distanced from each other than in Nos. 3 and 4. Left of the vertical of No. 13 it is possible to discern the trace of another vertical (which does not show up well in the photograph, Fig.15.1e). If so, we may have here a similar ‘double-T’ sign as Nos. 3 and 4. No. 5 is composed of four short strokes in a vertical line. It could be the numeral 4, but such a configuration would be most unusual. Perhaps it should be considered as a non-numerical sign, an equally unusual configuration. The trident-shaped No. 6 consists, as cross-shaped Nos. 2 and 11, of four separate impressed strokes. Once again, this differs from similar signs in linear scripts where a central axis is drawn in one continuous line. 3. 4.

For example, No. 10 comes short of actually cutting into the word-divider to its right. As, for example, on a cuneiform fragment fromTell Keisan, in which the number “one” was added as an afterthought at the edge (Sigrist 1982). I am grateful to Wayne Horowitz for this reference.

475

I TAMAR SINGER

The ‘outstretched’ Z-shaped No. 7 is followed by two vertical strokes, presumably standing for the numeral ‘2’. The damaged surface to its left could have accommodated another character, perhaps even two if pressed together. No. 9 in the second line appears to be a numeral consisting of two superimposed rows: five short strokes in the upper row, and two heads preserved in the lower one. This configuration could only belong to the numeral ‘9’, as restored in fig. 3. For parallels to this configuration, which may perhaps have some diagnostic value see § 3.4 below. The two right-angled bars forming No. 10 come short of touching each other. At first, I considered the possibility of separating them, combining the right one with the bar to its right. However, this long vertical is almost certainly a word-divider since, as do other word-dividers, it cuts into the guide-line above it. No. 11 is identical to No. 2, though a bit larger. No. 12 consists of three vertical bars, the middle one lower than the others. This could perhaps represent a regular sign, but the numeral ‘3’ seems a more likely interpretation. Compartment V has been described under Nos. 3-4 above. The worn-away surface following it could have accommodated one, or possibly two signs. Compartment VI in the third line has the heads of five strokes altogether. The two on the right are bent; the three on the left are vertical. It is difficult to say how many and what kind of characters they represent, but a numerical sign is quite likely. Here too, as in the previous lines, one or two characters may be missing.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND COMPARISONS THE SIGNARY

With only half a dozen signs at our disposal (discounting the numerals; see below), it would be preposterous to attempt an identification of the script, not to mention a ‘decipherment’. What’s more, even these few signs are schematic and simple, a ‘cross’, a ‘trident’, a ‘T’, an ‘outstretched Z’; all basic geometrical forms that are found in most writing systems around the world. Take, for example, the cross-shaped Nos. 2 and 11, which could represent a West Semitic taw, a Ugaritic h a cuneiform ti, a Linear B lo/ro, a Cypriot lo, an Egyptian wn, a Hieroglyphic Luwian CRUX, and so on. The fallacy of futile ‘resemblance hunting’ has duly been emphasized by specialists in ancient scripts and their decipherment.5 What may complicate speculation over the form of the signs on this fragment even more, is the distinct possibility that wedge-like characters are in fact derived from linear shapes of some primary script, in which case the signs may be distorted in relation to their original forms.6 In short, I prefer to heed the warning of many experienced epigraphers “…against placing too great a reliance on formal similarities between characters in attempting to trace the relationships among different writing systems.” (Palaima 1989:38). A more useful approach would, I believe, be to carefully consider the internal traits of the inscription, such as orientation, word-dividers, numerical notation and structure. Cumulative evidence from such observations, combined with appropriate comparisons, may lead to more reliable results than could be achieved by a mechanical comparison of a few isolated signs. WORD-DIVIDERS

The practice of word-division is normal in the majority of ancient Near Eastern and Aegean writing systems (Millard 1970; Naveh 1973; Duhoux 1999). In most scripts, the units are separated by a space (Cuneiform), 5. See for example Gelb (1963:144, Fig. 77 on p. 142) in which he compared the signs of Semitic writing with signs of seven other scripts picked at random from around the world. 6. Such a development has been claimed, for example, for Ugaritic script (Dietrich and Loretz 1999).

476

CHAPTER 16: A FRAGMENTARY TABLET BEARING AN U NKNOWN SCRIPT

a dot (West Semitic), or a vertical stroke (Hieroglyphic Hittite, Ugaritic, South Arabic, Aegean, and Cypriote). In rarer cases three vertically placed dots function as word-dividers (archaic Greek, Lycian, Phrygian, and on the Proto-Canaanite Lachish ewer (see Millard 1970:12; Naveh 1973:206). Division, as in the Tel Aphek fragment under discussion, by means of long vertical lines that traverse the entire width of a ruled register, seems to be quite rare. In fact, the only close parallels known to me are on the unique disc from Phaistos on Crete (Naveh 1982:19), with its spiral inscription, and on tablets from the Jordan Valley site of Tell Deir >Alla (ibid: 22). Long word-dividers also appear on a single line inscription from Qubur el-Walayda in Philistia (ibid: 36) and on the Gezer Calendar (ibid: 63), but these Semitic inscriptions do not have a division of space into compartments. The Phaistos Disk and the Tell Deir >Alla tablets have not been deciphered as yet, despite numerous attempts, and are therefore of little help in our quest for defining the script on the Aphek fragment.7 DIRECTION OF READING

Sinistroverse writing prevails in the Near East only towards the end of the second millennium BCE. Most earlier writing systems are either dextroverse (Cuneiform, Linear A and B, Cypro-Minoan) or boustrophedon (Hieroglyphic Hittite). Hieratic Egyptian, written as a rule from right to left, constitutes a notable exception, and its influence must have been dominant in the development of new writing systems in the Egyptian-controlled Levant. Byblos, for example, the main Egyptian outpost on the Levantine coast, developed its own writing system, written as a rule from right to left. The linear alphabet, which slowly evolved in Egyptian Canaan, fluctuated between the directions from which it was written, and eventually settled on right to left. That became the standard direction in most Semitic scripts (Naveh 1982:42). The influence of sinistroverse writing in the Egyptian-controlled parts of the Levant can even be felt in the rare Aegean-type inscriptions recently discovered in Israel (Singer 2000:25). Whereas an earlier inscription from Tel Haror maintained an invariable tradition of the Aegean region by being written from left to right (Oren et al. 1996)8, by the time a later inscription from Lachish was written, it was from right to left (Finkelberg et al. 1996). A similar development occurred in Iron Age Cyprus where second millennium BCE Cypro-Minoan was written from left to right,9 while its first millennium BCE descendant, Cypriote Syllabic, changed direction, probably under Phoenician influence. The situation at Ugarit, outside of the Egyptian-controlled Levant, is more complex. Under the prevailing influence of Cuneiform Akkadian, a standard 30-letter Ugaritic alphabet was written from left to right. In the late 13th century BCE, however, a reduced 22-letter Ugaritic alphabet developed, which was written from right to left (Bordreuil and Pardee 1995). The few Ugaritic inscriptions discovered outside the kingdom of Ugarit are either sinistroverse (Beth-Shemesh, Mount Tabor) or dextroverse (Sarepta, Kamid el-Loz, Ta‘anek).

7. I suppose that some might claim a Philistine origin for all three scripts, referring to the biblical evidence for a Cretan origin of the Philistines (e.g. Amos 9:7). However, as most scholars have observed, the unique Phaistos Disk is intrusive among the Cretan scripts and was perhaps imported from elsewhere. As for the Deir Alla tablets, their alleged ‘Sea Peoples’ connection has not been convincingly demonstrated, and many (including myself) doubt it altogether. 8. Sinistroverse or boustrophedon writing is non-extant in Linear B, and is very rare in Linear A (see references in Finkelberg, Uchitel and Ussishkin 1996:198). However, as Tom Palaima informs me (written communication), all such cases in Linear A have to do with the way an inscription is placed upon dedicatory objects, as on four-sided libation tables where inscriptions run continuously around four sides so as to suggest that it is boustrophedon. 9. Including the 11th century BCE inscribed obelos (T 49.16) from Palaepaphos-Skales (Karageorghis 1983:411-415; Palaima 1991:451-454; 2005:38).

477

I TAMAR SINGER

This brief summary demonstrates that in Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age contexts along the Levantine coast, one may encounter inscriptions written in either direction. However, under Egyptian influence a right to left direction gradually prevailed for local scripts, and in this respect the Tel Aphek fragment and the Tell Deir >Alla tablets, both written, in my opinion, from right to left, fit well into the general picture of late second millennium BCE scripts. NUMERALS

On first inspection, it was obvious that some of the characters on the fragment probably represent numerals, indicating some sort of administrative tablet (Singer 1983:26). This is quite clear with regard to Nos. 8, 9, and 12, it is less so in the case of the traces preserved in Compartment VI. The group of three verticals (No. 15) could belong to a numeral, and perhaps also the two slants preceding them (No. 14).10 As for the peculiar sign No. 5, an unusual configuration of the numeral ‘4’ is not impossible, but does not seem to be very likely. Short vertical bars represent units in most scripts. Thus, No. 8 should be a ‘2’ and No. 12 a ‘3’. There may be some hesitation with regard to the latter interpretation since the middle bar is lowered, but such a disposition of the numeral ‘3’ is occasionally found in inscriptions. The numeral in Compartment III, which can only be restored as a ‘9’, was probably preceded by some noun, now lost. Quite surprisingly, this numeral turned out to be more diagnostic than other signs on the fragment. In scripts that do not use a special sign for ‘5’ (e.g. Hieratic), the nine strokes of ‘9’ can theoretically be drawn in six different configurations: 9 strokes in a row, 8+1, 7+2, 6+3 and 5+4 in two rows, or 3x3 in three rows.11 The most ‘popular’ dispositions are 9x1,12 5+413 and 3x3,14 while some scripts use all three.15 Remarkably, Linear A and Linear B of the Aegean16 differ in their notation of ‘9’, and, as far as I can see, this distinction has not been noted in the past.17 With few exceptions, Linear A writes 5+4,18 whereas Linear B writes 3x3.19 I have no idea what might have caused this difference, but even if it was purely accidental and trivial, it could be useful in tracing down possible origins of related scripts. 10. For example, a slanted line represents 100 in Hieroglyphic Cretan (Dow 1954:12). 11. For a convenient, though not entirely accurate presentation of notations for Nos. 1 to 9 around the world, see Ifrah (1985:137-141). I strongly object to Ifrah’s statement (ibid.:136) that the reason for breaking up a row of single units after 4 strokes is “…because the people who used those notations were unable to read a row of more than four identical signs at a glance.” 12. For example, Phoenician and Aramaic (Pettersson 1996:801). Ancient Hebrew usually employs Hieratic Egyptian numerals, but note the rare occurrence of nine strokes (followed by a Hieratic 5) on an ostracon from Arad (Aharoni 1981:102, inscription 87). Quite often in West Semitic writing, the No. are spelled out phonetically. 13. For example, Proto-Elamite, Sumerian and Linear A (see below). 14. For example, Hieroglyphic Egyptian, Akkadian and Linear B (see below). In Hieroglyphic Egyptian there are also some rare configurations, such as 6+3 in the writing of the “Nine Bows” (Gardiner 1957:566), or 5+4 on a potsherd from Kahun (Gelb 1963:127: Fig. 65). 15. For example, Hieroglyphic Luwian (Laroche 1960:212, no. 395) and Ugaritic (Gordon 1965:42, § 7.2; Pardee 2001:252, Recto II: lines 20 and 31). 16. For Cypro-Minoan there is, unfortunately, not enough evidence. See Palaima (1989:42-52) for a collection of data on CyproMinoan numerical ideograms. Since this script developed primarily out of Linear A (ibid.: 53), I would expect the 5+4 configuration to be prevalent in Bronze Age Cyprus. 17. In a table of Linear B numerals in Deroy (1962:34), the numeral 9 is inaccurately drawn. 18. Fourteen of fifteen occurrences of the numeral 9 are written as 5+4 (Godart and Olivier 1976-1985, vol. 1: HT 1; 13; 14; 24a; 26b; 27a; 58; 104; 109; 114b; KN 28a; vol. 3: ARKH 4b; KH 30; ZA 6a). The only exception is HT 10b with nine consecutive strokes in the last line, probably conditioned by lack of space. A similar configuration appears on a Hieroglyphic Cretan tablet from Malia (Olivier and Godart 1996:172). 19. Out of some eighty occurrences of the numeral 9 in the Linear B inscriptions from Knossos, only three tablets have 5+4 (Chadwick et al. 1986: vol. I no. 298, vol. III nos. 138 and 164); the remainder are all 3x3. At Pylos 26 cases are written 3x3 and only two (Eb 297; Ua 25 rev) as 5+4 (Bennett 1955). The sole example from Mycenae is written 3x3 (Bennett 1958: no. Oe 107). I did not find any examples of 9 on tablets from Tiryns and Thebes (Melena and Olivier 1991; Aravantinos, Godart, and Sacconi 2001).

478

CHAPTER 16: A FRAGMENTARY TABLET BEARING AN U NKNOWN SCRIPT

STRUCTURE OF THE SCRIPT

The inscription is neatly segmented into its structural sections by dividers defining rectangular compartments. Most of them, including the only fully preserved compartment, IV, contain numerals. The numerals ‘2’ and ‘3’ in Compartment IV are preceded by non-numerical signs that must stand for nouns indicating some type of commodity, personnel, or the like. If I am right in assuming a right-to-left direction of reading, the numerals follow a modified noun, as is customary in Aegean scripts (Ventris and Chadwick 1973:36; Olivier 1986:379; Bennett 1999:161), i.e. ‘oxen 2’, ‘sheep 3’, etc. Probably the same order is also found in Cypro-Minoan (Palaima 1989:44). By contrast, cuneiform tradition usually has the opposite order, ‘2 oxen’, ‘3 sheep’, etc.,20 and the same applies to cuneiform Ugaritic.21 In Compartment IV the numeral ‘3’ is preceded by two signs, Nos. 10-11. These probably represent phonetic signs, syllabic or alphabetic, but a logographic compound cannot be ruled out entirely. On the other hand, the numeral ‘2’ in partly preserved Compartment II is preceded by a single sign, the ‘outstretched Z’-like No. 7. This probably represents a logogram, or perhaps a phonetic abbreviation as found in Aegean scripts (Ventris and Chadwick 1973:48-50; Palaima 1989:41; Bennett 1996:128-129) and probably also in Cypro-Minoan (Palaima 1989:43). Ideograms are a rarity in West Semitic scripts (except for symbols for weights), but we do find, for example, the abbreviation š probably signifying šeqel (š 30) on an inscription from Tell Qasileh (Cross 1980:3). The first compartment, with five fully preserved signs, seems to be different from the rest. It is longer and apparently does not end with a numeral. If it contains a numeral at all, it must be the sign No. 5 with its oddly superimposed four bars. The T-shaped sign preceding it resembles the Linear B fractional measure ‘T’ (Ventris and Chadwick 1973:50, No. 112), but this should not be duplicated as in this inscription. In short, we must reckon with the possibility that this compartment does not have a numeral at all, at least not in the preserved segment. If so, the five or six signs in this compartment could all be phonological, alphabetic or syllabic, perhaps even word-syllabic. Also, one must reckon with the possibility that all the signs in the compartment do not belong to one vocable, but rather to a compositum or to a scriptio continua, which combines several grammatical elements.22 Despite the aberrant appearance of the first compartment, it seems likely that the text is of the accounting type, listing some enumerated entities such as personnel or commodities. It is not easy to add anything more on the nature of this small fragment, except for recalling that another tiny fragment from Aphek has an administrative text (Rainey 1975:128). On that cuneiform Akkadian fragment, however, the quantities (of some unknown commodity) are counted in hundreds and thousands.

CONCLUSIONS To speculate excessively on a tiny fragment written in an unknown script in an unknown language is both unwarranted and unwise. Still, it is worthwhile to sum up the few observations made over the course of the preceding examination. Generally speaking, some of the features of this inscription are more in line with Near Eastern writing traditions, whereas others seem to point towards Aegean and Cypriote traditions. To the former 20. For example, in the various administrative tablets found in Israel: Aphek (Rainey 1975, 128), Hazor (Horowitz and Shaffer 1992; Horowitz and Oshima 2002, 183-184), Hebron (Anbar and Na’aman 1986-87) and Tell Keisan (Sigrist 1982). For the cuneiform accounting system in general see, e.g., Nissen et al. 1993. 21. See Gordon (1965, 42, § 7.2). There are, however, exceptions, for example, texts 65 and 110 where the No. indicating quotas or taxes follow the names of the respective towns. In ancient Hebrew we encounter both orders (Renz 1995:50-51). 22. For scriptio continua in Mycenaean Greek see Duhoux (1999:232-235).

479

I TAMAR SINGER

category belong its ‘cuneiform appearance’ (the way the writing was applied by punching short strokes into the clay) and the continuation of the writing at the edge of the tablet. Such spillover from the face of the tablet is totally foreign to Aegean traditions, though it is occasionally found on Cypro-Minoan tablets from Ugarit, probably due to local cuneiform influence. Closer to Aegean tradition is the ‘noun + numeral’ order of accounting. The sign forms are not sufficiently distinctive to justify a meaningful comparison with other scripts. The only exception could be the ‘5+4’ configuration of the restored numeral ‘9’, which is the common form in Linear A, but which is very rare in Linear B. (In Cypro-Minoan there are simply not enough examples as yet to establish its preference for one form or the other.) If this distinction may be considered as significant enough, it could perhaps indicate a Cretan-derived influence on the script of the Aphek fragment. 23 Line-by-line ruling is a feature often found on Near Eastern tablets, and also in late Mycenaean texts, but only sporadically in Linear A (Brice 1991:42). Long word-dividers partitioning the register into neat compartments are a rarity in this region. In this respect, the closest parallels to the Aphek fragment are found in the Tell Deir >Alla tablets, and indeed, in preliminary reports (Singer 1983:26) excessive weight was put on this resemblance. On closer examination, however, the Aphek fragment differs considerably from the Deir >Alla tablets, both in shape (the former is page-shaped, the latter is bar-shaped), and in the forms of the signs (punched strokes on the former, curving linear signs on the latter). Judging by their outward appearance, I doubt the two are written in the same script. The direction of writing from right to left (provided that my conclusion is correct) is foreign to Linear A and Linear B, Cypro-Minoan, and Cuneiform writing traditions. It becomes, however, increasingly widespread in the Late Bronze Age Levant, probably under the influence of Hieratic Egyptian. All in all, the conflation of affinities with both eastern and western writing traditions is probably the most typical feature of the Tel Aphek fragment. Cypriote writing is also characterized by multiple sources of influence, from east and west,24 but in other respects, the script of the Tel Aphek fragment can hardly be associated with any of the writing systems of Cyprus. The turbulent transition period from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age saw various writing experiments in the Levant, or to use the words of a leading authority in grammatology, there were: “…many attempts to create systems which everywhere in this period began to spring up like mushrooms after the rain” (Gelb 1963:127). Tel Aphek, where various Near Eastern writing systems met, 25 may well be one of the places where a new venture was begun, adapting Aegean and Cypriote elements to Near Eastern writing traditions. Unfortunately, without additional evidence it is impossible to establish just how, when, and by whom this new experiment was initiated. Taking into account the traits of the fragment, its stratigraphic context and its petrographic analysis, the Philistines (or one of the other ‘Sea Peoples’) are a plausible candidate as creators of this inscription, but no more than that.

23. This would be in line with the Cretan tendency to disseminate script to other areas in the Aegean region and to Cyprus. It is also worthwhile noting that the two inscriptions from the Aegean region recently discovered in Israel (at Tel Haror and Tel Lachish) are closer to Cretan than to Mycenaean writing traditions (see Finkelberg, Uchitel and Ussishkin 1996:204-205; Finkelberg 1998:267-269). 24. For affinities of Cypriote scripts with Near Eastern scripts see, for example, Palaima (1989:42; Smith 2003:277,284; Sherratt 2003:227), but note Palaima’s recent reservations with regard to the alleged “cuneiformization” of Cypro-Minoan signs (Palaima 2005:36). 25. For the Late Bronze Age inscriptions from Aphek, which include cuneiform Akkadian, Hieroglyphic Egyptian, and Hieroglyphic Hittite, see Kochavi (1978:15-17; 1981:79-81), Kochavi et al. 1978; Singer 1983; Owen et al. 1987). See also Yasur Landau and Goren (2004) for a Cypro-Minoan potmark incised on a pot handle from Tel Aphek.

480

CHAPTER 16: A FRAGMENTARY TABLET BEARING AN U NKNOWN SCRIPT

THE APHEK FRAGMENT AND THE PROBLEM OF PHILISTINE WRITING The spare results achieved in identifying the script of the Aphek fragment are in sharp contrast to its potential importance. If, as noted in the last sentence of the conclusions, the script could tentatively be identified as ‘Philistine’, then it would arguably constitute the best evidence for the very existence and character of a ‘Philistine’ (or ‘Sea Peoples’) script. This statement requires a brief justification. In whatever view one follows concerning the possible lands of origin of the ‘Sea Peoples’, there is no doubt that literacy existed there during the Late Bronze Age. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the ‘Sea Peoples’ were using some kind of script when they came to the Levant. If so, they must have abandoned it quite early in favour of the local alphabetic script (Singer 1994, 335). It is difficult to establish when this cultural shift might have occurred, since most inscriptions found in Philistia are dated rather later (Naveh 1985; Kelm and Mazar 1990, 56; Gitin 1993, 250-253; Gitin et al. 1997). However, the fact that, despite extensive excavations in the large Philistine cities, no early Philistine inscriptions (from the late second millennium BCE) were found, may indicate that the adoption of the local alphabet occurred shortly after their settlement in Philistia. In addition to the Aphek fragment, the only inscriptions for which an early Philistine script has been suggested are the Tell Deir >Alla tablets and two seals from Ashdod. The Tell Deir >Alla tablets, the number of which has recently doubled (Ibrahim and van der Kooij 1997:108; 2001), should probably not be considered in this context for lack of supportive evidence that they are related in any way to the Philistines. This is not the place to dwell upon these highly intriguing inscriptions, but in passing it should be noted that there is nothing in the archaeological record that requires a ‘Sea Peoples’ connection; neither is the script itself intrinsically Aegean or Cypriote. Two objects from Ashdod, a cylinder seal and a pyramid-shaped seal, which allegedly bear ‘Philistine’ characters resembling Cypro-Minoan script, 26 have been referred to in various publications, most recently in a brief paper by T. Dothan (2000) dedicated to the first appearance of writing in Philistia. In her widely cited publications, Dothan disregards other viewpoints on the subject, notably, M. Shuval’s convincing demonstration that the stamp seal bears schematic representations of animals, rather than characters of a script.27 The same may apply to the cylinder seal portraying three seated figures. In the spaces between them, some incised linear symbols have been interpreted as script signs. On closer examination, however, the resemblance of these schematic symbols to any known Aegean or Cypriote signs is superficial at best. Indeed, in the last excavation report of Tel Ashdod, D. Ben-Shlomo suggested a more convincing iconographic interpretation of these symbols (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005:166). In the last analysis, the Aphek fragment remains in splendid isolation as the sole unquestionable inscription with an actual claim to represent an early Philistine (or other ‘Sea Peoples’) script. However, faced with the paucity of evidence from other, much larger Philistine sites, we must remain with a healthy degree of skepticism for this interpretation.

26. For references, see Dothan and Ben-Shlomo (2005:166). The Cypro-Minoan comparisons have been credited to R.A. Stieglitz apud Dothan and Porath (1993:81, n. 84: stamp seal) and to J. Faucounau apud Dothan and Ben-Shlomo (2005:166: cylinder seal). 27. Given in Keel, Shuval, and Uehlinger (1990:157, no. 79). This conclusion has meanwhile been supported by specialists, such as O. Masson apud Keel (1997:672, no. 27).

481

I TAMAR SINGER

POSTSCRIPT An article of Frank Moore Cross and Lawrence E. Stager (2006) on the allegedly Cypro-Minoan inscriptions from Ashkelon appeared after submission and editing of this article and could not be taken into full consideration. However, its main conclusions (some of which I disagree with, e.g., that concerning the Tell Deir >Alla tablets), do not in any way impinge on my study of the Tel Aphek fragment. REFERENCES Aharoni, Y. 1981. Arad Inscriptions. Jerusalem. Anbar, M., and Na’aman, N. 1986-87. An account tablet of sheep from ancient Hebron. Tel Aviv 13-14:3-12. Aravantinos, V.L., Godart, L. and Sacconi, A. 2001. Thèbes: Fouilles de la Cadmée I. Les tablettes en linéaire B de la Odos Pelopidou, Édition et commentaire. Rome. Beck, P. and Kochavi, M. 1983. A dated assemblage of the late 13th century B.C.E. from the Egyptian Residency at Aphek. Tel Aviv 10:3-25. Bennett, E.L., Jr. 1955. The Pylos Tablets (Texts of the Inscriptions found in 1939-1954). Princeton. Bennett, E.L., Jr. 1958. The Mycenae Tablets II. Philadelphia. Bennett, E.L., Jr. 1996. Aegean scripts. In: Daniels, P.T. and Bright, W., eds. The World’s Writing Systems. Oxford. pp. 125-133. Bennett, E.L. Jr. 1999. Minos and Minyas: Writing Aegean measures. In: Deger-Jalkotzy, S., Hiller, S. and Panagl O., eds. Floreant Studia Mycenaea. Akten des X. Internationalen Mykenologischen Colloquiums in Salzburg vom 1.-5. Mai 1995. Wien. pp. 159-175. Bordreuil, P. and Pardee, D. 1995. Un abécécedaire du type sud-sémitique découverte en 1988 dans les fouilles archéologiques françaises de Ras Shamra-Ougarit. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. 1995:855-860. Brice, W.C. 1991. Notes on Linear A. Kadmos 30:42-48. Chadwick, J., Godart, L., Killen, J.T., Olivier, J.-P., Sacconi, A. and Sakellarakis, I.A. 1986. Corpus of Mycenaean Inscriptions from Knossos, 4 vols. Cambridge. Cross, F.M. 1980. Newly found inscriptions in Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Scripts. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 235:1-20. Cross, F.M. and Stager, L.E. 2006. Cypro-Minoan inscriptions found in Ashkelon. Israel Exploration Journal 56/2:129-159. Deroy, L. 1962. Initiation a l’épigraphie mycénienne. Roma. Dietrich, M., and O. Loretz. 1999. The Ugaritic script. In: Watson, W.G.E. and Wyatt, N., eds. Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (HbOr I/39). Leiden. pp. 81-89. Dothan, M., and Ben-Shlomo, D. 2005. Ashdod VI. The Excavations of Areas H and K (1968-1969). (IAA Reports 24) Jerusalem. Dothan, M., and Y. Porath. 1993. Ashdod V. Excavation of Area G. Jerusalem. Dow, S. 1954. Minoan writing. American Journal of Archaeology 58:77-129. Duhoux, Y. 1999. La séparation des mots en Linéaire B. In Deger-Jalkotzy, S. Hiller, S. and Panagl, O., eds. Floreant Studia Mycenaea. Akten des X. Internationalen Mykenologischen Colloquiums in Salzburg vom 1-5. Mai 1995. Wien. pp. 227-236. Finkelberg, M. 1998. Bronze Age writing. Contacts between east and west. In: Cline, E.H. and Harris-Cline, D., eds. The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium. Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium, Cincinnati, 18-20 April 1997. Liège and Austin. pp. 265-272. 482

CHAPTER 16: A FRAGMENTARY TABLET BEARING AN U NKNOWN SCRIPT

Finkelberg, M., Uchitel, A. and Ussishkin, D. 1996. A Linear A inscription from Tel Lachish (LACH ZA 1). Tel Aviv 23:195-207. Gardiner, A. 1957. Egyptian Grammar. Third edition. Oxford. Gelb, I.J. 1963. A Study of Writing. Second Edition. Chicago. Gitin, S. 1993. Seventh century B.C.E. cultic elements at Ekron. In: Biran, A. and Aviram, J., eds. Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990. Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archeology, Jerusalem. Jerusalem. pp. 248-258. Gitin, S., Dothan, T. and Naveh, J. 1997. A royal dedicatory inscription from Ekron. Israel Exploration Journal 47:1-16. Godart L. and Olivier, J.-P. 1976-85. Recueil des Inscriptions en Linéaire A, 5 vols. Paris. Gordon, C. H. 1965. Ugaritic Textbook. Roma. Horowitz, W., and Shaffer, A. 1992. An administrative tablet from Hazor. A preliminary edition. Israel Exploration Journal 42:21-33. Horowitz, W., and Oshima, T. 2002. Two more cuneiform finds from Hazor. Israel Exploration Journal 52:179-186. Ibrahim, M. M., and van der Kooij, G. 1997. Excavations at Tall Dayr ‘Allā. Seasons 1987 and 1994. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 41:95-114. Ibrahim, M. M., and G. van der Kooij. 2001. Excavations at Deir >Alla. Newsletter of the Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology of Yarmouk University 23:7-13. Irbid. Ifrah, G. 1985. From One to Zero. A Universal History of Numbers. New York. Karageorghis, V. 1983. Palaepaphos-Skales. An Iron Age Cemetery in Cyprus. Konstanz. Keel, O. 1997. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel. Band I. Freiburg, Schweiz. Keel, O., Shuval, M. and Uehlinger, Ch. 1990. Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel. Freiburg, Schweiz. Kelm, G.L. and Mazar, A. 1990. Tel Batash (Timnah) excavations: Third preliminary report, 1984-1989. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Supplement 27:47-67. Knauf, E. A. 1987. The Tell Deir ‘Alla tablets. Newsletter of the Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology Yarmouk University 1:14-16. Kochavi, M. 1978. Canaanite Aphek. Its acropolis and inscriptions. Expedition 20:12-27. Kochavi, M. 1981. The history and archeology of Aphek-Antipatris. Biblical Archaeologist 44:75-86. Kochavi, M. 1990. Aphek in Canaan. The Egyptian Governor’s Residence and Its Finds. Jerusalem. Kochavi, M., Rainey, A.F., Singer, I., Giveon, R. and Demsky, A. 1978. Aphek-Antipatris 1974-1977. The Inscriptions (Tel Aviv Reprint Series 2). Tel Aviv. Laroche, E. 1960. Les hiéroglyphes hittites. Paris. Masson, E. 1974. Cyprominoica: répertoires, documents de Ras Shamra, essais d’interprétation. Göteborg. Melena, J.L., and Olivier, J.-P. 1991. Tithemy. The Tablets and Nodules in Linear B from Tiryns, Thebes and Mycenae. (Minos Supplement 12) Salamanca. Millard, A. R. 1970. Scriptio Continua in early Hebrew: Ancient practice or modern surmise? Journal of Semitic Studies 15:2-15. Naveh, J. 1973. Word division in West Semitic writing. Israel Exploration Journal 23:206-208. Naveh, J. 1982. Early History of the Alphabet. Jerusalem. Naveh, J. 1985. Writing and script of seventh-century B.C.E. Philistia. The new evidence from Tell Jemmeh. Israel Exploration Journal 35:8-12.

483

I TAMAR SINGER

Nissen H.J., Demerow, P. and Englund, R.K. 1993. Archaic Bookkeeping. Early Writing Techniques of Economic Administration in the Ancient Near East. Chicago. Olivier, J.-P. 1986. Cretan writing in the second millennium B.C. World Archaeology 17:377-389. Olivier, J.-P., and Godart, L. 1996. Corpus Hieroglyphicarum Inscriptionum Cretae. Paris. Oren, E., Olivier, J.-P., Goren, Y, Betancourt, Ph.P., Myer, G.H., and Yellin, J. 1996. A Minoan Graffito from Tel Haror (Negev, Israel). Cretan Studies 5:91-117. Owen, D.I., Hallo, W.W. Singer, I. Beck, P. and Kochavi M. 1987. Aphek-Antipatris 1978-1985. The Letter from Ugarit. (Tel Aviv Reprint Series 7) Tel Aviv. Palaima, Th.G. 1989. Ideograms and supplementals and regional interaction among Aegean and Cypriote scripts. Minos 24:29-54. Palaima, Th.G. 1991. The advent of the Greek alphabet on Cyprus. A competition of scripts. In Baurain, C. Bonnet, C. and Krings, V., eds. Phoinikeia Grammata. Actes du Colloque de Liège, 15-18 novembre 1989. Namur. pp. 449-471. Palaima, Th.,G. 2005. The Triple Invention of Writing in Cyprus and Written Sources for Cypriote History. Nicosia. Palaima, Th.G., and Sikkenga, E. 1999. Linear A > Linear B. In Betancourt, Ph.P. et al., eds. Meletemata. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener (Aegaeum 20). Liège. pp. 599-608. Pardee, D. 2001. Épigraphie et structure dans les textes administratifs II: RS 19.017. Orientalia 70:250-282. Pettersson, J. S. 1996. Numerical notation. In Daniels, P.T. and Bright, W., eds. The World’s Writing Systems. Oxford. pp. 795-806. Rainey, A.F. 1975. Two cuneiform fragments from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 2:125-129. Renz, J. 1995. Die althebräischen Inschriften. Teil 2. Darmstadt. Sherratt, S. 2003. Visible writing. Questions of script and identity in Early Iron Age Greece and Cyprus. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 22:225-242. Sigrist, R.M. 1982. Une tablette cunéiforme de Tell Keisan. Israel Exploration Journal 32:32-35. Singer, I. 1983. Inscriptions from Aphek. Cathedra 27:19-26. (Hebrew) Singer, I. 1988. The origin of the Sea Peoples and their settlement on the coast of Canaan. In Heltzer, M. and Lipinski, E., eds. Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1550-1000 B.C.). Leuven. pp. 239-250. Singer, I. 1994. Egyptians, Canaanites and Philistines in the period of the emergence of Israel. In: Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman N. From Nomadism to Monarchy. Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem. pp. 282-338. Singer, I. 2000. Cuneiform, linear, alphabetic. The contest between writing systems in the eastern Mediterranean. In: Ovadiah, A., ed. Mediterranean Cultural Interaction. Tel Aviv. pp. 23-32. Smith, J.S. 2003. Writing styles in clay of the eastern Mediterranean Late Bronze Age. In: Stampolidis, N.Chr. and Karageorghis, V., eds. Sea Route Interconnections in the Mediterranean 16th-6th Centuries BC. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Rethymnon, Crete, September 29th-October 2nd 2002. Athens. pp. 277-304. Ventris, M., and Chadwick, J. 1973. Documents in Mycenaean Greek. Second Edition. Cambridge. Weippert, M. 1966. Archäologischer Jahresbericht: Tell dēr ‘Āllā. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 82:299-310. Yasur-Landau, A. 2003. Why can’t we find the origin of the Philistines? In search of the source of a peripheral Aegean culture. In Kyparissi-Apostolika, N. and Papakonstantinou, M., eds. The Periphery of the Mycenaean World. Lamia 1999. Athens. pp. 587-598. Yasur-Landau, A. and Goren, Y. 2004. A Cypro-Minoan potmark from Aphek. Tel Aviv 31:22-31. 484

PART III INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES

485

486

CHAPTER 17

PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSES OF A FRAGMENTARY TABLET AND ‘PHILISTINE ASSOCIATED’ POTTERY OBJECTS Yuval Goren, Assaf Yasur-Landau and Eyal Buzaglo

During the course of excavation of Area X, a unique clay tablet was recovered from a context associated with the Philistine occupation (Chapter 16). Since it is the only known tablet originating from a Philistine context and datable to the Early Iron Age (Beck and Kochavi 1993:68–69; Kochavi 1989; Singer 1994:334; line drawing in Kochavi 1990; Yasur-Landau 2002), it was suspected that its chemical composition might indicate something of its origins and associations. For comparison, four ceramic objects from the mound, of definitive Philistine associations, were also analyzed. The results are detailed below with the authors’ suggested interpretations. The fragmentary tablet was subjected to petrographic examination in order to disclose its possible provenance. The analysis followed sampling and examination procedures presented by Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman (2004) in their study of the Tell el-Amarna tablets. Petrographically, this tablet is typified by the following features: The matrix is carbonatic, tan in PPL and optically active with speckled b-fabric, with some foraminifers. The silt (~10%) contains essentially quartz but with the addition of calcite and opaque minerals and rarely muscovite, zircon, and hornblende. The inclusions are made of moderately sorted sand (f:c ratio{0.062mm}= ~ 90:10) including sub-rounded to sub-angular quartz, up to 300 μm, sometimes with undulose extinction and mineral inclusions, foraminiferous chalk, subrounded, up to 800 μm, nari1 containing clay and some quartz silt, rounded and up to 600 μm, and some fossilized mollusk shell fragments. The matrix of this tablet combines the petrographic properties of loess (silty-carbonatic wind-blown, clay loam) and brown rendzina soils. The inclusions contain chalk and nari from the mother-rock of the rendzina soil, and some wind-blown quartz sand. This combination is typical of pottery assemblages from the southern lower Shephelah (piedmont) region of Israel. In the study of the Tell el-Amarna tablets, it was found to characterize the tablets of Shuwardatu, the ruler of Gath of the Philistines, identified as the site of Tel Zafit/Tell es-Safi (Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004:279-286). Therefore, the origin of this tablet may be sought in the same general region. Four additional ceramic objects of ‘Philistine association’ were sampled, three of which derive from the Iron I, ‘Philistine settlement’ of Strata X10 and X9, while another was recovered in later contexts. 1. A ‘Philistine Bichrome’ krater (Chapter 8) from a pit (Locus 5027) in which fragments of other vessels of this same ceramic style were found. 2. A head of an Ashdoda figurine (Chapter 11) from a pit (Locus 5027). 3. A head of an Ashdoda figurine (Chapter 11) found in an accumulation of material dated to the Ottoman period (Locus 1112). 4. A head of an Ashdoda figurine (Chapter 11) in an accumulation of material dated to the Ottoman period (Locus 5019). 1.

This is a local term for a hard crust of limestone bedrock.

487

A thin section analysis of the samples conducted at the Laboratory for Microarchaeology and Metal Preservation Laboratory for Comparative Microarchaeology of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, found the samples belong to two distinct ceramic groups (Table 17.1), labelled Group I and Group II: GROUP I: These ceramics are composed of loess clayey soil and coastal sand temper. This composition is characteristic of the southern coast of Israel between Gaza and Ashkelon. The Ashdoda figurines as well as the clay tablet belong to this group. GROUP II: This ceramic composition includes hamra 2 clay, kurkar 3 and coastal sand temper. This composition is typical to the central coastal plain of Israel, between Ashdod and the Carmel range. Only one sample, the krater, belongs to this group. DISCUSSION

The different provenance of the Ashdoda figurines and the bichrome krater, and indeed the Aphek tablet (above), have some implications for understanding trade and administration in Philistia in the 11th century BCE. The different, yet coastal, provenance of the Ashdoda figurines and the krater indicate differentiation in production and trading networks that were responsible for bringing this pottery to Aphek, likely from the coastal centres of Ashkelon and Ashdod. This is likely a continuation of inter-site trade in Philistine pottery, evident also from analysis of pottery found in the Philistine centres of Ekron, Ashdod and Ashkelon (BenShlomo 2006:205-206). While use of clay tablets indicates that literacy existed in the 11th century at both Tel Zafit), the proposed site where the tablet originated, and Tel Aphek, with linear script probably employed for economic proposes, this administrative use was not visibly connected with the pottery trade. TABLE 17.1 ANALYSES OF FIVE ‘PHILISTINE ASSOCIATED’ POTTERY OBJECTS No. 1 2 3 4

Type ‘Ashdoda’ Head ‘Ashdoda’ Head Tablet ‘Ashdoda’ Head

Stratum X2 Surface X9 X10

Locus 1112 5019 4800 5027

Clay Loess Loess Loess Loess

Temper Coastal sand Coastal sand Coastal sand Coastal sand

Provenance Southern coast Southern coast Southern coast Southern coast

5

Krater

X10

5027

Coastal sand, Central coast úamra, ferruginous clay/ kurkar, feldspar terra rossa

Firing

Colour Undecorated Undecorated

Better than Undecorated 15a and 15b Well fired Slip, white, paint, red and black

REFERENCES Beck, P. and Kochavi, M. 1993. Aphek (In Sharon). In Stern, E., ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem. pp. 64–72. Ben-Shlomo, D. 2006. Decorated Philistine Pottery. An Archaeological and Archaeometric Study. (BAR International Series 1541) Oxford. Goren, Y., Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N. 2004. Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Amarna Letters and other Ancient Near Eastern Texts. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 23) Tel Aviv. Kochavi, M. 1989. Aphek-Antipatris, Five Thousand Years of History. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew) Kochavi, M. 1990. Aphek in Canaan. The Egyptian Governor’s Residence and its Finds (Israel Museum Catalogue 312) Jerusalem. Singer, I. 1994. Egyptians, Canaanites, and Philistines in the period of the emergence of Israel. In: Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N., eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy. Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem. pp. 282-338. Yasur-Landau, A. 2002. Social Aspects of the Aegean Migration to the Levant in the End of the 2nd Millennium BCE. (Ph. D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University) Tel Aviv 2. 3.

488

Hamra is a local term for a rusty-red coloured soil and found in deposits on the Mediterranean littoral. Kurkar is a local term for fossilized sand dunes found along the Mediterranean littoral and along the coast.

CHAPTER 18

CHEMICAL AND PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSES OF PHILISTINE BICHROME VESSELS 1 David Ben-Shlomo

As part of a large provenance study of Philistine decorated pottery (Ben-Shlomo 2006), five Philistine Bichrome vessels from Tel Aphek (Samples AP1- AP5) were analyzed by Induced Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometry and Induced Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-AES/MS) as well as Thin Section Petrography (TSPA).2 All samples come from Strata X10 and X9 contexts, mostly pits rich in Philistine Bichrome pottery (Stratum X10). Three of the vessels sampled are bell-shaped kraters, one a jug fragment and one an amphoriskos.

CHEMICAL ANALYSES In a larger study (Ben-Shlomo 2006) nearly 100 Philistine Bichrome and Philistine Monochrome vessels from the region of Philistia (or the region of southern Israel and the Gaza Strip), together with reference material 3 from major sites, were chemically analyzed and the results further analyzed by multi-variate statistical analysis using SPSS11 and JMP-IN5 software packages (Ben-Shlomo 2006:129-134). When all the samples were grouped according to Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and cluster analysis, they indicated at least two chemical profiles. One profile is typical of coastal Philistia and the other of inner Philistia, located on the border between the coastal plain and the Shephelah. These determinations were made with reference material taken from Ashdod, Tell es-Safi/Gath and Tel Miqne/Eqron, and yielded five chemical groups or profiles. Two profiles are represented in the samples from Tel Aphek (Groups 5 and 4B), while another sample did not belong to any group and thus is defined as an outlier or loner.

PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSES Similar results were indicated by TSPA, which was conducted on all the samples from Philistia, and yielded four main groups. The samples from Tel Aphek were divided between four petrographic groups (distinguished from Chemical groups by a letter prefix): Group A1, a dark brown soil with coastal quartz inclusions and no calcareous inclusions; Group A2, a dark brown soil with calcareous and non-coastal quartz inclusion; Group B1, a loessy soil, yellowish-light brown in colour, with coastal inclusions; and Group C2, a loessy-rendzina (grey or greyish-brown in colour) mixture originating in inner Philistia. 1. This study was conducted as part of the Ph. D. dissertation on Pottery Production Centers in Iron Age Philistia undertaken by the author and supervised by A.M. Maeir and I. Sharon. Chemical analyses for this study were conducted at the ICP Laboratory of the Earth Sciences Department, Bristol University, England. These analyses was made possible by a research grant from the European Commission Program for Access to Research Infrastructures, contract HPRI-1999-CT-00008, granted to A.M. Maeir and the author. 2. Another Philistine Bichrome vessel, three Ashdoda figurines and an inscribed clay tablet were also analyzed for their petrography (Chapter 17). 3. Reference material includes pottery vessels from kilns (Ashdod and Ekron) and other undecorated common vessel forms.

489

DAVID BEN-SHLOMO

RESULTS Three vessels from Tel Aphek (Samples AP1, AP3 and AP4) were clustered with Chemical Group 5 (Table 18.1). Petrographic analyses of these vessels indicate one is of dark brown clay with coastal type inclusions (Group A1), while the other is of lighter coloured, coastal loess type soil (Group B1). Jug AP4 was classified by TSPA as made of a dark brown soil with possible non-coastal inclusions (Group A2). Chemical Group 5 should possibly be provenanced to the southern coast of Philistia (according to other vessels from Ashkelon belonging to this group). The pyxis (AP5) grouped with Chemical Group 4B, which is a high calcium clay, provenanced to inner Philistia (probably from the area Tel Miqne/ Eqron according to reference material). The krater (Sample AP2) analyzed chemically as an outlier or loner with a high calcium (Ca) content (11.65%). According to petrography this vessel is made of a foraminiferous marl clay (Group C2), possibly from a rendzina soil source similar to one identified by TSPA and used for Philistine pottery production in the Tel Miqne area. TABLE. 18.1: COMPOSITIONAL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SD) OF CHEMICAL GROUPS 5 AND 4B. Element (ppm)

Group 5 Mean (20)

SD

CV%*

Group 4B Mean (20)

SD

CV%*

Al(%) Fe(%) Ca(%) Mg(%) Ti(%) K(%) Na(%) Co Cr Mn Sr V La Ce Pr Nd Eu Sm Tb Gd Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu Y Nb Ba Hf Ta

5.06 3.55 4.44 1.00 0.59 1.40 0.59 17.87 86.50 662 272.4 85.6 24.1 52.6 6.03 23.16 1.12 4.78 0.58 3.97 3.31 0.63 1.72 0.29 1.64 0.24 18.52 15.23 546 2.41 1.04

0.47 0.41 1.64 0.13 0.07 0.31 0.08 2.20 12.42 72 47.1 9.3 1.9 3.7 0.47 1.93 0.12 0.41 0.06 0.38 0.32 0.06 0.14 0.03 0.13 0.02 1.38 3.60 310 0.37 0.28

9.4 11.6 37.1 13.4 12.0 21.9 14.3 12.3 14.4 10.8 17.3 10.9 8.1 7.1 7.7 8.3 10.3 8.5 9.9 9.7 9.6 9.3 8.4 12.0 8.1 8.5 7.5 23.7 56.8 15.5 26.3

3.33 2.25 18.08 0.76 0.34 1.37 0.35 9.30 67.93 401 434.8 63.9 21.2 39.2 4.89 19.10 0.94 3.97 0.51 3.47 3.01 0.57 1.61 0.26 1.52 0.22 19.12 10.37 655 1.70 0.63

0.33 0.21 5.04 0.16 0.05 0.28 0.09 2.02 9.56 94 119.8 9.4 1.7 2.9 0.34 1.44 0.09 0.37 0.05 0.31 0.26 0.05 0.15 0.03 0.14 0.02 2.30 2.00 701 0.26 0.14

10.0 9.3 27.9 21.6 14.4 20.5 24.7 21.7 14.1 23.5 27.6 14.7 8.2 7.5 6.9 7.5 9.55 9.38 9.14 8.81 8.54 9.28 9.43 10.41 9.51 10.38 12.04 19.3 107.0 15.40 21.99

*CV%= coefficient of variance (percentage of standard deviation from the mean value)

490

CHAPTER 18: CHEMICAL AND PETROGRAPHIC A NALYSES OF PHILISTINE BICHROME V ESSELS

As there was no reference group from Tel Aphek it is difficult to determine the place or places of manufacture of the samples. The site of Aphek is geographically close to the coastal plain but also to the Bina geological formation that includes mostly limestone and marly soils typical of the central coastal plain. Thus, in principal, either coastal grumusol type alluvial soils or marl type clays could have been collected in the vicinity of the site and used for pottery making. However, outcrops of ‘pararendzinas’, or rendzina-derived hamric soils, are reported in the area of Tel Aphek as well (Dan et al. 1975; Dan, Ya’alon and Fine 2002:302, Table 2) giving yet a third option for the origin of the clays used in several vessels. Loess type soil and Chemical Group 5 may point to a more southern origin of three samples, possibly from the area of Ashkelon, although this proposal is only tentative due to a lack of reference material. It should be noted that according to petrography (Chapter 17) three Ashdoda figurines and an inscribed clay tablet from Tel Aphek also originated in the region of Ashkelon. It is noteworthy that although the overall sample from Tel Aphek was very small (with a population of only 5) it displayed evidence of at least two separate sources for the Philistine Bichrome vessels included in it. That information suggests a pattern of trade in which vessels were acquired from different centres of manufacture. Such a situation appears also to have been manifested at Tell Qasile as indicated by the results of Neutron Activation Analysis (Yellin and Gunneweg 1985:114). However, since the archaeometric analysis of bichrome pottery from Tel Aphek is confined to a very limited number of samples, the results of analyses may merely reflect the variability of clay sources in the area of the site rather than evidence of importation of pottery from other areas. TABLE 18.2. DESCRIPTIONS OF SAMPLES AND SUGGESTED PROVENANCE Sample Type

Reg. No.

Locus See Figure

ICP group ICP prov.

TSPA group TSPA prov.

Final prov.

AP1 AP2 AP3 AP4 AP5

52215/1 8382/1 49143/1 45151/1 49208/3

6139 1146 5027 4615 5027

5 Outlier 5 5 4B

A1 C2 B1 A2? B1?

Coastal Inner plains? Coastal Coastal? Inner plains?

BS KR BS KR BS-KR Jug Pyxis

8.77:2 8.68:9 8.75:8 8.80:16 8.76:6

Coastal? ? Coastal? Coastal? Inner plains

Coastal Inner plains? Coastal Inner plains? Coastal?

BS KR = bell shaped krater; prov = provenance

TABLE 18.3. PETROGRAPHIC DESCRIPTIONS OF THE SAMPLES Sample

Group Soil type

Matrix

AP1

A1

AP2

C2

Dark brown Inactive, dark, ds-os, 30% voids, moderately silty. Cal-loess- Carbonate (30% bio rendzina micritic), active, ds, 5% voids, highly silty.

AP3

B1

Loess

AP4

A2?

Dark brown?

AP5

B1?

Loess

Carbonate, slightly active, os, 20% voids, highly silty. Inactive, dark, ss-os, 25% voids, poorly silty.

Inclusions

Remarks

QZ: 15%, bimodal, 15-50 a, 100-400 sr; several Laminated OP 20-50 sr; rare: mica 50-80 sa. voids. FR: 20%, 40-150 r (several cellular); QZ: 10%, poorly sorted, 30-150 a; several: LS 50-120 sa, shell 100-200, OP 20-50 sr; rare: mica 20-50 sa.

QZ: 15%, bimodal, 10-50 a, 150-350 sr; several: OP 20-50 sr; rare: LS 40-80 sa, chalk 120-150 r, feldspar 30-80 a. QZ: 25%, bimodal? 20-70 a, 120-300 sr, some ferrous; LS/nari: 5%, moderately sorted, 120-450 sr; several OP 30-80 sr. Carbonate, slightly active, QZ: 10%, bimodal, 10-60 a, 100-200 sa; rare ds, 10% voids, highly chalk 100-150 r. silty.

DC DC DC

Cal = calcareous; ds = double space; os = open spaced; ss = single spaced; a = angular; sa = subangular; r = rounded; sr = subrounded; measurement are in microns; frequency % of slide area; QZ = quartz; FR = foraminifers; OP = opaque/ferrous minerals; LS = limestone; DC = decomposed calcite.

491

DAVID BEN-SHLOMO

REFERENCES Ben-Shlomo, D. 2006. Decorated Philistine Pottery. An Archaeological and Archaeometric Study (BAR International Series 1541) Oxford. Dan, J, Raz, Z, Ya’alon, D.H. and Koyumdjisky, H. 1975. Soil Map of Israel. Jerusalem. Dan, J., Ya’alon, D.H. and Fine, P. 2002. The origin and distribution of soils and landscapes in the Pleshet Plains. In: Safrai, Z. and Sagiv, N., eds. Ashkelon, Bride of the South. Studies in the History of Ashkelon from the Middle Age to the End of the Twentieth century. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew) pp. 289-318. Yellin, J. and Gunneweg, J. 1985. Provenience of pottery from Tell Qasile Strata VII, X, XI and XII. In: Mazar, A. Excavations at Tell Qasile II. The Philistine Sanctuary. Various Finds, the Pottery, Conclusions, Appendixes. (Qedem 20) Jerusalem. pp. 111-118.

492

CHAPTER 19

ARCHAEOBOTANICAL REMAINS Nili Liphschitz

Tel Aphek in the southern Sharon Plain near the sources of the Yarkon River enjoys a Mediterranean climate that in the past supported large tracts of oak forests. In an earlier report, the writer of these lines outlined the importance of that natural arboreal landscape and the impact of human utilization on it (Liphschitz 2000). The present report considers the archaeobotanical remains from excavation of Area X, the acropolis of the mound.

MATERIAL AND METHODS Samples were collected from Strata X12 through X7, covering the period of occupation on the acropolis, from the 13th century BCE through the 9th century BCE. The periods involved are LB II (Stratum X12), LB III/Iron I (Stratum X11), Iron I (Strata 10-X9) and Iron IIA (Strata X8-X6). All wood remains recovered were charred. Samples of 0.5-1 cm 3 were taken from all wood remains. They were aspirated in absolute ethyl alcohol, dipped in celloidin solution for 24 hours, rinsed in benzene and transferred to paraffin for 96 hours in an oven at 50 0 -550 C. Blocks of wood remains were then prepared in paraffin. Cross as well as longitudinal, tangential and radial sections of 10 μm thick were made from them with a microtome. The identification of the wood remains up to the species level (based on the three dimensional structure of the wood) was made microscopically from these sections. Comparison was made with reference to sections prepared from systematically identified, recent living species, and to photographs in anatomical atlases. Carbonized seeds gathered in Area X during the excavations were identified morphologically by comparison with recent seeds.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In all, 49 wood samples were identified from Area X. They dated to the Late Bronze Age, Iron I and Iron II. They originated from five tree species: Quercus calliprinos (Kermes oak), Quercus ithaburensis (Mt. Tabor oak), Pistacia palaestina (Terebinth), Olea europaea (Olive) and Cedrus libani (Cedar of Lebanon) (Table 19.1). More than half of these wood remains, i.e., 51.02% (25 samples) derived from Quercus calliprinos, while Quercus ithaburensis comprised 20.4% (10 samples) and Olea europaea comprised 16.32% (8 samples). Only one sample was of Pistacia palaestina (2.04%) and four samples were of Cedrus libani (8.16%) (Table 19.2). More than half the samples, 53.06% (26 samples) derived from Iron Age strata and 46.93% (23 samples) originated in Stratum X12 associated with Palace VI of the Late Bronze Age (Table 19.2). A few grains of Triticum sp. (wheat), a few seeds of Vicia sp. (Vetch) and several stones of Olea europaea (Olive) were also collected in Area X (Table 19.5). Data obtained in this study from the Late Bronze and Iron Ages at Tel Aphek were compared with archaeobotanical data obtained from Early and Middle Bronze Age layers at Tel Aphek (Areas A and 493

N ILI LIPHSCHITZ

B; Liphschitz 2000). The relative percentages of species presented in samples collected proved to be quite similar throughout the Middle Bronze, Late Bronze and Iron Ages, as can be seen in the data from Areas A and B. Archaeobotanical data from those areas (Liphschitz 2000) include a single sample of Olea europaea wood derived from an Early Bronze Age locus, while all other wood remains (38 samples) were retrieved from Middle Bronze Age contexts. Percentages of wood remains of Olea europaea gathered in Middle Bronze Age and Iron Age layers were similar (Table 19.3). Four other species, i.e., Quercus calliprinos, Quercus ithaburensis, Pistacia palaestina and Olea europaea, were found in Late Bronze and Iron Age layers in Area X (Table 19.3). In both periods, i.e., the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age, about half the wood remains were of Quercus calliprinos (56.52% in the Late Bronze Age and 46.15% in the Iron Age), percentages similar to those based on finds of the Middle Bronze Age (41.02%). Percentages of Quercus ithaburensis wood remains were similar in the Middle Bronze, Late Bronze and Iron Ages (Table 19.3). Dendroarchaeological data from Late Bronze and Iron Age Tel Aphek were also compared with data obtained for three other sites located in the Central Coastal Plain (Table 19.4). At all those sites, the dominant species is Quercus calliprinos. At Tel Michal it comprises 21.42% of Late Bronze Age samples and 33.33% of Iron Age samples (Liphschitz and Waisel 1989). It comprised 28.57% of Late Bronze Age samples at Tel Gerisa and 38.70% samples attributed to the Iron Age (Liphschitz 1988). The same species constitutes 25% of the Iron Age samples derived from excavations at ‘Izbet Sartah (Liphschitz and Waisel 1986). Dendroarchaeological investigations at Tel Aphek and at several other sites in the Central Coastal Plain show wood remains derived mainly or sometimes only from Quercus calliprinos, and suggest the dominance of this tree species in that region (Liphschitz, Lev-Yadun and Gophna 1987). Comprehensive dendroarchaeological studies carried out at numerous sites in Mediterranean Israel (Liphschitz and Biger 1990) clearly showed the ancient dominance of Quercus calliprinos – Pistacia palaestina association. However, Quercus calliprinos was not the sole species of oak present in the region. As the result of human activity since the Early Bronze Age onwards, when forests of Quercus calliprinos were felled and land cleared, Quercus ithaburensis trees invaded cleared areas. The presence of Quercus ithaburensis in the landscape may be the result of two phenomena: 1. When two closely related species compete with each other in a common habitat and one species becomes extinct, the other takes its place in an empty niche and quickly establishes itself there. 2. The renewal of Quercus ithaburensis from seedlings or after cutting is much faster than that of Quercus calliprinos. Therefore, when Quercus calliprinos is cut down the rapid establishment of Quercus ithaburensis brings about its dominance. Notably, differences in the percentages of wood remains for both oak species found in the excavations do not reflect any preference for exploitation by man of one or the other species, since both are hardwoods and working either is equally difficult. Presumably, after the Early Arab period the Quercus calliprinos forest was badly damaged, thus enabling the expansion of Quercus ithaburensis. These secondary forests of Quercus ithaburensis were dominant in the Sharon Plain until the end of the 19th century CE and in the landscape travelers saw during the 18th and 19th centuries CE. The archaeobotanical record also indicates cultivation of Olea europaea was, following its domestication in the Early Bronze Age, widespread in the ancient landscape of Israel (Liphschitz et al. 1991). It was not only prominent in that early period, but also during the Middle Bronze, Late Bronze and Iron Ages. Although Quercus calliprinos dominated the arboreal landscape of the Central Coastal Plain, olive groves became very common in the environs of settlements (Liphschitz 1996:7-13, Plates 1-4). 494

CHAPTER 19: A RCHAEOBOTANICAL R EMAINS

Four samples of Cedrus libani were identified at Tel Aphek in Area X. One originated in Stratum X10 in a pit dated to Iron I, while three additional samples derived from the Egyptian Governor’s Residence of the Late Bronze Age in Stratum X12. Since Cedrus libani never grew in Israel and was imported, most probably from Lebanon, it is not surprising to find remains of this wood in a governor’s residency, seeing as it was highly esteemed during antiquity due to its pleasant scent and durability. These tall straight trees supplied ancient builders with eminently suitable timber for construction of palaces, temples and other large public buildings. For instance, more than half of the wood remains, including numerous logs, found in the Middle Bronze Age palace at Tel Lachish, and nearly half the wood samples uncovered in the Late Bronze Age temple at the same site, were of Cedar of Lebanon. Cedar logs were also found in the Philistine temples at Tell Qasile and large quantities of cedar samples were recovered from the northern palace at Masada. In addition, cedar wood was used in many Byzantine churches. The high number of beams of Cedrus libani that were part of the roof of el-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, dated to the Early Arab period (Liphschitz and Biger 1991) is particularly noteworthy. Thus, the importation of cedar wood from Lebanon to Tel Aphek for the Egyptian governor’s residence suggests a strong economy and a well organized administration. TABLE 19.1: WOOD REMAINS FROM AREA X Species

Locus

Stratum

Reg. No.

Locus Type

Quercus calliprinos Quercus calliprinos Quercus calliprinos Quercus calliprinos Quercus calliprinos Quercus calliprinos Quercus calliprinos Quercus calliprinos Quercus calliprinos Quercus calliprinos Quercus calliprinos Quercus calliprinos Quercus calliprinos Quercus calliprinos Quercus calliprinos Quercus calliprinos Quercus calliprinos Quercus calliprinos Quercus calliprinos Quercus calliprinos Quercus calliprinos Quercus calliprinos Quercus calliprinos Quercus calliprinos Quercus calliprinos Quercus ithaburensis Quercus ithaburensis Quercus ithaburensis Quercus ithaburensis Quercus ithaburensis Quercus ithaburensis Quercus ithaburensis Quercus ithaburensis Quercus ithaburensis Quercus ithaburensis

4026 4026 4026 4026 4026 4026 4026 3804 3828 1700 1700 1700 1130 1130 1130 1137 1137 1137 1107 1148 1137 2731 2753 2753 2753 4611 4606 4606 4026 4026 2753 2731 1731 4400 4602

X8? X8? X8? X8? X8? X8? X8? X8 X8? X10 X10 X10 X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X7 X7 X7 X8? X8? X12 X12 X12 X12 X12

39113 39124 39139 39194 39235/90 39235/92 39270 37109 37193

Silo Silo Silo Silo Silo Silo Silo Silo Silo Pit Pit Pit Piazza Piazza Piazza Piazza Piazza Piazza Room Room Piazza Destruction debris Street Street Street Wall Floor Floor Silo Silo Street Destruction debris Hall Open area Courtyard

27136 27209 5602/90 5955/9 5978/90 5980/90 5980/90 8320/90 8403/90 8409/90 8329/90 27273/90 27586 27622/90 27687/90 45139 45054 45055 39235/90 39235/91 27622/90 33652/90 33603 43135 45072

Remarks

Beam Beam

495

N ILI LIPHSCHITZ Species

Locus

Stratum

Reg. No.

Locus Type

Remarks

Pistacia palaestina Pistacia sp. Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Cedrus libani Cedrus libani Cedrus libani Cedrus libani

1154 1130 3804 3804 3813 4015 4015 6069 1721 7129 1700 1137 4400 4400

X9 X12 X8 X8 X8 X8 X8 X9 X12 X14/X15 X10 X12 X12 X12

8302/90 5554/90 37106 39115 37085 39100 39114 43509 27337 60547 27208 5981/90 43106 43107

Ash layer Inner courtyard Silo Silo Silo Silo Silo Room Hall Pit Pit Piazza Open area Open area

TABLE 19.2: WOOD SPECIES FROM AREA X Species

Stratum X7 No %

Strata X8? No %

Stratum X8 No %

Stratum X9 No %

Quercus calliprinos Quercus ithaburensis Pistacia palaestina Pistacia sp Olea europaea Cedrus libani Total

3 3

7 2 9

2 5 7

1 1 2

100.0 -

77.7 22.3 -

28.5

71.5

50.0 50.0 -

TABLE 19.2: CONTINUED Species Quercus calliprinos Quercus ithaburensis Pistacia palaestina Pistacia sp Olea europaea Cedrus libani Total

Stratum X10 No %

Stratum X12 No %

Stratum X14 No %

Total No

3 1 4

13 5 1 1 3 23

1 1

25 10 1 1 8 4 49

75.0 25.0

56.52 21.73 4.34 4.34 13.04

100 -

% 51.02 20.40 2.04 2.04 16.32 8.16

TABLE 19.3: WOOD REMAINS DATED TO THE MIDDLE1 BRONZE, LATE BRONZE AND IRON AGES MB Age No.

Species Quercus calliprinos Quercus ithaburensis Pistacia palaestina Olea europaea Others Total

16 8 1 11 3 39

1. Data from Liphschitz 2000.

496

LB Age No. %

%

41.02 20.51 2.59 28.20 7.69

13 5 1 4 23

56.52 21.73 4.34 17.39

Iron Age No. % 12 5 1 7 1 26

46.15 19.23 3.84 26.92 3.84

CHAPTER 19: A RCHAEOBOTANICAL R EMAINS

TABLE 19.4: COMPARISONS OF WOOD SPECIES IN THE CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN Tel Gerisa2

Tel Aphek Species

L B Age No %

Quercus calliprinos Quercus ithaburensis Pistacia palaestina Olea europaea Others Total

13 56.52 5 21.73 1 4.34 4 17.39 23

Iron Age No % 12 5 1 7 1 26

LB Age No %

46.15 19.73 3.84 26.92 3.84

Iron Age No %

4

28.57

12

38.70

7 3 14

50.00 21.42

2 6 11 31

6.45 19.35 35.48

TABLE 19.4: CONTINUED

Species

Tel Michal3 L B Age Iron Age No % No

Quercus calliprinos Quercus ithaburensis Pistacia palaestina Olea europaea Others Total

3 1 1 6 3 14

21.42 7.14 7.14 42.85 21.42

4 1 7 12

>Izbet êartah4 Iron Age No %

%

33.33 8.33 58.33

2 3 1 2 8

25.0 37.5 12.5 25.0

TABLE 19.5: FIND-SPOTS OF SEEDS FROM AREA X Genus/Species

Stratum

Locus

Basket

Locus Type

Description of sample

Triticum sp. Triticum sp. Vicia sp. Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea Olea europaea

X10 X10 X10 X8? X10 X12 X12/X13

1146 1700 1700 3828 1700 2753 4602

8240/90

Pit Pit Pit Pit Pit Street Courtyard

Grains Grains Seeds Stones Stones Stones Stones

37185 39384 45080

REFERENCES Liphschitz, N. 1988 Ancient vegetation of the Yarkon basin according to botanical remains from excavations. Israel - People and Land 4:101-104. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew with English summary) Liphschitz, N. 1996. Olives in ancient Israel in view of dendroarchaeological investigations. In: Eitam, D and Heltzer, M., eds. Olive Oil in Antiquity. Padova. pp. 7-13, Pl. 4. Liphschitz, N. 2000. Archaeobotanical remains. In: Kochavi, M., Beck P. and Yadin, E., eds. Aphek-Antipatris I. Excavations of Areas A and B. The 1972-1976 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 19) Tel Aviv. Liphschitz, N. and Waisel, Y. 1986. Palaeobotanical Remains. In: Finkelstein., I. ed. >Izbet êartah: An Early Iron Age Site near Rosh Ha‘ayin, Israel (British Archaeological Reports International Series 299) Oxford. pp.153-155. 2. 3. 4.

Unpublished data from the author’s research. Data from Liphschitz and Waisel, 1989 Data from Liphschitz and Waisel 1986.

497

N ILI LIPHSCHITZ

Liphschitz, N. and Waisel, Y. 1989. Botanical remains. In: Herzog, Z. Rapp, G. and Negbi, O., eds. Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel (Publications of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 8) Tel Aviv. pp. 219-111. Liphschitz, N. and Biger, G. 1990. Ancient dominance of Quercus calliprinos-Pistacia palaestina association in Mediterranean Israel. Journal of Vegetation Science 1:67-70. Liphschitz, N. and Biger, G. 1991. Cedar of Lebanon (Cedrus libani) in Israel during antiquity. Israel Exploration Journal 41:167-175. Liphschitz, N., Lev-Yadun, S. and Gophna, R. 1987. The dominance of Quercus calliprinos (Kermes Oak) in the central coastal plain in antiquity. Israel Exploration Journal 37:43-50. Liphschitz, N., Gophna, R., Hartman, M. and Biger, G. 1991. The beginning of olive (Olea europaea) cultivation in the Old World: A reassessment. Journal of Archaeological Science 18:441-453.

498

CHAPTER 20

FOOD REMAINS Mordechai E. Kislev and Yael Mahler-Slasky1

Many carbonized archaeobotanical finds were discovered during excavations in Area X at Tel Aphek. These finds were retrieved by M. E. Kislev during the 5th, 6th and 7th excavation seasons. All were recovered from Strata X12-X8, dated to the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages. In most instances botanical finds were retrieved by flotation and then taken for processing and identification to the archaeobotanical laboratory of the Faculty of Life Sciences at Bar-Ilan University. In a few instances soil samples from the excavation, were taken as is, and were floated under controlled conditions in the laboratory. The archaeobotanical finds were plentiful and diverse, and their preservation was good. They include mainly carbonized seeds of several cultivated species, and plants that accompany them.

AGRICULTURAL POTENTIAL OF THE HABITAT OF TEL APHEK Tel Aphek, located in the central coastal plain of Israel (Chapter 1), lies adjacent to copious perennial springs that are the source of the Yarkon river, the largest waterway in the entire coastal plain. Tel Aphek lies on the border of two groups of soil types. The first brown group includes alluvial soils (vertisols) that drain slowly, contain little organic material and have a large potential for crop-raising; These lie to the north, west and south of the mound. The second group includes alluvial soils with good drainage and medium content of organic materials which are found to its east in the region of modern Rosh Ha->Ayin. Soils in the area are mostly heavy, rich in nutrients and, near the river, are also soaked with water. These soils have a large potential for crop-raising (Ravikovitch 1981:153-194, XII-XIII, with 1:250,000 soil map).

CULTIVATED PLANTS Many different cultivated plants can be grown in the region of the Yarkon river. Up to the recent past there were field crops and garden plants as well as fruit trees and vines in the region of the Yarkon springs and in the marshy area south of the river (Avitsur 1957:86,183). Tel Aphek was, therefore, a superb settlement site from an agricultural point of view. Its inhabitants could produce needed plant commodities, wheat, pulses, fruits, etc. in their immediate vicinity and indeed, finds from Area X testify to this. They include two different species of wheat, naked wheat (Triticum parvicoccum) and hulled emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum), species which cannot always be easily distinguished in carbonized grains. Other cultivated species were: barley (Hordeum vulgare), pulses such as lentils (Lens culinaris), faba beans (Vicia faba), bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia) used as fodder for animals, fruits such as grapes (Vitis vinifera) used for producing white wine in Locus 2731, figs (Ficus carica), olives (Olea europaea), pomegranates (Punica granatum), other useful plants such as flax (Linum usitatissimum) for weaving into cloth or production of edible seeds or oil, and cumin (Cuminum cyminum), a spice for flavouring food. 1. The authors wish to thank Dr. Y. Langsam for his technical assistance in production of the SEM photographs. Thanks also are due Dr. Y. Melamed and M. Marmorstein for help with botanical identifications and to Y. Swed for technical assistance.

499

Mordechai E. Kislev and Yael Mahler-Slasky

It should be noted that evidence for fruit trees in the archaeological record of Area X is limited to the above mentioned species. Notably absent are such species as date palms (Phoenix dactylifera), which grows in warmer regions of the southern Levant (e.g., the Negev and the Jordan and Arava Valleys), almonds (Amygdalus communis), carob (Ceratonia siliqua) and spiny hawthorn (Crataegus aronia), which grow in the central mountain range. Lack of evidence for these slightly more exotic fruits raises a question as to the existence of trade relations between the inhabitants of Tel Aphek and denizens of these other regions, since, according to the finds, it seems that local products were sufficient for the diet of the site’s inhabitants.

THE NATURE OF ARCHAEBOTANICAL FINDS When a collection of grains is found in an excavation, it is certainly the result of humans separating grains from the remainder of the plants from which they were harvested. However, apart from a concentration of grape pips from Stratum X12 and barley grains from Stratum X8, botanical finds retrieved from Area X at Tel Aphek do not represent quantities of grains collected for eventual consumption, but rather they are remnants (i.e., waste) from activities such as threshing. Accordingly, they included seeds of accompanying plants such as pulses and remains left after sieving and separation of prime grains from waste products. These observations are based on research indicating that after threshing, sieving and cleaning of grains of wheat and barley to obtain prime grains, what remains is waste that often includes small grains (tail grain), different parts of their spikes (Figs. 20.16-20.18) and small seeds of various species of weeds. Holes of sieves are sized in a way that allows most seeds of weeds to fall through, but possibly a few cereal grains might also join them. Hillman (1984), in a study of traditional methods for processing grains in Turkey, discussed the various stages of the process and their products, up to the final stage of clean grain collection. Waste from grain manufacture was used in the past as animal fodder, fuel for fire, or even as food for the poor. When used for this last purpose, waste included tail grain and ‘fine cleaning’ products passed through a small-holed sieve. When waste was processed for animal needs or for burning, it was added to coarser cleaning products. The existence of such vegetal waste at Tel Aphek indicates the site was a primary producer of grains and did not obtain ‘clean grains’ from elsewhere. Recovery of grain waste products, not just clean grain at Tel Aphek, is highly interesting, since it enables us to make conclusions that could not have been achieved from finds of only clean grain, because the percentage of weeds in clean grain is small, and demands much work in order to isolate and identify weed seeds. There was no need for such work in this research because it was performed by the inhabitants of Aphek, especially of Stratum X9. Those people actually isolated weeds from large amounts of cultivated grains and left them in separate places, from which they were retrieved during the excavation. Since weeds naturally grow dispersed in fields, such a concentration is impossible without human involvement. The finds discussed below suggest the possibility that the inhabitants of Strata X10 and X9 (Chapter 6) left waste from more than one field or one type of crop in designated areas; perhaps this waste was even from very separate fields that show different ecological conditions.

THE IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIES Identification of plant species was done by comparison of seeds and other plant organs to the specimens in the comparative collection in the authors’ laboratory. Most of the botanical finds were identified to 500

CHAPTER 20: FOOD R EMAINS

the level of species, while some were defined to levels of genus or family. The cause of this limited identification, was the state of preservation that make the parameters that provide distinction between the genera or species, insignificant. In some cases such as some genera of Papilionaceae, the seeds are very small and look very much alike so it is very hard to distinguish between different ones. Also, the species rigid rye-grass (Lolium rigidum), grows in fields and mainly adjacent to fields and its frequency is smaller than that of its related species, darnel (L. temulentum). Its carbonized grains are similar in size and shape to that of L. temulentum, thus, all Lolium grains were identified as L. temulentum. Species that are not cultivated plants were divided into two groups, weeds and wild plants. Lists of weeds was made following Feinbrun-Dothan (1978; 1986); and Zohary (1966; 1972). When the definition was possible at the level of family or genus, plants were ascribed to the list of wild plants (though some could have been weeds that grow in fields as well). All species that belong to the genus Phalaris grow in fields and so were listed with weeds, although in some cases species could not be identified. Many of the wild and weed grass species were identified using a computerized key of grass grains. The key simplifies analysis of plant remains as it enables more species to be identified with greater accuracy (Kislev et al. 1997).

HABITAT DETERMINATION ACCORDING TO ARCHAEOBOTANICAL REMAINS The presence or absence of specific kinds of seeds or plants can sometimes inform researchers of the habitats of ancient sites. Usually when a sample of cereals (e.g., wheat and barley) is found, it also includes weeds that are present in the fields where the grains were grown. Such plants are, for example, darnel (Lolium temulenum) (Fig. 20.1), canary grass (Phalaris paradoxa) (Fig. 20.12-20.14) and twoflowered caterpillar (Scorpiurus muricatus) (Fig. 20.2). Weeds such as narrow thorow-wax (Bupleurum subovatum), scarlet pimpernel (Anagallis arvensis) and others are generally found in small quantities. These last species are widely distributed and can be found in several habitats and thus cannot serve to identify habitat. The only information they provide concerns the degree of cleaning of a cereal sample. Defining a habitat or the location of a crop field requires species that grow only in a specific habitat. Only when a combination of such species is present may a reliable identification of the habitat be deduced. Waste found at Tel Aphek that included many seeds of weeds provided just such information. In addition to the widely distributed weeds noted above, some weeds and wild plants that grow only in specific habitats were found in several loci. Examples of such plants found at Tel Aphek include: a) the lilac chaste tree (Vitex agnus-castus; Fig. 20.3) that grows along banks of streams and dry water courses (Feinbrun-Dothan, 1978:94-95); b) Ranunculus marginatus var. scandicinus, that grows in wet fields and along ditches (Zohary, 1966: 205-206), c) coast clubrush (Scripus litoralis; Fig. 20.4) that grows in brackish swamps and along banks of rivers and d) sea club-rush (Scirpus {=Bolboschoenus} maritimus) that grows in marshes and along river banks, mostly on somewhat saline soil (Feinbrun-Dothan, 1986:350-351). Species that grow in humid habitats can be used as indicators of such habitats on heavy soils, if plants that grow in light soils are absent from samples. Thus, from the above noted examples, it can be concluded that crops were grown in fields adjacent to the site, near the Yarkon springs and along the banks of the Yarkon river. Moreover, in loci where the finds contained a mixture of plant from different habitats, it can be concluded that crops came from several fields in different locales.

501

Mordechai E. Kislev and Yael Mahler-Slasky

ACCOMPANYING CROPS In many instances pulses were found together with remains of cereals and weeds. However, when pulse weeds such as rough-fruited bedstraw (Galium tricornutum) are found with pulse seeds, one can assume that plant remains came from a different field, i.e., fields of cereals adjacent to fields of pulses. It should be noted that G. tricornutum mericarps are similar in shape and size to the mericarps of other Galium species that belong to section Kolgyda. Thus, Galium mericarp is defined only to the level of section, although it can be assumed that it is G. tricornutum. To preserve the nutritional quality of soil, it is routine today, to sow pulses in a field after several years of growing cereals. Remains of pulses, may also grow in fields of cereals as accompanying crops. After harvesting, when cereal grains are winnowed, there may be some pulse seeds left with the cereal grains and thus, in the following season they are also sown with the cereal grains and in due course grow together with cereals in the same fields. Thus, weeds that accompany pulses often grow in cereal fields. The phenomenon of accompanying crops in fields where main crops grow is well known in fields cultivated by traditional methods. It is also evident from small amounts of barley in wheat fields or small amounts of wheat and naked barley in barley fields. Such was the case in several loci at Tel Aphek (Table 20.1). It should be noted that the quantity of pulse seeds found at Tel Aphek, was much smaller than that of cereal grains. That ratio may be explained by the fact that carbonized seeds of pulses do not always float the way other carbonized seeds do and so may have been lost during the floating process practiced at the site. Any differences in incidences of seeds between samples taken in the field and others obtained in the laboratory are due to obvious, high concentrations of seeds noted in the former instance, while laboratory work was performed on samples of much lesser concentration. Following are descriptions of several special species, or species that grow in unique habitats recovered in the excavations at Tel Aphek. The order of the species is alphabetical. TABLE 20.1: DESCRIPTIONS OF SELECTED SPECIES This common annual is found at road sides, waste places and as a weed at edges of fields. Cichorium endivia subsp. divaricatum (= C. The wild species in Israel is closely related to subsp. Endivia, a plant widely cultivated for its leaves (for salads) in Europe. The ripe fruits are hidden throughout the summer within pumilum; Compositae) the bracts of inflorescense. Dispersal occurs after opening the bracts during the winter (Sell 1976). This is the only species of this genus found in Israel (Fig. 20.5). Coronilla scorpioides (Papilionaceae = Fabaceae)

The species is an annual weed in fields as well as in Phrygana. Pods are 3-7 x 0.2 cm., with 2-11 articulations, spreading or deflexed, tetragonous, linear, arcuate to coiled-circular, slightly constricted between seeds. Seeds sausage-shaped, slightly curved, about 4 mm long, 1.2 mm wide, smooth (Meikle 1977:516-517; Zohary 1972:102). This species is different from others that grow in Israel. Seeds of C. repanda are shorter and bowed, unlike the more straight seeds of C. scorpioides. C. cretica has narrower seeds, while those of C. rostrata are squat and usually larger.

Euphorbia helioscopia (Euphorbiaceae)

This is a very common annual herb, found along roadsides and in fields. Its seeds are 1.5-2 mm long, ovoid, brown, foveolate-reticulate, with sessile ovoid caruncles (Zohary 1972:278-279). In Euphorbia, seeds are often essential for identification. However, the caruncle is not preserved after charring. Seeds of E. helioscopia, E. oxyodonta and E. berythea are almost identical to each other as are three closely related species that grow in similar habitats and belong to subgen., Esula, sect., Helioscopia and subsect. Helioscopiae (Radcliffe-Smith 1982). In carbonized seeds of the species E. helioscopia, reticulation in the pattern of the seed is whole and protruding. By contrast, in E. oxyodonta reticulation is not whole and in E. berythea it does not protrude. According to these criteria, the seeds recovered from Tel Aphek are defined as E. helioscopia.

502

CHAPTER 20: FOOD R EMAINS

Fig. 20.1: Darnel (Lolium temulentum). Dispersal unit which imitates cereal grain in shape and dimensions. It includes hulled grain with the rachilla of the upper floret. Ventral view. Locus 1700B, 11th century BCE (SEM).

Fig. 20.3: Vitex agnus-castus. Empty broken fruit in inner view. Locus 4015, 10th century BCE (SEM).

Fig. 20.5: Cichorium endivia. Capitullum with 3 fruits in side view (a broken one on the right side). Locus 1700b.

Fig. 20.2: Two-flowered caterpillar (Scorpiurus muricatus). Seed in side view. The testa fragment (on the top) includes the hilum (left) and the chalaza (right). Locus 3456, 11th century BCE (SEM).

Fig. 20.4: Scirpus (=Schoenoplectus) litoralis. Narrow nutlet in dorsal view. Locus 3456.

Fig. 20.6: Beta vulgaris. Fruit in upper view. The bases of the 5 flower lobes surround the trigonous fruit. Locus 2959.

503

Mordechai E. Kislev and Yael Mahler-Slasky

Fig. 20.7: Small crushed grape. The pip can be recognized through the folded skin. Locus 2731, 13th century BCE (SEM).

Fig. 20.8: Crushed grape with two pips, side view. Consequently, they are not exactly in their natural position. Locus 2731, 13th century BCE (SEM).

Fig. 20.9: Grapes with pips in their natural position. The pips shape is influenced by their number in a grape. Locus 2731, 13th century BCE (SEM).

Fig. 20.10: Grape pip, ventral view. The prominent ridge along its length implies that the grape had 3 pips. Locus 2731, 13th century BCE (SEM).

504

Fig. 20.11: Vine pip (from Kislev 1988).

Fig. 20.12: Phalaris paradoxa. Dispersal unit, ventral view. Several sterile spikelets surround the fertile one. The single hulled grain is clearly seen. Locus 1700a.

Fig. 20.14: Phalaris paradoxa. Inflorescence fragment. Peduncle with 3 pedicels of 3 dispersal units. Locus 1700A, 11th century BCE (SEM).

Fig. 20.13: Phalaris paradoxa. Dispersal unit with 3 sterile spikelets (clearly seen on the left), after shedding the grain. They are reduced to peculiar thick clublike structures due to deformation of the glumes as well as the lemma and plalea apex. Ventral view. Locus 1700B, 11th century BCE (SEM).

Fig. 20.15: Hordeum vulgare. Grain without its hulls. Ventral view. The ventral furrow widens towards the grain’s top. Locus 1700A, 11th century BCE (SEM).

Fig. 20.16: Hordeum vulgare ssp. distichum. Rachis fragment with 2 internodes in side view. The lower internode (a) and the upper one (b) are broken, the sterile side spikelets (c) are almost parallel; fragments of the glume (d) and the hulls (e) are also seen. Locus 1700b.

Fig. 20.17: Hordeum vulgare ssp. vulgare. Small fragment of a rachis in side view. The two internodes (a, b) as well as the fertile side spikelets (c) are broken. Locus 1700a.

505

Mordechai E. Kislev and Yael Mahler-Slasky

Fig. 20.18: Triticum parvicoccum. Rachis fragment of a dense ear with 2 short internodes (a,b). On the top of the upper internode, the attachment region to the next one is seen (c). The lower internode ends with a basal fragment of a glume (d). Locus 1700a.

Fig. 20.20: Onosma gigantea. Smooth ovoid-triquetrus nutlet with flat base in side view. Locus 3456.

Fig. 20.19: Schoenus nigricans. Nutlet in side view. Locus 3456.

Fig. 20.21: cf. Apium nodiflorum. Mericarp in side view. The ribs are rather prominent. Locus 3456.

Fig. 20.22: Gynandriris sisyrinchium. Seed in side view. Locus 3456.

506

CHAPTER 20: FOOD R EMAINS Gynandriris sisyrinchium This perennial herb is found in cultivated and fallow fields and along roadsides. Its seeds are subglobose, about 2.0 mm long, 1.8 mm wide, at most slightly compressed, often with a distinct (Iridaceae) lateral ridge or narrow wing; testa asperulous-rugulose (Meikle 1985:1562-1563; Fig. 20.22). A second species in Israel, G. monophylla, is rare, grows only in the Negev, and has smaller seeds (Feinbrun-Dothan 1986:114). Ranunculus marginatus var. scandicinus (Ranunculaceae)

This common annual herb is found in wet fields and along ditches. There are 10-20 flat, ovate to orbicular seeds in a fruit, 3.0 to 5.0 mm in length. The disk (round part of the seed) is 2.0 to 3.0 mm in diameter and densely tuberculate, with a very narrow keeled margin and a narrow furrow on either side. Its beak is 1.0 mm long and is triangular in shape. This variety differs from the more typical one by its habitat as well as the shape of its beak. The species differs from the closely related R. cornutus, which has a 2.0 to 3.0 mm long, recurved beak with almost wing-like margin. The small seeds found probably belong to a hunger form, previously named R. trachycarpus var. minor (Zohary 1966:205-206). In the flora of Turkey, R. marginatus and R. scandicinus are considered as two closely related species (Davis and Cook 1965).

These perennial herbs grow in brackish swamps and along banks of rivers. Its nutlets are 2.0 Scirpus (= Schoenoplectus) litoralis to 3.0 mm long, 1.25 to 1.5 mm wide, broadly obovate in outline, lenticular to plano-convex, distinctly beaked and almost smooth (Feinbrun-Dothan 1986:350-351; Meikle 1985:1694-1695; (Cyperaceae) Fig. 20.4). Its nutlets are somewhat similar to S. lacustris ssp. tabernaemontani and S. maritimus, but in the former plant the nutlets are a bit wider and bluntly trigonous, while in S. maritimus they are trigonous below and plano-convex above (Meikle 1985:1694-1696). In addition, the latter is a polymorphic species, and there appears to be considerable variation in this group of plants that remains to be properly categorized (Feinbrun-Dothan 1986:350). Vitex agnus-castus (Verbenaceae)

This is a common, deciduous shrub that grows in abundance along banks of streams such as the Yarqon River. The fruit is a dry drupe, globose, about 3.0 mm in diameter that separates into 4 nutlets, each with 1 seed. This is the more common of only 2 species found in Israel. The second one, V. pseudo-negundo, is rare and is found today only near the Sea of Galilee (Feinbrun-Dothan 1978:94-95; Fig. 20.3).

DESCRIPTIONS OF PLANT MATERIALS FROM SELECTED LOCI Archaeobotanical finds from most loci were in the nature of plant waste derived from cultivated species. Below are details of the major archaeobotanical finds according to stratum and locus. The stratigraphy and archaeological definition of the various loci are based primarily on Gadot’s analysis (Chapters 3, 6, 25). STRATUM X12, LB IIB

The archaeobotanical material from Palace VI is given in Table 20.2. TABLE 20.2: PLANT LIST, STRATUM X12

Cereals

Cereals Total Pulses Pulses Total Fruits

Plant name

Plant organ

Hordeum vulgare Triticum dicoccum Triticum parvicoccum

Grain Grain Grain Rachis frag. Spikelet fork

Lens culinaris Vicia ervilia Vicia faba

Seed Seed Seed

Ficus carica Olea europaea

Nutlet Stone

Locus 1721

Locus 1731

59 3 339 1

19

402 44 13 2 59 69 1

Locus 2731$

Locus 2959

Locus 3827

84

193 11 195

5 2 25

103 9 2 3 14 2 1

5 404 2 1 3 6 36 1

10

32

Total

No. 276 16 643 1 5 941 55 16 8 79 107 13

507

Mordechai E. Kislev and Yael Mahler-Slasky

Plant name Vitis vinifera

Fruits Total Other Linum usitatissimum cultivated plants Other cultivated plants Total Weeds Anagallis arvensis Avena sterilis Beta vulgaris*/** Brachypodium distachyon Bupleurum subovatum Chrysanthemum coronarium C. cf. coronarium Coronilla scorpioides Euphorbia peplus Galium sect. Kolgyda Hymenocarpos circinnatus Lolium temulentum Phalaris sp. Ranunculus arvensis* Ranunculus marginatus var. scandicinus*/** Rapistrum rugosum Scorpiurus muricatus Spergula arvensis Weeds Total Wild plants

508

Adonis sp. Astragalus asterias Astragalus sp. Avena barbata A. barbata/sterilis Bellevalia cf. flexuosa Bellevalia/Muscari Bromus alopecuros* Bromus sp. Chenopodium murale Conium maculatum Cyperaceae Cyperaceae/ Polygonaceae Dactylis glomerata Fumaria sect. Fumaria Heliotropium sp. Hordeum bulbosum H. glaucum Lens sp.

Plant organ Crushed grape Pip Undeveloped pip Pedicel Bunch frag. Seed

Locus 1721

Locus 1731

Locus 2731$

Locus 2959

Locus 3827

36

7

460 16260

6

3

15 121 36

10 2

36

2

3010 3050 2810 25600

Seed Grain Fruit Grain Achene Achene Achene Seed Seed mericarp Seed Grain Grain Seed Seed Small seed Siliqua joint Seed Seed Nutlet Seed Seed Grain Grain Seed Seed Grain Grain Seed Achene Seed Seed Grain Seed Seed Grain Grain Seed

1 44

3

5 16 1

1

3

1 1 168 15

246 89

26 2

1 29

1 138 939 1

54 241

13

10 10

66

23

447 24 5 24

55

1 8 10

3 19 1 8 4

2 8 1 1 1 1 1 2

3026 3050 2810 25778 38

2 10 1

712 68 1

460 16312

3

3

1 6

No.

38 1 3 3

1

3 6

Total

7 1

1 1 1 1 7 1 1152 174 1 4 29 1 281 10 1692 25 5 37 1 11 10 26 1 1 8 4 2 8 1 1 1 1 1 2

CHAPTER 20: FOOD R EMAINS

Plant name

Plant organ

Liliaceae Linum sp. Malva sp. Medicago sp. Mercurialis annua Ochthodium aegyptiacum

Seed Seed Seed Seed Seed

Ononis sp. Papilionaceae Plantago sp. Reseda sp. Rumex pulcher* Scirpus litoralis* S. maritimus* S. maritimus/lacustris* Scirpus sp.* Solanaceae Solanum cf. villosum Thymelaea hirsuta Trigonella sp. Vicia type Vitex agnus-castus* Wild plants Total Grand Total

Seed Siliqua joint Seed Small seed Seed Seed Nutlet Seed Nutlet Nutlet Nutlet Nutlet Seed Seed Seed Nutlet Seed Seed Fruit

Locus 1721

Locus 1731

15 22 3

Locus 2731$

Locus 2959 2 1 46 36

11 4

5 2 155

16

56 1

Locus 3827

2 1

1 1 11

1 11 5 7

2 5

1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 281 1838

1 3 1 41 411

2 25610

242 1143

27 117

Total

No. 2 1 74 63 3 5 3 1 238 1 1 14 11 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 591 29119

*Species growing in humid habitat ** Species growing in heavy soils $ An estimation of the entire sample was made by counting 10% of the volume

HALLS (LOCI 1721 AND 1731) Waste of grains, mostly grains of wheat (Triticum parvicoccum), but also of cultivated barley (Hordeum vulgare) were discovered in two Halls (Loci 1721 and 1731 of Palace VI). Since the number of barley grains is much lower than that of the number of wheat grains, it seems the barley was, in this instance, an accompanying crop in a wheat field. Notably, the number of weed seeds found in these contexts exceeded the number of wheat grains. The major weeds encountered were darnel (L. temulentum), twoflowered caterpillar (Scorpiurus muricatus) and Phalaris sp. Pulses from these two loci include lentils (Lens culinaris), faba beans (Vicia faba) and bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia). The identification in these loci of rough-fruited bedstraw (Galium tricornutum, which often grows as a weed in fields of pulses) suggests the possibility that these pulses originated in fields specifically devoted to their culture. A second explanation for the presence of that weed suggests pulses may have been grown as a crop accompanying cereals. Also encountered was a mixture of fruit remains such as grapes (Vitis vinifera), figs (Ficus carica) and flax (Linum usitatissimum), all in small quantities. Evidence for these species was relatively rare in relation to the quantity of weeds encountered. There is evidence to suggest that some of the fields worked by the inhabitants of ancient Aphek were probably located in heavy soils near the Yarkon springs. That is indicated by the presence of species that grow in humid habitats or in heavy soils, such as the lilac chaste tree (Vitex agnus-castus) and other plants including sea club-rush (Scirpus maritimus), coast club-rush (Scirpus litoralis), Ranunculus marginatus and fiddle dock (Rumex pulcher). 509

Mordechai E. Kislev and Yael Mahler-Slasky

According to these finds from Loci 1731 and 1721, there is a suggestion that those large rooms or halls functioned as temporary storage facilities for grain processed partially by threshing and winnowing and where manual work of sorting grains was performed. Apparently, the clean grains were consumed or sentaway, which explains the presence of waste products and a lack of ‘clean grains’. A less likely possibility is that these were remains from grain fields badly infiltrated by weeds. One Hall (Locus 1721) is also the find place of a letter from Ugarit (Kochavi 1989:70-74; Chapter 15) that discusses a shipment of grains from Canaan to Ugarit. The botanical remains of wheat and waste from cereal fields from the two halls, so near the letter, stresses the special relationship between it and the function of the hall where it was recovered. It emphasizes a reality that shows the relationship between ancient agricultural activity and commerce at Tel Aphek. Obviously, wheat grown in nearby fields and along the banks of the Yarkon River was threshed and winnowed nearby and the collected grains of wheat were stored, and sorted in that hall before their shipment abroad. This information sheds important light on the economic role of Tel Aphek within the political and economic system of the Levant during the 13th century BCE. LOCUS 2959 This paved path north of the Governor’s Residency, leading to a trough for feeding or watering animals (Chapter 4), yielded botanical remains of grains with a large quantity of weeds, including darnel (L. temulentum), two-flowered caterpillar (Scorpiurus muricatus), and Phalaris sp., as well as some pulses and fruits. These remains may represent remnants of animal fodder. Species that can indicate the location of some related cereal fields were in heavy soils near the site. They are: white beet (Beta vulgaris, Fig. 20.6), fiddle dock (Rumex pulcher) and Ranunculus marginatus. LOCUS 3827 Only some few botanical finds were retrieved from this locus. They seem to be remnants representing yields of wheat fields, since the number of weed seeds (darnel and two-flowered caterpillar) equals that of grains of wheat. LOCUS 2731 A large concentration of charred grape remains, mainly pips, was found on a plastered floor behind the posterior southern, outer wall of Palace VI where perhaps it was dried and kept as fodder or as fertilizer for fields. It included ca. 800 cm 3 of carbonized botanical material. The entire quantity was inspected and 10% of it counted for statistical analysis. It indicated that the concentration as a whole included some 16,000 pips and 450 crushed grapes (Fig. 20.7). The crushed grapes (Fig. 20.8) included pieces of skin with pips adhering to them. Some pips were found in their natural positions within grapes (Fig. 20.9), while others were stuck to grape skins in a manner that indicated they were likely to have been previously separated from their skins and then juxtaposed together with other pips, with no evidence of any natural association or order. These grapes had one, two or three pips, which is determined by the shapes of pips, a function of the number found within a grape. Single pips in a grape are slightly convex and have a protruding middle section between two grooves. Pips from grapes found in pairs are slightly flattened, while pips found in a trio are triangular shaped (Fig. 20.10). A large number of skin fragments, small bunch fragments, grape pedicels and undeveloped pips was also found. A lump of such remains (including pips) as found in the excavation was encased in plaster and removed to the laboratory where part of it was examined. It proved to be similar to the remainder of 510

CHAPTER 20: FOOD R EMAINS

the botanical finds from this locus. That sample has been retained in its original condition for possible further laboratory analysis. In order to determine whether the grapes were of one variety, several parameters were measured on a sample of 100 pips (Table 20.3). The features of the pips are illustrated in Fig. 20.11. Measurements recorded indicate the grapes were not of one variety. This lack of uniformity in the morphology of the pips is expressed in pip beaks, which show differences of more than double the length between the shortest and the longest beaks. Lengths of scuta (scutum - a shield-shaped organ of the grape pip) also show differences of more than twice the length between the shortest and the longest examples. The pip length or length of the left fossete, is a measure that shows the degree of asymmetry of a pip; the left fossettes of pips were always measured for a degree of uniformity or lack of thereof. TABLE 20. 3: MEASUREMENTS (IN MM) OF GRAPE PIPS FROM LOCUS 2731 (N=100)

Pip Length

Pip Breadth

Beak Length Pip (dorsal Thickness view)

Beak Length (side view)

Beak Scutum Breadth Length

Scutum Breadth

Left Left Fossette Fossette Length Breadth

Pip Length/ Left Fossette Length

Min 3.83 2.40 1.88 0.56 0.56 0.64 1.00 0.72 1.40 0.40 1.72 Average 4.81±.33 2.96±.21 2.21±.17 0.97±.18 1.01±.17 0.90±.11 1.43±.14 0.97±.14 2.18±.22 0.55±.09 2.22±.22 Max 5.83 3.76 3.00 1.52 1.40 1.28 1.76 1.60 2.92 1.00 2.92

The concentration of pips and skins, in good condition, their nature and proximity to winepresses in Area A, indicate, with a high degree of probability, that the concentration of material represents pomace (i.e., waste of grapes resulting from wine production), rather than from must (Grape juice produced from pressing grapes that is not yet fermented into wine). There is a high degree of evidence for this interpretation. Unlike wine, which can be stored in jars for long periods, must does not preserve well and so needs to be drunk shortly after it is produced. According to Frankel and Gadot (Chapter 4), the presses in Area A were used to produce wine and the jar bases found there are evidence of wine storage. Possibly the jars and other storage vessels from Palace VI were also used for storing wine (Kochavi 1989:68). Wine was an important commodity in Egypt, especially in the New Kingdom period (c. 1550-1070 BCE) when it was a luxury imbibed by the affluent (Lesko 1995). Hence the likelihood that a winepress from the time of the Egyptian Governor’s residency was used for producing grape juice and not must that would eventually become wine, is low. Thus, there is solid evidence in the archaeological record for the production and storage of wine on the acropolis of Tel Aphek, as well as collateral information that enhances this interpretation. Pips, skins and bunch fragments are typical remains of pomace, though today the separation of grapes from bunches is better achieved, and parts of the latter almost never remain among grapes taken for pressing (Jackson 2000:283-4). Since the finds included pips stuck to skins in their natural positions (Fig. 20.9), it was assumed at first that these finds represented remains of raisins. However, comparisons with raisins from Shiloh (Kislev 1993) negates this assumption. At Shiloh, a collection of mostly whole, carbonized raisins was found. They were swollen, since they also contained the flesh of the grape, which becomes crumbly after carbonization. In the case of the raisins from Shiloh, carbonization took place after raisins become dry enough, and thus their flesh was carbonized and therefore, preserved. This crumbly state was definitively not observed in the charred botanical remains in this locus, indicating the grape remains were not of raisins. 511

Mordechai E. Kislev and Yael Mahler-Slasky

These finds from Tel Aphek include mainly pips and broken skins, as well as small, crushed grapes, which shrank so that they included only the pip and skin with no flesh. Although the grape remains in this locus were exposed to extreme heat and became carbonized, that could not have resulted from fresh grapes exploding due to pressure of steam inside them. Even those pips found in an original position within their skins were stuck to those skins, almost without evidence of crumbly flesh. Therefore, despite the survival of many such pips in natural positions, they could neither be remains of raisins nor of whole grapes, rather they are remains of pomace. The explanation for those skins with pips in a natural position in this pomace is found in the likelihood that they passed treading without being completely crushed. Often it was observed that pips were slightly shifted from their natural position, presumably as a result of treading (Fig. 20.7). Perhaps this type of grape preservation was due to placement of a thick layer of grapes on the treading floor, or to the application of gentle treading in order not to break bitter pips and ruin the taste of the wine (Jackson 2000:284). The juxtaposition of skins and pips in the pomace remains indicates they were not the result of red wine production. When red wines are produced, skins as well as pips of grapes are kept within must in vats (Frankel 1999:43) for preliminary fermentation. Skins are purposefully included in order to give the wine its strong red colour, since the pigments of grapes are in their skins (Jackson 2000:287). Grape skins are separated from pips as a result of fermentation and the mixture of skins and pips rises to the surface and floats on top of the must (Jackson 2000:295). After preliminary fermentation, pips and skins are removed from new wine and the resultant waste is squeezed and dried, becoming a block of pips and skins without no evidence of natural juxtaposition. In ancient times, wine that had begun to ferment was transferred to pottery vessels, where fermentation continued. Since the pomace from Locus 2731 was burnt, most of the pips were found separated or with only a few adhering to skins. Such finds are typical of pomace of white wine from white grapes, rather than red wine, in which skins are not introduced into must. That explains the discovery of pips in their natural positions in relation to skins. It is even possible to suggest a likely season when this pomace was burned. If the remains were wet at time of burning, the humidity would have been turned into steam, exploding grape skins, which would have fragmented into small pieces, which was not the case in the pomace from this locus. Therefore, the pomace must have been dry when it burned. Since grape vintage is in late summer, it seems reasonable that the pomace was dried until autumn and became carbonized before winter. WHITE WINE PRODUCTION In making white wine, pips and skins are removed before a first fermentation so that must ferments alone (Jackson 2000:290). Incomplete treading allows a small quantity of grapes to remain intact or nearly intact and for some pips to maintain their natural positions and not break away from their skins. Thus, the botanical finds from Locus 2731 suggest a new method of defining types of pomace according to patterns of physical relationships between pips and skins. Evidence for white wine is rare in the archaeological record. There is some ancient evidence for white wine production such as depictions in wall paintings in tombs and some written documents (Chapter 4). In particular, some Egyptian tomb scenes depict grapes in many sizes, shapes and colours, ranging from light green to almost black, juices running from crushing vats, and pressing sacks that range in colour from light pink to dark red. However, to date there has been no direct archaeobotanical evidence for white wine until this discovery at Tel Aphek. Lesko (1995) claims that it is unclear which varieties of grapes were used in New Kingdom Egypt (1550-1070 BCE), and whether white wine was even manufactured there at all in that period. 512

CHAPTER 20: FOOD R EMAINS

Definite evidence for making white wine in Egypt is found only from the classical period and later. Athenaeus, a Greek writer of the 2nd century CE, described several Egyptian wines of his day in his tasting notes, indicating the abundant Mareotic wine from an area directly south of Alexandria as excellent: “It is white and pleasant, fragrant, easily assimilated, thin, does not go to the head, and is diuretic“ (Gulick, 1957: I.33d). There is also some evidence from other regions for white wine production in antiquity. Hittite documents mention white wine several times. It appears that the term “KỪ.BABBAR GEŠTIN” is used in Hittite texts as a qualitative term for white wine, though literary distinctions in wine colour in Anatolia are rare (Gorny 1995). Red and white wines were also distinguished in early first Millennium BCE Mesopotamia (Stronach 1995), although red wine is the only variety mentioned for earlier periods there in which wine is usually referred to with no qualification (Powell 1995) as to its colour. White wine is mentioned in some Hebrew sources, including several references to it in the Babylonian Talmud : “...if Cyprus wine is not available, old white wine may be used instead” (Kerithoth 6a in Epstein 1948); “If one immerses a pail containing white wine or milk, we decide by the excess” (Zebahim 78b in Epstein 1948). For additional references concerning wine production see Frankel (1999:200) and Chapter 4. This rare, fortuitous find at Tel Aphek, has provided the writers of these lines with possible indications for production of white wine by Egyptians at Tel Aphek in the Late Bronze Age. It is the first instance of direct evidence for the manufacture of white wine found in such an early context. Manufacture of white wine is considered to be more sophisticated than that of red wine, since it demands aging of the liquid in low temperatures, in full, sealed containers (Jackson 2000:324-326). Perhaps remains of grapes from other sites, not considered as evidence of pomace in the past, can some day be re-analysed in view of the present finds. That may yield further evidence for production of white wine in antiquity. STRATUM X11, LB III/IRON I

The sole vegetal finds from this stratum (Table 20.4) are probably remains of grain crops in Locus 2950, although its affiliation with Stratum X11 is uncertain. The material possibly derives from fields in heavy soils near the tell and adjacent to the sources of the Yarkon River, as may be perceived from the appearance of the species Ranunculus marginatus and sea club-rush (S. maritimus). The finds are few and similar to those from other strata at Tel Aphek. TABLE 20.4: PLANT LIST, LOCUS 2950, STRATUM X11

Cereals Cereals Total Pulses Pulses Total Fruits Fruits Total Weeds

Plant name

Plant organ

Hordeum vulgare Triticum parvicoccum

Grain Grain

Lens culinaris Vicia ervilia

Seed Seed

Vitis vinifera

Pip

Anagallis arvensis Brachypodium distachyon Bupleurum subovatum

Seed Grain Achene Seed Grain Grain Small Seed Seed

Lolium temulentum Phalaris sp. Ranunculus marginatus var. scandicinus*/** Scorpiurus muricatus

# of Examples 20 71 91 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 24 3 1 5

513

Mordechai E. Kislev and Yael Mahler-Slasky Weeds Total Wild plants

Astragalus asterias Caryophyllaceae Chenopodium murale/vulvaria Malva sp. Ochthodium aegyptiacum Papilionaceae Plantago sp. Scirpus maritimus* Vicia type

40 3 1 2 2 2 8 3 2 2 25 159

Seed Seed Seed Seed Siliqua joint Small seed Seed Nutlet Seed

Wild plants Total Grand Total

* Species growing in humid habitat ** Species growing in heavy soils $ An estimation of the entire sample was made by counting 10% of the volume STRATA X10-X9, IRON IB

Strata X10 and X9 are associated with relatively poorly preserved remains dated to the 11th century BCE. Finds from Stratum X10 come from pits, while those from Stratum X9 were recovered in layers of ash. Although Ganot (Chapter 6) claims: “There is no clear stratigraphic connection between the ash layers and the pits,so the exact temporal relations between the two are not clear.”,this paper will, nevertheless treat the vegetal assemblages from these strata as if they derive from separate stratigraphic entities and then compare them. STRATUM X10 Material from two pits, Loci 4018 and 1700, was examined. Finds from the former (Locus 4018) were very sparse (Table 20.5) and thus, only the finds from Locus 1700 are discussed below. TABLE 20.5: PLANT LIST – STRATUM X10 Plant name Cereals

Cereals Total Pulses

Pulses Total Fruits

Fruits Total

514

Plant organ

Hordeum vulgare subsp. distichum Rachis frag. H. vulgare subsp. vulgare Rachis frag. H. vulgare Grain Rachis node Rachis frag. Triticum dicoccum Grain T. parvicoccum Grain Rachis frag. Spikelet fork Lens culinaris Trigonella foenum-graecum/ berythea Vicia ervilia Vicia faba

Seed

Ficus carica cf. Punica granatum Vitis vinifera

Nutlet Fruit Pip Pip imprint

Seed Seed Seed

Specimen 1700A 80 10 164 1 18 133 101 38 42 587 13

Specimen 1700B

13 19 29 31 17 109

Total 80 10 164 1 31 152 130 69 59 696 13

5 74 2 94

5 74 2 94

1 5 1 7

1 5 1 7

Locus 4018

2

10 1 13

5 5 3 1 4

Total 80 10 166 1 31 152 140 69 60 709 13 5 79 2 99 3 1 6 1 11

Plant name Other cultivated plants

Cuminum cyminum Linum usitatissimum Other cultivated plants Total Weeds Anagallis arvensis Brachypodium distachyon Brassica nigra** Bupleurum subovatum Cephalaria syriaca Chrozophora tinctoria Chrysanthemum cf. coronarium Cichorium endivia Daucus broteri D. cf. broteri Euphorbia sp. Galium sect. Kolgyda Lolium temulentum Phalaris paradoxa Phalaris sp. Ranunculus arvensis* Scorpiurus muricatus Weeds Total Wild plants

Ammi cf. majus Avena barbata A. barbata/sterilis Brachypodium distachyon Chenopodium murale Compositae Cruciferae Cyperaceae Daucus carota ssp. maximus Fumaria sp. Lathyrus hierosolymitanus Lycium cf. schweinfurthii Malva sp. Medicago sp. cf. Phleum sp. Pistacia atlantica Pisum elatius Rumex pulcher*

Scirpus maritimus* Trifolium sp. Vicia type Wild plants Total Grand Total

Plant organ

Specimen 1700A

Achene Seed Seed Grain Seed Seed Immature Achene Young capitulum Seed Achene Achene Bract Capitulum Achene Seed Seed Mericarp Grain Dispersal unit Grain Inflorescence Grain Seed Seed Achene Grain Grain Rachis frag. Grain Seed Achene Capitulum Seed Nutlet Achene Seed Seed Seed Seed Siliqua frg. Grain Nutlet Seed Nutlet Seed Nutlet Seed Seed

9 9 4 1 1

Specimen 1700B

Total

1 4 5 1 4 6

1 13 14 1 8 7 1

1 13 14 1 8 7 1

2

2

2

2

2 1 1 3 7 2 1 1 1 1 457 35 181 2

2 1 1 3 7 2 1 1 1 1 479 35 181 2 2 1 6 745 1 2 6 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 3 7 52 1630

1 1 3 7 2 1 1 1 1 409 18 129 2

48 17 52

Locus 4018

22

2 1 1 570 1 2 6 3 1 1 1

1 147

1 1 1

1 3 1

1 2 717 1 2 6 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1

4 28

1

3 1

1 1 5 1 1

1 2 1 1 1 1 5 1 1

4 31 1298

4 41 1569

2 1 1

10 271

1

3 3 11 61

Total

* Species growing in humid habitat ** Species growing in heavy soils $ An estimation of the entire sample was made by counting 10% of the volume 515

Mordechai E. Kislev and Yael Mahler-Slasky

Finds from this locus, a pit, were received in two batches and were marked as ‘specimen’, 1700a and 1700b. The material of specimen 1700a included more than 100 seeds of pulses and some grape pips; both these types were absent in specimen 1700b. Pulses from Locus 1700a included either Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum) or possibly a closely related species that grows wild in Cisjordan, Beirutian Fenugreek (T. berythea), and which has a similar smell and taste. Fenugreek is a minor pulse crop raised in traditional agricultural communities in the Mediterranean Basin and south-west Asia. The seed is widely used as a condiment and as an important pulse ingredient for preparation of curries and soup (Zohary and Hopf 2000:122). The seeds are also used as a spice (hilbeh in Arabic) and employed for their medicinal value. Approximately 4400 carbonised seeds of T. foenum-graecum were discovered in Stratum X at Tell Qasile, which is roughly contemporary with Stratum X10 at Tel Aphek. Such a large quantity of seeds indicates, without doubt, that the plant found at Tell Qasile was of a cultivated species, T. foenum-graecum (Kislev 1990-1993). It is possible that the inhabitants of Tel Aphek Stratum X10 also used the same plant for food, but since only a few seeds of it have been identified there, they could as well be attributed to the wild species T. berythea, since the seeds of both types are very similar. Locus 1700a also included seeds of Galium (Probably of G. tricornutum), purple wild pea (Pisum elatius) and Vicia type weeds and other wild plants that typically accompany fields of pulses. Thus, the assemblage from specimen 1700a probably arrived from two separate fields, one devoted to cultivation of cereals, the other to pulses. By contrast, the material from specimen 1700b, arrived from a field solely devoted to the cultivation of cereals. It should be noticed that among the seeds of bitter vetch, found in specimen 1700a, two were infested by a weevil (Bruchus sp.). Several species of Bruchus are field pests that prey on pulses and their infestation may persist for a short time after harvest, but none of these species is able to multiply in storage and therefore they are never major storage pests (Dobie et al. 1984:34). All Bruchus species, which are field pests, reproduce by only a single generation per year (Avidov and Harpaz 1969:282). One of the weeds from specimen 1700b is Syrian scabious (Cephalaria syriaca). Seeds of this plant are similar in size to wheat grains, and so easily mix with them. If ground together with wheat they ruin the colour and taste of flour and bread (Kislev 1980). Species such as black mustard (Brassica nigra), fiddle dock (Rumex pulcher) and sea club-rush (Scirpus maritimus), found in Locus 1700b, may indicate that at least some of the fields were located in a humid habitat with heavy soils such as those close to the Yarkon sources. Thus, analyses of the materials in a pit, specimen 1700, arrived from at least two distinct sources expressed by the two subdivisions within the pit, Specimens 1700a and 1700b. Finds from this locus are typical of threshing waste that also includes remains after having been sieved together with tail grain (Hillman 1984). This suggests the likelihood of a close association between Stratum X10 and Stratum X9 (see below). The largest number of grains from this locus belong to darnel (Lolium temulentum) many of which were partially or fully hulled (Fig. 20.1) and Canary grass (Phalaris paradoxa), including intact dispersal units (Fig 20.12, 20.13) and inflorescence fragments (Fig. 20.14). In addition to grains of weeds, also found in smaller numbers were grains of wheat (T. parvicoccum) fairly small and similar to grains of darnel (L. temulentum; Tables 20.6, 20.7; for size comparisons see Kislev and Melamed 2000). Grains of T. dicoccum and of barley (Hordeum vulgare, Fig. 20.15) were also present. Since grains of T. dicoccum and of barley are not small (Table 20.6) it seems likely they grew as accompanying plants in a wheat field, which would explain the presence of their grains as an element in the botanical waste recovered. It must be noted that it is often difficult to separate small grains of T. parvicoccum and T. dicoccum, since their shapes and sizes are sometimes similar. A mixture of two subspecies of barley, two-rowed barley (Hordeum vulgare subsp. distichum) and six-rowed barley (H. vulgare subsp. vulgare), was found in Locus 1700. The rachis fragments found 516

CHAPTER 20: FOOD R EMAINS

(Figs. 20.16, 20.17) verify the presence of these subspecies. Grains amounting to a third of a spike of six-rowed barley are similar to grains of two-rowed barley; the other two-thirds are twisted to a certain extent and thus, not similar to grains of two-rowed barely. Thus, only detailed analysis and counting of the two forms of grains found in Locus 1700, and the assumption that the burnt remains from there represent a reliable sample of material fresh in origin, allow it to be definitively stated the two subspecies were actually present in this locus. The presence of rachis fragments of barley in Locus 1700 verifies the presence of two-rowed barley and not only six-rowed barley. Dispersal units of Canary grass (Phalaris paradoxa) found in Locus 1700 derive from the bottom of the inflorescence. Those are heavier units than units of the upper part of the inflorescence and may have survived as waste products of sifting rather than from the winnowing of grains, since upper, lighter dispersal units would have been found in material left after winnowing. Most of the barley grains had been partially or fully hulled after having been separated from the inflorescence. Also grains of darnel (L. temulentum) remain hulled in their chaff after being separated from their inflorescence. However, strong fire would cause the chaff to crumble and their remains would not always be noticeable on the grains. Similarly, grains of P. paradoxa stay in their dispersal units after threshing and separate from them only in strong fires. This was not the case in Locus 1700, in which the grains were noted to have been clearly hulled, while some of the P. paradoxa grains were actually still within their dispersal units. Also present were rachis fragments of wheat (Fig. 20.18) and barley (Figs. 20.16, 20.17), finds common even today together with tail grain in waste derived from sieving (Hillman 1984). Recovery of rachis fragments of cereals, dispersal units of P. paradoxa, hulled grains, etc. is relatively rare in archaeobotanical assemblages because such remains are very delicate. When burned they tend to be consumed by fire and since this sample was charred, the state of preservation of the material in Locus 1700, which includes them, is truly exceptional. It also indicates the fire in this pit was neither strong nor particularly destructive. This is in contrast to botanical finds from other loci at Tel Aphek, where grains of darnel (L. temulentum) and barley were no longer hulled, and grains of Phalaris sp. were found without their dispersal units. The archaeobotanical materials in this pit were clearly accumulated and stored for later utilization. Based on Hillman (1984), who investigated traditional uses of such material in Turkey, it seems this material in Locus 1700 was kept as either fuel or food for animals and not as food for the poor. That observation is inferred by the presence of waste from early stages of grain treatment, such as rachis fragments of wheat and barley, which are unlikely to be found in material saved as human provender, even for the poor. It is assumed that all the material from the pit represents a single year of gathering, meaning, it was collected for annual consumption and was not the result of accumulation year after year. TABLE 20.6: DIMENSIONS (MM.) AND RATIOS OF GRAINS FROM LOCUS 1700A Triticum parvicoccum, N=19 Minimum Average Maximum Hordeum vulgare subsp. vulgare, N=26 Minimum Average Maximum Hordeum vulgare, N=34 Minimum Average Maximum

Length 3.42 4.27 ±.58 5.67 Length 4.83 6.00±.86 8.00 Length 5.33 6.76 ±.76 8.08

Breadth 2.25 2.68 ±.30 3.33 Breadth 2.33 3.06±.37 3.83 Breadth 2.58 3.37 ±.34 4.00

Thickness 1.75 2.25 ±.32 3.08 Thickness 1.67 2.30±.30 2.83 Thickness 1.25 2.35 ±.35 3.00

L/B 1.34 1.60 ±.14 1.85 L/B 1.61 1.98±.36 3.43 L/B 1.52 2.02 ±.27 2.74

T/B 0.70 0.84 ±.09 0.97 T/B 0.65 0.75±.06 0.86 T/B 0.48 0.70 ±.08 0.86

517

Mordechai E. Kislev and Yael Mahler-Slasky Lolium temulentum, N=213 Minimum Average Maximum cf. Triticum dicoccum, N=70 Minimum Average Maximum Phalaris paradoxa, N=37 Minimum Average Maximum Vicia ervilia, N=45 Minimum Average Maximum

Length 2.67 4.00 ±.42 5.17 Length 3.75 5.27 ±.66 6.58 Length 1.44 2.02 ±.30 2.64 Length 2.52 2.94 ±.30 4.32

Breadth 1.33 1.92 ±.26 4.33 Breadth 1.58 2.32 ±.34 3.00 Breadth 0.64 1.03 ±.17 1.28 Breadth 2.32 2.67 ±.24 3.48

Thickness 0.75 1.31 ±.18 1.83 Thickness 1.50 2.06 ±.28 2.75 Thickness 0.24 0.71 ±.17 1.04 L/B 1.00 1.10 ±.06 1.24

L/B 1.04 2.10 ±.22 2.90 L/B 1.72 2.29 ±.24 3.00 L/B 1.65 1.97 ±.21 2.69

T/B 0.29 0.69 ±.08 0.90 T/B 0.67 0.90 ±.13 1.21 T/B 0.33 0.68 ±.11 0.88

TABLE 20.7: DIMENSIONS (MM.) AND RATIOS OF GRAINS FROM LOCUS 1700B Triticum parvicoccum, N=11 Minimum Average Maximum Triticum dicoccum, N=12 Minimum Average Maximum Lolium temulentum, N=27 Minimum Average Maximum

Length 3.42 4.39 ±.58 5.58 Length 4.00 5.01 ±.58 5.83 Length 3.12 3.95 ±.42 4.80

Breadth 1.83 2.54 ±.37 3.00 Breadth 1.50 2.13 ±.45 2.75 Breadth 1.52 1.89 ±.18 2.20

Thickness 1.67 2.26 ±.34 2.83 Thickness 1.50 1.85 ±.28 2.25 Thickness 1.20 1.48 ±.17 1.80

L/B 1.50 1.74 ±.17 2.09 L/B 2.00 2.41 ±.28 2.78 L/B 1.73 2.10 ±.22 2.50

T/B 0.77 0.89±.06 0.97 T/B 0.67 0.89 ±.11 1.00 T/B 0.60 0.78 ±.06 0.88

STRATUM X9 This stratum is described as mostly a series of ash layers spread over ca. 500 m 2 (Chapter 6). The archaeobotanical evidence strongly suggests this area functioned as a threshing area. Only two loci were analyzed for botanical finds, but since the finds from Locus 3609 were sparse, (Table 20.8) only those finds from Locus 3456 are discussed here as a sample that may be representative of all the ash layers of this stratum. TABLE 20.8: PLANT LIST STRATUM X9 Cereals

Plant name

Plant organ

Locus 3456

Locus 3609

Grand Total

Hordeum vulgare

Grain Rachis frag. Grain Grain Rachis frag.

115 3 10 172 2 302 3 25 28 59

5

120 3 10 179 2 314 4 25 29 59 1 151 17 228

Triticum dicoccum T. parvicoccum Cereals Total Pulses Pulses Total Fruits

Fruits Total

518

Lens culinaris Vicia ervilia

Seed Seed

Ficus carica Olea europaea Vitis vinifera

Nutlet Stone Pip Undeveloped Pip

149 17 225

7 12 1 1 1 2 3

CHAPTER 20: FOOD R EMAINS

Weeds

Plant name

Plant organ

Locus 3456

Anagallis arvensis Astragalus hamosus Beta vulgaris*/** Brachypodium distachyon Bupleurum subovatum

Seed Seed Fruit Grain Achene Seed Achene Seed Seed Mericarp Seed Seed Grain Rachis frag. Mericarp Seed Seed Seed Nutlet Grain siliqua joint Seed Seed Seed Nutlet Achene Seed Seed Seed

34 8 2 5 5 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 272 1 4 40 1 7 1 128 2 170 2 1 694 2 1 2 6 1

Grain Grain Grain Seed Achene Achene Seed Seed Achene Seed Nutlet Seed Nutlet Seed Seed Seed Seed Seed Seed Seed Seed Seed Seed Seed Seed Seed Seed Seed

6 1 6 1 1 2 84 1 2 2 2 2 3 40 1 5 1 5 1 2 1 83 25 3 2 21 4 5

Chrysanthemum coronarium Coronilla scorpioides Euphorbia helioscopia Galium sect. Kolgyda Hippocrepis unisiliquosa Hymenocarpos circinnatus Lolium temulentum Malva parviflora Medicago cf. littoralis Ononis sicula Onosma gigantea** Phalaris sp. Rapistrum rugosum Scorpiurus muricatus Securigera securidaca Trigonella hierosolymitana Weeds Total Wild plants

Adonis sp. cf. Apium nodiflorum* Astragalus asterias Astragalus sp. Bellevalia cf. flexuosa Bromus tigridis/ pseudobrachystachys*/** Bromus cf. diandrus** Bromus sp. Capparis spinosa Centaurea procurrens Centaurea cf. procurrens Chenopodium murale Chenopodium murale/vulvaria Compositae Convolvulus oleifolius Cyperaceae Cyperaceae/Polygonaceae Erodium moschatum Fumaria sect. Fumaria Gynandriris sisyrinchium Heliotropium europaeum Lathyrus sect. Cicercula Liliaceae Linum sp. Malva sp. Malva/Lavatera Medicago polymorpha Medicago polymorpha/minima Medicago sp. Mercurialis annua Ononis sp.

Locus 3609

10 2

4 1 17

2

Grand Total 34 8 2 5 5 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 282 1 4 42 1 7 1 132 2 171 2 1 711 2 1 2 6 1 6 1 6 1 1 2 84 1 2 2 2 2 3 40 1 5 1 5 1 2 1 83 25 3 2 23 4 5

519

Mordechai E. Kislev and Yael Mahler-Slasky Plant name

Plant organ

Locus 3456

Papilionaceae Piptatherum sp. Rumex pulcher*

Small seed Grain Nutlet Seed Nutlet Seed Seed Nutlet Nutlet Seed Nutlet Nutlet Nutlet Seed Nutlet Nutlet Seed Seed Seed Seed Seed Fruit

266 1 2 3 8 8 1 4 38 2 10 7 3 5 1 4 1 1 3 2 7 1 702 1951

Rumex/Polygonum Schoenus nigricans* Scirpus lacustris* S. litoralis* S. maritimus* S. maritimus/lacustris* Scirpus sp.* Thymelaea hirsuta Thymelaea passerina Trifolium cf. spumosum* Trifolium clusii Trifolium sp. Trigonella sp. Vicia type Vitex agnus-castus* Wild plants Total Grand Total

Locus 3609

1

3 6 39

Grand Total 266 1 2 3 8 8 1 4 38 2 11 7 3 5 1 4 1 1 3 2 7 4 708 1990

* Species growing in humid habitat ** Species growing in heavy soils $ An estimation of the entire sample was made by counting 10% of the volume

LOCUS 3456 The archaeobotanical finds from Locus 3456 are very rich. The material volume was not large but there were many findings in it, especially a variety of weeds and wild species that were represented here. About 20 samples were taken from this locus and preliminarily examined in the laboratory. Material from five representative samples was fully identified and is presented in Table 20.8. Some of the vegetal finds from Stratum X9 are typical of remains associated with threshing floors. They include threshing waste such as products derived from sifting of grains that would be likely to be collected in the area of a threshing floor. Judging from the very large variety of weeds and wild plants in the assemblage of this stratum, one may conclude that grains were brought directly from the fields to this area before being further sorted and treated. These finds indicate that more than one natural habitat was exploited by the inhabitants of Tel Aphek in this period. Some plants, including coast club-rush (Scirpus litoralis; Fig. 20.4); sea clubrush (Scirpus maritimus), black bog-rush (Schoenus nigricans; Fig. 20.19), giant golden-drop (Onosma gigantea; Fig. 20.20) and possibly fool’s watercress (cf. Apium nodiflorum; Fig. 20.21), originated in nearby wet fields (see discussion above). Some few additional seeds belong to species that grow in light, drier soils such as shaggy sparrow-wort (Thymelaea hirsuta) and procumbent centaury (Centaurea procurrens). Possibly, the finds indicate a mixture of waste from wheat fields in heavy soils in a humid habitat, with waste from barley fields in light soils in a drier region. Grape pips and fig nutlets were also present. They show the threshing area was not used solely for its primary function, but was also utilized for additional agricultural purposes. The archaeobotanical finds from Strata X10 and X9 may signify that waste from activity around the threshing area of Stratum X9 was thrown into pits ascribed to Stratum X10 for eventual use as fodder or 520

CHAPTER 20: FOOD R EMAINS

fuel. Since Locus 3456 is not near Locus 1700 (a pit), it must be said that this hypothesis is based on the assumption that all the area of the ash layers was used for the same purpose and that all the pits of Stratum X10 were used for storage. However, the botanical finds from Strata X10 and X9 are not identical. There are many more species and seeds of weeds and wild plants in Stratum X9 than in Stratum X10. There are many small seeds of many species in Stratum X9 and almost none in Stratum X10. Examples of these small seeds are coast club-rush (Scirpus litoralis), nettle-leaved goosefoot (Chenopodium murale), scarlet pimpernel (Anagallis arvensis), barbary nut (Gynandriris sisyrinchium; Fig. 20.22) as well as many species of small seeded Papilionaceae. These diminutive seeds may have fallen during sieving and thus did not reach the pits. What did get placed in the pits were mainly plant parts and seeds that were larger than the size of the holes of the sieves that were used. When burning occurred within the pit, it appears the fire was less intense than that in the area of the threshing floor, because in the deeper recesses of the pit there was less oxygen. Such a situation could explain the better state of preservation of botanical remains within the pit, including delicate parts of plants such as rachis fragments of wheat and barley, distribution units of Canary grass (Phalaris paradoxa) and hulled grains, unlike the botanical finds from Stratum X9 which included very few hulled grains. STRATUM X8, IRON IIA

Thirty seven pits were ascribed to this stratum. They are assumed to have functioned as silos for grain storage. Contents of two stone-lined pits (Loci 4807 and 4813) and three unlined pits (Loci 4015, 4026 and 5013) were examined for botanical finds (Table 20.9). Only in two pits (Loci 4015 and 5013) were there significant finds indicating they may have functioned as silos. Several pits, Loci 4807, 4813 and 4026, yielded very few seeds and so the finds from them do not allow for any significant conclusions. If they were indeed silos, then no archaeological evidence remained to prove it, perhaps, because they did not suffer conflagration. TABLE 20.9: PLANT LIST – AREA X, STRATUM 8 Plant name Cereals

Plant organ

Hordeum vulgare

Grain Rachis node Triticum dicoccum Grain T. parvicoccum Grain Spikelet fork

Cereals Total Pulses Lens culinaris Vicia ervilia Vicia faba Pulses Total Fruits Ficus carica Olea europaea Vitis vinifera

Fruits Total Other cultivated Linum plants usitatissimum Other cultivated plants Total

Locus 4015 Jar A Jar C$ Jar E Jar F$ 3295 8830 20

3295 8850

Nutlet Stone Crushed grape Pip Undeveloped pip

2

11

4

1 3

185 6700 10

19030 10

4

4

10

10

10

4 4

18999 20

10

1

Seed Seed Seed

Seed

184 6690

Locus Locus L o c u s L o c u s Total 4026 4807 4813 5013

10

11 13 1 2 1 4 1

Total

19 19020 20 7 8 135 164 1 1 162 19213 47 58 207 209 20 21 274 288 1 1 11 1 78 90

10

10

1 1

10

10

20

1 3

2

79

1 104

20 20

10 10

34 34

1 1

2 2

14 14

51 51

1

521

Mordechai E. Kislev and Yael Mahler-Slasky

Weeds

Plant name

Plant organ

Avena sterilis Brachypodium distachyon Bupleurum subovatum Cephalaria syriaca Chrysanthemum coronarium Coronilla scorpioides Galium sect. Kolgyda Hordeum glaucum Leopoldia comosa Lolium temulentum Phalaris sp. Ranunculus marginatus var. scandicinus*/** Scorpiurus muricatus

Grain Grain

Avena barbata/ sterilis cf. Apium nodiflorum* Bellevalia/Muscari Compositae Convolvulus secundus Fumaria sp. Lathyrus sect. Cicercula Linum sp. Malva sp. Medicago sp. Papilionaceae Rumex pulcher*

1

Locus Locus L o c u s L o c u s Total 4026 4807 4813 5013

10

10

20

21

1

22 47

1 47

Achene

1

1

Seed

2

2

1 23 717 460

1 2 23 929 498

8

9

30 1289

31 1576

Mericarp Grain Seed Grain Grain

1

2 17 5

2 170 10

2

10 20

199 35

Seed Seed

2

11 3

1 1 26

180

2

60

1 268

1

2

16

Grain

1

1

1

Achene Seed Achene

1 1

1 1 2

1 1 2

1 1

1 1

Seed Seed

Seed Seed Seed Seed Small seed Nutlet Seed Vicia type Seed Vitex agnus-castus* Fruit Wild plants Total Grand Total

3

10

13 1

10

1 10 1 8 20 3333 9083

10

1

10 10 1 30 188 6820

22 11 59 19421

1 3

1 5 10

10

1 1 3 40

13 14 14 53 54 10 21 4 7 1 1 1 1 9 32 3 16 99 166 1917 21398

* Species growing in humid habitat ** Species growing in heavy soils $ An estimation of the whole sample was made by counting 10% of the volume

LOCUS 5013 Tail grains of wheat and barley (small grains) were found in this pit. A few of the wheat grains were infected by granary weevil (Sitophilus granarius). With the grains was found a large number of typical grain-fields weeds, darnel (Lolium temulentum) and Phalaris sp. There were also many seeds of Syrian scabious (Cephalaria syriaca), noted above as a weed, the seeds of which, if mixed with grains and milled, spoil flour (Kislev 1980). There were also pulses, probably derived from accompanying plants 522

Total 10

Seed Achene

Weeds Total Wild plants

Locus 4015 Jar A Jar C$ Jar E Jar F$

CHAPTER 20: FOOD R EMAINS

rather than fields of pulses, since weeds that typically accompany the last were not found. Seeds of bitter vetch found in this pit show great variation in size, a typical feature of an accompanying weed. The presence of Ranunculus marginatus may hint that the origin of this wheat is in fields within a humid habitat of heavy soils, such as that adjacent to the tell, near the Yarkon River and its sources. Vine pips were also found in another pit, Locus 5013. However, since the vine is not related to grain fields, its presence in this pit indicates that the pit functioned as depository for refuse2. LOCUS 4015 Several intact jars (Labelled A, C, E and F)3 containing cultivated barley grains were found in this pit. They were mixed with plaster or burnt clay. All the grains from jars A and E were counted, as well as a sample of 10 percent of the volume of grains from jars C and F. In addition, one hundred grains each from jars A, C and F, were measured (Table 20.9). The grains were burnt and somewhat swollen. Paleas had been separated from the grains or were burned and crumbled, so only grains remained. Some grains were broken, but could still be clearly identified as barley. Some of them are of six-rowed barley, as is discerned by their twisted forms (see above: Stratum X10, Locus 1700). The condition of the grains indicates this collection of barley was cached after sorting and not as found in the field. The low rate of only ca. 1 to 2% of weeds indicates a high level of cleaning and meticulous sorting of the barley that can only be interpreted as evidence of highly labor-intensive activity. Notably, all the contents of the jars in this locus showed signs of infestation by the granary weevil (Sitophilus granarius; Dobie et al. 1984:45-8) that damaged cereal grains. So, despite the very intense effort invested in sorting barley seeds for storage in jars, the work of the sorters was subject to ruin by insects that could, in a short while, destroy entire stores of grain. Barley, unlike wheat, succeeds in dry conditions and can therefore be grown in drier regions. In this case, however, it was probably grown near the mound, in wet and heavy soils. The evidence for this is found in remains of the Lilac chaste tree (Vitex agnus-castus; Fig. 20.3) and also possibly fool’s watercress (cf. Apium nodiflorum), discovered in Jar F, They indicate that barley fields were located near the Yarkon river and its sources. TABLE 20.10: DIMENSIONS (MM) AND RATIOS OF HORDEUM VULGARE (BARLEY) GRAINS FROM LOCUS 4015 Jar A, N = 100 Minimum Average Maximum Jar C, N = 100 Minimum Average Maximum Jar F, N = 100 Minimum Average Maximum

Length

Breadth

Thickness

L/B

4.05 5.69±.55 7.05

2.33 3.06±.27 3.75

1.67 2.40 ±.30 3.17

1.36 1.87 ±.19 2.31

T/B 0.63 0.78 ±.08 1.09

3.30 5.68 ±.71 8.05

2.33 3.12 ±.36 3.92

1.75 2.54 ±.41 4.67

1.32 1.84 ±.24 2.54

0.63 0.81 ±.07 1.00

4.63 5.74 ±.59 7.80

2.42 3.15 ±.32 3.75

1.92 2.59 ±.35 3.58

1.41 1.84 ±.23 2.36

0.70 0.82 ±.08 1.14

2. The carbonized vine pips were not preserved in the usual way as black hollow pips. Rather, a black/brown inner imprint of pips was preserved. This inner imprint can be formed when hollow pips are filled by some material that leaves a positive impression of the pip, after the peel falls away. 3. These jars were each assigned different excavation unit numbers: Jar A = Basket 39127/90; Jar C = Baskets 39130/90 and 39131/91; Jar E = Basket 39137/90; Jar F = Basket 39169/91.

523

Mordechai E. Kislev and Yael Mahler-Slasky

AREA A, THE WINEPRESSES (CONTEMPORARY WITH STRATUM X12-X13) Finds from the winepresses in Area A (Table 20.11; Chapter 4) do not include pomace. Rather, the area yielded a small quantity of waste that includes mainly small quantities of wheat grains and accompanying weeds lacking any special significance. TABLE 20.11: PLANT LIST – AREA A

Cereals Cereals Total Pulses Pulses Total Fruits Fruits Total Weeds

Weeds Total Wild plants

Plant name

Plant organ

Hordeum vulgare Triticum dicoccum T. parvicoccum

Grain Grain Grain

Lens culinaris

Seed

Vitis vinifera

Pip Undeveloped pip

Avena sterilis Centaurea iberica Chrysanthemum coronarium Emex spinosa Lolium temulentum Malva parviflora Phalaris paradoxa Phalaris sp. Scorpiurus muricatus

Grain Achene Achene Seed Grain Mericarp Grain Grain Seed

Malva sp. Polygonum arenastrum Vicia type

Seed Nutlet Seed

Wild plants Total Grand Total

Locus 3216 2 1 8 11 1 1 1 1 2

Locus 3223 Locus 3224

3

2 3 13 18 1 1 3 1 4 2 1 3 1 12 2 6 1 1 29 2 1 6

3 21

9 61

2 5 7 1

1

1

1 2

1 3 1 7

5 2

6 1 1 19 2 1 3 6 39

10

1

Total

CONCLUSIONS Tel Aphek is situated in a fertile plain, surrounded by lands that permit a large variety of crops to be grown. The finds from the different strata under discussion provide ample evidence of this capability. Crops that formed a basis for the diet of the inhabitants of Aphek include grains, pulses and fruits. A collection of grapes from Palace VI indicates production of white wine, probably by the Egyptians who dwelled at the site, while a collection of barley from later deposits indicates grains were stored in jars within granary pits in the 10th cent. BCE. Although not all strata furnished significant collections of crop grains, they did yield evidence of agricultural waste products from which, it may be deduced, that the inhabitants of Tel Aphek were primary producers of grains in nearby fields. The archaeobotanical finds from these levels show throughout these periods that dwellers at Tel Aphek utilized the surrounding heavy soils of the humid habitat near the Yarkon River for various crops. Wheat grains and waste from wheat fields, found in physical association with the letter from Ugarit in the debris of Palace VI, show that at the end of the Late Bronze Age Tel Aphek filled an important role as producer of wheat and may have had trade relations with Ugarit. Lack of fruits such as dates almonds and carobs show the inhabitants were satisfied with their local crops and had no trade with the Jordan valley, the central highlands nor the Negev regions. The rich and varied archaeobotanical finds from Tel Aphek provide abundant evidence for weeds and wild plants that grew around the Yarkon River sources in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages. 524

REFERENCES

CHAPTER 20: FOOD R EMAINS

Avidov, Z. and Harpaz, I. 1969. Plant Pests of Israel. Jerusalem. Avitsur, S. 1957. The Yarkon. The River and its Environment. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew) Davis, P. H. and Cook, C. D. K. 1965. Ranunculus. In: Davis, P.H., ed. Flora of Turkey. Vol. 1. University Press, Edinburgh. pp. 146-197. Dobie, P., Haines, C.P., Hodges, R.J. and Prevett, P.F. 1984. Insects and Arachnids of Tropical Stored Products. Their Biology and Identification. Slough, Great Britain. Epstein, I. 1948. The Babylonian Talmud, Translated into English. London. Feinbrun-Dothan, N. 1978. Flora Palaestina. Vol. 3. Jerusalem. Feinbrun-Dothan, N. 1986. Flora Palaestina. Vol. 4. Jerusalem. Frankel, R. 1999. Wine and Oil Production in Antiquity in Israel and Other Mediterranean Countries. Sheffield. Gomy, R.L. 1995. Viticulture and Ancient Anatolia. In: McGovern, P.E., Fleming, S. J. and Katz, S.A., eds. The Origins and Ancient History of Wine. Philadelphia. pp. 133-174. Gulick, C.B. 1957. Translation of Athenaeus. The Deipnosophists 1-10. Cambridge Mass. and London. Hillman, G.C. 1984. Traditional husbandry and processing of archaic cereals in recent times. The operations, products and equipment which might feature in Sumerian texts. Part 1: The Glume Wheats. Bulletin of Sumerian Agriculture 1:1-32. Jackson, R.S. 2000. Wine Science. Principles, Practice, Perception. Academic Press. San Diego and London. Kislev, M. 1980. Contenu d’un silo à blé de l’époque du fer ancien. In: Briend, J. and Humbert, J.B. Tell Keisan (1971-1976) une cité phénicienne en Galilée. Fribourg, Suisse. pp. 361-378. Kislev, M. 1990-1993. Fenugreek from Tell Qasile. Israel - People and Land 7-8:34. (Hebrew) Kislev, M.E. 1993. Food Remains. In: Finkelstein, I., Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z., eds. Shiloh. The Archaeology of a Biblical Site. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 10) TelAviv. pp. 354-361. Kislev, M. and Melamed, Y. 2000. Ancient Infested Wheat and Horsebean at Horvat Rosh Zait. In: Gal, Z. and. Alexandre, Y., eds. An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village (IAA Reports 8). pp. 206-220. Kislev, M.E., Melamed, Y., Simchoni, O. and Marmorstein, M. 1997. Computerized Keys of Grass Grains of the Mediterranean Basin. Lagascalia 19/2:289-294. Kochavi, M. 1989. Aphek-Antipatris: Five Thousand Years of History. Tel-Aviv. (Hebrew) Lesko, L.H. 1995. Egyptian wine production during the New Kingdom In: McGovern, P.E., Fleming, S.J. and Katz, S.A. eds. The origins and Ancient History of Wine. Philadelphia. pp. 215-230. Meikle, R.D. 1977. Flora of Cyprus, 1. Kew, England. . Meikle, R.D. 1985. Flora of Cyprus, 2. Kew, England. Powell, M.A. 1995. Wine and the vine in ancient Mesopotamia. The cuneiform evidence. In: McGovern, P.E., Fleming S. J. and Katz, S.A., eds. The Origins and Ancient History of Wine. Philadelphia. pp. 97-122. Radcliffe-Smith, A. 1982. Euphorbia. In: Davis, P.H. ed. Flora of Turkey, Vol. 7. Edinburgh. pp. 571-630. Ravikovitch, S. 1981. The Soils of Israel: Formation, Nature and Properties. Tel-Aviv. (Hebrew with English summary) Sell, P. D. 1976. Cichorium. In: Tutin, T.G., Heywood, V.H. Burger, N.A., Moore, D.M. Valentine, D.H., Walters, S.M. and Webb, D.A. eds. Flora Europaea Vol. 4. Cambridge. pp. 304-305. Stronach, D. 1995. The imagery of the wine bowl: Wine in Assyria in the early first millennium B.C. In: McGovern, P.E., Fleming, S. J. and Katz, S.A., eds. The Origins and Ancient History of Wine. Philadelphia. pp. 175-195. Zohary, M. 1966. Flora Palaestina Vol. 1. Jerusalem. Zohary, M. 1972. Flora Palaestina Vol. 2. Jerusalem. Zohary, D. and Hopf, M. 2000. Domestication of Plants in the Old World. New York. 525

CHAPTER 21

TERRESTRIAL FAUNA Liora Kolska Horwitz

Area X on the acropolis of Tel Aphek was excavated between the years 1973-1984 (Beck and Kochavi 1993; Kochavi, Beck and Yadin 2000; Chapter 1). The strata in this area represent occupation during several periods beginning with MB II and continuing through LB II into Iron IB and on through Iron IIA. These are turbulent, chrono-cultural periods in the history of the southern Levant, beginning with Egyptian domination in LB II, followed by the advent of the Philistines during the LB IIB/Iron I transition (Gadot’s LB III; Chapter 25), and the rise of the United Monarchy (see Mazar 1992; Bunimovitz 1995; Finkelstein 1995, 1997; Stager 1995; Gitin et al. 1998; Dothan 1998 for example for in-depth discussions on these topics). These changes affected the social fabric, organisation and even ethnic composition of the region. To date, several archaeozoological studies carried out at sites such as Tel Dan (Wapnish and Hesse 1991), Tel Miqneh-Ekron (Hesse 1986; Lev-Tov 2000) and Tel Gerisa (Sade 2000) have attempted to examine the impact of major socio-political and demographic changes on patterns of animal exploitation. Accordingly, the faunal assemblage from Area X at Tel Aphek is discussed in relation to these factors, in the hope that it offers additional insights into this period marked by dynamic changes in human behaviour reflected in faunal utilization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS The total number of identifiable bones for each species (NISP) was summed and converted into frequencies. Where possible, sheep were separated from goats using morphological and metrical criteria given in Boessneck (1969) and Prummel and Frisch (1986). Other species were identified with reference to the comparative zoological collection housed in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Ageing of domestic animals was accomplished with reference to epiphyseal fusion (fused or unfused) and dental eruption stage (Silver 1969:285-286; Grigson 1982). In addition, dental attrition stages were scored for teeth in lower jaws. For sheep (Ovis aries) and goat (Capra hircus), these followed Payne (1973), while for cattle (Bos taurus) and pig (Sus scrofa), stages given in Grant (1982) were used. Due to the small size of samples of bones and teeth that could be aged, these were pooled for each stratum. Similarly, skeletal elements were grouped into seven categories to overcome problems of sample size and to highlight those rich in meat (upper forelimbs, hind limbs and trunks) as opposed to those poor in meat (crania, lower limb elements and feet). Standard bone measurements used in the text and Appendix A follow those outlined in von den Driesch (1976), with additions noted in the text where relevant. Each bone was examined for modifications resulting from butchery or animal activity using a standard illuminated magnifying glass. Each example was scored as to quantity of marks, their location and type. For butchery marks, each was noted as either a cut mark, chop mark, or a saw mark. The association between a specific type of butchery mark and butchery activities followed that outlined in Binford (1981), which uses a three-part classification indicating dismemberment, skinning and filleting. 526

CHAPTER 21: T ERRESTRIAL FAUNA

RESULTS One of the major problems facing archaeozoological analyses of large urban settlements is that they usually comprise multiple localities, each representing different activities and functions. Each may yield bone debris of a markedly different kind. For example, consumption debris may characterize a residential area, versus butchery refuse recovered from garbage pits. Consequently, it is important to examine the contexts from which faunal elements are derived, and where possible, to compare assemblages derived from locations where similar activities occurred. At Tel Aphek, this has not been possible as each stratum represents not only a different chronological phase, but also a different set of functions. For example, Stratum X12 represents debris from an LB II palace (Palace VI), Stratum X11 was a residential area dating to the terminal LB II-Early Iron I transition (LBIII), while Strata X10-X9 contexts were respectively, pits and secondary deposits on “threshing floors” dating to the Iron IB. Stratum X8 featured pits and disused silos dating to Iron IIA, while Strata X7-X6 represented Iron IIA domestic units. Given these intra-sample differences, a Chi-square statistical test was run on the various samples derived from each stratum in order to determine the extent to which their function rather than chronology determined their faunal composition. If no significant differences were found between them, then period rather than function would be indicated as the determining factor, and the samples could be combined by phase and period. THE LATE BRONZE AGE II (STRATUM X12) RESIDENCE

This structure, also known as the ‘Egyptian Governor’s Residence’ or ‘Palace VI’ was excavated in its entirety. It covers an area of some 400 m 2 and was destroyed at the end of LB II (Beck and Kochavi 1993; Kochavi, Beck and Yadin 2000, Chapter 3). The faunal remains recovered from the building (Table 21.1) have been examined according to six functional or architectural precincts within or adjacent to the structure recognised by Gadot (Chapter 3). Those precincts are: 1) the outer entrance located to the north of the structure; 2) the inner entrance courtyard located adjacent to the outer entrance; 3) the stairs/tower situated immediately to the west of the inner entrance; 4) the eastern rooms; 5) the halls situated to their west and; 6) the street and alley outside the palace to its east and south. THE OUTER ENTRANCE A small sample of 188 identified bones was recovered in this locality, with sheep/goat bones almost equal in number to those of cattle. Aside from pig, no other domestic species was represented. Five wild taxa were identified, all represented in low quantities (Table 21.1). As illustrated in Table 21.2, although sheep/goat and cattle are represented by all body parts, bones rich in meat comprise a slightly higher proportion for both species than those poor in meat (>55%). Three cattle bones (1 sheep/goat bone and 1 fallow deer antler) representing 2.7% of the sample, exhibited butchery damage (Table 21.3). INNER ENTRANCE COURTYARD Only seven bones were identified in this area, all of cattle (Table 21.1). Butchery damage was present only on one bone (Table 21.3). STAIRS/TOWER Only 17 faunal remains were found there, representing sheep/goat and cattle in equal quantities (Table 21.1). Butchery damage was present on one bone (Table 21.3).

527

LIORA KOLSKA HORWITZ

EASTERN (SQUARE) ROOMS No faunal remains from these rooms were available for study and it is possible that no bones were found during the excavation of these rooms. Gadot (Chapter 3) reported that they contained very few material remains. HALLS The large sample of 444 identified animal remains from this locality is dominated by remains of sheep/ goat followed by cattle (Table 21.1). Substantial numbers of bones of fallow deer, gazelle and bird bones were recovered from this area as well as a fragment of a canine root and a 1st phalanx of a lion (1st phalanx measurements GL: 44.2; Bd: 14.9; Bp: 21.2 ; Fig. 21.1). The latter are all hunted taxa and in urban contexts signify luxury items. Another interesting item was a distal metapodial fragment of a large equid. Although it was not possible to identify whether it is a metatarsal or metacarpal, as shown in Table 21.4, the proportions most closely resemble those of a mule (horse x donkey hybrid). For sheep/goat there is a clear predominance of skeletal elements rich in meat (62%), while for cattle the inverse is found, with 57% of the remains representing those poor in meat (Table 21.2). Butchery damage was recorded on 31 bones (12 cattle bones, 18 sheep/goat bones and 1 fallow deer bone), representing 5.7% of the sample (Table 21.3).

Fig. 21.1: Lion (Felis leo) bones recovered from Aphek. (Left) 1st phalanx Stratum X12; (Right) proximal radius Stratum X11.

STREETS AND ALLEYS OUTSIDE THE PALACE TO THE EAST AND SOUTH Remains of cattle are slightly more common in these deposits than those of sheep/goat. Pig and donkey make up the remaining domestic complement in this assemblage (Table 21.1). Fallow deer is the most frequently encountered wild taxon of the 6 represented, while remains of wild boar, identified on the basis of the extremely large size of their remains (see Appendix A), were also found. A single 1st phalanx of a lion (measurements GL: 29.5; Bd: 14.2; Bp: 15.5) was identified and may be derived from the same animal represented in the halls. The sheep/goat remains are predominantly those of meat-rich bones (59%). By contrast, cattle are primarily represented by elements poor in meat (58%; Table 21.2). Butchery damage was found on 12 bones (5 cattle, 6 sheep/goat and 1 fallow deer bone), equivalent to 3.8% of the sample (Table 21.3).

528

CHAPTER 21: T ERRESTRIAL FAUNA

SUMMARY FOR STRATUM X12 The frequency of faunal remains differs between localities in this stratum, as does that of other material remains reported on by Gadot (Chapter 3). Most of the bones were found in the outer entrance area, the street and the alley to the east and south of the residence, although a substantial quantity was also found in the halls inside the palace. Notably, no bones were recovered from the eastern (square) rooms (Table 21.1). Domestic cattle, sheep and goat dominate all deposits, with pigs comprising only a minor element ranging from 4% to absent. If the identification of the mule bone is correct (Table 21.4), it provides additional, indirect, evidence for the presence of horses in the region at this time. This is consistent with the substantial number of remains of horse as well as donkey reported for the LBII levels at nearby Tel Gerisa (Sade 2000). A wide range of wild taxa is found in this stratum at Tel Aphek that notably includes fallow deer, gazelle, lion and birds. These finds perhaps reflect hunting of wild animals attracted to the rich biotopes surrounding the spring and the Yarkon River. A paucity of fish remains (Chapter 23) in the assemblage may be related to excavation methods and the fact that fine sieving was not practiced in the excavation, rather than to fishing not having been practiced by the site’s ancient inhabitants. The result was probably the loss of small bones in the collection process. The presence of lion bones, both inside and outside the palace is of interest since few remains of this species are known from archaeological assemblages in the southern Levant (see discussion below).1 Ageing based on bone fusion for sheep/goat (Table 21.5) indicates that by the age of one year some 30% of the animals had already died. This includes natural mortalities as well as death by slaughtering. Before three years of age, 58.6% of animals were slaughtered with the level rising to 82.6% by the age of 3½ years. Dental wear stages for sheep/goat (Fig. 21.2) support these results with the majority of animals culled by wear stage E i.e. 3 years. These data demonstrate an emphasis on young adults probably associated with a meat-oriented management strategy as suggested by Payne (1973). The elite always ate well. Age categories based on bone fusion data for cattle are less robust due to small sample sizes (Table 21.5). However, they too indicate preferential slaughter of young animals with 50% slaughtered before reaching the age of 3½ years. This mortality pattern is supported by dental attrition scores (Table 21.6), which show the presence of mainly immature animals. This is attested to by the fact that all the M2’s in this stratum have little wear (wear stages C-F), bearing in mind that the M2 enters wear between 18-24 months. Similarly, the M3 enters wear at 30-31 months and all M3’s in this sample exhibit relatively little wear (wear stages C-D). There is only one older individual with advanced wear on the M3 (wear stage J). Although the same ranges of taxa are represented in all three palace localities (outer entrance, street and halls) with domestic species the most common (Table 21.1), when the relative abundance of the five best represented taxa (sheep/goat, cattle, pig, fallow deer and gazelle) was tested by using a chi square, significant differences were found between them (χ2=30.9; d.f.=4; P =0.000). For the outer entrance area there is little divergence between observed and expected values for these taxa. However, marked differences were found between the street and hall assemblages. The street assemblage has a lower frequency of sheep/goat and gazelle bones and higher numbers of cattle, pig and fallow deer remains than the halls, where a reverse trend is observed. When sheep/ goat and cattle skeletal element representation (broken down into 7 body part categories) is compared between these three localities, cattle show a significant difference (χ2=31.3; d.f.=12; P =0.001), while sheep/goat do not (χ2=11.0; d.f.=12; P=0.5). 1. Lions are now extinct in the Levant; the last individual was killed near Megiddo during the 13th century CE (Qumsiyeh 1996).

529

LIORA KOLSKA HORWITZ

Fig. 21.2: Dental attrition wear for sheep/goat by stratum. Wear stages and their associated chronological ages follow those given in Payne (1973) where: A = 0-2 months; B = 2-6 months; C = 6-12 months; D = 1-2 years; E = 2-3 years; F = 3-4 years; G = 4-6 years; H = 6-8 years; I = 8-10 years.

No differences were found between the three localities in the quantity of bones with butchery marks. They are directly related to sample size with 5.7% of bones exhibiting butchery marks in the hall sample, compared to 3.8% in the smaller faunal sample from the street, and only 2.7% of butchered bones in the outer entrance deposit. Neither were any marked differences observed in the type of butchery damage, as in all instances the most common damage is related to carcass dismemberment and division of limbs into smaller portions. Only a few marks related to skinning or filleting were found (Table 21.3). For both sheep/goat and cattle, most butchery damage occurred on upper forelimbs (on 18% of cut marked cattle bones and 36% of sheep/goat). It was noted on trunk elements (41% of butchered cattle bones and 36% of sheep/goat) and especially on distal humeri in the case of sheep/goat. In the case of cattle, most of the vertebrae had been severed, usually at right angles to the long axes of the bones, probably as a result of chopping trunks into smaller parcels of meat. Ribs were severed on either distal or proximal ends indicating removal of the rib racks and their division into smaller portions of meat. Carnivore damage was negligible in all samples. It is suggested here that the observed intra-stratum variation results from a mixture of activities; non-dietary luxury items from the palace, food preparation for palace inhabitants, waste after its consumption, butchery refuse, destruction fills and possibly also some immediate post-destruction 530

CHAPTER 21: T ERRESTRIAL FAUNA

activities. However, similarities between samples in the range of species represented, age breakdowns, butchery damage and sheep/goat as well as cattle body part representation, overrides the differences. Thus, they may be combined into a single Stratum X12 assemblage. STRATUM X11, LBIIB-IRON I (LB III) DWELLINGS

In this stratum, two separate residential areas (one in the northwest and the other in the southeast) were identified on either side of the ruined residency/palace. Gadot (Chapter 6) found differences between the two residential areas in the quality of structures. Due to the paucity of remains from these structures, he has suggested they had been abandoned. In order to investigate if differences between the two residential areas are reflected in their faunal remains, bones from the two areas were analysed separately (Table 21.7). THE NORTHWEST QUARTER This comprised remains of Buildings 2942 and 3619 and a paved area adjacent to them. Domestic taxa in these contexts are the most common with sheep/goat and cattle remains represented in almost equal numbers, and few remains of pig and donkey (Table 21.7). Five different wild species were found, the most prominent being fallow deer. As illustrated in Table 21.8, the majority of sheep/goat and cattle remains represent those rich in meat (57% and 63% respectively). Butchery damage was found on five bones (three sheep/goat bones and one each of cattle and fallow deer) representing 2.4% of the sample (Table 21.9; Fig. 21.3).

Fig. 21.3: Antler base of fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica) with beam severed horizontally above the frontal bone.

THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER In this quarter, only scant architectural remains spanning two different building phases were uncovered. A total of 215 bones representing 12 species (Table 21.7) were identified. The majority of finds derives from three domestic species, sheep, goat (39% together) and cattle (42%). These taxa are primarily represented by upper limb and trunk elements with fewer parts that are poor in meat (Table 21.8). In addition, remains of donkey, represented by three isolated teeth were found. One is a lower PM2 (base L: 29.2, B: 12.2), another an upper molar 1/2 (L: 26.2; B: 36.9) while the third is too fragmented to offer meaningful measurements. A few bones of pig were identified (NISP = 7), but their domestic (or wild) status could not be verified using metrical criteria (Payne and Bull 1988) as they were either from immature animals or were too fragmentary to be measured. 531

LIORA KOLSKA HORWITZ

Considering the small size of the identified bone sample from this quarter (NISP = 215), a wide range of different wild species (N=8 species) was identified. The only remains of hippopotamus (Hippopotamus cf. amphibius) from the site were found in this area. They are represented by a fragment of a canine tooth. In addition, a proximal radius of a lion (Panthera leo) was recovered in house fill, Locus 2950 (Fig. 21.1). It belonged to a large and robust adult (Bp: 35.8mm, Bd: 25.9 mm), but sex determination was not possible. Butchery damage was evident on one sheep/goat and four cattle bones, which is 2.3% of the assemblage (Table 21.9). SUMMARY STRATUM X11 The assemblages from the two residential areas of this stratum were compared using chi square tests. No significant differences were found between them in any of the parameters examined. Relative species representation (sheep/goat, cattle, pig) or sheep/goat and cattle body parts is documented in Tables 21.7 and 21.8). No marked differences were observed in the age of animal represented (Table 21.5) nor in patterns of butchery (Table 21.9). Wild taxa resemble those in Stratum X12. As indicated in Table 21.5, age profiles for sheep/goat based on bone fusion show a high cull of immature animals, with over 50% slaughtered before two years of age. However, this mortality rate does not rise considerably beyond this level. Only 57.1% of caprines were slaughtered before 3½ years, a pattern corroborated by the dental wear (Fig. 21.2). This pattern conforms to a management strategy geared towards consumption of immature males with the remaining 43% of the herd, primarily females, kept into adulthood (Payne 1973). By contrast, data on bone fusion for cattle show a more conservative cull (Table 21.5), with only 40% of animals slaughtered before four years of age, indicating that most animals were kept into adulthood. Dental attrition data for cattle are scanty (Table 21.6), but indicate the presence of at least one mature animal (wear stages K/L for both the M1 and M2). Young animals are also present as evidenced by an M3 evidencing little wear (Stage C). STRATA X10 AND X9, IRON I - PITS AND THRESHING FLOOR

This includes the following contexts: Threshing Floor Loci: 1154, 1156, 2902, 2907, 2924, 2935, 2943, 3482, 3606, 4615 and 4617; Refuse Pit Loci: 1146, 1700, 2718 and 4018. Bones from Strata X10 and X9 are derived from two clusters of contexts (Table 21.10). The first (Stratum X9) is an area of compact, ashy, organic-rich layers identified as threshing floors by the excavators. They extend over an area of some 500 m 2, but represent relatively shallow deposits, ca. 60 cm deep (Beck and Kochavi 1993; Chapter 6). The second cluster is comprised of six refuse pits, which mainly contained typical domestic Philistine ceramics and other items of material culture (Chapter 8). Extraordinarily, no faunal remains are known to have been found in the Iron I remnants of domestic dwellings in the north-west part of the excavation. It is unclear whether no animal bones were encountered during the excavation of that area, or whether they were recovered and subsequently mislaid. THRESHING FLOORS The majority of animal remains in this sample were those of cattle followed by sheep/goat (Table 21.10). A third domestic species encountered there was dog, represented by two right distal tibiae (dog #1 Bd: 17.4; Dd: 14.5, dog #2 Bd: 21.6, Dd: 15.4). Both animals are of a similar size. Only two wild taxa are represented in the assemblage of this area, fallow deer and gazelle (probably mountain gazelle, Gazella gazella), both common Mediterranean elements. With regard to body parts, sheep/goat are dominated by elements rich in meat, while the inverse is true for cattle (Table 21.11). Butchery marks were observed on 22 bones (1.9% of the assemblage); 9 sheep/goat and 15 cattle (Table 21.12). 532

CHAPTER 21: T ERRESTRIAL FAUNA

REFUSE PITS The bones of sheep/goat are the most common in the pits, followed by those of cattle (Table 21.10). Of the domestic taxa, pig and dog comprise minor elements. Four wild species are represented, with fallow deer the most common, followed by fish. Skeletal elements rich in meat dominate both the cattle and sheep/ goat samples; 64.2% and 61.2% respectively (Table 21.11). A total of 34 bones (7 sheep/goat and 27 cattle bones), representing 6.3% of the sample, exhibited butchery damage (Table 21.12). Damage caused by animals was also common on bones from the pits (2.7% of the assemblage). Seven sheep/goat bones exhibit carnivore damage, while one was damaged by rodents. Eight cattle bones also show evidence of carnivore damage (Table 21.12). SUMMARY FOR STRATA X10 AND X9 Chi-square tests carried out to compare the relative representation of sheep/goat and cattle bones in the two localities (Table 21.10) indicated significant differences exist between them (χ2=27.7; d.f.=1; P=0.000), with the threshing floors containing far fewer sheep/goat and more cattle bones than the pits. In addition, significant differences were found in the representation of body parts for sheep/goat (χ2=13.3; d.f.=6; P=0.03) and cattle (χ2=18.9; d.f.=6; P=0.00). The pits contained higher numbers of sheep/goat cranial, trunk and upper forelimb parts than did the threshing floor deposits (Table 21.11). The pits also contained fewer cranial and lower hindlimb elements as well as higher quantities of trunk elements of cattle than did the threshing floor deposits. In addition, the pits contained markedly higher frequencies of both butchered and carnivore damaged bones than did the threshing floors. More cattle bones exhibit butchery than sheep/goat bones, but that phenomenon is clearly related to the greater abundance of cattle bones in the sample. Butchery damage in both pits and threshing floors, for sheep/goat as well as for cattle, was primarily associated with carcass dismemberment, with few marks representing filleting (Table 21.12). For both cattle and sheep/goat, most of the butchery was performed on trunk elements (43% of butchered bones in cattle and 35% in sheep/goat), followed by upper hindlimbs (17% for cattle and 29% for sheep/goat) associated with primary carcass division. The significant differences documented here between the pits and the threshing floors may be ascribed to the different origins of the deposits, at least in one instance related to function. The pits are clearly features in which both household food refuse as well as butchery waste were discarded. The origin of the deposits from the threshing floors is less clear, but is considered by Gadot (Chapter 6) to represent non-primary deposition. The cull pattern for cattle remains in this stratum, as illustrated by bone fusion data, shows that 54% of all animals survived into adulthood, while for sheep/goat this was lower; only 31% survived beyond 3½ years (Table 21.5). Based on bone fusion for sheep/goat, 27% of the animals were slaughtered before 2 years of age, while for cattle only 13% were culled before this age. Dental attrition data for cattle (Table 21.6) corroborates the findings based on bone fusion, with few very young animals (Ayin, which feed the Yarkon river, ensure a strong perennial flow of water and until the 20th century AD, this river is said to have seasonally flooded its banks (Orni and Efrat 1980). The lush vegetation and swamps along the course of this river would have offered ideal habitats for species such as hippopotami and wild boar, such that the scarcity of their remains in Area X at Tel Aphek is surprising. Indeed, few remains of these species were recorded by Hellwing (2000) in the earlier Bronze Age levels at Tel Aphek, indicating the current findings are perhaps not area specific but rather reflect overall scarcity of these taxa in the region by the periods represented in this study, LB II to the end of Iron II. The Yarkon river was also exploited as attested to by the presence of two freshwater species of fish (Chapter 23), the African softshell turtle (Trionyx triungius) and freshwater crab (Potamon potamios), while the presence of Mediterranean Sea molluscs (Chapter 22) and fish indicate that this zone was also part of the site’s catchment area.

CONCLUSIONS Faunal finds of the LB II period, the earliest dealt with in the present study, reflect a more generalised economy than in subsequent periods. The sample obtained evidences the highest immature cull for 543

LIORA KOLSKA HORWITZ

sheep/goat, indicative of a clear focus on meat production, while just under 50% of the herd survived into adulthood demonstrating an equal interest in secondary products. This focus increased in later periods with relatively few immature sheep/goat culled subsequently. This study further suggests that at Tel Aphek the most important changes in the animal economy over the periods studied here were associated with the Iron IB occupation of the site in Strata X10 and X9. At this time there was an increased emphasis on cattle exploitation, reduced interest in swine, while sheep - and hence wool production- appears to have been a special focus. There is no unequivocal evidence for involvement in large-scale, market economies in any of the periods (based on skeletal element breakdowns, patterns of butchery), although the ratio of sheep to goats, age distributions and sex ratios argue in favour of management strategies that focused on secondary products, especially wool production in Strata X10 and X9. A higher frequency of adult cattle from the occupations in Strata X10 and X9 onwards may attest to their increased use for labour, probably associated with intensified agriculture. Thus, the intensification in husbandry of mature cattle coincides with the slaughter of fewer immature sheep/goats, which reflects a marked shift in economic strategy at the site. Based on archaeozoological findings from other sites in the region, it has been postulated that these changes, in addition to a significant increase in the presence of swine, reflect either food preferences of a newly arrived ethnic group (the Philistines) or served as an advantageous method of colonising a new region (Hesse and Wapnish 1998). However, Lev-Tov (2000) has cogently argued to the contrary that these developments are a natural outcome of increased urbanism and the need to produce greater surpluses through more specialised practices in agriculture and animal husbandry. The low frequency of pigs (wild or domestic) in the Philistine level at Tel Aphek is conspicuous compared to data from sites more clearly identified with the Philistines and is surprising given the perennial water supply from the Yarkon River and the presence of suitable lush vegetation along its banks that is eminently suitable for swine herding. Consequently, the Tel Aphek data highlight the problem of using swine as a mark of either a specific ethnic group or colonial community. As proposed by Hesse and Wapnish (1996, 1998), variation in pig frequencies may be more directly related to settlement patterns and show an urban-rural dichotomy with increased urbanism as the catalyst for lowered pig numbers. Although the subsequent absence of pigs in the later Iron IIA assemblage at Tel Aphek may be perceived as an artefact of the small size of this sample, a similar decline in the number of swine has been documented at many southern Levantine sites including Tel Miqneh-Ekron (Hesse 1990, Finkelstein 1997, Lev-Tov 2000), perhaps highlighting a regionwide phenomenon. It is tempting to associate this trend with the demise of Philistine power and the rise of the United Monarchy and associated implementation of Israelite dietary taboos. An alternative model, and perhaps just as feasible, proposed by Lev-Tov (2000), places this faunal shift within the context of larger, regional changes. The Iron II period reflects cohesion and incorporation of cities into larger socio-economic and political systems such that local subsistence economies were required to produce marketable items for trade and/or tribute. The nature of pig rearing and the absence of secondary products that may be derived from this taxon are ill-adapted for such a system, in contrast to the wide range of products that may be obtained from sheep, goat and cattle. Consequently, the importance of pig in local economies that make up small-scale economic systems, declines. The analysis conducted here contributes to our understanding of changes in animal exploitation at Tel Aphek from the Late Bronze Age through Iron IIA. Developments documented here mirror those seen elsewhere in the region at the same time, indicating that modes of production and diet were affected by broader political and socio-cultural changes documented in the archaeological record. 544

CHAPTER 21: T ERRESTRIAL FAUNA

TABLE 21.1: COMPARISON OF LOCATIONS INSIDE OR ADJACENT TO LBII PALACE VI IN STRATUM X12 Outer entrance NISP

Inner entrance Stairs/ Tower

DOMESTIC Sheep 4 Goat 6 Sheep/Goat 78 Cattle 73 Pig 7 Equid sp. Donkey WILD ?Boar Fallow deer 2 Mountain gazelle 6 Lion Bird sp. 2 Freshwater turtle 1 Fish* 1 Freshwater crab TOTAL ID 180

NISP

Halls

NISP

NISP

Street/Alley outside NISP

TOTAL

Stratum X12

NISP

%

7 -

9 8 -

12 14 269 186 5 1 -

4 7 103 149 11 3

20 27 459 423 23 1 3

1.6 2.6 44.0 40.3 2.3 0.2 0.2

7

17

15 18 2 11 2 2 537

4 24 1 1 4 2 313

4 41 25 3 17 1 5 2 1054

0.6 4.0 2.6 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.1 100

*See Chapter 23

TABLE 21.2: SKELETAL ELEMENT BREAKDOWN FOR LOCATIONS INSIDE OR ADJACENT TO PALACE VI IN STRATUM X12 (NISP COUNTS)* Sheep/Goat Cranial Upper forelimb Lower forelimb Upper hindlimb Lower hindlimb Trunk Feet TOTAL Cattle Cranial Upper forelimb Lower forelimb Upper hindlimb Lower hindlimb Trunk Feet TOTAL

Outer entrance NISP 24 20 5 9 4 20 6 88 Outer entrance NISP 21 12 1 8 7 21 3 73

Stairs/ Tower NISP 1 2 1 2 3 9 Inner entrance NISP 3 1 2 7

Halls

NISP 67 57 7 44 17 83 20 295 Stairs/ Tower NISP 1 6 1 8

Street/Alley outside

Total

NISP NISP 30 121 21 99 7 19 12 67 7 29 34 139 3 32 114 506 Halls Street/Alley Total outside NISP NISP NISP 44 35 103 17 13 43 14 7 22 22 16 49 15 8 37 40 59 121 34 11 48 186 149 423

Stratum X12 % 24 20 4 13 6 27 6 100 Stratum X12 % 24.3 10 5.2 11.5 9 29 11 100

* Note: No sheep/goat remains in the inner entrance area Key: Cranial: antler, horn, skull, maxilla, mandible and loose teeth Upper Forelimb: scapula, humerus, radius, ulna, Lower Forelimb: carpals, metacarpal Upper Hindlimb: pelvis, femur, tibia, patella Lower Hindlimb: calcaneum, astragalus, tarsals, metatarsal Trunk: atlas, axis, cervical, thoracic, lumbar and caudal vertebrae, ribs Feet: 1st, 2nd and 3rd phalanges 545

LIORA KOLSKA HORWITZ

TABLE 21.3: DESCRIPTION OF MODIFIED BONES FROM LBII PALACE VI IN STRATUM X12 Location

Taxon

Type of Activity

Description

External piazza and entrance (Loci 1732, 1137)

Cattle

Dismemberment

Sheep/Goat

Dismemberment

Fallow Deer Cattle

Skinning Dismemberment

Cattle

Dismemberment

1 ilium with numerous deep cuts on the muscle attachment area adjacent to the acetabulum; 1 distal metatarsal with transverse cuts below and across the distal epiphysis; 1 lumbar vertebra severed transversely through the centrum 1 proximal metacarpal with a transverse cut around the shaft near the proximal end 1 antler tine severed at its base and ringed at its tip 1 right mandible condyle, which had been severed on its buccal edge probably during separation of the jaw from the skull 1 metatarsal with multiple transverse cut marks on both distal and proximal epiphyses and adjacent shaft areas 1 horncore cut off at its base

Inner Courtyard (Locus 1130) Staircase (Lous 1724)

Halls (Loci 1731, 1721, Cattle 1726, 1193) Cattle

Sheep/Goat

Fallow deer Sheep/Goat

546

Skinning Dismemberment

1 distal scapula severed through the glenoid; 1 scapula with transverse cut marks across its epiphysis; 1 distal humerus with cuts across its medial aspect and on its distal epiphysis; 1 proximal rib with cut marks adjacent to its proximal epiphysis; 3 ribs with cut marks on their shafts; 1 rib with a severed proximal epiphysis; 1 rib shaft severed at one end; 1 1st phalanx with a cut mark on the anterior aspect of its midshaft; 1 1st phalanx with a cut mark just above its proximal epiphysis Dismemberment 2 left and 1 right distal goat humeri with transverse cuts on the medial aspects of their distal epiphyses and across their epiphysis; 1 right sheep distal humerus with transverse and longitudinal cuts on its medial aspect and on its distal epiphysis; 2 right distal humeri with transverse and oblique cuts on their distal epiphyses, 1 pelvis acetabulum with 3 deep chop marks adjacent to its acetabulum; 1 goat tibia with short cuts on its malleolus medialis; 1 tibia with deep chop marks all long the lateral edges of their shafts; 1 tibia with cuts on the anterior aspect of its midshaft; 5 lumbar centrum vertebrae severed at right angles to their long axes; 2 ribs with cut marks across anterior portions of their proximal epiphyses; 2 ribs severed at their proximal ends Dismemberment/ 1 distal metatarsal with transverse cut marks across its distal Bone working epiphysis. The same bone has a medium sized hole drilled through the bone below its distal epiphysis Carnivore damage 1 proximal calcaneum with gnaw marks

CHAPTER 21: T ERRESTRIAL FAUNA Streets/ Alleys outside Cattle to the east and south (Loci 2731, 2754, 2747, 2753, 3827)

Dismemberment

Sheep/Goat

Dismemberment

Goat

Dismemberment/ Filleting Dismemberment

Fallow deer

1 proximal radius with transverse cut marks across its proximal epiphysis; 1 complete metacarpal with transverse cut marks across its distal epiphysis and on the shaft just below it; 1 pelvis with deep chop marks on the anterior face of the ilium; 1 proximal rib with deep cut marks below the epiphysis; 1 proximal rib with its anterior portion removed 1 sheep distal humerus with short cut marks on the medial aspect of its epiphysis and up its shaft; 1 sheep/goat distal humerus with short cuts on medial aspect of its epiphysis; 1 proximal radius with transverse cut mark below its epiphysis 1 metacarpal with multiple, short cut marks across its distal epiphysis and down both sides of its anterior shaft 1 lumbar vertebra with both epiphyses severed transversely

TABLE 21.4: MEASUREMENTS OF EQUID METAPODIALS (IN MM) Measurement Specimen Tel Aphek-Stratum X12 Equus caballus (heavy horse)* Equus caballus (ponies)* Equus asinus (donkey)* Equus caballus X Equus asinus (mule)*

Bone Metapodial Metacarpal Metatarsal Metacarpal Metatarsal Metacarpal Metatarsal Metacarpal Metatarsal

mean 50.5 65.6 66 37.3 38.5 35.1 34.2 52.1 52.0

DT min-max 61-70 63-70 32-43 32.7-44 29-38.5 29.5-37 49-55.4 49-56.5

DAP1 mean min-max 37.6 48.5 44-53.1 50.3 47-55 27.3 24-29.2 28.8 25-31 26.2 21-29 27.1 23-30 40.1 37-46 40.4 38-45

DAP2 mean min-max 35.5 41.4 38-45.5 42.4 40-46 22.8 20-25 23.5 20-25.8 23.2 19-28 23.5 20-26 34.6 31.5-40 36.1 32.6-36.8

*Measurements and comparative modern specimens taken from Eisenmann and Beckouche (1986) defined as: DT: breadth of distal articulation; DAP1: Depth of sagittal crest; DAP2: greatest depth of medial condyle

TABLE 21.5: EPIPHYSEAL FUSION DATA FOR THE THREE MAIN SPECIES BY STRATUM (a) Sheep/Goat Age Range (months) 0-12 12-24 24-36 36-42 TOTAL NISP

Stratum X12 F UF N N 57 25 15 7 12 17 4 19 88 68

% UF 30.5 31.8 58.6 82.6

Stratum X11 F UF N N 15 4 5 6 4 5 3 4 27 19

% UF 21.0 54.5 55.5 57.1

Strata X10 and X9 F UF % N N UF 24 9 27.2 16 6 27.2 7 7 50.0 7 16 69.5 54 38

Stratum X8 Strata X7-X6 F UF % F UF N N UF N N 10 1 9 3 0 3 1 25 3 1 3 1 25 1 1 3 1 25 1 1 19 4 8 3

F N 28 20 23 7 15 93

F N 3 4 3 1 3 14

% UF 0 25 50 50

(b) Cattle Age Range (months) 0-12 12-24 24-36 36-42 42-48 TOTAL NISP

F UF N N 4 0 30 6 7 6 7 7 9 9 57 28

% UF 0 16.6 46.1 50.0 50.0

F N 6 15 7 9 3 40

UF N 2 5 3 4 2 16

% UF 25.0 25.0 30.0 30.7 40.0

UF N 1 3 6 6 13 29

% UF 3.4 13.0 20.6 46.1 46.4

UF N 0 1 1 0 0 2

% UF 0 20 25 0 0

F N 2 3 2 2 1 10

UF N 0 0 0 0 0 0

% UF 0 0 0 0 0

Key: Age classes for sheep/goat: 0-12 months = dist. humerus, scapula; prox. radius; prox. phalanges; 18-24 months = dist. tibia, dist. metapodia; 28-36 months = prox. ulna; prox. femur, calcaneum; 36-42 months = prox. humerus, dist. radius; dist. femur, prox. tibia. Age classes for cattle: 0-12 months = scapula; 12-24 months = dist. humerus, prox. radius; prox. phalanges; 24-36 months = dist. tibia, dist. metapodia; 36-42 months = calcaneum; prox. femur; 42-48 months = dist. radius, prox. ulna, prox. humerus, dist. femur, prox. tibia. Age classes for pig: 0-12 months = scapula, prox. radius, prox. 2nd phalanges; 12-24 = dist. humerus; dist. metapodials, dist. tibia, prox. 1st phalanges; 24-36 months = prox. calcaneum, dist. fibula; 36-42 = prox. ulna; prox. humerus, dist. radius, prox. femur, dist. femur, prox. tibia, prox. fibula.

547

LIORA KOLSKA HORWITZ

TABLE 21.6: CATTLE MANDIBLE DENTAL WEAR SCORES (BASED ON GRANT 1982) Wear Stages Stratum X12 M1 M2 M3 Stratum X11 M1 M2 M3 Strata X10, X9 M1 M2 M3 Stratum X8 M1 Strata X7-X6 M1 M2 M3

A

B

C

D

E

F

x

xx

G

H

I

x x x

x

J

K

xx

xxxx

L

x xx

x

xx x

E

xxx xxAE xx

x

ABC

B xxD

A C

BE D

xxC

xD

x

x A A A

Wear stage A represents the least wear and L the most. Each x denotes an isolated tooth while different teeth from complete jaws are each marked by the same letter (A-E)

TABLE 21:7: COMPARISON OF FAUNAL SPECIES FOR TWO RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN STRATUM X11 Domestic Sheep Goat Sheep/Goat Cattle Pig Donkey Wild Hippopotamus Boar ? Fallow deer Mountain gazelle Lion Hedgehog Bird sp. Freshwater turtle Fish Freshwater crab TOTAL ID

Southeast NISP

Northwest NISP

TOTAL NISP

Stratum X11 %

2 5 92 91 6 3

2 6 85 95 3 3

4 11 177 186 9 6

1 3 42 44.2 2.1 1.4

1 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 215

6 2 1 1 1 205

1 1 9 3 1 1 5 1 4 1 420

0.2 0.2 2.1 1 0.2 0.2 1.1 0.2 0.9 0.2 100

TABLE 21:8: COMPARISON OF BODY PART CATEGORIES FOR TWO RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN STRATUM X11 Southeast area NISP Sheep/Goat Cranial Upper forelimb Lower forelimb Upper hindlimb Lower hindlimb Trunk Feet TOTAL

548

29 16 3 13 6 31 1 99

Northwest area NISP 25 17 5 19 6 17 4 93

TOTAL NISP 54 33 8 32 12 48 5 192

Stratum X11 % 28 17 4 17 6 25 3 100

CHAPTER 21: T ERRESTRIAL FAUNA

TABLE 21:8 (CONTD.) Southeast area NISP Cattle Cranial Upper forelimb Lower forelimb Upper hindlimb Lower hindlimb Trunk Feet TOTAL

Northwest area NISP

19 9 3 9 8 35 8 91

14 16 4 13 6 31 11 95

TOTAL NISP 33 25 7 22 14 66 19 186

Stratum X11 % 18 13.4 4 12 7.5 35 10 100

TABLE 21.9: DESCRIPTION OF MODIFIED BONES FROM TERMINAL LBII-EARLY IRON I (LB III) DWELLINGS (STRATUM X11) Location

Taxon

Type of Activity

Description

Northwest Quarter

Goat Sheep/Goat

Dismemberment Dismemberment

Sheep/Goat Cattle

Filleting Dismemberment

Fallow deer

Skinning

Sheep/Goat

Carnivore damage

Sheep/Goat

Dismemberment

Cattle

Dismemberment

Cattle

Carnivore damage

1 scapula with a cut mark below its distal epiphysis 1 pelvis with multiple cut marks on the shaft of the ilium 1 scapula blade with cut marks along its edge 1 distal metatarsal with multiple cut marks below its epiphysis 1 antler base with beam severed horizontally above the frontal bone (Fig. 21.3) 1 scapula with its distal end ravaged; 1 pelvis fragment with tooth puncture holes 1 vertebral centrum with cut marks below its proximal epiphysis 1 pelvis acetabulum severed on one side vertical to its long axis; 1 femur shaft with chop marks immediately below its distal epiphysis; 1 metatarsal shaft severed above its epiphysis, also with deep, transverse cut marks below and on its epiphysis; 1 1st phalanx with a transverse cut across the anterior aspect of the shaft 1 distal femur with puncture marks

Southeast Quarter

TABLE 21.10: BREAKDOWN OF FAUNA FROM IRON I PITS AND ‘THRESHING FLOORS’ IN STRATA X10 AND X9 Stratum X10 NISP Domestic Sheep Goat Sheep/goat Cattle Pig Dog Wild Fallow deer Mountain gazelle Bird sp. Fish TOTAL ID

Stratum X9 NISP

TOTAL NISP

6 8 274 265 4 1

8 12 168 331 2

14 20 442 596 4 3

1.2 1.7 39.6 53.4 0.3 0.2

10 2 2 6 578

5 11

15 13 2 6 1115

1.3 1.6 0.1 0.5 100

536

Strata X10 and X9 %

549

LIORA KOLSKA HORWITZ

TABLE 21.11: COMPARISON OF BODY PART CATEGORIES FOR IRON I PITS AND ‘THRESHING FLOORS’ IN STRATA X10 AND X9 Strata X10 NISP Sheep/Goat Cranial 88 Upper forelimb 53 Lower forelimb 8 Upper hindlimb 49 Lower hindlimb 14 Trunk 74 Feet 2 TOTAL 288 Cattle Cranial 54 Upper forelimb 33 Lower forelimb 10 Upper hindlimb 26 Lower hindlimb 16 Trunk 111 Feet 15 TOTAL 265

Strata X9 NISP

TOTAL NISP

Strata X10 and X9 %

53 29 10 48 14 31 3 188

141 82 18 97 28 105 5 476

30 17 4 20 6 22 1 100

157 70 22 59 50 202 36 596

26 12 4 10 8 34 6 100

103 37 12 33 34 91 21 331

TABLE 21.12: DESCRIPTION OF MODIFIED BONES FROM IRON I - PITS AND THRESHING FLOORS STRATA X10 AND X9 Location

Taxon

Threshing Floors Sheep

550

Type of Activity

Description

Dismemberment

1 sheep humerus with multiple small cuts across the medial aspect of the distal epiphysis, 1 pelvis with multiple, deep chop marks on the side 1 metatarsal with a deep chop mark at the proximal end of its shaft 1 calcaneum with transverse cut marks on its midshaft 1 atlas severed in half at right angles to its body 1 vertebra cut off below its proximal epiphysis 2 rib shafts severed at its distal end 1 metacarpal with oblique, chevron-like cut marks adjacent to the proximal epiphyses of its anterior aspect 1 tibia shaft with short superficial cuts along the anterior aspect of its midshaft 1 pelvis severed across its ilium 2 metatarsi with transverse cut marks across their distal epiphyses 1 metapodial with transverse cut marks across the distal epiphysis 1 distal metacarpal that has been severed perpendicular to its right axis 1 1st phalanx with transverse cut mark below the distal epiphysis on the anterior aspect of its shaft 1 1st phalanx with a transverse cut mark just above its proximal epiphysis 1 atlas vertebra with transverse cuts across the proximal part of its body 1 lumbar vertebra centrum with deep chop marks on its spinous process 2 lumbar vertebrae with their centrums severed horizontally below their proximal epiphyses 2 articulated lumbar vertebrae with their centrums severed horizontally below their proximal epiphyses 1 rib shaft severed at one end 1 rib with deep chop marks adjacent to its proximal epiphysis

Sheep/Goat

Dismemberment

Sheep/Goat

Filleting

Cattle

Dismemberment

CHAPTER 21: T ERRESTRIAL FAUNA Location

Taxon Sheep/Goat Cattle

Type of Activity Carnivore damage Carnivore damage

Refuse Pits

Sheep/Goat

Dismemberment

Sheep/Goat

Filleting

Cattle

Dismemberment

Cattle

Filleting

Sheep/Goat

Carnivore damage

Sheep

Carnivore damage

Cattle

Carnivore damage

Sheep/Goat

Rodent damage

Description 1 humerus with puncture holes on the proximal epiphysis 2 unfused proximal humeri shafts with puncture holes adjacent to their epiphyseal ends 1 occipital cut on a condyle 1 calcaneum with a deep longitudinal cut mark on its anterior aspect 1 atlas vertebra severed in half 1 thoracic vertebra with transverse cut marks on its spine 1 left and right proximal femur shafts with longitudinal cut marks 1/3 down from their epiphyses 1 femur proximal epiphysis with cuts on its lesser trochanter 1 orbit with fine cut marks along its edge 1 mandible severed on the edge of its gonion 1 scapula vertically severed in half 1 distal radius cut perpendicular to the right axis of its shaft 1 humerus distal severed at an angle 1 proximal radius with an oblique cut under its epiphysis 1 pelvis acetabulum vertically cut in half 1 distal humerus with a section of its distal epiphysis severed at an angle 2 different pelvis acetabula with deep cuts near the acetabula along their ilia, three deep chop marks along the shafts of pelves 1 proximal femur with a deep chop mark on its ball 1 proximal tibia severed vertically and horizontally to its long axis 1 metatarsal with multiple cut marks on and below its distal epiphysis 1 vertebra with cuts on its centrum 1 vertebra spine severed at one end 1 vertebra severed on all sides to form a cube 5 ribs severed at their distal ends 1 rib with its proximal end severed 1 sacrum severed in half at right angles to its long axis as well as horizontally severed on its proximal end 1 1st phalanx with cuts on the posterior aspect of its body and on the anterior of its distal end 1 2nd phalanx with cuts on its anterior aspect just below its distal epiphysis 1 distal humerus with multiple cut marks along the medial aspect of the shaft 1 cranial fragment with a puncture hole 1 scapula with puncture marks at the distal end 1 radius shaft gnawed at ends 1 pelvis fragment with carnivore punctures along the posterior edge 2 pelves with puncture holes near their acetabula 1 sheep distal humerus with puncture marks on and above the distal epiphysis 1 cattle mandible with gnaw marks at base 1 distal humerus shaft severed at the epiphyseal end 1 ulna with carnivore gnawing on proximal end 1 pelvis acetabulum with puncture holes under the acetabulum 1 juvenile cattle calcaneum with carnivore gnawing near the proximal end 1 cattle vertebra with multiple small puncture marks 2 ribs with puncture holes 1 calcaneum gnawed by a rodent on the distal end

551

LIORA KOLSKA HORWITZ

TABLE 21.13: NISP COUNTS AND RELATIVE FREQUENCIES OF THE DIFFERENT SPECIES IN STRATA X8, X7 AND X6 Stratum X8 silos NISP Domestic Sheep 2 Goat 3 Sheep/Goat 48 Cattle 33 Pig 4 Wild Mountain gazelle 1 Hare 1 Mouse 2 Molerat 1 Bird sp. 1 Turtle 1 Fish 3 TOTAL ID 98

Stratum X8 pits TOTAL NISP NISP

Stratum X8 %

Strata X7-X6 NISP

%

2 1 43 22 1

4 4 91 55 5

2.3 2.3 54.4 32.5 3

1 5 34 35 -

1.4 6.5 44.7 46.0 -

69

1 1 2 1 1 1 3 136

0.5 0.5 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.7 100

1 76

1.3 100

TABLE 21.14: SKELETAL ELEMENT BREAKDOWN BY SPECIES BY STRATA (NISP COUNTS) (a) Sheep/goat Cranial Upper forelimb Lower forelimb Upper hindlimb Lower hindlimb Trunk Feet TOTAL (b) Cattle

Stratum X8 silos NISP

Stratum X8 pits TOTAL NISP NISP

Stratum X8 %

Strata X7-X6 NISP

12 5 3 12 3 17 1 53 Stratum X8 silos NISP

13 25 12 17 3 6 18 3 13 30 2 3 46 99 Stratum X8 pits TOTAL NISP NISP

25.2 17.1 3 18.1 3 30.3 3 100 Stratum X8 %

13 7 1 10 2 5 2 40 Strata X7-X6 NISP

32.5 17.5 2.5 25 5 12.5 5 100

9 2 1 1 7 2 22

24 7.4 5.5 13 4 26 20 100

9 3 1 3 3 12 4 25

26 8.5 3 8.5 8.5 34 11 100

Cranial 4 Upper forelimb 2 Lower forelimb 2 Upper hindlimb 6 Lower hindlimb 2 Trunk 8 Feet 9 TOTAL 33

552

13 4 3 7 2 15 11 55

%

%

CHAPTER 21: T ERRESTRIAL FAUNA

TABLE 21.15: DESCRIPTION OF MODIFIED BONES FROM IRON II - REFUSE PITS AND SILOS (STRATUM X8) AND IRON II - DWELLINGS (STRATA X6-X7) Location

Taxon

Type of Activity

Description

Silos (Stratum X8)

Sheep/Goat

Dismemberment

Goat Sheep

Dismemberment Dismemberment

Sheep/Goat Cattle

Filleting Dismemberment

Sheep/Goat

Skinning

1 sheep/goat metatarsal shaft with deep chop marks at the proximal end of the shaft 1 goat astragalus with cut marks across the anterior portion 1 distal humerus with multiple short and fine cut marks across the medial aspect of the distal epiphysis 1 tibia shaft with chevron-like cuts on the medial aspect of the shaft 1 scapula blade with two deep cuts along its spine 1 proximal femur and section of proximal shaft which had been severed along the long axis of the bone 1 astragalus with parallel cut marks across its anterior aspect and one side 3 ribs that had been severed in mid-shaft 1 frontal bone with longitudinal cut marks

Cattle

Dismemberment

Pits (Stratum X8)

Dwellings Sheep/Goat (Strata X6-X7) Sheep Cattle

Cattle

Dismemberment

1 mandibular gonion with deep chop marks all the way down its anterior border 1 metatarsal with transverse cuts on the distal epiphysis 2 ribs with deep chop marks immediately below their proximal epiphyses 1 lumbar vertebral spine which had been severed from its centrum 1 vertebral centrum that had been severed parallel to its right axis

Dismemberment Dismemberment

1 distal humerus with cut marks on the medial aspect 1 cattle vertebral body vertically severed to the right axis of the bone 1 distal femur halved parallel to its right axis, 1 cattle astragalus which had been severed parallel to its right axis Carnivore damage 1 proximal femur with gnawing on the epiphysis

TABLE 21.16: SHEEP TO GOAT RATIOS Stratum

Period

X12 X11 X10-X9 X8 X6-X7

LB II LB II/Iron I (LBIII) Iron IB Iron IIA Iron IIA

NISP Sheep 20 4 14 4 1

NISP Goat

% Sheep

27 11 20 4 5

42.5 27 41 50 17

Identifications are based on: horncores, distal scapula, distal humerus, proximal radius, astragalus, distal metatarsal and metacarpal and proximal femur

TABLE 21.17: BREAKDOWN OF DOMESTIC TO WILD TAXA* Stratum

Period

X12 X11 X10-X9 X8 X7-X6

LB II LB II/Iron I (LBIII) Iron IB Iron IIA Iron IIA

% Wild Taxa NISP count 9.2 6.0 3.2 5.9 1.3

NISP Wild Taxa 8 10 4 7 1

Total NISP/ Period 1054 420 1115 167 76

* Fish and birds have not been broken down into species so the number of taxa in each stratum may be slightly higher

553

LIORA KOLSKA HORWITZ

APPENDIX A: BONE MEASUREMENTS All measurements are in mm and follow von den Driesch (1974) with the exception of the following four which are derived from Davis (1985): HDW: Metapodials, width of one distal condyle LC: Metapodials, diameter or “height” of condyle SC: Metapodials, width of trochlea HT: Distal humerus, trochlea height CI: Distal metapodial condylar index follows Boessneck (1969)

GOAT Horncore Juvenile Juvenile Adult Scapula

Stratum

Period

X12 X10-X9 X10-X9

LB IIB Iron IB Iron IB

X12 X12 X12 X11 X10-X9 X7

LB II LB II LB II LB II/Iron I Iron IB Iron IIA

X12 X12 X12 X12 X10-X9

LB II LB II LB II LB II Iron I

X10-X9 X10-X9

Iron IB Iron IB

X12 X12 X12 X11 X10-X9 X8

LB II LB II LB II LB II/Iron I Iron IB Iron IIA

X12 X12 X12 X11 X10-X9 X10-X9

LB II LB II LB II LB II/Iron I Iron IB Iron IB

X12 X12 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X8

LB II LB II Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IIA

X11 X11 X10-X9

Iron I Iron I Iron IB

X12 X12 X12

LB II LB II LB II

Humerus

Radius

Metacarpal

Tibia

Astragalus Cache

Metatarsal

1st phalanx

554

Measurements Base L 25.1 16.0 43.0 GLP 34.2 34.9 34.5 31.2 30.7 30.2 Bd 31.4 30.2 29.7 30.8 30.0 Bp 27.8 31.8 GL 125.2 122.8 97.2 Bd 25.2 26.5 25.5 24.6 26.6 27.0 GLl 31.0 29.8 31.2 31.3 31.2 29.4 Bd 26.8 24.7 24.0 GLpe 39.4 40.6 37.6

Base B 16.8 20.4 29.7 BG 22.8 21.0 21.3 21.4 22.8 16.1 BT 29.5 30.8 29.3 28.8 29.1 Dp 15.2 Bd 29.4 26.4 28.5 29.5 25.9 Dd 20.4 19.7 19.8 18.5 20.2 21.3 Bd 19.8 18.6 18.5 20.4 21.9 18.2 HDW 12.3 11.3 11.1 Bd 13.4 14.4 11.9

HT 14.6 14.7 14.1 14.6 14.4

HDW 13.0 12.3 13.1 13.0 12.5

SC 9.5 9.5 10.8 9.8 9.5

Dl 15.7 15.6 15.9 17.6 18.1 15.2 SC 10.3 9.3 9.9

LC 17.5 16.2 15.8 Bp 13.9 14.6 13.2

LC 16.4 15.0 17.4 16.6 15.4

CI 58.8 57.0 62.6

CI 57.9 63 62.0 59.0 61.6

CHAPTER 21: T ERRESTRIAL FAUNA GOAT

Stratum X12 X12 X12 X11 X11 X10-X9 X8 X8

Period LB II LB II LB II LB II/Iron I LB II/Iron I Iron IB Iron IIA Iron IIA

X12

LB II

X12 X12 X12 X11 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X8

LB II LB II LB II LB II/Iron I Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron I

X12 X12 X12 X12 X11 X10-X9 X8 X7 X8

LB II LB II LB II LB II LB II/Iron I Iron IB Iron I Iron II Iron I

X12 X12 X12 X12 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9

LB II LB II LB II LB II Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB

X10-X9 X10-X9 X8

Iron IB Iron IB Iron IIA

X12 X12 X12 X12 X10-X9

LB II LB II LB II LB II Iron IB

X12 X11 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9

LB II LB II/Iron I Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB

X12 X12 X10-X9

LB II LB II Iron IB

3rd phalanx SHEEP Scapula

Humerus

Metacarpal

Tibia

Astragalus Cache Cache Cache Cache Metatarsal

1st phalanx

Measurements 39.1 42.2 37.4 35.6 42.5 36.3 36.4 39.0 Lad Bp 34.7 16.7 GLP 32.2 35.6 31.7 34.7 31.0 31.8 32.8 32.3 Bd 33.3 32.4 28.5 27.8 29.7 34.3 35.9 34.9 36.0 Bd 28.6 25.6 27.2 28.9 26.5 Bd 30.5 30.3 28.2 GLl 33.4 34.9 32.7 34.7 29.5 Bd 23.7 26.2 25.3 GLpe 35.4 37.4 31.2

12.5 16.5 12.0 12.0 15.0 12.6 11.9 13.4

12.6 15.8 13.2 12.8 14.5 13.2 12.4 13.7

BG 23.2 24.4 22.8 23.8 22.9 20.5 19.0 20.2 BT 30.9 31.0 25.6 28.3 32.0 33.2 31.9 17.9 HDW 12.5 12.6 12.8 12.7 12.6 12.4 13.1 12.5 Dd 19.5 23.5 22.1 Bd 20.8 19.8 19.6 20.3 18.1 HDW 11.7 11.0 11.6 12.6 12.0 Bd 13.5 12.0 -

HT 14.8 14.4 15.2 14.2 14.0 14.9 16.7 16.2 SC 11.0 10.5 12.4 12.4 11.4 12.3 13.6 12.7 12.2

Dl 17.8 18.6 18.2 18.7 16.7 SC 11.9 10.8 11.6 12.0 12.6 Bp 13.1 13.2 15.9

LC 16.9 16.0 17.8 17.5 16.8 17.7 17.9 17.6 17.4

LC 16.1 15.0 16.8 17.8 17.7

CI 65.0 65.6 69.6 70.8 67.8 69.4 75.9 72.1 70.1

CI 73.9 72.0 69.0 67.4 71.8

555

LIORA KOLSKA HORWITZ CATTLE Scapula

Stratum

Period

X12 X12 X10-X9 X10-X9

LB II LB II Iron IB Iron IB

X12 X11 X11

LB II LB II/Iron I LB II/Iron I

X12 X10-X9

LB II Iron IB

X12 X12 X12 X11 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9

LB II LB II LB II LB II/Iron I Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB

X12 X10-X9 X10-X9 X8

LB II Iron I Iron I Iron I

X12 X12 X12 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X8

LB II LB II LB II Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IIA

X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X11 X11 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X8 X8 X7

LB II LB II LB II LB II LB II LB II/Iron I LB II/Iron I Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IIA Iron IIA Iron IIA

Humerus

Radius Metacarpal

Tibia

Metatarsal

Astragalus

556

Measurements GLP 71.6 57.0 68.5 56.3 Bd 77.2 60.0 74.4 Bp 74.1 68.3 GL 202.2 178.4 Bd 54.6 62.0 54.6 47.5 GL 245.1 209.1 205.2 221.3 246.2 226.6 GLl 66.4 57.8 71.1 64.7 57.5 62.5 63.7 57.3 65.3 61.9 55.4 66.2 57.9 55.0 66.3 68.3 59.2 68.0 59.3

BG 50.6 45.1 53.3 BT 69.8 57.8 68.7 Dp 36.1 34.4 Bd 48.6 48.7 52.3 50.8 42.5 44.4 Dd 39.5 45.8 31.6 34.8 Bd 46.7 53.9 40.7 40.1 44.6 46.1 42.7 Bd 39.7 36.8 46.8 39.6 36.7 39.4 38.6 36.9 41.0 38.6 33.0 44.6 36.1 36.4 44.2 32.7

SLC

HT 31.0 27.0 29.9

HDW 33.6 25.7 35.5 25.0 28.0 25.7 22.3 24.0 22.9 24.4

HDW 33.1 26.1 26.8 21.5 20.2 26.6 23.7 24.3 21.5 21.7 23.6 DL 33.9 28.4 40.1 34.9 31.0 33.0 33.7 33.8 32.7 31.0 37.1 32.1 30.4 36.8 39.1 34.0 36.5 32.2

LC 34.0 30.8 40.3 29.0 33.0 31.1 18.3 27.3 28.2 28.2

LC 33.5 32.6 32.2 25.8 26.2 27.7 28.8 31.3 24.9 32.8 29.1

SC 26.4 22.7 32.6 23.4 26.8 23.3 25.1 19.9 22.7 22.8

SC 26.4 23.9 23.3 19.0 18.6 20.8 22.3 22.2 18.9 24.1 35.7

SD

Bp

32.9

51.7

28.7 28.9 -

53.0 48.3 -

SD 29.5 21.2 19.4 25.8 22.7 27.0 24.0

Bp 52.1 40.4 39.6 41.6 49.8 -

CHAPTER 21: T ERRESTRIAL FAUNA CATTLE Navicullo-cuboid

Stratum

Period

X12 X10-X9 X10-X9

LB II Iron IB Iron IB

X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X11 X11 X11 X11 X11 X11 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X8

LB II LB II LB II LB II LB II LB II/Iron I LB II/Iron I LB II/Iron I LB II/Iron I LB II/Iron I LB II/Iron I Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IIA

X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X11 X11 X11 X11 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X8

LB II LB II LB II LB II LB II LB II LB II LB II LB II LB II LB II LB II/Iron I LB II/Iron I LB II/Iron I LB II/Iron I Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IIA

X12

LB II

1st phalanx

2nd phalanx

3rd phalanx

Measurements GB 49.6 56.7 55.8 GLpe 56.6 58.1 57.3 53.4 51.4 57.7 54.1 53.0 60.0 59.1 55.0 60.0 52.9 53.9 60.4 56.9 55.1 50.6 55.0 58.4 53.6 58.5 61.3 56.1 46.6 52.0 GLpe 39.1 34.6 36.6 35.6 35.9 38.2 38.3 45.4 38.2 36.6 36.8 40.3 38.1 38.7 35.7 33.4 32.3 32.5 34.0 39.1 34.1 34.1 33.8 33.6 36.2 Lad 60.6

Dd 43.7 44.6 52.3 Bd 25.0 28.8 25.2 25.7 23.5 28.3 23.6 24.6 21.6 30.6 21.6 22.4 26.8 31.7 25.6 25.2 22.7 24.4 29.8 23.7 28.6 33.4 26.7 21.5 24.5 Bd 26.4 26.7 26.1 27.0 30.0 26.7 22.7 26.4 22.1 22.0 25.3 22.7 22.6 28.5 22.3 27.5 19.5 23.0 23.8 23.1 25.9 20.0 21.0 25.1 Bp 53.8

Bp 28.7 25.0 26.0 24.5 23.2 25.7 25.4 25.8 31.9 28.9 25.8 22.5 27.4 32.8 27.9 25.7 24.1 26.6 30.1 23.8 28.9 35.5 27.4 22.4 Bp 30.0 28.4 29.4 28.4 32.5 30.6 27.4 29.4 26.0 25.2 29.6 23.4 26.5 30.5 26.9 21.7 26.3 27.7 26.3 29.0 27.2 25.4 25.5 29.3

557

LIORA KOLSKA HORWITZ CATTLE

Stratum X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X11 X11 X11 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X10-X9 X7

Period LB II LB II LB II LB II LB II LB II LB II LB II/Iron I LB II/Iron I LB II/Iron I Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IB Iron IIA

X12

LB II

X8

Iron IIA

X11

LB II/Iron I

X12 X8

LB II Iron IIA

X12

LB II

X12

LB II

X11

LB II/Iron I

X10-X9

Iron IB

X8

Iron IIA

X12 X12 X12 X11

LB II LB II LB II LB II/Iron I

X10-X9

Iron IB

X12 X12

LB II LB II

X12 X10-X9

LB II Iron IB

X12

LB II

X12 X12 X12 X12 X10-X9

LB II LB II LB II LB II Iron IB

Measurements 60.6 46.8 56.3 47.8 40.0 51.8 48.2 45.1 58.5 58.5 45.5 47.8 46.6 49.1 39.9

54.2 41.2 46.6 42.7 31.9 47.4 37.5 38.0 46.5 47.1 35.9 40.0 43.5 45.9 -

L 16.1 L 14.8 L 19.6 Bd 39.2 27.4 Bd 39.8 GL 72.2

B 14.1 B 12.0 B 12.9 BT 35.0 20.1 Dd 29.2 Bd 16.5

107.6 GLpe 34.5 GLpe 25.8 Lad 36.4 38.0 37.1 25.6

22.7 Bd 14.4 Bd 18.6 Bp 30.1 24.2 26.5 23.4

PM-M row L 100.0 GLP 47.5 55.2 Bd 49.6 43.9 Bd 44.1 GLI 246.7 229.3 254.6 -

BG 35.9 38.3 Dd 26.0 19.1 Dd 36.6 Bd 38.9 36.8 37.0 38.1 37.2

PIG Upper M1 Upper M2 Lower M2 Humerus ?boar Radius ?boar Metacarpal 4 ? boar Metacarpal III ? boar 1st phalanx 2nd phalanx 3rd phalanx

FALLOW DEER Mandible Scapula Radius Tibia Metatarsal

558

HT 18.2 10.6 SD 18.3 Bp 16.8 Bp 19.5

HDW 16.8 16.7 16.2 16.1 17.6

LC 23.7 23.1 23.2 23.1 24.2

SC 17.5 16.4 17.2 17.7 17.8

CHAPTER 21: T ERRESTRIAL FAUNA FALLOW DEER Astragalus

Stratum

Period

X12 X10-X9

LB II Iron IB

X12 X12 X10-X9

LB II LB II Iron IB

X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X10-X9

LB II LB II LB II LB II LB II Iron IB

X12 X12 X12 X11

LB II LB II LB II LB II/Iron I

X12 X11

LB II LB II/Iron I

X12

LB II

X12 X12

LB II LB II

X10-X9

Iron IB

X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X10-X9 X10-X9 X8

X12 X12

1st phalanx

2nd phalanx

3rd phalanx

GAZELLE Horncore

Measurements GLl 47.2 36.8 GLpe 42.1 GLpe 38.2 37.2 34.8 34.7 37.4 37.8 Lad 36.4 38.0 37.1 25.6

Bd 30.0 31.7 Bd 16.3 Bd 15.3 14.0 16.8 19.1 15.4 14.8 Bp 30.1 24.2 26.5 23.4

Dl 25.2 25.8 Bp 26.7 26.8 Bp 18.2 18.5 18.0 21.9 18.2 18.3

Base B 24.7 23.7 BT 24.9 Bd 17.7 17.0

HT 13.9 Dl 15.2 14.6

LB II LB II LB II LB II LB II Iron IB Iron IB Iron IIA

Base L 31.9 34.1 Bd 27.9 GLl 27.9 27.4 Gl 53.6 GLpe 39.0 39.2 47.4 36.1 38.3 34.2 39.1 46.2

Bd 11.2 11.5 10.0 12.4 11.1 10.0 11.4 10.0

Bp 11.2 11.7 11.2 12.5 11.8 12.3 12.5 11.2

LB II LB II

Bd 50.0 31.1

SC 37.6 21.1

LC 35.5 26.2

Humerus Astragalus Calcaneum 1st phalanx

DONKEY Metapodial

559

LIORA KOLSKA HORWITZ

REFERENCES Beck, P. and Kochavi, M. 1993. Aphek (in the Sharon). In: Stern, E., ed. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Vol. 1. Jerusalem. pp. 62-72. Boessneck, J. 1969. Osteological differences between sheep (Ovis aries Linne) and goats (Capra hircus Linne). In: Brothwell, D. and Higgs, E.S., eds. Science in Archaeology, 2nd edition. London. pp. 331-358. Binford L.S. 1981. Bones. Ancient Men and Modern Myths. New York: Academic Press. Bunimovitz, S. 1995. On the edge of empires - Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 BCE). In: Levy, T.E., ed. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London. pp. 321-331. Davis, S.J. 1985a. A preliminary report of the fauna from Hatoula. A Natufian-Khiamian (PPNA) site near Latroun, Israel. In: Lechevallier, M. and Ronen, A., eds. Le Site Natoufien-Khiamien de Hatoula près de Latroun, Israël, fouilles 1980-1982. Rapport preliminaire. (Les Cahiers du Centre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem No. 1). Paris. pp. 71-98. Davis, S.J. 1985b. The large mammal bones. In: Mazar, A., ed. Excavations at Tel Qasile Part 2. (Qedem 20) Jerusalem. pp. 148-150. Dothan, T. 1998. Initial Philistine settlement. From migration to coexistence. In: Gitin, S., Mazar A, and. Stern, E., eds. Mediterranean Peoples in Transition. Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem. pp. 148-161. Eisenmann, V and Beckouche, S. 1986. Identification and discrimination of metapodials from Pleistocene and Modern Equus, wild and domestic. In: Meadow, R.H. and Uerpmann, H-P., eds. Equids in the Ancient World. Wiesbaden. pp.117-163. Finkelstein, I. 1995. The great transformation. The ‘conquest’ of the Highlands and the rise of the territorial states. In: Levy, T.E., ed. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London. pp. 349-367. Finkelstein, I. 1997. Pots and people revisited. Ethnic boundaries in the Iron Age I. In: Silberman, N.A. and Small, D., eds. The Archaeology of Israel. Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present. Sheffield. pp. 216-237. Gitin, S., Mazar, A. and Stern, E., eds. 1998. Mediterranean Peoples in Transition. Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem. pp.162-183. Grant, A. 1982. The use of tooth wear as a guide to the age of domestic ungulates. In: Wilson, B., Grigson, C. and Payne, S., eds. Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. (British Archaeological Reports, British Series 109) Oxford. pp. 91-108. Grigson, C. 1982. Sex and age determination of some bones and teeth of domestic cattle. A review of the literature. In: Wilson, B., Grigson, C. and Payne, S., eds. Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. (British Archaeological Reports, British Series 109) Oxford. pp. 7-23. Hellwing, S. 2000. Faunal remains. In: Kochavi, M., ed. Aphek-Antipatris I. Excavation of Areas A and B. The 1972-1976 seasons. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University No. 19) Tel Aviv. pp. 293-314. Hellwing, S., Sade, M. and Kishon, V. 1993. Faunal remains. In: Finkelstein, I., ed. Shiloh, the Archaeology of a Biblical Site. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University No. 10) Tel Aviv. pp. 309-350. Hesse, B. 1986. Animal use at Tel Miqne-Ekron in the Bronze Age and Iron Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 264:17-27. Hesse, B. 1990. Pig lovers and pig haters. Patterns of Palestinian pork production. Journal of Ethnobiology 10/2:195-225. 560

CHAPTER 21: T ERRESTRIAL FAUNA

Hesse B. and Wapnish P. 1996. Can pig remains be used for ethnic diagnosis in the ancient Near East? In: Silberman, A.S. and Small, D., eds. The Archaeology of Israel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. (Supplement Series 237) pp. 238-270. Hesse B. and Wapnish P. 1998. Pig use and abuse in the ancient Levant. Ethno-religious boundary-building with swine. In: Nelson, S.M., ed. Ancestors for the Pigs. Pigs in Prehistory. (MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology Vol. 15.) pp. 123-135. Horwitz, L.K. and Milevski, I. 2001. The faunal evidence for socioeconomic change between the Middle and Late Bronze Age in the southern Levant. In: Wolff, S.R., ed. Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighbouring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse. (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilisation 59) Chicago. pp. 283-305. Kochavi, M., Beck, P. and Yadin, E., eds. 2000. Aphek-Antipatris I. Excavations of Areas A and B. The 1972-1976 Seasons. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 19) Tel Aviv. Lev-Tov, J. 2000. Pigs, Philistines and the Ancient Animal Economy of Ekron from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age II. (Ph. D. dissertation, University of Tennessee) Maher, E. 2003. Food for the Gods. The Identification of Philistine Rites of Sacrifice. (Ph D dissertation, University of Illinois) Mazar, A. 1992. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible - 10,000-586 BCE. New York. Orni, E. and Efrat, E. 1980. Geography of Israel, 4th edition. Jerusalem. Payne, S. 1973. Kill-off patterns in sheep and goats. The mandibles from Aşvan Kale. Anatolian Studies 23:281-303. Payne, S. and Bull, G. 1988. Components of variation in measurements of pig bones and teeth and the use of measurements to distinguish wild from domestic pig remains. ArchaeoZoologia II/1,2:27-66. Prummel, W. and Frisch, H. 1986. A guide for the distinction of species, sex and body side in bones of sheep and goat. Journal of Archaeological Science 13:567-577. Qumsiyeh, M.B. 1996. Mammals of The Holy Land. Lubbock, Texas. Sade, M. 2000. Social, Economic and Environment Aspects of the Transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron I Based on Archaeozoological Findings in Eretz-Israel. (Ph D dissertation, Tel-Aviv University) Tel Aviv. (Hebrew) Silver, I.A. 1969. The ageing of domestic animals. In: Brothwell, D. and Higgs, E.S., eds. Science in Archaeology. London. pp. 283-302. Stager, L.E. 1995. The impact of the Sea Peoples in Canaan (1185-1050 BCE). In: Levy, T.E., ed. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London. pp. 332-348. von den Driesch, A. 1976. A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. (Harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Bulletin 1) Cambridge, MA. Wapnish, P. and Hesse, B. 1991. Faunal remains from Tel Dan. Perspectives on animal production at a village, urban and ritual center. ArchaeoZoologia IV/2:9-86. Zeder, M.A. 1998. Pigs and the emergent complexity in the ancient Near East. In: Nelson, S.M., ed. Ancestors for the Pigs. Pigs in Prehistory. (MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology Vol. 15) Philadelphia. pp. 109-122.

561

CHAPTER 22

SHELLS AND CRABS Henk K. Mienis

MATERIAL AND METHODS The shell and crab remains recovered during the excavation are all of a relatively large size, i.e., 1.0 cm or more in length, a clear indication the material collected derives from haphazard, visual identification of finds in fills as they were excavated, rather than through systematic sieving. The latter operation would have yielded more numerous and smaller examples of these faunal categories. All shell and crab remains belong to well-characterized common organisms and could be easily identified to the level of species; this in spite of the fact that most material was rather fragmentary and in a poor state of preservation. Only in the case of freshwater mussels did the material have to be compared with recent samples in the National Mollusc Collection of the Tel Aviv University.

RESULTS The material studied consists of 17 samples1 containing 56 mollusc shells or fragments thereof, and one small piece of a crab. They could be identified as belonging to 12 taxa, enumerated in taxonomical order and according to the loci in which they were encountered.

MOLLUSCA GASTROPODA

FAMILY MELANOPSIDAE TABLE 22.1: MELANOPSIS BUCCINOIDEA (OLIVIER 1801) Stratum

Locus

Reg. No.

Remarks

X8 X 11 X 12 X 12 X 12

5013 5022 1731 1721 1721

33662 52002 -

One shell missing its top and with a damaged aperture One shell missing its top and with a heavily damaged aperture One shell with its top and its aperture damaged One shell with a damaged aperture One shell missing its top and a large part of its body-whorl

Remarks All the shells show body whorls damaged in particular near their apertures. This damage is typical evidence of predation by freshwater crabs.

1. A sample consists of an assemblage of shell remains collected in a single locus, sometimes from one or more baskets. A sample may consist of a single shell or part of it or of numerous shells or fragments belonging to one or more species.

562

CHAPTER 22: SHELLS AND CRABS

FAMILY CASSIDAE TABLE 22.2: PHALIUM GRANULATUM UNDULATUM (GMELIN 1791) Stratum Locus

Reg. No.

Remarks

X7 X12

45058 43097

One lip of the aperture One lip of the aperture

4606 4400

Remarks Both fragments consist of so-called ‘cassid lips’. FAMILY MURICIDAE TABLE 22.3: BOLINUS BRANDARIS (LINNAEUS 1758) Stratum Locus

Reg. No.

Remarks

X9

43000

One shell with a large and a small hole in the body-whorl. The siphonal canal is missing

3482

TABLE 22.4: HEXAPLEX TRUNCULUS (LINNAEUS 1758) Stratum Locus

Reg. No.

Remarks

X9 X12

38227

One old, abraded shell missing its top One shell missing the top, it has a man-made hole behind the lip

3606 3827

FAMILY ENIDAE TABLE 22.5: BULIMINUS LABROSUS LABROSUS (OLIVIER 1804) Stratum Locus

Reg. No.

Remarks

X8

47071

One small, adult specimen

4813

FAMILY HELICIDAE TABLE 22.6: HELIX ENGADDENSIS BOURGUIGNAT 1852 Stratum Locus

Reg. No.

Remarks

X9

43000

One shell missing part of its body-whorl

3482

BIVALVIA FAMILY GLYCYMERIDIDAE TABLE 22.7: GLYCYMERIS GLYCYMERIS PILOSA (LINNAEUS 1767) Stratum Locus

Reg. No.

Remarks

X12

-

One umbonal fragment

2731

TABLE 22.8: GLYCYMERIS INSUBRICA (BROCCHI 1814) Stratum Locus

Reg. No.

Remarks

X12

43097

One fragment of the ventral margin

4400

563

H ENK K. M IENIS X12

4400

43103

X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X11 X11 X11

4400 1721 1731 2731 2731 4630 3496 4624

43128 33662 34544 45234 33522 45240

X11 X11

5014 5022

49078 -

X9 X9

3606 3482

43000

X8 X8

3467 5013

49073

X8

5013

49091

Three valves, two with a man-made hole in the unbo, three fragments of ventral margins One valve One small fragment of a valve, which had a man-made hole in its umbo Four valves, two with a man-made hole in its umbo One valve with a man-made hole in its umbo One heavily damaged valve with a man-made hole in its umbo, and one fragment One valve with a man-made hole in its umbo One umbonal fragment with a hole in its umbo One umbonal fragment with a man-made hole and two fragments of a ventral margin Two fragments of a ventral margin Three valves with a man-made hole in its umbo, one umbonal fragment with a tiny natural hole, and three fragments of a ventral margin One fragment of a ventral margin Three valves, two with a man-made hole in the umbo, one umbonal fragment with a tiny hole One valve One heavily damaged valve with a man-made hole in its umbo, and two fragments One heavily damaged valve with a man-made hole in its umbo

FAMILY UNIONIDAE TABLE 22.9: POTOMIDA LITTORALIS DELESSERTI (BOURGUIGNAT 1852) Stratum Locus

Reg. No.

Remarks

X12

34544

One umbonal fragment

2731

TABLE 22.10: UNIO MANCUS EUCIRRUS BOURGUIGNAT 1857 Stratum Locus

Reg. No.

Remarks

X11

-

One fragment of a ventral margin

5022

CEPHALOPODA FAMILY SEPIIDAE TABLE 22.11: SEPIA OFFICINALIS LINNAEUS 1758 Stratum Locus

Reg. No.

Remarks

X12

-

One small fragment of a cuttlebone (an internal shell)

1721

CRUSTACEA DECAPODA

FAMILY POTAMONIDAE TABLE 22.12: POTAMON POTAMIOS (OLIVIER 1801) Stratum Locus

Reg. No.

Remarks

X12

34544

The movable part of a right claw

564

2731

CHAPTER 22: SHELLS AND CRABS

DISCUSSION COMPOSITION

The material consisted of 56 molluscs and one crustacean. They may be subdivided as follows: TABLE 22.13: COMPOSITION OF THE ASSEMBLAGE Gastropoda

Bivalvia

Cephalopoda Decapoda Total

12

43

1 1 57

Terrestrial

2

Fluviatile Marine

5 5

Fluviatile

2

Marine

41

Marine Fluviatile

1 1 57

Buliminus labrosus Helix engaddensis Melanopsis buccinoides Phalium granulatum undulatum Bolinus brandaris Hexaplex trunculus Potomida littoralis delesserti Unio mancus eucirrus Glycymeris glycymeris pilosa Glycymeris insubrica Sepia officinalis Potamon potamios

1 1 5 2 1 2 1 1 1 40 1 1 57

Thus, the bulk of the material (82%) consisted of remains of seashells. GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN

From a zoogeographic point of view, the material may be subdivided as follows: TABLE 22.14: GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN OF THE ASSEMBLAGE Tel Aphek and vicinity

2

Yarqon River

8

Mediterranean Sea

47

Total

57

Buliminus labrosus Helix engaddensis Melanopsis buccinoidea Potomida littoralis delesserti Unio mancus eucirrus Potamon potamios Phalium granulatum undulatum Bolinus brandaris Hexaplex trunculus Glycymeris glycymeris pilosa Glycymeris insubrica Sepia officinalis

1 1 5 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 40 1 57

All marine molluscs (47 shells) recovered during the excavation have their origin in the Eastern Mediterranean, which is at a distance of some 15 km as the crow flies from Tel Aphek. The presence of marine shells suggests a probable existence of close contact between the site’s inhabitants and people living nearer the sea, for example at settlements such as Tell Qasile or Tel Gerisa. The remaining items (nine shells and one part of a freshwater crab) are of local origin, i.e., land snails may have come from the environs of Tel Aphek itself, or in the case of Buliminus labrosus, from nearby hills east of the site. Freshwater snails (5), mussels (2) and the lone crab, probably came from the Yarqon River that runs just west of the mound. CLIMATE

It is sometimes possible to use data derived from collections of molluscs to help reconstruct climatic conditions. However, the small size of the assemblage from Tel Aphek somewhat limits the reliability 565

H ENK K. M IENIS

of such observations. It should be noted that although considerably more remains of invertebrates (i.e., molluscs and crustaceans) were collected during later excavation seasons than during earlier seasons dealing with Early and Middle Bronze deposits at Tel Aphek (Hellwing 2000; Hellwing and Gophna 1984), the assemblage remains disappointingly small for such a large-scale excavation. Indeed, it is difficult to use such a small data base (derived from two locally collected land snails, seven freshwater molluscs and one freshwater crab) to reconstruct the regional climate of the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age periods. Nevertheless, these data do give some indication as to ancient climatic conditions. Two of the freshwater molluscs, Melanopsis buccinoidea and Potomida littoralis delesserti, are known to have survived in the Yarqon River at least until the period between 1970 and 1977 CE. The same may be said of the freshwater crab. However, at present none of these species has survived in this heavily polluted river (Mienis 1995). The two land snail species are still commonly encountered on the site and in its immediate vicinity. If one assumes the assemblage presented in this study to be representative of the Late Bronze and Iron Ages, then it suggests that conditions during those ancient periods were rather similar to those of today, since all these species are known to have inhabited the environs of Tel Aphek and the Yarqon Basin until the last quarter of the 20th century CE. Presently the region is characterized by a Mediterranean climate with rainy winters and dry, hot summers. STRATIGRAPHIC ASSOCIATIONS

The molluscs and decapod recovered during the excavation were encountered in layers dating to the Late Bronze and Iron Ages. The distribution of the material in the recognized archaeological strata is indicated in Table 22.15. TABLE 22.15: STRATIGRAPHIC ASSOCIATIONS Archaeological Period Stratum Species Melanopsis buccinoidea Phalium granulatum undulatum Bolinus brandaris Hexaplex trunculus Buliminus labrosus Helix engaddensis Glycymeris glycymeris pilosa Glycymeris insubrica Potomida littoralis delesserti Unio mancus eucirrus Sepia officinalis Potamon potamios Total (57)

Late Bronze Age X 12 3 1 1 1 16 1 1 1 25

LB II/Iron I (LB III) X 11 1 14 1 16

Iron Age X 10-X9 X 8-X6 1 1 1 5 8

1 1 1 5 8

According to these data, 44% of the archaeo-malacological items were encountered in Late Bronze Age strata and 56% in Iron Age strata. Shells of eight different taxa were found in both Late Bronze Age and Iron Age levels. Most shells exploited during both archaeological periods turned out to be Glycymeris insubrica, a species which is still the most common bivalve encountered on the Mediterranean beaches of the Levant, although living specimens are now rarely found in the eastern Mediterranean (Mienis, Zaslow and Bar-Yosef Mayer 2006).

566

CHAPTER 22: SHELLS AND CRABS

EXPLOITATION OF MOLLUSCS

Due to the paucity of material, it is very difficult to determine whether the inhabitants of Tel Aphek exploited molluscs and crabs in one or another way. Remains of both groups may provide important information concerning climate, trade routes, utilization of molluscs as food, for ornaments, for utensils or instruments of music and/or warning. However, since only occasional shells or crabs were retrieved by the excavators and preserved for further study, interpretation of the data is fraught with a great deal of uncertainty. Nevertheless, it is possible to suggest a number of ways in which marine shells were likely utilized at the site. ORNAMENTATION (PENDANTS) Fifteen out of a total of forty valves of Glycymeris insubrica exhibit man-made holes in their umbos. Such punctures are a sign that these valves were likely used as pendants. In addition, one of the shells of Hexaplex trunculus shows a man-made hole behind the lip of the aperture; it might have been used too as a pendant. ‘CASSID LIPS’ Both fragments of Phalium granulatum undulatum consist of so-called ‘cassid lips’, the strongly reinforced outer lip of the shell’s aperture. The function of ‘cassid lips’ at archaeological sites is still unknown, although it has been speculated they were collected for ornamental purposes (Reese 1989). FOOD In principle, the freshwater snail Melanopsis buccinoidea and the land snail Helix engaddensis, are both edible species. However, the few specimens recovered during the excavation, five and one, respectively, do not allow for a decisive determination as to whether or not the inhabitants of Tel Aphek were eaters of snails. The single fragment of the cuttlebone of Sepia officinalis, found in the Late Bronze Age palace area, suggests the likelihood of the common squid as an occasional part of the inhabitant’s diet. This Mediterranean cephalopod is commonly encountered along the coast and since the dawn of mankind it has been considered a delicacy. It is still eaten all over the Mediterranean region and along the northwest coast of Europe. The cuttlebone, the internal shell of this squid, is rather fragile and it is rather unlikely it was brought to the site in a fleshless form. More likely, freshly caught squids were acquired from coastal dwellers and transported to Tel Aphek as a delicacy. During the preparation of the squid, the cuttlebone would have been removed and discarded. Since remains of Sepia officinalis are rarely encountered among archaeo-malacological material, there is not much information on the use of this resource as provender. However, recent studies of a number of similar cuttlebones with clear visible cut-marks on them from Hellenistic levels at Tel Maresha (Mienis nd), indicate their utilization as a source of food in ancient times at sites somewhat removed from the coast.

CONCLUSION Archaeozoological material procured during excavations carried out at Tel Aphek revealed the presence of only 56 remains of molluscs and one fragment of a crustacean. It is rather unfortunate that no attempt was made at improving recovery techniques because it is likely that much more material could have been collected, especially since mollusc remains are generally quite sturdy and, when actively sought, are found if present. Mollusc remains, especially when assemblages are large, can provide the archaeologist 567

H ENK K. M IENIS

with a wealth of information on climate, trade-links, exploitation of shells as ornaments and various utensils and as a source food (e.g., common squid, Sepia officinalis). Most shells recovered in the excavations of Tel Aphek were found in Late Bronze Age contexts. They originated in two zoogeographical zones. Terrestrial and freshwater species were collected in the immediate vicinity of the site; the land snails on the mound or on rocky outcrops in the hills to the east, while the freshwater snails, mussels and the crab were obtained from the nearby Yarqon River. However, most shells in the assemblage derive from the Mediterranean Sea, indicating the inhabitants of Tel Aphek maintained contacts with people living nearer to or directly on the coast (see also Chapter 23). REFERENCES Hellwing, S. 2000. Faunal remains. In: Kochavi, M., Beck, P. and Yadin, E., eds. 2000. Aphek-Antipatris I. Excavations of Areas A and B. The 1972-1976 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University No. 19.) Tel Aviv. pp. 293-314. Hellwing, S. and Gophna, R. 1984. The animal remains from the Early and Middle Bronze Ages at Tel Aphek and Tel Dalit. A comparative study. Tel Aviv 11:48-59. Mienis, H.K. 1995. A revised list of the aquatic molluscs recorded from the Yarqon river. In D. Pergament, ed. HaYarqon. Ramat Gan. p. 57. Mienis, H.K. nd. Unpublished Study of Shells from Excavations at Tel Maresha. Mienis, H.K., Ben-David Zaslow, R. and Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E., 2006. Glycymeris in the Levant Sea 1. Finds of recent Glycymeris insubrica in the southeast corner of the Mediterranean Sea. Triton 13:5-9. Reese, D.S. 1989. On cassid lips and helmet shells. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 275:33-39.

568

CHAPTER 23

FISH REMAINS Omri Lernau

The excavation of the acropolis at Tel Aphek yielded only 21 bones of fish for analysis, a very small assemblage, which allows conclusions of only a limited qualitative nature. The size of the assemblage is probably indicative of little sieving during excavation (Chapter 22), which created a bias owing to a lack of bones of small fish (i.e., especially fresh water varieties from the nearby Yarkon River). Most bones were well-preserved large objects. Fourteen bones could be identified to the level of family, and 11 as to genus or species, using the author’s comparative collection of bones of recent fish (Table 23.1), with a degree of certainty in the identifications explicitly noted (Lernau 1996, see footnotes to Table 23.1). Measurements of identified bones, according to Morales and Rosenlund (1979), allowed estimations of standard sizes of fish from which the bones derived. Photographs are presented on a scale of 2:1 except Fig. 23.4 which is 1:1 and Fig. 23.9 which is 4:1. Six bones were retrieved in LB II strata, while the remainder were found in deposits associated mostly with Iron I contexts. Following is a detailed description of the fish bones recovered from the acropolis excavations.

FISH REMAINS DATED TO LB II Five bones were found in association with Palace VI. Three come from a hall of the palace (Locus 1721). One of them is a poorly preserved caudal vertebra of a large meagre [Argyrosomus regius (Asso 1801), family Sciaenidae = drums, croakers] with an estimated size of about 100 cm in length. A small caudal vertebra and another fragment of bone from the same locus could not be taxonomically identified. In the court of the palace (Locus 1137) there was one caudal vertebra of a medium-sized grouper (family Serranidae = groupers) estimated to have been between 60-70 cm long (Fig. 23.1). In the adjacent street (Locus 2753) there was a well-preserved left premaxilla (upper jaw) of a gilthead seabream [Sparus aurata Linnaeus 1758, family Sparidae = porgies] with an estimated length of about 30-40 cm (Figs. 23.2, 23.3). A large caudal vertebra (Locus 2753) belonged to a specimen of Nile perch [Lates niloticus (Boulenger 1907), family: Centropomidae = snooks] with an estimated length of 80-90 cm (Fig. 23.4).

FISH REMAINS DATED TO THE IRON AGE Seven bones were found inside pits associated with the Iron I occupation (Loci 1146, 4018 and 1700). Three of these could be identified as belonging to different kinds of fish. One is a poorly preserved caudal vertebra of a meagre, estimated to have measured 60-70 cm in length. Another is a large, left opercular bone (Gill cover) of a white grouper [Epinephelus aeneus (Geoffroy St. Hilaire 1817)] estimated to have been 90-100 cm long (Fig. 23.5). The third is a caudal vertebra of a blue-spotted sea bream [Pagrus coeruleostictus (Valenciennes 1830), family Sparidae] estimated to have measured 35-45 cm. Among the bones unidentifiable as to taxa were two large matching elements of an upper and lower jaw (a premaxilla and a dentary) that appear to have belonged to the same individual. 569

OMRI LERNAU

Fig 23.1: A poorly preserved vertebra of the posterior part of the spinal column of a 60-70 cm long grouper. Left lateral view.

Fig. 23.2: A well preserved left premaxilla of a 30-40 cm long Sparus aurata. Note its flat, empty sockets for molariform teeth. One tooth is still attached. Medial view.

Fig. 23.3: Same Sparus aurata bone illustrated in Fig. 23.2, viewed laterally. Medial view.

Fig. 23.4: A large well preserved posterior vertebra of an 80-90 cm long Nile perch. It occupies approximately the 18th position along the spinal cord. Left lateral view (scale 1:1).

Fig. 23.5: A poorly preserved left opercular bone (gill cover) of a large, 90-100 cm long grouper. Note the round joint socket in front, which enables the fish to open and close the gill compartment. The bone has a triangular form but characteristically, the brittle thin lower section has been broken off. The articular cavity and a sturdy spine running across the bone have survived. Medial view.

570

CHAPTER 23: FISH R EMAINS

Fig. 23.6: A complete left pectoral spine of a 50-60 cm long Nile catfish. The fish uses these strong spines attached to its pectoral fins to crawl on mud between puddles of water.

Fig. 23.7: Head’ of the Nile catfish bone illustrated in Fig. 23.6. Note the typical convoluted articulation.

Fig. 23.8: Anterior part of a maxilla of a 100 cm long meagre. The saddle-like ‘head’ of the bone ‘rides’ over the premaxilla; together they form the upper jaw of the fish. Anterior view.

Fig. 23.9: A very small posterior vertebra of a mullet (on a scale of 4:1).

Fig. 23.10: A complete third spine of the dorsal fin of a 40-50 cm long Nile perch. It is the strongest bony element of the fin, and therefore the kind of bone fragment typically found in archaeological excavations.

571

OMRI LERNAU

Four bones were found in association with domestic dwellings. One is a poorly preserved hyomandibular (Locus 5022) of a sparid that could not be more precisely identified. A second is a poorly preserved maxilla (Locus 3631) of a grouper. Another is a perfectly preserved left pectoral spine (Locus 3477) of a Nile catfish [Clarias gariepinus (Burschell 1822) family Clariidae = air-breathing catfishes] with an estimated length of 50-60 cm (Figs. 23.6, 23.7). The fourth bone could not be identified. Three fish bones found in a silo (Loci 5013 and 4015) included a well preserved left maxilla of a large meagre, estimated to have reached the length of 100 cm (Fig. 23.8). Another is a well preserved abdominal vertebra, blackened by fire, of a Nile perch that was 70-80 cm long. The third is a very small abdominal vertebra identified as belonging to a specimen of either the genus Liza or Mugil of the family Mugilidae = mullets. The fish probably measured only ca. 14 cm in length (Fig. 23.9). Locus 4029 produced an element of a dorsal fin, a well-preserved complete spine of a Nile perch. The fish is estimated to have measured between 40-50 cm in length (Figs. 23.10, 23.11).

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE IDENTIFIED FISH Evidence for fish of marine origin found at Tel Aphek suggests they were acquired from fishermen based along the Mediterranean coast, which is only about 15 km to the west. Argyrosomus regius of the family drums and Epinephelus aeneus of the family groupers are large predatory marine fish, which may attain lengths of up to 150 and 120 cm respectively. The excavated bones of these fish belong to a range of lengths of individuals found mainly in relatively deep off-shore waters of the nearby Mediterranean coast. Catching them requires boat-based fishing with long lines (Whitehead 1986). Sparus aurata and Pagrus coeruleostictus, which belong to the family of porgies, are smaller fish attaining a maximum size of 60-80 cm. This family of carnivorous marine fish has many representatives in the Mediterranean. Included is S. aurata which, when young and smaller than 40 cm, inhabits coastal lagoons where it may be caught with different types of nets. However, as an adult it is found in the open seas, as is P. coeruleostictus, where they would have probably been caught with lines and hooks (Whitehead 1986). Some fresh water fish may have come from the nearby Yarqon River. Although adult members of the family Mugilidae also inhabit the Mediterranean, they have a catadromous life-cycle, where the young fish ascend fresh-water streams and return to the sea to breed. Adult mullets attain maximum lengths of up to 50-70 cm (Whitehead 1986). Since the excavated vertebra belonged to a small, young fish, it probably was caught in the Yarqon river that flows due west into the Mediterranean from the springs adjacent to Tel Aphek where it arises. Clarias geriepinusis is the largest fresh-water fish found in Israel today. It may attain a maximum size of about 120 cm (Goren 1983). This fish was also most likely caught in the adjoining Yarkon river. Lates niloticus, Nile perch, is of special interest in this assemblage. Three bones of this species were found at Tel Aphek, representing individuals with estimated sizes between 40 and 90 cm in length. Nile perch is a very large, predatory fish attaining a maximum size of about 180 cm. It is the largest fish found in the Nile and today its habitat is confined to the African continent (Greenwood 1976). Remains of Nile perch from five excavated ancient sites in Israel, two of which (Tel Gerisa and Tell Qasile) are located along the Yarkon Basin, were first described by H. Lernau (1986-7), . It was suggested at the time that the species might have inhabited coastal rivers of the Levant during historical periods, as did other Nilotic faunal elements, some of which have been present in these rivers until quite recently (Tchernov 1988), especially since remains of Lates niloticus have been dated to different periods from Chalcolithic (late 5th through early 4th millennia BCE) through Early Moslem times at 572

CHAPTER 23: FISH R EMAINS

sites in Israel. Indeed, this new knowledge of Nile perch at Tel Aphek would be consistent with such an assumption. However, although remains of this fish have since been identified at over 40 excavated sites in the Levant (mostly in Israel but also in Cyprus and Turkey), there is no evidence to suggest these fish actually inhabited its coasts. It now seems more probable that there was a thriving trade in fish, mainly in Nile perch, based in the Nile Valley and engaging the entire Eastern Mediterranean (van Neer et al. 2004). This trade appears to have peaked during the Late Bonze and Iron Ages. Thus, remains of this species from Tel Aphek can be interpreted in terms of commercial ties with Egypt, probably through intermediate merchants based at a port or anchorage, either on the river or along the Mediterranean coast. Excavations at Lachish produced a much larger assemblage of fish bones dated to a similar time frame, the Late Bronze Age and Iron II period. In the Lachish assemblage there were 14 kinds of fish, including those species found at Tel Aphek, with several more kinds of Nilotic imports (Lernau 2004). As far as one may estimate from the limited available data, patterns of fish consumption at Tel Aphek and Lachish appear to have been similar. Estimated sizes of fish from Tel Aphek correspond to the largest sizes of the same kinds of fish found at Lachish. The significance of the small assemblage of fish remains from Tel Aphek may be summarized as follows: Fish were part of the diet of the inhabitants of the town, who exploited the nearby river. In addition, they also obtained large marine fish presumably from skilled fishermen along the coast, who used specialized fishing techniques. They also took advantage of large imported fish from Egypt, which they could possibly find in the same markets. To the present, all the identified kinds of fish in this paper are highly appreciated for their excellent taste, including Nile perch, which is still being imported today to Israel from the great lakes of Africa. However, these modern imports arrive filleted and frozen and leave no traces for future archaeologists. TABLE 23.1: TAXONOMIC IDENTIFICATIONS OF FISH IN TEL APHEK Family

Genus/species

Clariidae Centropomidae

Clarias geriepinus Lates niloticus

Serranidae Sparidae Sciaenidae Mugilidae No identification

(1) (2)

Skeletal element

Pectoral spine Abdominal vertebra Caudal vertebra Dorsal spine Dentary (family only) Caudal vertebra Operculum Epinephelus aeneus Hyomandibular (family only) Premaxillary Sparus aurata Pagrus coeruleostictus Caudal vertebra Maxilla Argyrosomus regius Caudal vertebra Caudal vertebra Abdominal vertebra Liza sp. Premaxillary Dentary Preopercular Cleithrum Cleithrum Abdominal vertebra Fragment

Side (1) L M M M L M L R L M L M M M L L R

Certainty of diagnosis(2) 22 22 22 22 10 20 21 20 22 22 22 21 22 21

Estimated standard length (cm) 50-60 70-80 80-90 40-50 60-70 90-100 30-40 35-45 100 60-70 100 15

M

L = left; R = right; M = median Degrees of certainty: 10 = Identification of family is “compatible with”. 20 = Certain identification of family. 21 = Certain identification of family, whilst the identification of the genus/species is “compatible with”. 22 = Certain identification of family and genus/species.

573

OMRI LERNAU

TABLE 23.2: DISTRIBUTION OF FISH BONES ACCORDING TO PERIODS AND CONTEXTS Period LB IIB

Locus 1721

Stratum X12

IAI (LB III)

1137 2753 2753 5022

X12 X12 X12 X11

Court, Palace VI Street, Palace VI Street, Palace VI House

3631 1146 4018

X11 X10 X10

House, floor Pit Pit

1700

X10

Pit

3477 5013

X8 X8

Floor Silo

4015

X8

Silo

Iron IB

Iron IIA

Context Hall, Palace VI

Identification ? ? Argyrosomus regius Serranidae Sparus aurata Lates niloticus Sparidae ? Serranidae Argyrosomus regius Epinephelus aeneus Pagrus coeruleostictus ? ? ? ? Clarias geriepinus Argyrosomus regius Lates niloticus Liza sp.

REFERENCES Goren, M. 1983. Fresh Water Fishes of Israel. Biology and Taxonomy. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew) Greenwood, P.H. 1976. A review of the family Centropomidae (Pisces, Perciformes). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Zoology 29:1-81. Lernau, H. 1986-1987. Subfossil remains of Nile Perch (Lates cf. niloticus): First evidence from ancient Israel. Israel Journal of Zoology 34:225-236. Lernau, O. 1996. Identification of fish bones: How certain is it? Archaeofauna 5:49-53. Lernau, O. and Golani, D. 2004. The osteological remains (aquatic). In: Ussishkin, D., ed. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994). (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 22) Tel Aviv. pp. 2456-2489. Morales, A. and Rosenlund, K. 1979. Fish Bone Measurements. Copenhagen. Tchernov, E. 1988. Chapter 8: The biogeographical history of the southern Levant. In: Tchernov, E., and Yom-Tov, Y. The Zoogeography of Israel. Netherlands. pp 159-250. van Neer, W., Lernau, O., Friedman, R., Mumford, G., Poblome, J. and Waelkens, M. 2004. Fish remains from archaeological sites as indicators of former trade connections in the eastern Mediterranean. Paléorient 30/1:101-148. Whitehead, P.J.P. et al., eds. 1986. Fishes of the North-Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Paris.

574

CHAPTER 24

RADIOCARBON DATING Elisabetta Boaretto, Ayelet Gilboa and Ilan Sharon

Radiocarbon dating was performed on two charred seed samples from Late Bronze and Iron Age strata in Area X. The samples were prepared and measured as part of the ‘Iron Age Dating Project’ conducted by the authors and funded by the Israel Science Foundation1. The samples were pre-treated, cleaned and prepared as graphite according to the method described in Yizhaq et al. (2005) and then measured by Accelerator Mass Spectrometry. Radiocarbon results were calibrated using the program OxCal 3.10 based on (Bronk-Ramsey 1995; 2001) using the INTCAL04 calibration data from Reimer et al. (2004). Information about the samples, their contexts and the radiocarbon dating are given in Table 24.1. To increase the precision of the dates, each sample was measured three times. The weighted averages are presented in Table 24.1. The calibrated ranges are given for ±1σ (68.2% probability for the right age to be included in the interval) and ±2σ (95.4% probability for the right age to be included in the interval) and the probability distributions for the two averages obtained are given in Figs. 24.1 and 24.2. These two samples were selected for the Iron Age Dating Program as they are short-lived and come from well defined primary contexts (Chapters 3 and 6).

DISCUSSION SAMPLE RTT 4510

Sample RTT 4510, grape seeds, was recovered from below a destruction layer related to Palace VI of Stratum X12. The sample is short lived and the three measurements indicate internal agreement within one standard deviation. Their weighted average resulted in a very small standard deviation (±25 y). In spite of this, the calibrated range is quite large. This is due to wiggles in the calibration curve for the time span in question. With a standard deviation of ±1σ, the calibrated date ranges between 1260 BCE and 1120 BCE, and for ±2σ the range is between 1300 BCE and 1050 BCE. Thus, though the calibrated range of the sample generally agrees with the late Late Bronze Age context, it cannot provide a narrow enough range to specifically indicate the destruction date of the Egyptian palace of Aphek. Unfortunately, even the ±1σ range encompasses a rather lengthy span of time, the reigns of Ramesses II to Ramesses IX, also allowed by the constraints of historical and archaeological data. SAMPLE RTT 4511

Sample RTT 4511, barley seeds, was recovered from a Storage jar found in primary deposition in a silo (Locus 4015) attributed to Stratum X8 (Chapter 6; Fig. 6.18). Stratum X8 is an agglomeration of various architectural features, including several silos and other pits, which could not always be demonstrated 1.

Grants Nos. 778/00; 141/04 (Boaretto et al. 2005; Sharon et al. 2007).

575

Elisabetta Boaretto, Ayelet Gilboa and Ilan Sharon

to be (stratigraphically) contemporary. The excavators equated this Stratum with Strata X-IX at Tell Qasile, i.e., Iron IB and early Iron IIA. In order to place this silo within an Iron Age sequence it is prudent to consider only the pottery found in this very pit, because of the nature of this ‘stratum’. That is a small assemblage that mainly includes (six) storage jars, which indeed provide some chronological anchor. The authors concur with Gadot that these Type SJ3 jars are generally paralleled at Tell Qasile in Strata X and IX, where they are equivalent to Mazar’s (1985:54-56) Jar Type 1, and at other contemporary contexts. However, both Type SJ3 from Tel Aphek and Jar Type I from Tell Qasile represent, morphologically, quite broad categories. For example, they include both carinated and oval body forms. Throughout the southern Levant, in the Iron Age I|II transition, there is a gradual evolution of jar forms, from carinated to oval (Gilboa et al., Forthcoming). Of the jars in Locus 4015, at least four (Fig. 8.87:1-5) are oval shapes, which become popular only after Iron I. The bag-shaped SJ4 jar (Fig. 8.87:7) also supports a date later than Iron I. Thus, the authors of this chapter would opt for the placement of the silo in the horizon they term Ir1|2 (see for example Sharon et al. 2005:67-69). An even slightly later relative date (Iron IIA; Ir2a in the authors’ terminology) for the context of the barley from Tel Aphek, can neither be substantiated nor refuted. The calibrated ±1σ range for this sample is between 830 and 800 BCE, while the ±2σ interval includes most of the 9th century BCE, though almost 90% of the probability is in its second half (845-795 BCE). These dates are certainly more in keeping with the Low Iron Age chronology than the High one, but if the context actually were to be in the Ir1|2 horizon, the date is too low even for the Low chronology. Indeed, in the different models run in the project (Sharon et al. 2007), where hundreds of radiometric dates from different sites in Israel have been considered, this date from Tel Aphek, when placed within the Ir1|2 horizon, was constantly excluded as a misfit because it is too low for the modeled boundaries of this horizon. The placement of this sample in Ir2a instead of Ir1|2 has not been attempted in these models, but both the ±1σ and the ±2σ range would (barely) agree with Mazar’s (e.g., 2005) “Extended High” chronology and the Low chronology, both of which end Iron IIA (the authors of this chapter’s Ir2a) around the last quarter of the 9th century BCE. TABLE 24.1: RESULTS FOR THE TWO ANALYZED SAMPLES RTT #

14

C Age ±1σ year Calibrated age BP

Sample Type and Collection Site

4510.3 4510.4 4510.5 Average

2949 ±40 2968 ±40 2965 ±50 2960 ±25

Grape seeds. `-25.3 Stratum X12, Locus 3502 (2731), Basket 33652/90

4511.3 4511.4 4511.5 Average

2685 ±35 2680 ±35 2635 ±35 2667 ±20

576

δ13C ‰ PDB

68.2% probability 1260BC (12.5%) 1230BC 1220BC (55.7%) 1120BC 95.4% probability 1300BC (95.4%) 1050BC Barley seeds. -22.7 Stratum X8, Locus 4015, Basket 39130 68.2% probability 830BC (68.2%) 800BC 95.4% probability 895BC ( 4.6%) 875BC 845BC (90.8%) 795BC

CHAPTER 24: R ADIOCARBON DATING

Atmospheric data from Reimer et al (2004);OxCal v3.10 Bronk Ramsey (2005); cub r:6 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

Radiocarbon determination

Average RTT 4510 : 2960±25BP 3200BP

68.2% probability 1260BC (12.4%) 1230BC 1220BC (55.8%) 1120BC 95.4% probability 1300BC (95.4%) 1050BC

3000BP

2800BP

1600CalBC

1400CalBC

1200CalBC

1000CalBC

800CalBC

Calibrated date Fig. 24.1: Probability distribution for sample RTT 4510 weighted average. Atmospheric data from Reimer et al (2004);OxCal v3.10 Bronk Ramsey (2005); cub r:6 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

Radiocarbon determination

2900BP

RTT 4511 : 2667±20BP 68.2% probability 830BC (68.2%) 800BC 95.4% probability 895BC ( 4.2%) 875BC 845BC (91.2%) 795BC

2800BP 2700BP 2600BP 2500BP

1100CalBC

1000CalBC

900CalBC

800CalBC

700CalBC

600CalBC

Calibrated date Fig. 24.2: Probability distribution for sample RTT 4511 weighted average.

577

Elisabetta Boaretto, Ayelet Gilboa and Ilan Sharon

REFERENCES Boaretto, E., Jull A. J. T., Gilboa A, and Sharon I. 2005. Dating the Iron Age I/II transition in Israel. First intercomparison results. Radiocarbon 47/1:39-55. Bronk-Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy. The OxCal program. Radiocarbon 37/2:425-430. Bronk-Ramsey, C. 2001. Development of the radiocarbon program OxCal. Radiocarbon, 43/2A: 355-363. Gilboa, A., Sharon, I. and Boaretto E. Forthcoming. Tel Dor and the chronology of Phoenician “pre-colonization” stages. In: Sagona, C., ed. Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology. (Monograph Series of Ancient Near Eastern Studies) Louvain. Mazar, A. 1985. Excavations at Tell Qasile II. The Philistine Sanctuary. Various Finds, the Pottery, Conclusions, Appendixes. (Qedem 20) Jerusalem. Mazar, A. 2005. The debate over the chronology of the Iron Age in the southern Levant. It’s history, the current situation, and a suggested resolution. In: Levy, T. and Highham, T., eds. The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science. London. pp. 15-30. Reimer, P.J., ed. 2004. IntCal04. Calibration Issue. Radiocarbon 46/3:1029-1058. Sharon, I., Gilboa, A, Jull A. J. T. and Boaretto, E. 2005. The Early Iron Age dating project: Introduction, methodology, progress report and an update on the Tel Dor dates. In: Levy, T. and Higham, T., eds. Radiometric Dates, The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. London. pp. 65–92. Sharon, I., Gilboa, A., Jull, A.J.T and Boaretto, E. 2007. Report on the first stage of the Iron Age dating project in Israel. Supporting a Low Chronology. Radiocarbon 49/1:1-46. Yizhaq, M., Mintz G., Cohen I., Khalaily H., Weiner, S., and Boaretto, E. 2005. Quality controlled radiocarbon dating of bones and charcoal from the Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) of Motza (Israel). Radiocarbon 47:193-206.

578

PART IV CONCLUSIONS

579

580

CHAPTER 25

THE RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY OF LATE BRONZE AGE AND IRON AGE TEL APHEK Yuval Gadot

This chapter is devoted to the relative and absolute chronologies of Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age deposits in Area X at Tel Aphek, and at sites in the surrounding region. Over the last two decades an extensive and ongoing debate over the absolute chronology of strata dating to the late Late Bronze Age and Iron Age has taken place. This debate has great significance for the relative and absolute sequence at Tel Aphek and neighboring sites. Therefore, a short introduction to this debate is not out of place here. This introduction also emphasizes the way in which finds from Tel Aphek can contribute to the debate. After many decades of archaeological investigation, the material culture sequence and relative chronology of the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age at sites west of the Jordan has become a virtual canon, generally agreed to by most scholars (e.g., Aharoni and Amiran 1958; Mazar 1990: Tables 5-6; Zarzeki-Peleg 1997; Finkelstein 1999:55). Today’s scholarly debates mainly concern issues of absolute chronology, or the relative relationships between certain specific strata or discrete archaeological deposits, such as the date of pottery from the royal compound at Tel Jezreel and how it compares with a ceramic assemblage from the key site of Megiddo (see Zarzeki-Peleg 1997; Ben-Tor 1999; Finkelstein 1999). The chronological part of the debate has two major areas of contention, the date in which Philistine material culture first appears in the region, and dates of contexts associated with Iron IIA. A hitherto generally accepted absolute chronology for deposits at sites in Philistia for the 13th through the 9th centuries BCE, was based on the idea that ‘Philistine Monochrome’ pottery appeared in that region in the days of Ramesses III, or roughly ca. 1175 BCE (Mazar 1985a; 1990:307) has recently been seriously challenged. Ussishkin (1985) and after him Finkelstein (1995), have devised a lower chronology based on the assumption that historical Egyptian sources about the ‘Sea Peoples’ are not sufficient evidence for dating the initial settlement of Philistines in Philistia. They claim that archaeological evidence should have precedence over interpretations of historical sources. Thus, according to Ussishkin and Finkelstein, there is a lack of contact between the period of Egyptian rule and that of the initial Philistine settlement. The argument is as follows. Discrete archaeological deposits that show evidence for Egyptian presence during the XXth Dynasty (e.g., Lachish Stratum VI) do not appear to exhibit any Philistine presence, at least in material culture, as indicated by the absence of Philistine Monochrome pottery, while deposits that include Philistine Monochrome pottery (e.g., Tel Miqne/Ekron Stratum VII) lacks artefacts and other evidence (e.g., Egyptian-style pottery and/or inscriptions, an official Egyptian residence) that can be associated with Egyptian rule. Ussishkin, followed by Finkelstein, has suggested the explanation for those observations is chronological. Namely, that Philistine Monochrome pottery is dated later than the period of Egyptian rule, i.e., that it appeared only at the end of the 12th century BCE. In other words, the Philistines arrived 581

Y UVAL GADOT

only after the end of Egyptian rule in Canaan. In Finkelstein’s view (1995; 1996), northern sites such as Megiddo and Beth-Shean corroborate this interpretation. Lowering the absolute date of Philistine Monochrome pottery as suggested immediately affects the way in which Philistine Bichrome pottery, which all scholars date to a stage later than Philistine Monochrome pottery, is dated. According to this alternate scheme, such sites as Tell Qasile Strata XII-X and Tel Aphek Strata IX and X should be dated to the 11th century BCE (Low Chronology) and not to the 12th century BCE (High Chronology) as was so widely accepted (Mazar 1985b: 125) previously. Lowering the date of the arrival of the Philistines has met with severe criticism (Mazar 1997; BenTor 1999; Bunimovitz and Faust 2001). While some scholars insist on accepting historical sources as a chronological anchor (Singer 1985; Stager 1995; Machinist 2000), others have suggested that social mores and taboo’s may account for the absence of Philistine monochrome pottery at nearby Canaanite settlements (Bunimovitz and Faust 2001). Thus, according to such a view, Tel Miqne/Ekron Stratum VII is contemporary with Lachish Stratum IV. The debate concerning the early settlement of the Philistines in Philistia (Not yet decided) is crucial to the dating of settlements located in Israel’s central coastal plain in general and at Tel Aphek in particular. This debate has serious implications not only for the dating of early Iron Age strata, but also affect the dating of Late Bronze Age strata. While only new data may one day decide which side on this debate is correct, one cannot ignore criticisms of the ‘High Chronology’ of the Iron Age. Absolute chronology, when based on historical information, must take into serious consideration the relationship of written sources to archaeological data (Finkelstein 1995; 1996) and in that context, the archaeological record from excavations at Tel Aphek may contribute considerably to resolution of the debate. While the finds presented do not offer clear-cut evidence on aspects of the debate, nevertheless, the rich assemblage found in Stratum X12, and most significantly the letter from Ugarit (Chapter 15; see also below), may aid considerably in dating the time of the destruction of Palace VI, thus supplying a valuable chronological peg. Three radiocarbon dates also add something to the debate (Chapter 24). Following is discussion of the finds from Tel Aphek and neighboring sites pertaining to the debate noted above. The basis for the following discussion of the relevant strata at Tel Aphek is information published in a table of relative chronology in the conclusions of the first report on excavations at Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985b:125). The discussion is organized according to chronological order from early to late. It also touches on several additional issues relevant to the stratigraphy of Tel Aphek.

THE END OF THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE AND THE TRANSITION TO LATE BRONZE AGE I Stratum XI5 is the final Middle Bronze Age Stratum on the acropolis of Tel Aphek (Chapter 2). The earliest Late Bronze Age deposits at Tel Aphek, of the LB I period (as defined by Oren 1969) are represented by only unstratified finds such as sherds of bichrome wares and bowls of ‘chocolate on white’ ware (Fig. 8.22; Kochavi 1989:60). While typologically they are assigned to LB I, theoretically they could also date to the latest phase of MB II (Bunimovitz 1992; Dever 1987; Seger 1975). Other deposits that can be dated to the same horizon are Tel Gerisa Stratum XI (Herzog 1993; pers. comm.), Tel Michal Stratum 16 (Herzog 1989), and possibly Tell Jaffa Stratum VI (Kaplan and Ritter-Kaplan 1993:657; though pottery from its excavation remains to be published). Aphek is mentioned in the topographical lists describing places taken over by Thutmose III in his first campaign, ca. 1475 BCE (Redford 2003:203; Frankel and Kochavi 2000:16), in line with four other sites located in the Central Coastal Plain: Jaffa, Gat, Ono and Lod (Simons 1937; Aharoni 1957:147-151; Redford 2003:203). The mention of Aphek in the list indicates the site was settled in the days of Thutmose 582

CHAPTER 25: T HE R ELATIVE

AND

A BSOLUTE C HRONOLOGY

OF

L ATE B RONZE A GE

AND

I RON A GE T EL A PHEK

III. It does not, however, allow us to know what kind of settlement existed there and whether Thutmose III actually destroyed a settlement or merely subjugated it. The meager finds from Tel Aphek in that period point out that the city-state had lost its power long before the campaign of Thutmose III, when the settlement did indeed exist, but was small, and unfortified. LB IIA (STRATA X14-X13)

LB II A is represented at Tel Aphek by Strata X14 and X13. It is uncertain whether there was direct continuity of occupation between these two levels. The assemblage of Stratum X14 (Fig. 8.23-8.39, 8.40:1-8) includes Base Ring Ware, but no vessels of Bichrome Ware, hence it is dated later than the ceramic assemblages of Tel Gerisa XI, Tel Michal 16 and possibly Tell Jaffa VI, to which Bichrome Ware is attributed. LB IIA is also represented at nearby sites by Tel Michal Stratum 15 (Herzog 1989), Tel Gerisa Stratum 10 (Herzog pers. comm.), and Tell Jaffa Stratum V (Kaplan and Ritter-Kaplan 1993:656). None of these strata has yielded ceramic assemblages in situ, which could allow for precise dating of this phase. It is impossible to decide whether Tel Aphek Stratum X14 dates to the end of the 15th century BCE or to the early 14th century BCE. The few finds which can suggest absolute dates are fragments of imported Mycenaean vessels, unfortunately found at Tel Aphek in non primary contexts (Chapter 9), and scarabs of Amenhotep III, found in disturbed contexts (Chapter 14). Since Aphek is in the topographical list of Amenhotep II’s third campaign to Canaan, dated 1418 (Bryan 2000:252 and chronology table on page 481; Frankel and Kochavi 2000:17), there is no doubt that Tel Aphek was settled during LB II A. LB IIB (STRATUM X12)

The LB II B period is represented at Tel Aphek by Stratum X12 with its large corpus of vessels, found in the ruins of Palace VI. Other contemporary settlements are found at Tell Jaffa Stratum V and Tel Gerisa Stratum 9 (Phases a and b). The Kaplans (Kaplan and Ritter-Kaplan 1993:655) discovered remains of a gate dated to the time of Ramesses II at Tell Jaffa in Stratum V. Above it in Stratum IV was a later gate, dated by the excavators to the days of Merneptah. However, since the pottery of this excavation is not yet published, that dating cannot be confirmed. At Tel Gerisa Herzog noted two phases, 9a and 9b, within a Late Bronze Age palace. The pottery assemblages of the two phases are very similar and include Egyptian-style bowls, milk bowls with simple decorations of lines, and fragments of Mycenaean IIIB vessels. Notably, local carinated bowls are missing. Thus, it seems that Tel Gerisa, Phases 9b and 9a, are coeval with Tel Aphek Stratum X12. Since comparisons of pottery assemblages cannot prove that occupation at the two sites of this period ceased to exist simultaneously, it is possible that one site continued to be occupied somewhat later than the other. Finkelstein (1983; 1986:198), suggesting that >Izbet êartah III is of the same period, based his arguments on the presence of pottery types, including a krater with painted palm tree and ibex decoration, open bowls with thickened rims, and a jar with four handles (Finkelstein 1986:198, Types 1,2,20), typical to the end of the Late Bronze Age. These types are also common in contexts dated to LB III, such as Lachish Stratum VI (Yannai 1996) and Tel Sera> Stratum 9 (Oren 1985: Fig. 5:8; see also below). However, most of the types known from >Izbet êartah III do not appear in LB IIB contexts at Tel Aphek. Because, according to Finkelstein (1983:35-36), the reason for the establishment of >Izbet êartah was purportedly for trade with an Egyptian presence at Tel Aphek, one would expect to find evidence of it at the smaller site. While at Tel Aphek, for example, Egyptian-style pottery is very common in Stratum X12, it is completely absent at >Izbet êartah in all strata. Therefore, it must be concluded that >Izbet êartah III dates later than LB II B. Accordingly, it should be assigned to LB III. 583

Y UVAL GADOT

Three 14C assays (Chapter 24) from grape seeds from Stratum X12 (Locus 3507, Basket 35652/90), from the ruins of Palace VI (Chapter 3), when calibrated, indicate a rather lengthy period for its date, even though it is a short life sample. With a standard deviation of 1σ, the calendric date ranges between 1260 and 1120 BCE, and for 2σ, it is further enlarged to between 1300 and 1050 BCE. Thus, the evidence of the seeds indicates a long span of time and is not particularly helpful in dating the end of this stratum. With no reliable 14C dates, the absolute chronology of Late Bronze Age Tel Aphek must be determined from other information. It can be directly tied to the letter from Ugarit found in Stratum X12 (Owen 1981; Singer 1983a; Beck and Kochavi 1985; Chapter 15). Singer (1983a; cf. Kochavi 1989:72) dated the writing of this letter to ca. 1230 BCE1 on the basis of data concerning the two officials mentioned in it, Takukhlinu of Ugarit and Haya of Egypt. The letter, discovered in Locus 1721 in the ruins of Palace VI, probably originated in one of the rooms of the upper storey (Chapter 3). A few additional objects related to the XIXth Dynasty in Egypt were found either within the same destruction debris or were recovered from secondary contexts. They include a dedication plaque to Isis bearing the name of Ramesses II, perhaps originating in a foundation deposit laid for one of the buildings at Tel Aphek (Giveon 1978a), a scarab with the name of Ramesses II (Keel 1997:30; Chapter 14) and Mycenaean IIIB pottery (Chapter 9). There is no doubt, therefore, that Palace VI was in use during the days of Ramesses II. The question as to when it ceased to function remains open, with scholarly views about the date of its destruction differing. The excavators (Kochavi 1989:74; Beck and Kochavi 1985), based on the letter from Ugarit, dated the end of Stratum X12, including Palace VI, to ca. 1230 BCE. Finkelstein (1983:35) however, claimed the letter provides only a terminus ante quem for the destruction of the palace, and that one cannot know for certain how much time elapsed between when the letter was written and the date of the destruction of the palace. The logic of this latter argument is irrefutable, but since archaeological chronologies are often based on sets of suppositions and possibilities, it behooves the researcher to garner all available information and at least tentatively accept whatever chronological reconstruction seems most likely. In this instance, it is necessary to examine the circumstances related to this letter and its find spot at Tel Aphek. Accordingly, this writer asks the following questions: 1. Is this letter part of an archive or a lone document? 2. Who was living at Tel Aphek at the time, and for whom was this letter intended? 3. Why was this letter found at Tel Aphek? 4. Does the date of the letter agree with the date of other objects from Stratum X12, and are there any objects dated later from this stratum? 5. Are there any considerations relating to the date of the following occupation, Stratum X11, that limit the dating possibilities for the end of X12? Not all these questions have clear answers at present. In answer to the first question, it should be noted that apart from the letter from Ugarit, 12 additional documents have been discovered in Stratum X12 (Chapter 15), including administrative documents, lexical tablets, and a fragment of a ‘Hittite’ bulla. Engraved signs show that the bulla served for sealing documents or an object sent by a member of the Hittite royal family (Singer 1977; Chapter 15). The administrative documents are very fragmentary, but seem to be related to registration of quantities of food or other commodities (Rainey 1975; 1976). All but one were locally manufactured, as suggested previously by Singer (1983) and proved by petrographic examination (Chapter 15). 1.

584

However, for a slightly different date see Chapter 15.

CHAPTER 25: T HE R ELATIVE

AND

A BSOLUTE C HRONOLOGY

OF

L ATE B RONZE A GE

AND

I RON A GE T EL A PHEK

It is not known for certain whether the palace had an archive, although the discovery of administrative documents within it hint at such a possibility. However, the letter from Ugarit remains exceptional because it was part of an international correspondence and not from a local archive. Since the letter is written on local clay, it is either a copy created for tutorial purposes (Chapter 15) or a kind of receipt for delivery of “250 Parisu of wheat”. To check for such a possibility, it is vital to know who resided in Stratum X12 at Tel Aphek, and how and why did this letter happen to arrive there? Unfortunately, the answers to these questions are unclear, and given the present state of knowledge, unknowable. Suffice it to note here that the inhabitants of Palace VI (the Residency) played some role in the Egyptian administration of Canaan (Kochavi 1978; 1990). In the light of the administrative nature of the finds and the fact that the written documents were made locally, it is plausible that the Residency at Aphek housed a scribe, who might have been responsible for the letter. All other datable objects from Palace VI appear to be contemporary with the letter from Ugarit. The dedication plaque with the name of Ramesses II, noted above, is one such object. The same is true for imported Mycenaean IIB type pottery (Chapter 9), which is typical of the 13th century BCE. The few Cypriote imports from Stratum X12 also agree with this date. The sole object, which is dated later than the days of Ramesses II is a scarab bearing the name of Ramesses IV (Giveon 1978b; Chapter 14). However, the scarab was not found in primary context and theoretically may have originated in Stratum X11, which is later than Stratum X12, but earlier than the appearance of Philistine Bichrome Ware. An additional way to date the end of Stratum X12 is to compare its pottery assemblage with welldated pottery assemblages from other sites. Beck and Kochavi (1985) made a partial comparison between the pottery of Stratum X12 and a Late Bronze Age destruction layer at Tel Hazor. They concluded that based on an absence of a carinated bowl type (Type BC2 in Chapter 8) from Stratum X12 at Tel Aphek, that Stratum 13 on the high tell at Hazor was destroyed prior to the destruction of Palace VI. An early 13th century BCE date for the destruction of Hazor was suggested previously (Tufnell 1961) and is currently being debated (Kitchen 2003:25-27; Zuckerman 2003:293-295). Based on more recent published ceramic corpora, the typological argument for dating put forward by Kochavi and Beck still seems valid (Chapter 8), although coeval regional dissimilarities must be taken into account due to the great distance between the Tel Aphek and Hazor. Tel Lachish, a key site for any discussion of Late Bronze Age chronology in Canaan, is closer than Hazor to Tel Aphek. Two destruction Strata at Tel Lachish (Strata VII and VI) may be associated with the horizon of Stratum X12. Objects bearing the name of Ramesses III were found in the destruction layer of Tel Lachish Stratum VI, dating its end to ca. 1130 BCE (Ussishkin 1985; Ussishkin 2004:69-70; Yannai 2004:1062). Stratum VII, which preceded it, must have been destroyed ca. the end of the 13th century BCE. Yannai (2004:1045-1054) studied the pottery of these two strata, and concluded that Stratum VII lacks a few types which appear in Stratum VI, jars with four handles and bowls with hammer-like rims. In addition, bowls with s-shaped profiles are relatively rare in Stratum VII, while they are more common in Stratum VI. Cypriote imports are associated with Stratum VII, but not with Stratum VI. Based on these observations, a comparison of the pottery of Tel Aphek Stratum X12 with the Late Bronze Age pottery of Tel Lachish indicates it to be more similar to the ceramic corpus of Stratum VII than to that of Stratum VI. Taking all the foregoing considerations into account, it seems most probable that the destruction of Tel Aphek Stratum X12 should be dated to the last third of the 13th century BCE, and not earlier than ca. 1230 BCE, the date of the ‘letter from Ugarit’. Even if the letter had been copied after it was originally written earlier and kept in an archive, it would have been stored only for a short time, and thus its date 585

Y UVAL GADOT

would not have any significant chronological bearing on the date of the destruction of Stratum X12. Following this reasoning, the end of Stratum X12 at Tel Aphek can be dated with assurance to the latter part of the 13th century BCE, a date that fits well with the destruction of the Stratum V fortress at Tell Jaffa, built during the lifetime of Ramesses II (see above). LB II/IRON I [LB III] (STRATUM X11)

The subsequent chronological phase, associated with Stratum X11, has formerly and most often been treated by scholars as the beginning of Iron I (Mazar 1990). However, many other scholars suggest that the continuation of Egyptian rule over some parts of Cisjordan (Weinstein 1981; Ussishkin 1985; 1995) as well as continuity in material culture expressed, for example, at Megiddo Stratum VIIa and Lachish Stratum VI (Yannai 1996), indicate this phase is really more closely associated with the Late Bronze Age. This writer agrees with the latter view and accordingly uses the term LB III to identify the chronocultural entity known as Stratum X11 and its contemporary archaeological deposits. Contemporary occupations include Stratum III at ‘Izbet Sartah, which continued in existence without any break into the following period, Iron IA. Three other sites in the region may have been occupied at the same time, Tel Azor, Tell Jaffa, and Tel Gerisa, but results of excavations at those sites do not clearly indicate remains of this period. Gophna and Busheri (1967) excavated at the edges of Tel Azor and reported about a stratum of settlement dated to “…a transitional phase between the Late Bronze Age and Iron I”.2 The finds have not been published in detail and so this writer is unable to confirm such a dating. M. Dothan (1993:128) documented burials of single individuals in fragmented collared-rim pithoi (without additional grave goods) in Area D at the same site. Apparently, he dated these burials to the 11th century BCE, based on the presence of this pithos type (Dothan 1982: Pl. 9). However, more recently, similar jar burials have been found in Late Bronze Age contexts, as at Tel Nami (Artzy 1994; 1995) and Tell es-Sa>idiyeh; (Tubb 1988; 2000). Thus, by analogy, a Late Bronze Age date for jar burials at Tel Azor also appears likely. Evidence of a similar burial custom has recently been found in a cemetery associated with Tell Jaffa, which hints that the settlement in this city continued until the end of the Late Bronze Age (Peilstocker 1998; Ayash and Bushnino 1999). According to Kaplan (1959:56; Kaplan and Ritter-Kaplan 1993:655), who based his dating on historical arguments, the Egyptian stronghold at Jaffa was renewed and then finally destroyed in the days of Merneptah. In light of epigraphic finds from Gezer (Singer 1986-7), Lachish Strata VI (Ussishkin 2004:64) and Tel Sera‘ Stratum IX (Oren 1985), which show strong Egyptian involvement in the Southern Coastal Plain during the time of the XXth Dynasty, it seems that the new fortress of Jaffa should be dated to the time of the XXth Dynasty and not only to the days of Merneptah. Future excavation at the site may shed light on the settlement at the site in this horizon and confirm this hypothesis. Tel Gerisa during this period is also not well understood. Philistine style vessels were discovered at this site and possibly they include one bowl of Philistine Monochrome style (Singer-Avitz pers. Comm.). Different Opinions have been expressed over the relative and absolute dating of deposits in which Philistine Monochrome pottery first appear (see above). As noted previously, one opinion presented by A. Mazar (1985a) and others (e.g., Stager 1995; Dothan 2000; Bunimovitz and Faust 2001), holds that Stratum 13b at Tel Ashdod and Stratum VII at Tel Miqne/Ekron, which have ceramic assemblages that include Philistine Monochrome vessels, are contemporary with Tel Lachish Stratum VI, which in turn is contemporary with the horizon of Tel Aphek Stratum X11. A second opinion claims that Tel Ashdod 2.

This is a free translation from the Hebrew.

586

CHAPTER 25: T HE R ELATIVE

AND

A BSOLUTE C HRONOLOGY

OF

L ATE B RONZE A GE

AND

I RON A GE T EL A PHEK

Stratum 13b and Tel Miqne/Ekron Stratum VII date to later than the end of Tel Lachish Stratum VI (Ussishkin 1985; Finkelstein 1995). If the first view is accepted then Tell Gerisa was occupied already during this phase. A better understanding of the chronological sequence at Tel Gerisa will have to await future publication of its entire ceramic corpus. IRON IA (AN OCCUPATIONAL HIATUS AT TEL APHEK)

Tel Aphek was probably not settled during Iron IA. Major sites in the general region that do appear to have been occupied are Tell Qasile Stratum XII, and Tel Gerisa Strata 8 and 7. Finds from the Azor cemetery suggest that site was occupied in the period. The most notable feature of the assemblages of this period is Philistine Bichrome pottery. T. Dothan (1982:58), followed by Mazar (1985b:122) understood the ceramic assemblage of Tell Qasile XII contained material representative of an early stage of this type’s development. As noted above, ‘Izbet Sartah III continued to exist into Iron I, though apart from a few sherds of Philistine Bichrome Ware, vessels of this class were not discovered there (Finkelstein 1986:91). IRON IB (STRATA X10 AND X9)

Iron IB, is represented by Strata X10 and X9. Contemporary settlements are found at Tell Qasile Strata XI and X, Tell Jaffa Stratum IIIb and probably Tel Azor as indicated by continued use of the cemetery. >Izbet êartah Strata II and I date either to the very latest phase of this period or to the beginning of the next. Dothan (1982) originally defined three chronological phases for development of Philistine Bichrome Ware, based on B. Mazar’s (Maisler 1951) excavations at Tell Qasile. However, later excavations at that site by A. Mazar (1985b:87-105) have failed to prove any correlation between specific strata and typological changes in pottery vessels of this style, thereby rendering Dothan’s phasing passé. Unfortunately, at Tel Aphek there is no stratigraphic evidence to indicate the relation between deposits assigned to Strata X10 and X9 (Chapter 6). The assemblages of these strata are very similar to each other and, in turn, eminently comparable to those of Tell Qasile Strata XI and X. Thus, these strata may be dated to the same chronological range represented by those strata at Tell Qasile. IRON IIA (STRATA X8-X6)

Strata X8-X6 at Tel Aphek are assigned to Iron IIA and comparable to assemblages from Tel Michal Strata 14 and 13, Tell Qasile Strata IX and VIII and Tel Gerisa Strata 4 and 3, thereby indicating their contemporaneousness. Finds from this period are also known from Tell Jaffa, although they were not found in situ. >Izbet êartah Strata II and I possibly also belong to the early stages of this period. As noted above, the chronological debate on the Iron Age has two major aspects. One concerns the earlier Iron Age and the date of the arrival of the Philistines which involves the absolute dates of Iron IA and Iron IIA. The second aspect concerns the traditional view that the united monarchy, defined as Iron IIA, dates to the 10th century BCE (Mazar 1990:368 and Table 7). An alternative view dates that historical period and chrono-cultural horizon to the 9th century BCE (Finkelstein 1996). In trying to resolve the debate scholars have put forth their ideas using two major approaches. One involved presenting a detailed study of material culture (Zarzeki-Peleg 1997; Zimhoni 1997; Arie 2006) stressing comparanda at sites of this horizon. That led only to the recognition that Iron IIA is a long period during which material culture did not change in any notable fashion and therefore a study of it along those lines does not allow for distinctions between late and early phases (Mazar 2005, but see Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004; 2006 for a more optimistic view). The second approach was to rely on 14C dates (Levy and Higham 2005; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2006a; Mazar et al. 2005; Boaretto et. al. 2005 587

Y UVAL GADOT

and earlier references there). While the poorly preserved contemporary strata at Tel Aphek add little to the debate on material culture by merely relating Strata X8-X6 to a relative sequence for Iron IIA, it does have some evidence to contribute to the discussion on radiocarbon dating. The sole data in terms of absolute chronology for Strata X10-X6 derives from a series of three 14C assays (Chapter 24) from short-lived samples, grains of barley. They were recovered in Locus 4015 ascribed to Stratum X8. The grains were found inside a complete Storage jar in a pit, understood as an unlined silo (Chapter 6; Fig. 6.18). Typologically the jar (Type SJ3; Chapter 8) can be assigned to the Iron IIA horizon. The jar was full of grains of barley where they were intentionally stored. The dates of the grains indicate a late 9th century BCE date. Three determinations from barley grains indicate calibrated, averaged dates between 892-830 BCE (9% reliability), 845-810 BCE (59% reliability) and 900-805 BCE (2σ or ca. 99% reliability). These results align better with the low chronology (Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2006b: 383). TABLE 25.1: CHRONOLOGY OF CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN SITES* Period LBIa LBIb LBIIA

BCE Till 1400

Aphek Finds X14

Qasile

Gerisa 11

>Izbet êartah

Michal 16 15

Jaffa VI

10 lower

V

9b

IVb

X13 Till 1300 LB II B= XIXth Dynasty LB II/Iron I (LBIII) =XXth Dynasty

c.1230 c. 1150 (1130)

X12 End X12 X11

9a 8?

Gap Iron Ia 1100 (1000) Iron Age Ib

X10-X9 X10-X9

XII

8

XI

7 6

X Iron Age IIa

IVa III

1000 (925)

X8

925 (820)

X7 X6

III III III IIIb II-I Winepress, sherds

IX

5

14

VII

4 3

13

* The date in parenthesis represents the low chronology.

REFERENCES Aharoni, Y. 1957. The Land of the Bible. A Historical Geography. The Westminster Press, Philadelphia. Aharoni, Y. and Amiran, R. 1958. A new scheme for the sub-division of the Iron Age in Palestine. Israel Exploration Journal 8:171-184. Arie, E. 2006. The Iron Age I pottery. Levels K-5 and K-4 and an intra-site spatial analysis of the pottery from Stratum VIA. In: Finkelstein I., Ussishkin, D. and Halpern B., eds. Megiddo IV. The 1998-2000 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 24). Tel Aviv. pp. 191-298. Artzy, M. 1994. Incense, camels and collared-rim rars. Desert trade routes and maritime outlets in the second millennium. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 13:121-147. Artzy, M. 1995. Nami. A second millennium international maritime trading center in the Mediterranean. In: Gitin, S., ed. Recent Excavations in Israel. A View to the West. Dubuque. pp. 17-40. 588

CHAPTER 25: T HE R ELATIVE

AND

A BSOLUTE C HRONOLOGY

OF

L ATE B RONZE A GE

AND

I RON A GE T EL A PHEK

Ayash, E. and Bushnino, A. 1999. Yafo (Jaffa). Hadashot Arkheologiyot 109:97*. Beck, P. and Kochavi, M. 1985. A dated assemblage of the late 13th century BCE from the Egyptian Residency at Aphek. Tel-Aviv 12:29-42. Bryan B.M. 2000. The eighteenth dynasty before the Amarna period (C. 1550-1352 BC). In: Shaw, I., ed. The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford University Press. pp. 218-271. Ben-Tor, A. 1999. Hazor and the chronology of northern Israel. A reply to Israel Finkelstein. Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research 317:9-15. Boaretto E., Jull, A.J.T., Gilboa, A. and Sharon, I. 2005. Dating the Iron Age I/II transition in Israel. First intercomparison results. Radiocarbon 47/1:39–55. Bunimovitz, S. 1992. The beginning of the Late Bronze Age in Palestine. Eretz-Israel 23:21-25 (Avraham Biran Volume). (Hebrew with English Summary) Bunimovtiz, S. and Faust, A. 2001. Chronological separation, geographical segregation, or ethnic demarcation? Ethnography and the Iron Age Low Chronology. Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research 322:1-10. Dever, W.G. 1987. The Middle Bronze Age. The zenith of the urban Canaanite era. Biblical Archaeologist 50:149-177. Dothan, M. 1993. Azor. In: Stern, E., ed. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Vol. 1. Jerusalem. pp. 125-129. Dothan, T. 1982. The Philistines and their Material Culture. Jerusalem. Dothan, T. 2000. Reflections on the initial phase of Philistine settlement. In: Oren, D.E., ed. The Sea People and Their World. A Reassessment. Philadelphia. pp. 145-158. Finkelstein, I. 1983. Israelite settlement in the foothills, 13th-10th centuries BCE in light of excavations at IzbetSartah. Cathedra 27:33-38. (Hebrew) Finkelstein, I. 1986. ‘Izbet Sartah. An Early Iron Age Site Near Rosh Ha’ayin, Israel. (BAR International Series 299). Oxford. Finkelstein, I. 1995. The date of the settlement of the Philistines in Canaan. Tel-Aviv 22:213-239. Finkelstein, I. 1996. The archaeology of the United Monarchy. An alternative view. Levant 28:177-187. Finkelstein, I. 1999. Hazor and the north in the Iron Age. A low chronology perspective. Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research 314:55-70. Finkelstein, I. and Piasetzky, E. 2006a. The Iron I-IIA in the highlands and beyond. 14C anchors, pottery phases and the Shoshenq I campaign. Levant 38:45-61. Finkelstein, I. and Piasetzky, E. 2006 b. 14C and the Iron Age chronology debate. Rehov, Khirbet En-Nahas, Dan, and Megiddo. Radiocarbon 48:373-386. Frankel, R. and Kochavi, M. 2000. History of Aphek-Antipatris. In: Kochavi, M., Beck, P. and Yadin, E., eds. AphekAntipatris I. Excavations of Areas A and B. The 1972-1976 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 19). Tel-Aviv. pp. 16-38. Giveon, S. 1978a. Two unique Egyptian inscriptions from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 5:188-191. Giveon, S. 1978b. Fouilles et travaux de L`Université de Tel-Aviv. Découvertes égyptiennes récentes. Bulletin de la Societé Francaise d`Égyptologie 81:6-17. Gophna, R. and Busheri, M. 1967. Azor. Hadashot Archaeologiot 21:7-8. (Hebrew) Herzog, Z. 1989. Middle and Late Bronze Age settlements (Strata XVII-XV). In: Herzog, Z., Rapp, G. Jr. and Negbi, O., eds. Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel. (Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, No. 8) Tel-Aviv. pp. 29-42.

589

Y UVAL GADOT

Herzog, Z. 1993. Gerisa, Tel. In: Stern, E., ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holly Land II. Jerusalem. pp. 480-484. Herzog, Z. and Singer-Avitz, L. 2004. Redefining the centre. The emergence of state in Judah. Tel Aviv 31:209–244. Herzog, Z. and Singer-Avitz, L. 2006. Sub-Dividing the Iron Age IIA in northern Israel. A suggested solution to the chronological debate. Tel-Aviv 33:163-195. Kaplan, Y. 1959. The Archaeology and History of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa. Ramat-Gan. (Hebrew) Kaplan, J. and Ritter-Kaplan, H. 1993. Jaffa. In: Stern, E., ed. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem. pp. 655-659. Keel, O. 1997. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel. Freiburg, Suisse. Kitchen, K. A. 2003. An Egyptian inscribed fragment from Late Bronze Hazor. Israel Exploration Journal 53:20-28. Kochavi, M. 1978. The archaeological context of the Aphek inscriptions. In: Kochavi, M., Rainey, A., Singer, I. and Demsky, A., eds. Aphek-Antipatris 1974-1977. The Inscriptions. Tel-Aviv. pp. 1-7. Kochavi, M. 1989. Aphek-Antipatris. Five Thousand Years of History. Tel-Aviv. (Hebrew) Kochavi, M. 1990. Aphek in Canaan. The Egyptian Governor’s Residence and its Finds. (Israel Museum Catalogue No. 312). Jerusalem. Levy, T.E. and Higham, T., eds. 2005. The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science. London. Machinist, P. 2000. Biblical traditions. The Philistines and Israelite history. In: Oren, D.E., ed. The Sea People and Their World. A Reassessment (University Museum Monograph 08). Philadelphia. pp. 53-83. Maisler, B. 1951. The Excavations at Tell Qasile, preliminary report. Israel Exploration Journal 1:61-76; 125-140; 194-218. Mazar, A. 1985a. The emergence of the Philistine material culture. Israel Exploration Journal 35:95-107. Mazar, A. 1985b. Excavations at Tell Qasile II. The Philistine Sanctuary. (Qedem 20) Jerusalem. Mazar, A. 1990. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. New-York. Mazar, A. 1997. Iron Age chronology. A reply to I. Finkelstein. Levant 29:157-167. Mazar, A. 2005. The debate over the chronology of the Iron Age in the southern Levant. In: Levy, T.E., and Higham, T., eds. The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science. London. pp. 15-30. Mazar, A., Bruins, H.J., Panitz-Cohen, N. and van der Plicht, J. 2005. Ladder of time at Tel Rehov. Stratigraphy, archaeological context, pottery and radiocarbon dates. In: Levy, T.E., and Higham, T., eds. The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating. Archaeology, Text and Science. London. pp. 193-255. Oren, E.D. 1969. Cypriote imports in the Palestinian Late Bronze I context. Opuscula Atheniensia 9:127-150. Oren, E.D. 1985. Architecture of Egyptian ‘Governors` Residencies’ in Late Bronze Age Palestine. Eretz Israel 18:183-199. (Hebrew with English summary) Owen, D.I. 1981. An Akkadian letter from Ugarit at Tel-Aphek. Tel Aviv 8:1-17. Peilstocker, M. 1998. Yafo. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 20:47*-48* Rainey, A.F. 1975. Two cuneiform fragments from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 2:125-129. Rainey, A.F. 1976. A tri-lingual cuneiform fragment from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 3:137-140. Redford, D. 2003. The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. Leiden. Seger, J.D. 1975. The MB II fortifications at Shechem and Gezer. A Hyksos retrospective. Eretz Israel 12:34*-45*. Simons, J. 1937. Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to Western Asia. Leiden. Singer, I. 1977. A Hittite hieroglyphic seal impression from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 4:178-190. 590

CHAPTER 25: T HE R ELATIVE

AND

A BSOLUTE C HRONOLOGY

OF

L ATE B RONZE A GE

AND

I RON A GE T EL A PHEK

Singer, I. 1983a. Takuhlinu and Haya: Two governors in the Ugarit Letter from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 10:3-25. Singer, I. 1983b. Inscriptions from Aphek. Cathedra 27:19-26. (Hebrew) Singer, I. 1985. The Beginning of Philistine settlement in Canaan and the northern boundary of Philistia. Tel Aviv 12:109-122. Singer, I. 1986-7. An Egyptian ‘Governor’s Residency’ at Gezer? Tel Aviv 13:26-31. Stager, L.E. 1995. The impact of the Sea People in Canaan (1185-1050 BCE). In: Levy, T.E., ed. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London. pp. 332-348. Tubb, J.N. 1988. Tell es-Sa`idiyeh. Preliminary report on the first three seasons of renewed excavations. Levant 20:23-88. Tubb, J.N. 2000. Sea People in the Jordan Valley. In: Oren, D.E., ed. The Sea People and Their World. A Reassessment (University Museum Monograph 108). Philadelphia. pp. 181-196. Tuffnel, O. 1961. Review of Hazor II. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 93:154-158. Ussishkin, D. 1985. Levels VII and VI at Tel Lachish and the end of the Late Bronze Age in Canaan. In: Tubb, J.N., ed. Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell. London. pp. 213-230. Ussishkin, D. 1995. The destruction of Megiddo at the end of the Late Bronze Age and its historical significance. Tel Aviv 22:240-267. Ussishkin, D. 2004. A synopsis of the stratigraphic, chronological and historical issues. In: Ussishkin, D., ed., The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973-1994). (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 22) Tel Aviv. pp. 50-119. Weinstein, J.M. 1981. The Egyptian empire in Palestine. A reassessment. Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research 241:1-28. Yannai, E. 1996. Aspects of the Material Culture of Canaan during the Egyptian XXth Dynasty (1200-1130 BCE). (Ph. D. dissertation, Tel-Aviv University) Tel Aviv. Yannai, E. 2004. The Late Bronze Age pottery from Area S. In: Ussishkin, D., ed. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 22) Tel Aviv. pp. 1032-1146. Zarzeki-Peleg, A. 1997. Hazor, Jokneam and Megiddo in the 10th century BCE. Tel Aviv 24:258-288. Zimhoni, O. 1997. Clues from the enclosure fills: Pre-Omride settlement at Tel Jezreel. Tel Aviv 24:83-109. Zuckerman, S. 2003. The Kingdom of Hazor in the Late Bronze Age. Chronological and Regional Aspects of the Material Culture of Hazor and its Settlements. (Ph. D. dissertation, The Hebrew University) Jerusalem.

591

CHAPTER 26

THE APHEK ACROPOLIS IN CONTEXT Moshe Kochavi

THE NATURE OF APHEK’S ACROPOLIS While no definitive evidence of its earlier utilization in the Early Bronze Age was encountered in our excavations there, from early on in the second millennium BCE, the northwestern promontory of the mound served as the site’s seat of government, its ‘acropolis’. During MB IIA most of the mound was inhabited and Tel Aphek dominated the Sharon Plain. Later on, although habitation on the tell became sparse, major public buildings continued to crown that area of the site. Those fortresses/palaces guarded the nearby Aphek Pass located along the so called ‘Via Maris’, a major ‘international’ highway of its time. Resting upon a man-made fill, five1 such buildings, labeled ‘palaces’ by the present excavation team, adorned the most prominent part of the tell; the second to be built (Palace II), was constructed elsewhere on the site and excavated as Area A. The earliest was erected at the beginning of the second millennium BCE and the last was destroyed sometime towards the end of the millennium. The reason for choosing this area for building the palaces seems to have been its natural seclusion. On its north, there was a deep water-filled depression, on its west the ground sloped gently down towards the Yarkon springs and a small gorge separated it from the remainder of the site on the east. Well-built cist graves, most probably belonging to occupants of the early palaces, were exposed by Ory (1936; 1938) on the opposite side of the gorge. In order to complete the separation between the elite quarter and the town, it was deemed necessary to raise the level of the former location to create a real acropolis. For that purpose a fill, on which monumental buildings were constructed, was added to augment the elevation of that part of the site. As excavation progressed, probes down into this fill had to cease before reaching clearly defined Early Bronze Age strata (Known to exist from other parts of the site and postulated from sherds encountered in fills in Area X) because of danger of collapse and a decision not to destroy important structures that had already been excavated. Hence, the acropolis of Early Bronze Age Aphek has not been exposed, and even its exact location on the site remains unknown. Later on, that deliberately deposited fill created much trouble for the occupants of the acropolis. Floors and walls of palaces built atop it were prone to subside to such extents that the builders of Palace II eschewed the acropolis and moved to the mound’s western slope (Area A). Even a consolidation using thick stone foundations for the MB IIB Palace III, which returned to the acropolis locale, did not last long. The northern part of the acropolis remained without constructions during the last phases of the Late Bronze Age, while stone channels were constructed so as to drain off rainwater from its muddy surface. Much later, substantial earth-moving operations carried out in conjunction with erection of the Ottoman fort, which still crowns the acropolis of Tel Aphek, considerably altered the mound’s original 1.

Of six palaces exposed at Tel Aphek, only Palace II (Kochavi, Beck and Yadin 2000) was built not on the acropolis but on the western slope of the mound.

592

CHAPTER 26: SUMMARY: T HE A PHEK ACROPOLIS IN CONTEXT

features. Early Iron Age levels known to have existed there were severely truncated and, of course, even later strata were razed by this project. Thus, there is no way to ascertain the exact nature of the acropolis between ca. 1000 BCE and the 16th century CE. Scanty remains found here and there indicate, however, that it had been occupied during those ages. It is thus obvious that the most important archaeological evidence retrieved by excavating Aphek’s acropolis is from the second millennium BCE, the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, simply because that represents the major part of the archaeological record recovered.

MIDDLE BRONZE AGE IIA STRATA X19-X17, MIDDLE BRONZE AGE IIA—REMAINS OF A RURAL SETTLEMENT, CONSTRUCTIONAL FILL AND PALACE I

Due to the limited area of excavation at considerable depth, only a small segment of what seemed to be the northern wing of Palace I (Stratum X17) was exposed. That wing was built upon a deliberately placed fill (Stratum X18) to allow its construction. The fill was piled upon remains of an earlier, rural settlement dated to an earlier phase of the same chrono-cultural period (Stratum X19). The palace was protected from the northern steep slope by City Wall C250 of Stratum BV (Gal and Kochavi 2000:71-75). The regularly built, 1.2 m wide walls, spacious rooms and the general high quality of the architecture of the palace leave no doubt concerning its function as a public building. Renovations took place during its existence (Strata X17a-X17c), but its original plan remained unchanged throughout that time span. Several burials and interments of children in jars were sunk beneath the floor of the palace’s courtyard and close to the city-wall. The pottery of the earliest Middle Bronze Age occupations at Tel Aphek (Strata X19-X18), consists of an assemblage noted and defined for the first time in this report. Among its characteristics is a high percentage of jars with rims of triangular section, ridges, incisions and applied reliefs. Included also are hemispherical and open bowls with S-shaped profiles, flattened bases, coated with a thin white wash. Cooking-pots are hand-made or wheel-made, but lack gutter-rims. Kraters are also decorated with incisions and bands of relief, as well as painted in geometric patterns. The pottery of Palace I (Stratum X17) is highly similar to that of the earlier MB IIA levels, but for the first time we see the appearance of red-slipped, burnished vessels, carinated bowls, red-slipped jugs and juglets and copious use of painted decoration. The assemblage of this stratum resembles pottery found by Ory (1938) in Cist-graves 2 and 5 (Area 02) and confirms the suggestion that this cemetery, occupying the head of the eastern hill in proximity to the acropolis, was the cemetery of the Aphek royal family in MB IIA. Under-f loor burials found within the palace and its immediate surroundings, probably belonged to a lower class of palace inhabitant such as petty officials, servants, children etc. The earliest pottery horizon from Area X (MB IIA, Phase 1 = Strata X19-X18) was not encountered in Area A. It seems that in that early phase of MB IIA the settled area on the tell was limited to the acropolis. However, pottery resembling that found in the three phases of Palace I (Stratum X17) was found in the domestic quarter of Area A (Strata A17-A15) and in association with the city wall (Wall C250) of Stratum BV. Together, all these assemblages make up our MB IIA Phase 2, and date to a time when MB IIA Tel Aphek became an urban centre with Palace I crowning its acropolis. 2.

For a detailed treatment of these deposits see Kochavi, Beck and Yadin 2000.

593

MOSHE KOCHAVI

STRATA A14-A12 OF AREA A, MIDDLE MB IIA – MB IIA-MB IIB (NO REMAINS IN AREA X)

The second part of MB IIA saw the desertion of the acropolis in favour of the western slope of the mound as the site for a new monumental structure, known as Palace II. The change of location of the palace was probably due to the instability of construction fill below Palace I, as evidenced by its frequent renovations, identified by the excavators as Strata X17a-X17c. It is also related to the major repair that had to be performed on City Wall C250 of Stratum BV and its rebuilding as City Wall C261 of Stratum BIV. Palace II was not built on the grandiose scale of its successor, Palace III, but some architectural elements incorporated into the later palace can already be seen in it. These consist of cement-like, waterproof floors and stone supports under floors, probably for wooden pillars. Although the acropolis was deserted during the lifetime of Palace II, later burials in a cemetery found by Ory on the eastern hill, yielded pot types identical to those associated with Palace II (MB IIA Phase 3), and which are the epitome of MB IIA ceramics. Continuous utilization of this cemetery by the elite of Tel Aphek throughout MB IIA, should be considered. As in Palace I, some burials were found beneath the floors of Palace II. It appears that not every inhabitant of these palaces was qualified for internment in an elaborate cist grave. It should be noted that during this phase of MB IIA, the settled area on the site reached its maximal size for the second time. The first occurrence was during EB II, and the third and last, during the Late Roman period. A prominent position as the largest urban centre in the contemporary well-settled Sharon Plain is conjectured for the MB IIA settlement at Tel Aphek (see Kochavi, Beck and Gophna 1979; Gophna and Ayalon 1980; Gophna and Beck 1981; Gophna and Portugali 1988). The date of the renewal of settlement on the acropolis and the inauguration of Palace III is estimated as sometime after the desertion of Palace II. A transitional MB IIA-MBIIB phase (MB IIA, Phase 4) saw the return of private buildings to the western slope built atop remains of Palace II (Area A, Stratum 12), and construction of pottery kilns on the site’s southwestern precinct (Area G). However, no indicative sherds of this ceramic horizon were found in Area X and so the construction of Palace III is believed to have occurred somewhat later. The gradual disintegration of an urban environment at Tel Aphek seems to have begun in that period and continued throughout the latter part of the second millennium BCE. APHEK IN THE EGYPTIAN EXECRATION TEXTS

In the absence of an absolute chronological framework for Middle Bronze Age Canaan, and to some degree as well for the Egyptian Execration Texts dated to the same general period, it is very difficult to pinpoint which stratum of Tel Aphek (i.e., Apqum) is the one mentioned in Text No. 9 (Rainey and Notley 2006:50-58) of the later group. If the Apqum mentioned there is interpreted as having been a central and important settlement, then it is most likely to be identified with the MB IIA city of Phase 3, which occupied all of Tel Aphek. In that case, Yanqa-’Ilu was its ruler, his abode was Palace II, and he ruled a city of twelve hectares in size and its dependencies in the southern Sharon Plain. The demise of Aphek after that phase could then be explained by Egyptian intervention, as is understood from the Execration Texts.

MIDDLE BRONZE AGE IIB STRATA X16-X15, MIDDLE BRONZE AGE IIB, PALACES III AND IV

The construction of Palace III represented the return of the administrative centre to the acropolis. It is the largest of the six palaces discovered at Tel Aphek. If Palace I was deserted because of the collapse of its foundations, which were not sunk deep into fill below, then the bitter lesson had been learned by the builders of Palace III. To overcome the subsidence that necessitated the removal of the administrative 594

CHAPTER 26: SUMMARY: T HE A PHEK ACROPOLIS IN CONTEXT

centre away from the acropolis (the end of Palace I and the construction of Palace II), the builders of this new monumental structure invested substantial effort in preparing its foundations, which were sunk 2.5 m and more below floor level. These deep stone foundation walls, regularly 2.0 m wide, were still solid enough to serve as foundations for walls of the Ottoman fortress, erected some three millennia after the abandonment and destruction of Palace III. The large stones of the walls of Palace III were so substantial, they attracted the attention of later builders, and as a result, its outer skin, exposed on the northern steep slope, was completely robbed out during the Late Roman period. It seems that Palace III extended over at least half the area of the Ottoman citadel, that is, ca. 4000 2 m . While the only significant exposure of this building was of its northern wing, excavation probes sunk further to the south revealed additional impressive remains of it in that precinct of the site. The excavated wing has a central area surrounded by rooms with a plastered, almost cement-like floor 30 cm. thick. Two column bases, each with a diameter of 1.0 m, with foundations penetrating as deep as those of the palace’s walls, were placed symmetrically along the central, longitudinal axis of that area. The line they formed was most probably between a southern, roofed, shady part of the open area, and its northern extremity, open to the sky and prevailing northern breezes. A well built, wide entrance, gives access to the central courtyard. Square or rectangular rooms, with the same type plaster floor surrounded the central area on three sides (South, west and north). It seems that an open courtyard to its south served as an entryway to northern and southern wings of this palace. Palaces of this kind are well known from this period from major urban sites such as Tell ed-Dab’a in the Nile Delta, or Alalakh in the ‘Amuq plain, although they are larger and more elaborate. A palace of quite similar proportions is known at Tel Kabri in western Galilee. Palace III (Stratum X16) underwent a major renovation, during which its original plan was changed. This newly remodeled structure was labeled Palace IV and identified as Stratum X15 in the excavation. No evidence of a destruction layer, fire or collapse of walls was found, so it is reasonable to assume that those who dwelled in the palace, perhaps a new dynasty that came to power, opted to make these renovations. In the new building, the central area was subdivided into smaller rooms by plastered, mudbrick walls, which were laid directly atop its floor. A specially arranged room in the northeastern corner of the palace was used for cultic purposes. More rooms were added to the earlier structure on both its eastern and western ends. Palace IV, was found covered by debris consisting of carbonized wooden beams, bricks hardened by fire and bits of plaster fallen from walls. Pottery vessels from this stratum (X15) date to the 16th century BCE, so the end of the palace can be ascribed to the general wave of destruction that engulfed the region, attributed by some to the Egyptian conquest of Canaan during the reigns of Pharaoh Ahmose I and his successors (ca. 1550 BCE). Scant remains of private buildings and burials of MB IIB date were found in Area A as well as a substantial, contemporary wall unearthed by Ory (Area O2). Farther south on the tell no remains of that period were found. Transformation of the potters’ precinct (Area G) into a burial ground suggests the inhabited area of the tell shrank during this period. A general decline in both urban and rural settlements in the Sharon Plain is well attested during this phase of the Middle Bronze Age. It coincides with a floruit of settlements in the hill country to the east, where very few sites of the earlier phase are known (Kochavi, Beck and Gophna 1979; Gophna and Ayalon 1980; Gophna and Beck 1981; Gophna and Portugali 1988). The Middle Bronze Age palaces of Aphek, as their successors, were more like isolated citadels, drawing their power and livelihood from their commanding location on the Aphek-Pass and the Yarkon springs.

595

MOSHE KOCHAVI

THE LATE BRONZE AGE STRATUM X14, LB IB-LB IIA

The main two elements discerned in this stratum were drainage channels and a favissa. Waterproof plaster floors of Palace III caused rain and mud to accumulate above them and prompted a network of drainage channels to be dug into the floors in order to lead rainwater off the mound. The alignment of the channels and the existence of Palace V immediately south of them supports however a stratum X13 date for their construction. The location of the cultic room in Palace IV was well known to the inhabitants of this stratum, who maintained cultic practices at the same sacred spot. They reached it by digging a round pit, which they lined with stones, into the debris. About 100 more or less complete pots, including 70 locally made bowls, as well as chalices, lamps and some imported vessels, were placed in the pit, from which they were recovered. The vessels from this cache, together with the few objects recovered from floors and in associated fills, include complete and nearly complete objects that date this stratum (X14) to LB IB/ IIA. The assemblage is an excellent representation of pottery of the 15th-14th centuries BCE in southern Canaan, and includes some early examples of Egyptianized vessels. No substantial remains of habitation debris from this period were detected in other parts of the site. Thus, it is obvious that the process of the occupation at Tel Aphek becoming more of an elite stronghold than an urban centre, which culminated in Stratum X12, continued in this period. Thutmoses III and Amenhotep II after him, mention Aphek among their conquests in Canaan. The town at that time seems to be more of a rural nature, with no city-walls and no major public buildings. STRATUM X13, LB II, PALACE V

A major reorientation occurred with the building of Palace V, dated to the 14th-13th centuries BCE. Up to this time the three earlier palaces on the acropolis, as well the one outside it (in Area A), maintained an orientation aligned with the cardinal directions of the compass, which, rather interestingly, was also followed many hundreds of years later by the builders of the fort of the Ottoman period. This new orientation was also followed by the builders of Palace VI, which was superimposed on the southwestern corner of Palace V. Remains of Palace V were found over an area of about 900 m 2, while another substantial building was partly exposed to its east. Another area on the north of the Acropolis, problematic for its lack of drainage for rainwater, was totally deserted in this time span. The front of the new palace was placed in the south, as opposed to the northern location of façades of the earlier palaces. Several channels, tentatively associated with Stratum X14, may also have functioned as drainage conduits for the area adjacent to the north of the façade of this palace. This new façade was adorned with two colonnades resting on stylobates bearing stone bases. None of the floors of the palace courtyards was plastered, but they were meticulously paved with stones. Water pooling on these stone pavements within the palace was collected by drainage channels, which traversed the courtyards diagonally. The plan of the palace may be reconstructed with an elaborate façade, emphasized by the colonnades, an internal courtyard and several rooms arranged in a row. This apparent deviation from commonly encountered plans of rooms arranged around peripheries of courtyards, and the addition of colonnades, points to influence derived from Egyptian New Kingdom architecture. These traits appear to emphasize the special position of Aphek within the framework of an Egyptian administration in Canaan, as may be interpreted from the peaceful “opening of the city gates” 596

CHAPTER 26: SUMMARY: T HE A PHEK ACROPOLIS IN CONTEXT

to Amenhotep II ca. 1440 BCE (Frankel and Kochavi 2000:17). Construction of this new, Egyptianized palace, with a different orientation, may be attributed to the aftermath of that event. Additional excavation in Area A yielded very few material remains. Only scattered pits and a cist burial were encountered outside the palace area. No debris of other human activity in this period was encountered there. STRATUM X12, LB II, PALACE VI (THE EGYPTIAN RESIDENCY)

The last palace built on the acropolis of Tel Aphek was totally different from all its predecessors. It was confined to the southwestern corner of the acropolis, and was built directly above and sometimes re-used stubs of walls and the original floors of Palace V. Although much smaller in area, it was two stories high, the lower of which was stone-built. It resembled a fort and was not meant to accommodate a ruler and his entourage. Its similarity to a series of 13th to 12th century BCE Egyptian residencies found elsewhere in Canaan, and finds associated with it, both written and unwritten, identify it as the residence of an Egyptian governor of Aphek and of his military garrison. The building’s relatively diminutive size, and exceptional preservation, dictated, for practical reasons, that its ground plan be unearthed in its entirety, and that it be conserved. Such activity precluded the possibility of further excavation below it, except within the confines of small probes undertaken beneath its floors. There were found two Late Bronze Age surfaces, most probably belonging to Strata X13 and X14. The remains of this fortified residency were found totally buried underneath its own-burnt debris. Its upper storey collapsed completely as a result of a fire that brought the building to an end. Bricks, plaster (including painted, colored fragments), stones and beams of this storey crashed down and completely covered the ground level of the building and its surroundings. The contents of the upper storey, fine bowls, jewellery and inscribed documents, prove it was the living quarters of the building. The total devastation of the residency in a conflagration, the abundance of objects recovered from it, both of quotidian and elite nature, and arrow-heads found stuck into its walls, indicate its destruction was the result of a sudden and man-made calamity. The heaps of debris formed by the burnt, collapsed palace stood open to the elements for many years afterward. Early Iron Age pits were cut into them, and later Ottoman builders of their fort found the debris solid enough to be the foundation of a courtyard. Eroding red-burnt brick detritus has covered all the area adjacent to the residency creating a matrix which is indicative of the ascription of finds derived from Stratum X12. Therefore, a cache of Mycenaean vessels, two inscribed finds, two winepresses and lumps of carbonized grape residue, all found within this matrix, can be safely associated with the residency, although they were not found within its confines. In Area A two winepresses were found some 20 m west of the residency. Their attribution to Stratum X12 is based both on the pottery found in their vats and on the burnt brick material from the residency lying directly on top of them. Carbonized grape residue, found near the southern wall of the residency, was probably related to activity associated with the winepresses. These two installations, similar in size and plan, imitate typical rock-cut winepresses mainly found in fields. They are, however, the only winepresses to be securely dated to the Late Bronze Age and the earliest known to have been built and not rock-cut. The exceptional location and larger than usual size of these two installations are explained by their proximity to the governor’s residency. Its rulers are assumed to have wanted to closely supervise the agricultural production of their subordinates, as may be understood from documents from Ramesses III’s reign found at Tel Lachish and Tel Sera. They prove the existence of an Egyptian tax collecting organization, which most probably was implemented earlier at Tel Aphek and other Canaanite cities under Egyptian rule from the time of Ramesses II.

597

MOSHE KOCHAVI

A family tomb dating to the end of the Late Bronze Age was excavated in Area G on the southwestern side of the mound, outside of the acropolis, where it was cut into the edge of the mound. Its superstructure was obliterated by the builders of Roman Antipatris, but its surviving floor was paved with stones and its semi-subterranean walls were lined with large building stones. Eight skeletons of male and female adults were lying in the tomb together with more than 60 ceramic vessels. These vessels are similar to those found in association with the residency. They include simple locally made bowls, Cypriote and Mycenaean imports and their local imitations. Notably, Egyptian-type bowls, which were common in the residency, are completely absent from this assemblage. Surprisingly, a few bronze rings with scarabs found on the fingers of the deceased in this tomb are of MB IIB ‘Hyksos’ types. It seems, therefore, that jewellery and other precious items were kept and handed down from one generation to the next. The contexts from which they were recovered indicate they were excavated as heirlooms. Apparently, members of the Canaanite aristocracy adorned themselves with 300 years old scarabs, used as seals! An Egyptian type of mirror, bracelets and a dagger, all made of bronze and also found in this tomb, point as well to the high status of the deceased interred there.

THE APHEK INSCRIPTIONS The Tel Aphek inscriptions, published elsewhere, are discussed and their contents newly summarized in Chapter 15. Most of the cuneiform tablets were found within a radius of 1.0 m, within the debris fallen from the residency’s second storey (Kochavi 1978). When tested by Neutron Activation Analysis and by Petrographic Analysis (Chapter 17) they proved to be made of clays from within the general region of Tel Aphek. If these clay tablets are interpreted as remains of the output of a ‘scribal school’ (Chapter 15; Goren, Na’aman, Mommsen and Finkelstein 2007), then such an interpretation is ruled out by the following considerations: 1) It does not explain the Hittite bulla, also made of local clay; 2) All the 11 complete cuneiform signs of the tri-partite lexicon appear also on the copy of the letter from Ugarit. Thus, it is more plausible to interpret the group as representing a one-time event, the product of an individual residing in the residency, who copied the letter with relevant auxiliary lexica in order to facilitate its reading and writing. The ‘Hittite’ bulla was also, most probably, attached to a copy of an original document carried by a messenger from Ugarit and left at Tel Aphek upon demand of the local authority. The archaeological circumstances of the exposure of the Tel Aphek inscriptions, the similarity of the raw materials used in their production, and the coherence of their written contents, allow us to assume the residency was destroyed around 1230 BCE, soon after the letter from Ugarit was received and copied. This dating is based on the date of the letter from Ugarit, a letter that was not deposited in an archive, where documents could be kept for long periods of time. Thus, the destruction of the residency at Tel Aphek, ca. 1230 BCE, must have happened against the background of deterioration of Egyptian rule in Canaan in the latter days of Ramesses II. The pottery assemblage from the residency of Stratum X12 is, accordingly, the one and only one to be assigned with a secure absolute date to the end of the Late Bronze Age (Beck and Kochavi 1985). Later, Pharaohs Merneptah and his nephew, Ramesses III, tried, with the imposition of new governors, to strengthen their faltering rule over Canaan through military campaigns and by tightening control over local city-states. Their attempts did not last long and by the mid-12th century BCE, all traces of Egyptian rule over Canaan were gone. Who caused the destruction of the Egyptian residency at Tel Aphek? Was it a result of an internal rebellion or the work of a group of one of the newly settled peoples in the region, such as Israelites or Philistines? We only know that the destruction of the residency at Tel Aphek marks the disappearance of an entire world order in Canaan. With it end, the acropolis (Area X), would bear no more public buildings for the next 28 centuries, until the Ottoman fort was erected upon it. 598

CHAPTER 26: SUMMARY: T HE A PHEK ACROPOLIS IN CONTEXT

THE IRON AGE STRATUM X11, LB II/IRON I (LB III), A FISHERMEN’S HAMLET

The burnt remains of the residency remained standing as a heap of debris after its destruction when newcomers to the site built their settlement beside it. The unstable heap was consolidated by a revetment wall, while east of it, flimsy remains of private buildings were constructed. Two construction phases, Strata X11a and X11b, were discerned in these structures. Implements found within them designate them as quarters of fishermen. Two other houses, more elaborate, private affairs, square in plan, were found in another quarter, north of the burnt remains of the residency. They are of a type known from a larger settlement at Tell Abu-Huwam IV. A nearby wall segment of similar style and orientation may be evidence of a third house of this type. The dearth of finds unearthed in both quarters of this stratum is interpreted as evidence of peaceful desertion. The typical architecture and associated finds date this settlement to the transition between the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age, or to sometime within the 12th century BCE. The settlers’ cultural affinities have neither antecedents nor continuance in the local way of life as expressed in earlier and later levels at Tel Aphek. Therefore, the people of Stratum X11 may be identified with one of the groups of ‘Sea Peoples’ settling the Levantine coast at that period. I cannot see any connection between the typical architecture of these houses and the “Amarna private houses” of 14th century BCE Egypt. STRATA X10-X9, IRON I, (‘PHILISTINE’ TEL APHEK)

In previous publications the two major elements of this stratum, pits and ash layers, were designated as two different strata, X10 and X9. After a further evaluation of the stratigraphy and the finds, the possibility that these different elements were contemporaneous came to light. However, since this new interpretation is inconclusive, the former designation has been retained in this report, especially because these levels are not superimposed, but rather occupy different precincts of Area X. Several refuse pits, containing typical bichrome, so-called ‘Philistine’ pottery, were excavated (Stratum X10). Nearby, an extensive area covered with ash layers containing organic material was exposed (Stratum X9). Examination of the ash layers indicated they were filled with all manner of detritus from wild plants that grow in cultivated fields. The proposed function of the area as a threshing floor is thus justified. Remains of only a single domestic building were found in Stratum X9. Clay figurines of the seatedlady type, nicknamed ‘Ashdoda’, interpreted as of a Philistine deity, further enhance the identification of Stratum X10 as Philistine. The undeciphered inscribed clay tablet from Stratum X10 may, once deciphered, serve as a first clue to the language and script used by these people (Chapter 9). There is no evidence at Tel Aphek for ‘Mycenaean IIIC1b’ or ‘Philistine Monochrome’ pottery, a type identified with the initial arrival of the Philistines at cities such as Ashdod and Ekron (Tel Miqne). Hence, the arrival of Philistines at Tel Aphek happened slightly later, when they started to expand from their initial area of settlement to the north of the Soreq Valley. Aphek appears twice in the Old Testament as the place where Philistines gathered for a decisive battle against the Israelites. The bible dates the first battle to the time when the priest Eli served at a shrine at Shiloh. The Israelites gathered their forces at Eben-ezer (I Samuel: 4, 1-3), but were severely defeated (I Samuel: 4,10-12). Without any consideration for the historicity of the biblical account, it is apparent that its geographical setting was well known to the writer of that text. The best identification of Eben-ezer remains the nearby site of >Izbet Sartah (Finkelstein 1986), excavated as a subsidiary excavation of the Aphek-Antipatris’ Project. The Philistines made Aphek their staging camp before 599

MOSHE KOCHAVI

fighting Saul on Mount Gilboa. (I Samuel: 29). The geographic setting of these battles fits Tel Aphek very well. The ‘man of Benjamin’ reached Shiloh, 30 km uphill from the battlefield on the same day, but it took David three days to reach Ziklag (identified with Tel Sera>, 90 km away in the western Negev), when sent there from Aphek (see Frankel and Kochavi 2000:17-18). STRATA X8 – X6, IRON IIA (‘ISRAELITE’ APHEK)

Remains of these three strata were mostly destroyed by earth-moving operations in the Ottoman period. Only pits and fragmentary architectural remains of them could be discerned in the excavated area. They denote what appears to be peaceful development of a rural community, which was eventually destroyed in a calamitous fashion. Thirty seven pits, used as grain silos, were found in Stratum X8, the initial phase of this village. Some possible scant evidence of domestic architecture was also discerned in this stratum. Several of these silos, in which grains were stored in bulk or in sacks, were stone-lined. Others were left without lining and in them grains were kept in storage jars. In the following Strata, X7 and X6, domestic buildings were constructed. Changes in their fragmentary plans, observed in some cases, dictated their attribution to one or the other of these strata. The best evidence of how the architecture of this settlement might have looked comes from excavation of two contemporary domestic buildings in Area A, outside the perimeter of the Ottoman fort. They are examples of the typical plan of the Iron Age domestic houses, the ‘four room house’. Large quantities of pottery vessels broken on their floors mark the brutal end of Iron IIA Aphek. Pits associated with these later strata were not used as silos but rather for refuse. The proposed ethnic identity of the inhabitants of these strata as ‘Israelite’ is based mainly on the typical pit-silos of Stratum X8. Rock-cut silos form the most abundant architectural elements of Early Iron sites in the hill country, which, according to historical documents, was the abode of Israelites. ‘Izbet Sartah, situated on hills 3.0 km east of Tel Aphek, is a good example of this type of site. Silos first appear at Tel Aphek at the same time nearby >Izbet êartah, with its tens of rock-cut silos, was deserted. No remains from Iron Age II B Tel Aphek, which might have escaped the leveling operations of later periods, were encountered on the acropolis. Settlement at Tel Aphek in that age too is attested in historical documents (Frankel and Kochavi 2000:18), though there is no way to ascertain its nature, whether a town, village or just a frontier fort. Remains of Hellenistic Pegai and Roman Antipatris (Respectively later names of settlements at Tel Aphek) were mostly eradicated on the acropolis, but were found elsewhere in the precinct to its south.

CONCLUSIONS The excavation of the acropolis of Tel Aphek revealed a series of ‘palaces’ built there during most of the second millennium BCE. The earliest of these monumental structures was constructed within the midst of a populated town, then within a town of diminished size, and finally as a lone citadel on the acropolis. The results of the excavation of the MB IIA strata in Area X completed the study of the unique stratigraphic and typological sequence, begun by the late Pirhiya Beck (1975, 1985) in preliminary reports and continued in later works by her and additional scholars (Beck 2000a, 2000b, Kochavi and Yadin 2002). This sequence served as a yardstick for the period, and is further enhanced by the information gleaned from Area X and presented in this volume. The largest palace of Tel Aphek, partly exposed, dated to MB IIB, is another example of one of the few palaces known from this age in the southern Levant. Although of a smaller scale than most, it is a good example of an elite’s domicile in the Levant for this time span. 600

CHAPTER 26: SUMMARY: T HE A PHEK ACROPOLIS IN CONTEXT

The importance of Tel Aphek as guarding one of the main intersections in Canaan is evident from the evidence of its last palace, the free standing Egyptian Governor’s Residence. The plethora of well dated finds, including inscriptions, found buried under its collapsed and burnt second storey, made their exposure the highlight of the excavation on the acropolis. The unique, late 13th century BCE inscriptions shed light on the conduct of Egyptian administration in Canaan and on the nature of international trade in commodities, while also revealing the existence of Canaanite language lexica. The pottery assemblage of Stratum X12 should be taken as an absolute chronological peg for the problematic, transition period between the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age. Less captivating for scholars than the palaces, but historically important for their research, are the few remains of Early Iron Age strata encountered on the leveled acropolis. One after the other, several different groups of peoples settled there. The frequent change in the nature of these settlements well reflects the turbulent years that passed between the end of Egyptian rule over Canaanite city-states and the establishment of a new order of early states. As the last phases of pre-classical Tel Aphek were utterly destroyed several hundreds years prior to the next chapter in the site’s history, the long gap in occupation must remain as the cut off period for this volume. Additional publications intended to treat with Tel Aphek of the Classical and later periods, and lie beyond its scope. REFERENCES Beck, P. 1975. The pottery of the Middle Bronze Age IIA at Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 2:27-84. Beck, P. 1985. The Middle Bronze Age IIA pottery from Aphek, 1972-1984. First summary. Tel Aviv 12:181-203. Beck, P. 2000a. Area B. Pottery. In: Kochavi, M., Beck, P. and Yadin, E., eds. Aphek-Antipatris I. Excavations of Area A and B, the 1972-1976 Seasons. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 19) Tel Aviv. pp.93-133. Beck, P. 2000b. Area A. Middle Bronze IIA pottery. In: Kochavi, M., Beck, P. and Yadin, E., eds. Aphek-Antipatris I. Excavations of Areas A and B, the 1972-1976 Seasons. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 19) Tel Aviv. pp. 173-238. Beck, P. and Kochavi, M. 1985. A dated assemblage of the late 13th century B.C.E. from the Egyptian Residency at Aphek. Tel Aviv 12:29-42. Gal, Z. and Kochavi, M. 2000. Area B. Stratigraphy, architecture and tombs. In: Kochavi, M., Beck, P. and Yadin, E., eds. Aphek-Antipatris I. Excavations of Areas A and B, the 1972-1976 Seasons. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 19) Tel Aviv. pp. 59-92. Gophna, R. and Ayalon, E. 1980. Survey of the central Coastal Plain, 1978-1979. Settlement pattern of the Middle Bronze Age IIA. Tel Aviv 7:147-151. Gophna, R. and Beck, P. 1981. The rural aspect of the settlement pattern of the Coastal Plain in the Middle Bronze Age II. Tel Aviv 8:45-80. Gophna, R. and Portugali, Y. 1988. Settlement and demographic processes in Israel’s Coastal Plain from the Chalcolithic to the Middle Bronze Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 269:11-28. Goren, Y., Naaman, N., Mommsen, H. and Finkelstein, I. 2007. Provenance study and re-evaluation of the cuneiform documents from the Egyptian Residency at Tel Aphek. Egypt and the Levant XVI:161-171. Frankel, R. and Kochavi, M. 2000. Chapter 2. Identification of the site. In: Kochavi, M., Beck, P. and Yadin, E., eds. 2000. Aphek-Antipatris I. Excavations of Area A and B. The 1972-1976 Seasons. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 19) Tel Aviv. pp. 16-38.

601

MOSHE KOCHAVI

Kochavi, M. 1978. The archaeological context of the Aphek inscriptions. In: Kochavi M. et al. Aphek-Antipatris 1974-1977. The Inscriptions. (Journal of the Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology. Reprint Series No. 2) Tel Aviv. pp. 1-7. Kochavi, M., Beck, P. and Yadin, E., eds. 2000. Aphek-Antipatris I. Excavations of Areas A and B. The 1972-1976 Seasons. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 19) Tel Aviv. Kochavi, M., Beck, P. and Gophna, R. 1979. Aphek-Antipatris, Tel-Poleg, Tel Zeror and Tel Burga. Four fortified sites of the Middle Bronze Age IIA in the Sharon plain. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina Vereins 95:121-165. Kochavi, M. and Yadin, E. 2002. Typological analysis of the MB IIA pottery from Aphek according to its stratigraphic provenance. In: Bietak, M., ed. The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant. Wien. pp. 196-227. Ory, J. 1936. Excavations at Ras el >Ain II. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 5:111-112. Ory, J. 1938. Excavations at Ras el >Ain III. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 6:99-120. Rainey, A.F. and Notley, R.S. 2006. The Sacred Bridge. Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World. Jerusalem.

602

INDEX OF LOCI Field locus Final Locus

Stratum

Square

Description

Chapter

0586 0597 1101 1102 1104 1106 1107 1111 1112 1116 1119 1129 1130 1131 1135 1137

0586 0597 1107 1102 1130 1107 1107 1111 1112 1130 1137 1129 1130 1731 1146 1137

IA IA X12 X8 X12 X13, X12 X13, X12 X9 X1 X12 X12 X5 X13, X12 X12 X10 X12

Area A Area A Q24 O23 O22-23 P-O23 P-O23 P22 N22 O22-23 N22-23 O23 O22-23 P22 Q23 N-M21

Room Room Floor of room Silo Courtyard Floor of room Floor of room Ash layer 2924 Accumulation Courtyard Piazza Pit Courtyard Hall Pit Piazza

13 13

1139 1142 1143 1146 1148 1150 1154 1155 1156 1158 1170 1176 1178 1179 1186 1187 1193 1198 1200 1308 1410 1415 1419 1430 1439 1444 1445 1446 1448 1450 1453 1458 1459 1462 1700 1703 1706 1711 1712 1721

1724 1142 1143 1146 1137 1150 1154 1155 1156 1158 1137 1193 1178 1158 1186 1187 1193 1198 1200 1308 1410 1415 1419 1430 1439 1459 1445 1446 1448 1450 1453 1458 1459 1462 1700 1732 1706 1711 1712 1721

X13, X12 X8 X8 (?) X10 X12 X13, X12 X9 X9 X9 X1 X12 X12 X12 X9 X9 X13, X12 X11 X13, X12 IA X1 X2 X2 X14b X11 X14b X14b X14b X14b X8 X14b X14b X14b X8 X10 X12 X9 X7, X6 X8 X12

N-O21 N21 M21 Q23 N22-23 N23 N23 N22 O22 Q-P/22-23 N23 P-Q23 P22 Q23 N23 N23 P-Q23 M22 Area G Area A G22 G22 G22 G21 G23 G22 G22 G24 H21 G21 G24 G22 G22 G23 P22 N23 O21 N23 Q23 Q22

Fill Silo Silo Pit Piazza Floor Ash layer 2924 Ash layer 2924 Ash layer 2924 Robber trench Piazza Room Corridor Robber trench Ash layer 2924 Ash layer 2924 Room Debris Built tomb Room Pit Accumulation Pit Constructional fill 1459 Piazza 2944 Constructional fill 1459 Constructional fill 1459 Constructional fill 1459 Constructional fill 1459 Silo Drainage channel Constructional fill 1459 Constructional fill 1459 Silo Pit Piazza Ash layer 2924 Pit Silo Hall

1724 1726

1724 1726

X13 X12

N-O21 Q23

Floor Room

Figures

6, 8 3, 15

6.13

3, 8, 19 6, 8, 13 11, 17

3.11, 3.18 6.6, 6.13

3 3.18 3, 8, 11, 12, 13, 19, 21, 25 3.11, 3.18 3, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 19, 21, 3.11, 3.18 22, 23 6, 21 6.13 6 6.13 3, 6, 8, 13, 18, 19, 21, 23 6.6 3, 8, 13 19, 21 6, 8, 11, 21 3, 13

3.11 6.6 6.6 6.6 3.18

3

3.18

3, 8, 21

6.6 6.6 3.11, 3.18 3.25, 6.2 5.1

1, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 13

8 3, 6 8 3 6 3 3, 12 3, 8, 9, 13 3, 6, 8 6, 8, 19, 20, 21, 23 13 6 6, 8 3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 3, 8, 21 3, 8, 9, 12, 21

3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 6.2 3.3 3.3 3.3 6.13 3.3, 3.4 3.3 3.3, 3.4 3.3, 6.13 6.6 3.18 6.6 6.13 3.18 3.11, 3.18 3.18

603

Field locus Final locus

Stratum

Square

Description

1729 1731

1700 1731

X10 X12

P22 P21-22

Pit Hall

1732 2704 2707 2715 2717 2718 2725 2729 2731

1732 2704 2707 2731 2753 2718 2753 2729 2731

X12 X2-X1 X8-X6 X12 X12 X10 X12 X2 X12

M23 Q24 Q24 R24 Q24 Q24 Q24 R22 R23

Piazza Pit Undefined level Open area Alley Pit Alley Pit Open area

2735 2736 2737 2745 2746 2747 2750 2751 2752 2753

2753 1726 1721 2745 2746 2731 2753 2753 2753 2753

X12 Q23 X12 X2 X13 X12 X12 X12 X12 X12

P24 Q23 Q22 G22-23 R24 R24 P24 Q24 P24 P24

Alley Room Hall Pit Auxiliary building Open area Alley Alley Alley Alley

2754 2902 2903 2904 2905 2907 2908 2910 2911 2912 2915 2916 2919 2924 2926 2930 2932 2935 2937 2939 2942 2943 2944 2947 2950 2953 2954 2956 2959 3205 3216 3218a 3218b 3223 3224 3237 3412 3427 3430 3432

2731 2902 2903 2904 2905 2902 2908 2910 2911 2912 2915 2916 2919 2924 2926 2907 3601 2935 2907 2939 2942 2943 2944 2947 2950 2953 2954 2956 2959 3205 3216 3218a 3218b 3223 3224 3237 1700 3432 3430 3432

X12 X9 X6 X6 X6 X9 X7, X6 X6 X7, X6 X9 X7, X6 X7 X7 X9 X7 X9 X8 X9 X9 X11 X11 X9 X11 X8 X11 X11 X11 X12 X13, X12 X13, X12 X13, X12 Unstratified X12 X13, X12 X13, X12 X13, X12 X10 X9 X9 X9

R23 L24 L23 L23 L22 L24 L24 L23 L24 L24 L22 L23 L22 L22 K22 L24 K23 L23 L24 L24 L22 M24 L23 L23 L24 M24 M24 L22 L-N24 K17 (Area A) H17 (Area A) K16 K16 J17 (Area A) J16 (Area A) K16 (Area A) P-Q22 Q21 P21 Q21

Open area Ash layer 2924 Floor Floor Floor Ash layer 2924 Pit Tabun Pit Ash layer 2924 Pit Floor Floor Ash layer 2924 Accumulation Ash layer 2924 Pavement Ash layer 2924 Ash layer 2924 Piazza 2944 Room Ash layer 2924 Piazza 2944 Silo Piazza 2944 Floor Floor Destruction debris Paved path Treading floor Plastered vat Fill Destruction debris Treading floor Plastered vat Channel Pit Ash layer 2924 Ash Layer2924 Ash layer 2924

604

Chapter

Figures

3, 8, 9, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21, 3.18 22 3, 8, 14, 21 3.18 3.23 3.23 6, 21

3.23, 6.6

9 3, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24

3.18

13 3, 8, 9, 13 3, 9, 21

3.11, 3.16 3.18

3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21, 23, 3, 21 8, 21 6, 21 6, 21 6, 8, 12

3.23 3.18 3.18 6.6 6.14 6.14 3.25, 6.9, 6.14

6, 8 6 6 8 6 6, 8, 13 8 6, 8 21

6.14 6.14 6.6 6.14 6.14 3.25, 6.9, 6.14 3.25, 6.6

8, 12, 21

6.6

8, 13 3, 6, 8, 13, 21 13, 21 3, 6, 8, 13 6 20, 21 6 6, 8

4, 20 4, 20 4

6.2 6.2 6.6 6.2 6.13 6.2 6.1, 6.2 6.1, 6.2 3.25 3.11, 3.18 4.2, 4.5 4.2 4.5 4.5 4.2 4.2 4.2

12

6.6 6.6

3, 8, 12, 14, 20 4 4, 8, 20

Field locus Final Locus

Stratum

Square

Description

Chapter

Figures

3456 3466 3467 3474 3477 3482 3486 3490 3492 3493 3494 3496 3501 3502 3600 3601 3603 3604 3605 3606 3607 3608 3609 3610 3613 3619 3620 3622 3623 3627 3628 3631 3634 3635 3636 3638 3643 3804 3805 3813 3814 3815 3816 3817 3818 3827 3828 3832 3836 3837 3844 3845 3846 3847 4004 4005 4006 4007 4008 4010 4011 4013 4015

X9 X12 X8-X6 X12 X8 X9 Unstratified X12 X12 X12 X12 X11 X12 X12 X8 X8 X13 X8 X8 X9 X8, X7 X8 X9 X9 X11 X11 X8 X7, X6 X7 X13 X8-X6 X11 X7, X6 X9 X8 X11 X9 X8 X9 X8 X12 X8 X11 X11 X11 X12 X8-X6 X11 X11 X7 X11 X12 X11 X11 X11 X12 X7, X6 X7, X6 X8 X7, X6 X7, X6 X8? X8?

M21 P21 Q21 Q21 M21 M21 O21 Q21 M21 R22 O-P21 M21 R22 R22 K23 K22 L22 K22 L22 K22 K23 L23 K23 K22 K22 J22 K23 L21 K21 J22 L21 K23 K21 L21 L21 L23 K21 N24 N22 O24 O24 O24 N24 N24 N24 O24 M25 N25 N25 O25 N24 O24 O25 O25 P24 P24 Q25 Q25 Q25 Q25 Q25 R25 R25

Ash layer 2924 Hall Silo Hall Floor Ash layer 2924

15, 20

6.6

6, 21, 22

6.13

6, 8, 23 21 13

6.13 6.6

6, 9, 22

6.2

3456 1721 3467 1721 3477 3482 3486 2731 1137 2731 1731 3496 1721 2731 3601 3601 3603 3604 3605 3606 3607 3608 3609 3606 3613 3619 3620 3622 3623 3627 3628 3631 3634 3635 3636 3638 6161 3804 3805 3813 3827 3815 3816 3817 3818 3827 3828 3832 3836 3837 3844 3827 3846 3847 4004 2753 4006 4007 4008 4010 4011 4013 4015

Open area Piazza Open area Hall Room Hall Open area Pavement Pavement Courtyard Destruction debris Silo Ash layer 2924 Silo Silo Ash layer 2924 Ash layer 2924 Room Room Silo Floor Floor Stone bench Floor Piazza 2944 Pit Ash layer 2924 Silo Tabun Floor Silo Ash layer 2924 Silo Cache of vessels Silo Accumulation Accumulation Accumulation Cache of vessels Silo Accumulation Accumulation Accumulation Accumulation Cache of vessels Paved floor Paved floor Pit Alley Pit Pit Floor Pit Pit Silo Silo

24

3, 6, 21 6, 8, 13, 21, 22 6 6 8, 20

6.13 6.9, 6.10, 6.13 3.11 6.9 6.2, 6.9, 6.10, 6.13 6.6, 6.9, 6.10 6.13, 6.14 6.13 6.6

6 3, 6, 21 3, 6, 8, 21 6, 8 8, 11 3 6, 8 3, 6, 13, 23 6 8 6, 11, 12 6

6.2, 6.9, 6.10 6.2 6.13 6.14 6.14 3.11 6.14 6.2 6.14 6.6 6.13 6.2

6, 8, 19, 21 6 6, 8, 19, 21 3, 8, 10 6, 8

6.13 6.6 6.13

6, 8, 12 3, 9

13 3, 8, 10, 20, 21, 22 6, 19, 21 9 8 21

6.13 6.1 6.1 6.1 3.18 6.13 6.1 6.1 6.1

8 13 6 6 6, 8 6 6 6 6, 8, 10, 13, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25

6.1 6.1 6.1 6.13 6.13 6.13 6.13 6.13 6.13 6.13

605

Field locus Final Locus

Stratum

Square

Description

4017 4018 4019 4020 4023 4024 4025 4026 4028 4029 4031 4037 4040 4041 4043 4044 4400 4402 4404 4409 4430 4431 4602 4606 4607 4608 4609 4611 4615 4617 4622 4624 4626 4629 4630 4633 4637 4640 4800 4805 4807 4811 4813 4817 4818 4821 4823 5003 5004 5007 5010 5013 5014 5016 5019 5020 5022 5023 5025 5026 5027 5030 5031

X12 X10 X8? X11 X8? X11 X12 X8? X8-X6 X11 X13 X12 X13 X13 X13 X13 X12 X11 X9

Q25 P25 R25 R25 R25 R25 Q25 R25 R25 R25 Q25 Q-R24 R25 Q25 Q25 R25 M21 L21 K21 L21 L21 L21 K23 J23 K23 J23 J23 J23 J23 J23 J23 J23 H22 H23 H23 H23 G22 G23 K24 J24 K24 K24 K24 K24 K24 K24 G24 Q26 P26 Q26 P26 R26 O26 O26 R27 O27 R26 P26 O27 O27 O27 O27 R27

Mudbrick collapse Pit Silo Floor Pit Fill Floor and installation Silo Silo Occupational debris Room Alley Room Room Room Room Piazza 1137 Room Floor Robber trench Courtyard 3603 Floor Floor Floor Floor Floor Floor Wall Ash layer 2924 Ash layer 2924 Silo Accumulation Piazza 2944 Ash layer 2924 Piazza 2944 Ash layer 2924 Constructional fill 1459 Constructional fill 1459 Ash layer 2924 Fill Silo Ash layer 2924 Silo Pavement Ash layer 2924 Piazza 2944 Accumulation? Silo Floor Silo Occupational debris Silo/Pit Floor Debris Surface Surface Floor Accumulation Paved floor Accumulation Pit Pit Fill

606

4017 4018 4026 4020 4026 4024 4025 4026 4028 4029 4031 2753 2746 4031 4031 2746 4400 4402 6161 4409 4430 4431 4602 4606 4602 4606 4609 4611 4615 4617 4622 4624 4626 4629 4630 4629 1459 1459 4800 4805 4807 4800 4813 4817 4800 4821 4823 5003 5004 5007 5010 5013 5014 5016 5019 5020 5022 5023 5025 5026 5027 5030 5031

X13 X13 X13/X12 X7 X13/X12 X7 X7 X7 X9 X9 X8 X11 X11 X9 X11 X9 X14b X14b X9 X5?? X8 X9 X8 X8 X9 X11 X11 X8 X11 X8 X11 X8 X11 X11 X11 X11 X11 X11 X10 X2 X4?

Chapter

Figures

6, 8, 9, 14, 20, 21, 23

3.16 3.17 3.17, 6.6

8, 9, 13

6.1

12 3, 12 6, 8, 12, 19, 20 6 23 3, 8

6.1 3.16, 3.17, 3.18 6.13 6.13 6.1 3.11, 3.16, 3.17

19, 22 6

6.2

3, 9, 13

6.2 3.11 3.11 3.11

9, 14, 19 19, 21, 22 21 19, 21 8, 13, 18, 21 21 6, 8, 10, 13, 21 13, 22 6 6, 13, 22

6.6 6.6 6.13 6.2 6.6 6.2

8, 13, 16, 17 14 6, 20, 21

6.6

6, 20, 21, 22 6

6.13 6.13

8 11, 14 6 8 6, 21

6.2

6, 8, 20, 21, 22, 23 22 11, 17 12 6, 8, 13, 22, 23

6, 8, 11, 13, 17, 18 13

6.13

6.13 6.1 6.13 6.1 6.13 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1, 6.6 6.1

Field locus Final Locus

Stratum

Square

Description

5033 5034 5035 5037 5038 5039 5040 5202 5203 5204 5205 5207 5213 5218 5224 6001 6002 6003 6008 6012 6024 6038 6043 6049 6050 6054 6055 6059 6066 6069 6071 6073 6077 6087 6088 6093 6099 6100 6107 6108 6109 6112 6113 6114 6120 6121 6132 6133 6136 6137 6138 6139 6147 6153 6154 6160 6161 6162 6167 6171 6174 6175 6177

X11 X11 X11 X11 X11 X8 X11 X12 X12 X12 X12 X12 X13? X12 X12 X8 X8 X8 X14? X12/X13 X2 X2 X1 X14 X14 X13 X13 X8 X9 X9 X13 X8 X9 X1 X16 X16 X8? X16 X16 X16/X15 X16 X14 X14 X16 X13 X8? X14 X16 X13/X12 X14 X14a X10 X14 X15 X14 X9 X9 X9 X9 X15 X16 X13 X7/X6

P27 P27 P26 R27 R27 R27 R26 Q21 Q21 P21-22 Q21-22 P21 Q21 Q-P21 Q21 K23 K-L23 K23 G23-24 H22 J20

Paved floor Floor Floor Floor Occupational debris Silo Room Hall Open area Hall Hall Hall Accumulation Hall Hall Pavement Pavement Silo Construction fill Pit Pit Foundation trench Accumulation Constructional fill 1459 Constructional fill 1459 Accumulation Accumulation Silo Occupational debris Occupational debris Accumulation Debris? Floor Accumulation Courtyard? Courtyard? Silo/pit Courtyard? Courtyard? Entrance - plaster floor Entrance Constructional fill 1459 Constructional fill 1459 Constructional fill 1459 Accumulation Silo Constructionl fill 1459 Courtyard Pit Constructional fill 1459 Burial Pit Drainage channel Doorway Constructional fill 1459 Ash layer 2924 Floor Ash layer 2924 Ash layer 2924 Room Courtyard Drain Pit

5033 5004? 5004 5037 5038 5039 5040 1721 2731 1731 1721 1731 5213 1721 1721 3601 3601 3620 1459? 6012 6024 6038 6043 1459 6050 6054 6055 6059 6066 6069 6071 6073 6077 6087 6107 6107 6099 6107 6107 6108 6109 6112 1459 6114 6120 6121 1459 6174 6136 1459 6138 6139 6147 6153 6154 6160 6161 6162 6167 6171 6174 6175 6177

G25-26 G24 J24 J23 J23 G23 K20 K20 L21 J20 K20 F25-26 G23 G24 H24 G23 G24 G24 H24 H22 G25 F24 K24 H25 J24 H22 G22 G22 F24 H25 G23 G25 H25 K21 K21 K20 L20 F25 H22 K23 K21

Chapter

Figures

13 8

6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.13 6.1

6 6, 8

9

14 2 14 14 2.43 14 9 3, 6, 13 8 19 13 6

3.3 3.11 3.11 3.3, 6.13 6.6 6.6 3.11 6.6 2.43

6

6.13

2, 7 2 2

2.18, 2.43, 6.20 2.18 2.18 3.3

6

3.3 3.11 6.13 3.3

3, 8 6, 8, 18 3 2 8, 13 6, 8, 13 8 2 2, 7 6

3.3 6.6 3.3 2.41 3.3 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 2.41, 2.43 2.18 3.11 6.14

607

Field locus Final Locus

Stratum

Square

Description

Chapter

Figures

6179 6180 6184 6185 6202 6204 6205 6206 6207 6209 6211 6212 6214 6215 6216 6227 6228 6231 6233 6234 6235 6240 6243 6244 6251 6254 6260 6262 6263 6268 6271 6274 6280 6283 6286 6295 6298 7006 7007 7010 7014 7015 7020 7021 7025 7029 7031 7100 7101 7106 7117 7119 7120 7126 7128 7129 7131 7133 7137 7141 7143 7144 7145

X9 X16 X16 X16 X16 X8 X16 X8 X16 X15 X14b X16 X15 X15 X16 X16 X16 X2? X11 X16 X16 X16 ? X14b X17a X16 X9? X8 X7, X6 X14b X16 X16 X15 X14b X17a X15 X15 X9 X8 X13 X8 X12 X12 X12 X10 X14a X12 X16 X8? X17a X17a X17a X17b X17a X17b Unstratified X17b X17a X17b X17a X16 X15 X17a

J20 H22 G22 G22 G-F24 F24 G23-4 F25 F24 G24 F24 F24-25 F25 G25 G22 F24 G24 H26 G22 F-G24 H-J25 H-J25 H21 G21 H25 F-G25 H21 H21 H21 G21 H23-24 H26 G21 J25 G25 G21 G21 M23-24 N23 Q21 O23 O23-24 P23-24 O24 Q24 Q21 P24 F24 F25 G24 F25 G24 G24 G24 G25 J25 G25 G-F/24-25 G24 G24 J25 H27 F25

Floor Courtyard Room Room Courtyard? Silo Courtyard? Silo Courtyard? Plaster floor Constructional fill 1459 Drain Room Room Doorway Constructional fill Constructional fill Fill Piazza 2944 Pillar base Room Room

6

6.6

2

2.18

6

3.3, 6.13

2, 6, 8

6.13

608

6179 6174 6184 6184 6107 6204 6107 6206 6107 6209 6211 6212 6214 6215 6216 6227 6228 6231 6233 6234 6240 6240 6243 1430 6251 6254 6260 6262 6263 6268 6271 6274 6280 6283 6286 6280 6280 2943 7007 7010 7014 1130 7020 3827 2718 7029 7021 7100 7101 7133 7133 7119 7120 7119 7120 7129 7120 7133 7137 7133 7143 7144 7133

Constructional fill 1459 Room Pillar base Pit Silo/pit Pit Constructional fill 1459 Entrance Room Room Constructional fill 1459 Room Room Room Ash layer 2924 Silo Floor Silo Courtyard Foundation deposit Floor below cache of vessels Pit Floor Floor below 3827 Foundation trench Silo/pit Courtyard Courtyard Room Room Room Room Pit Room Courtyard Room Courtyard Plaster floor Plaster floor Courtyard

2, 7 2 2 2 2

2.41 3.3 2.18 2.41, 2.43 2.41, 2.43 2.18 2.20, 2.43

12 2

6.2 2.18

2, 7 13

2.18

2

3.3 2.2 2.43 6.13 6.13 6.13 3.3 2.18 2.18 2.41 3.3 2.2

6 3, 8 6

6.13 3.11 6.13

3, 8 3

3.18 3.18

3, 8

3.11

2 3

2.18 6.13

2, 7 2, 7

2.2, 2.20 2.2

2 2 6, 8 6 2 2

19 2, 7 2

2.2 2.2, 2.20

2 2, 7

2.18 2.41

Locus

Final Locus

Stratum

Square

Description

7146 7147 7151 7153 7154 7159 7161 7165 7168 7169 7170 7179 7182 7183 7193 7195 7198 7199 7202 7203 7206 7210 7216 7218 7222 7225 7233 7240 7241

7133 1459 7151 7153 7153 7159 7161 7169 7169 7169 7199 7199 7182 7183 7199 7195 7198 7199 7202 7203 7206 7210 7216 7218 7222 7225 7233 7240 7241

X17a X14b X17a X17b X17b X17c X15 X17c X17c X17c X18 X18 X17c X15 X18 X17c X18 X18 X19 X19 X19 X19 X2 or X1 X2 or X1 X19 X14a X15 X16 X16

G25 L25 G24 F24 F25 G25 G41 G24/25 F24 G/F24/25 G24/25 F25 F24 G27 F24 F25 F24/25 F24 F25 F24 F25 F25 F27 F26 F25 F26 F26 F22 E22

Courtyard Constructional fill 1459 Burial Courtyard Courtyard Room Room Courtyard Courtyard Courtyard Fill Fill Tabun/oven Floor Fill Burial Fill Fill Living surface Living surface Living surface Living surface Debris Foundation Trench Fill Favissa Cultic installation Room Room

Chapter

Figures

2, 7 2, 7

3.3 2.2, 2.20 2.2

2 2, 7

2.2 2.41, 2.43

2, 7, 13 2

2.2

2 2

2.2 2.41

2, 7 2 2, 7 2, 7 2, 7 2 2 14

2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.41

7 2, 3, 8, 13 2 2 2

3.3 2.41 2.18 2.18

609

INDEX OF WALLS Locus

Stratum

Square

Chapter

Figures

D252 D241 D251 D260 G221 G251 H251 J181 J201 J221 J222 K201 K202 K211 K221 K222 K223 K231 K232 L172 L211 L212 L214 L215 L216 L217 L218 L221 L222 L223 L231 L232 M213 M214 M222 M223 M231 M232 N211 N221 N222 N231 N232 N241 N242 N243 N251 N252 O211 O222 O231 O261 O262 O271 P221 P222 P223 P224

X15 X15 X16 X16 X4 X14a X11?, X8? X5 X9 X11 X13 X9 X9 X9 X7 X11 X11 X11 X6 X5 X7-X6 X7-X6 X11 X11 X11 X13 X13 X7 X11 X7-X6 X6 X7 X7-X6 X7-X6 X11 X11 X13 X13 X12 X12 X13 X12 X12 X11b X11b X11 X11a X11b X12 X12 X12 X11b X11a X11b X12 X12 X13 X12

D25 D24 D25 D26 G22 G25-G24 H25 J18 J20 J22 J22-J23 K20 K20 K21 K22 K22 K22 L23-K23 K23-l23 J/K/L/17 L21 L21 L21 L21 L21 L21 L21 L22 L22 L22 L23 L23 M21 M21 M22 M22 M23 M23 N21 N22 N22-N21 N23 N23 N24 N24 N24 N25 N25 O21 O22 O23 O26 O26-25 O27 P22 P22 P22 P22-P21

2 2 2 2

2.41 2.41 2.18 2.18 3.4 3.3, 6.2 6.2 4.2 6.6 6.2 3.11 6.6 6.6 6.6, 6.14 6.9, 6.14 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.14 4.2 6.14 6.14 6.2 6.2 6.2 3.11 3.11 6.9, 6.14 3.25, 6.2 3.25, 6.14 6.14 6.14 6.14 6.14 6.2 6.2 3.11, 6.14 3.11 3.18 3.18 3.11 3.18 3.18 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 3.18 3.18 3.18 6.1 6.1 6.1 3.18 3.18 3.11 3.18

610

3 6

3

6 6

6 6

3 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 6 3 3 3 6 6 6 3 3 3

Locus

Stratum

Square

P231 P232 P234 P235 P262 P263 P264 P272 P273 Q221 Q222 Q231 Q244 Q245 Q251 Q252 Q253 R243 R252 R253 R255 R266 R267 R273 6119 6130 6156 6183 6190 6245 6273 6276 6277 6278 6282 6289 6296 6297 7115 7125 7134 7135 7139 7158 7201 7204 7205 7235 7236 7237 7238 7239 7242 7243 7245 7246 7247

X12 X12 X13?, X12 X13-X12 X11a X11b X11b X11a X11b X13?, X12 X12 X12 X11 X13-X12 X1-X2 X1-X2 X13-X12 X13-X12 X11b X11b X11b X11b X11b X11b X1 X15 X15 X16 X16 X16 X16 X16 X16 X15 X16 X16 X16 X15 X17 X15 X17 X17 X15 X17 X16 X19 X19 X16 X17 X17 X16 X16 X15 X16 X16 X15 X14

P23 P23 R23-O24 P23 P26 P26 P26 P27 P27 Q21-Q23 Q22-P22 Q23 Q24-N24 Q24-R24 Q25 Q25 Q25 R25 R25 R25 R25 R26 R27 F26-25 F25 F25 H22 G23 H/J25 G22 G21 G21 G21 H25 H27 G21 G21 G24 H27 G24 G25 G26 F25 G27 F24 F25 E24/25 F24/25 G25 D22 D23 G/F25 J24/25 J/H24 G24 H27

Chapter 3 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 3 6 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3

Figures 3.18 3.18 3.11, 3.18 3.11, 3.18 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 3.11, 3.18 3.18 3.18 6.1 3.11, 3.18 3.16 3.17 3.11, 3.16 3.11, 3.18 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 2.43 2.41,. 2.43 2.41 2.18, 2.41 2.18, 2.41 2.2, 2.18, 2.41, 2.18, 2.41 2.18, 2.41 2.18, 2.41 2.41 2.2, 2.18, 2.20, 2.41 2.18, 2.41 2.41 2.41 2.2, 2.20 2.41 2.2 2.2 2.41 2.2 2.18 2.2 2.2 2.18, 2.41 2.2 2.2 2.18, 2.41 2.18, 2.41 2.41 2.18, 2.41 2.18, 2.41 2.41 Not on plan

611

EMERY AND CLAIRE YASS PUBLICATIONS IN ARCHAEOLOGY Monograph Series of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology 1.

EXCAVATIONS AND STUDIES: Essays in Honour of Prof. Shmuel Yeivin. Y. Aharoni (ed.). 1973. (Hebrew)

2.

BEER-SHEBA I: Excavations at Tel Beer-sheba 1969-1971 Seasons. Y. Aharoni (ed.). 1973.

3.

TIRAT-CARMEL: A Mousterian Open-air Site in Israel. A. Ronen and M. Davis. 1974. (Hebrew)

4.

INVESTIGATIONS AT LACHISH: The Sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish V). Y. Aharoni. 1975.

5.

CANAANITE GODS IN METAL: An Archaeological Study of Ancient Syro-Palestinian Figurines. O. Negbi. 1976.

6.

THE CONQUEST OF LACHISH BY SENNACHERIB. D. Ussishkin. 1983.

7.

BEER-SHEBA II: The Early Iron Age Settlements. Z. Herzog. 1984.

8.

EXCAVATIONS AT TEL MICHAL, ISRAEL. Z. Herzog, G. Rapp Jr. and O. Negbi (eds.). 1989.

9.

PREHISTORIC ANATOLIA: The Neolithic Transformation and the Early Chalcolithic Period. J. Yakar. 1991.

9a.

PREHISTORIC ANATOLIA: SUPPLEMENT No. 1. J. Yakar. 1994.

10.

SHILOH: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site. I. Finkelstein (ed.). 1993.

11.

îORVAT QITMIT: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev. I. Beit-Arieh (ed.). 1995.

12.

THE NAîAL QANAH CAVE: Earliest Gold in the Southern Levant. A. Gopher (ed.). 1996.

13.

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE CITY: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and its Social Implications. Z. Herzog. 1997.

14.

HIGHLANDS OF MANY CULTURES: The Southern Samaria Survey: The Sites. I. Finkelstein (ed.). 1997..

15.

TEL >IRA: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev. I. Beit-Arieh (ed.). 1999.

16.

APOLLONIA-ARSUF: Final Report of the Excavations. Volume I. I. Roll and O. Tal (eds.). 1999.

17.

ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY OF ANATOLIA: Rural Socio-economy in the Bronze and Iron Ages. J. Yakar. 2000.

18.

MEGIDDO III: The 1992-1996 Seasons. I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern (eds.). 2000.

19.

APHEK-ANTIPATRIS I: Excavation of Areas A and B. The 1972-1976 Seasons. M. Kochavi, P. Beck and E. Yadin (eds.). 2000.

20. TEL KABRI: The 1986-1993 Excavation Seasons. A. Kempinski. 2002. 21.

ARCHAEOLOGY IN SINAI: The Ophir Expedition. I. Beit-Arieh. 2003.

22. THE RENEWED ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS AT LACHISH (1973-1994). D. Ussishkin. 2004. 23. INSCRIBED IN CLAY: Provenance Study of the Amarna Letters and Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Y. Goren, I Finkelstein and N. Na’aman. 2004. 24. MEGIDDO IV: The 1998-2002 Seasons. I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern (eds.). 2006. 25.

îORVAT >UZA AND îORVAT RADUM: Two Fortresses in the Biblical Negev. I. Beit-Arieh. 2007.

26. TIMBER IN ANCIENT ISRAEL: Dendroarchaeology and Dendrochronology. N. Liphschitz. 2007 27.

612

APHEK-ANTIPATRIS II: The Moshe Kochavi and Pirhiya Beck Excavations. Y. Gadot and E. Yadin. 2009.