Lahav I. Pottery and Politics: The Halif Terrace Site 101 and Egypt in the Fourth Millennium B.C.E. 9781575066059

Citation preview

Lahav I Pottery and Politics: The Halif Terrace Site 101 and Egypt in the Fourth Millennium b.c.e.

r e p o r t s o f t h e l a h av r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t

Excavations at Tell Halif, Israel Series Editor: Joe D. Seger

Volume I. Pottery and Politics: The Halif Terrace Site 101 and Egypt in the Fourth Millennium b.c.e., by J. P. Dessel Volume II. Households and the Use of Domestic Space at Iron II Tell Halif: An Archaeology of Destruction, by James Walker Hardin

The Lahav Research Project is sponsored by

The Cobb Institute of Archaeology Mississippi State University

and is an affiliated project of The American Schools of Oriental Research

L a h av I Pottery and Politics: The Halif Terrace Site 101 and Egypt in the Fourth Millennium b.c.e.

J. P. Dessel

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2009

ç Copyright 2009 by Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lahav I : pottery and politics : the Halif Terrace site 101 and Egypt in the fourth millennium b.c.e. p. cm. — (Reports of the Lahav research project excavations at Tell Halif, Israel) “The Lahav research project is sponsored by the Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State University, and is an affiliated project of The American Schools of Oriental Research”. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-57506-157-3 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Halif Site (Israel) 2. Excavations (Archaeology)—Israel—Halif Site. 3. Israel—Antiquities. I. Cobb Institute of Archaeology. DS110.H285L34 2009 933—dc22 2008046833

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. †

In memory of my mother and father, Lenore and Ben Dessel

Frontispiece: Aerial photograph of the Halif Terrace, looking west.

Contents Series Editor’s Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

Site 101 Field Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Acknowledgment of LRP Major Donors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv

Author’s Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xx CHAPTER 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

CHAPTER 2

The Halif Terrace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

A. History of Research and Excavations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1. Site Location and Environment 7 2. Trade Route or Backwater? 10 3. Tel Halif as a Demographic Catchment Zone 11 4. Biblical Identification 12 5. The History of Archaeological Activity at Tell Halif and the Halif Terrace 13 6. Exploration on the Eastern Terrace 14 7. The Lahav Research Project 15 8. Nahal Tillah Project 17 B. The Comparative Stratigraphy of the Halif Terrace Occupation . . . . . . . . 18 1. Phase 10 / Stratum XIX: Terminal Chalcolithic 20 2. Phase 9 / Stratum XVIII: EB IA 24 3. Phase 8 / Stratum XVII: EB IB Early 27 4. Phase 7/6 Stratum XVI: EB IB Late 31 5. Phase 1 / Post Stratum XII Early Bronze IV Mixed Fills 35 6. Site 301 35

CHAPTER 3

Site 101 Ceramic Fabric Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

A. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 B. Local Fabric Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 1. Group 1, Calcite 42 2. Group 2 45 3. Group 3 48 4. Group 4 50 5. Group 5 52 6. Group 6 53 7. Group 7 55

Contents

viii

C. Egyptian Fabric Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 1. Group 8 56 2. Group 9 58 3. Group 10 59

CHAPTER 4

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions . . . . . . . . . . . 60

A. Local Form Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 1. Holemouth Jars 60 2. Group 1 Holemouth Cooking Pots 61 3. Group 2 Holemouth Cooking Pots 66 4. Holemouth Storage Jars 67 5. Jars 71 6. Vats 78 7. Jugs and Juglets 83 8. Mugs 85 9. Squared-Rim Bowls 87 9. Cups 89 11. Hemispherical Bowls 93 12. V-Shaped Bowls 96 13. Straw-Tempered Beakers 101 14. Cornets 105 15. Churns, Stands, and Trays 107 B. Egyptian Form Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 1. Rolled-Rim Bowls 107 2. Hybrid Rolled-Rim Bowls 109 3. Egyptian Lotus-Shaped Bowls 109 4. Bread Molds 110 5. Egyptian Holemouth Jars 111 6. Hybrid Egyptian Jars 113 7. Drop Juglets and Miniature Jars 113 8. Straight-Sided Bowls and White Cylindrical Bowls 115 9. Egyptian Storage Jars 116

CHAPTER 5

Production Traditions and the Organization of the Ceramic Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

A. Ceramic Typology and Production Traditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Organization of Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Household Production 122 2. Household Industry 123 3. Workshop Industry 123 C. Craft Specialization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Household Production for Domestic Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. Workshop Production for Domestic Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. Egyptian Production Traditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

120 121

123 124 125 126

Contents

ix

1. Egyptian Household Production for Domestic Use 126 2. Hybrid Vessels 127 3. Local Egyptian Workshop Production 127 4. Foreign Workshop Production 128 G. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

CHAPTER 6

Colonialism, Commerce, and Egypto-Levantine Relations at the Dawn of the State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

A. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Conquest or Commerce: Static Views of Turbulent Times . . . . . . . . . . . C. The Long View of Egypto-Levantine Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Sporadic Contacts: Developed Chalcolithic / Naqada I–IIA 135 2. Entrepreneurial Exploration: Early Bronze IA / Naqada IIB–C/D2 3. Direct Settlement: Early Bronze IB/Naqada IIIA–C1 / Tomb U-j 4. Conclusions 141 D. Dynamic-Tension Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Pace 145 2. Scale 145 3. Intensity 145

CHAPTER 7

130 131 134 138 139 143

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

A. A New Methodological Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Ceramic Industry on the Halif Terrace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Egypto-Levantine relationship in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plate and Description Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

147 149 151 152

Works Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

Series Editor’s Preface This volume is the first in a planned series of reports on the investigations of the Lahav Research Project (LRP) at Tell Halif, located near Kibbutz Lahav in southern Israel. LRP research focused widely on stratigraphic, environmental, and ethnographic problems related to the history of settlement at Tell Halif and its immediate surroundings, from prehistoric through modern times. The project was initiated in 1975 with sponsorship by the University of Nebraska at Omaha and since 1983 has received its primary support from the Cobb Institute of Archaeology at Mississippi State University. During all field seasons, efforts have also been assisted by consortia of other American academic institutions (see below) and with support in Israel from the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, both in Jerusalem, and from the Joe Alon Center for Regional and Folklore Studies at Kibbutz Lahav. Throughout, the LRP has been affiliated with the American Schools of Oriental Research as one of its approved projects. LRP investigations at Tell Halif have continued through several phases embracing 12 seasons of field excavation between 1976 and 1999. Through all phases, financial support by consortium institutions was supplemented by generous private contributions from staff members and subscribers and from field school and volunteer worker participants. Patrons and major donors are recognized in the acknowledgment list appended below. A full list recognizing all contributors and participants can be found on the Digmaster web site at www.cobb.msstate.edu. We are sincerely grateful to this very large group of individuals for their participation in and support of LRP work. At the same time, we also recognize that none of the project’s work could have been accomplished without the enabling help of the members of Kibbutz Lahav. With warm encouragement and much material assistance, Lahav’s members provided a supportive and congenial home base for the team’s field research throughout the past thirty years. It is most appropriate that the first report in this LRP series focuses on remains from Site 101. It was to precisely this spot on the Halif Terrace that, in the spring of 1973, Dr. Avram Biran, at the time Director of the Israel Department of Antiquities, called Joe Seger and members of the subsequent LRP team to undertake salvage excavation work. The salvage involved investigation of a warren of shallow caves exposed by widening the road into the kibbutz. The brief 10-day effort produced only marginally significant results but did serve to confirm the observations of others, including Ram Gophna of Tel Aviv University and David Alon of the Israel Department of Antiquities, that the terrace area spreading east from the foot of the tell had supported settlement as early as the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I periods. It was this first introduction to the site, along with warm encouragement received from the members of Kibbutz Lahav, that provided the impetus for the organization of a major long-term project. Phase I of LRP fieldwork was conducted in four seasons (1976, 1977, 1979, and 1980). These efforts were supported by an academic consortium that included the University of

Series Editor’s Preface

xi

Nebraska at Omaha; Emory University in Atlanta; the University of St. Thomas, Houston; Washington State University, Pullman, WA; St. John’s University, Collegeville, MN; and Lycoming College, Williamsport, PA. Joe D. Seger, from the University of Nebraska at Omaha (now at Mississippi State University) served as Project Director, with a Senior Staff that included Dan P. Cole of Lake Forest College, Lake Forest, IL; Mary E. Shutler from Washington State University (subsequently from the University of Alaska at Fairbanks); Paul F. Jacobs from the University of St. Thomas (now at Mississippi State University); Oded Borowski from Emory University; and Karen E. Seger from Omaha (subsequently from the University of Arizona, Tucson). Technical support during this phase was provided by Mark Laustrup, University of Nebraska at Omaha (surveyor/draftsman); Steven Falconer, University of Arizona (site surveyor); Robert Erskine, Sunnyside, WA, and Judith Berkowitz of Jerusalem (technical illustrators); Jeanne Smith, Wintherthur Museum, DE (conservator); and Patricia O’Connor-Seger, from Designhouse at Barat College, Lake Forest, IL (photographer). Amos Kloner, regional inspector for the Jerusalem District, provided liaison with the Israel Department of Antiquities (IDA), and Avi Navon, from Kibbutz Lahav, served as liaison with the kibbutz. During 1978 and 1979, Kloner also conducted excavations for the IDA at the satellite site of Hurvat Rimmon (Khirbet Rammamin) located just a kilometer to the south of the tell (Kloner 1980). During this first phase, excavation efforts were concentrated in three primary fields on the mound summit (Fields I–III). Satellite investigations also included a series of probes on the eastern terrace (which was designated survey Site 101) and in Cave Complex A, part of the ruins of Khirbet Khuweilifeh, a late 19th and 20th century a.d. Arab settlement located just below Field I. Project staff also conducted ethnographic research related to the investigation of these Khuweilifeh ruins among Bedouin and Fellahin ancestors still living in the area. In addition, an extensive site survey was made of the region immediately around the tell and extending 5 km to the north of the site. A synopsis of Phase I results is provided by Seger (J. Seger 1983). Phase II investigations were conducted during five seasons (1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1989). From the beginning of this phase, principal sponsorship for the project was assumed by the Cobb Institute of Archaeology at Mississippi State University. Other consortium schools included Emory University; Miami University, Oxford, OH; the University of St. Thomas; the University of Alaska at Fairbanks; the University of Wisconsin–Parkside, Kenosha, WI; and Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Kansas City, MO. The project’s Senior Staff remained the same as for Phase I. They were joined by a large group of specialists and consultants that formed a Staff Associates group. This group included Brent Baum, Baton Rouge, LA (field archaeologist); James Blackman, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC (archaeometry consultant); J. P. Dessel, University of Arizona (ceramics analyst); Jack D. Elliott, Mississippi Department of Archives and History (site survey consultant); Harold Forshey, Miami University, Oxford, OH (field archaeologist); Eugene Futato, Office of Archaeology Research, University of Alabama (lithics analyst); Mark Laustrup, Onalaska, WI (consultant in geography/geology and floral analyst); P. Kyle McCarter, Johns Hopkins University (consultant in Semitic languages); James Doolittle, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Frank Miller, Mississippi State University, and Thomas L. Sever, Earth Resources Laboratory, National Space Technology Laboratories, MS (consultants in remote

xii

Series Editor’s Preface

sensing); James Weinstein, Ithaca, NY (consultant in Egyptology); and Melinda Zeder, Smithsonain Institution, and Susan Arter, George Washington University (zooarchaeologists). Technical support during these seasons was provide by John W. O’Hear, Cobb Institute of Archaeology, and Jonathan Jacobs, Mississippi State University (computer facilitators); Jeanne Mandell, Chicago Institute of Art, and Ann Boulton, Smithsonian Institution (subsequently Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, MD) (conservators); George Allen, Anna Asquith, Holly Lott, and Cindy Martin, Mississippi State University, and Eleanor Barbanes, SUNY Buffalo (technical illustrators); and Patricia O’Connor-Seger, Mississippi State University (photographer). Amos Kloner served as IDA (subsequently Israel Antiquities Authority, IAA) consultant, and Avi Navon continued to assist with kibbutz liaison. During Phase II, excavations were continued in Fields I and III on the main mound, where efforts to expose Late Bronze and Early Bronze levels were resumed. In 1987 and 1989, probes into Iron Age II levels were also opened in areas along the southwestern summit, where work in a new field (Field IV) was planned. Following additional survey efforts on the Halif Terrace in 1985, new excavations were initiated in areas on survey Sites 101 and 301. On Site 301, located on the lower talus of the terrace area to the east, an extensive grid was plotted and excavation work was initiated in several areas surrounding one of the most productive probe locations. On Site 101, four areas (Areas 90, 91, 100, and 101) were plotted just to the south of a section explored by David Alon during salvage work for the Department of Antiquities in 1974. As indicated above, these Site 101 areas were also immediately proximate to the cave openings investigated in 1973. Excavation in these Site 101 areas was continued through the Phase III seasons in 1992 and 1993, and these efforts produced the stratigraphic and ceramic data analyzed in this volume. A synopsis of Phase II results is provided by Seger (J. Seger et. al. 1990). Phase III investigations were initiated in 1992 and continued during two additional field seasons in 1993 and 1999. Along with the Cobb Institute of Archaeology and Mississippi State University, consortium support was provided by Emory University, California State University at Los Angeles, Gustavus Adolphus College (St. Peter, MN), and Rhodes College (Memphis, TN). For Phase III, only Oded Borowski, Paul Jacobs, and Joe Seger continued as active Senior Staff, while Dan Cole, M. E. Shutler, and Karen Seger assumed consulting roles with the Staff Associates group. Jacobs and Borowski assumed responsibilities as Co-Directors for all Phase III operations, and Seger remained in the role of overall Project Director. Phase II specialists and consultants Jack D. Elliott, Eugene Futato, James Doolittle, and Frank Miller continued to participate in the field. They were joined by Susan Arter, Smithsonian Institution (subsequently at the San Diego Museum of Natural History) (zooarchaeologist); Arlene Rosen, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba, Israel (geoarchaeologist); and S. Homes Hogue, Mississippi State University (biological anthropologist). Technical support was provided by Kariman E. Seger, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ (photographer); Cindy Martin, Atlanta, GA, Jennifer Veser, Sarasota, FL, and Nichole Lantz of Mississippi State University (technical illustrators); and by Chris Holland and John Vanderswag of Concepthouse, Starkville, MS (computing specialists). Amos Kloner continued to serve as IAA consultant and Avi Navon as kibbutz liaison. Work during 1992 and 1993 focused on major new efforts in Field IV on the southwestern periphery of the tell. In these seasons, excavation work also continued at Site 101,

Series Editor’s Preface

xiii

and new regional survey work was conducted at Byzantine-period sites to the south and west (see on the Web at http://www.cobb.msstate.edu/dig/lahav/halif.html). The 1999 season involved additional work in Field IV, along with modest efforts in upper Field I. This work was designed specifically to provide opportunity for experimentation with fully digital recording processes on site (see on the Web at http://www.cobb.msstate.edu/dig/LRP1999-01/overview.html). From its inception, the senior leadership and staff members of the LRP have pursued a research agenda directed to the study of a broad range of historical, cultural, and environmental issues. Following the traditions of American work at Shechem and Gezer (see Dever and Lance 1978; Seger 1980), its field methods were designed to provide for comprehensive retrieval and detailed recording of data using a modified Wheeler-Kenyon system. Under this scheme, supervisors routinely produced seasonal field reports, with basic summary information and data records (see, e.g., Seger 1976b; Falconer 1977; P. Jacobs 1985). Copies of these reports were filed with the Antiquities Authority and affiliated research institutes in Israel and were distributed to consortium institutions. Otherwise, they were intended only for limited circulation among LRP Staff Associates to serve as the basis of later analytical and interpretive work. Through each of the project’s several phases, however, various aspects of the retrieval and recording processes were amplified and supplemented to accommodate better the interests and needs of staff specialists. Thus, for example, beginning in Phase II, more deliberate attention and care were given to the retrieval of faunal materials, and an in-field zooarchaeology lab was organized for detailed processing of materials. Similarly, during Phases II and III, the processes used for handling ceramic remains were modified. All retrieved samples, both body sherds and diagnostic fragments, were saved for use in restoration efforts and for subsequent detailed analysis. As demonstrated by J. P. Dessel’s work in this volume, this practice provided the basis for important new approaches to the study and interpretation of ceramic corpora, making the ubiquitous potsherd an even more useful and significant resource for understanding the social, economic, and political landscape of ancient cultures. As indicated above, this volume is the first of a planned series of printed reports. The LRP series volumes will normally include both field data and studies by specialists. While an ideal scheme might result in the reports on field data (stratigraphy, architecture, etc.) being produced first, the real-world scenarios that haunt scholars engaged in archaeological research (teaching and administrative duties, limits on laboratory facilities and related resources, family and community responsibilities, and other economic and time constraints, including the vagaries of job security in an era of increasing assessment and accountability, etc.) make adherence to a monolithic plan unworkable. This is especially true when a large group of collaborative scholars is involved. LRP publication efforts have, as a result, been affected by all of these constraints, and we have decided that, in order to honor our obligations for the final presentation of results, and in fairness to the individual efforts and accomplishments of the staff, we now need to move forward quite deliberately. Accordingly, a “first in, first out” approach has been adopted, with priority for publication given to volumes in the order in which manuscripts are produced. This will mean the appearance of some special studies volumes, such as Dessel’s, before volumes containing the related field data. We trust that our readers will not find this too disconcerting. Meanwhile, the seasonal

xiv

Series Editor’s Preface

field reports and other published preliminary studies, along with the resources provided by the Digmaster database on the Cobb Institute’s website (www.cobb.msstate.edu), should provide helpful interim supplements. The present volume is based on research undertaken by J. P. Dessel in the course of Phase II fieldwork and was initially produced as a Ph.D. dissertation for the Department of Near Eastern Studies at the University of Arizona (Dessel 1991). This initial study was amplified and refined using supplementary materials produced at Site 101 in 1992 and 1993. Credit for the careful recovery of the Site 101 and other data presented in this study belongs to the field staffs and crews involved in the Phases II and III excavation efforts (see the field staff listing for Site 101 below). However, this work was guided throughout by Dessel’s determined approach, requiring the total retrieval of all ceramic remains, and it was his rigorous follow-through on all details involved in the analysis of materials that produced the pioneering results herein presented. Joe D. Seger Cobb Institute of Archaeology January, 2005

Site 101 Field Staff During all seasons, Site 101 fieldwork was supported by the efforts of all participating Research, Technical, and Operations staff members. For a complete listing, see the Cobb Institute’s Digmaster web site at www.cobb.msstate.edu. 1983 Area 100 Probe Supervisor Harold Forshey, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 1985 Test Survey Supervisor Paul F. Jacobs, University of St. Thomas, Houston, Texas 1986 Field Supervisor Brent Baum, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Area Supervisor Penny Pearson, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Area Supervisor Alexander Joffee, University of Arizona Area Supervisor in Training Patricia Varnada, Jacksonville, Florida 1987 Field Supervisor Brent Baum, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Area Supervisor Penny Pearson, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada 1989 Field Supervisor Brent Baum, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Area Supervisor James W. Hardin, Mississippi State University Area Supervisor Robert Spell, Kent State University Area Supervisor in Training Sarah Gardiner, Beechwood, Ohio

Series Editor’s Preface 1992 Field Supervisor Area Supervisor Biological Anthropologist 1993 Field Supervisor Area Supervisor Biological Anthropologist

xv

Joe D. Seger, Mississippi State University Brent Baum, Baton Rouge, Louisiana S. Homes Hogue, Mississippi State University Joe D. Seger, Mississippi State University Kerry Adams, University of Arizona S. Homes Hogue, Mississippi State University

Acknowledgment of LRP Major Donors In addition to the sustaining support of the Cobb Institute of Archaeology at Mississippi State University and the seasonal assistance received from the member schools of our Academic Consortium, we are pleased to acknowledge here individuals and groups who made private contributions to the Lahav Research Project as Subscribers. Listed here are Subscribers who are considered Patrons and Donors; a full listing of Subscribers in all categories (including also Members, Associates, and Students) can be found on the Cobb Institute’s Digmaster web site at www.cobb.msstate.edu. The vital support provided by Subscribers helped launch the Lahav Research Project in its first years and greatly enabled the progress of its efforts through all phases. With the greatest sincerity we acknowledge and thank all our Subscribers for their generosity and willingness to share in this scholarly pilgrimage. Super-Patrons

(Cumulative gifts of $5000 or more) Susan Buffett Leonard D. Goldstein and the Hertz Corporation (Omaha, Nebraska) Mr. and Mrs. John Kimball Jeanne Jaggard Richard J. Scheuer Raymond D. Sloan and the Exon Company U.S.A (Houston, Texas) Shari Westrup Jr. Patrons (Seasonal gifts of $500 or more) Frederick Blumer Kathryn Cole Penny Davidson Margaret Emmons Sanford M. Fitzsimmons

Julie Galambush Albert Glock Peggy Gudbrandsen Mr. and Mrs. Richard Hiller Dorothy Houk

Betty G. Kahn Mrs. Betty Kelley Carl Kemper C. W. Knudson Stanley Leven

xvi David Lien Joy Ungerleider Mayerson Ray McGlothlin, Jr. Barbara Miley Herbert G. Mills Mr. and Mrs. Howard Mueller Sara Newman Raquel Newman Peggy A. Patrick Joe Seger

Series Editor’s Preface Celia Craig Robson Alvin A. Rosenfeld M. E. Shutler Cynthia V. Simmons Susan G. Smith Bea Verin Patty Vile Baron Travel Service St. Dunstan’s Episcopal Church Women (Houston, Tex.)

The Milton S. & Corinne H. Livingstone Foundation (Omaha, Nebraska) R. B. Saphir, Inc. (Omaha, Nebraska) Texas Eastern Transmission (Houston, Texas) Vincent’s Hardward Store

Super-Donors (Cumulative gifts of $500 or more) Helen Bogen John C. Carey Velma Fawley Sanford Fitzsimmons Peggy Gudbrandsen Miriam E. Jencks Mr. and Mrs. Rueben Kershaw

William E. McClure Mr. and Mrs John Montgomery Mr. and Mrs Howard Mueller Mr. and Mrs William J. Roberts

Mr. and Mrs Victor Schoonover I. M. Tretiak Mr. and Mrs Louis Werner Lionel A. Whiston Jr. United Educator’s Fund (Lake Bluff, Illinois)

Donors (Seasonal Gifts of $100 and more) Milton R. Abrahams Lorraine B. Anderson Nancy Armentor Weldon Barnett Lilace Ried Barnes Nancy Berman Philip Boatright Edmund L. Brunini Mr. and Mrs. Walter Chatfield Dan P. Cole Edna Coutts Alberic Culhane Mr. and Mrs. Arthur R. Day Benjamin Dessel Yolanda J. DuBoise Agnes Falconer

Robert Falconer Steve Falconer Thomas M. Fowler Linda Fulmer Eugene Futato Eduardo Guerra Louise G. Harper Diane L. Harter James R. Hatten Jo Ann Hawkins Louise Heidorn Ruth Hinden Beryl A. Hogshead Mr. and Mrs. Edwin Jones Leslie Knott Mr. and Mrs. Tim Keyser Michael Kukulka

George L. Lemon Donald Little H. A. Lippitz Jeanne Mandel Glenn F. Mathis R. Bailey Markham Pat Maybin Arien L. McDonald Jonathan Melman Frank Miller Ralph J. Moore Sidney H. Rand Ira Rezak Jane E. Richardson Susan L. Rothchild Victoria A Satterthwaite Julie A. Schram

Series Editor’s Preface Mr. and Mrs. Donald Schram Karen E. Seger Jack E. Seger Laurie Shuster Cynthia Simmons Susan G. Smith Sharon M. Smith Jacqueline B Walker Robert F. Watt Harry Williams Bruce Wolff Carole Wubbena Mr. and Mrs. H. W. Wyman Mrs. Frank York

Daniel Young Jr. Mary K. Young Beth Hillel Temple (Kenosha, Wisconsin) Beth Israel Sinai Congregation (Racine, Wisconsin) Congregation Temple Israel (Omaha, Nebraska) Episcopal Church Women, St. Dunstan’s Church (Houston, Texas) Hebrew Union College/JIR (New York, NY)

xvii H. D. C. Management Co. (Omaha, Nebraska) Isadora Dellheim Foundation, (Baltimore, Maryland) J. H. Bryan Foundation (West Point, Mississippi) Peat, Marwick, Mitchell Foundation (Chicago, Illinois) Rapid Printing (Omaha, Nebraska) Rehtmeyer Hardware (Omaha, Nebraska)

Author’s Foreword This project began as a doctoral dissertation presented to the Department of Near Eastern Studies at the University of Arizona; the dissertation was based on work at Tell Halif through the 1989 field season. In the final form presented here, however, this volume incorporates much additional data from the 1992 and 1993 field seasons, which were undertaken after the completion of the dissertation. The publication of any final excavation report is first and foremost a team effort. It takes many hands to pull together a final report, usually over a long period of time and always with a great deal of patience. I have been fortunate to be part of the Lahav Research Project, which has provided me with the necessary resources to complete this project, the publication of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I pottery from Site 101 on the Halif Terrace. While thanks go to all of the members of the Lahav Project team, there are several individuals without whose help this volume would never have been completed. These include Oded Borowski, John O’Hear, and Eugene Futato, who provided guidance both in the field and in the laboratory as the work proceeded, and most especially James Hardin, whose collegial support throughout had more to do with the completion of this volume than he knows. Special thanks also goes to Dylan Karges, Technical Illustrator at the Cobb Institute of Archaeology, who did much of the drawing and produced all of the final artwork and plates for the volume. I would also like to thank Avi Navon and the members of Kibbutz Lahav, without whose generosity and support none of this material would have been excavated. Many other colleagues have also helped in ways too many to enumerate. In particular, I would like to thank William Dever, Andrea Berlin, Jodi Magness, Ram Gophna, Baruch Brandl, Pierre de Miroschedji, Marcelo Campagno, Rachel Hallote, Sam Wolff, Benjamin Saidel, Yuval Yekultieli, Tom Levy, and the late Doug Esse. I have profited greatly from their generosity in spirit, their encouragement, and their willingness to share with me their insights on all matters Early Bronze, ceramic and otherwise. I would also like to thank Naomi Porat, who performed the petrographic analysis on the pottery; her analysis and comments were indispensable. Very special thanks are also due Eliot Braun, Edwin van den Brink, and Russell Adams, who read drafts of many of the chapters and provided truly invaluable comments. And to my colleagues Todd Diacon and Thomas Burman in the Department of History at the University of Tennessee and Gilya Schmidt of the Department of Religious Studies and head of the Fern and Manfred Steinfeld Program in Judaic Studies, goes a special word of appreciation for all of the positive and continuing support I have received. None of this research would have been possible, however, without the help of Joe Seger, Director of the Cobb Institute of Archaeology at Mississippi State University and Director of the Lahav Research Project, who so generously allowed me to work on this material from both the Halif Terrace and Tell Halif and who provided me access to the resources of the Lahav Research Project and the Cobb Institute. Joe has been supportive from the very first—when I met him in the garden of the Albright Institute in Jerusalem and he

Author’s Foreword

xix

invited me to work at Tell Halif. He has been a mentor, and without his guidance and experience I would not have been able to complete this volume. I also want to thank Seymour Gitin, the Director of the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem. Sy too has been a mentor and good friend throughout this undertaking. His existential wisdom has gotten me through seeming endless months of ceramic analysis. I also want to thank the staff of the Albright Institute where, as a fellow, I carried forward much of the initial research for the dissertation. Finally, I also offer my sincerest gratitude to Alexander H. Joffe. We have spent countless hours over the years talking about problems of the fourth and third millennia b.c.e., and his insights, sense of clarity, and humor have been essential to my own understanding of the southern Levant. Most of all, I owe sincere thanks to my wife Adrienne, who has always believed in me. She has picked up a lot of slack over the years and supported me without reservation. Without her sacrifices, much of my research would exist only in Excel files. In addition, I must also thank my children, Talia and Erez, who generously gave up their dining room table and me, as well, for countless evenings. Last, I want to thank my father, the late Benjamin Dessel, for his unstinting support, encouragement, and love throughout this entire process and my whole life. From childhood on, he taught me the meaning of hard work and diligence, and without him I could never have started, let alone finished. It is to the memories of my father and mother that this book is dedicated. Parts of this research and writing were funded by the Lahav Research Project, the Cobb Institute of Archaeology, fellowships from the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and the American Schools of Oriental Research, the University of Arizona, Richard J. Scheuer, and the Fern and Manfred Steinfeld Program in Judaic Studies at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. It goes without saying that I alone am responsible for any errors in fact or judgment found in this volume. J. P. Dessel, Knoxville, TN March, 2006

List of Figures Frontispiece: Aerial photograph of the Halif Terrace, looking west. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 1. Map of Tell Halif and the Halif Terrace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2. Map of the Southern Levant in Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I. . . . . . . . . . Figure 3. Aerial view of Sites 101 and 301, looking north. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 4. Stratigraphic Sequences and Periodization from the Halif Terrace. . . . . . . . . Figure 5. Site 101 Phase 10 Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 6. Site 101 Phase 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 7. Stone tournette pieces; Object No. 2165 limestone lower half (perforated), Object No. 2146 basalt upper half, L. 100078, Phase 10C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 8. (a) Object No. 2146—basalt tournette, upper half. (b) Object No. 2165— limestone tournette lower half. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 9. Site 101 Phase 9 Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 10. Pajama Ware, Early Bronze I decorated pottery, L. 100073, Phase 9A. . . . Figure 11. Clay jar sealing with seal impression, Object No. 1843a, L. 100073 (S101.100.257), Phase 9A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 12. Unfired impressed clay “bullae,” Object No. 1843 b–g, L. 100073(S101.100.257), Phase 9A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 13. Site 101 Phase 8 Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 14. Bone Cylinder Seal, Object No. 1483, L. 900020 (S101.90.95), Phase 8A . Figure 15. Site 101 Phase 7/6 Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 16. View of Phase 7/6 and House 100025. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 17. (a) In situ Egyptian bread mold in House 100025, L. 100034.P, Phase 6A (b) Egyptian bread mold. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 18a. Site 301 Plan of silos in Areas O5/N5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 18b. Site 301 Silos in Areas O5/N5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 19. Distribution of Fabric Group Counts by Phase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 20. Distribution of Fabric Group Weights by Phase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 21. Distribution of Individual Fabric Group Weights by Phase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 22. Comparison of Fabric Groups 1 and 2 Weights by Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 23. a—top: Distribution of Egyptian Fabric Group Counts by Phase; b—middle: Distribution of Egyptian Fabric Group Weights by Phase; c—bottom: Distribution of Egyptian Fabric Group Weights According to Individual Fabric Groups by Phase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 24. Distribution of Diagnostic Rim Types by Phase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 25. Holemouth cooking pot in Group 1 fabric with applied molding, L. 101026.P (S101.101.53: 1), Phase 8D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 26. Distribution of Holemouth Storage Jars by Fabric Groups and Phase. . . . . . Figure 27. Distribution of jars by Fabric Groups and Phase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 28. Distribution of Vats by Fabric Groups and Phase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi 8 9 10 18 21 22 23 23 26 27 28 28 29 30 32 33 34 36 37 40 41 42 44

57 62 64 69 73 79

List of Figures Figure 29. Vat with combing in Fabric Group 3, L. 91053. (S101.91.118: 1), Phase 9A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 30. Juglet in Fabric Group 5, L. 101033 (S101.101.90: 1), Phase 9A . . . . . . . . Figure 31. Distribution of Mugs by Fabric Groups and Phase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 32. Distribution of Squared-rim Bowls by Fabric Group and Phase. . . . . . . . . . Figure 33. Distribution of Cups by Fabric Groups and Phase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 32. Distribution of Hemispherical Bowls by Fabric Groups and Phase. . . . . . . Figure 35. Distribution of V-shaped Bowls by Fabric Groups and Phase. . . . . . . . . . . Figure 36. Distribution Graph of V-Shaped Bowl Rim Diameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 37. Distribution Graph of V-Shaped Bowl Rim Diameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 38: Pottery from Phase 10C, L. 101045.P (S101.101.116A/113A/114A). Two straw-tempered beakers in Fabric Group 7 and a vat in Fabric Group 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 39: Straw-tempered Beaker in Fabric Group 7, L. 100064.P (S101.100.238: 1), Phase 9B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 40. Distribution of Straw-tempered Beakers by Fabric Groups and Phase. . . . . Figure 41. Distribution Graph of Straw-tempered Beaker Rim Diameters. . . . . . . . . . . Figure 42. Distribution of Cornets by Fabrics Groups and Phase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 43. Distribution of Egyptian Form Types by Phase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 44. Egyptian Drop Juglet, L. 91031.P (S101.91.37: 1), Phase 6B . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 45. Imported Egyptian jar sherd in Fabric Group 10 with inscribed mark, Object No. 1250, L. 100015 (S101.100.37: 1), Phase 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 46. Imported Egyptian jar sherd in Fabric Group 10 with inscribed graffito, Object No. 1262, L. 100027 (S101.100.132: 1), Phase 6A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 45. Map of the Southern Levant and Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xxi

81 84 86 88 91 94 98 99 99

101 102 103 104 105 108 114 117 118 136

Chapter 1

CHAPTER 1

Introduction This volume is a study of the 4th-millennium pottery found at Site 101 on the Halif Terrace excavated by the Lahav Research Project from 1986 through 1993 (see fig. 1). The site of Tell Halif, located at the juncture of the Judean Hills, the northern Negev Desert, and the Shephelah in the modern state of Israel, is a multiperiod tell that includes a long, sloping terrace on a limestone formation that begins at the base of the tell and extends east for some 2 km toward the Yaval Valley (see fig. 2). While Egyptian pottery and material culture was known from the site already in the early 1970s (Gophna 1972), it was not until the Lahav Research Project undertook extensive excavations during the 1980s that large quantities of in situ Egyptian material were recovered. The focus of this study is threefold: (1) to present a typological analysis of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I pottery from the Lahav Research Project excavations of Site 101 on the Halif Terrace; (2) to explicate the nature of 4th-millennium ceramic production based at the Halif Terrace; and (3) to explore the culture history of the Halif Terrace fully, focusing on two significant issues: the transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze I period, and the nature of Egyptian–South Levantine 1 relations during the second half of the fourth millennium. It is to these last two issues that the results of the excavations on the Halif Terrace make the most significant contributions. The transition between the Chalcolithic (the terminal village phase of agro-pastoralism) and the Early Bronze I period, which begins the trajectory toward later small-scale urbanism based on intensive agricultural production, remains poorly understood. Though it has 1. Geographic terminology remains problematic for southwest Asia. Modern political designations and ancient geographical terms are often used interchangeably without precision. The term Canaan increasingly is used in place of Palestine, especially in the literature on the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age periods. However, though the term Canaan is certainly appropriate in the Middle Bronze Age and later periods, it cannot be used with any degree of accuracy in the Early Bronze Age and earlier periods. In this study I will use the term Southern Levant for the area of the modern states of Israel and Jordan and the Palestinian Authority (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). The Northern Levant then includes the area of modern Lebanon and coastal Syria; the ºAmuq Plain could also be included in the Northern Levant. Because this study focuses squarely on the southwestern part of the Southern Levant, which includes parts of Israel, Gaza, and Egypt (specifically the northern Negev, the southern Shephelah, the southern coastal plain including the Gaza Strip, and the north Sinai) I will use the term southern, or south, Palestine rather than southern Southern Levant which is awkward and confusing.

2

Chapter 1

received a great deal of attention in the scholarly literature, this transition is discussed mostly in terms of its chronological aspects (Blackham 2002; Joffe and Dessel 1995) and as a means for understanding the collapse of one cultural system and the emergence of another. The social dynamics of the transition itself, in terms of what persists or terminates and why, is rarely addressed (however, see Braun 1989a; 1990; 2000; Braun and Gophna 2004). Most scholars have clearly recognized that although, as in most transitional periods, there are key points of cultural disruption and change, there are also significant continuities. Unfortunately, continuities are usually discussed superficially. Dominant interpretations have in recent years privileged rupture and disjunction, thus creating the impression of a “clean break” between cultures. The roots of this preference are partially to be found in larger trends in archaeological interpretation that have focused on local processes and internal explanations, in contrast to earlier approaches that perennially stressed “invaders.” Continuities have become, ironically, a victim of an orderly, local viewpoint. Another factor has been that there are relatively few sites in which there is a clearly demonstrable degree of continuity between the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I periods. The Halif Terrace is one of these few sites and has the further benefit of being well excavated. The goals of this monograph are to discuss in full both the nature of the settlement at the Halif Terrace and, more specifically, the intersocietal relations between Egypt and the Southern Levant in the 4th millennium. It is this last topic that is most significant for developing our understanding of the later prehistory of the Southern Levant. This test case will also help form generalizations regarding the important, and in fact ubiquitous, role of small-scale neighbors of large “core” civilizations—in this case, Egypt. The question of intersocietal interaction is anything but abstract, since the Halif Terrace provides a unique opportunity to examine prehistoric intersocietal relations at the community level, precisely through study of ceramic production. Ceramics have been a central concern of Levantine archaeology since the emergence of pottery as a key cultural/chronological indicator during the late 19th century. Early Bronze Age studies in particular have been preoccupied with using ceramics to address terminology and periodization. With a few notable exceptions (see, for instance, Braun 1997), analyses of Early Bronze Age ceramics have until recently remained aloof from larger questions and approaches in ceramic archaeology (for a general discussion of this, see Dessel and Joffe 2000). The greatest challenge of interpreting Early Bronze Age pottery has long been to relate ceramic change—the variation of attributes such as style, decoration, and production technology through time—to socioeconomic and political change. This can only be done by expanding the questions beyond chronology and typology. The nature and relationships of elites, institutions, and households; the organization of production, distribution, and exchange; the question of prestige, tributary or capital economy, and the nature of power relations and accumulation—all of these are the types of “far-reaching deductions” to which Wright (1937: 1) alluded long ago. Over the last twenty years, archaeologists working with ceramics have paid increasing attention to ceramic technology and methods of pottery production (see, generally, Kingery 1990; Nelson 1985; Olin and Franklin 1982; Rye 1981; van der Leeuw and van As 1984). It is now widely recognized that ceramic analysis, when limited to simple typological observations based solely on attributes of form and decoration, limits and constrains archaeo-

spread is 13 points long

Introduction

3

logical—that is to say, social—interpretations. When looking within a larger ceramic context that includes the raw materials and manufacturing technology, along with style and function, it is possible to reconstruct the organization of ancient ceramic production. Changes in various components of ceramic production can, individually and collectively, be related to larger social, political, and economic changes within a society. Though not the cause of such changes, ceramic production can function as a barometer of sociopolitical developments. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine the range of potential questions that study of any newly excavated ceramic assemblage might address. Each archaeological site has particular characteristics: sites vary in preservation and distribution of their ceramic materials. Beyond this, the creation of an “assemblage” is contingent on varying field, recording, and analytical methods as well as overarching goals. The development of an analytical methodology for examining archaeological ceramics must, therefore, be both flexible and comprehensive. The first step in the construction of any ceramic typology is the selection of attributes to be analyzed and recorded. An initial analysis should take into account the interrelationship between ceramic attributes and not just the attributes themselves. The goal is to understand the ceramic system through the development of an integrated ceramic typology, rather than through the description of single attributes in isolation. This presupposes that ancient potters had an integrated production system that resulted in individual attributes changing purposefully and always in relationship with other attributes. The integrated ceramic typology does not pretend to reconstruct that system in toto, only to capture some of the interrelationships as they changed. The application of an integrated ceramic typology necessarily provides a more precise definition of ceramic “types” than do the more traditional single-attribute based typologies. The unit of analysis that results from the creation of an integrated typology is not simply a “type” (traditionally defined by vessel shape), but a ceramic production tradition. The precision of the integrated typology rests in the collection and organization of four attribute groups essential to understanding ceramics: fabric, form, manufacturing technology, and decoration. A ceramic production tradition is, then, a multidimensional ceramic type that is dependent on the relationship among four basic attributes—in effect, a matrix of attributes. Production traditions are therefore much more sensitive measures of changes in any one of the component attributes and, by extension, the social and economic decisions that drove these changes. Overall, in contrast to traditional typologies that rarely connect potters with their products, the detailed reconstruction of a production tradition attempts to model the decisions and preferences made by the potter (see, for instance, London 1988). The definition of production traditions, therefore, replaces the vague category “ceramic type.” Ceramic types are most frequently based on vessel shape and then focus on decoration. The ceramic type is typically generated merely as a means of classification, in order to contextualize a given assemblage chronologically rather than being used as a tool of social explanation. Furthermore, ceramic types are not often placed in the framework or context of a site’s economic activities. The quantification of pottery, the most common class of material culture found on the majority of Near Eastern sites, is a problem that is virtually ignored. 2 Yet, the most frequently 2. Though this is now beginning to change, see for instance Braun 1997 and Rast and Schaub 2003.

4

Chapter 1

used units of comparison are ceramic types or styles. The importance placed on the comparison of ceramic shapes and decorative motifs without any regard for the quantity of the material from a given context has led to oversimplification of the complexity of the ceramic assemblage. Not infrequently, this might mean that a limited number of sherds come to represent the entire ceramic assemblage. This has sometimes led to simplistic approaches to the identification and explanation of local exchange and trade networks, larger “interaction spheres,” and external cultural contacts. Lack of quantification has led to over-reliance on changes in decorative style and the presence of nonlocal pottery for demarcating and characterizing archaeological “periods,” regions, and even sites. 3 The only way production traditions can be traced is through the quantification of ceramic attributes. Quantification is predicated on the recovery and analysis of an entire ceramic assemblage, including both diagnostic (decorated and identifiable portions of vessels such as rims, handles, and bases) and nondiagnostic or body sherds. It is largely through the quantification of body sherds, which are not usually analyzed (or even saved) in much of Near Eastern archaeology, that a more precise means of tracking production traditions is possible. Quantification provides a means for measuring changes within and among attribute groups. The ability to count and weigh samples of ceramics by attribute provides an objective means by which to express the changes that took place within an assemblage both diachronically and synchronically. These indexes provide a much fuller picture of synchronic and diachronic variability and intrasite interconnections than single-attribute approaches. In effect, quantification permits aspects of wholes to be measured and compared through time and space. The ceramic material from the site of the Halif Terrace provides a unique opportunity to examine the relationship between cultural collapse and reformulation and the organization of ceramic production. The collapse of Chalcolithic culture and the transition to Early Bronze I in the Southern Levant are poorly understood (Amiran 1985; Braun 1989a, 2003; Hanbury-Tenison 1986; Joffe 1993). This analytical weakness is particularly vexing in that the Chalcolithic has long been understood as significantly more complex, in economic, social and symbolic terms, than Early Bronze I (e.g., Joffe et al. 2001). Because there are many instances of transitions from more- to less-developed culture, this would not ordinarily be a problem. However, Early Bronze Age urbanism rapidly emerges from a largely undifferentiated sociopolitical landscape during Early Bronze I, marked only by a few outstandingly large and complex sites. This makes the period especially challenging as a transition to an entirely new set of social and economic conditions that would dominate for nearly 800 years, from late Early Bronze I through the end of Early Bronze III. Many scholars prefer to disregard the problems presented by the Early Bronze I, a highly fragmented and variegated social landscape, in order to reconstruct a seamless evolutionary trajectory toward ever-increasing social complexity, reaching a protoliterate peak with the urban settlements of Early Bronze II and III. More recently, this type of elision has been redressed by studies of the Early Bronze Age social and symbolic landscapes (e.g., Philip 3. The quantification of entire ceramic assemblages is, of course, tremendously expensive and time consuming. Many excavations, especially salvage excavations, simply do not have the resources to undertake this kind of analytical program.

Introduction

5

2000; 2003). However, reconstructing the level and trend of social complexity in Early Bronze I and the internal dynamics of the transition from Early Bronze I to Early Bronze II remain as intractable as ever, particularly in precise social and economic terms. The emergence of “town culture” (Schaub 1982) or small-scale cities in Early Bronze II can be viewed as a “disjunctive leap” (Joffe 1993), but understanding what this meant at the site level for households and other social units remains elusive. This, then, is one potential area to which ceramic analyses may contribute. Part of the difficulty in discerning the nature of the development from the Chalcolithic through the Early Bronze II is a relative dearth of excavated sites that have a complete stratigraphic sequence. In the past decade, more sites have revealed complete or near complete sequences (Alon and Yekultieli 1995: 185; Dessel 1991; Kansa 2001). Some of the connective tissue linking Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age institutions can therefore be seen in types of material culture that might reflect, however dimly, the presence of both elite constructs, such as symbolism, and household production patterns. We may hypothesize that some material culture with either overt symbolic characteristics or tightly restricted production attributes might be understood as remnants of Developed Chalcolithic “managerial” elites who maintained some semblance of their former hierarchical positions after the collapse of that period’s religious-political structures. Unfortunately, the relative lack of either elite symbolism or tightly restricted patterns of production, distribution, and consumption, suggests that any remnant elites maintained a low profile during the Early Bronze I, a period of reorganization and consolidation, making their detection difficult. Again, as a hypothesis, the presence of elite continuity into Early Bronze I would, at the very least, help to shorten the distance of any disjunctive leap. In an attempt to gain better insight into some of the organizational structures operative in Early Bronze I, it is particularly instructive to closely examine ceramic production at a site in which Chalcolithic ceramic traditions persist, even as newly emerging Early Bronze Age traditions develop. By assessing the organization of production and changes, subtle shifts in the level, intensity, and direction of Early Bronze I socioeconomic organization might be clarified. The identification of differing organizations or social locations of production, such as the household level or workshop level, along with other economic interactions, such as the control over restricted resources, technological differentiation, control of exchange networks and the manipulation of a limited iconographic vocabulary, can be used to support the appearance of varying degrees of social differentiation and emerging economic forces (Rice 1981; Steponaitis 1983). Esse (1989) had anticipated many of these issues in his study of the Early Bronze ceramic industry, and various facets have been explored in subsequent studies of specific ceramic aspects, such as Goren’s (1987a; 1987b; 1991a; 1991b; 1995; Goren and Gilead 1987) and Porat’s (Greenberg and Porat 1996; Porat 1987; 1989a; 1989b; Porat and Goren 2002) exemplary work on fabric. As noted above, the integrated typology permits us to discuss the social units behind ceramic production in a more complete manner. The Terminal Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I material from the Halif Terrace helps bridge the gap between the developed, nonurban, unstratified societies, with religiouspolitical organization, of the Chalcolithic and stratified “urban” sites of the Early Bronze II. An examination of the ceramic industry at the Halif Terrace helps to unravel the local develop-

6

Chapter 1

ment of one form of craft specialization from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze I. Understanding the continuities and discontinuities in organizational relationships is essential to understanding the genesis and character of urbanism in the Early Bronze II. There is both indirect and direct evidence for ceramic production at the Halif Terrace. Most of the data used in this study are based on sherd material. Obviously, this not uncommon bias is potentially limiting. However, some direct evidence is available: the discovery of a tournette in Phase 10 (see chap. 2), which clearly points to local ceramic production. An equally critical problem is the dearth of comparable ceramic assemblages from other sites, especially for well stratified contemporaneous material dating to the Terminal Chalcolithic and Early Bronze IA phases. 4 There are three distinct ceramic production systems operative at the Halif Terrace: workshop production, reflecting some degree of craft specialization; a more informal level of household production; and specialized foreign production, responsible for the ceramic needs of an émigré community, in this case, Egyptian. Each production system is responsible for very specific components of style and technology within the overall ceramic assemblage. Likewise, each system has a distinct set of production interests and criteria that tended to make them exclusive. The maintenance of boundaries between production systems can be seen in the very limited number of hybrid vessels. Understanding these types of relationships provides the basic approach for addressing the larger question of two communities interacting in prehistory. The Egyptian–Southern Levantine relationship is the ideal situation for applying an integrated typological approach to ceramics. The social evolutionary context is clear—that is, the development of the Egyptian state and civilization, characterized by literature, centralized administration, kingship, unified socioreligious ideologies, which after approximately 3000 b.c.e. embarked on any number of imperial and colonial ventures outside its immediate borders. By virtue of its location, the Southern Levant bore the brunt of many of these adventures. The long-ranging cultural dynamics of the area, from the Neolithic through the Iron Age and later, clearly show ebbing and flowing patterns of interaction. Humans, plants and animals, technologies, raw materials, prestige goods, bulk commodities, technologies, symbols, and ideas moved in one direction or another in response to changing needs and circumstances. While “trade” is not always distinguishable from “empire,” the power imbalance between the two is unmistakable. But despite agreed upon macro dynamics, the meso- and microscale interactions that were the living tissue of “social evolution” and “empire” are to be found in archaeological realia. These realia, measured at a very fine scale by the interplay of ceramic form, ware, decoration, and production method, reflect the social balances that animated economics and politics. While this study does not claim to overthrow preexisting theories, it will present evidence that may be used in a sequential argument, “from pots to people” one might say, that gives firmer grounding to any archaeological or historical reconstructions of early Egypt and its neighbors. 4. The recent publication of Atiqot 45 (Braun and Gophna 2004), which is wholly dedicated to the Early Bronze Age site Afridar at Ashkelon, is of tremendous importance and adds immeasurably to our otherwise limited understanding of this transition.

CHAPTER 2

The Halif Terrace A. History of Research and Excavations 1. Site Location and Environment Tell Halif (Arabic Tell el-Khuweilifeh, grid reference 137.4/087.9) is a 4.8 hectare mound located at the juncture of three geographic zones (see frontispiece and fig. 1): the Judean Hills to the east, the Shephelah to the north and west, and the Negev Desert to the south, a region also referred to as the Northern Negev Foothills (Levy and Goldberg 1987: 2). The site is located in the Nahal Besor catchment area, which comprises 3,390 sq km, bordered by the Nahal Shiqma to the north, the Nahal Besor to the south, the Mediterranean Sea to the west, and the Judean Hills to the east (see fig. 2; Levy et al. 1987: fig. 1.2). The southern border of the Shephelah is the Nahal Gerar (Arabic Wadi esh-Sheriºa) (Smith 1966: 147). Its eastern border is the Yaval Valley, which Aharoni (1979: 262) obliquely refers to as “the trough.” The Negev Desert extends from the mouth of Nahal Besor in the west to Tell Halif, where it abuts the southeast corner of the Yaval Valley. Tell Halif lies just to the northeast of the head of the Nahal Gerar and rises to an elevation of 487.79 m above sea level. A series of limestone terraces extend to the east of the tell down to the floor of the Yaval Valley 1 (see Map 14 “Beer Sheva” 1: 100,000 Survey of Israel Map). The eastern terrace is over 12 ha and varies in elevation from 445 to 470 m above sea level (Alon and Yekultieli 1995: 185). Both the tell site and its eastern terrace are found on the grounds of Kibbutz Lahav (see figs. 1 and 3). The location of Tell Halif at the juncture of three distinct geographical zones is reflected in its geological diversity. The site itself is situated on an Eocene chalk complex and wedged between an Eocene marl-shale complex of the Shephelah and a Middle Cretaceous limestone-dolomite complex of the Judean Hills found on the eastern side of the Yaval Valley (Gilead 1995: 9; Laustrap 1976: 21; Levy and Goldberg 1987: 3, fig. 1.1). The site also sits at the juncture of two slightly different soil regimes that correlate to these geological 1. There is no traditional, historical, or Arabic name for this north/south valley that runs along the Wadi eth-Dhikah between Tell Halif and Tell Beit Mirsim, 13.6 km to the north.

8

The Halif Terrace

Figure 1. Map of Tell Halif and the Halif Terrace.

zones. Loessial, arid brown soils are found in the Yaval Valley that lies to the east of the tell and at foot of the Halif Terrace (for a general description of the Nahal Gerar see Gilead 1995: 9). In the mountainous areas around the actual tell, there are both arid, brown soils and brown lithosols (Laustrap 1976: 26, fig. 5; Levy and Goldberg 1987: 4, fig. 1.5). It is significant to note that the soils found at the site are well suited for grazing, whereas the soils in the Yaval Valley are favorable for agricultural cultivation (Gilead 1995: 13–14; Levy and Goldberg 1987: 4–5; Shutler 1976: 17), making this area ideal for a mixed agropastoral subsistence economy. The economic viability of the site is enhanced by a relatively stable water supply. Tell Halif lies just north of the 300 mm isohyet, receiving between 250 and 350 mm of rainfall annually, sufficient for dry-farming (Gilead 1995: 10; Laustrap 1977). 2 It has also been suggested that the paleoclimate of the northern Negev in the 4th and 3rd millennia was more humid and that the 200 mm isohyet was south of ancient Arad (Amiran and Ilan 1996: 2. But see Levy (Levy et al. 1997: 3) who states the area receives 400 mm of rainfall per year.

The Halif Terrace

Figure 2. Map of the Southern Levant in Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I.

9

10

The Halif Terrace

Figure 3. Aerial view of Sites 101 and 301, looking north.

139). This would have made the environment around Tell Halif even more attractive. It seems likely that the local groundwater was used throughout antiquity, because there are two wells in the immediate vicinity of the tell: Bir Abu Rakham and Bir Bustan. While the construction and use phases of the wells are not securely dated, Bir Abu Rakham does have deep rope marks around its mouth and is presumably ancient (Shutler 1976: 19). There are cisterns located on both the lower eastern terrace and the western side of the tell, and the cisterns located on the tell have been dated to the Iron II (Jacobs and Forshey 1988: 279). 2. Trade Route or Backwater? The location of the site is often attributed to its position along a purported east/west route leading from the Coastal Plain into the southern Judean or Hebron Hills (Levy et al. 1997: 3; Alon and Yekultieli 1995: 149). However, the assertion that the site is located along a strategic route is not supported by the occupational sequence of the tell. The site is undoubtedly located along a conduit from the southern part of the Central Hill Country to

The Halif Terrace

11

the coast, but just how important this route was, let alone the specific site of Tell Halif, has not been established. The occupational sequence and regional picture suggest, instead, that the area was something of a backwater. Tell Halif was abandoned in the Early Bronze IIIB, around 2300 b.c.e., and it remained uninhabited until the Late Bronze I (16th century), a gap of approximately 700 years (Seger et al. 1990: 3, Table 1). With the exception of a few Middle Bronze Age burials (see below), there was no occupation during that period. Because Hebron is believed to have been a prominent Middle Bronze Age city-state, any connection with the coast was not channeled through the Yaval Valley or Tell Halif (Naªaman 1992: 280–81). It seems unlikely that a site along such a strategic route would have been abandoned for 700 years, especially during the Middle Bronze Age. In the Late Bronze Ages I and II, and Iron Age I, settlement on the tell is limited and the site appears to be unwalled, suggesting a modest profile in these periods (Seger et al. 1990). This profile is seen most clearly in the Late Bronze II, a period defined by a high level of economic integration and vibrancy throughout the Eastern Mediterranean. Wealth, prestige, and literacy were reflected in a diverse array of material culture, and all of these are markers of the highest functioning Canaanite city-states, especially those mentioned in the Amarna Letters. Clearly, Tell Halif does not possess any of these attributes and was not in that class of sites. The primary occupation at the site appears to be a single wellappointed residency (Seger et al. 1990). However, it is not clear whether or not the entire tell site was occupied in the Late Bronze II. Field III produced only a small amount of Late Bronze pottery wedged between much more substantial Iron Age II and Early Bronze III strata. So, while Tell Halif might have been a robust rural site, it certainly was not one of the leading economic, political, or ritual centers of the period. This is all to say that if in the most vibrant and highly integrated period of the Bronze Age, the Late Bronze II, there are no indications of substantial traffic flowing past Tell Halif, then the route on which it lay was not a strategic one. It also should be noted that the Northern Negev was not thickly settled in either the Middle or Late Bronze Ages, which suggests that at least during the Late Bronze Age, if Tell Halif was not at the edge of the world, it was close to it. 3 3. Tel Halif as a Demographic Catchment Zone Rather than a site on a major route, Tel Halif and its vicinity should be understood as a margin into which demographic movements were periodically made. The settlement of the site in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I and III, in particular, should be evaluated based on environmental factors and large-scale demographic movements in those periods. In the Chalcolithic era, settlement on the Halif Terrace was restricted to the very end of the period, the Terminal Chalcolithic, after the collapse of the classic Chalcolithic core 3. It is interesting to note that in the 20th century this part of Mandatory Palestine, and then Israel, was also not thickly settled, inhabited mainly by Bedouin, and that traffic from Hebron to the coast or the northern Negev did not flow west down the Nahal Gerar.

12

The Halif Terrace

in the Beer Sheva Basin (Joffe and Dessel 1995). The Halif Terrace may have been settled, or its population significantly augmented, by an influx of people coming from the south after the collapse of sites like Shiqmim and other sites in the Beer Sheva Basin (see fig. 2). In the Early Bronze III, it is likely that the site once again functioned as a demographic catchment zone for the Early Bronze II population after the collapse and abandonment of Arad, the only major Early Bronze II settlement in the northern Negev (Amiran et al. 1978; Amiran and Ilan 1996). During the Early Bronze III, there is also something of an “urban explosion” in the Southern Levant, as seen in the emergence of a number of smallwalled towns or cities including: Tell Halif, Tell el-Hesi, Tell es-Sakan, Tell ºErani, Tell Yarmouth, Numeira, Khirbet Adar, and Bâb edh-Dhrâº, to name only a few. Much of this is stimulated by the fissioning of earlier towns and trade networks and their subsequent reorganization into smaller political units, each based on the surplus production of Mediterranean products (A. Rosen 1995; 1997). In both periods, the settlement at the tell and terrace is not primarily due to the site’s presumed strategic location but its environmental advantages and its ability to absorb demographic shifts. 4. Biblical Identification The Arabic name Khirbet Khuweilifeh appears on British Mandate maps in 1937. It was originally associated with the Arab cave dwellings at the eastern foot of the tell that were occupied until 1948 (see fig. 1; J. Seger 1983; K. Seger 1976). When the Department of Antiquities of Israel began investigating the site (see Biran and Gophna 1970), the mound itself was given the name Tell Halif. Many of the Iron Age sites located in the Shephelah and Coastal Plain have relatively secure biblical attestations, but this is not the case for Tel Halif. Tell Halif is frequently identified as either Ziklag (Abel 1938; Alt 1935; J. Seger 1984) or Rimmon (Aharoni 1979; Biran and Gophna 1970; Borowski 1988; Kallai 1986). Alternative biblical identifications include Kiriath-sepher, Sharuhen (Albright 1924a; 1924b; 1929), Hormah (Naªaman 1980), and even Goshen (see Aharoni 1979, who subsequently identified Tell Halif with Rimmon). Unfortunately, the excavations at Tell Halif have failed to produce any substantive data that positively identifies the site with any of the above mentioned biblical cities. Both Sharuhen and Hormah can easily be eliminated as possibilities. Sharuhen is closely connected with the Hyksos and with several Egyptian military campaigns into the Southern Levant (or what can now confidently be referred to as Canaan). Hyksos activity in Egypt and Canaan is confined to the Middle Bronze Age and Borowski (1988) correctly notes the lack of any such material at Tell Halif. Nor is Tell Halif located on a major route from Egypt into Canaan (see above). Hormah, based on references in Numbers 14:45, Judges 1:16–17, and Joshua 12:14, is better correlated with Arad, which is in the lowlands (Borowski 1988 contra Naªaman 1980). Seger (1984) has suggested that Tell Halif may well be Ziklag, a site closely associated with the Philistines (1 Sam 26:6–7). Although he notes a dearth of Philistine material culture at Tell Halif, he stresses its strategic position vis-a-vis the movements of David in 1 Samuel 27:8–12 and 30:26–31. Seger (1984: 50) accounts for the lack of Philistine pot-

The Halif Terrace

13

tery at Tell Halif by postulating that the Philistine ruler Achish (1 Samuel 27:6) would not give David a “. . . thriving Philistine city. . . .” He also connects the Amalekite raiding of Ziklag in 1 Samuel 30:1–2 to tenuous archaeological data at the site, suggesting some type of interruption or destruction. However, there is no real Philistine presence east of Gat (Stager 1995; see also Aharoni [1979: 291, 318 n. 11] who notes that Tell Halif is too far east to be Ziklag). Again, the lack of any significant amount of Philistine material culture compounds this problem. Both Oren (1982) and Borowski (1988) suggest that Tell eshShariºa, lying further to the west and containing significant quantities of Philistine pottery, is a more likely candidate for Ziklag. Based on these data and interpretations, it appears highly unlikely that Tell Halif should be identified as the biblical Ziklag. More convincing than these attempts to correlate archaeological data to specific biblical passages are the systematic efforts by Aharoni (1979), Kallai (1986), and Borowski (1988) that stress the continuity of site names. In the 19th century, Conder and Kitchener (1883: 392) identified Khirbet Umm er-Rammamin (Horvat Rimmon) with the biblical Rimmon. Khirbet Umm er-Rammamin is a Byzantine synagogue site about one kilometer south of Tell Halif (Kloner 1980). Abel (1938) then identified the Byzantine ruins on the eastern terrace of Tell Halif as Thala or Tilla, Aramaic for “the tell” (J. Seger 1983: 20). In the Onomasticon (Freeman-Grenville et al. 2003), Eusebius mentions two large Jewish villages, called Tala and Rimmon, which are located 16 miles south of Beit Jubrin (Bet Guvrin) in the district of “Daroma” (meaning “south”). Additionally, part of a Roman road is found near Kibbutz Lahav, possibly linking Bet Guvrin with ºEn Gedi (J. Seger 1976b). It is likely, then, that Rimmon (or En-rimmon) 4 is Khirbet Umm er-Rammamin, and that the Byzantine settlement on the Halif Terrace is Thala (see also Kloner 1984). Gophna (Biran and Gophna 1970) suggests that a shift in names occurred after the final abandonment of Tell Halif in the Roman period. The Byzantine synagogue site one km south of Tell Halif adopted the name Rimmon, which was preserved in Arabic as Khirbet Umm er-Rammamin. The later Byzantine resettlement on the Halif Terrace was referred to as Tilla, “the tell,” due to its proximity to the ruins on Tell Halif. Kallai (1986: 386) succinctly notes, “. . . that Enrimmon be identified with Tell Huwelifeh [Khirbet Khuweilifeh] on account of its proximity to ºUmm ºer-Ramamin [Umm er-Rammamin] which has seemingly preserved the ancient name of the site.” 5. The History of Archaeological Activity at Tell Halif and the Halif Terrace The area around the site of Tell Halif has been extensively surveyed and excavated since the 1950s (see fig. 1). The tell site itself has been excavated by the Lahav Research Project (henceforth LRP) under the direction of Joe Seger since 1976 (J. Seger 1983, Seger et al. 1990). On the Halif Terrace, there have been three major excavations: David Alon (1972–1977), Joe Seger and the Lahav Research Project (1986–1993), and the Nahal Tillah Project (henceforth NTP) under the direction of Thomas E. Levy (1994–1995). The total excavated area of all the projects on the terrace exceeds 3000 sq m (Levy et al. 1997: 6, 8). 4. See Josh 15:32, 19:7; 1 Chr 4:32; and Neh 11:29.

14

The Halif Terrace

The earliest archaeological investigations at Tell Halif date to the early 1950s and the survey work of David Alon (Borowski 1975: 1). In his investigations throughout the northern Negev Desert, Alon discovered Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age remains on the eastern terrace at Tell Halif (Gophna 1972: 48). In 1958, 4 Late Roman burial caves were unearthed during construction of the road into Kibbutz Lahav. 5 In 1962, one of these caves was excavated by R. Gophna and A. Biran for the Department of Antiquities of Israel, and the other 3 were excavated by kibbutz members (Borowski 1975: 2; 1976: 1). Excavation work at this Roman cemetery site was resumed again in 1974 by Amos Kloner of the Department of Antiquities. In 1965, more road construction led to the excavation of another series of Iron Age II tombs (10th to 8th centuries b.c.e.) that were then excavated by the Department of Antiquities of Israel (Borowski 1976: 1). All of these burial caves are located within 300 m north and south of the tell proper. In 1969, an Iron Age II hewn cistern was found during construction activity to the southeast of the site (Borowski 1976: 1). In 1971, some of the caves that surround and run beneath the tell were explored, revealing Early Bronze IV and Roman materials, as well as a Middle Bronze II burial cave. Several Middle Bronze IIB cist-shaped burials were found by Levy (Levy et al. 1997: 8, 10) in Area C at the Silo Site on the Halif Terrace. Interestingly, Levy does not report any Middle Bronze Age occupational strata, suggesting that, as with the tell, the burials on the terrace represent the full extent of the Middle Bronze Age presence. 6. Exploration on the Eastern Terrace Road construction in February of 1972 cut through the limestone terrace to the east of the tell and exposed part of the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I site, the same area identified by Alon in the early 1950s (Gophna 1972: 49). Joe Seger conducted brief investigations in the area for the Department of Antiquities in March 1972 (Borowski 1976: 3). Beginning the following November, Alon, also for the Department of Antiquities, initiated more extensive excavations on the terrace area, which continued through seven short seasons from 1972 to 1977 (Alon 1972; 1973; 1974; 1976; 1977a; 1978; Alon and Yekultieli 1995). The excavation fields included an area cut by Kibbutz Lahav during road construction (henceforth referred to as Alon Area A) 6 as well as 2 areas further to the east, just above the valley floor (henceforth referred to as Alon Area B and Alon Area C; 7 see figs. 1 and 3; see also Alon and Yekultieli 1995: 186 n. 1). Alon (1972: 34) immediately found pottery that Ram Gophna correctly identified as Predynastic Egyptian pottery, dating it to the late Naqada III/Dynasty 0 (Gophna 1972: 49). As Alon probed west of the initial road cut, he also found Byzantine and Islamic pottery across the entire terrace, covering the much earlier Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I material. 8 5. The discovery of many of the antiquities at Kibbutz Lahav were due to construction activities undertaken by the Kibbutz, which was founded in 1952. 6. This is referred to as #6 by Alon and Yekultieli (1995: fig. 29). 7. Alon and Yekultieli refer to this as the “silo site,” eschewing the term “EB I villa.” It is #1 on their fig. 29 (Alon and Yekultieli 1995). 8. These probes are ##2, 3, 4, 5 on fig. 29 of Alon and Yekultieli (1995: 183). Alon and Yekultieli (1995: 149) also report that Middle Bronze Age pottery was found on the Terrace.

spread is 10 points long

The Halif Terrace

15

In 1977, the Kibbutz cut 2 deep trenches at the eastern edge of the terrace near where it meets the valley floor. These trenches again revealed Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I deposits. Alon continued his salvage work by excavating between the kibbutz trenches, Alon Area B, and to the south of the kibbutz trenches, Alon Area C. Area B consisted of a single structure found just below the surface, dating to the Early Bronze I. This structure has frequently been referred to as the “Early Bronze I Villa” and is now known as the “silo site” (Alon and Yekultieli 1995). Area C, to the south of the trench, consisted of Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I pottery from unstratified deposits (see below). 9 7. The Lahav Research Project As noted above, in the Spring of 1972, Joe Seger, then director of Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem, also began archaeological investigations at Tell Halif. Following the March investigations on the eastern terrace, he was again called on by the Department of Antiquities in April to excavate three Iron II tombs uncovered during road construction activities south of the tell (Borowski 1975: 2). In 1976, Seger returned to Tell Halif to conduct a comprehensive, long term program of archaeological research known as the Lahav Research Project. 10 Along with an extensive excavation component, project efforts also included systematic archaeological survey of the surrounding area, environmental studies, and an ethnographic study of local Bedouin. Between 1976 and 1980 four seasons of excavation were carried out. 11 In 1976, excavation commenced in Field I on the northeast side of the tell (see fig. 1). This cut revealed Iron II and Roman/Byzantine material at the base of the tell. The work also explored a cave complex occupied from the Islamic Period through the 20th century. On the summit of the tell, material was discovered that dated to the Late Bronze Age II and Early Bronze Age III. Other probes revealed Byzantine pottery and Iron Age II occupation. On the terrace to the east of the tell, which Gophna (1972) had already referenced as the “Halif Terrace,” 12 Seger’s team excavated seven small probes along an upper section that was designated as Site 101 (see figs. 1 and 3). Alon’s earlier work on the terrace had by now established that this area was occupied in the Early Bronze I, and Seger (1976b: 12) was interested in assessing the extent of this early occupation to the east of the tell. These initial Site 101 probes revealed no architecture and produced only mixed deposits that had a wide range of pottery from the Early Bronze I through the Byzantine period. Additional probes were also opened to the south and west and onto the tell itself. These revealed stratified deposits from the Early Bronze I, Iron II, and modern periods.

9. For a complete report on this excavation, see Alon and Yekultieli (1995), “The Tel Halif Terrace ‘Silo Site’ and Its Implications for the Early Bronze I” in Atiqot XXVII. 10. Since its inception, the Lahav Research Project has been affiliated with the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, both in Jerusalem, the American Schools of Oriental Research, and the Joe Allon Center for Regional and Folklore Studies at Kibbutz Lahav. It is sponsored by the Cobb Institute of Archaeology at Mississippi State University. 11. These first four seasons are referred to as Phase I by the Lahav Research Project. 12. Gophna (1972) coined the term “Halif Terrace” (see also Alon and Yekultieli 1995: 149).

16

The Halif Terrace

In 1976, the Lahav Research Project also began a regional survey and ethnographic study. The survey collected archaeological and environmental data from an area approximately 1 sq km to the north of the site (Shutler 1976: 17). The ethnographic study investigated the recent habitation of the cave complexes at the eastern base of the tell (J. Seger 1976b: 14). Seventeen caves were identified and described in a detailed study and Cave Complex A was fully investigated and partially restored (see fig. 1; K. Seger 1976: 1). In 1977, 1979, and 1980 excavation continued on the tell in Fields I, II and III (see fig. 1). The down-slope squares in Field I, as well as the squares at the base of the tell, were discontinued as the LRP’s emphasis shifted upslope to expose the Late and Early Bronze Age remains. Field II, located on the highest point of the tell along its southwestern edge, was opened in order to provide a stratigraphic link between Fields I and III. The latest occupation in Field I dates to the Late Bronze II, while the stratigraphy in Field III indicates the presence of Iron II and Early Bronze Age material. It was hoped that the entire sequence from the site would be found in Field II. Indeed, the only in situ material from the Hellenistic and Persian periods was found in Field II, along with Iron II, Iron I, and Late Bronze Age materials. Field II excavations did not probe below terminal Late Bronze Age phases. The excavation of Field III, located at the northwestern corner of the tell, also began in 1977. Extant architecture, as well as the results of 1976 probes, indicated substantial in situ deposits. The location of Field III was chosen to straddle the wall system in order to expose both domestic and monumental architecture. A well preserved series of rooms dating to the Iron II was immediately found. Other archaeological data from this field include a very small amount of Late Bronze Age material as well as evidence of a substantial Early Bronze III occupation. 13 The regional survey continued in 1977 with a focus on “the nature and extent of land utilization around the Tell” (Falconer 1977: 1). The 1977 survey went beyond the northern survey limits reached in 1976 and included areas to the south and west of the tell. Three more tombs from the Site 72, Iron Age cemetery were excavated in the 1977 field season. Between 1983 and 1989 the Lahav Research Project undertook 5 more seasons of excavation and survey (Seger et al. 1990). 14 Excavation on the tell was restricted mainly to Fields I and III with an emphasis on the Early Bronze III stratum. Another survey was initiated by Jack Elliot in 1983. It was designed “. . . to locate and examine evidence of cultural activities associated with the tell but not lying on it, and to determine by sampling colluvium if there were unknown cultural components present on the tell” (Elliot 1983: 1). Elliot continued his survey in 1984, focusing on the Byzantine settlement pattern to the northwest of Tell Halif. In 1985, Kibbutz Lahav began expanding onto the terrace area southeast of the tell and extended their perimeter fence. These construction activities unearthed in situ archaeological deposits, including architecture, and the Department of Antiquities halted further 13. The success of uncovering rich Iron Age II deposits in Field III led to the expansion of this field across the western side of the site, ultimately resulting in the creation of a new excavation field, Field IV, as part of Phase III Project efforts (see fig. 1). 14. The work done between 1983 and 1989 is referred to as Phase II by the LRP.

The Halif Terrace

17

construction until salvage archaeology was undertaken. The result was a series of hastily cut probes from the base of the tell east to the road; these probes were also used to plan for future, more systematic work on the terrace (Jacobs 1985: 1). Probes inside of the fence, and to the south and west of the road, found a wide range of pottery dating to the Early Bronze Age, Iron Age, Hellenistic, Byzantine, Islamic, and Ottoman periods. Five probes were also excavated to the east of the road, in what was designated as Site 301. Several of these were immediately adjacent to Alon’s Area B, “silo site.” The goal here was to determine whether other architectural remains were present between Alon’s Area A and Area B on the far eastern end of the terrace. Only one probe area, N6, midway between these two points on the Site 301 grid, produced new traces of in situ architecture and cultural deposits. (see figs. 1 and 3). In 1986, 1987, and 1989 excavation continued both on the tell, in Fields I, III and IV, and on the terrace, in Sites 101 and 301. In Field I, the earliest Late Bronze I material was removed and work continued on the Early Bronze III deposits. In Field III, excavation focused on the Iron Age and Early Bronze Age wall systems. In 1989, work on the tell was restricted to Field IV, a new field adjacent to Field III on the northwest corner of the tell and dealt with the primarily Persian and Iron Age II strata. Beginning in 1986, work on the terrace became more intensive and systematic (see fig. 1). Four 5 x 5 sq m were opened in Site 101, located adjacent to Alon’s 1972 and 1974 excavations west of the road (Alon 1972; 1974; see also Alon and Yekultieli 1995: fig. 29 #6), also referred to as the ‘eastern road’ excavation. Based on the results from probe N6 on Site 301, work was continued there in 4 adjacent grid blocks, Areas N5, 04, 05, and P5. These areas were located on a line just to the west of Alon’s “silo site” and Levy’s Nahal Tillah excavation eventually moved west onto the Site 301 grid up to the line of the eastern boundary of Areas N6 and N5 (see below; Seger 1996: fig. 1; see also Alon and Yekultieli 1995: fig. 29). Work in Site 101 continued in 1987, 1989, 1992, and 1993, and Site 301 was excavated in 1986 and 1987. 15 8. Nahal Tillah Project The most recent excavation at the Halif Terrace was by Thomas Levy (see fig. 1). The Nahal Tillah Project (NPT) excavated for two seasons in 1994 and 1995. The excavation area lay just south of and adjacent to Alon’s “silo site,” and to the east and south of Site 301 Areas N5 and N6. Its location was about 170 m downslope from Site 101. 16 Levy excavated over 1,300 sq m, uncovering a large complex of Early Bronze IA and B buildings. The efforts produced a tremendous amount of Egyptian pottery and an impressive array of seal impressions (Levy et al. 1995; 1997).

15. The 1992 and 1993 seasons were the final efforts by the LRP on the Halif Terrace. The excavation of Site 101 was completed in 1993 when bedrock was reached throughout the field. Work in Site 301 was discontinued after 1987. 16. Levy refers to his excavation area as either Nahal Tilla or the Silo Site, as it overlaps with Alon’s “silo site” (Kansa and Levy 2002, Levy et al. 1995; 1997).

The Halif Terrace

18 Stratum Site 101

Site 301

NTP a Alon Silo Siteb

Levantine Period

Post XII Phase 1

—

—

Post EB IIIB/EBIV

—

Egyptian Period

¶ ¶ IIa–b II & I Phase 7/6A–B Phases 2 & 3 • • Gap ? Gap ?

EB IB Late

XVII

Phase 8

Phase 4

IIIa

Gap

EB IB Early

Naqada IIc–d2

XVIII

Phase 9A–B

Pre-Phase 4

IIIb

III

EB IA

Naqada IIb

XIX

Phase 10 A–D —

IV

IV

Terminal Chalcolithic

Chalcolithic (Maadi)

XVI

Naqada IIIb–IIIc1 / Dynasty 0: Narmer Naqada IIIa1–2

a. This stratigraphic schema was derived from Levy et al. 1997: Table 1. Kansa (2001: Table 2) presents a somewhat different stratigraphic picture. b. See Alon and Yekultieli 1995: 150. Figure 4. Stratigraphic Sequences and Periodization from the Halif Terrace.

B. The Comparative Stratigraphy of the Halif Terrace Occupation There are 4 major architectural phases found at Site 101 dating from the Terminal Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze IB. Each phase has been assigned a stratum number based on the Master Chart of Lahav Research Project Tell Halif Stratigraphy (see with front materials), which integrates all the Lahav Research Project field excavations. 17 The stratigraphy from Alon’s Silo Site and Levy’s NTP have also been included in fig. 4 but in only a summary fashion. 18 There are gaps reported by both Alon and Yekultieli in the EB IB Early, and by Levy in what he refers to as the EB IB (middle) which he equates with Erani C (Levy 1997: Table 1; see also Kansa 2001: Table 1). 17. When I prepared my dissertation (Dessel 1991), the stratigraphy and phasing for LRP work had not been finalized, nor had there been any decision on how to integrate the phasing from the terrace with the tell. Thus, I used my own interim stratigraphic numbering. This numbering system can now be replaced by the final stratigraphic assignments. Below is a correlation chart for Site 101 from Dessel 1991. Dessel 1991 LRP Final Stratigraphy Stratum

Stratum

Phase

Period

I I 1 mixed EB I and IV II XVI 7/6 A–B EB IB Late III XVII 8 A–D EB IB Early IV XVIII 9 A–B EB IA V XIX 10 A–D Chalcolithic 18. Unfortunately, the stratigraphic sequences from each project do not match up exactly and it is well beyond the scope of this study to harmonize them. Alon and Yekultieli (1995: Table 1) have attempted this, but there are problems with their summary, for instance Site 101 is listed as having 5 periods represented though it has only 4 strata (though they do question whether the Early EB IB is present).

The Halif Terrace

19

While the overall stratigraphic relationship between Egypt and the Southern Levant is much clearer today than it was even 10 years ago (see especially Braun 2003: 37; Braun and van den Brink 1998: Table 2; Hendrickx 1996: Table 9), our understanding of the internal periodization of the Early Bronze I period has never been as indefinite as it was, for example, when Esse dispensed with Early Bronze IC in his landmark 1984 article. For many scholars, the simple division of the Early Bronze I into two parts (an A and B) is no longer sufficient (see Stager 1992). Based on the internal stratigraphic sequence and the analysis of the ceramic assemblage from Site 101, there is no reason to posit any significant gaps between any of the phases. It is likewise clear that, based on the ceramic assemblages and the types and amounts of Egyptian pottery, Phases 8 and 7/6 date to the Early Bronze IB and are sequential. Likewise, Phase 9 also certainly dates to the Early Bronze I and fits most comfortably within the earliest part of that period, the EB IA. This is seen most clearly in the appearance of early Terrace types such as holemouth cooking pots in Group 2, cups, V-shaped bowls, and straw-tempered beakers. Alon and Yekultieli (1995: 183, Table 1) suggest that there are at least 4 phases of the Early Bronze I period: Early EB IA, Late EB IA, Early EB IB, and Late EB IB. Levy (Levy et al. 1997: Table 1) also suggests 4 divisions within the Early Bronze I though he sees only one phase of the Early Bronze IA and 3 of the Early Bronze IB (early, middle, and late). Kansa (2001: Table 1), using the NTP material, also suggests at least a 4 or even 5 part division of the period: Chalcolithic/Early EB IA, EB IA, Late EB IA/Early EB IB, Early EB IA, and Late EB IA. 19 While the differences and multiple schemes outlined above focus in one way or another on the Halif Terrace, they are also used to correlate the stratigraphy from other sites, suggesting that these divisions within the periods are observable throughout the region (see in particular Levy et al. 1997: Table 1). Additionally, there are other scholars who also see a similarly complex periodization for the Early Bronze I, at least in southern Palestine. Braun (2003: 37) also suggests a 4 part division of the period in the south that includes: the Initial EB I, an Erani C phase, an Early Bronze I late phase, and an Early Bronze I “latest phase.” Whether these divisions reflect specific stratigraphic idiosyncrasies at individual sites or are truly indicative of distinct periods that work at regional levels is not clear in any way. Is it possible that in the middle of the Early Bronze IB only Tell Erani in Phase C was occupied and others sites in the area had a gap before being intensively reoccupied in the later part of the Early Bronze IB? Should multiple phases of a distinct period, such as the EB IB be understood as distinct divisions within the period or merely multiple occupational episodes encapsulated within one chrono-stratigraphic subdivision? As with most issues involving chronology and stratigraphy, especially in the pre- and protohistoric periods, more C14 dates are desperately needed to help untangle the interplay between ceramic styles and temporal periods (Dessel and Joffe 2000). 19. Kansa’s Table 1 is particularly hard to follow and seems to confuse the stratigraphy from Site 101, where he includes a Phase 11 that does not exist and mixes Seger’s use of phases with my use of stratum (see above, n. 18). However, he also conflates Phases 10 and 9 as well as 8 and 7. Additionally, his stratigraphic scheme (see Kansa 2001: Table 1, Table 2) differs from Levy’s (1997: Table 1) in important ways. This makes it difficult to fully understand Levy’s stratigraphic sequence and the associated ceramic assemblages.

20

The Halif Terrace

1. Phase 10 / Stratum XIX: Terminal Chalcolithic 20 Chalcolithic pottery had been found in substantial quantities both at the Halif Terrace, at the Silo Site (Alon 1974: 28, Alon and Yekultieli 1995: 158, Levy et al. 1997: 9), and at Site 101 (J. Seger 1983: 10; J. Seger et al. 1990: 5–6). Alon’s probes further east, just above the valley floor, also located an area with a high concentration of Chalcolithic ceramic material and an apparent absence of clear Early Bronze I pottery (Alon 1974). Additionally, Chalcolithic pottery collected by kibbutz members was documented by Gophna (1972: 49). On the valley floor itself, several fragments of basalt bowls were found in the course of agricultural activity, most likely dating to the Chalcolithic period (A. Navon: personal communication). In Stratum IV at the Silo Site, Alon and Yekultieli (1995: 158) report a bell shaped pit, stone installations, and partial floors. There is nothing overly distinctive about this Chalcolithic material, and, in fact, many of the forms, such as the storage jars with flaring rims, holemouth jars, basins, and bowls (Alon and Yekultieli 1995: fig. 24: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10) appear at Site 101 in the EB IA. However, the appearance of churn, spoon, and cornet fragments (Alon and Yekultieli 1995: 176, 178; fig. 24: 4, 12, 13) clearly point to a Chalcolithic phase. 21 Levy (Levy et al. 1997: 9) notes only that Chalcolithic remains are found in Area A. At Site 101, the Terminal Chalcolithic settlement took advantage of the natural caves in Lahav area as a ready-made shelter (see figs. 5 and 6; pl. 20). Phase 10 architecture consists of small, poorly made stone walls built within a natural cave. Phase 10 had 4 subphases (Phases 10 A–D), distinguished by several roof collapses and floor/debris accumulation sequences (in general, see J. Seger 1996: 249–50). 22 Though poorly constructed, the subterranean walls of Phase 10 were preserved up to 5 courses. In Phase 10C, a substantial wall (L.100068) was constructed that bisected the cave, dividing it into two rooms, each of which had a stacked stone pillar. Among the most important finds from Site 101 were 2 stone pieces presumably used to form a tournette found in Phase 10. These pieces (object numbers 2146 and 2165) were found in Locus 100078 (see figs. 7 and 8), described as a soil layer below beaten earth surface 100077 and above bedrock 100079, and there was Chalcolithic pottery on both of these surfaces (bedrock here functioned as a surface). It should also be noted that bedrock surface 100079 also had a crushed and partially articulated human skeleton. Because this subterranean area of Site 101 was disturbed by roof collapse (see below), the exact stratigraphic position of these tournette pieces is unclear. In section drawings, it would appear that Locus 100078 contains the accumulated occupational debris from Phase 10C, although they might also have been pushed down from a later Phase 10 surface. While it is not certain that the two pieces go together, it does appear that one is a lower piece and the other is an upper piece. The lower piece (object number 2165 figs. 7, 8a, and 20. This stratigraphic overview is based on the excavation records of the Lahav Research Project housed at the Cobb Institute of Archaeology at Mississippi State University. 21. Alon and Yekultieli (1995: 178) note the spoon and cornet bases came from Stratum II. This kind of mixture is not problematic regarding the identification of a Chalcolithic stratum at the Silo Site. 22. The best discussion of the stratigraphy of Site 101 is Seger (1996).

The Halif Terrace

21

Figure 5. Site 101 Phase 10 Plan.

8b) was a circular, limestone, disk-shaped stone that was perforated. The upper piece (object number 2146 figs. 7, 8a, and 8b) would have rested dimple side down on the lower piece partially held in place by a socket of wood or stone. The socket could have been driven into the ground and would have gone through the perforated lower piece and rested in the upper piece’s dimple. The flat surface of the upper piece would have probably supported a wooden board or work surface, a bat, which would have been affixed by mud or clay to the upper piece (Amiran and Shenhav 1984; Esse 1989a).

22

The Halif Terrace

Figure 6. Site 101 Phase 10.

A deposit of raw clay was found at the same level of the tournette pieces (Seger: personal communication). Also, the storage of raw clay in a subterranean context was observed by Rye and Evans (1976: 40, 45) in Pakistan. This discovery of raw clay and a tournette is the clearest indication that there was a potters workshop in Phase 10, although it is not certain whether it was actually located within the cave itself. Seger (1996: 249) suggests this phase ended due to a collapse of the cave’s roof followed by an abandonment of an uncertain duration. The Terminal Chalcolithic occupation ended with a major roof collapse, sealing Phase 10. Above the roof collapse was a thick accumulation of ash and silt, into which Phase 9 walls were built. Seger (1996: 250) again suggests a hiatus after which the Early Bronze IA occupation commenced. However, it is interesting to note that within the ashy silt deposit there were clear Early Bronze IA ceramic indicators, which might suggest that the site was still in use but not in this specific area. Some Chalcolithic pottery was found in mixed Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I fills of Phases 9 and 8 (see below for a similar situation in Alon’s Silo Site). However, it is very clear that beneath the collapsed roof of the cave there was only Chalcolithic pottery. While it is clear that Phase 10 dates to the Chalcolithic based on the ceramic typology, it is equally evident that the Phase 10 pottery is quite distinct from classic Chalcolithic assemblages found at the Beer Sheva type-sites (see pl. 20 for a broad overview of pottery

The Halif Terrace

Figure 7. Stone tournette pieces; Object No. 2165 limestone lower half (perforated),

(a)

(b) Figure 8. (a) Object No. 2146—basalt tournette, upper half. (b) Object No. 2165—limestone tournette lower half.

23

24

The Halif Terrace

found in primary loci from Phase 10a; see also pls. 1:13–15, 16; 2:2, 3, 5, 17, 20–23; 3:14– 20; 4:8, 12, 14, 15; 5:15–19; 6:6, 8, 9, 11; 7:6–10, 17, 19; 8:14–16, 18; 9:8, 9, 16, 22, 30; 10; 15, 26; 11:26–28; 12:18–27; 14:2–14, 15, 17). The general lack of decoration (except for red slip applied around the rims of small open vessels), low level of manufacturing quality (lack of secondary turning and rim symmetry), and the limited range of forms suggest that this is a degenerated Chalcolithic ceramic industry, not comparable to that of the “Developed” Chalcolithic as found at Shiqmim, Ghassul, or the Beer Sheva sites (for a complete review of this issue, see Joffe and Dessel 1995). Typical Chalcolithic pottery found at Site 101 includes V-shaped bowls (pl. 12:18–27, cornets, and even a few churn fragments [pl. 9:30, 26, though this is from Phase 9a], as well as the use of the Group 3 fabric [see chap. 3]). The highest percentage of V-shaped bowls, the most typical Chalcolithic vessel type in the Halif Terrace assemblage, was found in Phase 10. The use of a distinctive fabric, Group 2, is found predominantly in Phase 10 and associated with this earliest occupation at Site 101. Additionally, the combination of the Group 3 fabric with striped wash decoration, which is well represented in Phase 10 (pl. 3:14), has been found in almost exclusively Chalcolithic contexts throughout southern Palestine (see below, chap. 3, Group 3). What is especially significant is that the characteristic Early Bronze I decorative motif of red painted stripes over white lime wash, referred to as “pajama ware” (fig. 10), 23 was not found in Phase 10, although it appeared in the Phase 9 loci directly above the collapsed cave. Egyptian-styled pottery was also not found in Phase 10. 24 Additionally, certain manufacturing techniques, such as well-turned and symmetrical rims, typical of the Early Bronze I, were not found. Straw-tempered beakers made from the very distinctive group 7 fabric are also well represented in Phase 10 (14:2–17). This particular form has only been identified at the Halif Terrace, the Lachish cave dwellings and at Wadi Gaza Site H, linking these 3 sites to the Terminal Chalcolithic (Tufnell 1958: 145; pl. 57:42, 50, 52, 53; Gophna 199: 6, fig. 3:2). The similarity between the ceramic assemblages of Site 101 and the Lachish cave dwellings is striking, as is their domestic architecture with the use of modified caves. 2. Phase 9 / Stratum XVIII: EB IA The Early Bronze IA is well represented at both the Silo Site and Site 101. Alon and Yekultieli report (1995: 157) evidence of mudbrick architecture, stone installations, and surfaces in Stratum III. Levy (Levy et al. 1997: 8–9) reports EB IA material from Areas A and C; however, there is no real description of the architecture. 25 He does mention that a tomb or walled cave in Area C cuts through a storage silo dating to the EB IA (Levy et al. 1997: 14). Neither Alon and Yekultieli (1995) nor Levy (1997) mention a gap or hiatus between the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze IA levels. 23. Braun (personal communication) has often referred to this distinctive style of decorated Early Bronze I pottery as “pajama ware,” which is limited to the southern and central parts of the Southern Levant in the Early Bronze IA and B. 24. There is one lone sherd in the Group 8 fabric found in Phase 10 that is considered intrusive.

The Halif Terrace

25

Phase 9 dates to the Early Bronze IA and has 2 subphases, A and B (see fig. 9). Bedrock outcrops and recesses were incorporated into the Phase 9 architecture, making the settlement partially subterranean. In Phase 9B, the northwest corner of Site 101 reused part of the Phase 10 cave dwelling, and in the northeast section there was a considerable amount of wall collapse. In Phase 9A, a more systematic approach to construction is found, resulting in a rectangular structure entered from the south (see Seger 1996: 250–51 for a complete review of the Phase 9 stratigraphy). This building includes the reuse of a Phase 10 wall stub (Wall 101037) and the construction of new walls (Walls 91047, 91062, and 91065). These were used with a compacted chalk and soil floor, L. 91053. Outside of this structure, a tabun along with an animal bone midden was also excavated. Phase 9 dates to the early part of the Early Bronze IA (see pl. 19 for an overview of the pottery from primary loci from Phase 9a). Most of the Phase 9 loci are large ash deposits that settled on bedrock. The deposits contained characteristic Early Bronze IA pottery as well as a small amount of Egyptian pottery. Although the architecture and ceramic assemblage are similar to Phase 10, several new features make an Early Bronze IA date appropriate. The appearance of pajama ware decoration begins in Phase 9 (see fig. 10; pls. 4:2, 5, 10; 5:9, 26 10, 12; 6:5; 8:7). This decorative motif is used extensively in the Early Bronze IB and is considered a hallmark of the later Early Bronze I (Dever 1988); however, it is firmly rooted in the Early Bronze IA (Hennessy 1967: 9, 17; Schaub 1981: 77–78; Stager 1992). In fact, the use of lime wash is almost exclusively found on Group 4 pottery (pl. 5:6). This is a typical Early Bronze Age fabric type (although it does begin in the Chalcolithic [pl. 1:14]). In Phase 9, Egyptian pottery is also found for the first time. While the area excavated by the NTP was much richer in seal impressions than Site 101, there was some evidence of locally produced seals from Site 101, the upper part of the Halif Terrace. A clay jar sealing (object #1843A) with at least 6 stamped impressions was found in locus 100073, a shallow, ashy pit within locus 100063, a midden layer of brick detritus filled with bone, ash, flint, pottery, and cobblestones (see figs. 11 and 12). This small pit was part of the accumulation above a Phase 9A beaten earth surface. The stopper itself was roughly circular and made from a coarse and undoubtedly local clay (for a similar jar sealing from the Chalcolithic see Commenge-Pellerin 1990: fig. 54:15–16). It is 1.7 cm in height with a top diameter of 3.6 cm and a base diameter of 1.8 cm. The stopper had 6 identical ovoid impressions on it. The seal impression was an ovoid grid pattern. Eighteen additional fragments of jar sealings or “bullae” (object numbers 1843 B–S) were also found, preserved as amorphous lumps of unfired clay. These unfired clay sealings were impressed with the same stamp used on the stopper and several of them had multiple impressions. The ovoid seal that made all of these impressions was about one cm wide and at least one cm in length. Identical impressions found at Jawa and Um Hammad date to the Early Bronze IA (S. Helms 1987: fig. 4). 25. Levy (Levy et al. 1997: 9) refers to the EB IA as a period that reflects the “post-Chalcolithic collapse in the northern Negev. . . .” This suggests that Levy would see the Chalcolithic phases at the Halif Terrace as contemporaneous with the Developed Chalcolithic of Shiqmim and the Beer Sheva sites, which seems unlikely (see Joffe and Dessel 1995). 26. Only traces of pajama ware decoration was found on this sherd and was not represented on the drawing.

26

Figure 9. Site 101 Phase 9 Plan.

The Halif Terrace

The Halif Terrace

27

Figure 10. Pajama Ware, Early Bronze I decorated pottery, L. 100073, Phase 9A.

3. Phase 8 / Stratum XVII: EB IB Early The early part of the Early Bronze IB (EB IB Early) was represented at Site 101 and the Nahal Tillah Silo Site, but not at Alon’s original excavation of the area. Alon and Yekultieli (1995: 150) indicate that there was a gap in occupation at the Alon Silo Site in the EB IB Early (though there were 2 phases of the EB IB Late). Levy (Levy et al. 1997: 9), however, excavated a conjoining area and reported an EB IB Early phase including Room 3, a rectilinear structure, in Area A. The EB IB Early is represented at Site 101 by Phase 8 which has 4 sub-phases, A–D (see fig. 13; see pl. 18 for an overview of pottery from primary loci from Phase 8c–d). The main architectural element in Phase 8 is a large, newly constructed building, Room 91025, oriented north/south and measuring 7.5 x 6.5 m, making it roughly the same size as Levy’s Room 3. The north, south, and east sides of the building were built into and above bedrock outcroppings, making this the first fully above-ground structure found at Site 101. The size and orientation of this structure is completely different from both the previous Phase 9 and subsequent Phase 7/6 architectural plans. Associated with this structure was a series of

28

The Halif Terrace

Figure 11. Clay jar sealing with seal impression, Object No. 1843a, L. 100073 (S101.100.257), Phase 9A.

Figure 12. Unfired impressed clay “bullae,” Object No. 1843 b–g, L. 100073(S101.100.257), Phase 9A.

beaten earth surfaces as well as a plaster surface, one of the few at Site 101. Several pebble-lined depressions were set into the surface, one of which contained the base of a storage jar (Seger 1996: 256). A complete holemouth jar was also found inset on the same surface (see fig. 25; pl. 1:17). Other Phase 8 deposits include secondary fills sealed by Phase 7/6 surfaces. The early part of the Early Bronze IB is as poorly defined at the Halif Terrace as it is throughout the Southern Levant. Alon and Yekultieli (1995: 182) note it is absent from Alon’s Silo Site, though they do identify 2 phases of the EB IB Late. Based on their stratigraphy, this appears reasonable. 27 Levy (Levy et al. 1997: 8), has identified his Stratum IIIa 27. Alon and Yekultieli (1995: 182) point out Erani Stratum C as one of the best examples of the Early EB IB. They also mention that it is changes in the frequency of specific ceramic types that define “the internal variations” of the EB IB. This is a very important but vexing part of working on the ceramic assemblage from the Halif Terrace, which has been divided.

The Halif Terrace

Figure 13. Site 101 Phase 8 Plan.

29

30

The Halif Terrace

Figure 14. Bone Cylinder Seal, Object No. 1483, L. 900020 (S101.90.95), Phase 8A.

in the NTP Area A as early in the Early Bronze IB. He goes on to characterize the EB IB Early as representing a “pre-‘Egyptian’ phase in southwestern Canaan . . .” although he also notes that there is some Egyptian material in this phase (Levy et al. 1997: 8). 28 It is clear that Egyptian material is found in Phase 8 (see pl. 15:22) and even earlier (see pl. 16:5, 6, and 8; figs. 19 and 20) at Site 101, as well as at other sites in the Southern Levant (Dessel 1991). In this way, the EB IB Late is being defined more based on an historical event (for example, the large scale Egyptian presence in southern Palestine in the later part of the EB IB or very subtle nuances in intra-site ceramic typology [and here it is essential that typology include aspects of fabric, decoration, and form rather than just form]), rather than being defined based on more substantive differences in discrete constellations of archaeological attributes appreciable at regional levels. In other words, one site’s EB IB Early could be understood as another’s EB IA Late. It is becoming increasingly evident at the Halif Terrace that, in general, the cultural continuity between the Early Bronze IA and B is relatively seamless, with the large scale Egyptian-Levantine interface as one of the defining criteria of the EB IB Late. 29 In this respect, Room 91025 (see fig. 13) at Site 101 is extremely important, because it represents a well stratified phase of the early part of the Early Bronze IA, which is stratigraphically comparable to the importance of Erani C (Yekultieli 1998: 13). The other important evidence for sealing traditions found at Site 101 comes from Phase 8 where a bone cylinder seal with a net motif was found (see fig. 14). It was found in L. 90020, which is heavily compacted bricky material sealed beneath beaten earth surface L.90016 from Phase 6B. The L.90020 bricky material had accumulated and compressed above the bottom course of the wall 90025 from Phase 8. The seal itself was found about 10 cm above surface L. 90024, which dates to Phase 8A. The seal is 2.5 cm long with 28. Levy’s terminology here is somewhat confusing as he refers to a phase (Stratum IIIA) with a very small amount of Egyptian material as part of a ‘pre-Egyptian’ period, the early EB IB. This obscures the issue while also drawing attention to the crux of the issue—what do small or large quantities of Egyptian material (the scale of the interaction) mean in terms of Egypto-Levantine relations? Levy seems to suggest that there is a small amount of Egyptian material showing up in his Stratum IIIA, which dates to the early part of the Early Bronze IB. However, when the period is taken in its totality, the early part of the Early Bronze IB predates the more intensive infusion of Egyptians who ultimately came to reside at the Halif Terrace and other sites in southern Palestine. 29. Even the Chalcolithic/EB IA interface can now be seen as evincing a much greater degree of overall continuity than had ever been suspected (see Dessel 1991; Alon and Yekultieli 1995: 184).

spread is 14 points long

The Halif Terrace

31

a diameter of 1.3 cm. It is carved with a net pattern and not very deeply incised. This cylinder seal has very close parallels from the Early Bronze I at ºEn Shadud (Braun 1985a: fig. 32:1; pl. 10:A) and the Early Bronze II/III at Tell Abu al-Kharaz (Fischer 2002: fig. 21:3/1). Other small finds from Phase 8 included carnelian and faience beads and a copper pin. 4. Phase 7/6 Stratum XVI: EB IB Late The EB IB Late has the most extensive and well preserved architecture at Site 101 and was found in all 3 of the major excavations on the Halif Terrace. Alon and Yekultieli (1995) report two late EB IB strata, I and II, from Alon’s Silo Site. Stratum II was comprised of a large ash pit that may have had some stone and mudbrick installations within it and a few poorly preserved stone walls that formed Room 59 and part of Courtyard 21 (Alon and Yekultieli 1995: 156, plan 2; see also p. 150, plan 1). They suggest that the pit, perhaps as large as 50 sq m in size, was filled with ash and burned material culture, and that it functioned as either a disposal area for the site or possibly “a public complex of some kind (commercial? agricultural? industrial? cultic?) . . .” (Alon and Yekultieli 1995: 182). Stratum I, found just below the modern surface, provides a more coherent plan of a 3room building (Rooms 18, 29, and 28) and evidence of 3 stone platforms (Platforms 19, 25, 37) in an outdoor courtyard area, Courtyard 21 (Alon and Yekultieli 1995: 150, plan 1). All the rooms were rectilinear with a stone foundation measuring 11 to 13 sq m, with entrances that appear to be along the broad wall. Some of the rooms had stone sockets, possible column bases, installations and hearths. It appears that no Egyptian pottery was found in the Stratum I. Levy found evidence for the EB IB Late, his Stratum IIa–c, in all 3 of his excavation areas (A, C, and D; see fig. 4). A well made rectangular structure, Room 1, belongs to Stratum II along with another stone platform (see Levy et al. 1997: 8, fig. 4). All of the architecture in Area D belongs in Stratum IIb and consists of Room 4, a small rectilinear room with a large connecting wall and evidence of several curvilinear rooms (Levy et al. 1997: fig. 7). Levy (Levy et al. 1997: 9) notes that this area is associated with large scale bread making, an observation based on the excavation of a tabun in Room 4 and the presence of over 500 kg of Egyptian bread molds. In Area C, Levy found 3 phases of Stratum II (including Wall 29): a large terrace wall (part of the LRP Site 301, Wall O5004/O5028) that is at least 30 m in length, a well made trapezoidal building in which there was a very well made stone-lined silo, and a large cave that had been modified and had an entrance dromos (Levy et al. 1997: 10, 12, 14, fig. 12). Also in Area C there were at least two stone silos (Locus 630 and 633) that are clearly earlier than Room 5, though they probably belong in Stratum II (Levy et al. 1997: 12: Plan 9, 13, fig. 10). The EB IB Late is represented at Site 101 by Phase 7/6A–B (see fig. 15). Seger (1996: 250, n. 11) uses 2 separate phase numbers to distinguish between 2 structures which, as he notes, were undoubtedly used together, House 91019 and House 100025. 30 House 91019, 30. House 91019 was excavated by Alon in 1974. As Seger (1996: n. 11) notes, by the time he excavated House 100025 in the mid-1980s any stratigraphic linkage, such as an exterior surface, that may have connected the two structures had long since eroded away. Seger clearly states that the two structures were contemporaneous but assigns them each their own phase number in order to “maintain clarity” when discussing the Site 101 stratigraphy.

The Halif Terrace

32

Figure 15. Site 101 Phase 7/6 Plan.

The Halif Terrace

33

Figure 16. View of Phase 7/6 and House 100025.

excavated in 1974 by D. Alon, has a rectangular shape with curvilinear walls. Seger (1996: 251) calls this house apsidal, though clearly it is not the type of Early Bronze I apsidal structure Braun (1989b) refers to at En Shadud and elsewhere. This house had an entrance in the south wall and a stone installation in its southeast corner. The style of wall construction, using dry-laid field stones with curvilinear corners, is quite distinct from the style of construction used in Building 100025 (see below). House 91019 was built up against a bedrock outcropping utilizing the natural contours of the bedrock. It shares a wall (101028) with a similar styled structure to the north, which Alon had also excavated. This suggests that there are more such structures across the terrace. To the south of House 91019 is a one-meter wide alley that separates it from House 100025. Seger puts House 100025 in Phase 6B (see figs. 15 and 16; for a full discussion of Phases 7 and 6 see Seger 1996). House 100025 is an unusual broadroom structure measuring 2.85 x 6.15 m, with a mudbrick superstructure, preserved up to 5 courses, on a twocourse stone foundation, arranged in a herringbone fashion. It is oriented east/west and has

34

a

The Halif Terrace

b

Figure 17. (a) In situ Egyptian bread mold in House 100025, L. 100034.P, Phase 6A. (b) Egyptian bread mold.

large, roughly hewn stones set in each of its corners; 3 of these stones were recovered, although only one was in situ. The entrance is located midway along the northern wall facing the entrance to House 91019. Inside and to the east of the entrance is a door socket. House 100025 stands alone and unattached to any other architectural unit and did not utilize the bedrock. In Phase 6A, an internal wall was added that divided the house at its eastern end. The surfaces in House 100025 were all composed of beaten earth. It appears that House 100025 was clearly oriented to House 91019 and was thus aligned to the larger and adjacent complex. The ceramic assemblage from House 100025 included large quantities of imported and locally produced Egyptian pottery, as well as an unfired Egyptian bread mold found on its surface (see figs. 17a and b; pls. 15:1–23; 16:1–13; see also pl. 17 for a general overivew of the pottery from primary loci from Phase 6a). The majority of the Levantine pottery found in Phase 7/6 came from outside House 100025. The establishment of an Egyptian presence in southern Palestine defines the Early Bronze IB Late. In Phase 7/6, the Egyptians established themselves at the Halif Terrace and there was a tremendous increase in the amount of Naqada IIIB–C Egyptian pottery. There are also two serekhs reported from the Halif Terrace, one of which with the Narmer on it, strongly correlating the EB IB Late phase at the Halif Terrace (LRP Phase 6/7—Stratum XVI, NTP Stratum II a–b, and Alon Stratum I) with Dynasty 0/ Naqada IIIB–IIIC (Levy et al. 2001: 430; 1997: 19; 1995: 30). 31 The site was then abandoned by the Egyptians and possibly also by the local Levantine population. No Early Bronze II material is found on the Halif Terrace or at Tell Halif itself.

31. For the Namer serekh, see Levy et al. 1995: 30 [photograph on p. 31]; 1997: fig. 3a; 2001: fig. 22: 14. For chronology in general, see Braun (2001) and Braun and van den Brink (1998).

The Halif Terrace

35

5. Phase 1 / Post Stratum XII Early Bronze IV Mixed Fills Phase 1, the latest material from Site 101, is comprised of unstratified pottery from the Early Bronze I and Early Bronze IV periods. 32 This material comes from badly mixed fills that covered Site 101. There was no extant architecture from Phase 1. The ceramic assemblage from these late deposits reflects the occupational history of both the tell (where there is a very small amount of Early Bronze IV pottery) and the terrace. Typical Early Bronze IV forms such as caliciform cups, straight-sided cooking pots, and rilled-rimmed platter bowls indicate that this assemblage fits very nicely into Dever’s Family S (Dever 1981). 6. Site 301 The LRP also excavated several Areas on Site 301, located 150 m down slope from Site 101 at the eastern extent of the terrace (see figs. 1, 18a, and 18b). Site 301 borders Alon’s Silo Site (Alon 1972; 1974; Alon and Yekultieli 1995) as well as Levy’s expanded NTP, Area D (Levy et al. 1997: 9). The Site 301 excavations exposed significant Early Bronze I architectural elements, along with great quantities of Early Bronze I pottery. Because Site 301 is located in a replanted forest that had also been deeply plowed, the uppermost deposits were badly disturbed (A. Navon, personal communication). Thus, all the Egyptian pottery found at Site 301 was from unstratified mixed deposits, which also included a substantial amount of Byzantine and 20th century “Gaza Ware.” The remains of 3 circular mudbrick silos were excavated in 1986 and 1987 (Seger et al. 1990: 7–8, figs. 7, 8). The silos were cut down into sterile clay and built up with stone foundations and a mudbrick superstructure. They are approximately 2.5 m in diameter, with the best preserved silo standing 1.5 m in height. They were built just to the west of a 2 m wide wall system, which has now been traced for at least 30 m (Levy et al. 1997: 10). The wall system was constructed in a modular fashion, with alternating construction techniques and materials including stone, mudbrick, and rubble. It was not adjacent to any clear domestic architecture, and surfaces running up to it date it to the Early Bronze I. The function of the wall is not clear, but it certainly did not surround the entire settlement. It may have served to demarcate areas within the settlement. Likewise, the wall could have served as a terrace wall used to support the silos that are built up against its western face (Seger et al. 1990: 7). A stone-lined bin, built into a sterile clay substrata and also dating to the Early Bronze I, was built prior to the construction of the wall and silo system. The Site 301 silos could well have been used for grain storage. Mills’s (1992: fig. 2) description of Early Dynastic shunas from Hierakonpolis and his “interpretative reconstuction” of one from unit 15N2W at Nekhen is strikingly similar to the plan of the Site 301 silos. These shunas were constructed from mudbrick and were domed in order to insulate the stored grain from wide temperature swings as well as to retard the growth of toxins 32. Seger (Seger et al. 1990: 3) notes that there are 5 later phases of deposition (not occupation) on the terrace all of which have EB IA and B pottery along with later material. Phase 5 has some very poorly preserved architecture, which may well date to the EB IB with some reuse in the Early Bronze IV.

36

The Halif Terrace

Figure 18a. Site 301 Plan of silos in Areas O5/N5.

The Halif Terrace

37

Figure 18b. Site 301 Silos in Areas O5/N5.

(Mills 1992: 30). That these bins were cut into a clay substrata would greatly add to their ability to insulate their contents. Additionally, their position adjacent to Area D, excavated by the NTP, is noteworthy. Levy summarized the excavation of Area D: “A series of small rooms found here are associated with the large scale production of bread. Here in the late EB IB stratum (IIb), a huge number of Egyptian-style bread molds was found associated with a large tabun attached to a small room . . . they totaled over 500 kilograms” (Levy et al. 1997: 9). In order to maintain the kind of production indicated by over 500 kg of bread molds, a significant amount of grain would have to be stored and the location of the Site 301 silos would be ideally suited for this purpose. Of course, both Geller (1992) and Mills (1992) note that brewing and bread production (baking) were associated with each other in ancient Egypt (as was pottery production). The data from the Halif Terrace provide a unique window into the late 4th millennium b.c.e. Though prosaically described above in terms of fragmentary rooms, courtyards, and silos, and minutely analyzed in the following chapters in terms of ceramic attributes such as ware and decoration, the essential social—that is to say, human—foundation must not be

38

The Halif Terrace

lost. Making the connections between different types of data is difficult enough in archaeology, but the human dimension is the most difficult challenge of all. The following chapters necessarily focus on the methodological challenge of approaching a ceramic assemblage comprised of sherds. By breaking down that assemblage using the integrated typology, seemingly separate attributes can be first interrogated individually and then in concert. The concluding chapters will make the most important connections between sherds (reconstituted as an assemblage and animated by the logic implicit in the method and by the research questions outlined at the outset of this study) and disparate societies interacting at a distance.

CHAPTER 3

Site 101 Ceramic Fabric Groups A. Introduction Though long recognized by archaeologists as of critical importance, detailed fabric analysis has largely been left to the specialist and has not been incorporated into the traditional ceramic typology. However, the analysis of ceramic fabrics has undergone a transformation over the last 20 years. It has changed from being merely an addendum to traditional form typologies to serving as a developed and comprehensive mode of analysis incorporated into the body of the ceramic description. Presently, compositional studies of ceramic paste are utilized to address a much wider array of issues than in the past (see, for example, Gilead and Goren 1995; Rast and Schaub 2003). In the past, fabric analysis was associated primarily with provenience studies concerned with determining sources of raw materials and distinguishing local from imported pottery (Kingery 1982; Matson 1943; 1945; Shepard 1948). However, the analysis of ceramic paste need not be limited to the issue of provenience. Provenience studies that serve only to identify imported ceramics fail to consider the most important aspect of such imports—namely, why the pottery is imported (van der Leeuw 1984). The term “import” itself must also be clearly defined. Vessels made of local raw materials with a completely foreign technology or production tradition cannot be considered “local,” yet, technically, they are not imported. The refinement of analytical techniques and the attention to environmental and technological data make it possible to achieve higher levels of resolution regarding the precise location of the fabric source. In addition to provenience data, fabric analysis also provides data on the manufacturing technology and mechanical properties of the ceramic fabric. Where pottery originates, its mode of production, and its destination after production all directly reflect the organization of the ceramic industry at both intra- and intersite levels. Thus, provenience studies are of greater value when they place the location of the clay source into the context of the entire ceramic production process. Fabric typologies are useful when investigating the organization of ceramic production and provide indirect evidence for other variables in the ceramic production process. The development of recent typologies based on both fabric and form allows for a greater appreciation of the value fabric has in encoding cultural information (Hoffman and Berger 1982;

Site 101 Ceramic Fabric Groups

40

Phase Ph. 10

Ph. 9

Ph. 8

Ph. 7/6

Total

Gr. 1

Gr. 2

Gr. 3

Gr. 4

Gr. 5

Gr.6

Gr. 7

Gr. 8 (Eg.)

Gr. 9 (Eg.)

Gr. 10 (Eg.)

Total

841

598

5241

4294

1522

179

988

1

0

0

13664

6.2%

4.4%

38.4%

31.4%

11.1%

1.3%

7.2%

0.01%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

1566

285

3737

7827

451

296

1789

72

0

15

16038

9.8%

1.8%

23.3%

48.8%

2.8%

1.8%

11.2%

0.4%

0.0%

0.1%

100.0%

1504

10

763

5422

116

52

660

57

5

35

8624

17.4%

0.1%

8.8%

62.9%

1.3%

0.6%

7.7%

0.7%

0.1%

0.4%

100.0%

1253

2

640

3944

128

20

60

390

445

339

7221

17.4%

0.03%

8.9%

54.6%

1.8%

0.3%

0.8%

5.4%

6.2%

4.7%

100.0%

5164

895

10381

21487

2217

547

3497

520

450

389

45547

11.3%

2.0%

22.8%

47.2%

4.9%

1.2%

7.7%

1.1%

1.0%

0.9%

100.0%

Figure 19. Distribution of Fabric Group Counts by Phase.

Schaub and Rast 1989). Recent studies have focused on the close interrelationships between raw materials and vessel form, vessel function, manufacturing technique, and even vessel size. These investigations have initiated the recent surge in fabric studies, which emphasize questions of economy and society and not only provenience (Arnold 1985; Bishop 1980; D. Braun 1983; Bronitsky 1986; Rice 1987a; Rye 1981; Steponaitis 1983; van As 1984; van der Leeuw and van As 1984). The correlation of fabric groups to other attribute groups within the ceramic assemblage is the basis for reconstructing the development of the ceramic production process and for relating changes in the production process to larger social issues (Algaze 1989; Schiffer and Skibo 1987). Changes in paste composition that correlate to changes in the stratigraphic sequence deserve careful attention (Shepard 1980: 164). However, a relationship between technological change and a suggested greater cultural significance is not axiomatic (Arnold 1985). The increasing importance of fabric analysis cannot be overemphasized. In the southern Levant, it is now routine on many excavations to undertake petrographic analysis of ceramic fabrics. It is because of the tremendous amount of petrographic analysis, in large part due to the groundbreaking work of Yuval Goren (1987b; 1991a; 1991b; 1995; Goren and Gilead 1987) and Naomi Porat (1987; 1989a; 1989b; Greenberg and Porat 1996; Porat and Goren 2002; Porat and Seeher 1988), that the locations of specific fabrics in the southern Levant can now be very precisely determined. This, of course, allows archaeologists accurately to determine whether fabric types are being produced locally or are imported, providing a much higher degree of resolution regarding the economic organization of the site.

Site 101 Ceramic Fabric Groups

Stratum Gr. 1

Gr. 2

Gr. 3

Gr. 4

Ph. 10 12111.1 10340.9 63880.7 56385.5

7.7% Ph. 9 28835.2

Gr.6

Gr. 7

Gr. 8 (Eg.)

Gr. 9 (Eg.)

Gr. 10 (Eg.)

Total

3931

1197.3

8719.1

13

0

0

156578.6

36.0%

2.5%

0.8%

5.6%

0.01%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

5327.5 46197.1 112006.2

1143.2

1612.5 27306.9

1513.2

0

445.3

224387.1

6.6%

12.9%

2.4%

Ph. 8 22656.3

42.4

21.2%

0.04%

Ph. 7/6 26815.4

69

16.4%

0.04%

Total

Gr. 5

41

40.8%

49.9%

0.5%

0.7%

12.2%

0.7%

0.0%

0.2%

100.0%

9505.3 65869.5

552.2

405.8

5627.9

888

531.8

810.5

106889.7

8.9%

61.6%

0.5%

0.4%

5.3%

0.8%

0.5%

0.8%

100.0%

10837 63653.9

766.6

98.3

505.1 11202.3 41992.3

7435.4

163375.3

6.6%

39.0%

0.5%

0.06%

0.3%

25.7%

4.6%

100.0%

90418 15779.8 130420.1 297915.1

6393

3313.9

42159 13616.5 42524.1

8691.2

651230.7

1.0%

0.5%

1.3%

100.0%

13.9%

2.4%

20.6%

20.0%

45.7%

6.5%

6.9%

2.1%

6.5%

Figure 20. Distribution of Fabric Group Weights by Phase.

The fabric analysis of the Site 101 ceramic assemblage was a major component of this study. All the pottery from the Lahav Research Project’s excavation at Site 101 was saved and analyzed. Part of the analytical process involved separating the pottery into fabric types or groups, which were then counted and weighed. This resulted in a completely quantified data set (see figs. 19, 20, 21). Each fabric group was also subdivided into groups based on considerations of form, decoration, and vessel part (i.e., base, rim, and handle), which were also counted and weighed. 1 In the end, more than 45,547 sherds weighing over 651 kg were analyzed. Fabric groups were determined by macroscopic analysis with a hand lens (x10), extensive refiring tests, and petrographic analysis. Three basic steps were involved in the fabric analysis. First, sherds from primary and secondary loci were divided according to aspects of form and fabric based on macroscopic observations: sherd color, temper characteristics (including type, amount, and shape), and the presence or absence of a carbonaceous core. Second, more than 1,000 samples were cut by power saw and refiring tests were performed on one-half of each of these samples. Refiring tests accomplished several things: they allowed for a rough determination of the firing temperature of specific fabric groups and enlarged the size of the temper, allowing for easier identification. The tests also clarified the sherd’s paste color from color changes due to the vessels’s use-life and post-depositional history. After refiring tests were completed, the sherds were reexamined and the fabric 1. This same basic approach, complete quantification of the entire ceramic assemblage, was also used by the NTP (see Kansa 2001; Levy 1997: 26; Levy et al. 2001).

Site 101 Ceramic Fabric Groups

42

Phase

Gr. 1

Gr. 2

Gr. 3

Gr. 4

Ph. 10 12111.1 10340.9 63880.7 56385.5

Gr. 5

Gr.6

Gr. 7

Gr. 8 (Eg.)

Gr. 9 (Eg.)

Gr. 10 (Eg.)

3931

1197.3

8719.1

13

0

0

18.9%

61.5%

36.1%

20.7%

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

5327.5 46197.1 112006.2

1143.2

1612.5 27306.9

1513.2

0

445.3

31.9%

33.8%

37.6%

17.9%

48.7%

64.8%

11.1%

0.0%

5.1%

Ph. 8 22656.3

42.4

9505.3 65869.5

552.2

405.8

5627.9

888

531.8

810.5

25.1%

0.3%

7.3%

22.1%

8.6%

12.2%

13.3%

6.5%

1.3%

9.3%

Ph. 7/6 26815.4

69

10837 63653.9

766.6

98.3

505.1 11202.3 41992.3

7435.4

29.7%

0.4%

21.4%

12.0%

3.0%

1.2%

98.7%

85.6%

90418 15779.8 130420.1 297915.1

6393

3313.9

42159 13616.5 42524.1

8691.2

100%

100%

100%

100%

13.4% Ph. 9 28835.2

Total

100%

65.5%

49.0%

35.4%

100%

8.3%

100%

100%

82.3%

100%

100%

Total 156578.6

224387.1

106889.7

163375.3

651230.7

Figure 21. Distribution of Individual Fabric Group Weights by Phase.

groups were readjusted accordingly. The overall result of the refiring tests was a dramatic reduction in the number of macroscopically identifiable fabric groups. The last step in this process was to select representative samples for petrographic analysis, which was performed by Naomi Porat. 2 This analytical procedure resulted in the identification of 10 fabric groups, 7 of which belonged to the indigenous Levantine ceramic industry (Groups 1 through 7) and 3 of which belonged to an Egyptian industry (Groups 8 through 10). Not all of these fabric groups were understood in a purely singular sense. In some cases, they reflected what could be termed production traditions: a rigorously adhered to correlation of form, fabric, decoration, and manufacturing technology. Group 7 is the best example of this (see Dessel 1991). The production traditions identified at the Halif Terrace will be discussed in chap. 5.

B. Local Fabric Types 1. Group 1, Calcite The primary characteristic of Group 1 was a large quantity of crushed calcite temper within a calcareous matrix that includes silty calcite and dolomite crystals (see figs. 19, 20, 21; Porat 1988: 3). Group 1 fabrics from Site 101 appear to correlate with Alon and Yekultieli’s (1995: 166) Calcite Group and Levy’s Group 3 Calcite (Levy et al. 1997: 36). 2. Porat examined 42 samples from Site 101 and Tell Halif in 1988. She was then at the Hebrew University Department of Geology and is now with the Geological Survey of Israel.

Site 101 Ceramic Fabric Groups

43

The use of calcite temper in a calcareous matrix is common throughout the Southern Levant in the Early Bronze I, although the clay matrix always reflects the use of local resources. Goren (1987a) refers to this fabric type as the Calcite Group and has identified this basic fabric type at Chalcolithic sites along the Nahal Besor and at Tell Haror. Group 1 is used almost exclusively for holemouth cooking pots (pl. 1:1, 2, 3–15, 17, 18), which correlates to the results from the Nahal Tillah excavations (Levy et al. 1997: 38). The physical properties of calcite temper make it well suited for cooking pots. The addition of calcite to the fabric is one method used to resist thermal stress, because its thermal expansion coefficient is close to that of clay (Rice 1987a: 229; Rye 1976: 116). This reduces shattering due to unequal expansion during the repeated cycles of heating and cooling a cooking pot. Small amounts of other temper were also found, including crushed limestone, limestone grits, and wadi sand. The calcite and crushed limestone temper was angular in shape and ranged in size from small to very large. 3 The angularity of these inclusions suggests that they were crushed prior to their addition to the clay paste. Grits and wadi sand tended to be subangular and rounded, indicating that they were either found naturally within the clay paste or were added without any processing. The sources for all these nonplastics were local to the area, certainly within 5 km of the site, because calcite and limestone are plentiful in regions that are composed of limestone hills (Levy et al. 1997: 38). Wadi gravel was the likely source for both the rounded limestone grits and rounded sand grains. The percentage of temper most commonly ranged from 20% to 30%, though at times it dropped as low as 10%. The clay matrix itself is calcareous, although constituent components in it vary and can include silty calcite or dolomite crystals (Porat 1988: 30). This calcareous matrix is a loessal clay from marly deposits found in the hills to the north and east of the site (see also Levy et al. 1997: 38). This paste is usually a brown or red color. Many Group 1 sherds were gray or black and evidenced signs of burning that probably reflected their vessel’s function as cooking pots. Refiring experiments and petrography determined that Group 1 vessels were fired at a low temperature, between 650° and 750° C. This lower firing temperature is evident by the presence of dark firing cores that appear in 60% of the Group 1 diagnostic sherds. The low firing temperature, along with firing cores, suggest that these vessels were fired for a short period of time in which the firing temperature first increased and then decreased rather quickly. This firing temperature was approximately 100° C lower than Group 2. Group 1 is linked to the production of holemouth vessels associated with cooking rather than storage. This is reinforced by the significant number of vessels that have evidence of soot accumulation, especially on the bases, presumably due to their repeated exposures to fire. On rare occasions, other forms were found in this fabric including vats, bowls, and jars. The 10 Group 1 diagnostic sherds that represent other forms can be viewed as experimentation with this fabric type and were not part of any consistent production tradition. Vessels made from Group 1 were rarely decorated: 6 had red slip (1 of which was also burnished), 1 had brown slip, and 1 rim was slightly scalloped. The very limited use 3. The size of temper grains are as follows: very small < 0.25 mm, small 0.25–.5 mm, medium 0.5–1.0 mm, large 1.0–2.0 mm, and very large > 2.0 mm.

44

Site 101 Ceramic Fabric Groups

of decoration with Group 1 vessels was haphazard and obviously not part of any specific decorative tradition. Porat (1988: 2–3) notes that the use of calcite temper in holemouth jars was rare in the Chalcolithic, although it became quite common in the Early Bronze Age. What is now clear is that the use of calcite for cooking pot ware, as in the Group 1 fabric, was already a well established tradition in Phase 10, the Terminal Chalcolithic. Based on a comparison of the weights of the Groups 1 and 2 assemblages, 54% of all cooking pot sherds (Groups 1 and 2) in Phase 10 were produced in Group 1 fabric (see fig. 22). 4 In Phase 9, the use of Group 1 jumped to 85% and in Phases 8 and 7/6 Group 2 was no longer in use. Thus, while Porat notes that Group 1 fabric became very common in the Early Bronze I, it was already the preferred cooking pot fabric on the Halif Terrace in its initial phase in the Terminal Chalcolithic. It is also typical of calcite-tempered holemouth cooking pots from the EB III levels at Tell Halif (Porat 1988: 5). Again, Porat suggests that Group 1 vessels were produced locally from local clay sources. Thus, almost every major EB I site has its own local version of this common fabric tradition.

Phase Ph. 10

Ph. 9

Ph. 8

Ph. 7/6

Total

WT 1

WT 2

Total

12111.1

10340.9

22452

53.9%

46.1%

100%

28835.2

5327.5

34162.7

53.9%

46.1%

100%

22656.3

42.4

22698.7

53.9%

46.1%

100%

26815.4

69

26884.4

53.9%

46.1%

100%

90420.38

15780.42

106197.8

85.1%

14.9%

100%

Figure 22. Comparison of Fabric Groups 1 and 2 Weights by Phase.

The increasing utilization of Group 1 over Group 2 in Phase 9, the Early Bronze IA, may reflect a move toward greater production efficiency. All the raw materials used in Group 1 were locally available, and temper was produced by a simple four-step process: 4. The weight of the assemblages are used for reference, though the percentages by either count or weight of Group 1 and 2 sherds in all phases were almost identical.

Site 101 Ceramic Fabric Groups

45

collection, crushing, sieving, and addition to the paste. Group 1 vessels were typically fired at a low temperature, which was sufficient for its primary function as a cooking-pot fabric. In fact, one of the most important characteristics of Group 1 was its ability to be fired at a low temperature for a short time without losing its functional viability. It was these advantages that made this fabric the dominant cooking-pot ware throughout the Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age. This production tradition probably spread rapidly, leading to the decline and disappearance of local Chalcolithic cooking-pot fabric traditions that never transcended regional boundaries. 2. Group 2 Group 2, a second holemouth cooking-pot production tradition, was also found in Phases 10 and 9 (pls. 1:3; 2:1–5), the Terminal Chalcolithic and Early Bronze IA respectively (see figs. 19, 20, 21). Group 2 utilized crushed chert as a temper in addition to crushed calcite. The use of very large pieces of crushed chert allowed for easy macroscopic identification of this fabric type. As opposed to the calcite clay matrix of Group 1, Group 2 utilized a clay matrix defined by the inclusion of decomposed foraminifera, the only Site 101 fabric matrix in which they were consistently found in abundance. 5 Group 2 was also locally produced, and both the clay matrix and its primary temper were found close to the Halif Terrace. Porat (1988: 2) suggests that the source of the clay is a Paleocene Taqiye formation, of which there is a small outcrop about 2 km to the north of the Halif Terrace (Gvirtzman and Buchbinder 1969; Porat 1988: 6). 6 The foraminifera were identified by David Reiss as operculina of the Oligocene-Neogene Age (Porat 1988: 5), and the hills surrounding the Halif Terrace are comprised of a Neogene formation (Gvirtzman and Buchbinder 1969; Laustrap 1976: 21). Chert veins are still found running through the surrounding limestone hills, and flint inclusions from the mountains are found throughout the Nahal Gerar (Gilead 1995: 9, 20). Crushed chert inclusions are easily recognizable, in part because of their consistently large size and angular shape. 7 The angularity indicates that this temper is intentionally crushed, though not sieved, because small and medium chert inclusions are found (Porat 1988: 2; Rye 1981: 37). All this suggests that, once crushed, the chert is directly added to the clay matrix. Because of the use of crushed chert, the preparation of Group 2 is a bit more labor intensive than that of Group 1. The chert must be mined or collected and then heated to facilitate crushing. This step is both labor intensive and costly, because it requires additional fuel. 8 5. Foraminifera are also found in the Group 3 matrix, but in much smaller quantities; nor are they used in a consistent fashion (Porat 1988: 2) 6. There is a Paleocene Taqiye formation in the Northern Negev and the outcrop north of the Halif Terrace is part of it. 7. The chert inclusions range in size from small to very large (!-4 mm to 2 mm and larger), but most are greater than 1 mm in size. 8. Rye notes (1981: 34) that minerals such as chert and quartz are very difficult to crush and are often calcined or preheated to make crushing easier. Additionally, he suggests that a temperature of 800° C is necessary to produce fracturing.

46

Site 101 Ceramic Fabric Groups

In almost all cases, crushed chert was the sole tempering agent used in Group 2. However, in a few examples, a very small percentage of small- and medium-sized black grits were macroscopically visible. The percentage of chert temper was also fairly high, ranging between 20% and 30%. Refiring experiments, reconfirmed through petrography (Porat 1988: 2), indicate that Group 2 was fired at 850° C, a significantly higher temperature than Group 1 (see above). This higher firing temperature also may have been sustained longer than in the firing process used with Group 1, because 75% of the 45 Group 2 diagnostic sherds (both rims and bases) had no firing cores. Only prepared chert temper was used in the Group 2 fabric. It was restricted to the production of holemouth cooking pots, of which 30 diagnostic rims and 15 flat bases were found. There was only one example of crushed chert added to another fabric, in this case a Group 4 vat from Phase 10. As with Group 1 holemouth cooking pots, virtually all Group 2 vessels were undecorated; however, there were some exceptions: one holemouth rim was scalloped and molded, and one body sherd from Phase 9 had a red painted band. The use of crushed chert is not well documented in the Southern Levant during the Chalcolithic or Early Bronze I. Porat (1988: 2) points out that, in the few examples of Chalcolithic pottery with chert temper, the chert is usually rounded and was a naturally occurring component in the sand or wadi gravels used as temper. Gilead and Goren (1989: 9) identified chert in Cream Ware from the Beer Sheva site cluster. Chert, as a component in temper, also appears in lesser quantities in the western Negev cluster (also see Goren 1988). 9 They posit that local wadi gravels were collected, crushed, sieved, and then added to the chalky clay, which is characteristic of Cream Ware (Gilead and Goren 1989: 9). Chert is also found as a naturally occurring element within the dominant tempering agent—that is, wadi sand—in the Early Bronze Age (I–IV) pottery at Bâb edh-Dhr⺠(Benyon, Donahue, Schaub, and Johnston 1986: 300; Schaub and Rast 1989: 261). It should be noted that wadi sand, and thus chert, was found in most vessel types, including bowls, jars, and juglets, but it was not found in the production of holemouth vessels. Likewise, much of the temper used in the Shiqmim ceramic assemblage was derived from local wadi sand. Again, the sand grains, which include limestone, quartz, and chert, were spherical and not crushed; they were merely collected and then added to the clay paste. Goren and Gilead (1987: 413) also note that to the east of Shiqmim, near the juncture of the Nahal Beersheva and the Nahal Sekher, there was an increase in the percentage of chert in the wadi sand that was used in the area’s ceramics. At Arad, chert temper was found in two fabric groups: “mica-bearing” temper that contained angular flint temper (Glass 1978: 50) and Ceramic Group 3 from the Sinai sites (Amiran, Beit Arieh and Glass 1973: 196). The “mica-bearing” group was used in a class of small jars, jugs, and juglets from Strata III–I (Early Bronze II). However, as in the case of Cream Ware, the temper was not exclusively comprised of flint but also included quartz, iron oxide grains, carbonate microfossils, and heavy minerals (Glass 1978: 50). Glass

9. According to Gilead and Goren’s (1989: fig. 2) map of the northern Negev petrographic pottery clusters, the Halif Terrace is located in the Shephelah fabric type. However, chert appears to be a naturally occurring element in the wadi gravel.

Site 101 Ceramic Fabric Groups

47

(1978: 117) also noted that there were very few sherds from either Early Bronze I or II contexts in which chert was the dominant tempering agent. In the case of Ceramic Group 3, petrographic analysis on the pottery from Nabi Salah and Sheikh Muhsein in the southern Sinai (Amiran, Beit-Arieh, and Glass 1973) established a close relationship between these sites and Arad in the Early Bronze II. Ceramic Group 3 from the Sinai sites “is characterized by coarse (up to 3.0 mm in diameter) chert fragments” within a fossiliferous clay (Amiran, Beit-Arieh, and Glass 1973: 196) and was identical to a fabric used in large vessels from Arad (Amiran, Beit-Arieh, and Glass 1973: 196). The combination of chert temper within a fossiliferous clay matrix is similar to Group 2 from the Halif Terrace. In four of these cases, the use of chert is not the defining characteristic of the temper (which is usually wadi gravel) or of the fabric. Additionally, vessels constructed from these fabrics were neither cooking pots nor holemouth jars, as was the case with the Group 2 vessels from Site 101. The use of Taqiye clay, characterized by the presence of foraminifera in the clay matrix for Group 2 is also noteworthy. 10 At Site 101, the use of Taqiye clay was predominantly found in Phase 10, the Terminal Chalcolithic. By the Early Bronze I there was no longer any specific fabric directly connected with the use of Taqiye clay. However, there was a limited use of it in Group 4 jars. Interestingly, Taqiye clay reappears on the tell in the Early Bronze III, where it was used for fine-ware vessels such as juglets and “Abydos” jugs, however, without chert temper. It would seem that Taqiye clay beds were exploited for the production of specific ceramic types. A preference for this Taqiye clay was also observed in the Early Bronze II assemblage from Arad, where it was used for almost all pottery types and was the predominant clay type for fine-ware juglets, bowls, and cups (Porat 1988: 6). It appears that there was a close association between Taqiye clay and fine wares from both Early Bronze II Arad and Early Bronze III Tell Halif. However, this tradition may well have begun at the Halif Terrace in the Chalcolithic when the Taqiye clay beds were first exploited. There was also some relationship between higher firing temperatures and Taqiye clay, which was perhaps selected for its suitability for firing at higher temperatures. Another criteria for selection may have been its compatibility with chert temper. At the Halif Terrace, this clay was used initially in the Chalcolithic era, when it was routinely fired at higher temperatures than were other fabric groups. In the Early Bronze I, there was some experimentation with Taqiye clays, though it was most usually combined with chert temper in the production of Group 2 holemouth cooking pots. In the late Early Bronze IA and Early Bronze IB, Taqiye clay was no longer used for cooking pots, although it continues in a limited fashion in the production of storage jars. The use of Taqiye clay then continued into the Early Bronze II at Arad, where it was used selectively in the production of fine wares and small forms. It then reappeared at Tell Halif again in the Early Bronze III, where it was found exclusively in fine ware fabric. This might be evidence of the diffusion of specific production traditions or even itinerant potters.

10. However, note Gilead and Goren (1995: 206), who suggest the closest Taqiye source to Gerar as being some 50 km to the south. They also note that Taqiye clay is inappropriate for ceramic production.

48

Site 101 Ceramic Fabric Groups

3. Group 3 Group 3 is characterized by rounded limestone and chalk grits within a calcareous matrix, with silt-size quartz components (see figs. 19, 20, 21; Porat 1988: 1). This fabric type was used in the production of a wide range of forms, including holemouth storage jars (pl. 2:10, 11, 13, 18–21), mugs (pls. 9:1–2; 10: 16), bowls (pls. 9:10, 12, 14, 15; 10:17–20; 11:7, 11–12, 16–17; 12:24, 25, 27), jars (pls. 2:23; 3; 3:3, 5–8, 11, 14, 15, 17–20; 4:6; 5:2– 4, 7, 13–15, 19; 8:6), cups, vats (pls. 6:8–9; 7: 7, 10–19; 8:3, 6, 9–12, 14, 17–19), cornets (pl. 9:30), and jug/juglets (pl. 9:20, 26). The range of form types suggests that this was a very versatile fabric used for a variety of multipurpose vessels associated with storage, serving, and other functions. In this way, Group 3 was a general fabric type and thus quite different from Groups 1 and 2, which represented discrete production traditions. Group 3 tempering agents were primarily rounded grains of limestone and chalk, along with some limited use of quartz sand (Porat 1988: 3). The rounded temper suggests that it was not crushed but either collected and added to the clay matrix or already present in it. However, the same clay matrix was found in Group 1 and did not contain wadi gravel, suggesting that it was deliberately added to the Group 3 clay matrix. It is also noteworthy that rounded chert grains were not present in this wadi gravel, supporting the suggestion that in Group 2 fabrics chert was specifically mined and processed for use as temper. In some form types, such as cups, a small amount of vegetal temper was also added to the clay paste. This kind of limited variation in fabric composition linked to a specific form type might reflect a fabric subgroup. 11 Because Group 3 was used for a wide range of vessels (open, closed, large, and small), there was a strict correlation between characteristics such as temper size, percentage of temper, and wall-thickness with each form type. 12 The Group 3 fabric ranges in color from pink to buff. Petrography and refiring texts established that this fabric type was fired at a low temperature between 650° and 750° C. Over 80% percent of the 1,030 diagnostic sherds displayed no evidence of a core, suggesting that the firing environment of Group 3 was longer and slower than that of Group 1. However, almost 75% of the 575 diagnostic rim sherds in Group 3 were small, open forms (bowls, cups, and mugs). They had consistently thinner walls and were therefore easier to fire completely, burning out any carbonaceous material.

11. The size of the temper is one of the attributes that is most sensitive to vessel shape and wallthickness. In the larger vessels, such as holemouth and everted rim jars, the size of the temper ranges from small (0.25 to 0.5 mm) to very large (greater than 2 mm). This is also the temper size profile for mugs, which are a smaller, open form. In forms such as vats, jugs, juglets, and cornets, the size is more restricted, usually small to large (1 to 2 mm), although there occasionally are some very large nonplastics. The size range in bowls and cups is even further restricted to small- and medium- (0.5 to 1 mm) sized temper with a much more limited amount of large-sized temper. 12. The percentage of temper in the fabric type clearly varies according to form. In holemouth storage jars and jars, the percentage usually ranges from 10% to 20% but reaches extremes of 5% and 30%. Vats, jugs, and juglets also have temper percentages ranging from 10% to 20%, with the lowest extreme reaching 5%. Mugs, cups, and bowls have a range between 5% and 20%, with 10% as the most common percentage. The attribute most affected by the percentage and size of the nonplastics is wall-thickness.

Site 101 Ceramic Fabric Groups

49

There were several decorative motifs that were closely associated with this fabric type. The use of red slip was more commonly associated with Group 3 than with Group 4 vessels, and it was found on 6% of all sherds produced in Group 3 (pls. 2:13, 18; 3:7; 5:7; 7:11, 12, 18; 8:9; 9:10, 17; 10:16, 22). There is also a wide variety of other decorative motifs associated with both Groups 3 and 4, although they were used on a very limited scale. The idiosyncratic application of decoration to Group 3 vessels at times copied decorative motifs found more commonly on Group 4 vessels. There was a limited use of lime wash, pajama ware decoration (pl. 8:17), red painted bands, and red slipped rims (pls. 2:21; 7:16; 9:12; 10:18–20; 11:11, 16; 12:14). Additionally, the use of red slip and burnishing, 13 exterior combing (pl. 8:18–19), incised herringbones, and brown and gray washes were all very rare on Group 3 vessels. The use of striped wash decoration was also associated with the Group 3 fabric (pls. 3:14; 5:14; 7:10, 19). 14 Striped wash is also referred to as reserved-slip, and it is described as alternating bands of a cream or white slip and red stripes (de Contenson 1956: 173; Kansa 2002; Murphy 1940: 74). While striped-wash vessels were found in all phases, it was most popular in Phase 7/6, when it comprised 4% of the Group 3 assemblage. This decorative motif is more commonly found in Chalcolithic assemblages and is more rare in Early Bronze I contexts (see pls. 3:14; 9:18). The striped wash pattern could be achieved in several ways: the vessel could be white slipped and then horizontal, parallel lines could be painted over the slip, or a wash could be applied to a vessel and then partially wiped off, leaving alternating horizontal bands of the wash and the paste itself. In yet another method, a wash or slip was applied and allowed to dry. Then a second coating of slip or wash of a different color was applied and wiped again, leaving alternating bands of the two different colored slips. In either case, the result is alternating horizontal striations of two colors (Gilead and Goren 1995: 143; Hennessy 1969: 7). The colors of the wash or slip found at the Halif Terrace included pink, red, and cream, and the vessel itself was usually a buff color. Striped wash first appeared in the Chalcolithic at such sites as Ghassul (Koeppel 1940: pl. 89:1, 4, 6; Hennessy 1969: figs. 5:3, 6, 10; 6:4; pl. VIIIa), Horvat Betar (M. Dothan 1959b: pl. VI:4, 7, 9; fig. 11:33, 38; 18:34–35), Abu Matar and Bir es-Safadi (Perrot 1955: pl. 17b; de Contenson 1956: figs. 5:4, 10; 6:1, 6), and Nahal Mishmar (Bar-Adon 1980: fig. I11.13:7–11). It was also found in the Early Bronze IA deposits at Tell en-Nasbeh (McCown 1947: 70). Group 3 was most common in Phases 10 and 9, the Terminal Chalcolithic and Early Bronze IA, where it comprised 38% and 23.3% of the assemblage, respectively. In fact, it was the most common fabric found in Phase 10, the only time any fabric group outranked Group 4. However, by Phase 8, EB IB Early, Group 3 decreased to 8.8% of the assemblage, where it remained in Phase 7/6. 15 Group 3 was clearly associated with the Terminal Chalcolithic and the EB IA. In the Chalcolithic, similar fabrics were found throughout the northern Negev and southern 13. Both hand-burnishing and pattern-burnishing is used on Group 3 vessels. 14. There are only traces of striped ware on these last three vessels, and the traces are not represented in the drawings. 15. Similar ratios result if only the Southern Levantine fabric assemblage is considered.

50

Site 101 Ceramic Fabric Groups

Shephelah, including Shiqmim (Goren and Gilead 1987), Arad (Glass 1978), and Bir esSafadi (Glass 1978: 8), as well as at sites P14 and D11 along the Nahal Besor (Goren 1988: 134). At Shiqmim, Goren and Gilead (1987: 412) also noted the use of wadi sand as the only temper and of silty loess as the clay source. Glass (1978: 9) reported a very similar fabric profile for the majority of Chalcolithic pottery from Arad. 16 At Arad, this fabric type was associated only with the Chalcolithic level and not with Early Bronze I or II strata. The continued use of this fabric in the Early Bronze I at the Halif Terrace appears to be an isolated occurrence in the region and reflects the continuity of ceramic production traditions from the Chalcolithic into the Early Bronze I (Joffe and Dessel 1995). Unlike Group 1, Group 3 was not found in the Early Bronze III deposits on the tell site. 4. Group 4 Group 4 is characterized by the use of grog and limestone nonplastics in either a Taqiye clay matrix in the Chalcolithic or a calcareous clay matrix in the Early Bronze I (see figs. 19, 20, 21). It was the most dominant fabric found at Site 101, comprising 47% of the entire assemblage. After Phase 10, when Group 4 comprised 31.4% of the assemblage, compared to 38.3% for Group 3 (see above), there was an increasing reliance on Group 4 at the expense of Group 3. By Phases 8 and 7/6, Group 4 comprised over half of the assemblage, while Group 3 dropped less than 9%. The high frequency of this fabric within the entire assemblage reflects its overall utility. Group 4 was used in the production of bowls (pls. 9:11, 13, 16; 10:21, 23; 11:3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, 20–23, 25, 29; 12:23, 26), cups (pl. 10:3, 4, 7–10, 12–14, 25), mugs (pls. 3:9–10; 9:3–7; 10:24), straw-tempered beakers (pl. 13:6, 18), jars (pls. 3:1, 2, 11, 13, 16; 4:1–5, 7–14; 5:1, 5–6, 8–12, 17–18), holemouth storage jars (pl. 2:6–9, 12, 14–17, 22), jug/ juglets (plate 9:21) and vats (pls. 6:5–7; 7:1–5; 6, 8, 9; 8:1–2, 4–5, 13, 15, 16). As with Group 3, the variety of forms makes identifying specific production traditions difficult. Petrography and refiring experiments indicate that Group 4 fabrics were fired at temperatures exceeding 750° C and in certain cases 850° C (Porat 1988: 2). Individual sherds submitted for petrographic analysis displayed a variety of firing temperatures that indicated this fabric type was not as internally consistent as Groups 1, 2, 6, and 7. Group 4 temper included grog, crushed limestone, and limestone grits, along with much smaller percentages of crushed calcite and straw (which were only found in specific form types). The use of grog, though documented from Neolithic Jericho (Glass 1978: 43), was not common in Chalcolithic pottery (Glass 1978: 43; Porat 1988: 2). However, it became quite common in the Early Bronze II and III (Glass 1978: 50; Porat 1988: 5). Obviously, grog was deliberately added to the clay matrix as were both angular, crushed limestone and calcite. Straw was used with greater frequency in mugs and cups than in vats, holemouth storage jars, and bowls. 16. Characteristic of the Arad material are rounded gray limestone grains and a small percentage of quartz grains. The source of these nonplastics is the local sand. The firing temperature is estimated at 650° C, and Glass (1978: 9) also notes the lack of firing cores.

Site 101 Ceramic Fabric Groups

51

In almost all of the forms produced in Group 4, the percentage of temper was roughly 10%, although it did reach as high as 30%. In almost all cases, the size of the temper ranged from small to very large. The use of very large temper was relatively limited and probably resulted from the use of unsieved or poorly sieved limestone grits. The color of Group 4 fabric was reddish brown or buff. The clay matrix of Group 4 was either the same Taqiye clay used in Group 2 or a calcareous clay with a dolomite component (Porat 1988: 3). Porat (1988: 3) notes that this fabric type is typical of southern Palestine in the Early Bronze Age. The use of the Taqiye clay source decreased over time at Site 101. In Phase 8 (EB IB Early), Taqiye clay was almost completely superseded by calcareous and dolomitic clays. The calcareous clay type was used at Site 101 as well as on the tell in EB III. The Group 4 fabric with a calcareous clay matrix is probably what Alon and Yekultieli (1995: 162) refer to as the “Grog Group” (also see Porat 1989a; 1989b). They note that it appeared mainly in their Stratum II (EB IB Late) and that this fabric was associated with storage jars with pajama-ware decoration. The difference in clay matrices between the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I suggests that, if nothing else, different clay sources were exploited in different periods. This change in clay beds was likely to have been intentional, because in Phase 9 both clay sources were used. The exact reason for the selection of calcareous clay over Taqiye clay is unclear; it may be based on either functional or production considerations. On the tell, Group 4 was also the most typical fabric found in the Early Bronze III. Taqiye clay was also used but in a very limited capacity, specifically for “Abydos” jugs and for vessels produced in fine wares (see above). Although it was found in the Chalcolithic at Site 101, it was not found at other Chalcolithic sites in the northern Negev such as Shiqmim, Beer Sheva, or Arad. However, it did appear at Arad in the Early Bronze I, where it remained into the Early Bronze II. Local versions of Group 4 were common throughout the Southern Levant in the Early Bronze I through III. Group 4 sherds were frequently decorated. The use of white lime wash clearly began in Phase 10, the Terminal Chalcolithic, and became more popular in the Early Bronze I phases, until by Phase 7/6 (EB IB Late) it was found on 27% of all Group 4 sherds (pl. 5:6, 8). Red painted stripes were frequently added over the white lime wash, which Braun (personal communication) refers to as “pajama ware” 17 (see fig. 10; pls. 4:2, 5, 10; 5:9,12; 6:1, 5). Dever (1988: 21) refers to this same motif as “trickle paint” and considers it a hallmark of Early Bronze I. This motif was virtually nonexistent on Group 3 vessels. At other sites, such as Jericho Phase 0 (Hennessy 1967: 9, 17) and at Bâb edh-Dhr⺠(Schaub 1981: 77– 78), pajama ware begins in the Early Bronze IA. The appearance of white lime wash and pajama ware increased significantly over time, making a dramatic jump between Phases 9 (close to 10%) and 8 (21%) and finally reaching 33% in Phase 7/6. Unlike pajama ware, use of white lime wash continued throughout the Early Bronze Age and appeared on the tell in the Early Bronze III strata (see Callaway 1972: 66). Rarely used decorative styles included brown wash, gray/black slip, line group painted ware patterns (pl. 11: 9, 10, 14), red slip and burnish, red painted dots, and combing. There 17. The term motif is a bit misleading; white lime wash may well be more of a functional rather than decorative addition.

52

Site 101 Ceramic Fabric Groups

were only 20 sherds with striped wash (one of which, from Phase 9, was also incised). Striped wash was much more common on Group 3 vessels. The use of red painted bands on Group 4 sherds was almost nonexistent (though see pl. 11:29). The use of red slip was limited to 5% of the entire Group 4 assemblage (pls. 4:1, 11; 5:5; 7:9; 9:5–7, 13; 10:9, 14; 11:3, 18, 21, 25). 5. Group 5 Group 5 is a closely related fine-ware variant of Group 4, reserved for smaller or more finely made vessels (see figs. 19, 20, 21). It is distinguished from Group 4 by its lower percentages of smaller-sized temper, though clearly this particular characteristic reflected the thinner wall size of the finer pottery. Group 5 was often used as a fine ware variant for vessels usually produced in the more utilitarian Group 4 fabric. This fabric group correlates with Gilead and Goren’s (1995: 193) “fine standard ware.” However, some form types were produced primarily in Group 5, such as cornets (pl. 9:23–25, 27) and especially V-shaped bowls (pls. 11:24; 12:3, 7, 8, 15, 18). Regardless of the form type, whenever the percentage of the temper was below 10% and the temper size did not exceed medium, the fabric was designated Group 5 rather than Group 4. In several cases, when the size of the temper was large, but the percentage of the temper was still low and the wall-thickness was thin, the fabric was designated as Group 5. Based on refiring tests, the firing temperature was estimated between 750° and 850° C. The color of the paste was red or buff. The production of a holemouth in a Group 5 fabric illustrates how this fabric was used for a form type typically produced in other wares. A very small holemouth jar with a 3 cm diameter that had very thin walls and a small amount of temper (less than 10%) was designated as Group 5. In this case, the jar is considered a miniature or votive vessel that was not used for either cooking or storage, the usual holemouth functions. Other forms found in Group 5 fabric include bowls (pl. 11:5, 15, 19, 27), cups (pl. 10:6), mugs (pl. 9:8, 9), jars (pl. 3:4, 12, 15), and juglets (pl. 9:19, 22). Group 5 was found in significant quantities in Phase 10, where it comprised 11% of the assemblage. When combined with Group 4, to which it was closely related (see above), the two comprised 42% of the entire Phase 10 assemblage. However, in Phase 9, Group 5 dropped to 2.8% and remained under 2% in Phases 8 and 7/6, suggesting that this fine ware variant was dropped as a separate production tradition after the Terminal Chalcolithic. The development of a fine-ware variant of Group 4 (the most common fabric group found at Site 101) was probably linked to the production of small, well-made vessel types, especially cornets and V-shaped bowls, classic Chalcolithic forms that eventually died out by the end of the Early Bronze I. 18 The local production of these forms in the Terminal Chalcolithic and Early Bronze IA may have led to experimentation in combining Chalcolithic forms with the Group 4 fabric that became most prominent in Phases 8 and 7/6. Initially, both the cornet and V-shaped bowl had been produced in Groups 3, 4, 5, and 6 (see 18. Gilead and Goren (1995: 143) refer to this type of ware, when used for the production of V-shaped bowls found at Gerar, as “the standard fine ware with small grits.”

Site 101 Ceramic Fabric Groups

53

below) and had characteristically thin walls. The local production of these vessels in the most common local fabric, Group 4, may have resulted in a reformulation of this fabric into a fine-ware variant—that is, Group 5—in order to produce crucial thinner walls. This reformulation is also reflected in the reduction in temper size and its percentage. Interestingly, juglets that were produced in Groups 4, 5, and 6 were very rare in the Early Bronze I, and only 5 clear examples were found on the Terrace. Two of these came from the Phase 10 (pl. 9:17, 19, 20, 21, 22). However, juglets ultimately became a standard part of the ceramic assemblage in Early Bronze II and III, at which time they were produced in fine wares. The catalyst for the development of a fine-ware variant of Group 4 might therefore have been the need to produce locally specific Chalcolithic vessels characterized by thin walls and finely tempered fabrics. Group 5 vessels were frequently decorated, most frequently with red slip, often coupled with hand burnishing or a band of red slip around the rim. Other decorative motifs included red bands and some striped wash. Over half of all Group 5 sherds from closed vessels had traces of exterior red slip; in Phase 7/6 it reached 79% of all Group 5 sherds, most of which were then burnished. Three types of burnishing techniques were used: overall hand-burnishing that covered the vessel’s exterior, linear pattern-burnishing (pl. 9:17), and net-burnishing. Overall, hand-burnishing was the most common technique. Open forms were rarely slipped or burnished but usually did have a band of red slip around the rim, especially on V-shaped bowls in Phases 10 and 9 (pls. 11:5, 15, 19, 24, 27; 12:3, 15, 18). 6. Group 6 Group 6 is another fine ware variant, comparable to Cream Ware that was first identified by Macalister at Tell Gezer in the early part of the 20th century (1912a: 12, 137). The identification of Group 6 was the most difficult of all of the ten established types. The problem of accurate identification was due in part to the close macroscopic resemblance between Groups 6 and 3 (see figs. 19, 20, 21). In examples where Group 3 contained a small percentage of small- or medium-sized nonplastics, it resembled what was often considered Cream Ware. This problem of identification is similar to that between Groups 4 and 5. The difficulty, in both cases, was in trying to macroscopically distinguish a fine-ware variant from its more utilitarian parent type. In the case of Groups 4 and 5, there appears to be no appreciable difference in the fabric composition. The main difference lies in the size and percentage of the temper and the wall-thickness. In the case of Groups 6 and 3, there appears to be a compositional difference that merits the designation of Group 6 material as Cream Ware. Definitions of what constitutes Cream Ware vary widely and until recently there has been no chemical or geological analysis of this material. Gilead and Goren’s (1989) petrographic analysis of Cream Ware, as was defined by Amiran in her 1955 landmark study, has succeeded in isolating the clay source for the fabric. Gilead and Goren (1989: 9) note that, “Examination of Cream Ware thin sections readily shows that the unique quality of the clay results from its highly carbonatic nature and the abundance of numerous microfossils, common in the upper formations of the

54

Site 101 Ceramic Fabric Groups

Eocene chalk of southern Israel”. They define Cream Ware as “produced from a raw material originating in upper Eocene chalk deposits” (Gilead and Goren 1989: 9). The Halif Terrace is in precisely this kind of Eocene chalk area. Gilead and Goren (1995: 195–96) also further divide Cream Ware into fine and coarse categories: the fine matrix was used for small vessels (cornets and small jars) and the coarse for vats, holemouth jars, and jars. At Site 101, the matrix of Group 6 is a non-silty calcareous clay with quartz and foraminifera components. However, the petrographic sample is distinct from Group 3. Porat (1988: 1) also notes that it is not identical to Cream Ware as defined by Goren. She suggests that the material from the Halif Terrace is a local Cream Ware variant. The most notable characteristics of this fabric type are the very light pink, white, or creamy paste color and the small size of the temper that made up a small percentage, between 5 and 10%, of the clay matrix. 19 The temper was usually small- and medium-sized, rounded limestone and chalk grits. Additionally, this fabric type was considerably less dense, due to the use of chalky sediments in the clay matrix, and therefore lighter than any other fabric type (Gilead and Goren 1989: 9). As determined through refiring tests and petrography, these vessels were fired at a temperature between 650° and 750° C. The paste color was usually pink/buff, although it could also be red and even red/brown. Almost all of the Group 6 vessels were small open forms that included hemispherical bowls (pl. 11:1, 2, 26), V-shaped bowls (pl. 12:1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9–12, 16, 17, 19–21), squaredrim bowls, cups, as well as a small number of jars or juglets (see below). 20 The most typical form was the V-shaped bowl, which was also produced in Groups 3, 4, 5, and even 7 fabrics. Of the 107 diagnostic Group 6 rim sherds, 57 examples (53%) came from V-shaped bowls, and 42 examples (39%) were from hemispherical bowls (which were also produced in Groups 3, 4, and 5). Most of the rims of these open forms also had a band of red slip around the top of the rim. On V-shaped bowls there was also a limited use of red painted bands, as well as interior and exterior body slip (for a complete description of V-shaped bowl decoration, see below). There was one example of a vat from Phase 9 that was produced in Group 6. It too had a red slipped rim. It is the size of the wall-thickness, between 2 and 7 mm, and the small size and percentage of temper that marks the diagnostic sherds from open forms as constituting a separate fabric type distinct from Group 3. However, without a detailed chemical or mineralogical analysis of Group 6 V-shaped bowls, it remains unclear if all the examples attributed to Group 6 are in fact Cream Ware or if this group needs to be broken down into a Cream Ware variant and a fine variant of Group 3. A small number of body sherds (42) from closed vessels were found in Group 6, comprising 7.6% of the Group 6 assemblage. These sherds came from Phase 9. They could have come from a juglet or small jar and in all cases were very light in color, light-weight, and had thin walls without a firing core. Based on Gilead and Goren’s (1989) mineralogical work on the composition and source of Cream Ware, it is likely that this ware type is a discrete and authentic category. Cream Ware has been identified only from Chalcolithic deposits primarily in the northern 19. In a few examples, V-shaped bowls the amount of the temper reached as high as 20%. 20. A small number of Group 6 body sherds from closed vessels were identified, but whether they came from juglets or small jars was not determined.

Site 101 Ceramic Fabric Groups

55

Negev and southern Shephelah. But it is also likely that there are local variants, possibly including the examples from Site 101. Other examples from outside the core area have also been identified. Gilead and Goren (1989: 10) note that a few Cream Ware sherds have now been securely identified from the Chalcolithic site of Ghassul, with the raw material coming from either the Negev or from the Gebel Sartaba area, 25 km north of Ghassul. Extensive chemical and mineralogical tests are needed in order to identify the exact nature of these fabrics. However, the Halif Terrace is located in an Eocene chalk area that is the source for the Cream Ware clay matrix. The V-shaped bowls and other Group 6 forms can all be distinguished from Group 3 in some way: size of nonplastics, percentage of temper, density of ware, or wall thickness. A case could be argued that, even if this material is not genuine Cream Ware, it is a fine-ware variant of Group 3 (as Group 5 is a fine-ware variant of Group 4). However, the petrography does indicate that at least some, if not all, of the material is a Cream Ware variant. 7. Group 7 Group 7 is almost exclusively used in the production of a single vessel form type, the straw-tempered beaker (see figs. 19, 20, 21; pls. 12:13; 13:1–5, 7–17; 14:1–17). The primary characteristic of Group 7 is the dominant use of straw for temper, which also makes it very easy to identify. It is one of the most consistently produced fabrics found at Site 101, with very little variability in its composition. Other than straw-tempered beakers, there are a few examples of other forms found in Group 7, including hemispherical bowls (pl. 11:28), mugs, cups, jars (pl. 10:26), jugs, vats, holemouth bowls, and holemouth jars. Regardless of form, the use of straw, which appears as a negative within the paste, remains consistent as the primary tempering agent. Other temper was used, but in small quantities, including sand, rounded limestone grits, calcrete fragments, and grog. The most common combination of temper sizes was either small and medium, or small through large, though very small and very large sized temper was also found. The use of chopped straw and grog suggests that the temper was processed and then added to the paste. But, it is less clear whether the rounded limestone grits were artificially added or occurred naturally within the clay paste. The lack of very large grits in the fabric may suggest some degree of sieving, although very large grits may have been manually removed from the clay paste. The clay paste is a calcareous matrix, rich in silt-sized quartz and calcite and derived from loess and loessal sediments (Porat 1988: 3). Heavy minerals found along with the quartz include hornblende and epidote. While this fabric tradition is very similar to the locally produced Egyptian fabric, it can be easily distinguished from the Egyptian material. The firing temperature, derived from refiring tests and petrography, indicated a low firing temperature, between 650° and 750° C. Almost all of the examples of Group 7 strawtempered beakers have a thick black core, suggesting that they were fired quickly for a short time. Other form types found in Group 7 were much less likely to have firing cores. This may indicate that, while all straw-tempered beakers were fired together or in the same firing environment, other forms produced in Group 7 were fired separately.

Site 101 Ceramic Fabric Groups

56

The size of the temper ranged from small to very large. However, the predominant size combination was small and medium. The percentage of the temper was typically 20%, though it ranged from 10 to 20%. The color of the paste was brown and red. The straw-tempered beaker is one of the most numerous forms found on the Halif Terrace. It has an interesting frequency pattern, most closely associated with Phases 10 through 8. The form almost completely disappears in Phase 7/6. In Phase 10, it comprised 7.2% of the entire assemblage by count, which increased to 11.2% in Phase 9. 21 In Phase 8 it dropped down to 7.6% by count and 5.3% by weight and all but disappeared in Phase 7/6. The individual stratigraphic distribution of Group 7 sherds by weight is very instructive: 20.7% of Groups 7 sherds were found in Phase 10 and 64.8% in Phase 9. This dropped to 13.2% in phase 8 and 1.2% in Phase 7/6. This data suggests that the bulk of all strawtempered beakers, 85.5% by weight, were produced and used in the Terminal Chalcolithic and Early Bronze IA. This distribution is inverse to that of the locally produced and imported Egyptian material, Groups 8 and 9, at Site 101, suggesting functional or production correlations to straw-tempered beakers and the permanent Egyptian presence at the site. There is almost no use of decoration connected with this fabric type. A total of 5 sherds from straw-tempered beakers have evidence of red or white slip (pl. 13:8). There is one very unusual example of a straw-tempered beaker with two X-shaped, incised potters’ marks on the exterior of its base and internal red slip (pl. 14:1). Most notable with regard to this fabric type is the absence of any comparable Levantine fabrics in the region. This is also related to the overall lack of parallels for the form of the straw-tempered beaker itself, with the best comparative samples coming from the site of Lachish. There is no Chalcolithic ceramic tradition elsewhere that utilizes straw temper, though straw temper is commonly found in Neolithic fabrics. The similarity to the locally produced Egyptian fabric, Group 8, is perplexing. Perhaps this fabric type was a local tradition unique to the Halif Terrace. The use of this Group 7 fabric is limited to the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze IA. By the Early Bronze IB its use declines, along with the use of its associated form the straw-tempered beaker (see below, straw-tempered beakers in chap. 4).

C. Egyptian Fabric Types 1. Group 8 Group 8 is a locally produced Egyptian fabric, with straw as its principal temper. Petrography has confirmed the identity of Group 8 as an Egyptian style fabric, produced locally, with local raw materials (see figs. 19, 20, 21, and 23a–c; Porat 1988). In Phase 7/6, this fabric comprises one third of the Egyptian assemblage. Some of this fabric is also found in both Phases 8 and 9 (see below for a full discussion of the stratigraphic implications of Egyptian pottery in Phases 7/6 and 8). 21. By weight it comprised 5.5% and 12.2% of the entire assemblage in Phases 10 and 9, respectively.

Site 101 Ceramic Fabric Groups The Group 8 clay matrix is calcareous, with a strong silt-sized quartz component, and is found in loess deposits west of the site (Kansa 2001: 166; Porat 1988). Porat (1988: 3) also notes that the clay matrix is identical to the raw material used for the same pottery forms from the sites of Tell el-ªErani and Tell Maªahaz. The dominant temper was straw and rounded limestone grits. Other tempering agents included wadi sand and crushed calcrete fragments. The shape of the temper is both rounded and angular, indicating that some of the temper is processed. Temper preparation includes the collection and cutting of the straw, crushing of the calcrete, the production of grog, and the collection of unsieved wadi sand. The size of the temper ranges from small to very large. The lack of sieving is indicated by the relatively common occurrence of very large-sized temper. The percentage of temper is usually around 20%, with extremes of 5% and 30%. The high degree of variability in both the size and percentage of temper reflects a lack of, or disinterest in, production control of these variables during the preparation of the paste. Through petrography and refiring tests the firing temperature is estimated between 650° and 850° C. Over half of the Group 8 sherd assemblage had a firing core. This suggests a firing environment in which the heat is frequently, but not always, maintained for a long enough period to ensure complete oxidation of all carbonaceous material. There was almost no use of decoration with this fabric type, although one sherd from an open form had traces of white slip on its interior and exterior. The color of the paste is buff, pink, and red. Group 8 is also restricted to a number of clearly Egyptian ceramic types, including Egyptian open bowls and vats (pl. 16:10–13), lotus-shaped bowls, holemouth jars (pl. 15:6, 10, 20), and jars (pl. 15:1–4, 13, 22). Straight-

Phase Ph. 10

Ph. 9

Ph. 8

Ph. 7/6

Total

Phase Ph. 10

Ph. 9

57 WT 8

WT 9 WT 10 Total

0

0

0

0

0%

0%

0%

0%

72

0

15

87

83%

0%

17%

100%

57

5

35

97

59%

5%

36%

100%

390

445

339

1174

33%

38%

29%

100%

519

450

389

1358

38%

33%

29%

100%

WT 8

WT 9 WT 10 Total

0

0

0

0

0%

0%

0%

0%

1513.2

0

445.3

1958.5

77%

0%

23%

100%

888

531.8

810.5

2230.3

40%

24%

36%

100%

Ph. 7/6 11202.3 41992.3

7435.4

60630

12%

100%

Ph. 8

18%

69%

Total 13603.5 42524.1

21%

Phase Ph. 10

WT 8

66%

8691.2 64818.8

13%

WT 9 WT 10 Total

0

0

0

0%

0%

0%

1513.2

0

445.3

11%

0%

5%

888

531.8

810.5

7%

1%

9%

Ph. 7/6 11202.3 41992.3

7435.4

Ph. 9

Ph. 8

82%

99%

Total 13603.5 42524.1 100%

100%

100%

0

1958.5

2230.3

60630

86% 8691.2 64818.8 100%

Figure 23. a—top: Distribution of Egyptian Fabric Group Counts by Phase; b—middle: Distribution of Egyptian Fabric Group Weights by Phase; c—bottom: Distribution of Egyptian Fabric Group Weights According to Individual Fabric Groups by Phase.

58

Site 101 Ceramic Fabric Groups

sided bowls (pl. 15:12, 16) and locally produced Egyptian storage jars (pl. 15:8, 11, 14, 17, 23) were manufactured in a very similar variant. Because straight-sided bowls and Egyptian storage jars were easy to identify due to their surface treatment, identifying this variant fabric type is highly accurate. Although the same clay matrix and temper were used in the production of straightsided bowls and Egyptian storage jars, the wall-thickness and temper size combinations differ from the other forms produced in Group 8. The paste used in both of these forms is finer, the walls are thinner, and the size of the nonplastics tends to be smaller, for example, the straw used in these forms was chopped finer and used in lesser quantities than in the other forms. Additionally, these vessels appear to be fired at a steadier rate. A total of 64% of the sherds in these two form types did not have firing cores. The utility of this more-even firing may be related to the thinner vessel walls. 2. Group 9 Group 9 is a variant of Group 8 and was used exclusively in the production of Egyptian bread molds (see figs. 19, 20, 21, 23a–c; pls. 16:1–8). Its clay matrix and temper are identical to that of Group 8. The distinguishing characteristics of the Group 9 vessels are the size and percentage of the temper and the wall-thickness. In the case of bread molds, the wall-thickness is directly attributable to the vessel form. Bread molds require thick walls, presumably to facilitate the baking of bread. The wall-thickness ranges from 26 to 31 mm. The substantial increase in wall-thickness also allows for an increase in the size and percentage of temper, and all the diagnostic examples contain the full size range of temper sizes. The percentage of temper is also very high in comparison to Group 8. It ranges from 20 to 30%, and is most usually 30%. This high percentage may be necessary in order to absorb thermal stress during baking. The color of the paste is buff or brown. Almost every bread mold sherd, including the nondiagnostic body sherds that constituted the majority of the assemblage, had very thick black cores. The consistent presence of a thick firing core was due to the low firing temperature and short firing period in a bread oven. This firing environment left the bread mold very friable. 22 These bread molds were never properly fired but rather were sun-dried and then fired along with their contents, bread loaves. The bread mold was a disposable baking tray that also acted as a serving tray, after which it was discarded. Forty-two kg of bread mold were found in Phase 7/6, as well as an additional 10 kg in Phase 1, 23 which were probably produced and used during Phase 7/6.

22. In one case, an entire bread mold was found on a Phases 7/6 surface in the Egyptian Residency. Though the bread mold was complete, it was very fragile and needed extensive consolidation in order to preserve it. 23. Phase 1 is the uppermost phase on the Terrace; it has no in situ architecture and a wide range of pottery dating from the Early Bronze Age I to the modern period.

Site 101 Ceramic Fabric Groups

59

3. Group 10 Group 10 is the fabric found on the Halif Terrace that was imported from Egypt (see figs. 19, 20 , 21, and 23a–c; pls. 15:7, 9, 15, 18, 19, 21). The use of this fabric type was limited to either Egyptian cylindrical jars or storage jars. These jar types were common in the Late Naqada II and III and were found in southern Palestine in the Early Bronze IB. The Egyptian storage jar is also produced in Group 8, a local Egyptian fabric, but it is very easy to distinguish the imported fabric from its local imitation (though see Kansa 2001: 147). 24 Petrographic analysis identified Group 10 as an Egyptian marly clay. The marly clay matrix includes decomposed carbonate fragments, iron filled foraminifera, silt-sized quartz, and mica laths (Porat 1988: 3). Porat (1988: 3) notes that similar fabrics, also from Egyptian storage jars and cylindrical jars, have been identified from ºEn Besor, northern Sinai, and Minshat Abu Omar. The temper includes a variety of rounded and angular-rounded quartz, decomposed limestone, and mud balls that range in size from very small to small (Porat 1988: 3). Macroscopically, the mud balls appear similar to grog, and in a few cases the temper is estimated at up to 20% of the paste, but it usually accounts for 5% of the paste. This fabric is consistently and evenly fired. Sixty percent of the recorded sherds have no cores. In the cases where cores are present, they are either brown or yellow and not black or gray as in other fabrics. According to refiring tests and petrographic analysis this fabric type is fired at a temperature over 850° C. The color of the paste tends to be reddish brown. 24. For a discussion of the Egyptian imported pottery excavated by the NTP see Kansa 2001: 148.

CHAPTER 4

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions Of all the attributes addressed by the integrated typology, form is at once the most obvious and most problematic. On the one hand, form appears to be a purely functional characteristic—a vessel’s shape determines what it does. On the other hand, innumerable variations in shape, even within a single “type,” point to form being a medium for expressing complex stylistic information. While “form may follow function,” in some reductively axiomatic fashion, the very notion of functionality must be broadened to include not only physical but also social purpose. Form broadcasts its social information in ways that decoration does not, namely, at a distance and at a greater level of generality. While the intricacies of a decorative motif may be discernible from a few feet away, they are not discernible at a distance of meters. Shape makes its statement very nearly as soon as the pot comes over the horizon, so too with the specificity of the information itself. The grammar of shape has a robustness lacking in that of decoration, where intricate flourishes may be highly significant. A child may recognize a shape as something that does or does not “belong” even if the child failed to understand the rules. At the same time, however, because form is comprised of the technological decisions of ware and manufacturing technique, it may have multiple or hidden “meanings,” perhaps deceptive or perhaps simply imitative. Seen in this light, the discussion of forms in this chapter is especially detailed.

A. Local Form Types 1. Holemouth Jars Holemouth jars have an extraordinarily wide distribution, from the Transcaucasus to southern Sinai. In the Southern Levant, they are found as early as the Neolithic and continue in use through the entire Early Bronze Age. Holemouth jars are ubiquitous in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze IA and IB, and they are also one of the most common forms

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

61

found in these periods. At the Halif Terrace, three distinct and easily distinguished holemouth production traditions were identified based on fabric types: two cooking pot traditions using the Groups 1 or 2 fabrics and a storage jar tradition that utilized a variety of fabrics, including Groups 3, 4, and 5 (for the relationship between fabric and function, see above, chap. 3). The holemouth jar was the exclusive form used for cooking pots throughout the entire Early Bronze Age. 1 All three holemouth production traditions share certain similarities. They were all similarly manufactured, coil-built pots that were usually finished with a variety of rotating motions (see below). The most common traces of coil-built pottery, the actual indications of the coils, were consistently observed on the interior of both large bases and body sherds. Finishing techniques such as hand wiping or smoothing and even rotation marks around the rim were quite common. In the case of hand finishing techniques, it is likely that the vessel remained stationary while the potter worked around it. In the case of rotation marks, the vessel itself was turned on a tournette or mobile work surface, either of which would be rotated by hand. Rim styling was also consistent between the three production traditions. Rims were either folded or unfolded and had an inverted, everted, or upright stance. The rim itself was either rounded, squared off, or angled (see below for a more detailed discussion of these attributes). 2. Group 1 Holemouth Cooking Pots a. Assemblage Size Holemouth jars used as cooking pots were produced in both Group 1 and 2 fabrics (see fig. 22). Group 1 holemouth jars used calcite for temper (see above, chap. 3) and by Phase 9 (EB IA) had almost entirely eclipsed Group 2 and become the dominant cooking pot fabric found at Site 101. The Group 1 holemouth jar assemblage consists of 296 rim sherds and 101 base sherds and comprised 7.8% of the total diagnostic rim assemblage (see fig. 24; pl. 1:1, 2, 4–15, 17, 18). In Phases 10 and 9, they comprised less than 5% of the diagnostic rim assemblage; this increased to roughly 10% in Phase 8 and reached 22.5% in Phase 7/6. Based on the relative frequency by strata, this production tradition became increasingly popular, especially in Phases 8 and 7/6 of the EB IB (Early and Late). In addition to being coil-made, these vessels were clearly turned in order to finish them. In Phases 10 through 8, 60% of Group 1 holemouth rims showed evidence of being finished (turning, smoothing, or rotating), which increased to 73% in Phase 7/6. This increase can be seen as part of an overall trend throughout the Early Bronze Age. On the tell during Early Bronze III, over 90% of holemouth cooking pot rims had rotation marks on their rims, indicating that they were turned when they were being finished. 2 1. In the Early Bronze IV, a new style of cooking pot, the straight-sided cooking pot, was introduced. It briefly supplanted the holemouth jar. By the Middle Bronze II yet another new cooking pot type eclipsed the straight-sided cooking pot. 2. The Early Bronze Age pottery from Tell Halif was analyzed in the same way. This material will appear in a later LRP final volume.

Ph. 10

Ph. 9

Ph. 8

Ph. 7/6

Total

41

13

67

101

3.3%

1.1%

5.5%

8.2%

79

17

76

120

5.4%

1.2%

5.2%

8.3%

57

0

35

85

10.1%

0.0%

119

0

22.5%

0.0%

296

30

7.9%

0.8%

6.2% 15.0% 46

95

8.7% 18.0% 224

401

5.9% 10.6%

108

STB

229

24

16

8.8% 18.7%

2.0%

1.3%

211

15

62

70

118

528

9.4% 14.6%

1.0%

4.3%

4.8%

8.1%

36.4%

110

5

12

29

10

166

6.5% 19.5%

0.9%

2.1%

5.1%

1.8%

29.4%

58

4

5

17

8

9

4.7% 11.0%

0.8%

0.9%

3.2%

1.5%

1.7%

608

48

95

159

479

937

8.1% 16.1%

1.3%

2.5%

4.2% 12.7%

24.9%

137

37

25

307

43

V-Sh. B

Cups

Mugs

Sq. R B

HB

V

Jr

HMSJ

HMCP 1

Stratum

HMCP 2

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

62

343

234

3.5% 28.0%

19.1%

Figure 24. Distribution of Diagnostic Rim Types by Phase. The following abbreviations are used in this chart: HMCP 1: holemouth cooking pot fabric Group 1, HMCP 2: holemouth cooking pot fabric Group 2, HMSJ: holemouth storage jar, Jr: jar, V: vat, HB: hemispherical bowl, Sq. R B: squared-rim bowl, V-Shaped B:

b. Rim Typology These holemouth jars displayed a variety of rim configurations that were not linked to other ceramic attributes or specific chronological periods. The rim characteristic that appears most significant is whether the rim is folded or unfolded. Group 1 holemouth cooking pots have both rim types, with a preference for folded rims in earlier phases (see below; compare pl. 1:3 square-unfolded to 1:6 rounded-unfolded). 3 Unfolded rims were more typical in Phase 10, the Terminal Chalcolithic. In Phases 10 and 9, 59% of all rims were unfolded. However, in Phases 8 and 7/6, folded rims make up 91% of the holemouth rim assemblage. This same tendency was not observed in the other holemouth production traditions. While this extra step of folding rims in holemouth production began in Phase 10, the Terminal Chalcolithic, it was not until Phase 9, the Early Bronze IA, that it was regularly employed and developed into a standard component in Group 1 holemouth jar production. Over time, unfolded rims declined and by the EB III they were no longer found on holemouth jars from the tell. The stance and shape of the rims had less clear typological significance. The stance of Group 1 holemouth jars was invariably inverted, with only 2% either straight or everted. The few cases with everted or upright stances were anomalies. The configuration of the ac3. This refers to the rim itself being folded over and then finished (see Dessel 1991 for a more detailed discussion). Unfolded rims are simpler to produce, in that they require one less step in their production.

4

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.3%

0.2%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

11

2

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

0.8%

0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

7

0

2

2

0

2

0

0

5

1.2%

0.0%

0.4%

0.4%

0.0%

0.4%

0.0%

0.0%

0.9%

0

1

16

12

29

46

5

17

15

0.0%

0.2%

3.0%

2.3%

5.5%

8.7%

0.9%

3.2%

2.8%

22

5

19

15

29

49

5

18

20

0.6%

0.1%

0.5%

0.4%

0.8%

1.3%

0.1%

0.5%

0.5%

Total

Eg. Jl

63

SS B

Eg HM

Gr. 8 Jr

RR B

Lotus B

BM

Eg SJ

Jl

Cornets

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

0

1225

0.0% 100.0% 0

1450

0.0% 100.0% 1

565

0.2% 100.0% 2

529

0.4% 100.0% 3

3769

0.1% 100.0%

Figure 24, continued V-shaped bowl, STB: straw-tempered beaker, Jl: juglet, EgSJ: Egyptian storage jar, BM: bread mold, Lotus B: Lotus bowl, RR B: rolled rim bowl, Gr. 8 Jr, jar from fabric group 8, Eg HM: Egyptian holemouth, SS B: straight sided bowl, Eg |Jl: Egyptian juglet.

tual rim varied and was either angled (pl. 1:7, 9, 10, 12, 18), rounded (pl. 1:2, 5, 6, 15, 16, 17), or squared off (pl. 1:3, 8, 13, 14). More than anything else, this reflects the nature of the finishing techniques used. When taken together, these vessel attributes were combined in a variety of permutations. 4 The most popular permutations of the rim configuration were angled-folded (pl. 1:7, 9, 11, 12, 18), which comprised 40% of the assemblage; rounded-folded (pl. 1:2, 6, 15–17), which made up 23% of the assemblage; and rounded-unfolded (pl. 1:5), which comprised 13% of the assemblage. The increased preference for angled-folded or rounded-folded rims indicates the predominance of folding in the production tradition and also a way of modifying the rim configuration. These two production steps were undoubtedly related. The potters would have folded the rim over and then either rotated the vessel or run their hands around the rim several extra times to complete the fold. This action would in turn finish the rim in either an angled shape (if the potters draw their fingers towards the center of the vessel) or a rounded shape (if their hands were kept closest to the fold). If the fold was not made, then there was less chance of the rim being finished.

4. The most frequent rim combinations were: angled-folded, angled-unfolded, squared-folded, squaredunfolded, rounded-folded, and rounded-unfolded.

64

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

There were 101 examples of flat bases that undoubtedly belonged to Group 1 holemouth jars. Of the several complete (or nearly complete) holemouth jars from both the terrace and the tell, almost all had flat bottoms (pl. 1:1, 17, 18). There was only one example of a round-bottomed holemouth cooking pot. This came from the tell and dated to the EB III. This is unlike Arad, where holemouth jars and especially holemouth cooking pots usually had rounded bottoms (Amiran et al. 1978). c. Size Distribution The rims of Group 1 holemouth jars ranged in diameter from 6 to 34 cm, with an average of 18.3 cm and a median of 20 cm. The distribution of these rim diameters exhibits a flexible sense of size classes and a very weak polymodal size distriFigure 25. Holemouth cooking pot in Group bution: a small size class ranged between 6 and 9 1 fabric with applied molding, L. 101026.P cm, a medium size class ranged between 10 and (S101.101.53: 1), Phase 8D. 15 cm, a large size class between 16 and 23 cm, and a very large class between 24 and 34 cm. 5 The majority of vessels in each phase were large, followed by medium and then very large. Bases ranged in diameter between 7 and 32 cm, with an average of 15.5 cm. As with the rim assemblage, there is also a crude polymodal size distribution of base diameters: a small size ranged between 8 and 14 cm, a medium size between 15 and 23 cm, and a large size between 25 and 32 cm. The large size accounts for only 7% of the assemblage, while the small and medium sizes comprise 46% and 47%, respectively. The thickness of the bases was very consistent, ranging from 0.6 cm to 2.1 cm. d. Decoration Decoration is very limited on these vessels, with only 20% having any decoration at all. Of the holemouth jars with decoration, close to 90% had applied molding on the upper exterior portion of the vessel (pl. 1:5, 9, 11, 17). The molding was a short strip of thin, twisted clay (6 to 8 cm in length) with indentations. It was attached to the upper part of the holemouth jar (see fig. 25; pl. 1:17). Unlike the rope molding found on pithoi and storage jars in the Early Bronze II and III, which was added to conceal construction seams, these short pieces of molding, found almost exclusively on Group 1 holemouth cooking pots, were purely decorative. Applied molding of this kind was not used until Early Bronze Ia. A few other types of decoration were found in Phases 10, 8, and 7/6. These included thumb impressions pressed directly into the body of the vessel and the very limited use of 5. Compare to Gilead’s and Goren’s (1995: 171) division of all holemouth jars into 3 sizes: small—less than 10 cm; medium—between 11 and 20 cm; and large—greater than 20 cm.

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

65

red or brown slip and white lime wash (pl. 1:14). There were three examples of rim scalloping on unfolded rims from Phases 10 and 9 (pl. 1:5). The production of scalloped holemouth rims died out in Phase 9, and this may be linked to the growing trend to fold holemouth rims that was observed already in Phase 8. e. Comparative Data Alon (Alon and Yekultieli 1995: fig. 19:1–10, 12; fig. 23:10, 12; fig. 24:5–6) found virtually the same range of holemouth jars used for cooking at the Silo Site. 6 Levy (Kansa and Levy 2002: 196–97, fig. 12.12:a–d; Levy et al. 2001: 416) also reports holemouth jars with calcite temper used as cooking pots. Among the published examples from the Silo Site, one can see the same wide variety of rim forms as are found at Site 101, combining folded and unfolded rims with rounded, angled, and squared-off rim configurations. Alon and Yekultieli (1995: 166; 178; fig. 16:11, 12) and Kansa and Levy (2002: 197; fig. 12.12: a–b) both note the appearance of applied molding. Alon and Yekultieli (1995: 178) suggest that applied molding and “thickening of the inner side of rim” (or rim folding) belong later in the EB I sequence, supporting my conclusions from Site 101. Applied thumb impressed molding was also found on examples from Lachish (Tufnell 1958: fig. 12:63), Um Hammad (Helms 1984: fig. 14:14), Haruvit-Yamit (Oren and Gilead 1981: fig. 7:2), ºEn Besor (Gophna 1976a: fig. 5:2; 1980: fig. 4:5; 1990: fig. 6:2), north Sinai (Oren and Gilead 1981: fig. 7:2), and Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1982: pl. 39:24). The Halif Terrace holemouth cooking jars found in Chalcolithic phases are similar to those found throughout the northern Negev and southern Shephelah at sites such as Arad Stratum V (Amiran et al. 1978: pl. 3:3–12), Shiqmim Building Phase II (Levy ed. 1987: fig. 12.11:1, 3–7; 12.12:5–7; 15.21:1–3 ), Nahal Sekher (Gilead and Goren 1986: fig. 5:9; 6:8), Benei Beraq (Ory 1946: fig. 3:19, 22), Nahal Mishmar (Bar-Adon 1980: I11.2:1, 2), Horvat Betar Strata II/III (Dothan 1959b: fig. 14:1–3), Gerar Site 100 (Gilead 1986: fig. 22:15), Grar (Gilead and Goren 1995: fig. 4.14:10–14), Abu Matar (Commenge-Pellerin 1987: fig. 50:6; Perrot 1957: fig. 19:3–6), Safadi (Commenge-Pellerin 1990: fig. 40:5–7), HaruvitYamit (Oren and Gilead 1981: fig. 7:2), and in northern Sinai (Oren and Gilead 1981: figs. 7:1, 6; 8:18). A flat, holemouth cooking pot base is also reported from Nahal Sekher (Gilead and Goren 1986: fig. 6:9). The pottery from the North-West Settlement Lachish dated to the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I (Tufnell 1958: 40; pls. 11:1–7, 10, 16; 13:78; 56:5; 57:38, 63) is another important parallel for Site 101, Phases 10 and 9 in general. At Lachish, there was extensive use of rim scalloping, pointing to a somewhat earlier date in the EB IA or a date in the Terminal Chalcolithic. Sites with comparable material dating to the Early Bronze IA include Bâb edhDhr⺠Stratum V (Rast and Schaub 2003: pl. 6:6, 7, 29; fig. 5.1:2, 6, 7, 10, 11) and Hartuv (Mazar and de Miroschedji 1996: fig. 19:8). Sites with comparable material in southern Canaan and the Jordan Valley dated to the Early Bronze IB include Gezer Cave I.3A (Dever 1988: pls. 1:8; 2:13), ºEn Besor Strata IV 6. It is very difficult to tell which of Alon’s Silo Site holemouth jars are cooking pots and which are jars. The text does mention specific vessels that are cooking pots but the descriptions are somewhat vague. Listed here are only those examples that have been clearly identified as cooking pots.

66

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

and III (Gophna 1976a: fig. 5:1; 1980: fig. 4:10), Arad Stratum IV (Amiran et al. 1978: fig. 8:11, 12), Bâb edh-Dhr⺠Stratum IV (Rast and Schaub 2003: fig. 7.1:2, 9), Um Hammad Stratum II (Helms 1984: fig. 14:4, 10–13), ºAi (Callaway 1972: pls. 8:1–6; 9:2, 5, 7, 8, 21, 23; fig. 20:1, 2), and the tell at Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1982: pl. 39:1, 2, 8, 12, 18, 21, 23). Holemouth cooking pots are found as far north as ºEn Shadud (E. Braun 1985: fig. 21:10–14). 3. Group 2 Holemouth Cooking Pots a. Assemblage Size In Phases 10 and 9, the Terminal Chalcolithic and Early Bronze IA, a second production tradition was identified. It used crushed chert temper, clearly distinguishing it from Group 1 holemouth cooking pots (see above, chap. 3). The use of a distinct and unique paste with different physical properties, a different firing history, and a restricted stratigraphic range warrants the division of holemouth cooking pots into two production traditions. There were 30 holemouth cooking pot rim sherds and 15 base sherds in the Group 2 fabric, and all were from Phases 10 and 9 (pl. 2:1–5). This production tradition was more labor-extensive than Group 1 and potentially more expensive, because Group 2 was fired at a much higher temperature than Group 1 holemouth cooking pots, reaching 850o C. Group 2 sherds also tended to be thicker-walled than Group 1, ranging between 7 and 13 mm. The wall-thickness was affected by the length and width of the temper, which in this case exceeded 3 mm. Group 2 holemouth cooking pots appeared only in Phases 10 and 9. In Phase 10, Group 2 holemouth jars comprised 1.1% of the total diagnostic assemblage, compared to 3.3% for Group 1 holemouth jars (see fig. 24). In Phase 9, they comprised 1.2% of the assemblage as compared to 5.4% for Group 1 holemouth cooking pots. By Phase 8, EB IB Early, this production tradition disappeared, and Group 1 increased to 10% (see above). In comparing the frequency of holemouth cooking pots in Groups 1 and 2, it is more instructive to examine the frequency of the material by weight rather than count. In Phase 10, Group 2 comprised 46% of the entire cooking pot assemblage (Groups 1 and 2 combined). It then decreased to 15.6% in Phase 9. This suggests that Group 2 holemouth jars were produced and used in Phase 10 almost at the same rate as Group 1 holemouth jars. While they continued in use (if not in production) in Phase 9, they were clearly being phased out and replaced by their Group 1 counterparts. Group 2 holemouth jars are clearly a Terminal Chalcolithic production tradition that died out by the end of the EB IA. It is very interesting to note that neither Alon and Yekultieli nor Levy identified any of this ware at the Silo Site. This might reflect the more substantial Terminal Chalcolithic deposits excavated by the Lahav Research Project. 7

7. While Alon (Alon and Yekultieli 1995) did not seem to find much Chalcolithic material at the Silo Site, there are hints in Levy’s and Kansa’s publications that Levy excavated, or at least reached, a significant Chalcolithic level (Kansa 2001; Kansa and Levy 2002; Levy et al. 1995; 1997; 2001).

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

67

b. Rim Typology As with Group 1 holemouth jars from the earliest phases, with Group 2 jars there was a clear preference for unfolded rims that tended not to be well-turned or finished. Again, rim configuration also displayed a high degree of variability. As has been noted, the use of unfolded rims was part of an earlier tradition, so it is no surprise that 83% of Group 2 holemouth jars have them (pl. 2:1, 5). The most frequent combination of rim characteristics was the rounded-unfolded rim (pl. 2:1), which comprised 40% of the assemblage. c. Size Distribution Because of the limited sample of Group 2 holemouth jar rims, it was very difficult to discern any size distribution. The diameters ranged between 9 and 24 cm, with an average of 15.4 cm. The size range was much smaller than that observed in Group 1 holemouth jars, though that could be because of sample size. However, it also may reflect some degree of control over production. Only two sizes were represented: a medium size, between 9 and 21 cm that accounted for 97% of the assemblage, and a large size, between 24 to 25 cm, with only two examples. As in the case of Group 1 holemouth jars, the only identifiable bases were flat, and 15 such examples were found (pl. 2:4). There were four examples from Phase 9 that had diameters of either 8 or 12 cm, and 11 examples from Phase 10 that ranged between 13 and 25 cm in diameter. One major difference between Groups 1 and 2 holemouth cooking pots was the thickness of the cooking pot bases. The Group 2 bases ranged between 0.12 and 2.5 cm. In Phase 10, the base-thickness ranged from 1 to 2.5 cm, while in Phase 9 the minimum thickness dropped to 0.12 cm and the maximum thickness dropped to 1.4 cm. This compared to a minimum thickness of 0.6 cm for Group 1 holemouth jars. The very thin bases in Group 2 found in Phase 9 may be one of the reasons this ware was discontinued. One way of increasing the transfer of heat in cooking pots is by reducing the wall-thickness. Perhaps, in attempting to increase heat conductivity, potters began reducing the wallthickness to the point where the thermal stress wore out the thinner bases at a faster rate than for Group 1 cooking pots. This tendency toward thinner walls may have precipitated the end of this production tradition by eventually creating an inferior product. d. Decoration Decoration on Group 2 holemouth jars was limited to rim scalloping, of which there were three examples, two in Phase 9 and one in Phase 10. In general, rim scalloping appears more commonly in the Chalcolithic and the EB IA. 4. Holemouth Storage Jars Holemouth jars were also used as storage vessels in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I. The holemouth storage jar was a third production tradition using the basic holemouth jar form. In general, the use of holemouth jars for storage declined after the Early Bronze I. By the Early Bronze II, jars and pithoi took the place of holemouth jars as the primary storage container. In the Early Bronze III assemblage from Tell Halif, almost no holemouth jars were produced in a non-cooking pot ware.

68

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

In this production tradition, the relationship between fabric and form was not as crucial as in the case of holemouth cooking pots, and several fabrics were used to produce holemouth storage jars (see below). Except for their ware, holemouth storage jars were produced in the same way as holemouth cooking pots. They were coil-built by hand and the rim was either rotated or wiped. Over 60% of all holemouth storage jar rims displayed some evidence of finishing. There were no significant differences in the proportion of finished rims between the Groups 3 and 4 fabrics. a. Assemblage Size There were 224 rims from holemouth storage jars, comprising almost 6% of the entire diagnostic rim assemblage (see fig. 24, pl. 2:6–19). Holemouth storage jars gradually increase in frequency from about 5% in Phases 10 and 9, ultimately reaching 8.7% in Phase 7/6. This slight increase over time during the Early Bronze I is a bit curious, because holemouth storage jars were, in general, less frequently found elsewhere in the Early Bronze II and III. Their increased presence in Phase 7/6 may be linked to the simultaneous increase in production of holemouth cooking pots. This also correlates with a rise in frequency for all jar types from 8.2% in Phase 10 to 18% in Phase 7/6. Holemouth storage jars were produced in four fabric groups, Groups 3, 4, 5, and 7 (see fig. 25). The majority, however, were produced in Group 4 (pl. 2:6–9, 12, 14–17, 22), which accounted for 52% of the entire holemouth storage jar assemblage and in Group 3 (pl. 2:10, 11, 13, 18–21), which accounted for another 40%. At first, it appeared that there was a preference for the Group 3 fabric in Phases 10 and 9 when Group 3 accounted for 52% and 46%, respectively, of the assemblage. However, the majority of the assemblage was found in these early strata. The Group 4 fabric was found in 31% of the sherds in Phase 10 and increased to 47% in Phase 9, an almost identical frequency to Group 3. However, in Phase 8, the EB IB Early, Group 4 was far more heavily relied upon, because it comprised 80% of the assemblage as compared to 17% for Group 3. The proportions of these two wares shifted again in Phase 7/6 when Group 4 was reduced slightly to 70%, and Group 3 increased to 28%. There were also a very modest number of holemouth storage jars produced in Groups 5 and 7 fabrics. In Phase 9, five rim sherds were found produced in Group 7, a fabric typically reserved for the production of straw-tempered beakers. These hybrid holemouth jars had angled and unfolded rims. They were also much smaller than the typical holemouth storage jar, having diameters between 5 and 10 cm. A group of hybrid Group 7 sherds also was found in Phase 10. In this case, the vessels were holemouth bowls that had slightly upright walls and rims, making the vessel somewhat of an open form. A similar holemouth bowl, produced from the Group 5 fabric, was also found in Phase 10. b. Rim Typology As in the other holemouth production traditions, the configuration of the rim was not linked to other ceramic attributes or had any specific chronological significance. Like the holemouth cooking pots, the percentage of folded rims increased over time. In this case, however, the ratio of folded (pl. 2:6, 14, 17, 18, 22) to unfolded rims (pl. 2:7–13, 15, 16, 19– 21) throughout the entire assemblage was 28% to 72%. In Phases 10 through 8, the rim was almost always unfolded, and it was not until Phase 7/6 that folding the rim was routinely

spread is 10 points long

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

69

practiced. However, even though rims Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 7 Total were predominantly unfolded through Ph. 10 35 21 6 5 67 the EB IB Late, they were almost always finished. 52% 31% 9% 7% 100% The predominant rim type was eiPh. 9 35 36 0 5 76 ther angled-unfolded (pl. 2:7, 8, 11, 12, 46% 47% 0% 7% 100% 20) or rounded-unfolded (pl. 2:10, 13, 19, 21), followed by rounded-folded (pl. 2:6, Ph. 8 6 28 0 1 35 14, 17, 18) and finally, angled-folded. In 17% 80% 0% 3% 100% every strata, angled-unfolded rims made up the largest percentage. Again, there Ph. 7/6 13 32 1 0 46 was no significant difference between the 28% 70% 2% 0% 100% Groups 3 and 4 fabrics. It appears that the Total 89 117 7 11 224 production tradition for holemouth storage jars deemphasized any standardiza40% 52% 3% 5% 100% tion of rim treatment over time. Therefore, it was impossible to reliably identify Figure 26. Distribution of Holemouth Storage Jars by bases of holemouth storage jars from flarFabric Groups and Phase. ing rim jars or even from vats. Several miniature holemouth storage jars were found. One with a 3 cm rim diameter produced in Group 5 was found in Phase 7/6. Another with a 3 cm diameter in Group 3 came from Phase 8, and a third with a 5 cm diameter in Group 5 came from Phase 10. The vessel from Phase 7/6 was also decorated with exterior red slip, which was hand-burnished to a high gloss; the other two were not decorated. The very small diameters of these jars made accessibility very difficult, and they probably served as votives. c. Size Distribution There is no real evidence of any size standardization within any aspect (for example, fabric or chronological phase) of the entire holemouth storage jar assemblage. Rim diameters of the jars ranged in size from 3 to 31 cm, with an average of 14.5 cm. The average size remained consistent in all strata and all fabric groups. There was a polymodal distribution of four sizes, ranging from very small to large. Votives were very small in size, ranging from 3 to 5 cm. The diameter of the small size was from 6 to 14 cm. The medium size ranged between 14 and 21 cm, and the large size ranged between 22 and 31 cm. The medium size was the most common, with the large and very small sizes accounting for only 10% of the assemblage. In Phase 7/6, 45% of the assemblage was small sized, 29% was medium sized, 23% was large sized, and only 2% were very small. No distinct distribution patterning was found when the assemblage was grouped according to rim typology, fabric type, or decorative motif. d. Decoration Decoration was more liberally applied onto holemouth storage jars than onto holemouth cooking pots, although applied molding was rarely found. There was a clear relationship between the use of white lime wash (including the pajama-ware motif) and the Group 4 fabric.

70

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

Evidence of external decoration—including white lime wash, red slip, and the pajamaware motif—was found on 21% of all holemouth storage jars. The use of white lime wash was limited to Group 4 holemouth storage jars. It was rather uncommon but increased in use over time and was more prevalent in Phase 7/6, the EB IB Late. On one example from Phase 7/6, white lime wash was combined with applied molding. Vessels of all sizes were decorated, and there was no correlation with rim type. Slip was also used on a limited basis, and it was almost always red or reddish/brown, though in one case black slip was used (pl. 2:13, 15, 18, 21). It appeared on only 5% of the assemblage in Phases 10 and 9 and then rose to 8.5% in Phases 8 and 7/6. The majority of slipped jars were produced in Group 4, whereas only five examples were produced in Group 3. As with lime wash, vessels of all sizes were decorated and there was no preference as to rim type. There were only two cases where red slipped vessels were burnished, and one was the aforementioned votive. In both cases, the jars were hand-burnished. Other kinds of decoration were quite rare. These included striped wash, red-slipped rims, rim scalloping, and incisions. The one example of striped wash, a decorative style not normally associated with any type of holemouth jar, was on a Group 3 sherd found in Phase 9. There were only seven cases of holemouth storage jars with scalloped rims, all of which came from Phases 10 and 9 (pl. 2:11, 16). These jars had unfolded rims that facilitated rim scalloping. Two holemouth jars had incised marks: one was a curved shape found on a vessel from Phase 7/6, and the other was an incised line found on a Phase 9 vessel. Both marks were incised prior to firing. There was also a holemouth storage jar rim from Phase 8 with a hole pierced through the upper part of the vessel. This might have been a repair hole. Applied molding, which appeared also on holemouth cooking pots, was found on only four holemouth storage jar examples, which represented less than 2% of the assemblage (pl. 2:10). One example was a Group 3 vessel from Phase 9 that formed a band of raised symmetrical circles. The applied molding was reconstructed as a complete circuit around the vessel, unlike the partial strips of applied molding on holemouth cooking pots. e. Comparative Discussion The holemouth storage jar had a brief period of fluorescence before it was replaced by everted-rim and necked jars and pithoi in the EB II. By the EB III, holemouth jars were produced primarily in cooking pot ware. However, in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I, it appears that every holemouth jar assemblage was used for both storage and cooking, depending on the ware type selected. This type of data has not been quantified from other published sites, which makes direct comparisons difficult. 8 From the Silo Site, Alon and Yekultieli (1995) illustrate many holemouth jars (see above and especially n. 1, p. 61), but it is not entirely clear which were produced in a noncalcite fabric (i.e., non-cooking pot fabric). It is interesting to note that Alon excavated what they consider holemouth bowls (Alon and Yekultieli 1995: 166; fig. 19:11–16) and that these vessels (which could also be considered vats or basins) were found in a “grog” ware and often with some form of a white lime wash. This suggests that they fall into the 8. This discussion should be considered in conjunction with the “Comparative Discussion” under “Group 1 Holemouth Cooking Pots” (see above).

spread is 10 points long

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

71

category of holemouth storage jars. Unfortunately, this form has not been clearly identified at either Site 101 or Site 301. Holemouth storage jars appeared throughout the Southern Levant in the Chalcolithic and the early part of the EB I. In the Chalcolithic, holemouth storage jars were found at Arad Stratum V (Amiran et al. 1978: pls. 3:3–7, 11; 6:1–3), Beersheva sites (de Contenson 1956a: pls. 2:10–12; 3:1, 4, 5; 4:5, 7), Grar (Gilead and Goren 1995: fig. 4.14:1–9), Megiddo Stratum XX (Loud 1948: pls. 16–21), Ghassul Phase IV (Koeppel 1940: pls. 77:4; 82:8–11, 17, 18, 20, 19), Serabit el-Khadim (Beit-Arieh 1980: fig. 7:10, 11, 13), Gezer Stratum XXVI (Dever et al. 1974: pls. 1:6, 11, 12; 2:5, 6), Azor (Perrot 1961: 2), and Jericho Layer VIII (Garstang 1936: pl. 32:25A). Amiran (1976b: fig. 2:2) published a holemouth storage jar rim with scalloping from Taur Ikhbeineh, a site that dates to the Terminal Chalcolithic/early EB IA. Rim scalloping is also found at Tell en-Nasbeh (Wampler 1947: pl. 10:165), Gezer Stratum XXVI (Dever et al. 1974: pl. 3:2), Gezer Cave I.3A (Dever 1988: pl. 1:20) and Arad (Amiran et al. 1978: pl. 8:31). Examples from other sites with decorative motifs similar to those observed on the Halif Terrace include a holemouth storage jar with knobs from Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 41:17), the use of red painted bands and applied molding shaped like a snake at Ghassul (Koeppel 1940: pl. 77:5), and exterior red slip from Arad V (Amiran et al. 1978: pl. 3:8, 10, 12). Early Bronze IB material was found in north Sinai (Oren 1989: fig. 8:18), Arad Stratum IV (Amiran et al. 1978: pl. 8:13–38), Gezer Cave I.3A (Dever 1988: pls.1:30; 3:9), Gezer Stratum XXV (Dever et al. 1974: pls. 3:10, 11, 13; 4:3, 9–11), Bâb edh-Dhr⺠Stratum IV (Rast and Schaub 2003: fig. 7.1:1, 7), and the ºAi Sanctuary and Citadel (Callaway 1980: fig. 37:1, 2, 20, 23, 26–27; 1972: figs. 15:7–20; 18:1–12, 21, 22, 26). Rims with applied thumb-impressed molding were found at the ºAi Sanctuary (Callaway 1972: fig. 19:1, 8, 24), north Sinai (Oren 1989: fig. 8:17), Tell ºErani (Brandl 1989: fig. 5:6), and Arad Stratum IV (Amiran et al. 1978: pl. 8:13, 15, 17, 18–20, 22). Plain band molding and incised band molding were other motifs found in Stratum IV Arad (Amiran et al. 1978: pl. 8:14, 21, 23). There was also a small votive holemouth, or “Holemouth Cup,” from Arad Stratum IV with red painted bands (Amiran et al. 1978: pl. 9:2). 5. Jars Jars were produced in a wide variety of ware types, sizes, rim configurations, and decoration styles. This form type began in the Chalcolithic but emerged as an important storage vessel only in the Early Bronze Age; eventually, it became an essential part of the process of commoditization in the Early Bronze II and III. While jars were originally classified according to very specific details of their rim configuration and decorative styles, no distinctive patterns could be found within the entire assemblage (see Dessel 1991 for a full discussion of jar rims and decoration). 9 9. A typology of six distinct rim types was developed for the Site 101 jar assemblage (Dessel 1991) based on the degree of eversion of the rim and the height of the neck. However, it was found that there were no significant correlations between any of these rim/neck configurations and other ceramic attributes (ware, decoration,

72

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

a. Assemblage Size The jar assemblage consisted of 401 diagnostic rim sherds that comprised 10.6% of the overall diagnostic rim sherd assemblage (see fig. 24; pls. 2:23; 3:1–9, 11–18, 20; 4:1– 15; 5:1–19; 8:6). It also included 432 base sherds. The percentage of jars steadily increased over time: from a little over 8% in Phases 10 and 9, to 15% in Phase 8, and finally to 18% in Phase 7/6. This trend toward greater utilization of jars ultimately came at the expense of holemouth storage jars (see above), which became less common after the end of the Early Bronze IB. b. Specific Forms Originally, the jar typology from the Halif Terrace included a variety of rim configurations that were characterized by the presence or absence of a neck and the stance of the rim. Rims were originally divided into six categories (see Dessel 1991: 361): short everted rims (pls. 2:23; 3:12–14; 4:1–2), flared short rims (pls. 3:20; 4:4, 5, 7, 9–15), flared necked rims, inverted rims (pl. 3:1, 2, 11, 18), everted triangular rims (pl. 3:7, 8, 17), and T rims (pl. 3:4). The most popular rim configurations were the short everted rims, the flared necked rims, and the flared short rims. These made up 86.7% of the entire jar-rim assemblage. While flared necked rims had some indication of a neck, it was usually, but not always, short in nature and did not really alter the overall vessel shape. All of these types were quite similar in that they were all relatively short, squat vessels with everted rims and flat bases. In many cases, they had no real neck. The globular body was restricted at the neck, and the rim was bent back and everted outward. The rest of the assemblage included unusual forms, such as the T-rim (see above) and actual long-necked variants (pl. 5:5). Jars were hand-made, although the rims were well rotated either on a tournette or mobile work surface. The rims were tapered and pulled outward with a rotating motion, as evidenced by the symmetrical striations observed on many of them. The rims were usually not elaborated in any other way. Kansa and Levy (2002: 191; fig. 12.2) suggest that Southern Levantine jars were made with a slab technique because “they often had two distinct layers, as seen in sherd breaks.” This kind of a double base was never found at Site 101 and appears to be a curious anomaly. However, the idea that some Levantine forms were being produced with the slab (or sequential slab construction) is intriguing, especially because it has connections with the production of Egyptian jars (Vandiver and Lacovara 1985; in general, see Vandiver 1985). London (1988) addressed this issue directly in her examination of the manufacturing techniques of EB II and III large ceramic vessels (holemouth jars, vats, and pithoi) from Tell Yarmouth. London notes that holemouth jars were hand built with individual coils, as were vats and pithoi, which could alternatively be built with a combination of coils and slabs. London (1988: 119) describes the slabs as 10 x 10 cm and states that “Large, thick-walled vessels are sometimes easier to form with slabs than with coils.” London had a harder time explicating the manufacturing technology of jars, but she excludes sequential slab construction rim diameter, manufacturing techniques) or chronology. The rim types were: short everted rim jars, short flaring rim jars, flaring necked rim jars, inverted rim jars, everted triangular rims, and the T rim jar (of which there was only one example).

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions as a possibility for thin-walled pieces (of which jars and jugs are included). While Kansa and Levy add that jars might have been made with both slabs (particularly small slabs) as well as coils, more substantial and deliberate evidence is needed to support their claim.

Gr. 1 Ph. 10

Ph. 9

Ph. 8

Gr. 3

Gr. 4

73 Gr. 5

Gr. 7

Total

1

66

29

4

1

101

1%

65%

29%

4%

1%

100%

1

38

79

1

1

120

1%

32%

66%

1%

1%

100%

2

16

65

1

1

85

2%

19%

76%

1%

1%

100%

c. Fabric Ph. 7/6 0 17 76 2 0 95 Jars were most commonly 0% 18% 80% 2% 0% 100% produced from Group 4 fabrics, Total 4 137 249 8 3 401 which accounted for 62% of the assemblage (see fig. 27; pls. 3:1, 1% 34% 62% 2% 1% 100% 2, 9, 13, 16; 4:1–4, 5, 7–14; 5:1, 5, 6, 8–12, 17, 18). The Group 3 Figure 27. Distribution of jars by Fabric Groups and Phase. fabric accounted for 34% of the assemblage (pls. 2:23; 3:5–8, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20; 4:6; 5:2–4, 7, 13–16, 19), and Groups 1, 5 (pls. 3:4, 12; 4:15), and 7 (pl. 10:26) together accounted for 4% of the total. In Phase 10, 65% of the jar assemblage was produced in Group 3 and 29% in Group 4. In Phase 9, these proportions were roughly reversed, and in the two EB IB phases (Phases 7/6), Group 4 was the dominant fabric, being found in 80% of jar sherds. This trend again points to the increasing popularity of the Group 4 fabric in the Early Bronze I, whereas the Group 3 fabric represented an earlier ware tradition. d. Size Distribution There was little indication of any size standardization of jar rim diameters. The size distribution patterns were neither well defined nor clear, and there was no correlation between fabrics, rim types, and decoration styles. Diameters ranged from 2 to 40 cm, and there was a weak indication of size classes: small—between 2 and 6 cm; medium—between 7 and 19 cm; large—between 20 and 28 cm; and very large—between 30 and 40 cm. The average of the entire rim sherd assemblage was 14.1 cm, and the vast majority (65% of rim sherds) had a diameter between 7 and 16 cm. The use of decoration was not correlated to any specific size distribution. The base diameter of certain subtypes reflected an overall higher size standardization than the rim sherds. Bases ranged in diameter from 3 to 36 cm, with an average of 12.8 cm. There was a trimodal size distribution of base diameters: small—between 3 and 7 cm; medium—between 8 and 17 cm; and large—between 18 and 36 cm. The majority of the bases were medium sized, followed by large and then small. This size distribution was also consistent within the Groups 3 and 4 base assemblages. Decorated bases were found in all sizes and reflected no specific patterning.

74

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

e. Decoration A wide variety of decorative motifs were used on jars, including: white lime wash, pajama-ware decoration, exterior red slip or wash, red slipped rims, striped wash, rim scalloping, red painted bands, applied molding, incised patterns, and applied knobs. These decorative motifs were used in two different ways: in one, there was a close correlation between at least one ceramic attribute such as fabric or form, and in the second there was a more idiosyncratic application that used various combinations of decorative motifs without any correlation to specific ceramic attributes. Red slip was commonly applied to the exterior of jars, being found on 12% of the assemblage (pls. 3:4, 7; 4:11; 5:5). However, there was no strict correlation between fabric, rim types, or chronology and the appearance of red slip. The slip was often found on the exterior of the rim and on the rim top as well (pl. 4:2, 11). Another 6.7% of the rim sherd assemblage had red-slipped rims. Burnishing was very rare, though there were five examples of hand-burnishing on red-slipped sherds from Phase 7/6. The use of burnish became much more common in the Early Bronze II and was closely associated with “Abydos” jugs and juglets, of which the flaring necked jar may be an antecedent. One example of a flaring-necked jar rim, from Phase 7/6, had a vertical linear pattern-burnish over the red slip, very reminiscent of finish on the “Abydos” jar. There were 73 examples, or 18.2% of the jar rim sherds, with either white lime wash or pajama-ware decoration (pls. 4:2, 5, 10; 5:6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 10). The use of white lime wash was almost always on the exterior of the vessel and may have had a functional application. There were, however, three cases of white lime wash on the interior and exterior of the rim, and two of these examples had scalloped rims. Almost every example of this type of decoration was found on Group 4 sherds. The exclusive use of Group 4 with this decoration has chronological implications. The use of white lime wash was primarily an Early Bronze Age tradition, which was rarely found in the Chalcolithic. Also, this decorative technique was associated with the dominant Early Bronze Age fabric type, Group 4. The popularity of Group 4 was at the expense of Group 3, which did not continue into the Early Bronze II in southern Canaan and was not found in the Early Bronze III assemblage from Tell Halif. There may have been a relationship, then, between white lime wash and the Group 4 fabric based on the functional or constructional compatibility between these two attributes. Perhaps the combination of Group 4 and white lime wash formed a less permeable combination than white lime wash and Group 3. Likewise, the Group 4 fabric may have provided a more conducive base on which to apply lime wash than Group 3. Thirty percent of all Group 4 jar rims had lime wash, while there was very little evidence of white lime wash found on Phase 10 rim sherds. This strongly suggests that, with the shift to Group 4 fabrics for jar production, the application of white lime wash also increased. There were 55 examples of rim sherds with evidence of red or gray slip, comprising close to 14% of the assemblage (pl. 5:7). There was also one example of a white slipped sherd in Group 4 from Phase 7/6. From Phase 9 came one example of thumb-impressed applied molding added to the upper part of a Group 4 jar rim (pl. 4:3), and there were six ex10. Some sherds (pl. 5:9, 10, 11, and 14) had only traces of pajama-ware decoration, and these traces are not represented in the drawings.

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

75

amples of applied knobs found on the exterior of jars in Group 4 fabric. Examples from Phase 8 include a body sherd with white lime wash, a knob around which there was an incised band, and a jar base with an exterior knob. Another body sherd from Phase 9 had red slip and two knobs. There were five examples of incised bands around the exterior shoulder of vessels. These formed either a pair of parallel horizontal bands of short, vertically diagonal incisions or horizontal bands of incisions in a herringbone pattern. Two examples in the herringbone pattern were on Group 4 sherds from Phases 10 and 9. These were decorated with external red slip. A third example with a herringbone pattern was on Group 3 fabric. A Group 3 large jar had two parallel wavy lines incised around its rim (pl. 5:19). Several jars had potters marks. One of these was a partial, short vertical stroke incised before firing. It was found on a Group 4 jar with a short, flaring rim from Phase 7/6. Two complete vessels, both from Phase 10 and produced in the Group 3 fabric, each had two marks on them. One of these, a complete jar from Phase post-10c (pl. 2:23), had two knobs on its shoulder and two marks incised on its upper body. The marks were incised before firing. The upper mark is a circular pattern connected to an inner circle by four perpendicular strokes. Below is a long vertical line with seven diagonal lines angling downward from its left side. Three of the lines are connected to the central vertical line, while the other four do not actually touch the central line. The second vessel, from Phase 10c (pl. 3:20), also had two knobs on its lower body along with two marks in the same area as the knobs. The upper mark consists of three parallel vertical lines that are connected at the top and bottom to two horizontal lines, giving the mark the appearance of a roman numeral III. Just below this mark is a circular mark within which are two parallel lines and parts of four ovals. From Phases 9 and 8 there were two examples with red painted bands on the exterior of Group 4 pottery. On a Group 4 sherd from Phase 7/8, there was another rare motif consisting of black painted vertical bands painted over a burnished red slip, and a last example of an unusual decorative motif involved the application of red painted dots on a Group 3 body sherd from Phase 10. While decoration with lug handles was infrequent, one case from Phase 10 had red painted bands on the exterior. There were only five examples of striped wash on Group 3 fabrics from Phases 10 and 9 (pl. 3:14). There was also an example of a thumb-impressed ledge-handle with striped wash in Group 3, found in Phase 9. Of 15 examples with rim scalloping found in both Groups 3 and 4 fabrics, 6 examples were found in Phase 10, 8 in Phase 9, and 1 in Phase 7/6. Rim-scalloping was used with a variety of rim types, including everted triangular rims, short everted rims, and both short and tall flaring rims (pls. 4:6, 8, 13, 14; 5:2, 11, 15). There were also two cases from Phases 10 and 9 where rim-scalloping was combined with red or brown slips. Scalloped rims were found in all sizes, ranging from 7 to 31 cm in diameter. f. Handles Jar handles included both lug and ledge types (pls. 5:19; 6:1–3). These handles were found in Groups 3 and 4 fabrics and were frequently decorated with pajama-ware decoration, white lime wash, red painted bands, or red slip. The lug-handles were both vertically and horizontally pierced. The types of ledge-handles included the typical Early Bronze I

76

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

wavy ledge-handle (Wright 1937: pl. B; Amiran 1969a: pl. 8). In Phase 9, the ledgehandles were typical of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I periods, including thumbimpressed, thumb-indented, and solid hemispherical types (pl. 6:1–3). One of these from Phase 9 was decorated with striped wash. This sherd also had a vestigial lug-handle that was unpierced. g. Bases There were 448 jar base sherds: 104 were produced in the Group 3 fabric, 342 in the Group 4 fabric, and 3 in the Group 5 fabric. All of these bases were flat. Decorative motifs included white lime wash, pajama-ware decor, and red slip. Only a small number of Group 3 bases were decorated; however, 35% of all Group 4 bases had lime wash or pajama-ware decoration. In Phase 9, this comprised 15% of the Group 4 base assemblage, in Phase 8 it jumped to 45%, and it reached 57% in Phase 7/6. h. Comparative Discussion The wide variety of jars from Site 101 have close parallels from throughout the Southern Levant. Similar jars were reported from the Chalcolithic deposits at Ghassul (Mallon et al. 1934: fig. 37:6; Murphy 1940: fig. 78:7, 9, 12), Grar (Gilead and Goren 1995: figs. 4.15; 4.16), and the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I deposits at the Lachish caves (Tufnell 1958: pls. 56:26; 57:59). In the Early Bronze I, other parallels come from the Early Bronze IA Tomb K2 Phase II at Jericho (Kenyon 1965: pl. 8:18), the Early Bronze IB deposits on the tell at Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1982: fig. 38:28, 22), and Gezer Cave I.3A (Dever 1988: pl. 3:32, 33). Very few everted triangular rim jars have been identified. In the Chalcolithic, jar rims of this kind were reported from Nahal Sekher (Gilead and Goren 1986: fig. 5:8) and from Horvat Betar (Dothan 1959b: fig. 9:11). In both cases, the rims were scalloped. In the Early Bronze IA, an example was found at Gezer Cave I.3A (Dever 1988: pl. 1:21). Short, everted rims are not frequently identified in published reports but this may be due in part to conventions of pottery drawing, which may serve to deemphasize the eversion of the rim. In the Chalcolithic, parallels are found at Gezer Stratum XXVI (Dever et al. 1974: pl. 2:2; with a scalloped rim), Shiqmim (Levy 1987: fig. 12.13:2, 10), Beersheva (de Contenson 1956a: fig. 5:2), Safadi (Commenge-Pellerin 1990: fig. 44:2–7), Grar (Gilead and Goren 1995: fig. 4.15:1–3; 4.16:1, 2), and Nahal Mishmar (Bar-Adon 1980: pl. I11.3:8). There are also similar rims dating to the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I at Arqub el-Dhahr (Parr 1956: fig. 16:184, 196) and at Tell en-Nasbeh (Wampler 1947: fig. 10:149). In the Early Bronze IA, parallels are reported from Ashqelon-Afridar Area F, Stratum I (Khalaily 2004: fig. 9:6, 7). In the Early Bronze IB, parallels are reported from Gezer Cave I.3A (Dever 1988: pl. 1:23), Tomb 3 at Gibeon (Pritchard 1963: fig. 6:16), the ºAi Sanctuary (Callaway 1972: fig. 72:9, 10, 13, 22), the tell at Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1982: figs. 37:17, 1, 2; 38:8), Tell el-Farºah North (de Vaux 1951: fig. 4:5), and as far north as ºEn Shadud (E. Braun 1985: fig. 20:9, 14). Flaring-necked jars and short, flaring-rim jars are very common throughout the Southern Levant in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I. The following is a partial list of forms

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

77

that parallel the Halif Terrace short, flaring jar rims. In Chalcolithic deposits, short flaring jar rims are reported from Ghassul Levels I and IV and Phase A (Mallon 1934: figs. 37:7, 8; 38:7; Koeppel 1940: pls. 78:3, 8; 81:31–33; Hennessy 1969: fig. 5:8), Grar (Gilead and Goren 1995: 4.16:6–8, 9, 10), Gezer Stratum XXVI (Dever et al. 1974: pl.1:28), Shiqmim (Levy 1987: fig. 12.134:1, 5, 7, 8, 11), Beersheva (de Contenson 1956a: figs. 5:1, 4, 5, 8; 6:1–6), Safadi (Commenge-Pellerin 1990: fig. 45:11–16), Gerar 100 (Gilead 1986: fig. 22:10, 11), and north Sinai (Oren and Gilead 1981: fig. 8:3, 11). Transitional Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I material comes from Arqub el-Dhahr (Parr 1956: fig. 16:195, 199, 205) and Tell en-Nasbeh Cave Tombs 5 and 6 (Wampler 1947: figs. 10:153, 156; 8:124; Badè 1928: fig. 20). The use of rim-scalloping is found on examples from Horvat Betar (Dothan 1959b: fig. 9:16), Gezer Stratum XXVI (Dever et al. 1974: pl. 2:1, 3), and Tell enNasbeh Cave Tombs 5 and 6 (Wampler 1947: fig. 10:159, 160). In the Early Bronze IA, parallels are found at Bâb edh-Dhr⺠tombs, type 0171, and town site Stratum V (Schaub and Rast 1989: 238; Rast and Schaub 2003: fig. 5.1:16, 17), Ashqelon-Afridar Area F Stratum I (Khalaily 2004: fig. 9:3, 4, 5), Tell el-Farºah North Tombs 3, 8, and 11 (de Vaux and Steve 1949: figs. 1:26; 13:20; de Vaux 1951: fig. 4:6), Tell el-ªErani (Brandl 1989: fig. 5:7, 8), and Jericho Tombs A94 and K2 (Kenyon 1960: fig. 14:10; Kenyon 1965: fig. 10:5). Jars with these rims are very common in the Early Bronze IB, where they are frequently decorated with pajama-ware decoration. They are found in north Sinai (Oren 1989: fig. 9:9, 11, 13, 16), the tell at Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1982: fig. 37:4, 5, 8, 11, 15, 19), Gezer Cave I.3A (Dever 1988: pls. 1:26; 4:6; 5:1, 2), Gezer Stratum XXV (Dever et al. 1974: pl. 3:9, 14, 15, 17), Lachish Cave 1514 (Tufnell 1958: pl. 58:132), Arad Stratum IV (Amiran et al. 1978: pls. 9:1, 3, 5, 7; 12:12, 17, 20), Tell en-Nasbeh (Wampler 1947: figs. 8:123; 9:131–40), Azor Tomb 1 and 4 (Ben-Tor 1975: fig. 8:1, 2, 8), Bâb edh-Dhr⺠Stratum IV (Rast and Schaub 2003: 7.2:10), the ºAi Citadel, Sanctuary, and Tombs G and B (Callaway 1964: pls. 9:954, 927; 10:1016, 933; 18:87, 35; Callaway 1972: fig. 15:3, 5; 17:8, 12; Callaway 1980: fig. 37:17, 18), and ºEn Shadud (E. Braun 1985: fig. 20:12). Flaring-necked jar rims, which may have had an actual functional difference from their counterparts that had no real necks, begin in the Chalcolithic but were more common in the Early Bronze I. Chalcolithic examples are found at Beersheva (de Contenson 1956a: fig. 5:3, 6, 9–11), Safadi (Commenge-Pellerin 1990: fig. 49:2–8), Grar (Gilead and Goren 1995: fig. 4.16:3–5), Nahal Mishmar (Bar-Adon 1980: fig. I11.3:3, 4), Arad Stratum V—where necked jars are rare (Amiran et al. 1978: pl. 6:8), Azor—where one example has a scalloped rim (Perrot 1961: fig. 41:11, 12), Haruvit-Yamit (Oren and Gilead 1981: fig. 8:6), ºEn Gedi— where the rim is scalloped (Ussishkin 1980: fig. 10:3), Shiqmim (Levy 1987: figs. 12.13:4, 9, 12, 15; 12.15:6), and Ghassul Level IV (Mallon et al. 1934: fig. 39:1). Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I examples are found at Arqub el-Dhahr (Parr 1956: fig. 16:190, 186, 192), Tell enNasbeh Cave Room 68 (Wampler 1947: figs. 5:5; 8:68; 9:126), and the Lachish Caves 1525 and 1538 (Tufnell 1958: pls. 57:61; 11:23), where both examples are scalloped. In the Early Bronze IA, parallels are found at Bâb edh-Dhr⺠Tombs A3 and A5E (Schaub and Rast 1989: figs. 18:4; 21:1), Ashqelon-Afridar Area F Stratum I (Khalaily 2004: fig. 9:9–11), and Ashqelon-Afridar Area G (Braun and Gophna 2004: fig. 19:3–6). In the Early Bronze IB, parallels are found at Tomb 11 at Bâb edh-Dhr⺠Tombs A3 and A5E

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

78

(Schaub and Rast 1989: fig. 129:4), the tell at Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1982: fig. 37:3, 22, 24, 29, 30), north Sinai (Oren 1989: fig. 9:14, 15, 17), Gezer Cave I.3A and Stratum XXV (Dever 1988: pls. 1:22; 3:34; 4:5; Dever et al. 1974: pl. 3:16; see also Macalister 1912a: fig. 26:303), Arad Stratum IV (Amiran et al. 1978: pls. 11:3, 4; 12:1–8), the ºAi Citadel, Sanctuary, and Tomb B (Callaway 1964: pl. 18:56; Callaway 1972: figs. 15:4, 6; 17:6, 7, 11, 14–19; Callaway 1980: fig. 37:3, 13, 14), and Tell el-Farºah North (de Vaux and Steve 1947: fig. 3:3, 4, 9, 11). 6. Vats Vats or basins were the largest open form produced at Site 101. They were characterized by flat bases and spouts and were frequently decorated (see fig. 38). Vats were handmade with either coils or slabs and then rotated or wiped in order to finish them. Their large size, averaging 23.4 cm in diameter, and the presence of spouts indicates that these vessels were used for short-term storage and disbursement of liquids (de Contenson 1956b; Gilead and Goren 1995: 158). Gilead and Goren (1995: 158) also note that they might have been used for dry storage (see also Commenge-Pellerin 1987: 49). a. Assemblage Size A total of 307 vat rims were found, which accounted for 8.1% of the diagnostic rim assemblage (see fig. 24; pls. 6:1–9; 7:1–19; 8:1–5, 7–19); 30 bases were also found. The percentage of vat rims decreased over time from roughly 9% in Phases 10 and 9 down to 4.7% in Phase 7/6. In the Southern Levant, this form first appeared in the Chalcolithic and continued to be used into the Early Bronze III. b. Ware Fabric Groups 3 and 4 were the primary fabrics used in the production of vats. Each comprised a little over 49% of the vat assemblage (see fig. 28; for Group 3 see pls. 6:8, 9; 7:7, 10–19; 8:3, 9–12, 14, 17–19; fig. 29; for Group 4 see pls. 6:5–7; 7:1–6, 8, 9; 8:1–5, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16; fig. 38 [center]). 11 In Phase 10, 60% of all vat rims were produced in Group 3 and 37% in Group 4. In Phase 9 and again in Phase 7/6, Groups 3 and 4 were found in roughly equal proportions, while in Phase 8 65% of vat rims were produced in Group 4. Thus, it seems that, as with the production of jars and holemouth storage jars, only in Phase 10 was the Group 3 fabric used more frequently than Group 4. Broadly speaking, however, it appears that both ware types were used in equal percentages. This suggests that if, in fact, vats were used to hold liquids, then both Group 3 and 4 fabrics worked equally well for this purpose. There were also single examples of vat rims produced in Groups 1, 5, 6, and even 7. In Phase 10, vats were produced in Groups 1, 5, and 7. The one example produced in Group 1 was something of a vat/holemouth cooking pot hybrid. In this vessel, the vertical wall stance was opened, creating a vat profile rather than a holemouth-jar profile. The vat pro11. Group 3 comprised 49% of the vat assemblage, and Group 4 comprised 50%.

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions duced in Group 7 was also a hybrid, because the Group 7 fabric was used almost exclusively for straw-tempered beakers. In Phase 9, another unusual vat was produced in Group 6, the only example of such a large form produced in Group 6. This vat also had red slip around its rim and in many respects looked like an extremely large V-shaped bowl.

Gr. 1 Ph. 10

Ph. 9

Ph. 8

Ph. 7/6

Total

Gr. 3

Gr. 4

Gr. 5

79 Gr. 6

Gr. 7

Total

1

65

40

1

0

1

108

1%

60%

37%

1%

0%

1%

100%

0

61

75

0

1

0

137

0%

45%

55%

0%

1%

0%

100%

0

13

24

0

0

0

37

0%

35%

65%

0%

0%

0%

100%

0

12

13

0

0

0

25

0%

48%

52%

0%

0%

0%

100%

1

151

152

1

1

1

307

c. Rim Typology 0.3% 49% 50% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 100% While five distinct rim types and wall stances were Figure 28. Distribution of Vats by Fabric Groups and Phase. identified in the vat assemblage, it appears that in most respects these distinctions are quite minor. The primary attribute was that of stance, which was either straight (see pls. 6:5–9; 7:10; 8:18) or angled (see pls. 7:9; 8:1, 4, 5, 14–17, 19; figs. 29 and 38 [center]) with respect to the angle of the rim to the base. Gilead and Goren (1995: 153) refer to this attribute as straight or flaring walls. In either case, the overall vessel form was very similar, resulting in an open vessel with a very wide rim diameter. The angled vat was very similar in appearance to a large V-shaped bowl (see especially pl. 8:16). This stance orientation had some chronological implications in that angled-walled vats made up more of the vat assemblage in Phases 10 and 9, whereas in Phase 8 and 7/6 angled and straight-walled vats appeared in similar quantities. In the Early Bronze II and III, the straight-walled variant completely dominated the vat assemblage and the angled-wall variant disappeared. 12 The rim itself was either straight (see pls. 7:2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10; 8:3, 9, 16, 17, 18), inverted (see pls. 6:5; 7:12, 14; 8:1, 2), or everted (see pls. 6:8, 9; 7:17, 18; 8:48, 18). There were also four T-shaped variants found in each phase. Unlike holemouth jars, vat rims were rarely folded over completely. The majority of vats had straight rims and only 26% of the assemblage had some type of rim modification. Everted rims comprised 17% of the vat assemblage and were more typical in Phases 10 through 8. Conversely, inverted rims, usually found on the straight-walled type, were rarely found in Phase 10. 13 Seven spouts from open vessels, which presumably belong to vats, were found in Phases 8 and 7/6. Six were produced in the Group 4 fabric (pl. 6:4), four of which had white lime wash. One was produced in the Group 3 fabric. If this very limited sample is in 12. There is a clear link between angled-walled vats and V-shaped bowls; the disappearance of both forms after the Early Bronze I is therefore not at all surprising. 13. Inverted rims were also more common in the EB II and III.

80

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

any way representative of the appearance of spouts on vats, it suggests they were later additions to the vessel form. There might also have been functional differences between spouted and unspouted vats, which may also have been linked to fabric group. d. Size Distribution Vat rims ranged in diameter from 7 to 46 cm, with an average of 23.4 cm. It does not appear that there were any significant relationships between fabric, size, decoration, or chronology. Even size classes were very amorphous, and there was no distinct patterning within the assemblage. The following size classes were weakly indicated: small (between 7 and 14 cm), medium (between 16 and 26 cm), large (between 27 and 35 cm), and very large (between 36 and 46 cm). However, close to half of all vats had a diameter between 16 and 21 cm, and 62% of all vats fell into the medium-size category. The small size comprised 11% of the assemblage, the large size 23%, and the very large size only 4%. This polymodal distribution was not well defined, and size categories overlapped between strata and ware types. e. Decoration Vats were frequently decorated, with 41% having some indication of slip, scalloping, or white lime wash. The most common decorative motif was red slip, either on the rim or on the interior and/or exterior of the vessel body. Red slip was found on 28% of all vat rims. In Phases 10, 9, and 8, it was consistently found on at least a quarter of all vat rims, and in Phase 7/6 the frequency jumped to 40%. Red slip was also found more frequently on Group 3 rims (pls. 7:11, 12, 16, 18; 8:9, 12, 13), as compared to Group 4 rims, and was much more usual on angled-walled vats than on straight-sided vats. This correlation reinforces the general trend associating red-slipped rims and Group 3 fabric within the entire open vessel assemblage. There was very little use of burnish. Only two red-slipped examples were also hand burnished, and both were on Group 4 vats found in Phase 8. It is usually believed that the application of white lime wash to a ceramic vessel helped to close the pores in the ceramic paste, making the vessel less permeable and more appropriate for liquid storage (Ben-Tor 1986; de Miroschedji personal communication). This functional correlation was clearly seen in the Early Bronze III assemblage from Tell Halif, where almost all of the vat rims and body sherds had white lime wash. However, in the Terminal Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I this was not the case. There are only 14 examples of vat rims with evidence of white lime wash, and this comprised just 4.5% of the assemblage (see pl. 8:17 for an example with pajama-ware decoration). 14 The lack of white lime wash on vat rims in the earlier Early Bronze I assemblage suggests either that vats were not used for holding liquids or that the usefulness of white lime wash as a sealant was not yet fully appreciated. Striped wash was found very rarely on vats. Only 10 examples with stripped wash on the interior and/or exterior were found. Striped wash was also found on vats with redslipped rims and on one with a scalloped rim. In one case, a vat with striped wash also had repair holes in it (pl. 7:19), and there was one case from Phase 7/6 with red painted bands 14. Four of these were examples of pajama ware from Phases 9 and 8.

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

81

on the interior of a Group 3 vat. Other decoration found sparingly on vats included the use of applied molding (pl. 7:11), as well as hand-combing, incising, and impressed indentations (pl. 7:15). Examples of exterior hand-combing were found on a Group 3 vat from Phases 10 and 9 (see fig. 29; pl. 8:18, 19). A Group 4 vat rim with an exterior horizontal band of incisions was found in Phase 8. Rim scalloping was a slightly more frequent decorative motif, giving the rim a pie crust configuration (see Stager 1992). There were 33 examples with rim-scalloping that comprised 11% of the vat rim assemblage. The vast majority of scalloped rims were found on Group 4 vats and came from Phases 9 and 8 (pl. 7:1, 2, 3, 6, 8). 15 The combination of Group 3 fabrics and Figure 29. Vat with combing in Fabric Group 3, L. 91053. (S101.91.118: 1), Phase 9A. scalloping was restricted to Phase 9, with one exception in Phase 8. One scalloped rim also had an applied knob, the only such example found on a vat rim (pl. 7:2). There were five examples of rim-scalloping combined with red slip, red-slipped rims, or striped wash. One complete vat (pl. 7:10) had a mark on its exterior body that was incised after firing. The mark comprised a rough drawn semicircle that enclosed two short horizontal lines. f. Bases Because the bases of storage jars and holemouth storage jars were frequently wiped on the interior, it was difficult to determine if a form was open or closed from just a base section. However, based on the occurrence of interior decoration, 30 bases were securely identified as belonging to vats. Of the 30 examples, 19 were produced in Group 3, and 11 from Group 4 fabrics. Ten of the Group 4 bases were decorated with red slip, two of which had the pajama-ware motif, while one which had an external red slip and internal white lime wash. g. Comparative Discussion Alon and Yekultieli published vats from all levels of Alon’s work at the Silo Site. In Strata IV, they report finding basins or kraters (they use both terms when referring to them) in what appears to be a fine-ware fabric similar to Group 6 (1995: fig. 24:7, 8). One example with a scalloped rim they refer to as a “bowl,” but it could also be classified as a vat (Alon and Yekultieli 1995: fig. 24:10). From their EB IA level, Stratum III, they published two large V-shaped bowls (Alon and Yekultieli 1995: fig. 23:19, 24; see also Goren 15. 76% of Group 4 scalloped rims came from Phase 9.

82

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

1991), one of which had a hole drilled near the rim. 16 Interestingly, they did not report finding any spouts. Petrography from these sherds indicated they may be made from a Moza marl from the southern Judean mountains (Alon and Yekultieli 1995: 176). If they were imported, then this suggests that these large angled vats or large V-shaped bowls (see below) had a specialized function at the site. Levy (Levy et al. 1995; 1997; Kansa and Levy 2002) does not really mention Levantine vats or basins at all; however, in his tabulations of vessel frequency, Kansa (2001: Table 87; Table 88) tallies a small number of basins or vats in Strata IIa, IIC/IIIA, and IIIB; he did not report any occurrences of spouted basins. Interestingly, Gilead and Goren (1995: 153) do not report many vats from Grar, but they do note that vats appear more commonly to the south (i.e., at the Chalcolithic sites along the Nahal Besor and Nahal Beer Sheva). They also note that the vats at Grar are made from a coarse ware and often have applied molding and/or thumb impressions along the rim. These characteristics and the pattern of frequency differs from that at Site 101, again pointing to a date later in the Chalcolithic for the Halif Terrace. In the Chalcolithic, straight-walled vats were found at Shiqmim Building Phase II (Levy 1987: figs. 12.3:9; 12.7:6), Nahal Sekher (Gilead and Goren 1986: fig. 5:11), Beersheva (de Contenson 1956: figs. 7:2–4, 6, 8; 8:4–6, 20, 21), Safadi (Commenge-Pellerin 1990: fig. 28:5–9), Nahal Mishmar (Bar-Adon 1980: figs. I11.7:1, 4, 5, 7; I11.8:2), Horvat Betar Stratum I–III (Dothan 1959b: fig. 8:3, 4, 9, 10), ºEn Gedi (Ussishkin 1980: fig. 9:2, 9, 11), Gezer Stratum XXVI (Dever et al. 1974: pls. 1:15; 2:7), Ghassul Phase B (Hennessy 1969: fig. 6:7), and Arad Stratum V (Amiran et al. 1978: pls. 1:16, 18; 2:3, 4). Scalloped rims were also found at Shiqmim Building Phase II (Levy 1987: figs.12.7:1, 2; 12.3:8), Beer-sheva (de Contenson 1956a: pl. 8:3, 18), Horvat Betar Stratum II/III (Dothan 1959b: fig. 13:31), Gezer Stratum XXVI (Dever et al. 1974: pl. 3:1), Lachish Cave 1531 (Tufnell 1958: pl. 56:9), Ghassul (Mallon et al. 1934: fig. 41:11, 13, 14) and Arad Stratum V (Amiran et al. 1978: pl. 2:7). Straight-walled vats with inverted rims and with thumb-impressed indentations along the rim were found at Grar (Gilead and Goren 1995: fig. 4.6:1–6). Straight vats in transitional Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I deposits were found at Arqub el-Dhahr (Parr 1956: pls. 81:12–16; 82:1–8). In the Early Bronze IA, deep large bowls are reported from the Bâb edh-Dhr⺠tombs and the town site Stratum V (Schaub and Rast 1989: fig. 14:1; Rast and Schaub 2003: fig. 5.2:5, 6). In the Early Bronze IB, examples are also found at the Bâb edh-Dhr⺠tombs (Schaub and Rast 1989: figs. 129:9; 136:5), the tell at Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1982: fig. 35:19), Gezer Stratum XXV (Dever et al. 1974: pls. 3:12; 4:1, 2, 13, 14, 17), Arad Stratum IV (Amiran et al. 1978: fig. 8:6–8), north Sinai (Oren and Gilead 1981: fig. 7:3; Oren 1989: fig. 8:28), and the ºAi Sanctuary Phase II (Callaway 1972: figs. 17:32; 20:7, 9, 15–20). Scalloped rims are also found in north Sinai (Oren and Gilead 1981: fig. 7:8, 10). Angled vats were found at a similar series of sites. Angled vats often appear as large versions of V-shaped bowls, usually with a red band around the rim. Although this style of vat did not survive into the Early Bronze II in the south, it is found in Early Bronze IB contexts. In the Chalcolithic, angled-walled vats were found at Shiqmim Building Phases I, II 16. They note that this might indicate its use as a spinning bowl, following Bar-Adon (1980: 184–85).

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

83

(Levy 1987: figs. 12.3:3; 12.4:2–4; 12.5:4–7), Beer-sheva (de Contenson 1956: figs. 7:1, 5, 10, 11, 12; 8:1, 2, 7, 16), Safadi (Commenge-Pellerin 1990: fig. 23:1, 2, 4; 24:1, 5, 7, 8), Nahal Mishmar (Bar-Adon 1980: figs. I11.7:7, 9; I11.8:3), Horvat Betar Strata I–III (Dothan 1959b: figs. 7:28, 29; 12:28, 30, 27), Grar (Gilead and Goren 1995: fig. 4.7:4, 6), ºEn Gedi (Ussishkin 1980: fig. 9:4, 5), Gezer Stratum XXVI (Dever et al. 1974: pls. 1:14, 8; 3:3), Gerar 100 (Gilead 1986: fig. 22:5), Ghassul Phases A and B and Level IV (Koeppel 1940: pl. 79:10, 12; Hennessy 1969: fig. 5:2, 6, 10), Arad Stratum V (Amiran et al. 1978: pls.1:10–12, 24, 15; 2:1, 2, 5), and north Sinai (Oren and Gilead 1981: fig. 6:1, 3). Scalloped rims were found at Nahal Sekher (Gilead and Goren 1986: fig. 6:4), Grar (Gilead and Goren 1995: fig. 4.7:4, 7, 8), usually with everted rims, Beersheva (de Contenson 1956a: figs. 7:9; 8:11), Nahal Mishmar (Bar-Adon 1980: figs. I11.8:11), Horvat Betar Strata I–III (Dothan 1959b: figs. 7:31; 8:2), Haruvit-Yamit (Oren and Gilead 1981: fig. 7:7), north Sinai (Oren and Gilead 1981: fig. 7:7), Arad Stratum V (Amiran et al. 1978: pl. 2:6), and Shiqmim Building Phases I and II (Levy 1987: figs. 12.3:1, 2, 4; 12.4:6; 12.5:2, 3). Angled vats were also found at Grar (Gilead and Goren 1995: 4.7:1–3), usually with everted rims and with thumb-impressed indentations along the rim. Angled vats in transitional Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I deposits include Arqub elDhahr (Parr 1956: fig. 13:14) and Lachish Caves 1509 and 1503 (Tufnell 1958: pl. 56:25, 28). In the Early Bronze IA, vats are reported from the Bâb edh-Dhr⺠Tomb A5E (Schaub and Rast 1989: fig. 21:5), Ashqelon-Area F Stratum I (Khalaily 2004: figs. 6:9–11), and Jericho Tomb K2, Phases I and II (Kenyon 1965: figs. 4:10; 8:13). In the Early Bronze IB, examples are found on the tell at Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1982: fig. 33:42, 43), Gezer Cave I.3A (Dever 1988: pl. 5:4), Tell en-Nasbeh Cave Tomb 6 (Wampler 1947: pl. 51:1113), Azor Tombs 1 and 4 (Ben-Tor 1975: fig. 5:17), north Sinai (Oren 1989: fig. 8:22), and the ºAi Sanctuary (Callaway 1972: fig. 20:714). Scalloped rims are also found in north Sinai (Oren and Gilead 1981: fig. 7:8, 10).

7. Jugs and Juglets Jugs and juglets are not common at Site 101 and make up a very small percentage of the ceramic assemblage. For example, there were only three identifiable juglet rims, although the appearance of jug and juglet bases, handles, and body sherds suggest that there were many more (pl. 9:17, 19–22). Jugs and juglets were hand-made, with little evidence of any finishing. This was due, however, to the use of slip and burnish (found on almost all examples), which obscured any finishing marks. In the Early Bronze I, the juglet production tradition had not completely stabilized and even in the small assemblage from Site 101 there were three distinct types of bases: a rounded base (pl. 9:19), a ring base (pl. 9:22), and a button base. a. Assemblage Size Only five diagnostic juglet sherds were found at Site 101, including both rims and bases, comprising a scant 0.1% of the total percentage of diagnostic sherds. Based on this very small number, it is clear that juglets are grossly underrepresented in the ceramic

84

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions assemblage. However, a total of 66 sherds, including body sherds, were identified as belonging to jugs or juglets based on their curvature and decoration. 17 In Phase 10, there was one juglet base, a handle, and a body sherd. In Phase 9, there were 5 jug and 5 juglets sherds. In Phase 8, the size of the diagnostic assemblage grew to 24, including 13 juglets and 11 jugs. In Phase 7/6, the sample increased to 29 (12 juglets and 17 jugs). This suggests that there was an increase in the number of jugs and juglets over time. They were usually produced in the Group 5 fabric but were also found in Groups 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7. Groups 5 and 6 fabrics were used in order to produce thinner-walled vessels, which was one of the production considerations for juglets.

b. Basic Form In Phases 7/6 and 9, there were 3 juglet rim sherds, all produced in the Group 5 fabric. One of the rim sherds Figure 30. Juglet in Fabric Group 5, L. 101033 (S101.101.90: 1), Phase 9A from Phase 9 had a diameter of 2 cm and was not slipped but burnished with a random hand-burnish. The other example from Phase 9 was complete, with a 4 cm diameter, and it was undecorated (see fig. 30; pl. 9:19). The example from Phase 7/6 has an unknown diameter and was covered with a grayish slip (originally it may well have been red) that had been hand-burnished. There were several examples of double handles from Phases 8 and 7/6 and one example of a handle with incised ridging. Of the three juglet bases, one from Phase 8 had a button base, and one from Phase 9 had an uneven ring base. The one whole juglet in Phase 9 (pl. 9:19) had a rounded base. c. Decoration An important characteristic of jugs and juglets was decoration. Almost the entire sample had red slip that was usually burnished (pl. 9:17). Perhaps this was a functional consideration, because burnishing helped seal a vessel, making it less permeable and more useful for liquid storage. The vessels were usually hand-burnished over the entire surface. However, in Phase 8 there was also evidence of pattern-burnishing. In the Early Bronze II and III, pattern-burnishing became a decorative hallmark on other forms, most notably platter bowls. Other decorative motifs on jugs and juglets included: red painted bands in a net pattern, red painted bands, white lime wash, and incisions on applied molding. There was one example of a juglet body sherd reused as a lamp, as evidenced by a wick mark.

17. This number includes both diagnostic and body sherds. Jug and juglet bases, handles, and rim sherds were relatively easy to distinguish based on their size (in the case of the bases their diameter).

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

85

d. Comparative Discussion Alon and Yekultieli also note that jugs and juglets are quite rare. However, they publish a few examples, including two from Stratum I: a juglet neck and shoulder with small pierced-lug handles on the shoulders that has white wash, and a globular juglet with a loop handle that appears undecorated (Alon and Yekultieli 1995: figs. 21:2; 22:9). Kansa and Levy (2002: fig. 12.5) published four examples of jug and juglet handles, one that appears to have some applied molding. It does not appear that these vessels were otherwise decorated. Juglets were rare in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I but were found in transitional Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I contexts at Arqub el-Dhahr (Parr 1956: fig. 14:125, 130), Tell en-Nasbeh Cave Tombs 6 and 5 (Wampler 1947: pls. 12:204–6; 75:1712–14), and in Early Bronze IA contexts in Bâb edh-Dhr⺠Tombs A9 and A66 (Schaub and Rast 1989: figs. 30:1; 84:3, 10), and Ashqelon-Afridar Area F Stratum I (Khalaily 2004: fig. 10:7, 8). In the Early Bronze IB, juglets were found at Gezer in Stratum XXV (Dever et al. 1974: pl. 4:12), ºAi Tombs G and C (Callaway 1964: pls. 8:862; 11:801; 16:36, 520), Arad Stratum IV (Amiran et al. 1978: pl. 10:10–12), Bâb edh-Dhr⺠tombs and town site (Schaub and Rast 1989: fig. 134:17; Rast and Schaub 2003: fig. 5.2:7), and Azor Tombs 1 and 4 (Ben-Tor 1975: pl. 7:12, 14, 17, 18). “Abydos” jugs with red slip and burnish were also found in the Azor tombs (Ben-Tor 1975: fig. 6:20, 22). The ring base found at Site 101 has parallels from the Chalcolithic at Ghassul Level IV (Koeppel 1940: pl. 79:9) and from Nahal Mishmar (Bar-Adon 1980: fig. I11.6:5). Other forms with ring bases include an unidentified closed form that is also from Ghassul (Koeppel 1940: pl. 83:9). In the Early Bronze IA, there are bowls with ring bases from Jericho Tomb K2 Phases I and II (Kenyon 1965: figs. 4:8; 8:11) and, in the Early Bronze IA and IB, from tombs at Bâb edh-Dhr⺠(Schaub and Rast 1989: figs. 138:11; 50:8). Also from the Bâb edh-Dhr⺠tombs is a juglet with a ring base (Schaub and Rast 1989: fig. 30:2). 8. Mugs At Site 101, there was a very large assemblage of small, open vessels that fall into several distinct production traditions. This assemblage included mugs, cups, cornets, and bowls and formed something of a typological continuum, although there were distinct characteristics for each form. Mugs were short, squat, open vessels and were characterized by a slight rim eversion that gave them a cyma-shaped profile (pls. 3:10; 9:1–9; 10:24). The rim was everted off of a slightly globular body, creating a modest constriction. The rim was drawn thin and formed an angled or rounded tip. Sometimes the rim was thickened and the top flattened out, giving it a square configuration. No mug bases were identified, which suggests that these forms have rounded bottoms similar to hemispherical bowls. Over 50% of all mugs show evidence of finishing, usually indicated by hand rotation and wiping observed on the rim. One of the important features of the mug shape is its openness and accessibility, which makes it more useful for short-term storage and serving, rather than for long-term storage, as would be the case with jugs and jars.

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

86 Gr. 3 Ph. 10

Ph. 9

Ph. 8

Ph. 7/6

Total

Gr. 4

Gr. 5

Gr. 7

Total

1

13

2

0

16

6%

81%

13%

0%

100%

10

50

1

1

62

16%

81%

2%

2%

100%

3

9

0

0

12

25%

75%

0%

0%

100%

0

5

0

0

5

0%

100%

0%

0%

100%

14

77

3

1

95

Mugs were usually produced in Groups 3 and 4 fabrics, though they were also found in Groups 5 and 7. Straw was often added to the Group 4 fabric in the production of both cups and mugs. This suggests that a specially prepared paste was used in the production of these two form types. In the production of mugs, decoration was a concern but was not linked to any particular ware type. The use of red slip was found on 1/3 of the mug assemblage.

a. Assemblage Size There were 95 examples of this 15% 81% 3.2% 1.1% 100% form found in stratified deposits, comprising 2.5% of the ceramic assemblage Figure 31. Distribution of Mugs by Fabric Groups and (see fig. 24). Mugs were more typical of Phase. the earlier levels, Phases 10 and 9. The majority of the mug assemblage, 65%, was found in Phase 9, when they comprised 4.3% of the total diagnostic assemblage. By Phase 7/6, mugs comprised less than 1% of the entire ceramic assemblage. b. Ware Mugs were produced in a variety of fabrics, including Groups 3, 4, 5, and 7. However, the majority were produced in Group 4 (pls. 3:10; 9:3–7; 10:25), which comprised 81% of the mug assemblage (see fig. 31). Interestingly, straw was sometimes added to the Group 4 fabric in the production of mugs. The use of the Group 3 fabric (pls. 3:19; 9:1, 2) was limited to Phases 10 through 8, and by Phase 8 it was clearly in decline. This may suggest that the use of Group 3 became restricted over time to smaller, less commonly produced vessels or vessels that were more closely associated with Chalcolithic and Early Bronze IA pottery production traditions. There were two examples from Phase 9 of mugs produced in Groups 5 (pl. 9:8, 9) and 7. This reflects some apparent experimentation in Phase 9 with Group 7 fabric and forms other than straw-tempered beakers. c. Size Distribution The size distribution of all mug rim diameters ranged from 5 to 31 cm, with an average of 11.4 cm. The sizes of these vessels were not highly standardized and there were no clear correlations between size and fabric. The majority of mugs, 67%, were in the small size class between 5 and 12 cm. The medium-size class ranged between 12 to 16 cm, accounting for 27% of the assemblage. The large-size class ranged between 19 and 31 cm and made up 6% of the mug assemblage.

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

87

d. Decoration One-third of all mugs were decorated with either white lime wash, red-slipped rims, red slip, or red-painted bands (pl. 9:2, 3, 5–8), although both white lime wash and redpainted bands were limited to single examples. The single example of a Group 7 mug was decorated with interior red slip and had an incised “X” on its exterior. This is one of the few examples of a potter’s mark on any Chalcolithic or Early Bronze I pottery from Site 101 (though see Kansa and Levy 2002). There was no difference in the size distribution between slipped and unslipped vessels, nor was the size range between decorated and undecorated vessels significant. There were two cases where red slip was combined with other decorative techniques. In Phase 9, redslipped rims were combined with external red-painted bands, and in Phase 8 there was one example of a Group 4 mug that combined interior and exterior red slip with exterior handburnish. e. Comparative Discussion A similarly shaped mug was reported by Alon and Yekultieli (1995: fig. 15:18), which came from the Silo Site’s Stratum I pit. They refer to this vessel as a bowl but note that it has a “slight carination below the rim” (Alon and Yekultieli 1995: 162). Several other similarly carinated bowls, such as the Site 101 mugs, were also published by Alon and Yekultieli (1995: fig. 17:9, 10, 11), and all of them came from Stratum I. Kansa did not identify any mugs from the NTP excavations (see Kansa 2001: fig. 27). Although mugs were associated with Early Bronze IA at the Halif Terrace, they appeared in earlier Chalcolithic contexts at mortuary and domestic sites from the Coastal Plain to the Jordan Valley and south to Beersheva. In the Early Bronze IB, mugs were found at Gezer Cave I.3A (Dever 1988: pls. 1:31; 3:4, 17, where they were called “Type 12 mugs” or ovoid jars), Gezer Stratum XXV (Dever et al. 1974: pl. 4:5), Azor Tombs 1 and 4 (Ben-Tor 1975: fig. 5:22–26, where they were called “Deep A55 Bowls” and had exterior red slip), Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1982: fig. 34:29, 30, 34, 37), Bâb edh-Dhr⺠Stratum IV (Rast and Schaub 2003: 7.2:13), and north Sinai (Oren 1989: fig. 8:24). In almost all cases, there was some evidence of slip. 9. Squared-Rim Bowls Squared-rim bowls are defined primarily by their form. This bowl has a hemispherical shape but with an angled and often thickened rim, as well as a slight constriction below the rim that gives it a cyma shape (pl. 9:10–16). They also have rounded bases. In some respects, the form of the squared-rim bowl is similar to that of the mug. They were handmade and most of them were finished with some degree of rotation. Squared-rim bowls were produced in a variety of fabrics including Groups 3, 4, 6, and 1. These bowls were produced in limited quantities out of local materials and were rarely found at other sites in the Southern Levant. a. Assemblage Size The size of the squared-rim bowl sample was relatively small, with only 48 examples comprising only 1.3% of the total diagnostic rim assemblage (see fig. 24). These forms

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

88 Gr. 1 Ph. 10

Ph. 9

Ph. 8

Gr. 3

Gr. 4

Gr. 6

Gr. 7

Total

0

15

8

0

1

24

0%

63%

33%

0%

4%

100%

1

9

4

1

0

15

7%

60%

27%

7%

0%

100%

0

4

1

0

0

5

0%

80%

20%

0%

0%

100%

appear in greater quantities in Phases 10 and 9, when they comprise 81% of the total squared-rim bowl assemblage. The bowl’s appearance in Phase 10 indicates that it originated in the Chalcolithic. By the Early Bronze IB, this form tradition was clearly waning.

b. Ware Squared-rim bowls were pro0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% duced in four fabrics, Groups 1, 3 Total 1 30 15 1 1 48 (pls. 9:10, 12, 14, 15; 10:16), 4 (pls. 9:11, 13, 16; 10:24), 6, and 7. 2% 63% 31% 2% 2% 100% Groups 3 and 4 are the most common fabrics used. Group 3 comFigure 32. Distribution of Squared-rim Bowls by Fabric Group prised 62% of the entire squaredand Phase. rim bowl assemblage and Group 4 comprised 31% (see fig. 32). Group 3 fabric was the dominant fabric type in each phase. The use of this fabric, which is more closely associated with the Terminal Chalcolithic, reinforces the impression that this is an early form type that declines in use by the Early Bronze IB. One example of a Group 7 bowl was found in Phase 10 and single examples of Groups 1 and 6 were found in Phase 9. The use of Group 1 was very unusual for any form type other than a holemouth cooking pot and may indicate that this particular vessel functioned as a cooking vessel or was repeatedly heated. However, the very limited use of the Group 1 fabric outside of holemouth cooking pot production probably indicates an anomalous usage of this specialized ware type for other forms. Ph. 7/6

0

2

2

0

0

4

c. Size Distribution Squared-rim bowls ranged in diameter from 5 to 34 cm, with an average of 16.4 cm. A weak, polymodal size distribution was indicated: a very small size with a diameter of 5 cm, a small size between 9 and 17 cm, a medium size between 18 and 22 cm, and a large size between 26 and 34 cm. The majority, 61%, of the squared-rim bowl assemblage fell into the small size, with the medium size comprising 28%, the large at 9%, and the very small at 2%. This same polymodal size distribution was maintained in both Group 3 and 4 fabrics. d. Decoration The only type of decoration associated with squared-rim bowls was the use of red slip either as a band around the rim or on the interior and/or exterior of the vessel (pls. 9:10, 12, 13, 16; 10:16). Evidence of red slip was found on 42% of squared-rim bowls. It was most commonly used in Phases 10 and 9, where close to 60% of the bowls had red slip. Red slip

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

89

was also most common on Groups 3 and 6 fabrics, where it appeared on 62% of this specific bowl assemblage. An interrelationship between red-slipped rims and Group 3 and 6 fabrics was a consistent feature of open forms produced in these ware types. e. Comparative Discussion There are very few parallels to this square-rim bowl type even from elsewhere on the Halif Terrace itself. One “well-fired” bowl (Alon and Yekultieli 1995: fig. 22:10) was vaguely reminiscent of a squared-rim bowl, but Levy reported no such form from his excavations (see Kansa 2001: fig. 27). The few parallels found at other sites date to the Early Bronze I. A similar bowl rim was reported from Arad Stratum IV, and Amiran called it a small hemispherical bowl (Amiran et al. 1978: pl. 7:14). At Ashkelon-Afridar Area F Stratum I, Khalaily also referred to this form as a hemispherical bowl (Khalaily 2004: fig. 6:12). At ºEn Shadud in northern Israel, there were similar bowls that Braun calls “small bowls with flat rims” (1985: fig. 15:12, 13). However, these bowls have evidence of interior and exterior red slip, which was not found on the Site 101 bowls. Early Bronze I deposits from the tell at Jericho produced a somewhat similar bowl called a “beveled rim bowl,” which was also decorated with interior slip and burnish (Kenyon and Holland 1982: pl. 34:23). Squared-rim mugs, a minor type based on a rim variant, have tenuous parallels in the Chalcolithic from Gezer Stratum XXVI (Dever et al. 1974: pl. 1:3; where it is called a small bowl and was slipped) and Benei Beraq (Ory 1946: fig. 3:17). Everted rim mugs are more common. They have been identified in Chalcolithic contexts at Gezer Stratum XXVI (Dever et al. 1974: figs. 1:26; 2:26), the Azor tombs (Perrot 1961: fig. 42:14, 15), and Beersheva (de Contenson 1956a: figs. 6:21, 22). They were also found at transitional Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I sites, such as Um Hammad (Helms 1986: fig. 10:5, 6; where they were red-slipped), and at Arqub el-Dhahr (Parr 1956: fig. 13:51, 52).

9. Cups Cups were small, open vessels that were easily distinguished from either bowls or mugs by their relatively vertical or slightly angled walls and cylindrical shape (pl. 10:1–15, 25). They were handmade and usually showed evidence of being shaved on the exterior of the vessel. They are an unusual form with few close parallels elsewhere and, unlike mugs and other open forms, their attributes—such as decoration, size, and fabric—were relatively well controlled. Their production and usage is considered local to the Halif Terrace. They had relatively small rim diameters, and their shape suggests that they were used for serving liquids. Cups were most frequently produced in Group 4 fabric, accounting for 70% of the assemblage. As with the production of mugs, straw was also frequently added as temper to the Group 4 fabric in the production of cups. This meant that at least some of the paste used in the production of cups and mugs had to be prepared separately. In the case of mugs, this specific paste was then distributed at the household level for domestic production (see below, chap. 5). However, in the case of cups, there was a consistent control over production in terms of size standardization and manufacturing technology, as well as fabric. Although

90

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

there was some variability in rim configuration, the overall degree of standardization of fabric and size and the lack of decoration suggests that this production tradition was under tighter control than might be expected at the household level. a. Assemblage Size The total number of the cup assemblage is 164, and 159 of these were rim sherds. The cup assemblage comprised 4.2% of the total assemblage (see fig. 24). 18 Cups first appear in Phase 10, and the majority of the rims were found in Phase 10, when they made up close to 5% of the total phase assemblage. In fact, 71% of all cup rims were found in Phases 10 and 9, which strongly suggests that this was a Chalcolithic form that declined in popularity by the Early Bronze IB. b. Rim Typology While cups have two types of rims, a straight and an angled version, these are understood as very slight modifications in their production tradition. The primary characteristic of the straight rim was the almost vertical stance of the rim and its rounded or slightly tapered tip (pl. 10:2, 4, 6–10, 13–15). The angled rim was characterized by a slightly thicker wall and a stance that formed an angle greater than 90° from the base (pl. 10:1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 25). One characteristic found exclusively on the straight rim variant was a small, thin horizontally pierced handle (pl. 10:4, 9, 10, 11). The ratio of the angled variant to the straight variant remained relatively constant throughout all periods, with the angled variant accounting for 75% of the total assemblage. There was no significant correlation between rim type and size, ware type, or decoration. c. Ware Five fabric types were used in the production of cups: Groups 3, 4, 5 (pl. 10:6, 11), 6, and 7 (see fig. 33). There were two noteworthy trends: first, an obvious preference in all strata for the Group 4 fabric (pl. 10:1–5, 7–10, 12–14, 25), and second, the inclusion of straw as temper in fabrics in which straw was not regularly used. Notably, the use of straw increased in the later phases when the popularity of the form decreased. The Group 4 fabric accounted for 70% of all vessels and was the dominant fabric used in each phase. However, it decreased in usage in Phases 8 and 7/6. This decline did not result in an increased use of Groups 3 or 6 (pl. 10:1–14) but instead was compensated for by the use of the Group 7 fabric (pl. 10:15). This is very curious because, in general, these two periods see a marked decline in the use of the Group 7 fabric. 19 The use of Groups 3 and 6 fabrics comprised 13% of the assemblage from Phases 10 and 9, although there were only three examples in Group 6 (or Cream Ware). The use of Group 7 was restricted to Phases 8 and 7/6 and comprised 7% of the cup assemblage. Group 5 cups were restricted to Phase 10 and comprised 9% of the total cup assemblage. 18. There were two base sherds and two body sherds that were clearly cups. 19. Had cups been produced in Group 7, in Phases 10 and 9, it might suggest that the Group 7 cups found in Phases 8 and 7/6 were actually produced earlier. However, because cups produced in Group 7 were not found earlier than Phase 8, it is understood that they were produced in the later phases in which they were found. This suggests that some experimentation in Group 7 continued well after the florescence of its use.

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions The use of Group 7, characterized by straw temper, may have been related to a distinct preference by potters to include greater proportions of straw as temper in the Group 4 fabric, a ware in which straw rarely constituted a significant role. The addition of straw, to either Groups 3 or 4, is limited to cups and mugs. Its addition to these fabrics can be understood as a consistent attribute in the production of cups, regardless of which fabric was used. This suggests that the paste used in the manufacture of cups was produced exclusively for this form and not used in the production of other vessels, except possibly mugs.

Gr. 3 Ph. 10

Ph. 9

Ph. 8

Ph. 7/6

Total

Gr. 4

Gr. 5

91 Gr. 6

Gr. 7

Total

7

20

15

1

0

43

16%

47%

35%

2%

0%

100%

5

63

0

2

0

70

7%

90%

0%

3%

0%

100%

4

18

0

0

7

29

14%

62%

0%

0%

24%

100%

2

11

0

0

4

17

12%

65%

0%

0%

24%

100%

18

112

15

3

11

159

11%

70%

9%

2%

7%

100%

Figure 33. Distribution of Cups by Fabric Groups and Phase.

d. Decoration Cups were frequently decorated, with 25% showing evidence of surface decoration. A wide variety of decorative motifs were used, but red slip was the most common, being found on 24% of the cup assemblage (pl. 10:9, 14). Red slip was used more regularly in Phases 10 through 8 than in Phase 7/6. Red slip was used in two ways: on the interior and/or exterior of the vessel, or as a band of red slip applied around the rim. Other decorative motifs on cups included: knobs, combing, white lime wash, rimscalloping, striped wash, and even hand-burnishing. There was one example of irregular combing on the exterior of a Group 3 cup from Phase 7/6. Combing was quite rare on any form, but it was invariably used on vessels produced in the Group 3 fabric. The only example of exterior white lime wash was from Phase 7/6, the phase in which lime wash was most popular. Two cup rims displayed evidence of striped wash. These were on Group 4 and 5 fabrics, which is noteworthy in that striped wash was usually associated with Group 3 and rarely found on Group 4 or 5 vessels. Striped wash was not usually coupled with Group 4 fabric. There are only two recorded examples, both from Phase 9. There was only one example of hand-burnishing. This was on a red-slipped cup found in Phase 10. There are three examples of rim-scalloping from Phases 9 (pl. 10:8) and 8, and there is one example with an exterior knob from Phase 9. Use of these decorative techniques was very limited, and they were employed on a random basis. The only correlation between rim style and other attributes was the association of straight-rimmed cups, lug-handles, and fabric. The lug-handles were thin, vertical handles placed on the exterior of the vessel’s rim and pierced horizontally. Five of the eight examples were found in Phases 9 and 8. Cups with lug-handles were usually produced in the

92

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

Group 4 fabric, though there was one example in Group 3. Three examples came from Phase 10 (in both Group 3 and 4 fabrics), one of which was slipped and burnished. Another three examples came from Phase 9. Several examples had multiple handles. These included a two-handled version from Phase 9, and an odd example from Phase 8 that had two handles parallel to each other on the body of the vessel rather than along the rim. This example also had exterior lime wash. e. Size Distribution Cup rim diameters ranged between 3 and 18 cm, with an average of 9.2 cm. The cup assemblage had a very distinct trimodal size distribution: the small size ranged between 3 and 5 cm, the medium between 6 and 12 cm, and the large size between 13 and 18 cm. The most frequent diameter was 8 cm, which accounted for 18% of the cups with a known diameter. In fact, 64% of the entire cup rim assemblage was medium-sized. The large size accounted for 24%, and 16 rims had a diameter of 16 cm. Although the sample size was small (11 examples), the size distribution of Group 7 cups was distinct, with all 11 cups of medium size. Two bases were found, indicating that cups had relatively flat bases similar to Vshaped bowls. One base was found in Phase 8, and it had a 3 cm diameter; the other came from Phase 10 and had a 1 cm diameter. It was produced in the Group 5 fabric and had clear indications of being shaved. f. Comparative Discussion There are very few parallels for either the angled or straight cup. The lack of parallels might be attributed to the difficulty in distinguishing cup rims from bowl rims in published reports due to the very simple shape of the rim. Alon and Yekultieli (1995: fig. 23:14, 17) show two examples from Stratum III at the Silo Site, which appear very similar to the straight-rimmed style from Site 101. Levy (Kansa 2001; Kansa and Levy 2002; Levy et al. 1997; 2001) reported no such form. Angled cups were found in Early Bronze IB deposits at Gezer Cave I.3A (Dever 1988: pl. 1:10), in Gezer Stratum XXV (Dever et al. 1974: pl. 3:4), and several very close parallels emerge from the tell at Jericho (Kenyon and Holland 1982: fig. 36:11–14). Straight cups appeared in the Chalcolithic at Ghassul Levels III and IV, including one with a pierced handle and one with a knob (Mallon et al. 1934: fig. 41:1, 2; Koeppel 1940: pl. 76:3), in Gezer Stratum XXVI (Dever et al. 1974: pl. 1:13), and at Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 42:11). From the Early Bronze IA level at Ashkelon-Afridar Area G, Braun and Gophna (2004: fig. 18:1, 2) published two sherds that appear similar to the cups from Site 101. However, they identify fig. 18:2 as a long neck from a small jar rather than a cup. While the possibility of their identification cannot be discounted, the examples from Site 101, especially the angled variant, are from open, not closed, vessels. A close parallel is also found at the Egyptian site of Maadi, dating to the late Naqada I/early Naqada II or late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze IA. This example (Rizkana and Seeher 1987: 54; pl. 74:5) was referred to as a jar. However, it appears to be an open form with two small, pierced lug-handles at the rim. It is also produced from Maadi Group V, an imported Levantine fabric. For the Early Bronze IB, there were three close parallels from

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

93

Azor Tombs 1 and 4 (Ben-Tor 1975: fig. 6:4), and a similar example came from north Sinai (Oren 1989: fig. 8:1). 11. Hemispherical Bowls Hemispherical bowls were the most typical bowl produced in the Early Bronze Age. They had a simple, unelaborated rim and a rounded base. While they were handmade, their rims were frequently finished by rotating or turning. They were primarily produced in Group 3 and 4 fabrics. In addition, examples were also produced in Groups 1, 5, 6, and 7. There was a distinct trend toward the more exclusive use of Group 4, which coincided with a decline in the degree of size variability. Hemispherical bowls, though found in Phase 10, were more common in the Early Bronze Age phases, both on the Halif Terrace and throughout the Southern Levant (see also Alon and Yekultieli 1995: fig. 25). It appears that roundbased open vessels of this kind ultimately came to replace the flat-based open vessels, such as V-shaped bowls, which predominated in the Chalcolithic. The hemispherical bowl form eclipsed all other bowl forms in the later Early Bronze I (EB IB) and remained the dominant bowl form throughout the Early Bronze Age. Hemispherical bowls probably served a number of functions, including being reused as oil lamps. Their use as lamps is indicated by blackened soot marks on the rim, indicating the placement of wicks. Broken bowls were also reused as lamps: wick marks are observed on the edge of broken body sherds and on partial or restorable hemispherical bowls. Initially, hemispherical bowls appeared in a variety of fabrics with clear correlations between fabric and decoration. Over time, Group 3 and 6 fabrics declined in frequency, as did the use of decoration—both at the expense of undecorated bowls in Group 4. The Group 4 vessels also adhered more strictly to specific size categories. Thus, there appear to be two distinct production traditions. Hemispherical bowls in Group 3 and 6 fabrics were produced in a less-controlled production tradition, unlike those in Group 4. Group 4 hemispherical bowls were produced in an increasingly more controlled environment—possibly a workshop—that paid careful attention to fabric and size standardization. It can be suggested that all hemispherical bowls were initially produced together and that the Group 4 production tradition emerged over time within the framework of a separate level of production. a. Assemblage Size The total sample of hemispherical bowls was 365 rim sherds, which comprised 16.1% of the total rim assemblage (see fig. 24; pls. 10:17, 20–23; 11:1–23, 25–27, 29). This was the second most frequent form type after straw-tempered beakers. The hemispherical bowl first appeared at Site 101 in Phase 10, where it made up 18.7% of the assemblage. It reached its peak in Phase 8, where it comprised 19.5% of the total assemblage. b. Ware The hemispherical bowl was manufactured in a wide range of fabrics, including Groups 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1 (see fig. 34). Group 4 (pls. 10:21, 23; 11:3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, 20–23, 25, 29) was the most common, accounting for 43% of all hemispherical bowls. However, in

94

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

Phase 10 Group 4 bowls accounted for only 22% of Gr. 1 Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Total the entire hemispherical Ph. 10 0 76 51 95 7 0 229 bowl assemblage. In Phase 0% 33% 22% 41% 3% 0% 100% 9, Group 4 bowls comprised 46% of the assemPh. 9 0 56 97 18 33 7 211 blage, and in Phases 8 and 0% 27% 46% 9% 16% 3% 100% 7/6 it reached 69% and Ph. 8 3 24 76 0 2 5 110 62% of the bowl assemblage, respectively. An3% 22% 69% 0% 2% 5% 100% other fabric commonly Ph. 7/6 1 17 36 0 0 4 58 used in the production of hemispherical bowls was 2% 29% 62% 0% 0% 7% 100% Group 3 (pls. 10:17, 20, Total 4 173 260 113 42 16 608 22; 11:7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 17), 1% 28% 43% 19% 7% 3% 100% which comprised 28% of the bowl assemblage. Its Figure 32. Distribution of Hemispherical Bowls by Fabric Groups and related fabric, Group 6 (pl. Phase. 11:1, 2, 26), accounted for another 7%, bringing the combined use of Groups 3 and 6 to 35% of the assemblage. Group 5 (pl. 5:15, 19, 27) comprised 19% of the assemblage, and Groups 7 (pl. 11:28) and 1 combined accounted for less than 5%. The increase in the use of Group 4 came at the expense of Group 5 bowls, which comprised 41% of the Phase 10 assemblage. In Phase 9, Group 5 bowls dropped to 9% of the assemblage. This was the last phase in which this fabric was used for hemispherical bowls. The use of Group 3 and Group 6 fabrics was relatively steady, especially in Phase 10 and 9, where they comprised 36% and 43% of the respective phase assemblages. After Phase 9, Group 6 hemispherical bowls were no longer found. When considered alone, Group 3 consistently comprised between 22% and 33% of the entire assemblage. The Group 7 fabric only accounted for 3% of the entire assemblage, although it was only found in Phases 9, 8, and 7/6. The use of Group 7 was a marked departure from its typical restricted use for straw-tempered beakers. Group 7 hemispherical bowls from Phases 9 and 8 seem to be part of a minor production tradition that was initiated at the height of the use of Group 7 and the production of straw-tempered beakers (see below). Because these straw-tempered beakers have a very limited distribution in southern Palestine, while they comprised such a large part of the Site 101 ceramic assemblage, it is suggested that they were produced on site (see also above, chap. 3). If this is the case, then perhaps, at the height of their production, potters experimented with other forms using Group 7 fabric. Group 1 accounted for only 1% of the assemblage and was found only in Phases 8 and 7/6. It is possible that the few examples produced in Group 1 were bowls whose functions relate to cooking or heating. It should be noted that Group 1 hemispherical bowls were not used or reused as lamps.

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

95

c. Size Distribution Hemispherical bowl rims ranged in diameter from 4 to 30 cm, with an average size of 11.8 cm. There appears to be a deliberate interest in maintaining some degree of size standardization. The vast majority of all hemispherical bowls, 84%, fell into a large size category between 7 and 17 cm. More significantly, 41% of these bowls had an even and narrow size range between 9 and 11 cm. This concern with producing a highly standardized size (whether intentional or the result of a specific manufacturing technology, such as throwing off the hump) indicates that there was a significant degree of control over production. The other size classes included: small—between 4 and 6 cm, which comprised 6% of the bowl assemblage; large—between 18 and 24 cm, which comprised 8%; and very large—between 26 and 30 cm, which comprised only 1% of the assemblage. This size distribution pattern was operative within all of the different fabric groups that were used. Thus, it appears that, regardless of the fabric type, size considerations remained constant. d. Decoration Close to half of all hemispherical bowls had some decoration; 42% of all rims had either interior and/or exterior red slip or red-slipped rims. There was also distinct patterning according to fabric groups. Red-slipped rims were an integral part of the production of hemispherical bowls in Group 6 (pl. 11:2, 26). Group 6 rims almost always had evidence of red slip, usually as a band around the rim, and this was found on 93% of the Group 6 assemblage. This production concern was carried over to Group 3 bowls (pls. 10:17, 20, 22; 11:11, 16), of which 57% were similarly decorated. Group 5 bowls (pl. 11:5, 15, 27) also followed this pattern and 46% of these rims were so decorated. However, only 25% of Group 4 rims (pl. 11:3, 18, 21, 22, 25) had this type of decoration. This close correlation between the use of red slip and specific fabric types is another indication of close control over production. Other decorative motifs were also used. These included red-painted bands (pl. 11:19, 29), line group painted ware decoration, pajama-ware decor, and striped wash. There was also a very limited use of hand-burnishing on the bowls with red slip. Three examples of the Line Group Painted Ware tradition came from Phase 8 (pl. 11:9, 10, 14). The appearance of line group painted ware in the EB IA at Halif is earlier than Stager’s placement of this ceramic type in the Early Bronze IB (Stager 1992: 97). One Group 4 bowl from Phase 10 had vertical incisions around the rim, in addition to red slip. Four examples of Group 4 rims with red-painted bands were found in Phases 9 and 8. In three cases, the lines were rendered on a diagonal-vertical angle on the exterior of the sherd. In the Phase 9 example, the lines were in the interior of the vessel and the rim was slipped. There were three examples of pajama ware, also in Group 4, and all came from Phase 8. The use of pajama-ware decoration was more common on closed vessels than on open ones, and it was more common on vessels made with the Group 4 than the Group 3 fabric. One of the examples also had a p-shaped potter’s mark very lightly incised on the bowl’s exterior. The only other example of a potter’s mark on a hemispherical bowl (in this case, an incised partial “X”) was on a Group 3 body sherd from Phase 7/6. From Phases 10 and 9 there were seven examples with striped wash on sherds produced in Groups 3 and 5 fabrics. One Group 4 bowl rim from Phase 9 had two pierced holes.

96

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

e. Comparative Discussion Similar kinds of hemispherical bowls were also quite common at the Silo Site. Alon and Yekultieli (1995: figs. 15:17; 16:8, 13; 17:12; 20:11–18—note the handles) report finding them in all strata at the Silo Site. They were also quite common in Levy’s excavation (Kansa and Levy 2002: fig. 12.6:h). Round-bottom bowls seem to be a development in the EB IA and are not really found in the Chalcolithic. In the Chalcolithic, small, open forms tended to have flat bases with straighter walls forming a V-shape, and the V-shaped bowl and angled vat were more characteristic of Chalcolithic open vessels. In the Early Bronze I, round-bottomed bowls with curvilinear walls began to be produced (see also Alon and Yekultieli 1995: 179). The change in base configuration may have had a functional significance or was the result of a specific manufacturing technology. The flat base afforded more stability on flat, hard surfaces but would have been difficult to position on uneven surfaces. Hemispherical bowls were just as likely to be found in both mortuary and domestic assemblages. One case of a hemispherical bowl in a Chalcolithic context comes from Nahal Mishmar (Bar-Adon 1980: fig. I11.5). The assemblage from Arqub el-Dhahr dates to the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I (Parr 1956), and the presence of hemispherical bowls there indicates continuity into the Early Bronze Age (Parr 1956: fig. 13:76, 81). In the Early Bronze IA, hemispherical bowls are found at Jericho in Tombs A94, K2 phases I and II, and on the tell (Kenyon 1960: pls. 9:19; 11:19; Kenyon 1965: pls. 4:4; 8:6; Kenyon and Holland 1982: pl. 34:12–14); they are also found at Ashqelon-Afridar Area F Stratum I (Khalaily 2004: fig. 6:14, 15), Area G (Braun and Gophna 2004: fig. 17:2), and at Bâb edh-Dhr⺠Tombs A3 and A5E and the town site Stratum V (Schaub and Rast 1989: figs. 14:11, 12; 21:14; 245: Types 0757, 0772; Rast and Schaub 2003: fig. 5.2:13, 15). Hemispherical bowls in Early Bronze IB contexts have been found at Gezer Cave I.3A and Stratum XXV (Dever 1988: pls. 1:11; 4:11; Dever et al. 1974: pls. 3:7, 19, 20; 4:20, 21), Arad Stratum IV (Amiran et al. 1978: pl. 7:1–12), Azor Tombs 1 and 4 (Ben-Tor 1975: fig. 5:6, 7), Bâb edh-Dhr⺠Tombs A43 and A13 and the town site Stratum IV (Schaub and Rast 1989: figs. 138:15; 129:13, 14; Rast and Schaub 2003: 7.3:9, 10), and ºEn Besor (Gophna 1990: fig. 7:7). Many of these examples were decorated with a variety of motifs including red slip, rim slip, line-group painted decoration, and red-painted bands.

12. V-Shaped Bowls V-shaped bowls are shaped like an inverted and truncated V (pls. 10:18, 19; 11:24; 12:1–12, 14–27). They have flat bases (the only bowl to have such a base), and the walls form an angle of about 135° from the base. The rim is simple—it is drawn out and tapered without any modification. The walls of the vessel are usually very thin when compared to hemispherical bowls. V-shaped bowls reflect a unique production tradition at the Halif Terrace because they were the only vessels that were wheel-made. The correlation that exists between size, ware, decorative vocabulary, and manufacturing technology indicates a great deal of control over production. The majority of V-shaped bowls were found in Phases 10 and 9, and this bowl

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

97

type was clearly a Chalcolithic production tradition that continued into the Early Bronze IA before it dramatically declined in Phase 8. While the function of this vessel is not clear, it has been suggested that they were closely associated with mortuary and cult centers such as Mezad Aluf, Gilat, and ºEn Gedi during the Chalcolithic. Although there is no indication of these kinds of specialized uses at the Halif Terrace, the distinct ware and the production process indicates that these vessels were unique within the overall ceramic assemblage. These vessels have clear indications of wheel-production. Wheel-marks were clearly visible on the rim, and body sherds and the bases were string cut (although this was not always evident because the bases might have been finished by hand to obscure the drag marks). Wheel production is also suggested by the overall low variability in the vessel production tradition. These vessels were probably thrown off a hump—a method in which a large amount of clay was placed on a wheel and individual vessels were drawn off this hump of clay while the wheel was in motion. Gilead and Goren (1995: 143) go so far as to suggest that small V-shaped bowls were manufactured on the fast wheel. With larger bowls, Commenge-Pellerin (1987: 32–36) suggests that the walls were built up after the vessel was produced on the wheel. This form began in the Chalcolithic and its continuity into the Early Bronze I was limited. The appearance of this form in the Early Bronze I has only been found at the few sites that have both Chalcolithic and Early Bronze IA levels. Sites which began in the Early Bronze I do not usually have V-shaped bowls. a. Assemblage Size The V-shaped bowl assemblage consisted of 479 diagnostic rim sherds, comprising 12.7% of the total ceramic assemblage, as well as 173 base sherds (see fig. 24). In Phase 10, the type comprised 28% of the assemblage, which then declined to 8.1% in Phase 9. In each of the latest two phases, 8 and 7/6, V-shaped bowls made up less than 2% of the assemblage. b. Ware V-shaped bowls were produced in a variety of fabrics including Groups 3, 4, 5, and 6 (see fig. 35). The majority of these bowls, 78%, were produced in the Group 5 fabric (pls. 11:24; 12:3, 7, 8, 15, 18). Group 6 (pl. 12:1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9–12, 16, 17, 19–22) comprised 12% of the assemblage and Group 3 (pls. 11:18, 19; 12:14, 24, 25, 27) another 10%. 20 There were only two rim sherds produced from Group 4 (pl. 12:23, 26). In the early phases, there was a clear preference for the Group 5 fabric. In Phase 10, 85% of all V-shaped bowl rims were produced in Group 5. The percentage of Group 5 rims declined to 64% in Phase 9, probably at the expense of Group 6, which increased to 29%. Clearly, this vessel was used primarily in the early phases at Site 101. By Phase 8 it had virtually disappeared. Only 3.7% of the V-shaped bowl assemblage came from Phases 8 and 7/6.

20. Gilead and Goren (1995: figs. 4.1–3) report V-shaped bowls produced in two types, fine and coarse variants, of Cream Ware.

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

98

c. Size Distribution The rim diameters of V-shaped Ph. 10 39 2 290 12 343 bowls ranged from 3 to 24 cm and clustered between 9 and 11 cm, with an av11% 1% 85% 3% 100% erage diameter of 11.5 cm (see fig. 36). Ph. 9 8 0 76 34 118 There is some indication of a trimodal 7% 0% 64% 29% 100% distribution of sizes: small—between 3 and 6 cm, medium—between 7 and 13 Ph. 8 0 0 2 8 10 cm, and large—between 14 and 24 cm. 0% 0% 20% 80% 100% The bulk of all V-shaped bowls, 77%, were medium sized, while 18% were Ph. 7/6 0 0 5 3 8 large and only 5% were small. Gilead 0% 0% 63% 38% 100% and Goren (1995: 143; fig. 4.5) report a Total 47 2 373 57 479 bimodal size distribution for V-shaped bowls from Grar; the majority being 10% 0% 78% 12% 100% small, between 15–20 cm, with a large size class between 30 to 35 cm. Figure 35. Distribution of V-shaped Bowls by Fabric Groups and Phase. There were 169 bases with known diameters that ranged in size between 1 and 11 cm, with an average of 4.1 cm (see fig. 37; pl. 12:4, 7, 8, 9, 19). The overwhelming majority of the bases, 87%, had a diameter between 3 and 5 cm. In the production of these bowls, the consistent size of the base indicates a tight control over production. If these V-shaped bowls were indeed thrown off the hump, a very consistent base diameter would be expected. This size distribution did not vary according to ware type. Gr. 3

Gr. 4

Gr. 5

Gr. 6

Total

d. Decoration Decoration was quite common on V-shaped bowls, appearing on 74% of all rim sherds. The most common type of decoration was the application of a band of red slip around the rim, but other types of decoration were also used including red slip, red painted bands, and stripped wash. A similar set of decoration styles was found at Grar (Gilead and Goren 1995: 143). A total of 337 rims had red-slipped rims, which comprised 70% of the assemblage (pls. 10:18, 19; 11:24; 12:1–3, 5–6, 10–12, 14–16, 18, 20–23, 26, 27). In Phase 10 (pl. 12:18, 20–23, 26, 27), red-slipped rims comprised 75% of the assemblage. This declined to 59% in Phase 9 (pls. 10:18, 19; 11:24; 12:3, 5, 6, 10–12, 14–16). Phases 8 and 7/6 (pl. 12:1, 2) had very small samples, but even in these phases the use of red slip on the rims never dipped below 50%. There were a few examples, five in all, which combined red-slipped rims with either striped wash (pl. 12:6) or red-painted bands (pl. 12:29). The other forms of decoration were very limited. There were 12 examples of red slip found on the interior and/or exterior of the vessel body (pl. 12:15, 21), 6 total examples with striped wash, and 3 total examples with red-painted bands. One Group 6 vessel from Phase 9 had a hole pierced in the body, which may have been a repair hole.

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

Figure 36. Distribution Graph of V-Shaped Bowl Rim Diameters.

Figure 37. Distribution Graph of V-Shaped Bowl Rim Diameters.

99

100

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

e. Comparative Discussion V-shaped bowls are found throughout the Southern Levant in the Chalcolithic period (Gilead and Goren 1995: 143). The type of V-shaped bowls found in the northern Negev and southern Shephelah in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I were wheel-made, with thin walls. They were produced in a fine clay in which both the amount and size of the temper was small. Most often, vessels produced with these attributes had a red band around the rim. In almost all cases, V-shaped bowls (as defined above) were found in Chalcolithic contexts, although there was some indication that these bowls also were found in slightly later, Early Bronze IA contexts. V-shaped bowls were found at the Silo Site in Stratum IV/Chalcolithic and Stratum III/EB IA (Alon and Yekultieli 1995: fig. 24:11; fig. 23:18, note the red rim). They were ubiquitous throughout the northern Negev and adjacent areas in the Chalcolithic, being found in north Sinai (Oren and Gilead 1981: fig. 6:5), ºEn Gedi (Ussishkin 1980: fig. 8:5, 7, 8), Shiqmim and Mezad Aluf (Levy 1987: fig. 12.2:1–13; Levy and Alon 1982: fig. 9:5, 6), Palmahim (Gophna and Lifshitz 1980: fig. 4:2, 4), Abu Matar (Perrot 1957: fig. 19:10; see also de Contenson 1956a: fig. 6:8, 11–13, 15–20), Safadi (Commenge-Pellerin 1990: fig. 18:1–17), Horvat Betar Strata I–III (Dothan 1959b: figs. 71:8, 10, 11; 12:8–26), Nahal Mishmar (Bar-Adon 1980: fig. I11.5:3, 6), Grar (Gilead and Goren 1995: figs. 4.1, 2, 3), Nahal Sekher (Gilead and Goren 1986: figs. 5:1–4; 6:2, 5–7), Azor (Perrot 1957: fig. 1–27), Ghassul Level IV and Phase B (Mallon et al. 1934: pl. 41:2, 23, 24; Hennessy 1969: fig. 7A:12), Gezer Stratum XXVI (Dever et al. 1974: pls. 1:9, 10, 24, 25; 2:17–19, 21, 22; 3:6, 7), and Arad Stratum V (Amiran et al. 1978: pls. 1:1–9, 13; 91:1, 3, 4, 9). V-Shaped bowls were even found in the north at Meser (Dothan 1959a: fig. 5:12), Tell el-Farºah North in Grotto U (de Vaux 1957: fig. 1:4–5), and Megiddo Stratum XX (Loud 1948: pl. 2:4, 6, 7). The use of Cream Ware was identified in V-shaped bowl examples from Gezer (Macalister 1912a: 141; 1912b: pl. CXLI:3, 4, 6, 9; Dever: personal communication). 21 V-shaped bowls appear in the Early Bronze IA at Ashekelon-Afridar Area g (Braun and Gophna 2004: fig. 17:3–7; see also fig. 15:1–9). In later Early Bronze IB contexts, bowls that appear to be V-shaped were found at Gezer in Cave I.3A and Stratum XXV (Dever 1988: fig. 2:25, 26; Dever et al. 1974: fig. 3:21, 22), and also at Arad in Strata V/IV (Amiran et al. 1978: pls. 1:12; 11:10, 11, 15; 91:2) where they were very large and may be considered closer in shape to angled vats. Ben-Tor referred to examples of V-shaped bowls from Azor Tombs 1 and 4 (1975: fig. 5:18, 20), but they did not appear to be classic wheelmade V-shaped bowls, nor should the wheel-finished bowls from the ºAi Sanctuary be considered classic wheel-made V-shaped bowls (Callaway 1972: pl. 16:11, 14). There appear to be parallels for V-shaped bowls with striped wash decoration at Buto Stratum I (von der Way 1992: 221; fig. 5). Von der Way describes these sherds as belonging to “small bowls with flat bases and fairly thin rims.” He then describes a decorative motif that includes using a white slip on the exterior of the vessel that is then wiped, leaving “whitish stripes which run parallel to the rim” (von der Way 1992: 221). Thus, this method involved the juxtaposition of the slip to the color of the vessel’s surface rather than being a 21. For a more complete list of V-shaped bowls found in the Southern Levant, see Gilead and Goren (1995: 221 n. 1).

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

101

Figure 38: Pottery from Phase 10C, L. 101045.P (S101.101.116A/113A/114A). Two straw-tempered beakers in Fabric Group 7 and a vat in Fabric Group 4.

second layer of slip. Von der Way suggests that these sherds are comparable to decorated pottery from ºAmuq F. He is predisposed toward looking for a Syrian, if not Mesopotamian, parallel because of the interpretation of the other finds from Buto, which he believes suggest direct connections with Mesopotamia. However, these bowls appear to be one of the standard Levantine forms and decorative motifs from the Chalcolithic period, which continues into the Early Bronze I period. Von der Way (1992: n. 16) also mentions that more of this material came from Strata IIIA–IIIC at Buto, while a single sherd of this type of bowl was found at the nearby site of Ezbet el-Qerdahi. He also notes that the material from Stratum IIIA–IIIC is not of Egyptian origin, although he probably did not think it had been imported from the Southern Levant. Buto Stratum I is usually correlated with the Early Bronze IA in the Southern Levant, while Stratum III is usually correlated with the Early Bronze IB, and both V-shaped bowls and striped wash are found in these periods (although they are more usually associated with the Chalcolithic, Terminal Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze IA). 22 13. Straw-Tempered Beakers Straw-tempered beakers are a small open form, distinct in shape from bowls, cups, and mugs. This vessel has a slender appearance, with a tapering near the rim and a rounded base (see figs. 38 and 39; pls. 12:13; 13:1–18; 14:1–17). It has a general proportion in which the height exceeds the rim diameter. There were several examples in which the rim was unusually drawn out (pl. 14:12), but this was very atypical. Almost all straw-tempered beakers were produced in the Group 7 fabric, making the use of this fabric one of the defining attributes of this vessel form. Straw-tempered beakers appeared in the Chalcolithic and continued into the Early Bronze IA.

22. For chronology, see Levy et al. 1997: Table 1.

102

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

These vessels have a very high degree of standardization and were quite possibly moldmade. Complete vessels and sherds with significant parts of the base intact displayed evidence of extensive scraping where excess clay was removed. In addition, some examples still retained evidence of an exterior ridge, which might indicate the limit of the height of the mold (pl. 14:3, 5). Moreover, there was strong evidence of size standardization, which also points to the use of a mold-production technology. Finally, the rims were always wiped in a rotating fashion, which would also have been a very simple procedure for mold-made bowls. Unfortunately, the coarse exteriors of these vessels were usually wiped by hand, obliterating most traces of the use of a mold. There was Figure 39: Straw-tempered Beaker in Fabric no variability in the rim configuration, and they Group 7, L. 100064.P (S101.100.238: 1), were never decorated. Phase 9B. The correlation between size, ware, form, and manufacturing technology indicate that the production of these vessels was tightly controlled. Control over production as well as in the rate of production is attributed to a workshop level of production. Though straw-tempered beakers have parallels elsewhere in southern Canaan, at Lachish and Wadi Gaza Site H, no other site has reported the great quantity of these vessels as the amount that was found on the Halif Terrace. It was the most numerous form found at Site 101. The function of this simple open vessel was probably similar to a bowl, although the distinct ware type and large quantities found may indicate a more specialized use (see fig. 39). While the function of these vessels is unclear, there was no indication that they were used as crucibles, as suggested by Tufnell (1958). In fact, in residue-analysis tests performed by P. McGovern at MASCA, traces of tartaric acid (a good indicator of a grape product) were found (P. McGovern: personal communication). This suggests that these vessels were used to serve wine or perhaps grape juice. a. Assemblage Size Straw-tempered beakers were the most common form at Site 101. A total of 937 sherds were found, all but one of which were rims, 23 comprising 24.9% of the assemblage (see fig. 24). The distribution of this vessel reached its apex in Phase 9, when it comprised 36.4% of the assemblage. It declined in use over time and virtually disappeared by Phase 7/6, when it made up only 1.7% of the assemblage.

23. One base sherd was found in Phase 10.

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions b. Ware Outside of the Egyptian ceramic assemblage, no form was as closely related to one specific fabric as was the straw-tempered beaker. Almost the entire assemblage, 96.5%, was produced in Group 7 (pls. 13:1–5, 7–17; 14:1– 16), a fabric primarily dedicated to this one vessel type (see fig. 40). A small amount, 3.4%, was produced in Group 4 (pls. 13:18; 14:17), and one sherd (0.1%) was produced in Group 5. The close relationship between fabric and form suggests that the few examples produced in Groups 4 and 5 were outside of the regular production tradition. The use of these other fabrics was probably experimental and never gained prominence.

Gr. 4 Ph. 10 *

Ph. 9

Ph. 8

Ph. 7/6

Total

103 Gr. 5

Gr. 7

Total

7

0

226

233

3%

0%

97%

100%

17

1

511

529

3%

0%

97%

100%

7

0

159

166

4%

0%

96%

100%

1

0

8

9

11%

0%

89%

100%

32

1

904

937

3.4%

0.1%

96.5%

100%

* Count includes one base.

c. Decoration Figure 40. Distribution of Straw-tempered Straw-tempered beakers were rarely decoBeakers by Fabric Groups and Phase. rated. There was limited use of red slip, which was usually applied in a sloppy and blotchy fashion, and this slip was found on only six examples (pls. 13:8; 14:1). One example from Phase 10 had traces of red slip 24 and several holes pierced just below the rim (pl. 14:16). In Phase 9a, there were several decorated sherds. One of these not only had red slip but also had two X-shaped incised marks on the exterior of the base (pl. 14:1). A second rim sherd had exterior white slip, and one body sherd had an exterior knob. In Phase 8, one rim sherd had external incisions. d. Size Distribution The rim diameters of straw-tempered beakers ranged in size from 4 to 21 cm, with an average diameter of 9.1 cm (see fig. 41). 25 Two possible size classes were discerned: a small size from 4 to 14 cm, and a large size from 15 and 21 cm. The overwhelming majority, 97%, were small sized, and 35% of the total assemblage was between 8 and 9 cm. The seven straw-tempered beaker bases were all produced in Group 7 fabric. They ranged in diameter from 4 to 10 cm. e. Comparative Discussion Alon and Yekultieli (1995: fig. 23:20–23) reported that “straw” vessels, comparable to straw-tempered beakers, were found at the Silo Site in the Early Bronze IA Stratum III. 24. There were only slight traces of red slip not represented in the drawing. 25. This sample also includes the small number of rim sherds produced in the Groups 4 and 5 fabrics, in addition to those from Group 7.

104

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

Figure 41. Distribution Graph of Straw-tempered Beaker Rim Diameters.

However, as already mentioned above, elsewhere these vessels were only found at Lachish and Wadi Gaza Site H. Almost identical forms were found in great quantity in the cave dwellings of Cemetery 6000 in the North-West Settlement of Lachish, which date to the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I. Tufnell (1958: 145) described these vessels as “Crude handmade hemispherical cups with an average diameter of 9 to 12 cms. [which] can perhaps best be described as crucibles. They are the most common form in the cave-dwellings and were made of a buff or pinkish ware containing grits and straw temper.” These cups were found in almost all of the Cemetery 6000 cave dwellings (Tufnell 1958: pls. 11:11, 12, 19, 21, 22; 12:57, 58; 13:93, 94; 56:1, 12, 14, 15, 23, 31, 32, 35; 57:42, 43, 50–58, 65). Tufnell (1958: 146) referred to these vessels as crucibles, because the spectrographic analysis of two similar open vessels with spouts, performed by F. C. Thompson, suggested that they were used for melting metal. However, the examples selected for this analysis (Tufnell 1958: pl. 57:71) were not the same form as the straw-tempered beaker. Tufnell (1958: 146) recognized this, and when referring to straw-tempered beakers, she (1958: 145) even stated that “The majority appear too thin to stand the heat of molten metal, and there were indeed no signs of metal slag inside.” Thus, the term crucible and the likelihood that these vessels had a function relating to metallurgy should be discounted. The only other parallel for the straw-tempered beaker comes from Wadi Gaza Site H, which Gophna (1990: 6, fig. 3:2) describes as “a small bowl, semi-globular and crudely

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions made; the marks of the straw used as temper are plainly visible.” He believes that the function of this vessel was either as a lamp or an incense burner. This form does not appear to be as common at Wadi Gaza Site H as at Lachish or the Halif Terrace. Both Gophna (1990) and Tufnell (1958) cited parallels from other sites such as Site H (Macdonald et al. 1932: pl. 40:43, 49), ºAi Tomb C (Marquet-Krause 1949: pl. 70:666), Megiddo Tomb 903 upper (Guy 1938: pl. 3:2), Ghassul (Mallon et al. 1934: pl. 65:5), and Jericho (Garstang 1936: pl. 36:13). However, these vessels are not comparable in form or fabric and should not be classified as strawtempered beakers.

Gr. 3 Ph. 10

Ph. 9

Ph. 8

Ph. 7/6

Total

105 Gr. 5

Gr. 6

Total

1

2

1

4

25%

50%

25%

100%

8

2

1

11

73%

18%

9%

100%

0

7

0

7

0%

100%

0%

100%

0

0

0

0

0%

0%

0%

0%

9

11

2

22

41%

50%

9%

100%

Figure 42. Distribution of Cornets by Fabrics Groups and Phase.

14. Cornets a. Assemblage Size There were 22 examples of cornets found at Site 101 (pl. 9:23–25, 27, 30), all but one of which were represented by their bases. There was one lone example of a rim sherd, the identified based on the curvature of the sherd. The specialized or ritual value traditionally ascribed to these forms suggests that they were produced at a workshop level. Cornets found at the Halif Terrace were produced with fabrics and a manufacturing technology typical of the Chalcolithic of the southern Shephelah and northern Negev. They fit into a group that includes the sites of Arad, Abu Hof, and Tell Shoket (Porat: personal communication). Cornets were produced in the Groups 3 (pl. 9:30), 5 (pl. 9:23–25, 27), and 6 fabrics (see fig. 42). The cornet bases were handmade and then shaved prior to firing. This shaving is typical of a more shallow type of cornet for which a cylindrical piece of clay is added to the base (Gilead and Goren 1995: 158). The decorative motifs found on the bases included the use of red slip and hand-burnishing (pl. 9:24, 25). Burnishing was found on only three examples, two of which were without slip. In one example from Phase 8, burnishing was combined with red slip. All burnished cornets were produced in Group 5 fabric. Of the examples with only red slip, all were produced in the Group 3 fabric and were found in Phase 9. The one identifiable rim sherd from a cornet was well rotated and decorated with a red-slipped rim. It was found in Phase 9. The cornet has often been viewed as an exclusively Chalcolithic vessel. However, the stratigraphic distribution of cornets from the Halif Terrace does not conform to this view (Wright 1937; Amiran 1969; Levy 1986). The presence of cornets in Phases 9 and 8, the Early Bronze IA and IB Early, can be explained in several ways. The contexts of the cornets in Phase 9 were usually debris loci. These loci represent mixed accumulations above Chalcolithic deposits and below Phase 8 walls and surfaces, which had pottery that was

106

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

clearly Early Bronze I. The presence of cornets in secondary Early Bronze IA contexts suggests that they were originally associated with the Phase 10 settlement. However, in Phase 8, six of the cornets were found on a primary surface and in its point one loci (for an explanation of the point one locus, see Dever and Lance 1978; Seger 1980; 1996). This suggests that either cornet production continued into the Early Bronze IA or Chalcolithic cornets were maintained as heirlooms as late as the Early Bronze IB. The appearance of cornets on a Phase 8 surface also suggests that there were no significant gaps in occupation at Site 101. It seems unlikely that some limited cornet production existed in the later portion of the Early Bronze IA in southern Canaan, although cornets with grain-wash decoration, a clear EB I decorative tradition, were found at Megiddo (Alexander Joffe personal communication). However, why cornets would continue to be produced in the EB I remains obscure. Although the Early Bronze IA was tied through its material culture to the Chalcolithic, it was divorced from much of the symbolic iconography of the preceding period and was no longer characterized by the same social structure. The cultural significance of this specialized vessel, which had at best a limited utilitarian function, probably had been lost by the end of the Early Bronze IA. It is then reasonable to suggest that cornets, for idiosyncratic reasons, retained some type of heirloom status at the Halif Terrace. The limited number of cornets, either produced on-site or imported in the Terminal Chalcolithic, were not discarded but continued in use in the Early Bronze I. The continuity of the use of cornets reflects the temporal and cultural roots of the inhabitants. The cultural value of the cornet was at least partially intact in the Early Bronze I, though probably in an attenuated form. The founders of the site may well have been the former residents of the collapsed Formative Chalcolithic sites, such as Shiqmim, Gilat, or the Beer Sheva sites. The collapse of the Chalcolithic sociopolitical structure led not only to the abandonment of Chalcolithic sites but of Chalcolithic cultural traditions and iconography. In the process of adapting to new environments and new agricultural regimes, the very early settlements of the Early Bronze I showed evidence of their Chalcolithic heritage by developing a newly configured Early Bronze Age sociopolitical structure. The primary concern of the Phase 9 inhabitants was the establishment of a new sociospatial context, which included the development of architectural traditions, ceramic and lithic production industries, and a revamped subsistence economy. The move out of the troglodyte dwellings of Phase 10 ushered in a new period of cultural development in which subsistence concerns were finally transcended. This transition is observed most clearly in Phase 9 where Chalcolithic and Early Bronze ceramic traditions briefly coexisted before the Chalcolithic traditions were eclipsed. In this environment, the cornet, a strong iconographic marker of the Chalcolithic, maintained some limited role in the cultural assemblage of the Early Bronze IB. b. Comparative Discussion Alon and Yekultieli (1995: 178; fig. 24:12) published one churn fragment from Chalcolithic Stratum IV and reportedly found “cigar-shaped” cornet bases in Stratum II/Late EB IB. The also reported a Chalcolithic fenestrated stand fragment (Alon and Yekultieli 1995: 170; fig. 21:5).

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

107

Elsewhere, cornets were found exclusively in Chalcolithic contexts, primarily in the northern Negev. However, they also have been found as far north as Meser and in the Jordan Valley at Ghassul (though see above regarding Megiddo). Cornets were found at Gezer Stratum XXVI (Dever et al. 1974: pls. 1:29; 2:31), Arad Stratum V (Amiran et al. 1978: pl. 5:11–17), and Beersheva (de Contenson 1956b: fig. 10:9, 10), where they are common, Gerar 100 (Gilead 1986: fig. 22:6, 7), Grar (Gilead and Goren 1995: figs. 4, 8, 9), ºEn Gedi (Ussishkin 1980: fig. 7:23–28), Meser (Dothan 1959b: fig. 7:4, 5), Tell el-ªErani preStratum XII (Brandl 1989: fig. 4:1–7), and Ghassul Levels II, III, and IV and Phases A–C (Mallon et al. 1934: pls. 47:71–74, 77, 81, 82; 48:72, 78, 79, 89; Koeppel 1940: pls. 76:22, 24, 26; Hennessy 1969: figs. 5:2; 7B:2). The cornet bases from Ghassul Level IV all appear shaved, unlike the examples in Phases 8 and 7/6. An example in Phase B from Hennessy’s excavations (1969: fig. 7A:11) appears to have striped wash. 15. Churns, Stands, and Trays There were eight fragments that came from fenestrated bowl stands (pl. 9:28, 29). All of these examples were made from the Group 3 fabric, which was a common fabric found throughout Chalcolithic sites in the northern Negev. None of them were decorated, but one was pierced. Fenestrated bowl stands date to the Chalcolithic and were also found at Arad V (Amiran et al. 1978: pl. 5:10), Azor (Perrot 1961: fig. 38:23), Grar (Gilead and Goren 1995: fig. 4.10:1–5), ºEn Gedi (Ussishkin 1980: fig. 7:7–9), and Meser (Dothan 1959a: fig. 5:10), among other sites. The churn is another hallmark of the Chalcolithic period. Four partial handles were identified at Site 101, all produced in Group 3 (pl. 9:26). Two handles come from Phase 10 and two from Phase 9, one of which was slipped. Like cornets, churns are also most typically found in Chalcolithic contexts, although both Dever (1988) and (Stager 1992) note that they continued into the Early Bronze I. Churns were found at Ghassul (Mallon et al. 1934: fig. 57:4), Shiqmim (Levy 1987: fig. 12.16:1–5), Arad V (Amiran et al. 1978: pl. 5:1– 8), Grar (Gilead and Goren 1995: fig. 4.11:1–10), and Beersheva (de Contenson 1956: figs. 9:7, 8; 10:4). Two examples of trays were found at Site 101 from Phase 10c and 9b (pl. 6:10, 11). Both of these trays were produced in a very coarse variant of the Group 4 fabric that contained significant amounts of straw and pebble temper (in some respects, similar to Group 9 fabric). These trays were very shallow, with flat bottoms and short, upturned rims. They were about 37 cm in length. These trays are unusual; they have very few parallels in the Chalcolithic or Early Bronze Age.

B. Egyptian Form Types 1. Rolled-Rim Bowls The Egyptian rolled-rim bowl is characterized by an exterior rim that folded over in either a rolled or flattened shape (pl. 16:9–13). This bowl type came in a wide variety of

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

108

sizes, the largest of which were sometimes referred to as beer vats (see for example pl. 16:11; Gophna 1976a; see also Geller 1992 for an overview of Predynastic brewing practices). The small sizes usually have a more rolled rim, whereas the large sizes have a folded and flattened rim. These bowls appear to be handmade but are well finished with a fast, rotating motion that left even, symmetrical striations. a. Assemblage Size There were 49 rim sherds produced in Group 8, 94% of which were from Phase 7/6. In Phase 7/6, the rolled-rim bowl was the most common Egyptian form type. In this phase, at the height of Egyptian activity at the Halif Terrace, rolled-rim bowls comprised almost 9% of the total assemblage and only 32% of the Egyptian assemblage (see fig. 43). 26 In the earlier phases, two rims come from Phase 8 and one from Phase 9.

Stratum Ph. 10

Ph. 9

Ph. 8

Ph. 7/6

Total

Eg SJ

BM

Lotus B

RR B

Gr. 8 Jr Eg HM

SS B

Eg. Jl

Totals

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

4

25%

25%

0%

25%

0%

25%

0%

0%

100%

2

2

0

2

0

0

5

1

12

17%

17%

0%

17%

0%

0%

42%

8%

100%

16

12

29

46

5

17

15

2

142

11%

8%

20%

32%

4%

12%

11%

1%

100%

19

15

29

49

5

18

20

3

158

12%

9%

18%

31%

3%

11%

13%

2%

100%

Figure 43. Distribution of Egyptian Form Types by Phase.

b. Ware Egyptian rolled-rim bowls were produced in Group 8 (pl. 16:10–13), as were the straight-sided bowls, bread molds, and holemouth jars. There was some variation in the amount and size of the straw temper. So, for instance, rolled-rim bowls had more and larger straw temper than straight-sided bowls but smaller and less straw temper than in bread molds. There was very little use of decoration of any kind. Three Phase 8 sherds had external slip that was either pink, white, or yellow. There were two examples made from other fabrics, Groups 3 (pl. 16:9) and 4, and these may be considered hybrids (see below). 26. Because it is difficult to distinguish open from closed body sherds in Group 8, there are no statistics for counts and weights of this vessel.

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

109

c. Size Distribution The rim diameters of these bowls ranged in size from 8 to 48 cm, with an average size of 27.1 cm. The example in Phase 9 had an undetermined diameter and the two examples in Phase 8 averaged 14.5 cm. The size distribution in Phase 7/6 weakly indicated four size classes: small—between 8 and 11 cm, medium—between 15 and 27 cm, large—between 31 and 38 cm, and very large—between 42 and 48 cm. The most common size class was medium, which comprised 51% of the assemblage. The large and very large sizes were almost vat-like in form, whereas the small and medium sizes were more bowl-like. A variety of functions could account for this size distribution: small for serving and display, medium for serving and food preparation, large and very large for liquid storage, serving, and perhaps beer production. The limited repertoire of Egyptian open-form types helps explain the need to produce these vessels in such a wide range of sizes. 2. Hybrid Rolled-Rim Bowls a. Assembly Size There were only two cases of this Egyptian form produced in local Canaanite wares. One example from Phase 9 was a small bowl produced in Group 4. The other example, this from Phase 7/6, was produced in Group 3 (pl. 16:9) and was medium sized. b. Comparative Discussion Kansa and Levy (2002: fig. 12.10:a–f) excavated a great number of the rolled-rim bowls in the same fabric as those at Site 101, which they refer to as a “hard straw” fabric. Rolled-rim bowls and vats were also found in other Early Bronze IB contexts in southern Canaan. They were only produced in local Egyptian wares. Rolled-rim bowls and vats were found at ºEn Besor Stratum III (Gophna 1976a: fig. 4:11, 12; 5:10–11), Tell Maªahaz (Amiran 1977: fig. 2A), north Sinai (Oren 1973: pls. 52A; 53A; 1989: fig. 4:18), and Tell elªErani (S. Yeivin 1961: pl. 7; Brandl 1989: fig. 13:3; 14:4). In Egypt, Petrie dated rolled-rim bowls to Sequence Dates 78 and 81 (1953: pl. 3:16h, j) and vats to Sequence Dates 80 and 81 (Petrie 1953: pls. 47:16e, t; V:33). Examples of these bowls and vats can be found in Dynasty 0 and Dynasty 1 deposits at Tarkhan (Petrie 1913: pl. 47:16h, d, t, y). 3. Egyptian Lotus-Shaped Bowls The Egyptian lotus-shaped bowl was characterized by an everted flaring rim and a flat base. The rim was drawn up and tapered, and it was neither folded nor elaborated in any way. This open bowl was easily differentiated from both the straight-sided bowl and the rolled-rim bowl by its rim configuration. All of these bowls were handmade, and the interior of the vessel was finished by hand-wiping. a. Assemblage Size There was a total of 29 lotus-shaped bowl rim sherds from Phase 7/6 and an additional eight rim sherds from Phase 1 (see fig. 43). This bowl type comprised 5.5% of the total

110

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

assemblage in Phase 7/6 and 21% of the Egyptian assemblage in that level. 27 b. Ware As with the straight-sided bowls, bread molds, holemouth jars, and rolled-rim bowls, lotus-shaped bowls were produced in Group 8 (see above discussion of rolled-rim bowls). c. Size Distribution The rim diameters of lotus-shaped bowls ranged between 9 and 31 cm, with an average of 20 cm. There was a weak indication of a bimodal size distribution: a small size between 9 and 23 cm that comprised 72% of the assemblage, and a large size between 25 and 31 cm. d. Comparative Discussion Kansa and Levy (2002: 194) mention that these types of open forms are found at the Silo Site. They were also found on the Halif Terrace by Alon (Gophna 1972: fig. 2:5). Elsewhere in southern Canaan, lotus-shaped bowls were only found in Early Bronze IB contexts and produced in the local Egyptian ware. Sites with lotus-shaped bowls include ºEn Besor (Gophna 1976a: fig. 5:6–8), Tell Maªahaz (Amiran 1977: fig. 2B), and Tell el-ªErani (Brandl 1989: fig. 12:12). In Egypt, Petrie (1953: pl. 1:2a, 2d, 3) dates them to Sequence Date 80. These bowls were found in the Naqada II cemetery at Minshat Abu Omar Group 3b (Kroepper 1988: figs. 105, 106). They were also found at such Dynasty 0 and Dynasty 1 sites as Tarkhan (Petrie 1913: pl. 46:3g) and Tura (Junker 1912: Abb. 48 Type 103). 4. Bread Molds Egyptian bread molds are one of the most characteristic and easily recognizable Egyptian forms found in southern Palestine (pl. 16:1–8). All bread molds were produced in Group 9 fabric, a derivative of Group 8. Bread molds were probably mold-made and then wiped by hand on the interior and exterior. A bread mold found on the surface of the Phase 6 building was unfired. This suggests that bread molds were being produced locally, because it is unlikely that sun-dried bread molds, which were both heavy and somewhat fragile, would have been imported to the site (see also Levy et al. 1997). It also shows that bread molds were not fired, but sun dried. In this condition, they would be placed with the bread dough in a baking oven, which would then result in partial firing of the bread mold. a. Assemblage Size The quantity of this vessel type was determined not by the number of rim sherds but by the count and weight of the distinctive Group 9 fabric, which is exclusively used for bread-mold manufacture. The small number of actual rim sherds was due to the very poor preservation of this fabric. Most of the rim sherds were much too small to help determine the vessel’s diameter. Based on the diagnostic rim count in Phase 7/6, bread molds only 27. Because it is difficult to distinguish open from closed body sherds in Group 8, there are no individual breakdowns for the counts and weights of this vessel.

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

111

comprised 8% of the Egyptian assemblage (see fig. 43). However, in Phases 7/6 the Group 9 fabric comprised 69% by weight and 38% by count of the Egyptian assemblage (see fig. 23). Within Phase 7/6, bread molds comprised 25.7% by weight of the entire ceramic assemblage (see fig. 19). When Levy’s (Levy et al. 1997) 500 kg of bread molds found by the NTP are added, it is then clear that bread molds were produced on-site. b. Decoration Only one bread mold from Phase 9 was decorated, in this case with a row of parallel vertical incisions on the exterior vessel wall (pl. 16:8). This example had the same shape and diameter of a typical bread mold but was produced in a fabric variant closer to Group 8 than Group 9. The addition of incised lines and the absence of any other Group 9 material in Phase 9 suggests this was a hybrid—a decorated bread mold form produced in the Group 8 fabric. c. Size Distribution There were only 13 bread-mold rims with measurable diameters. Ten of them were from Phase 7/6. In Phase 7/6 the diameter ranged from 20 to 30 cm, with an average of 25.1 cm, indicating a unimodal size class. This narrow size range also strengthens the suggestion that they were mold-made. d. Comparative Discussion Gophna (1972: fig. 2:6) identified bread molds from the Halif Terrace as early as 1972, and Levy found great quantities of bread mold remains at the Silo Site (Kansa and Levy 2002: fig. 12.9:a–c). Bread molds were also found in Early Bronze IB deposits at a series of other sites in southern Canaan where an Egyptian presence was identified. These include: ºEn Besor Stratum III (Gophna 1976a: fig. 6:8, 9), Tell el-ªErani (Brandl 1989: fig. 13:1, 2), Tell Maªahaz (Gophna 1976b: fig. 3:1), and north Sinai (Oren 1989: fig. 6:21, 22). Two examples from ºEn Besor have inscribed graffiti, including a Protodynastic serekh (Gophna 1980: fig. 4:14; 1972: fig. 6:8). Bread molds are found throughout Egypt in all periods, beginning in the Predynastic (Jacquet-Gorden 1981). Petrie (1953: pl. 2:8b) dated comparable bread molds to Sequence Date 82, and Jacquet-Gorden (1981: 11) classified them as Type A. They were found in Dynasty 0 and Dynasty 1 contexts at such sites as the Abydos Royal Tombs (Jacquet-Gorden 1981: fig. 1:4) and Tarkhan (Petrie 1913: pl. 46:8). 5. Egyptian Holemouth Jars Egyptian holemouth jars are the same in form as Levantine holemouth jars (see above). This is the only class of Egyptian vessels which was a hybrid: a Levantine form in the Group 8 Egyptian ware type (pl. 15:6, 10, 20). The configuration of the rim was identical to the Levantine types, having flat bases as well. This vessel represents an adaptation by Egyptian potters of a very utilitarian Levantine shape that could serve a variety of essential domestic functions such as storage or cooking, although the nature of the Egyptians’ use of them is unclear. These vessels were handmade and their exterior and rim were wiped and rotated.

112

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

a. Assemblage Size There are 18 examples of holemouth rims and seven examples of bases. Seventeen of the rims came from Phase 7/6 (pl. 15:6, 10, 20) and one was found in Phase 9 (see fig. 43). Five of the bases were from Phase 7/6 and one was found in Phase 9. The gap in Phase 8 may be the result of some mixed deposits appearing in the Phase 9 and 8 material. However, if it is definite that some Egyptian material came from Phase 9, this strongly suggests that there was some production of these vessels in the area, if not on the site, in the Early Bronze IA. Holemouth jars comprised 12% of the Egyptian rim assemblage in Phase 7/6 and 3.2% of the total Phase 7/6 ceramic assemblage (see figs. 24 and 43). The rather low percentage of such a multifunctional vessel in the Egyptian assemblage may be explained by its hybrid nature: that is, Egyptian potters produced only a small number of these pots because they were otherwise being regularly produced by Levantine potters. b. Rim Typology There was some variation and elaboration of the Egyptian holemouth rims. However, the sample was small enough to consider characteristics such as rim-angling, squaring, and rounding as idiosyncratic decisions made by the potter with little significance to production, consumer needs, or functional concerns. The most significant rim characteristic was folding. This was found on 61% of the holemouth assemblage (pl. 15:10, 20). c. Ware As with the straight-sided bowls, bread molds, lotus-shaped bowls, and rolled-rim bowls, these holemouth jars were produced in the Group 8 fabric. The straw temper used for holemouth jars was larger in size and in greater quantity than that found in straightsided bowls. d. Decoration There is very little use of any decoration on these holemouth forms. Two rim sherds from Phase 7/6 were slipped in grayish-brown (pl. 15:20). Additionally, two bases, also from Phase 7/6, were slipped, one in white and one in gray. e. Size Distribution Egyptian holemouth jar rim diameters ranged in size from 6 to 17 cm, with an average of 11.2 cm. This is a far more narrow range than was found in the Levantine holemouth jar assemblage, which suggests a more rigid Egyptian production template. The size range was even more restricted within the assemblage of Egyptian holemouth jars with folded rims— a subset of 11 rims. These jars had a size range between 9 and 13 cm. When the two variants, folded and unfolded, were combined, 65% of all rims fell between 11 and 13 cm, which was the medium size. 28

28. In the group of unfolded rims there were three rough size classes: a small size between 6 and 8 cm, medium at 12 cm, and a large size at 17 cm. Within the folded subset there was only one size, between 9 and 13 cm.

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

113

The diameters of the nine Egyptian holemouth jar bases ranged in size from 8 to 14 cm, with an average of 10.6 cm. The thickness of these bases ranged from 0.9 to 1.6 cm, with an average of 1.3 cm. It appears that, regardless of the size of the rim diameter, the base diameter remained within a very restricted range. The control over the size of the base diameter probably reflected a series of production considerations, such as the weight of vessel, which affected vessels’ portability and the firing conditions. This size profile suggests that the limited production of holemouth vessels by Egyptian potters reflects a clear intent to restrict the diameters of the jars’ base and rim to a predetermined size. This was particularly evident when the vessel’s rim was folded. f. Comparative Discussion Kansa and Levy (2002: fig. 12.13:a–c) suggest that there might be holemouth hybrids from the Silo Site produced in their “hard straw” fabric (LRP Group 8). This hybrid form was also found in Canaan at the site of Tell el-ªErani (Brandl 1989: fig. 15:5). Holemouth jars were not found in Egypt. 6. Hybrid Egyptian Jars a. Assembly Size There were five examples of vessels with typical Levantine jar forms, including everted rims, but they were produced in the Group 8 fabric. All of these examples were found in Phase 7/6, where they comprised 4% of the Egyptian assemblage in Phase 7/6 (see fig. 43; pl. 15:1–4, 11). The rims of these jars were slightly flared outward and there was the hint of a shoulder. In the two clearest cases, the rim appeared to be upright and without any further elaboration. There was only one example with any decoration, in this case, red slip (pl. 15:3). Rims of these hybrid jars ranged in diameter from 10 to 21 cm. Four of the jars were small, between 10 and 13 cm, and one had a diameter of 21 cm. These few jars in Group 8 may well have been experimental projects undertaken on an ad hoc basis by Egyptian potters. The limited number of these jars, made with a locally produced Egyptian fabric, filled a small niche in the Egyptian assemblage. Because there was no locally produced Egyptian-style storejar, the Egyptian community must have relied on Levantine storage vessels. b. Comparative Discussion The production of hybrid Egypto-Canaanite vessels was very limited in south Canaan. Such hybrids as holemouth jars and storage jars made in local Egyptian ware have been documented only at the Halif Terrace and at Tell el-ªErani in the EB IB (Brandl 1989: fig. 14:9B). 7. Drop Juglets and Miniature Jars a. Drop Juglets At Site 101, there was one example of an Egyptian drop juglet from Phase 7/6 (see fig. 44; pl. 15:5). This undecorated juglet was produced in the Group 5 fabric and had a 3 cm

114

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions rim diameter. This is another case of a hybrid vessel: an Egyptian type in a Levantine fabric. There were also two Group 8 body sherds from Phase 7/6, which may likewise belong to this class of Egyptian juglets. One of these sherds was decorated with an exterior red slip that was hand burnished. All of the examples of drop juglets were handmade and showed no evidence of finishing.

b. Miniature Jars There were two examples of miniature jars, characterized by rounded and slightly everted rims and produced in Group 10 (pl. 15:10) and 8 (pl. 15:13) fabrics. These miniature jars are more like the drop juglet than any Egyptian storage jar. One example (pl. 15:13) was found in Phase 6b; it had a rim diameter of 3 cm, evidence of hand wiping, and a gray-green slip. Another jar rim from Phase 8a (pl. 15:22) had a 4 cm diameter Figure 44. Egyptian Drop Juglet, and was unfinished and undecorated. L. 91031.P (S101.91.37: 1), Phase 6B c. Comparative Discussion Miniature jars and drop juglets, which are Egyptian in form, have been found in southern Canaan in both local and imported Egyptian ware types. The imported ware was comparable to Group 10. A Late Gerzean miniature jar, produced in an imported ware type, was found in Early Bronze IA deposits from Taur Ikhbeineh (Amiran 1976: fig. 1; Gophna 1990). Examples from Early Bronze IB deposits included north Sinai (Oren 1989: figs. 4:11, 15; 5:14–16), Azor Tombs 1 and 4 (Ben-Tor 1975: fig. 10:6–8), Tell el-ªErani (Brandl 1989: fig. 9:1; 10:1, 2), and ºEn Besor Stratum III (Gophna 1976a: fig. 6:11, 12). In most cases, imported drop juglets were decorated with black slip and burnish. Egyptian drop juglets and miniature jars produced in local Egyptian wares were more common than their imported counterparts. Sites with vessels that compare very closely to the typical Egyptian shapes, but were not noted as being Egyptian, include the Chalcolithic cave deposits at Azor (Perrot 1961: pl. 40:14, 15) and the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I cave dwellings at Lachish (Tufnell 1958: pl. 56:19, 20). In each case, the precise nature of the ware type was not made clear in the publication. Because a small amount of Egyptian material was already known from Lachish, it was not surprising to find that some Egyptian material had been overlooked. Egyptian material is also reported from the Early Bronze I caves at Azor by Ben-Tor (1975). The fact that Egyptian material was also found in the Chalcolithic caves at Azor cannot be discounted. Early Bronze IA sites with miniature jars included Wadi Gaza Site H (Gophna 1990: fig. 3:6). Sites with miniature jars and drop juglets that dated to the Early Bronze IB include ºEn Besor Stratum III (Gophna 1980), Tell el-ªErani (Brandl 1989: fig. 14:1–4), and Azor Tombs 1 and 4 (Ben-Tor 1975: fig. 9:15). In Egypt, Petrie (1953: pls. 25:86 F2, F4, F6, J4; 25:87) dated miniature jars and drop juglets to Sequence Dates 78–80. They were found at such sites as Ballas, in the Naqada II

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

115

Grave 569 (Bourriau 1981: 74 no. 72), the Naqada II cemetery at Minshat Abu Omar Group 1b (Kroepper 1988: figs. 63, 64), early Naqada II Maadi (Rizkana and Seeher 1987: pl. 33:22, 23), Tarkhan (which dated to Dynasty 0/1, Petrie 1913: pl. 51:62), and at the Dynasty 1 tombs at Tura (Junker 1912: Abb. 46 Type XXXVII).

8. Straight-Sided Bowls and White Cylindrical Bowls a. Straight-Sided Bowls Egyptian straight-sided bowls are cylindrical bowls with a distinctive decorative motif (pl. 15:12, 16). The bowls had a slightly convex base with walls perpendicular to the base. The rim was simple and tapered, with no folding or elaboration. The bowl was completely covered with red slip and was completely burnished. There was an identical version that was white slipped, as well as a close variant that is white slipped and burnished (see below). All straight-sided bowls were produced in a Group 8 variant that had only a very small amount of straw temper. There was no corresponding form in the Levantine assemblage. (1) Assemblage Size There were 24 straight-sided bowl rim sherds and 80 body sherds of this type. Some straight sided bowl sherds were found in Phase 1, but they undoubtedly originated in Phase 7/6. Straight-sided bowls comprised 11% of the Egyptian assemblage, the majority of which, 75%, came from Phase 7/6 (see fig. 43). (2) Decoration Straight-sided bowls were always covered with a thick and deep red slip. Each vessel was hand-burnished with horizontal strokes that created a horizontally striated pattern. (3) Size Distribution The rim diameters of straight-sided bowls ranged in size from 9 to 20 cm, with an average of 13.4 cm. There is a weakly indicated bimodal size distribution; a small size between 9 and 16 cm and a large size between 19 and 20 cm. b. White Cylindrical Bowls Four examples of white cylindrical bowls were found, including one complete profile, one rim, and two bases. These bowls were all made from the Group 8 fabric and were found in Phases 8, 7/6, and 1. Their main distinguishing feature was the use of white slip (as opposed to red) on their interiors and exteriors; however, they were not burnished and appear shorter than their red-slipped counterparts. The base diameters were 4 cm, 11 cm, and 12 cm, while the rim diameters were 14 and 17 cm. It appears that only the small size was produced in the white-slipped variant, although the base diameter that measured 4 cm may well indicate an even smaller size. Because decoration was such an integral part of the straight-sided bowl, this white-slipped variant must be separated from the larger red-slipped assemblage. It is unclear whether the white-slipped variant was a Levantine imitation of the Egyptian straight-sided bowl or an Egyptian variant.

116

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

c. Comparative Discussion Gophna (1972: fig. 2:4) identified straight-sided cylindrical bowls from the Halif Terrace in 1972, and Kansa and Levy (2002: fig. 7:a, b) also report finding the red-slipped version. Straight-sided bowls were also identified at other sites in Canaan, dating from the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I to the Early Bronze IB. In the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I Lachish Cave Dwellings 1534, 1558, and 1503, they were referred to as bowls with irregular hand burnish (Tufnell 1958: pls. 12:36, 37, 59, 62; 56:28). Early Bronze IA sites that report straight-sided bowls include Wadi Gaza Site H (Gophna 1990: fig. 3:1), Taur Ikhbeineh (Oren, Gophna and Yekultieli 1987: 61; 1987: 53–54), and Nissanim (Gophna 1990: 5). In the Early Bronze IB, they were found at ºEn Besor Stratum III (Gophna 1976a: fig. 5:12, 13; 1980: fig. 4:13), Tell el-ªErani (Brandl 1989: fig. 12:9), Tell Maªahaz (Gophna 1976b: fig. 2:10), and north Sinai (Oren 1989: fig. 16:10, 11). In Egypt, Petrie (1953: pl. 3:14c, 14d) dated them to Sequence Dates 77–81 and 87. They were found in the Naqada II cemetery at Minshat Abu Omar Group 3b (Kroepper 1988: fig. 109), Dynasty I deposits at Sakkara Tomb 3504 (Emery 1954: fig. 98, Type J9), and Tura (Junker 1912: Abb. 48, Type CI). 9. Egyptian Storage Jars Egyptian-styled storage jars were produced both in a local Egyptian fabric, Group 8 (pl. 15:14, 17, 23) and in an imported Egyptian fabric, Group 10 (pl. 15:7, 9, 15, 18, 19). It is likely that the imported vessels were brought to southern Palestine as finished products, because it is unlikely that the raw clay paste was imported overland. These storage jars were wheel-made, with an everted rim and flat base. The exterior was well smoothed or polished, leaving a distinctive sheen. In addition to the imported version, some Egyptian storage jars were also produced locally in the Group 8 fabric. a. Assemblage Size There was a total of 32 storage jar rims (pl. 15:7, 9, 14, 15, 19) and 14 bases (pl. 15:8). Based on the diagnostic rim count, they comprised 12% of the Egyptian assemblage, 11% in Phase 7/6, and 17% in Phase 8 (see figs. 24 and 43). b. Ware Egyptian storage jars were produced in two ware types: Group 10 (pl. 15:7, 9, 18, 19, 21), which is a Nile clay imported from Egypt, and Group 8 (pl. 14:14, 17, 23), which is the local clay fabric used by Egyptian potters for local production. The vast majority, 70%, of all rims, and 82% of all bases were made from the Group 10 fabric. There was also one example produced in Group 4, a local imitation, although whether it is produced by Egyptian or Levantine potters is unclear. The Group 10 fabric comprised 4.7% of the entire Phase 7/6 ceramic assemblage and 29% of the Phase 7/6 Egyptian assemblage (see fig. 23). In Phases 9 and 8 much less of this material was found at the site. It comprised only 0.1% of the entire assemblage in Phase 9 and just 0.4% in Phase 8. This pattern suggests that the bulk of the importation of these Group 10 jars took place in Phase 7/6, which is the main phase of Egyptian activity at Site 101 and in southern Palestine in general.

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

117

Figure 45. Imported Egyptian jar sherd in Fabric Group 10 with inscribed mark, Object No. 1250, L. 100015 (S101.100.37: 1), Phase 1.

c. Decoration About 20% of the Egyptian storage jars were decorated with slip in a variety of colors, including red, light brown, gray, and white (pl. 15:14, 18, 23). The slipped surface was then always polished or well smoothed. This process was different from the hand-burnishing found on Levantine vessels or straight-sided bowls, in that the individual burnishing strokes were never visible. This slip and polishing technique was found exclusively on imported Egyptian pottery and was almost never copied or imitated by either local Egyptian or Levantine potters. 29 There are several Group 10 sherds that were incised before firing: one may have been a partial serekh and the other was, perhaps, part of a falcon (see figs. 45 and 46). d. Size Distribution Rims on Egyptian storage jars ranged from 6 to 20 cm in diameter with an average size of 9.8 cm. The group of 11 rims found in Phase 1 had a large range, 7 to 20 cm, averaging 11.6 cm. While their stratigraphic position was uncertain, if Phases 1 through 9 were combined, the average size would be 10.5 cm. This may better reflect the entire Egyptian storage jar assemblage; it suggests that the variability in diameter was greater than straightsided bowls and Egyptian holemouth jars but less than rolled-rim bowls or lotus-shaped bowls. The size distribution was bimodal: a small size ranged between 6 and 14 cm, with a large size between 18 and 20 cm. In Phases 1, 7/6, and 8, 93% of the rims were small sized, most commonly 10 cm. There were examples of both size classes in the Groups 10 and 8 fabrics. The one example in the Group 4 fabric had a diameter of 10 cm. 29. There was a slipped and polished jar in a Group 8 fabric found in Phase 1.

118

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

Figure 46. Imported Egyptian jar sherd in Fabric Group 10 with inscribed graffito, Object No. 1262, L. 100027 (S101.100.132: 1), Phase 6A.

Fourteen bases were found: 10 in the Group 10 fabric (pl. 15:18) and only 4 in the Group 8 fabric (pl. 15:17, 23). Base diameters ranged between 4 and 13 cm, averaging 7.2 cm. The average thickness of the base was between 5 and 13 mm. The range of the bases in Group 10 was more restricted than in Group 8. Group 10 bases ranged between 4 and 10 cm, averaging 6.2 cm. The four Group 8 examples ranged between 8 and 13 cm, with an average of 9.7 cm. The base diameters of the imported vessels were more standardized than the Group 8 bases. A weak polymodal size distribution was indicated in the base assemblage. The small size was between 4 and 5 cm and comprised 43% of all bases (including Phase 1). The medium size ranged between 7 and 10 cm and comprised 50% of all bases. The large size was 13 cm, with only one example. The bases in the Group 10 fabric came only in the small and medium sizes. The one example of a large size was produced in the Group 8 fabric. e. Comparative Discussion Both Alon and Yekultieli (1995: 170; fig. 21:7–14) and Kansa and Levy (2002: figs. 12.1:a–d; 12.3:b–f) report a variety of imported, everted rim jars, and cylindrical jars from Halif Terrace excavations. Egyptian storage jars and cylindrical jars produced in imported Egyptian fabrics were found throughout the southern Levant in deposits dating from the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I transition to the Early Bronze II. Tufnell (1958: pl. 12:65) described a “Red Polished” jar fragment found in Cave 1558 at Lachish, which would date to the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I. These jars were not reported in any Early Bronze IA deposits. In the Early Bronze IB, they were found at Azor Tombs 1 and 4 (Ben-Tor 1975: fig. 10:8), ºEn Besor Stratum III (Gophna 1976a: fig. 6:1–3, 5–7), Tell el-ªErani (Brandl 1989: figs. 9:2–6; 10:3–6; Yeivin 1960: pl.23:C), north Sinai (Oren 1989: figs. 4:1–6, 7; 5:1, 5, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24; 7:1–3, 5–16; 1973: pl. 52), Arad Stratum IV (Amiran et al. 1978: pl. 55:1– 3), and Serabit el-Khadim (Beit-Arieh 1980: 50, fig. 7:12, 15), which Beit-Arieh dated to

Site 101 Form Types and Production Traditions

119

the late Early Bronze I/Dynasty I, although most of the material from the site is Chalcolithic. A cylindrical jar was found at the Halif Terrace by Alon (Gophna 1972: fig. 2:1–3). In the Early Bronze II, these jars types continued to be found in Sinai and southern Canaan, though in very small amounts. Egyptian storage jars were found at Sheikh ºAwad in Sinai (Beit Arieh 1981: fig. 9:2) and at Arad in Stratum III (Amiran et al. 1978: pl. 55:4–6). All imported jars were usually slipped (in a gray, white, brown, or red slip) and polished. Egyptian storage jars produced in the local loessal Egyptian ware were found in Early Bronze IB levels at Tell el-ªErani (Yeivin 1960: pl. 23:C; Brandl 1989: fig. 14:6, 7, 10). In Egypt, Petrie (1953: pls. 8:46w, 46d; 9:50f) dated the Egyptian storage jar and the cylindrical jar to Sequence Dates 77 and 78. Cylindrical jars were found throughout Egypt in the Predynastic and Early Dynastic at sites including: Hierakonpolis Grave 115 (Bourriau 1981: fig. 19), the cemetery at Minshat Abu Omar Groups 3 and 4 (Kroepper 1988: figs. 78, 86, 191), Tarkhan (Petrie 1913: pl. 49:46w, 50e, n), Saqqara (Emery 1954: fig. 98:F3), and Tura (Junker 1912: Abb. 45 Type LXI). Storage jars were described in various Naqada II, Dynasty 0, and Dynasty 1 contexts, such as: the cemetery at Minshat Abu Omar Groups 3 and 4 (Kroepper1988: figs. 80, 81, 92, 93, 97, 144, 214), Abydos Tomb 72 (Bourriau 1981: 50, fig. 81), Saqqara Tomb 3504 (Emery 1949: fig. 98:E9), Tura (Junker 1912: Abb. 37 Type I, II, IV), and Tarkhan (Petrie 1913: pls. 50:55; 54:74b, g; 55:75k, m, o).

CHAPTER 5

Production Traditions and the Organization of the Ceramic Industry A. Ceramic Typology and Production Traditions The use of an integrated ceramic typology provides a more precise definition of ceramic types than the more traditional, single attribute-based typologies. 1 The precision of an integrated typology rests in the collection and organization of four interdependent attribute groups essential to understanding pottery: fabric, form, manufacturing technology, and decoration. The ceramic production tradition has also been referred to as the “pot-making tradition” (Franken 1971: 231; van As 1984: 162; see also Feinman, Upham, and Lightfoot 1981; Schaub and Rast 1989: 234); however, it is not regularly used in Near Eastern archaeology to define or evaluate ceramic assemblages. The result of using an integrated typology is the determination of more-precise ceramic production traditions. The delineation of production traditions replaces the vague category of “ceramic type.” Ceramic types are most frequently based on vessel shape, along with a secondary focus on decoration. These traditional ceramic types are rarely understood within the context of a site’s ceramic production traditions. A ceramic type is generated merely as a means of classification without any explanatory capabilities. The notion of what constitutes ceramic change (either synchronically or diachronically) is then limited to the one or two attributes under consideration. Change within any of the other attribute groups remains undetected, let alone explained. The quantification of a production tradition is an essential point of this methodology. Quantification provides a way of measuring changes both within and between attribute groups. Quantification, in this case counts and weights, provides a means of expressing significant synchronic and diachronic changes within ceramic production traditions. The correlation between quantifiable data and stratigraphic context provides the necessary means to 1. While many specialized ceramic reports do incorporate multiple attributes within a working ceramic typology, many final site reports treat ceramics in a more simplistic fashion. As noted earlier, this is changing and the final report of the excavations of the town site at Bâb edh-Dhr⺠(Rast and Schaub 2003) are an excellent example of this. For a more complete discussion of ceramic typology in Early Bronze Age studies, see Dessel and Joffe 2000.

Production Traditions and the Organization of the Ceramic Industry

121

measure diachronic trends in a ceramic assemblage. Likewise, the connection between quantifiable data and spatial contexts allows for the measurement of change at one point in time across an entire site. These indices provide a much fuller picture of ceramic variability than any unmeasured, single attribute typology. As in the studies of animal bones and plant remains, beyond merely noting the presence or absence of selected attributes, it is the ability to quantify the assemblage that leads to more precise measurements of change. As already noted in Chapter 1, the quantification of pottery is a critical problem that has not been fully addressed. 2 The most frequently used units of comparison are still ceramic types or styles. The importance placed on the comparison of ceramic shapes and decorative motifs without regard for quantification and context has led to oversimplification in the interpretation of ceramic data. It has also led to simplistic approaches in the identification and explanation of local exchange and trade networks, of larger ‘interaction spheres,’ and of external cultural contacts. Lack of quantification has also led to an overreliance on changes in decorative styles and imported pottery for demarcating and characterizing archaeological ‘periods,’ regions, and even sites. The delineation of production traditions can provide a more accurate means for intersite comparisons of ceramic assemblages. Rather than comparing non-quantified ceramic types based on shape and/or decorative motif, quantified units of more precisely defined ceramic material are used. In this way, the bulk of ceramic material that previously had only vague or unappreciated comparative value can be analyzed according to a wider range of values. This imparts a new level of understanding to locally produced utilitarian pottery, which formerly was treated as a less important class of objects at the inter-site level. The quantification of comparable units of material, in this case production traditions, can aid in the detection of functional changes that reflect the dynamics of inter-site relationships in terms of scale, pace, and directionality.

B. Organization of Production Production traditions can be classified according to levels of the organization of production. The primary data available for the study of modes of production is the quantification and distribution of production traditions. The amount of material that represents a production tradition and its distribution at the intra- and inter-site level can indicate the organization of production (Costin 1991; Peacock 1981; Rice 1987: 183–91; van der Leeuw 1977). Production traditions are the analytical building blocks of the organization of production, that is to say, the breakdown of the technical and technological structure of producing ceramics.

2. The problem of quantifying an entire ceramic assemblage is often directly related to excavation funding and resources. Certainly the efforts of Yuval and Goren and Naomi Porat in the field of petrography have greatly expanded the parameters of the ceramic typologies of the many projects on which they have worked. However, their interest in provenience has generally resulted in more specialized studies, the entire ceramic assemblage is not included.

122

Production Traditions and the Organization of the Ceramic Industry

The organization of production, on the other hand, refers to the social and economic organization of the pottery producer. The different steps or complexity of the production process suggests different overall levels of the organization of the ceramic production. Essential to the determination of the level of production organization is the identification of not only the producer but also the consumer as well as the quantities of production and consumption. Consumption of products such as ceramics is logically assumed to be local, due to limitations of transport, ubiquity of demand, and ease of production. In order to understand production organization fully, it is important to be able to isolate local products. Making such determinations is, in most cases, very difficult, and it requires a detailed analysis of production traditions, especially fabric types. The organizational context of each production tradition needs to be determined on the basis of vessel production, vessel consumption, and output of production. The basic level of the organization of production in most premodern societies is household production for domestic consumption or for household self-sufficiency (Sahlins 1972). Above this level, a myriad of organizational permutations may be represented. In reference to ceramic production, van der Leeuw (1977) defines household production (or the domestic mode of production) as occasional, simple, and produced and distributed locally by nonspecialists. Rice (1987: 184) defines household production as “occasional and primarily for [their] own use . . . and characterized by simple technology. It is often stressed that this type of extensive production system is oriented toward self-sufficiency, with little opportunity for intensification.” 1. Household Production Household production is marked by the use of locally available raw materials within a resource macro-provenience, as defined by Arnold (1985). There is no emphasis on a rigorous application of a specific decorative vocabulary. The manufacturing techniques used were widely available and reflected the lowest degree of technological knowledge, and there was little investment in specialized tools. The primary concern of household production was vessel function. This is reflected in the development of a variety of fabric types that directly correlate to function. Diachronic changes in production traditions at the household production level were found primarily in fabric types. Because fabric types were also associated with decorative motifs, there was a concomitant change in decoration over time. Forms that were produced at this level were generated from existing vessel templates, and there was little change in domestic forms from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze I in southern Palestine. During these periods, evidence of household production and usage was found strictly at the intra-site level, with no indication of inter-site distribution. However, although there was no inter-site exchange, household-produced assemblages were relatively homogeneous at the regional and even inter-regional level. This reflected the diffusion of successful local adaptations of ceramic attributes relating to vessel function, especially form and fabric. Wares used at the household level always reflected local sources, although a consistent fabric template was found inter-regionally. Thus, while cooking pot fabrics routinely included large limestone and calcite temper throughout the Southern Levant in the Early Bronze I,

Production Traditions and the Organization of the Ceramic Industry

123

the individual mineralogical composition of the limestone and calcite reflected the exploitation of local resources. 2. Household Industry Van der Leeuw (1977: Table 1) sandwiches “household industry” between the domestic mode of production and the individual workshop industry, which is based on full-time economic specialization (in general, see Sahlins 1972). Household industry is a gray area in terms of craft specialization and van der Leeuw (1977) defines household industry as production by a semi-specialist (see also Costin 1991). Rice (1987: 184) defines this level in terms of the beginning of commoditization, where the finished product has an exchange value and is produced for this value. These levels of specialization should not be considered as formal types in an evolutionary scheme, particularly since several may coexist. The consideration and comparison of the types of organization of production is another means of discerning the relative hierarchy of interrelated sites (Costin 1991). 3. Workshop Industry The introduction of new or unique forms can be attributed to ceramic workshops. Workshop production was differentiated from household production by the degree of control over production. The restricted use of specific raw materials, manufacturing technology and forms, the degree of size standardization, and the strict application of a decorative vocabulary were production priorities found at the workshop but not at the household level. The raw materials used by workshops do not necessarily relate to functional differences but to the production of fine fabrics that have less and/or smaller sized temper. There appears to be little crossover between the production traditions used in workshops and the household. The only ceramic vessels found outside of their production micro-provenience were workshop products. Thus the systematic interregional exchange of ceramics was limited to workshop products. Tighter control over production is the first indication of workshop production; however, once specific vessels are identified as the products of workshops, the same class of vessels from other sites can be used to support this interpretation. The contexts of workshop products can be both domestic and non-domestic. Vessels from Levantine workshops were always found in domestic contexts at the Halif Terrace; however, it is non-domestic contexts that provide the critical evidence for vessel function.

C. Craft Specialization The term “craft specialization” has been studiously avoided in this discussion. This is due, in part, to the term’s lack of precision. There is no consensus regarding a rigorous definition of craft specialization (Rice 1981; 1987b; Kramer 1985), and Rice’s comment that

124

Production Traditions and the Organization of the Ceramic Industry

archaeological definitions of specialization are poorly developed still applies today (1981: 219). Craft specialization has been defined variously as a function between time and potter (van der Leeuw 1977: Table 1; Arnold 1985: 18), as a reflection of the standardization of attributes such as vessel shape, size, and fabric (Rice 1981: 223), or as the degree of vessel standardization and efficiency of decoration (Hagstrum 1985). Rosen (1986), in looking at copper, lithic tools, and groundstone basalt, views craft specialization as the relationship between an artifact’s function, value and “exchangeability.” In the context of exchange networks, including the assessment of distance and quantity, the cultural context of the artifact and the temporal context of the site are factored together in determining the degree of craft specialization. Other interpretations of craft specialization distinguish between site specialization and specialists residing at a site (Muller 1984: 491) or the focus on specialized products (Knapp et al. 1988: 90) but ignore production itself. Studies of craft specialization must frequently focus on the results of production—the finished product—rather than concentrating on the means of production, namely the workshop and tool kit. Workshops and kilns are rarely found in archaeological contexts and even manufacturing tools, such as potting wheels, are rare (Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1984: figs. 5, 6; Tosi 1984: 30). From the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I of the Southern Levant, we lack any evidence of ceramic workshops or kilns and have only a limited number of potters’s wheels. Fragments of potters’s wheels and tournettes have only been found at Megiddo Stage V (Engberg and Shipton 1934: 40), Meser Stratum I (Dothan 1959a: 28, fig. 8:16), Beth Yerah Stratum II (Maisler, Stekelis and Avi-Yonah 1952: 170) and Ptura (Braun: personal communication). Hennessy (1982: 57) suggests that kilns or firing areas are located away from the site, which in part would explain the absence of wasters at sites where domestic pottery production occurred. At Hierakonpolis, kilns are in fact found in the desert hills away from habitation areas (Hoffman et al. 1986: 183). The off-site location of kilns would negatively affect on their preservation. In the Southern Levant, the term craft specialization has been associated with the production of lithic tools, basalt groundstone, metallurgy, ceramics, and ivory carving (Levy 1986; Stager 1990). However, craft specialization is never explicitly defined in any of these discussions. The level of craft specialization becomes an element or indicator of the mode of production.

D. Household Production for Domestic Use Household production concerns at the Halif Terrace focused on the fabric/function relationship, with little regard for size standardization or rigorous adherence to a well-defined decorative vocabulary. In cases where the function of the vessel demanded specific fabric requirements, fabric became a critical production concern. However, in cases where function was not closely associated with a specific fabric group, a variety of fabric types were used. At Site 101, the most common non-cooking pot fabric types at this level of production were Groups 3 and 4, the use of which had chronological significance. The frequency

Production Traditions and the Organization of the Ceramic Industry

125

of these fabric groups changed over time, indicating a shift within the production traditions between the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I. Group 3 was found more frequently in Phases 10 and 9, while in Phase 8 its usage declined dramatically. At this level of production, vessels were formed by hand using a coil-built technique. There is some indication that vessels were produced in varying size classes, but in no case are the size classes well established. Manufacturing and firing techniques were kept intentionally simple, although more sophisticated techniques were available. At Halif a wide range of ceramic types were produced at the household level for domestic use, including the entire jar family, Groups 1 and 2 holemouth cooking pots, holemouth storage jars, vats, jugs, juglets, and a variety of open forms (mugs and squared-rim bowls). Household production was geared toward producing vessels that had utilitarian, domestic functions related to storage, cooking, food preparation, and serving. These vessels were both produced and distributed at the household level. It is likely that households were interested in maintaining self-sufficiency, and there is no indication that these vessels were intended for exchange or inter-site distribution.

E. Workshop Production for Domestic Use On the Halif Terrace, ceramic industry at the workshop level produced vessels for both domestic and public use. At this level, production traditions were concerned with fabric, a more systematic application of decoration, size standardization, and the production of vessels without strict utilitarian functions. There was also an investment in raw materials, such as Groups 6 and 7, and an investment in technology, such as the tournette and mold. The application of these new technologies and manufacturing techniques occurred on a restricted basis. There was a deliberate tendency for the development of an exclusive relationship between manufacturing technology, form, and function. Vessels produced at the workshop level included V-shaped bowls, straw-tempered beakers, cups, and hemispherical bowls. Churns, cornets, and stands may have also been produced at this level. The defining characteristic of workshop production was the degree of control exercised in the selection of specific combinations of vessel attributes. This selection was not based purely on function, as in the case of holemouth cooking pots. Rather, fabrics, such as Groups 6 or 7, were procured or prepared and then used exclusively for the production of a very limited part of the ceramic assemblage. Unlike at the household level, vessel size was also more rigorously controlled. In household production, size distributions were not well defined or consistent; however, at the workshop level the size distributions were more consistent, with something of a bimodal distribution apparent. These vessels were probably produced on or near the site, because the petrography indicates that most of the fabrics were local to the Halif Terrace. However, the production was not done within each household; production was more intensive and limited to fewer craftspeople, who exercise greater control over the production process. This was reflected by a more standardized production tradition. Again, it is the rigorous

126

Production Traditions and the Organization of the Ceramic Industry

control over production that distinguishes the workshop level of production. This degree of control is distinctly missing from production traditions at the domestic level.

F. Egyptian Production Traditions At Site 101 the Egyptian ceramic assemblage was smaller and less diverse than the Levantine assemblage. The Egyptian assemblage displays no variability in fabric types. All Egyptian vessels were produced in either Groups 8 or 9, which are compositionally identical, or produced in Group 10, which was an imported fabric. 3 Group 9 was reserved for the production of bread molds. All other forms were produced in Group 8, which is a loessal clay and petrographically very similar to samples from Tell el-ªErani and Tell Maªahaz. Strict control over fabric group selection indicated that at all levels of production the relationship between fabric and form was of paramount importance. The Egyptian ceramic industry at all sites in southern Palestine (except, perhaps at Tell ªErani) was kept very separate from the Levantine industry. This is inferred from the small quantity of hybrid vessels at the Halif Terrace, especially when compared to the amount of hybrids from Tell el-ªErani (Brandl 1989). The production of Egyptian pottery reflects an effort by the Egyptians to maintain a degree of self-sufficiency in a foreign environment. In this regard, it is probable that certain Egyptians were intentionally sent to southern Palestine to provide craft services or domestic support for the Egyptian community. The Levantine household production level may involve a number of households, all producing pottery for themselves, along with a smaller number of ceramic workshops. Egyptian household production might involve fewer potters who attended to the domestic and workshop needs of their smaller and self-contained community. The Egyptian potter working at the household level and producing vessels for domestic usage may have been one of only several active Egyptian potters. 1. Egyptian Household Production for Domestic Use The same criteria used to indicate the Levantine household level of production also applies to the Egyptian ceramic industry. Vessels produced at this level of production include bread molds, lotus-shaped bowls, rolled-rim bowls, and possibly juglets or miniature jars. In all cases, there is no concern for vessel size, and decoration is virtually nonexistent. The degree of size standardization is low. Both lotus-shaped bowls and rolled-rim bowls have a polymodal size distribution that may reflect functional differences between different-sized bowls. There was some modification of Group 8 based on vessel form. This indicates that the relationship between fabric and manufacturing technique was important. In Levantine household production, fabric was also carefully monitored according to vessel function. 3. Imported Egyptian storage jars were only produced in Group 10.

Production Traditions and the Organization of the Ceramic Industry

127

There is very little data for measuring the size of bread molds. The narrow size distribution of the 13 measurable rims may reflect the use of the molds themselves as pottery molds. The sheer quantity of material in Phase 7/6—more than 42 kg—and the discovery of a partially baked bread mold on the Residency floor indicate on-site production.

2. Hybrid Vessels Hybrid vessels were also produced at the level of household industry for domestic usage. The very small assemblage of hybrid vessels includes: rolled-rim bowls produced in Groups 3 and 4, of which there are only two; hybrid jars that are similar in shape to Levantine jars yet produced in Group 8, of which there are only five; and a drop juglet produced in Group 4. The production tradition of these hybrids represents either an Egyptian potter experimenting with Levantine fabrics or the inverse; in either case, the limited number of hybrids suggests that production was irregular and localized. The only hybrid vessels produced in sizable quantities were the holemouth jars in Group 8. Their rim and base diameters have low standard deviations, which might reflect a small number of active potters rather than a specific level of production organization.

3. Local Egyptian Workshop Production The straight-sided bowl and Egyptian storage jars are the only Egyptian forms that may be the result of workshop production. The small quantity of straight-sided bowls found at Halif and elsewhere in southern Palestine indicates that there was only a limited amount of production of this vessel. It was hand-made and then rotated to even out the wall thickness and rims. Each example was then completely slipped and burnished. Though the size of the assemblage is very small, size standardization cannot be discounted. The size distribution is bimodal, with a small size at 13 cm and a larger size at 19 cm. Straight-sided bowls were produced in a variant of Ware Type 8 in which the amount and size of straw temper was markedly reduced. This fabric variant was used for both straight-sided bowls and locally produced Egyptian storage jars. The strict decorative vocabulary, standardized fabric, and relative degree of size standardization indicate a level of control exercised at a workshop rather than a household level of production. The very limited quantities that have been found thus far throughout southern Palestine suggests that perhaps only one workshop was responsible for the production. The similarity in fabrics from Tell el-ªErani, Tell Maªahaz, and the Halif Terrace suggests that the workshop could have been at any one of these sites. Egyptian storage jars produced in Group 8 were also the result of workshop production. The Group 8 variant was very similar to the fabric used for straight-sided bowls. Only six rims and two bases in this fabric type were found in stratified deposits. Unlike the imported Egyptian store jars, local Egyptian storage jars were almost never decorated and only one diagnostic sherd in Group 8 was slipped. spresd 1 pica short

128

Production Traditions and the Organization of the Ceramic Industry

4. Foreign Workshop Production Imported Egyptian storage jars are also found on the Halif Terrace. These vessels were made from a marly Nile clay and were imported to the site as finished products. They were all decorated in the same fashion and had relatively standardized rim diameters. They first appear in Phase 9. Although their contents are unknown, it is likely that it was for their contents that these vessels were brought overland from Egypt. The only inscribed Egyptian sherds found at the Halif Terrace are from imported storage jars.

G. Summary In the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I, there is evidence of at least five levels of ceramic production operative at the Halif Terrace. The household level of production accounts for basic utilitarian vessels such as cooking pots, storage jars, and vats. Production concerns at this level focused on the relationship between certain physical properties of the fabric and vessel function. Because each household was a potential producer, vessel types showed no overall production standardization at the intra-site level. The workshop level of production focused on the relationship between fabric, form, and size. If decoration was incorporated in the production process, it was done so in a consistent manner. This reflects a tighter degree of control over production. There was no crossover between the workshop and household production levels. The tournette is not utilized at the household level and the workshops do not undertake the production of cooking pots and storage vessels. These two modes of production were also divided along ethnic lines. Egyptian and Levantine ceramic industries operated side by side, each attending to the needs of their respective communities. The conservative nature of craft production led to a very limited degree of hybridization. The importation of vessels from Egypt indicates there was a need for certain products or vessels that was not being met locally. The addition of imported pottery to a ceramic assemblage can provide an impetus for a change in production traditions. In this case, imported Egyptian vessels were copied by Egyptian potters in local fabrics. It should also be noted that the importation of Egyptian vessels had no perceivable effect on the Levantine industry. As has been shown, ceramic workshops were responsible for innovations in form, decoration, technology, regional exchange patterns, and function. Technological innovations, such as the tournette, allowed for an increased rate of production. New symbolic functions created contexts in which pottery could be associated with cult and mortuary practices. These are among the criteria that Rice (1981: 223) presents as expectations for craft specialization (in this case understood as workshop production) in ranked or stratified societies. It is highly significant that the vessels manufactured at the household level show little change over time and have a limited distribution range. In contrast, the vessels made at the

Production Traditions and the Organization of the Ceramic Industry

129

workshop level show distinct periods of intensive manufacture, coupled with the potential of regional exchange. The ceramic industry at the Halif Terrace was constantly changing, reflecting larger social and economic changes within the region. Different types of production traditions and levels of production were in a fluid state of development and decline. Ceramic production traditions that begin in the Chalcolithic reach their apex early in the Early Bronze IA and then fade as the Egyptian ceramic industry begins to operate in southern Palestine. Levy (1986; 1987) has characterized the Chalcolithic as a stratified society, composed of “chiefdoms,” as defined by Service (1962) and Renfrew (1973). Social differentiation accelerated as economic, social, and religious centers emerged. Social stratification is clearly seen with the appearance of a two-tier settlement size hierarchy (Levy and Alon 1987a: 154), domestic and public architecture, site specialization (such as cultic use and lithic production), craft specialization, formal cemeteries, regional exchange networks, and regional cultural assemblages. However, evidence for the same level of social stratification in the Early Bronze I is essentially missing. The institutions that these Chalcolithic elites developed and supported do not continue into the Early Bronze I. Chalcolithic institutions are abandoned. However, craft production traditions continue, as is reflected in a similar material culture for both the Terminal Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze IA. Although the decline of the Developed Chalcolithic settlement system in the northern Negev may not have interrupted exchange networks (Rosen 1983: 82), there is an abrupt end to the cult traditions found at Gilat and ºEn Gedi, and an end to mortuary traditions, such as formal cemeteries and the use of ossuaries.

CHAPTER 6

Colonialism, Commerce, and Egypto-Levantine Relations at the Dawn of the State A. Introduction The substantial quantity of locally produced Egyptian pottery found on the Halif Terrace has refocused attention on the Egypto-Levantine relationship in the 4th millennium b.c.e. The outlines of this relationship have been known, especially from the Egyptian side, for decades. A connection between 4th millennium b.c.e. Egypt and the Southern Levant was implied through imagery such as the Narmer Palette (see now Köhler 2002) and then realized through the discovery of ledge-handled jars in Egypt (Albright 1932: 1–4; Frankfort 1924: 104; Kantor 1942: 179; 1952; Petrie 1921: pl. X28: 1, 3, 4, 8, 14, 19, 23; Wright 1937: 48; see also Bourriau 1981: 132; Debono and Mortenson 1988: 33). Soon after this connection was made, Macdonald (1932) found Egyptian material at the site of Wadi Gaza in southern Palestine. From the Egyptian side as well, the discovery of exotic materials such as lapis lazuli (Crowfoot-Payne 1968; Lucas and Harris 1962; Hendrickx and Bavay 2002) implied long distance trade with and through the Levant. The first sites to produce published Egyptian material included Wadi Gaza Site H (Macdonald 1932) and Lachish (Tufnell 1958). The excavations at Tell el-ºErani (Brandl 1989), originally published as Tell Gat (S. Yeivin 1961), and ºEn Besor (Gophna 1976a; 1980; 1990) were the first to document a strong Egyptian presence in 4th-millennium southern Palestine. The excavation of such sites in the Levant, including ºEn Besor and ºErani, and specifically the discovery of items such as serekhs and sealings in those locations, is thought to imply Levantine/Egyptian economic relations or perhaps political subservience (Schulman 1976; 1980; 1992; Kaplony 2002). Subsequent work has greatly expanded the corpus of Egyptian material in southern Palestine; however, it was difficult to quantify this relationship until the excavation of substantial quantities of Egyptian ceramic material. This chapter presents an overview of existing theories of intersocietal interaction, a contextualization of the evidence for Egypto-Levantine relations, and a new approach that is based on the quantified methodology of the integrated typology and the results from the Halif Terrace.

Colonialism, Commerce, and Egypto-Levantine Relations

131

B. Conquest or Commerce: Static Views of Turbulent Times By the early 1990s, two competing theories addressed the nature of the Egyptian relationship with southern Palestine in the 4th and 3rd millennia b.c.e. One held that Egypt conquered and controlled southern Palestine in the Early Bronze I through military conquest (Gophna 1972, 1976a, 1976b; Hennessy 1967; Lapp 1970; Oren 1973, 1989; Schulman 1989; Yadin 1955; S. Yeivin 1960; 1963; 1968; Yekultieli 1998). The unstated basis for this theory was drawing analogies with the Late Bronze Age. The opposing view interpreted the EgyptoLevantine relationship as purely economic, based on commerce and trade (Amiran 1970; 1974; Amiran et al. 1978; Ben-Tor 1982; Brandl 1989; Helck 1979; Redford 1981; 1986; Rizkana and Seeher 1989; Stager 1990; Ward 1963; 1969; Weinstein 1984). This theory was also partially inspired by the Late Bronze Age, although by interpretations that saw the period as the “best of times” as opposed to the “worst of times.” These static models for politically dynamic times are simplistic and fail to fully account for the vicissitudes in this relationship over time. Nor did these models distinguish the important differences between Egypt’s political and economic relationships with coastal Lebanon and Syria as opposed to those with the southern Levant, differences which the Egyptians themselves clearly recognized. However through the late 1980s and 1990s, as more Egyptian or Egyptianized material was found in Israel and as new Levantine material appeared in Egypt, the data began to outstrip the models. These new archaeological data demand a thorough reexamination of the two traditional models developed to explain the nature of 4th millennium b.c.e. EgyptoLevantine relations. As has been emphasized throughout this study, any new approach must necessarily be empirically driven. Some scholars have modified or updated existing models, in an attempt to breathe fresh life into them (e.g., Levy and van den Brink 2002; Kansa 2001). In the case of the Conquest model, terms such as colonization and control are now used in place of military adventurism. Here the use of the term control is a contemporary gloss, suggesting a connotation that political control is more often successfully realized through economic tools than military ones. The concept of “informal empire,” generated through modifications of modernization and underdevelopment theories, has also been applied to antiquity in general and to archaeological cultures in particular (e.g., Algaze 1993). Kaplony’s (2002) reanalysis of the ºEn Besor seal impressions can also be used to support a colonial model, because in his view they represent a tributary system at work. But as with World Systems Theory as a whole, one of the weaknesses of these economistic approaches is that “accumulation” is posited as the single, overriding motivation, without specifying the uses and effect of accumulation, particularly in terms of power accrued by the dispatching polities. Regardless of any new terminology, the thrust of new “colonization” models is similar—political control by a more complex core over a less complex periphery. But is the evidence for Egyptian settlement in southern Palestine suggestive of a colonial presence? What exactly is a colony in the premodern (and preclassical) context? Does it constitute a means for the utilization of excess population, as in the cases of Phoenician and Greek colonies? Or should it be understood in the early modern sense as a mechanism for competition between polities to extend territorial control, often through the dispatch of lesser nobles? Or it is merely a means for extracting resources and generating markets, as classical critiques

132

Colonialism, Commerce, and Egypto-Levantine Relations

of colonialism and imperialism held? What is the evidence for any of these variables at work in the Egyptian communities embedded within Levantine settlements in southern Palestine? Stein (1999; 2002) has proposed some major revisions to World Systems approaches, which he calls the “distance parity” and “trade diaspora” models. He suggests, in particular, that the Uruk-period colonies in southeastern Anatolia were trade diasporas designed as part of an overall exchange system; however, by focusing exclusively on the social dynamics of the colony, he fails to specify how and why it was dispatched. Instead, should the Egyptian communities be understood by peering through the updated lens of conquest? What might stimulate a conquest episode resulting in the establishment of settlements? Without unambiguous evidence for intentional destruction or supporting textual data, conquest is frequently an equivocal concept in archaeology. Unlike the contemporary Egyptian relationship with Nubia, there is no evidence in southern Palestine for the depopulation of a buffer zone or the creation of a fortified frontier (Adams 1984). 1 There is also no evidence for the expulsion of foreigners from Egypt proper, as occurred at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, nor is there evidence of an effort to carve out political control through military means in order to check potential competing regional powers, as in the Late Bronze II. Unlike the Late Bronze Age, there is no strategic effort during these earlier periods to control southern Palestine for the purpose of advancing trading relations to other parts of the Levant, Eastern Mediterranean, and Near East (see, generally, Warburton 2001; Liverani 2002). As archaeology has become more sensitive to the suite of overlapping motivations at work in any given situation, new approaches have sought to straddle the poles of colonies and conquest. The work of Mary Helms, in particular, has focused important attention to the motives and benefits of intersocietal connections for emergent elites (M. W. Helms 1988; 1993). Her work has shown that ethnographically documented elites frequently dispatched traders, diplomats, and raiders to regions beyond their control in order to retrieve specialized materials with magical or even cosmological significance. These insights provide important clues as to why Egyptians left their homeland and went to live outside their increasingly “civilized” world. The work of Andrew Sherratt has also dramatically revised the binomial vision of core–periphery relations with the concepts of margin and fringe (Sherratt 1993–1994). These describe areas progressively further from cores, with less economic and especially social interaction. Unlike peripheries, margins and fringes provide and receive far less than peripheries in terms of information and goods, and while they may still emulate styles of material culture or adopt technologies, the original meanings of these features are largely unknown. Clearly, the Southern Levant must be regarded as a periphery (rather than a geographical margin such as the Sinai), but the dramatically unequal types of exchange and, in particular, the lack of reciprocal Egyptian influence on southern Palestine, are informed by

1. The Sinai peninsula might be regarded as a buffer, although the North Sinai land-bridge functioned as a well-traveled conduit throughout the Early Bronze I. Also, Tell Sakan, which was fortified, is understood by its excavators as an Egyptian settlement in the Early Bronze IB (de Miroschedji et al. 2001). However, whether Tell Sakan can be understood in strict terms as a “border” site is not at all clear.

Colonialism, Commerce, and Egypto-Levantine Relations

133

the margin and fringe. In fact, the desert regions of the Near East, and perhaps Egypt itself, may be best understood in these unaccustomed terms. It is unlikely that Near Eastern archaeologists would in fact be talking about colonies at all if not for the now well-studied Uruk Expansion, which has been frequently cited as an appropriate analog because of its temporal and spatial similarities. The Uruk Expansion has become the “classic” example of Near Eastern 4th-millennium intersocietal relationships, and by extension it has promoted World Systems approaches as an explanatory paradigm. 2 But how comparable is the Uruk Expansion to the Egyptian Dynasty 0 Expansion (which perhaps we should refer to as the Narmer or Ka/Narmer Expansion)? We now know that the Uruk expansion was predicated on the earlier Ubaid expansion. This seems clearly linked to resource extraction (Frangipane 2001), which in this case meant the need to locate copper and remove it from distant and less complex peripheries to a more developed and hierarchical core that now stretched across both northern and southern Mesopotamia (Algaze 2001). Without the Ubaid Expansion, the Uruk Expansion would not have taken the shape it did. It is also now recognized that the Uruk Expansion was much longer and less explosive than initially believed (Joffe 2000). Additionally, the evidence does not appear to support the previously assumed homogeneity of purpose in resource extraction. After taking these two factors into consideration, the Uruk Expansion model is a lesspersuasive analog to the Egyptian expansion. Although the resource geography is clear, the social basis of the Uruk Expansion remains unclear, with possible interpretations that are as varied as city-state projects and mass migration of refugees being posited (e.g., Johnson 1988). World-systems explanations that privilege economics and accumulation also fail to explain how premodern societies transported bulk goods, and for this reason emphases have been placed on precious items and value-added goods, neither of which are easily accounted for by simple Conquest or Commerce models. The other dominant mode interprets the same data as evidence of a purely economic relationship based on commerce. A clear understanding of precisely what Levantine products or services Egypt would want or require is necessary to support this model (Harrison 1993). Unfortunately, the goods believed to have been exchanged have never been adequately determined or quantified, although this has not diminished the popularity of this interpretation. 3 The list of potential exports usually includes wine and even olive oil. Certainly the contents of Tomb U-j at Abydos (if they are in fact imports) seem to support this view. More recently, Yekultieli (1998) has also suggested invisible exports such as slaves and cattle, but there is no hard evidence to support this. The “invisible export” argument does not reduce the burden of proof for its proponents. 2. It should be noted that the “World Systems” approach to the study of the Uruk expansion is undergoing major revisions (in general, see Rothman 2001 and especially Stein 1999). 3. The recent work of Adams and Levy in the Wadi Faynan (Adams 2002; Adams and Genz 1995; Levy et al. 2002) has led Adams (pers. comm.) to suggest that Egyptian expansion into the Southern Levant might well be linked to the search for copper ores. However, the direct data pointing to an Egyptian connection to Faydan in the EB IB Late is lacking, as are any direct connections between Faydan and the area of Egyptian expansion in southwestern Palestine. For a fuller discussion of Early Bronze I metallurgy in Palestine and connections with Egypt, see Golden (2002).

spread one pica short

134

Colonialism, Commerce, and Egypto-Levantine Relations

It is certain that wine was being produced throughout southern Palestine, including the southwestern part, but in unknown quantities. Curiously, widespread evidence for production and exchange of both wine and olive oil appears in the Early Bronze II, but the location is in northern rather than southern Palestine and occurs well after the end of contacts with Egypt. Large-scale production is reflected in a ceramic type—metallic ware—that is associated with production and packaging industry, which does not appear in the south. Even if the Levantine wine vessels in Abydos Tomb U-j are from southern Palestine, does this suggest that the nature of the interaction is based on trade? Tomb U-j at Abydos is an outstanding example of the problem of invisible exports as a whole. This tomb’s contents may be one shipment, albeit a massive one, of wine from southern Palestine, or, as Porat and Goren (2002) suggest, it may simply be locally made Egyptian vessels. By early Dynasty I, Egypt was clearly producing its own wine in estates in the Delta. 4 However, the question remains open as to what the Egyptians were shipping in the “wine jars” that show up in the Early Bronze IB in southern Palestine; if the content of these jars was indeed wine, perhaps it was shipped north to meet the needs of Egypt’s own expatriate communities (see also James 1996). But Tomb U-j appears to be unique (for several reasons), and its contents, some 700 Levantine wine vessels, may well have been a “special order” commissioned by a nascent Egyptian elite (a proto-king of a proto-state?). 5 The fact that the resinated wines contained in these vessels were flavored with fig, a Mediterranean crop (McGovern et al. 2001), may indicate further that the contents were actual imports or were intended to appear as imports to consumers. Either way, these goods carried an important and explicit foreign symbolism.

C. The Long View of Egypto-Levantine Relations The symbolism was also contained in the effort expended to acquire these goods. Clearly, such large-scale importation—crossing the desert with a large consignment of laden wine jars—indicates a symbolic effort rather than part of an ongoing economic arrangement for which we have no other evidence. Additional finds of such goods would only serve to confirm that the level of hierarchy achieved by the owner of Tomb U-j was reached by competitors—either by members of his family or cohorts from another family of equally skilled social climbers. It is precisely the social role of trade and movement that holds the key for a more encompassing and satisfying model. If neither colonization nor commerce provide adequate explanations, how are we to make sense of the Egypto-Levantine relationship? In order to get to the heart of the issue, we must first examine the nature of Egypto-Levantine relations over time. The Naqada III/ EB IB interaction is not an isolated event but rather part of a long and inextricably linked 4. I thank Edwin van den Brink for bringing this to my attention. 5. More recently, similar Levantine wine jars have been found in at least two tombs of Scorpion I (Tomb U-j) predecessors in Cemetery U at Abydos.

Colonialism, Commerce, and Egypto-Levantine Relations

135

history that took root as least as early as the Egyptian Neolithic 6 and involved the introduction of a suite of domesticated plants and animals that would help change the basic configuration of Nilotic society. A review of the evidence from the Halif Terrace in southern Palestine supports this long-term view of Egypto-Levantine interactions. Based on recent archaeological finds, the Egyptian presence in southern Palestine can be divided into three separate but interdependent phases of relations. Each was motivated by mutual Egyptian and Levantine needs and expectations. In what follows, I will first briefly review the evidence from the Halif Terrace (including Nahal Tillah) and then provide an overview of Egypto-Levantine relations from the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I A and B. Finally, I will offer an alternative model of Egypto-Levantine relations. The Tell Halif sequence reflects the division of the Egyptian presence in southern Palestine in the 4th millennium into three separate phases of interactions: sporadic contacts, entrepreneurial exploration, and direct settlement. Each of these phases is marked by different motivations by the Egyptians that are reflected in the types and quantities of materials found, both in southern Palestine and Egypt itself. This dynamic-tension model describes and explains 500 years of changing Egypto-Levantine relations—in essence, the emergence of core and periphery—in the context of the emerging Egyptian state. 1. Sporadic Contacts: Developed Chalcolithic / Naqada I–IIA The earliest Egyptian proto-historic contact with southern Palestine occurs during the Chalcolithic period, which corresponds to the Naqada I and possibly the Naqada IIA. This consists of Egyptian prestige goods reaching southern Palestine and perhaps the transfer of Levantine technological and stylistic traditions to Egypt. Contact is neither regular nor well established, and this low level of interaction continues into the Early Bronze IA. The small quantity of non-utilitarian Egyptian items found in southern Palestine during the Early Bronze IA is striking. There is almost a complete absence of Egyptian ceramic vessels. The finished products entering the Southern Levant are prestige goods such as alabaster vases, gold, ivory jars, decorative palettes, worked Nilotic shells, pressureflaked knives, beads of imported materials, and haematite maceheads. 7 The overall small amount of Egyptian material found in southern Palestine indicates that contact is sporadic. The route along which the material was transported was through north Sinai (Yekultieli 1998). Excluding the Nahal Qanah Cave, Egyptian material is restricted to the northern Negev, the coastal plain, and as far east as Ghassul. More importantly, there is almost no clearly Egyptian material found at major Chalcolithic sites in the northern Negev, such as Shiqmim, or at sites where there is a pronounced Egyptian presence in the Early

6. Near Eastern plant and animal domesticates show up in Egypt in the middle to late 6th millennium b.c.e. 7. Egypt is usually understood as the source of the gold at Nahal Qanah, but this is not certain. Haematite could also be from sources outside of Egypt. Ivory is also problematic because it could be from Syrian elephants or even local hippopatamai. But in all cases, finished products in these raw materials reflect Egyptian production traditions, not south Levantine ones.

136

Colonialism, Commerce, and Egypto-Levantine Relations

Figure 45. Map of the Southern Levant and Egypt

Colonialism, Commerce, and Egypto-Levantine Relations

137

Bronze I, such as Arad, Tell ºErani, the Halif Terrace, Small Tel Malhata, Wadi Gaza, and perhaps north Sinai. 8 Conversely, there is very little evidence of any Levantine material in Egypt, in the Naqada I or early Naqada II, with the exceptions of Buto IA (with an apparent Chaclolithic “Levantine” presence on site) and Maadi. At Maadi, there is clearly a small but significant amount of Levantine material: pottery, lithics, architectural traditions, and copper, which date to the Terminal Chalcolithic/EB IA. It should be remembered, however, that the 31 Levantine vessels found at Maadi comprise only 3% of the assemblage of complete vessels. The only other products from the Southern Levant include Dead Sea bitumen, salt (possibly), and copper, which most likely originates from Faynan and not south Sinai. 9 There are some other sporadic finds from Naqada I contexts, such as a few Levantine sherds from Hamamiyeh, which also reported imported timber and resin. This is a small but important note if one were to posit that products of this sort were coming from the northern Levant (i.e., Byblos) and not the southern Levant. Though large quantities of goods may not have been transferred from southern Palestine to Egypt, technological and stylistic components were. Golden (2002: 235) has tentatively suggested that Levantine metal workers influenced Lower Egyptian metallurgical production. The coincidence between the rapid development of new metallurgical technology in the Early Bronze Age and the exploitation of Levantine copper sources from Faynan cannot be overlooked. These data suggest that while copper working may have initially developed in Upper Egypt, a more sophisticated metallurgy was brought to Lower Egypt from southern Palestine during the Chalcolithic. The more obvious Levantine stylistic export in the Egyptian ceramic repertoire is the ledge-handle jar. Once adopted by Egyptian potters, the ledge-handle undergoes an independent stylistic development. Ledge handles are found as early as the Naqada IIc and probably entered the Egyptian ceramic repertoire from the Terminal Chalcolithic/Early Bronze IA examples brought to Maadi. In southern Palestine, the ledge handle is found on store-jars and is initially a functional (not decorative) element. Egyptian potters quickly converted the ledge handle into a purely stylistic addition (the “wavy-handled group”). Ledge handles are thereafter usually associated with fine ware—cylindrical jars and store jars—with both items used as containers for luxury goods such as wine, aromatic oils, and ritual deposits of soil. The transfer of Levantine technology and style, as opposed to raw materials or goods, may have been one of the primary goals of the Egyptians in their dealings with southern Palestine, and in many respects it may be a continuation of the pattern of interaction established in the Egyptian Neolithic when plant and animal domesticates were transferred. Because a permanent Egyptian presence in southern Palestine was established in the Early Bronze IA, it is likely that Egyptians were already probing or exploring southern Palestine during the Chalcolithic (see below). Forays into southern Palestine must have originated from Lower Egypt, as evidenced by the connections between southern Palestine and first Maadi and then later Minshat Abu Omar. The exploration of the adjacent territories prior to unification was one means by which the burgeoning Egyptian polities mapped their 8. Though, again, the small amounts of ivory or haematite might be from Egyptian sources (see n. 5). 9. This conclusion is based on the isotopic evidence (see Pernicka and Hauptman 1989).

138

Colonialism, Commerce, and Egypto-Levantine Relations

surroundings, in order to understand the universe of symbolic, political, military, economic, and social opportunities that lay at their borders. The Egyptians who went or were sent to southern Palestine were representatives of one of the increasingly active but still decentralized elites in the ongoing process of unification. The prestige items brought to southern Palestine were “trinkets” or gifts and not commercial goods for exchange. The flow of these goods, primarily prestige items, was essentially unidirectional, and it must have quickly become clear to the Egyptians that southern Palestine had little of interest in the way of raw materials or finished products to offer Egypt. 10 This impression could well have been reinforced by the early appearance of timber and resins presumably from the northern Levant, imports that Egyptians eventually found they could not live without or—given the funerary contexts in which they were found—could not die without them, either. The source of these raw materials did not lie at the end of the north Sinai land-bridge. Although the Egypto-Levantine relationship was bidirectional, very different types of products were involved. Southern Palestine received finished prestige items, whereas Egypt primarily received craft-related information and ideas. During, and even after, the transfer of specific technological and stylistic information, the Lower Egyptian operatives at Buto and Maadi remained interested in pursuing a dialogue with southern Palestine. Over time, as the parameters of the relationship become clearer, the dialogue evolved into a monologue. 2. Entrepreneurial Exploration: Early Bronze IA / Naqada IIB–C/D2 In the Early Bronze IA, the type of Egyptian exports to southern Palestine changed, as did the nature of the movement. Prestige goods such as palettes, alabaster beads and amulets, pressure-flaked knives, raw haematite, gold beads, and even cylinder seals continued to arrive in southern Palestine. However, the importation of ceramic vessels marked an expansion and intensification of contact. While the use of caravans would not have been necessary for the movement of small quantities of alabaster vases, flint knives, beads, and maceheads, the transport of ceramic vessels would have necessitated extra pack animals. The Egyptian pottery from north Sinai comes from Egypt, while the Levantine pottery comes not only from southwest southern Palestine but also from further afield in northern southern Palestine. Because we must date Maadi with its Levantine finds at least in part to the EB IA, then along with the north Sinai we must posit at least some level of bidirectionality. The production of Egyptian ceramics and flint tools in southern Palestine is a very important development in the Early Bronze IA. It strongly suggests an intensification of the Early Bronze IA relationship and the likelihood of a permanent presence of Egyptians at Levantine sites. For instance, at the Halif Terrace in Phases 9 and 8 (EB IA and EB IB Early), a small quantity of Egyptian prestige items were found—items such as a stone palette fragment and faience beads, along with imported Egyptian and Egyptianized pottery. From Wadi Gaza Site H, we find Egyptian chipped-stone tools, including twisted blades 10. Later in the Early Dynastic, the importance of copper to Egyptian elites cannot be underestimated. At this time, Faynan and Timna may well have become very important to the Egyptian crown.

Colonialism, Commerce, and Egypto-Levantine Relations

139

and bladelets, made with a distinct and possibly imported flint, along with twisted knives, a ripple-flaked knife, and three transverse arrowheads. 11 Egyptian ceramic forms include straight-sided bowls, miniature jars and juglets, everted-rim jars, and large rolled-rim bowls. Near Site H, 12 Taur Ikhbeineh has a very similar ceramic assemblage. Bitumen and copper, possible trade items, are also found at Site H, along with donkey bones and three macehead fragments. The presence of contemporaneous Levantine and Egyptian ceramic and flint tool production traditions at such sites as Taur Ikhbeineh and Wadi Gaza Site H indicates at least a modest Egyptian presence in southern Palestine. These domestic assemblages suggest subsistence-based activities such as cooking and cereal harvesting, but there is no indication of any stores of goods used for exchange or even the presence of any significant quantities of imported Egyptian material at any one site. An Egyptian presence in southern Palestine would have necessitated a supply system for the maintenance of the way stations across the north Sinai. Maadi may have had two functions: acting as a redistribution center linked to ports in the Delta and also as a logistics center, helping to maintain the way-stations and support Egyptians living abroad in southern Palestine. The maintenance and support of an Egyptian community abroad may even reflect a more stable and controlling political structure in Egypt. 3. Direct Settlement: Early Bronze IB/Naqada IIIA–C1 / Tomb U-j The intensification in the Egyptian presence seen at the Halif Terrace in the Early Bronze IB Late is also found throughout southern Palestine. It is accompanied by a dramatic increase in the local production of Egyptian pottery in the Early Bronze IB. Although there are more Egyptian communities of larger size producing more pottery in the Early Bronze IB, they do not appear to be importing as many jars from Egypt. Unlike the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze IA, the Egyptian material found in this period is almost exclusively ceramic. Apart from Nilotic shells, beads, stone vessels, and a single palette, the period shows a marked absence of significant amounts of prestige items. Most of the pottery is not imported from Egypt but produced locally. The vessels have domestic functions that indicate a wide range of activities within the Egyptian community including: pottery production; grain collection, processing, and storage; and bread-making. The distribution of Early Bronze IB sites with Egyptian material in southwestern southern Palestine suggests an integrated network that focuses on the maintenance of the overland route from Egypt and the support of Egyptian communities in southern Palestine. Tell ºErani, and now Tel es-Sakan (de Miroschedji et al. 2001), have the largest and most complex Egyptian assemblages. In looking only at ºErani, it seems that the site has a mixed Levantine/Egyptian population throughout the Early Bronze I. The Egyptian and Levantine ceramic production traditions also produced a hybrid ceramic assemblage with a variety not found elsewhere in southern Palestine (Brandl 1989). This suggests a closer and more intense relationship between the craftspeople and perhaps also the communities. A much 11. Though these might be associated with Sinai. 12. Roughly 18 km up the Wadi Gaza.

140

Colonialism, Commerce, and Egypto-Levantine Relations

wider range of forms and fabrics is found at ºErani than elsewhere. 13 Based on the size of the sites and their large corpus of Egyptian material, it is clear that the Egyptian interest in southern Palestine is focused on Tell ºErani and Tell es-Sakan, although in the case of ºErani the purpose of this attention is unknown. Tell ºErani is one of the largest Early Bronze I sites in the region; however, there is no inherent feature of the site that helps explain the Egyptian presence, nor is there is any indication that Tell ºErani was a trading emporium with stores of goods ready for export or quantities of imported goods. Other sites have a more specialized function within the Egyptian network. ºEn Besor and Tell Maªahaz 14 are primarily Egyptian sites. ºEn Besor is attractive because of its permanent spring-fed water supply. Access to water would be very crucial for a Egyptian waystation at the head of the overland trail across the north Sinai. 15 Tell Maªahaz is the only other purely Egyptian site. 16 The route across north Sinai proceeds inland to ºEn Besor and then north to Tell ºErani. Tell Maªahaz is the last Egyptian way-station on the road to Tell ºErani. It lies just 10 km south of Tell ºErani, in contrast to ºEn Besor, which is approximately 45 km south. Small Tell Malhata and the Halif Terrace have mixed Levantine/Egyptian assemblages. The amount of Egyptian imported pottery at these sites is much smaller than the locally produced Egyptian material. These sites, and also Arad, are located to the east of the coastal plain, in the Shephelah. Arad and small Tell Malhata are the easternmost sites with Egyptian material. The Halif Terrace lies on the route from Tell ºErani through Maªahaz to Arad. 17 The Halif Terrace’s position within the dry farming zone, just above a fertile valley, suggests that it may have served as an agricultural “breadbasket” for the Egyptian communities. The Egyptian production of sickle blades at Wadi Gaza Site H and Tell ºErani and the seal impressions at ºEn Besor suggest that the Egyptians were themselves harvesting, collecting, and redistributing cereals and probably other foodstuffs as well. The more marginal environment around ºEn Besor would have perhaps necessitated the importation of cereals from farther inland. 18 The provisioning of caravans and the way-stations in north Sinai must have been a primary logistical concern of the Egyptians at the eastern end of the overland route. Local agricultural resources had to be collected and processed in order to maintain both the way-stations and the Egyptian communities themselves.

13. However, this picture is beginning to change, with more robust Egyptian and Egyptianized assemblages turning up at unlikely places such as Tel Lod (van den Brink and Braun 2002). 14. However, it must be noted that the excavation of Tell Maªahaz was very limited. 15. With the recent excavation of Tell Sakan (de Miroschedji et al. 2001), the precise role of ºEn Besor needs to be carefully reconsidered. Tell Sakan clearly supplants all other sites as the critical conduit to Egypt; however, the specific relationships between Sakan and other still-important sites such as ºEn Besor and ºErani is not at all understood. In all likelihood, ºEn Besor is still a very important transit site linking the inland Egyptian communities in the Shephelah and eastern edge of the coastal plain to the north Sinai land bridge and Tell Sakan. Clearly, maritime connections between Egypt and the Levant need to be carefully reconsidered. 16. Though again, this inference is based on a very small excavation sample from the site. 17. Arad remains a problematic part of the Egyptian-Levantine equation. There is very little Egyptian material at Arad, and most of it comes from Early Bronze II contexts. However, the serekh was found in an Early Bronze I context. 18. While ºEn Besor is a small site, the seal impressions found there suggest administrative practices, and the redistribution of food stuffs could be one such example.

Colonialism, Commerce, and Egypto-Levantine Relations

141

4. Conclusions A careful examination of the actual amounts and types of material found in each period demands a fresh interpretation. Existing theories do not account for the chronological, functional, or quantitative differences of the imported material culture assemblages found in either southern Palestine or Egypt, nor do they distinguish the distinct relationships that Egypt had with Byblos as opposed to southern Palestine. Direct Egyptian settlement in the southern Levant during the Early Bronze IB, after centuries of lesser-order contacts, must be understood in the context of an emerging Egyptian state and its diverse ideological/symbolic and material needs. The purpose of the Egyptian contact with southern Palestine in the Early Bronze IB was not economic. There is not enough evidence of either Levantine goods in Egypt nor of Egyptian goods in southern Palestine to support an economic or trade relationship wherein both parties profited in some reciprocal fashion. There is certainly no evidence of any military conquest by Egypt. None of the expected archaeological signatures, such as fortified towns 19 or garrisons, or the prevalence of weaponry in Egyptian material culture, were found. The Egyptian community in southern Palestine in the Early Bronze IB instead comprised a symbolic effort on the part of a newly unified or nearly unified political entity. The new Egyptian ruling elite (or competing elites), who wished to exercise newly found power and control over Egyptians in a series of symbolic gestures created and maintained a small selfsupporting network of settlements in southern Palestine. 20 On the one hand, during the Late Early Bronze IB, Egyptians and some Egyptian products were found in southern Palestine. However, at the same time, the exchange of prestige goods was curtailed and the Egyptian presence was limited exclusively to southern Palestine. The appearance of imported storejars alongside locally produced Egyptian pottery suggests only an increasingly permanent Egyptian presence. The contents of the imported jars, probably wine or beer, were intended for use by the Egyptian community, which would likely be interested in procuring some of the comforts of home that were unavailable abroad. On the other hand, very little clearly Levantine material has been found in Egypt, even though the distribution of this material is quite wide, from Hierakonpolis to Minshat Abu Omar. 21 This relationship was clearly unequal in terms of practical power and ideological value. 19. Though Tell Sakan does have a wall system (de Miroschedji et al. 2001). 20. That this exercise of power was grafted onto a preexisting exchange network is quite possible. However, the nature of exchange between Egypt and the southern Levant is poorly understood, especially with regard to the identification of the potential products that would have been exported from southern Palestine to Egypt. The data for these is simply lacking. In all likelihood, the level of exchange between Egypt and southern Palestine never reached that of significant commercial connections; again, this is unlike the Egyptian relationship with coastal Lebanon and Syria. With the excavation of Tell Lod, the extent of Egyptian settlement has been pushed significantly to the north. Whether there were actual Egyptians in residence at places such as Megiddo, Assawir, and Azor remains unclear. 21. Very little material culture of obvious Levantine origin or manufacture is found in Egypt at this time. However, Adams (pers. comm.) notes that the evidence for the importation of copper into Egypt in the later part of the Early Bronze IB corresponds with a technological “boom” in Faynan, with the development of a variety of new and highly sophisticated technologies used to procure and process copper. Adams then suggests that there is no other credible “market” for this production increase in copper other than Egypt. However, the importation of copper from Faynan, located in southern Transjordan, an adjacent periphery to Egypt but

142

Colonialism, Commerce, and Egypto-Levantine Relations

As the process of Egyptian unification proceeded and the center of power in Egypt shifted from Upper to Lower Egypt, the relationship with southern Palestine intensified. Unlike Nubia and Byblos, southern Palestine had little to offer Egypt in terms of raw materials or finished goods, and its transport costs were higher. This had become clear to the Egyptians with the exploratory stage of relations during the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze IA. Once metallurgical technology and some minor but intriguing ceramic stylistic traditions were transferred to Egypt during Early Bronze IA, there was little left of economic value that would make the continuation of an exchange network economically viable. Some of the most important products that Egypt imported from the Levant later in the Early Bronze Age (i.e., timber, resin, wine, and olive oil) are all more efficiently transported by ship rather than over land, especially when transported in large quantities. The economic value and the scale of commercial contacts between Egypt and southern Palestine were, in all periods, marginal at best. 22 Instead, the impetus was symbolic, organizational, and ultimately ideological, 23 based on Egyptian perceptions and needs. As has been stressed above, evidence for large-scale trade is simply not found in either Egypt or southern Palestine. A bidirectional trade of invisible exports could be posited; however, the data that supports this position is lacking and thus an argument from silence and would, in any case, imply a larger archaeological signature on both the sending or receiving ends in terms of supporting documentation. 24 More significant is the organizational dimension involved in the creation and maintenance of a network of sites roughly 350 km from Lower Egypt. The goal of the whole Egyptian Late Early Bronze IB operation in southern Palestine may have been simply an exercise in planning and logistics by a newly centralized elite. It was a symbolic gesture, both as a reflection and validation of the degree of elite control and coordination and, reciprocally, as a reflection of the degree to which loyalty, patronage, and coercion were capable of motivating personnel to make the journey. Although much later in the 3rd and early 2nd millennium, there appear to be Egyptians resident at Byblos in a trade or diplomatic capacity, no network of sites on foreign soil is found in Lebanon or elsewhere. Egyptian relations with these areas was initially commercial, and then increasingly diplomatic, as Egyptians established relations of an unknown sort with large and important 3rd-millennium polities such as Ebla (Scandone-Matthiae 1979).

clearly separate from southern Palestine, does not directly address the issue of the nature of the contact between Egypt and southern Palestine, especially in the Early Bronze IB. Because there is no evidence for direct contacts between the Faynan region and southern Palestine in this period, there is no reason to suggest that Faynan copper was obtained through the mediation of southern Palestine. Egypt and Faynan could well have had their own direct links through the Negev Desert south of Arad, thus avoiding major Early Bronze I settlements of southern Palestine. More importantly, it does not explain clear Egyptian royal interests in southern Palestine. It should also be noted that Timna, located in the Aravah, is another candidate as the source of imported copper to Egypt. 22. Subsequent contact between Egypt and the Levant in the Early Bronze II, III, and IV was not with southern Palestine but rather with the northern Levant (especially coastal Lebanon and Syria) and as noted above (n. 7) possibly with the Wadi Faynan and Timna. 23. In a sense, these may all be subsumed under the category of political imperatives. 24. Again, see n. 7 regarding the importation of copper.

Colonialism, Commerce, and Egypto-Levantine Relations

143

The elites controlling this relationship should be understood as “dynastic,” as indicated by the presence of numerous serekhs. Serekhs are found exclusively in Late Early Bronze IB contexts and all serekhs with royal names are of Narmer, who reigned late in Dynasty 0 (cf. van den Brink 2001: Tables 2 and 3a). 25 It was during the reign of Narmer that the process of unification is believed to have been completed. It is significant that the colonial undertaking began only when Egypt was nearly united, with sufficient political stability to support a symbolic gesture that required a great deal of organizational control. This display of sociopolitical cohesion and organizational prowess by the newly unified Egyptian royal house was primarily for internal consumption. The limited value of this symbolic gesture as a strategy for Egyptian social integration can be inferred from the relatively brief stay by the Egyptians in southern Palestine and their swift and complete withdrawal (but see Sowada 2000). Symbolism, organization, and ideology were the driving forces behind the establishment of Egyptian communities in southern Palestine in the Early Bronze I. These should be considered as central features in the evolution of Egyptian social complexity.

D. Dynamic-Tension Model At the outset, the comparative context should be logically structured to emphasize first, the synchronic changes in the Egyptian-Levantine relationship and second, the parallel experiences of early civilizations. One key is to see Egypt and Palestine as a whole in evolutionary terms—that is, as a single unit that developed synchronously. Egypt and Palestine are not a single culture or even civilization, but they were two nodes of a single extended whole, literally, a core and periphery that were never out of touch with one another from the Neolithic onward. 26 Viewed as a single unit, the two components existed in a state of dynamic tension, with stresses in one being felt in the other. Co-evolutionary changes in one always affected the other, and in respective periods the two exhibit similar or different characteristics. 27 The development of domesticates was one such occurrence; it was a Levantine innovation that revolutionized subsistence, organization, and production, and during the course of a millennium, it was transmitted and transformed Egypt to an even more profound 25. Van den Brink and Braun (2002: 173–74) have published a Ka serekh from Tell Lod. 26. Here is must be stressed that while the very close relationship between the Egyptian crown and southern Palestine in the EB IB abruptly ended at the end of the period, Egypt continued to have a variety of interactions with other parts of the Levant (perhaps including southern Palestine; see Sowada 2000). So, for instance, there are ongoing overseas commercial relations with the northern Levant, possible connections with southern Transjordan and the Aravah, and perhaps more direct contacts with Early Bronze III sites in central and northern Palestine such as Ai and Yarmouth (Sowada in press). Egypt’s relationship with the Levant continues throughout the entire Bronze and Iron Ages, but does so in an uneven and particularistic way. Egypt’s relationships with specific and relatively independent regions within the Levant frequently change, as do aspects of the political, social, and economic integration within the Levant itself. 27. An analysis of this sort could also be applied to Nubia, but doing so is beyond the parameters of this study.

144

Colonialism, Commerce, and Egypto-Levantine Relations

extent. Metallurgy is another example of a Levantine technology that had a revolutionary impact on Egypt. In each of these cases, the initial terms were expanded and transformed in Egypt, and they eventually contributed to feedback again to the Southern Levant. Many situations were not comprised of such dramatic and unidirectional developments. The primary example discussed in this study (craft production changes at a rural site) exemplifies the small-scale ebb and flow involved in intersocietal relations at what might be described as the community or human level. The overall picture involved the emergence of the state in Egypt, but this was dependent on large technological transfers from the Levant to Egypt, a period of entrepreneurial exchange of prestige items and ultimately a limited period of direct Egyptian settlement that served Egyptian ideological and organization needs and came to manifest a certain ideological significance. Once the individual outlines are synchronized and both the parallel and the divergent developments become clear, the challenge becomes to explain why change happened. The second aspect of the framework presented here addresses the means of comprehending changes within the whole. The issue partially revolves around the question of whether to compare cultures as more- or less- isolated entities or whether to immediately seek connections that then generate an integrated explanation. As has been shown here, the larger the explanation, in geographical or conceptual terms, is not necessarily more satisfying. However, by setting episodes within a larger temporal framework, and by using fine-grained, quantitative data both as a guide and to provide ground truth for larger ideas, it is possible to generate more encompassing models. In theoretical terms, a dynamic-tension approach does not necessarily specify how or why certain responses occurred, but because it is oriented toward larger wholes, it can help answer some obvious questions, namely, how cores became cores, and why peripheries became peripheral. These often yield counterintuitive results, such as here in the contingent and perhaps dependent nature of complexity in Egypt. Another insight from this study has to do with the way comparisons are executed in archaeology. Taking comparanda haphazardly out of chronological-historical sequences within the ancient Near East, and especially cross-culturally, ignores a wide variety of historically-contingent variables. Fourth-millennium Egyptian-Levantine relations will certainly not be enlightened by a study of Melanesian kula rings, except in highly specific (and probably not very important) ways. Nor will comparisons with the Uruk expansion necessarily be meaningful, unless the long-term patterns of local Egyptian-Levantine co-evolution are understood. How to structure cross-cultural and functionally unrelated comparisons are outstanding questions. Some World Systems and historical sociology approaches see all processes integrated as a single whole, and while these have some Olympian appeal, they are incapable of explaining or predicting the fine-grained changes in prosaic yet revealing areas such as ceramic production. Archaeology too often has the tendency to work from theory backward to data; this study shows that working from the data forward is often more sound. Another conclusion of this study is that an adequate framework, or language, is needed for understanding such long-term relational changes within larger units at the interregional/intercultural levels. As suggested above, the grandiose level of World Systems cannot connect with the household level of ceramic production, and the same holds true for traditional approaches to narrative history. Simply stringing episodes of trade or

Colonialism, Commerce, and Egypto-Levantine Relations

145

empire in a sequence is not necessarily explanatory, nor is a general historical perspective that hinges on the “state” in Egypt. What is suggested here is a language that can be used to understand larger historical episodes as larger units, but without preconditions such as the privileging of economic variables. Three key terms for describing such changes are pace, scale, and intensity. 1. Pace Pace is the speed at which change occurs, from the macro- (cultural/historical) to the micro-levels of the household and individual. At the largest temporal scales, for example, we may note that the adoption of agriculture in Egypt dominated a millennium, but once it was established, agriculture permitted the establishment of local polities within a few short centuries and culminated in the nebulous unification. Pace is obviously a measure of time, but it is also the measure of change—the real and perceived rate at which human communities consciously and unconsciously reorganize themselves, their means of production, their local and intercommunal relations, landscapes, and so on. Pace means something different for households and their schedules of production and reproduction than for polities or culture. The quickening pace of change during the 4th millennium and afterward is contingent in part on scale and intensity. 2. Scale Scale is the size of change in the units of production and reproduction, again ranging from the household to the polity to the civilization. Mapping the various units and their scales is what archaeologists do quite often, along with calculating interactions between various units and levels. In complex societies, these horizontal and vertical dimensions grow with stratification and differentiation, and their interactions intensify independently and relative to one another. In a co-evolutionary situation, such as with “Egypt” and “southern Palestine,” interaction took place across a broad spatial and social spectrum. It is clear, for example, that Levantine households interacted with some element of the Egyptian royal establishment. But scale also fundamentally means that the possibilities for interaction are continually multiplied. Scale also means, of course, simple changes in size, which leads to the next dimension, intensity. 3. Intensity Intensity is the relative number of interactions within and between units, up to and including geographically discrete units. Hunter-gatherers, moving across thinly populated environments, do not experience an intense number of interactions with one another, although their interactions might be of great significance. In complex societies, the intensity of interaction is increased exponentially, and along with the intensity, the opportunities for exchanges of information and materials grow.

146

Colonialism, Commerce, and Egypto-Levantine Relations

These modeling concepts in and of themselves are familiar to archaeologists, and integrating them has been attempted by scholars interested in the highly specific dynamics of material culture change, as well as those attempting a world-civilization perspective. In a co-evolutionary situation, such as existed between Egypt and southern Palestine, however, these terms have particular relevance in that they can permit a kind of relative measurement of aspects within the extended whole. But as a means of explanation, the elements of pace, scale, and intensity are obviously deficient. These elements must be coupled with a perspective on power, with its relative social, economic, military, and ideological aspects. For example, the scales and intensity of Egypt as a physical environment with agricultural potential contributed to the development of a significantly large polity. When contrasted with the fragmented and mountainous environments of southern Palestine, the sources of their eventual power imbalances are clear. Each culture area possessed dramatically different agricultural catchment areas and surplus production potential. Articulating precisely how and why Egypt was a core and southern Palestine a periphery may seem jejune, but it is a necessary part of explaining cultural change.

CHAPTER 7

Conclusions This study has attempted to explain the relationship between ceramic production and the sociocultural setting in which it was embedded. The ceramic material from the Halif Terrace provides an ideal opportunity to examine a range of issues involving the chronology and culture history of the Southern Levant in the 4th millennium. These include a detailed diachronic study of the ceramic industry at the Halif Terrace and a reassessment of the EgyptoLevantine relationship in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages. This book also focuses on the methodological problems of ceramic analysis in Near Eastern archaeology, and I have stressed that the methodological component of this research is as important as the results.

A. A New Methodological Approach In this volume, I have attempted to provide a comprehensive method of ceramic analysis for Near Eastern ceramic assemblages. I have emphasized that, since it is impossible to predict what questions ceramic data will address, methodological considerations are crucial. Present methods of ceramic analysis focus on generating either impressionistic overviews or narrowly specific data. This study suggests that the focus of ceramic studies should begin with a quantitative analysis of entire ceramic assemblages. It is impossible to determine the range of potential questions that will be raised from the study of any newly excavated ceramic assemblage. The development of any methodology used for ceramic analysis must, therefore, be flexible and comprehensive and potentially applicable to any assemblage. The first step in the construction of any ceramic typology is the selection of attributes for analysis. For the purposes of this sort of study, a typology that is initially comprehensive is desired. The initial analysis should take into account the relationships between ceramic attributes rather than merely considering those attributes in isolation. The goal is to explain how the ceramic system functions by developing an integrated ceramic typology. An important advantage of working within an integrated typological framework is the equal and systematic treatment that four basic ceramic attributes receive. The attributes, that are crucial to the development of an integrated typology are: form, ware, decoration,

148

Conclusions

and manufacturing technology. These attributes are interdependent and can only be fully understood in relation to one another. In the initial stage of research, a broad-based, comprehensive mode of analysis will help define the parameters of the assemblage and will provide an efficient and deliberate means by which to frame more specific and appropriate research goals. The use of an integrated typology allows for the identification of individual production traditions. A ceramic production tradition is a multidimensional ceramic “type.” Such a “type” represents a function of the relationship between all four basic attributes, rather than the description of only one or two attributes. Production traditions are models that represent the series of decisions and preferences made by potters within their social and economic settings. The use of decoration, attention to vessel size or the use of a specific type or size of temper can be identified as elements that compose a production tradition. The only way production traditions can be traced is through the quantification of ceramic attributes, which is predicated on the analysis of an entire ceramic assemblage, including both diagnostic and nondiagnostic sherds. The term nondiagnostic is in fact a misnomer, because most sherds can be identified with some degree of precision according to ware or form types. It is in the quantification of body sherds, which are not usually analyzed in Near Eastern archaeology, that a more precise means of tracking production traditions is available. The lack of a well-articulated qualitative and quantitative approach will bias results by obscuring important relationships between ceramic attributes. Just as ceramic attributes within one vessel must be understood in relation to one another, so too must ceramic vessels be put into the context of an entire ceramic assemblage. The quantification of ceramic attributes, ceramic types, and production traditions provides the perspective needed to identify and understand changes within a ceramic assemblage, and, more importantly, within the social units producing and consuming the pottery. In Near Eastern archaeology, culture change is frequently correlated with changes in the ceramic assemblage. However, in most cases, ceramic changes are essentially undocumented and impressionistic; the amount or type of change is almost never measured systematically through quantified methods. The first issue to demand attention is what constitutes change in a ceramic assemblage. Changes in ware types, manufacturing techniques, and relationships between ceramic attributes may indicate something much different than changes in rim morphology, which is most frequently used to illustrate ceramic change. Second, the amount of change must be measured if the significance of that change is to be properly understood. Changes of rim configuration within a form type that are unaccompanied by changes in ware type must be understood as something very different from changes in ware type within a form type that are unaccompanied by any changes in rim configuration. Likewise, a form type can remain constant even though the manufacturing technology changes. Diachronic changes in ceramic assemblages need to be documented through quantitative measurements if ceramic data are to be used to either identify or explain sociocultural changes within the society. The quantification of production traditions is an empirical means by which to measure aspects of change. Functional inferences drawn from ceramic production traditions provide data for onsite activities and site function. For example, the use of locally produced cooking pots indicates that cooking occurs within the site and affirms the production of domestic pottery.

Conclusions

149

Different production traditions, and the production priorities they reflect, indicate the activities of different types of potters. Not all vessels within an assemblage are manufactured by the same potters or by potters organized in the same way. The identification of local and imported pottery is crucial to these determinations. Ultimately, the examination of ceramic production and exchange can be used to understand inter-site relations and provides a more holistic context for an individual ceramic assemblage. There are, of course, no direct means to correlate ceramic change (even if quantified) with abstract notions of social change or with historical events. But as I have demonstrated, hard numbers do correlate with different types of production settings, which in turn are sensitive to larger social, economic, and political factors. The two levels of production organization most frequently detected in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age are the household and workshop levels. The differences between these two levels can be seen in their production priorities, the types of activities associated with their respective products, and the exchangeability of their products. The use of the term workshop organization, in effect, replaces the less precise term of craft specialization. The weakness of the term craft specialization lies in the inability to recognize or determine whether a vessel is the product of an actual craft specialist. A second problem lies in the basic definition of a craft specialist. The terms household and workshop production are broad categories. But they have ethnographically and historically demonstrated distinctions, which have basic contrasts in terms of their intended production scales and which can be quantitatively measured. The vague and arbitrary term craft specialization may thus be completely discarded.

B. Ceramic Industry on the Halif Terrace At the Halif Terrace, utilitarian vessels (cooking pots, storage containers, and serving vessels) are produced at the household level. At this level, production and consumption are local, intended for the domestic unit of the extended family, and the functional aspect of the vessel is the primary concern; this concern is reflected in the close relationship between form and ware types. There is a clear distinction between ware types used for storage vessels and cooking pots, although morphologically the vessels are the same. Considerations, such as size and decoration, are not prioritized in any way. Innovations that come from the household level focus on the development of highly functional ware types created from local materials. In the Early Bronze I, similar homogeneous ware types are developed and/or spread throughout all the Southern Levant. While each clearly reflects a local origin, they all utilize the same types of materials in similar combinations. However, though the ware type might be relatively homogeneous, forms types and decoration traditions are highly regionalized. It is likely that innovations of these latter two attributes are stimulated by workshops and not households. Production traditions and production organizations do not develop in a clearly linear trajectory. The development of a workshop level of organization may be instigated by an

150

Conclusions

elite interested in the production of symbols or of iconographically infused objects. However, as seen at the Halif Terrace, once workshops are established, they are able to continue without elite support or interest. Conversely, a preexisting workshop may be co-opted for use by elites in search of the means to effectively control commercial and/or industrial mechanisms. Workshop production, as seen at the Halif Terrace, concentrated on vessels without wholly utilitarian functions. Workshop production is most clearly observed in the production of straw-tempered beakers and V-shaped bowls. Both of these vessels typify workshop production traditions, such as the restricted use of specific ware types, innovative manufacturing techniques, size standardization, and an adherence to a strict decorative vocabulary. These production traditions are rarely found at the household level of production. The existence of these production traditions can be extrapolated to other sites, where similar varieties of vessels are also found. In the case of V-shaped bowls, a clearly symbolic or religious function is suggested. These bowls are found in mortuary and religious contexts and have been cited (Levy 1986) as evidence for social stratification in Chalcolithic society. This suggests a link between emerging elites, ceramic prestige items, and the workshops that produced them. In contrast, there is no demonstrable relationship between elites and household production. The function of straw-tempered beakers is more difficult to assess. The unusual function and importance of the straw-tempered beaker may not have been fully appreciated had they not been found to comprise more than 30% of the Levantine rim assemblage in Phases 10–8, and then subsequently disappeared in Phase 7/6. Their distinct temporal distribution and quantity suggests a large scale production of standardized vessels. In this case, standardization is visible in the overall production consistency, combining attributes of size, ware type, manufacturing technology, and form type. Unfortunately, comparative data is not as forthcoming regarding this form type, and thus it only can be suggested that these vessels have a specialized and/or nonutilitarian function. A similar two-tier organization of production is also found in other Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I craft industries, such as metallurgy, ground stone, and chipped stone. Household production concentrates on the production of utilitarian items for local usage. Workshop production is concerned with prestige items and on the procurement and exchange of restricted resources and technologies. While workshop products are sometimes manipulated by elites, it is not presumed that craft workshops are necessarily created by, and exist exclusively for, elite structures. This conclusion stands in contrast to many previous analyses (e.g., Peregrine 1991). In the Chalcolithic, there is a distinct bifurcation of most craft industries into household and workshop levels. This coincides with the development of a more-stratified society when compared to that of the Neolithic or even Early Bronze IA. Additionally, the products of such workshops are not found in the Neolithic, although specialized production of lithics is widely attested. This suggests that the development of ceramic workshops may indeed be linked to the development of social stratification and the rise of elite structures. In the Early Bronze I, Chalcolithic elite structures were abandoned, and many workshop products were no longer manufactured. There is, however, the continuation of some workshop production, especially in the Early Bronze IA, where at the Halif Terrace V-shaped bowls continue

Conclusions

151

to be produced. But the use context of these vessels is much different than in the Chalcolithic; they do not appear as grave goods or in cultic contexts but become part of the domestic assemblage. At the Halif Terrace, while Levantine ceramic workshop products are found in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze IA strata, the quantity of these products declines in the Early and Late Early Bronze IB strata. During the Late Early Bronze IB, there is also strong evidence to suggest the presence of Egyptian ceramic workshops. Whether workshops arose independent of elites or whether elites organize workshops remains unclear. The approach used here, however, indicates that the relationship is not automatic. One significant observation from this study is that past assessments that stressed the discontinuity between the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I placed emphasis on material culture that resulted from workshop production. Conversely, assessments that stress continuity have emphasized material culture that resulted from household production. In a sense, both views are correct, but each fails to realize the limits of the data. An important methodological conclusion of this study is that a framework in which production traditions function as a unit of comparison is much more useful in explaining the transitional aspects of ceramic assemblages.

C. Egypto-Levantine relationship in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages The large quantity of Egyptian material at Halif has led to a careful reexamination of the entire Egyptian relationship with the Southern Levant in the 4th millennium. The data from the Halif Terrace do not fit either the traditional conquest or trade models used to explain Egypt’s interest in the Southern Levant. In the Chalcolithic, Egyptian prestige items are found throughout Canaan, and contact is limited, sporadic, and bidirectional. In the Early Bronze IA, Egyptian material is found primarily in southern Canaan and includes prestige items and locally produced pottery and lithics. In the Late Early Bronze IB, an Egyptian presence became entrenched in southern Canaan. Egyptian material culture is limited to imported and locally produced pottery, in quantities that greatly exceed the amount of material found in earlier periods. These changes in the distribution of Egyptian material reflect the evolving relationship between Egypt and Canaan. What began as informal contacts grew into a permanent largescale network of Egyptian communities in Canaan. These communities were probably linked to, if not sponsored by, the emerging Egyptian court. This pattern suggests that the Egyptians were not conducting the same type of bidirectional trade in the southern Levant, as is seen to the north with Byblos. Rather, the Egyptian network in this southern region was a demonstration of political power and cohesion by a newly unified royal structure. It was initiated for the purpose of reifying and solidifying power within Egypt itself. With the initial success of this operation, Egypt exited Canaan quickly and completely and showed little sustained interest in the area through the remainder of the Early Bronze Age.

Plate and Description Conventions The line drawings of pottery that follow in Plates 1–20 are referenced throughout this volume by plate numbers (Arabic) followed by a colon and the item number (also Arabic), e.g. Pl. 3:5. Line drawings are all at a scale of 1: 5 unless otherwise noted. Identifications of vessel form types and fabric groups relate to discussions in Chapters Three and Four in the text. Thus e.g. “8:13 Vat – Group 4” The conventions for pottery descriptions are substantially those outlined in Chapter V of A Manual of Field Excavation (Dever and Lance 1978). Pottery descriptions are all presented in the following pattern: (1) Technique: (handmade, wheelmade, etc.) (2) Ware Paste: a. Color (of sherd section in a fresh break using Munsell Soil Color Charts [Baltimore, MD.]) b. Inclusions (sometimes called “temper” or “grit”, measured according to standard type groups as observed by the naked eye): i. “Sand”—appearing as sand particles; a subgroup of this category, involving larger particles, is noted as “wadi gravel” ii. “Lime”—appearing as white chalky limestone particles iii. “Ceramic”—appearing as angular red or black particles of ground pottery (sometimes called “grog”) iv. “Crystal”—appearing as angular translucent or “sparkling” particles v. “Organic”—appearing as straw, or as remnant patterns of straw in the fabric, or as striated black carbon deposits vi. “Shell”—appearing as shell particles or scales (rare since shell bits regularly degrade in firing appearing as “Lime”) Indications as to the size (small, medium, large) and to the frequency of appearance (few, some, many) of inclusions are provided according to established standards. c. Firing (described according to the observable remnant carbon discoloration at the center of the sherd section as either “no core,” “light grey core,” “grey core,” or “dark grey core”) d. Hardness (measured on a threefold scale as “soft,” “hard,” or “metallic” using Moh’s Scale scratch tests) (3) Ware Surface: (Interior and Exterior use the same conventions) a. Color (Munsell) b. Treatment (“wash,” “slip,” “burnish” [including type and decoration], “paint” [including type, either “oxide” or “organic”], and color [using Munsell])

Plates

153

(4) Notations are also added with the descriptions to reference “Sherd Count,” i.e., the number of individual sherds involved in the reconstruction of the vessel, and “Weight (g),” i.e., total vessel weight in grams. Thus, e.g., Technique: wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 6/4 “light reddish brown”; some medium to large lime; grey core; hard. Surface: (Int.) as paste, (Ext.) 2.5YR 5/6 “red” slip, burnished on rim. Sherd Count: 43. Weight (g): 256.

Object descriptions follow conventions developed for the Lahav Research Project. Details of this system are presented in Appendix 27 of its Field Operations Guidebook (Seger 1980). Object descriptions are presented in the following pattern: (1) Composition: The material or materials from which the object is made. Ceramic materials are further described using the pottery conventions. (2) Color: Color or colors using Munsell charts. (3) Dimensions: Three-dimensional measurements in centimeters. Abbreviations used include: L. = length, W. = width, Th. = thickness, H. = height, D. = diameter, cm = centimeters. (4) Condition: Explicit statement of the completeness and stability of the object. Thus, e.g., Composition: bone. Color: 7.5 YR 6/4 “light brown”. Dimensions: L. 0.2 cm, W. 0.6 cm, Th. 0.2.cm. Condition: top broken off; very fragile.

Where appropriate, Israel Antiquities Authority registration numbers are given for objects, e.g., IAA No. 1998–1508.

154

Plates

1:1. Holemouth jar – Group 1 (Cooking Pot) 21/87 S101.100/90.211 No.2 L.100058.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/4 very pale brown; some medium to large sand and crystal; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 10YR 7/3 very pale brown.

1:10. Holemouth jar – Group 1 (Cooking Pot) 21/87 S101.100/90.195 No.22 L.100054 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some small to large wadi gravel, few small to large ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

1:2. Holemouth jar – Group 1 (Cooking Pot) 21/87 S101.90.119 No.4–5 L.90026 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 5/6 yellowish red; few small to large ceramic, graveltype sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as interior.

1:11. Holemouth jar – Group 1 (Cooking Pot) 21/87 S101.100/91/90/101.217 No.4 L.100061.1 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10R 6/8 light red; some small to large lime and ceramic, few small organic and crystal; gray core, hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste; thumb impressed applied molding.

1:3. Holemouth jar – Group 2 (Cooking Pot) 42/92 S101.90.157 No.10 L.90035.1 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; some small to large lime and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. (Exterior): 7.5YR 8/6 reddish yellow.

1:12. Holemouth jar – Group 1 (Cooking Pot; also see 19:5) 42/92 S101.91.136 No.1 L.91068.1 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; many small to medium lime and some small to medium sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. (Exterior): as paste.

1:4. Holemouth jar – Group 1 (Cooking Pot) 21/87 S101.90.115 No.40 L.90027 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large wadi gravel; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

1:13. Holemouth jar – Group 1 (Cooking Pot) 42/92 S101.101.111A No.12 L.101045.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; many small to medium lime, some small to medium sand; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 10YR 6/3 pale brown.

1:5. Holemouth jar – Group 1 (Cooking Pot) 42/92 S101.90.156 No.4 L.90035.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; some small to large sand and lime/shell, few small to medium ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 10YR 7/4 very pale brown; thumb impressed rim. (Exterior): 10YR 8/3 very pale brown.

1:14. Holemouth jar – Group 1 (Cooking Pot: also see 20:8) 10/89.S101.100.266 No.7 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 5/6 red; some very small to large lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, lime wash on rim 10YR 8/2 white. (Exterior): lime wash 10YR 8/2 white.

1:6. Holemouth jar – Group 1 (Cooking Pot) 21/87 S101.100/90/91/101.216 No.1 L.100061.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some large wadi gravel, some medium to large lime; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 7.5YR 5/3 brown, thumb impressed applied molding. 1:7. Holemouth jar – Group 1 (Cooking Pot) 20/86 S101.100.95 No.6 L.100027(Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large crystal; grey core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 1:8. Holemouth jar – Group 1 (Cooking Pot) 21/87 S101.91.59 No.5 L.91040.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; some very small to medium, few large wadi gravel, few small to medium ceramic; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 1:9. Holemouth jar – Group 1 (Cooking Pot) 20/86 S101.100/101.115 No.8 L.100035 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some large wadi gravel, some medium to large lime; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 7.5YR 5/3 brown, thumb impressed applied molding.

1:15. Holemouth jar – Group 1 (Cooking Pot) 46/93.S101.100/101.125 No.8 L.101051.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/3 light reddish brown; many large sand and lime; light gray core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 1:16. Holemouth jar – Group 3 (Cooking Pot) 42/92.S101.100.274 No.4 L.100077.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; some small to medium lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 1:17. Holemouth jar – Group 1 (Cooking Pot) 21/87 S101.101.53 No.1 L.101026.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some medium to large sand and lime; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste; thumb impressed applied molding. 1:18. Holemouth jar – Group 1 (Cooking Pot) 10/89 S101.100.257 No. 1 L. 100073 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5 YR 6/4 light brown; some small to large lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

Plate 1

155

156

Plates

2:1. Holemouth jar – Group 2 (Cooking Pot) 10/89 S101.101.80 No.27 L.101033 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/8 light red; some medium to large lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 10YR 7/4 very pale brown.

2:13. Holemouth jar – Group 3 10/89 S101.91.95 No.8 L.91050 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large gravel-type sand and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 4/4 red. (Exterior): as interior.

2:2. Holemouth jar – Group 2 (Cooking Pot) 10/89 S101.101.76 No.33 L.101033 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some small to very large lime (shell) and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

2:14. Holemouth jar – Group 4 21/87 S101.100.222 No.3 L.100063 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; few small to large lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

2:3. Holemouth jar – Group 2 (Cooking Pot; also see 20:5) 10/84 S101.100.253 No.4 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/4 light reddish brown; some small sand, some large to small lime, few small wadi gravel; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 7.5YR 6/4 light brown.

2:15. Holemouth jar – Group 4 21/87 S101.90.121 No.12 L.90027 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 78/3 very pale brown; few medium to large ceram and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): slip 2.5 YR 4/4 red.

2:4. Holemouth jar – Group 2 (Cooking Pot) 10/89 S101.100.262 No.2 L.100064.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some medium to large lime (shell), few small to large ceramic; light gray; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 10YR 7/3 very pale brown. 2:5. Holemouth jar – Group 2 (Cooking Pot; also see 20:10) 10/89 S101.100.253 No.22 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: made. Paste: 5YR 64 light reddish brown; some small sand, some small to large lime, few small wadi gravel, few large ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 2:6. Holemouth jar – Group 4 20/86 S101.100.77 No.2 L.100022 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.4 YR 6/4 light brown; some small to large sand; grey core; hard. Surface (Interior): 10YR 5/1 grey. (Exterior): slip 10 YR 6/4 light yellowish brown; incised mark (partial). 2:7. Holemouth jar – Group 4 21/87 S101.100/90.195 No.38 L. 100054 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10 YR 8/3 very pale brown; some medium to large sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 2:8. Holemouth jar – Group 4 21/87 S101.90.112 No.7 L.90021 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large sand clumps and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 2:9. Holemouth jar – Group 4 21/87 S101.100/90.195 No.47 L.100054 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; few small to large ceramic and wadi gravel; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 2:10. Holemouth jar – Group 3 10/89 S101.90.133 No.6 L.90030 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10R 4/4 weak red; some small to very large ceramic, few small to large lime and shell; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 5YR 6/2 pinkish gray, applied band molding. 2:11. Holemouth jar – Group 3 10/89 S101.101.92 No.13 L.101033 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 5/6 yellow; few small to large lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, scalloped rim. 2:12. Holemouth jar – Group 4 21/87 S101.90.126 No.16 L.90028 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; few small ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

2:16. Holemouth jar – Group 4 10/89 S101.101.82 No.22 L.101033 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 6/4 light brown; few small to large lime, ceramic, and crystal, few small organic; dark gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste; scalloped rim. 2:17. Holemouth jar – Group 4 42/92 S101.91.174 No.1 L.91081.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; some small to large sand, some small to medium lime, few small to large ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste to 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow, pierced holes. 2:18. Holemouth jar – Group 3 21/87 S101.90.97 No.2 L.90004 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/4 very pale brown; few small to large gravel-type sand, some small to large ceramic; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow. (Exterior): as paste, slip 2.5YR 6/6 light red. 2:19. Holemouth jar – Group 3 21/87 S101.90.108 No.10 L.90021 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; few small to large lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 2:20. Holemouth jar – Group 3 (Also see 20:4) 10/89 S101.100.259 No.5 L. 100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/4 light reddish brown; few medium ceramic and sand; grey core: hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 2:21. Holemouth jar – Group 3 46/93 S101.91.154 No.10 L.91081 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; many medium ceramic, few small lime; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 5/6 red. (Exterior): 5YR 8/4 pink, slip on rim 2.5YR 5/6 red slip. 2:22. Holemouth jar – Group 4 46/93 S101.101/100.125 No.7 L.101051.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/4 light reddish brown; many large ceramic and sand; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): 7.5YR 6/4 light brown. (Exterior): as interior. 2:23. Holemouth jar – Group 3 42/92 S101.100/90.292 No.1 L.100078 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; some small to large sand, few small to medium lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, knobs near rim, incised mark (complete).

Plate 2

157

158

Plates

3:1. Jar – Group 4 20/86 S101.90.50 No.7 L.90005 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; few very small gravel-type sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 3:2. Jar – Group 4 20/86 S101.90.56 No.10 L.90008 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 4/1 dark gray core; few small to large lime, few small organic; gray; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 10YR 7/3 very pale brown. 3:3. Jar – Group 3 21/87 S101.101.18 No.8 L.101015 (Phase 7) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10R 6/8 light red. some small to large gravel-type sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, scalloped rim. 3:4. Jar – Group 5 21/87 S101.90/91.86 No.2 L.90016.P (Phase 7) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/2 pinkish white; few small sand and lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, slip on rim 10R 4/3 weak red. 3:5. Jar – Group 3 20/86 S101.100/101.115 No.3 L.100035 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; few small to large lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 3:6. Jar – Group 3 20/86 S101.100.117 No.7 L.100035 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; few large lime; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 3:7. Jar – Group 3 10/89 S101.101.87 No.8 L.101033 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; few small to large ceramic, few small lime and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): slip 10R 3/6 dark red. 3:8. Jar – Group 3 10/89 S101.91.97 No.13 L.91050 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10R 6/6 light red; few medium to large ceramic and gravel-type sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 3:9. Jar/Mug – Group 4 46/93 S101.90.179 No.3 L.90036.1 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some small to medium organic, some medium ceramic and lime and sand; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): 10R 6/6 light red. (Exterior): 5YR 7/4 pink. 3:10. Mug – Group 4 42/92 S101.90.156 No.3 L.90035.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; some small to medium lime and sand, few small ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 10YR 8/3 very pale brown.

3:11. Jar – Group 3 46/93 S101.91/101.148 No.1 L.91083 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; some small to large lime and ceramic; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 3/6 dark red. (Exterior): as interior, fugitive slip 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow. 3:12. Jar – Group 5 42/92 S101.90.157 No.7 L.90035.1 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; few small lime and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 3:13. Jar – Group 4 (Also see 19:26) 42/92 S101.91.155 No.1 L.91074 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/4 very pale brown; some small to medium sand and lime; light gray core hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 3:14. Jar – Group 3 10/89 S101.100.251 No.1 L.100067 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; few small to large lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, striped wash; 10R 5/4 weak red on 5YR 8/1 white wash. 3:15. Jar – Group 3 46/93 S101.91.172 No.1 L.91081.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; few small lime; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. Exterior): as paste. 3:16. Jar – Group 4 10/89 S101.100.233 No.35 L.100067 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/8 light red; few small to large sand clumps; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 3:17. Jar – Group 3 46/93.S101.90.166 No.5 L.90041.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; many large ceramic and lime; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 3:18. Jar – Group 3 46/93 S101.90.166 No.1 L.90041.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; many large ceramic and lime, some large organic; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 3:19. Mug – Group 3 42/92 S101.101.110A No.5 L.101045.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/4 very pale brown; few small lime, some small sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 3:20. Jar – Group 3 42/92 S101.91.172 No.11 L.91081.P (Phase 10C) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; some small to large sand, some small to medium lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow, (Exterior): 5YR 4/6 reddish yellow, 2 knobs, 2 incised marks (complete).

Plate 3

159

160

Plates

4:1. Jar – Group 4 21/87 S101.91.58 No.1 L.91039 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; few medium to large ceramic, few small to large lime (shell); gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): slip trace 5YR 6/4 light reddish brown. (Exterior): 5YR 7/4 pink, slip 5YR 6/4 light reddish brown. 4:2. Jar – Group 4 21/87 S101.100.187 No.1 L.100057 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; some medium ceramic, some medium to large sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 10YR 8/6 yellow, wash 10YR 8/2 white and Paint traces 2.5YR 4/4 reddish brown. (Exterior): wash 10YR 8/2 white with paint stripes 10R 4/4 weak red. Pajama Ware. 4:3. Jar – Group 4 42/92 S101.90.152 No.1 L.90033.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/6 reddish yellow; some small to large lime, sand, and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, thumb impressed applied molding. 4:4. Jar – Group 4 21/87 S101.90.121 No.24 L.90027 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 4:5. Jar – Group 4 10/89 S101.100.259 No.7 L.100073 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/6 light red; few small to large lime, ceramic, and organic; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): wash 10YR 8/2 white with paint 10R 4/4 weak red. Pajama Ware. 4:6. Jar – Group 3 21/87 S101.90.115 No.12 L.90027 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; some small to large ceramic, few medium to large sand clumps; gray; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as interior, scalloped rim. 4:7. Jar – Group 4 10/89 S101.90.137 No.4. L.90028 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; many large ceramic and lime; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste, (Exterior): as paste.

4:8. Jar – Group 4 10/89 S101.100/101.229 No.13 L.100066 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; few small to large lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, scalloped rim. 4:9. Jar – Group 4 10/89 S101.101.80 No.8 L.101033 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few large lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 4:10. Jar – Group 4 20/86 S101.100.117 No.12 L.100035 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; few small lime and sand; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): wash 5YR 8/1 white, paint 2.5YR 5/6 red. Pajama Ware. 4:11. Jar – Group 4 10/89 S101.101.77 No.6 L.101033 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few medium to large organic, few small to large ceramic and sand clumps; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 10R 4/4 weak red. (Exterior): as interior. 4:12. Jar – Group 4 42/92 S101.91.170 No.2 L.91081.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/6 light red; many small to large sand and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 4:13. Jar – Group 4 10/89 S101.101.92 No.20 L.101033 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; few small to large lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, scalloped rim. 4:14. Jar – Group 4 46/93 S101.101/100.126 No.2 L.101051.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 5/4 reddish brown; many large ceramic and sand; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow, scalloped rim. 4:15. Jar – Group 5 42/92 S101.91/90.168 No.1 L.91081.P (Phase 10C) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; few small to large lime, many small to medium sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

Plate 4

161

162

Plates

5:1. Jar – Group 4 20/86 S101.100.95 No.8 L.100027 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; few small to large ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

5:11. Jar – Group 4 21/87 S101.90.115 No.46 L.90027 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; few small to large ceramic and sand clumps; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, scalloped rim.

5:2. Jar – Group 3 21/87 S101.90.113 No.4 L.90024.1 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few small to large ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, scalloped rim.

5:12. Jar – Group 4 10/89 S101.100.257 No.5 L.100073 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; few small to large lime, few small ceramic and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): wash 5YR 8/1 white with paint 2.5YR 6/8 light red. Pajama Ware.

5:3. Jar – Group 3 20/86 S101.91.13 No.2 L.91009 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 6/2 pinkish gray; few small to large ceramic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 7.5YR 6/4 light brown. 5:4. Jar – Group 3 21/87 S101.91.62 No.7 L.91040.1 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; few small to large gravel-type sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 5:5. Jar – Group 4 10/89 S101.101.80 No. 13 L.101033 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; few small to large ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): slip 2.5YR 6/8 light red. 5:6. Jar – Group 4 21/87 S101.101.39 No.10 L.101024.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/8 light red; few small to large lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, lime wash 10YR 8/2 white. 5:7. Jar – Group 3 20/86 S101.100.87 No.7 L.100030 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/8 reddish yellow; few small to medium gravel-type sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 10YR 7/3 very pale brown. (Exterior): slip 5YR 6/1 gray. 5:8. Jar – Group 4 21/87 S101.90.98 No.2 L.90021 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few small to large lime and ceramic, few small organic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, 10YR 8/2 white wash. 5:9. Jar Group 4 21/87 S101.90.98 No.1 L.90021 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 6/4 light brown; few small to large ceramic and lime; light gray; hard. Surface (Interior): 10R 6/6 light red. (Exterior): wash 10YR 8/2 white with paint 10R 4/4 weak red. Pajama Ware. 5:10. Jar Group 4 21/87 S101.100/91/90/101.217 No.5 L.100061.1 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/6 light red; many small lime; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior) wash 10YR 8/2 white with paint 10R 4/4 weak red. Pajama Ware.

5:13. Jar – Group 3 42/92 S101.90.142 No.2–4 L.90031 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; some medium to small lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 5:14. Jar – Group 3 46/93 S101.91/101.148 No.5 L.91083 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/6 light red; some small to large lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, slip (band) 5YR 8/4 pink, traces of striped wash 5YR 8/1 white. 5:15. Jar—Group 3 42/92 S101.100/90.293 No.4 L.100079.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; some small to large sand grits and lime; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): 7.5YR 7/4 pink. (Exterior): 7.5YR 7/4 pink, scalloped rim. 5:16. Jar – Group 3 (Also see 20:27) 10/89 S101.100.266 No.14 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few very small to large gravel-type sand and lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 5:17. Jar – Group 4 46/93 S101.91/90/100/101.195 No.2 L.91081.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; some small to large lime and sand, few small to medium ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. (Exterior): 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. 5:18. Jar – Group 4 42/92 S101.100/90.291 No.1 L.100079.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some small to large sand clumps, few medium to large gravel—type sand and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 5:19. Jar – Group 3 42/92 S101.91.176 No.1A-B L.91081.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 5/6 red; few small to large lime and gravel-type sand and ceramic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

Plate 5

163

164

Plates

6:1. Ledge handle – Group 4 20/86 S101.100/101/115 No.1 L.100035 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 8/3 pink; some small to medium lime and sand; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): wash 10YR 8/2 white with paint stripes 10R 4/4 weak red. Pajama Ware. 6:2. Ledge handle – Group 4 10/89 S101.90.137 No.6 L.90028 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 8/3 pink; few small to large lime and ceramic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 6:3. Ledge handle – Group 4 42/92 S101.101.106 No.2 L.101043 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; some small to large sand and lime; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 10YR 7/3 very pale brown. 6:4. Vat spout – Group 4 21/87 S101.101.39 No.8 L.101024.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; few small to large lime and ceramic, few small sand; dark gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 6:5 Vat – Group 4 10/89 S101.100.257 Nos.6 and 8 L.100073 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; some small lime, few small to large lime and ceramic; light gray; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): wash 5YR 8/1 white with paint 2.5YR 6/8 light red. Pajama Ware. 6:6. Vat – Group 4 (Also see 20:7) 10/89 S101.100.254 Nos.1 and 3 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/4 light reddish brown; some small sand, few small to medium wadi gravel, few very small ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 7.5YR 7/2 pinkish gray. (Exterior): as paste.

6:7. Vat – Group 4 42/92 S101.91.175 No.1 L.91081.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste, painted rim 10R 6/8 light red. (Exterior): as paste, incised mark (complete). 6:8. Vat – Group 3 42/92 S101.91.170 Nos.1 and 5 L.91081.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/6 light red; many small to very large ceramic and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 6:9. Vat – Group 3 42/92 S101.91.172 No.2 L.91081.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few medium to large ceramic, few small to large lime, many small to large gravel-type sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 6:10. Tray – Group 4 42/92 S101.91.176 No.5 L.91081.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; few small to large lime and gravel-type sand, few medium to large ceramic, few small to medium organic; light gray core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 6:11. Tray – Group 4 46/93 S101.91.214 No.1 L.91081.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; a large pebble sized lime and some small lime with few small organic; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): mottled 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow and 7/5YR 7/4 pink.

Plate 6

165

166

Plates

7:1. Vat – Group 4 10/89 S101.91.105 No.10 L.91046.1 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; few small to large ceramic and sand clumps; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, scalloped rim.

7:11. Vat – Group 3 20/86 S101.90.19 No.7 L.90005 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/6 light red; some small to large ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 10R 5/8 red. (Exterior): as interior.

7:2. Vat – Group 4 21/87 S101.100/90.195 No.5 L.100054 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5 YR 7/4 pink; some small to large lime and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, knob and scalloped rim.

7:12. Vat – Group 3 20/86 S101.100/101.144 No.4 L.100042.P (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few small to large ceramic, few small gravel type sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 6/6 light red. (Exterior): as paste, slip 2.5YR 6/6 light red.

7:3. Vat – Group 4 21/87 S101.100.192 No.5 L.100059 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; few small sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, scalloped rim. 7:4. Vat – Group 4 21/87 S101.90.115 No.18 L.90027 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5 YR 7/4 pink; some small to medium lime and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 7:5. Vat – Group 4 46/93 S101.101/100.130 No.4 L.101053 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; many small to large ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 7:6. Vat – Group 4 42/92 S101.101.101 No.18 L.101043 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; some small to medium lime, few small sand and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, scalloped rim. 7:7. Vat – Group 3 46/93 S101.91.213 No.1 L.91081.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10R 6/6 light red; many small to large ceramic and lime; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 7:8. Vat – Group 4 42/92 S101.101.110A No.9 L.101045.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; few small lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, scalloped rim. 7:9. Vat – Group 4 42/92 S101.101.99 No.5 L.101042 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; some small to medium lime and sand; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): slip 2.5YR 6/8 light red. (Exterior): as interior. 7:10. Vat – Group 3 42/92 S101.100.292 No.1 L.100078 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; some small to large sand and lime, few small to medium ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, striped wash 10YR 8/1 white, incised mark (complete).

7:13. Vat – Group 3 21/87 S101.90.99 No.16 L.90021 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; some small to large ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 7:14. Vat – Group 3 42/92 S101.90.151 No.9 L.90032 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; some small to medium lime, some small sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 7:15. Vat – Group 3 21/87 S101.91.59 No.4 L.91040.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/6 light red; some small to medium, few large gravel type sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 10YR 7/3 very pale brown. (Exterior) as interior, applied molding on rim. 7:16. Vat – Group 3 46/93 S101.91/90.206 No.4 L.91064.1 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; some small to medium ceramic and lime; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): 5YR 8/4 pink, slip on rim 2.5YR 6/6 light. (Exterior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 6/6 light red. 7:17. Vat – Group 3 21/87 S101.100/101.228 No. 5 L.100066 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; some small and few medium ceramic and line; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 7:18. Vat – Group 3 10/89 S101.91.111 No.2 L.91050 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; some small to large gravel-type sand, few medium to large ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): slip 10R 4/6 red. 7:19. Vat – Group 3 10/89 S101.101.95 No.10 L.101040 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large gravel type sand and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): slip 10 R 4/6 red with striped wash 5YR 8/1 white. Drilled hole.

Plate 7

167

168

Plates

8:1. Vat – Group 4 21/87 S101.101.44 No.1 L.101019.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/8 light red; few small to large lime and ceramic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): 5YR 5/1 gray.(Exterior): as paste, lime wash 5YR 8/1 white.

8:11. Vat – Group 3 10/89.S101.101.96 No.5 L.101033(Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/6 reddish yellow; few small to large lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): slip 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. (Exterior): as interior, scalloped rim.

8:2. Vat – Group 4 21/87 S101.91.65 No.2 L.91035 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few small to medium ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

8:12. Vat – Group 3 46/93 S101.91.154 No.7 L.91081 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/2 pinkish white; some small to large ceramic; gray core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 5YR 5/4 reddish brown (Exterior): 7.5YR 8/4 pink, slip on rim 5YR 5/4 reddish brown.

8:3. Vat – Group 3 21/87 S101.91.56B No. 10 L.91039 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; few small to large gravel type sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 8:4. Vat – Group 4 10/89 S101.101.76 No.2 L.101033 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; few small to large lime, ceramic, and organic (shell); dark gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 8:5. Vat – Group 4 42/92 S101.90.149 No.11 L.90032 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/6 reddish yellow; some small to large sand, some small to medium lime; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): 5YR 7/4 pink. (Exterior): 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow, scalloped rim. 8:6. Vat – Group 3 10/89 S101.101.71 No.15 L.101035.1 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; some small to medium wadi gravel, few small lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 10R 4/6 red. (Exterior): as interior. 8:7. Vat/Krater – Group 4 42/92 S101.90.143 No.1 L.90031 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; some small to large sand, some small to medium lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. (Exterior): as paste, slip or rim 0R 4/6 red. 8:8. Vat – Group 4 21/87 S101.90.115 No.19 L.90027 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/4 light reddish brown; few small and some large lime and ceramic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior) as paste. 8:9. Vat – Group 3 10/89.S101.101.87 No.16 L. 101033 Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; some small to large lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): slip 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. (Exterior): as paste, slip on rim 5YR 5/4 reddish brown, traces of burnish. 8:10. Vat – Group 3 10/89 S101.101.71 No.3 L.101035.1 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10 YR 7/3 very pale brown; few small lime, some very small to small sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

8:13. Vat – Group 4 42/92 S101.91.174 No.4 L.91081.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; few medium sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 10R 5/4 weak red. (Exterior): as interior. 8:14. Vat – Group 3 46/93 S101.101/100.124 Nos.1 and 2 L.100068B (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some large sand; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 8:15. Vat – Group 4 42/92 S101.101.110B No.12 L.101045.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; some small to medium sand, few small to medium lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 5YR 7/4 pink. (Exterior): as interior. 8:16. Vat – Group 4 42/92 S101.101.116 No.1 L.101045.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few small to large sand clumps and organic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 8:17. Vat – Group 3 (Also see 19:3) 10/89 S101.91.87 No.1 L.91053.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some small sand and small to large lime, many small to large wadi gravel, few small to medium ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): lime wash 5YR 8/1 white with paint 2.5YR 6/4 light red. Pajama Ware. 8:18. Vat – Group 3 42/92 S101.100/90.293 No.1B L.100079.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; few small lime and few medium sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, combed. 8:19. Vat – Group 3 (Also see 19:1) 10/89 S101.91.118 No.2 L.91053.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/6 light red; some small to large lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, band combing.

Plate 8

169

170

Plates

9:1. Mug – Group 3 20/86 S101.100.117 No.4 L.100035 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; few medium lime and ceramic; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): slip 7.5YR 7/4 pink. (Exterior): as paste. 9:2. Mug – Group 3 21/87 S101.90.115 No.14 L.90027 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5 YR 8/4 pink; some small lime and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 10YR 4/6 red. (Exterior) slip 10YR 4/6 red. 9:3. Mug – Group 4 21/87 S101.90.128 No.2 L.90029 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; few small ceramic, lime, and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): slip 10R 4/6 red. (Exterior): as interior. 9:4. Mug – Group 4 21/87 S101.100/101.228 No.7 L.100066 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some small to large ceramic and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 9:5. Mug – Group 4 21/87 S101.100/101.224 No.7 L.100064.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; few small to large lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, slip 2.5YR 5/8 red.

10YR 8/3 very pale brown, slip on rim 2.5YR 4/4 reddish brown. (Exterior): as interior. 9:13. Squared-rim bowl – Group 4 21/87 S101.100.210 No.4 L.100056.1 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; some small to medium lime and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): slip 2.5YR 4/4 reddish brown. (Exterior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 4/4 reddish brown. 9:14. Squared-rim bowl – Group 3 46/93 S101.101/100.130 No.1 L.101053 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/4 very pale brown; some small to large ceramic, few medium lime; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 4/4 reddish brown. 9:15. Squared-rim bowl – Group 3 21/87 S101.90.125 No.12 L.90023 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 6/4 light yellowish brown; some small to large ceramic; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): 10YR 7/3 very pale brown. (Exterior): as interior. 9:16. Squared-rim bowl – Group 4 46/93 S101.90.178 No.3 L.90041.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; some small to large ceramic and few small lime; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 10R 4/6 red. (Exterior): as interior.

9:6. Mug – Group 4 21/87.S101.100/101.224 No.5 L.100064.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; few small to large lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): slip 2.5YR 5/8 red. (Exterior): as interior.

9:17. Juglet/jug body sherd – Group 3 21/87 S101.100/90/91/101.219 No.2 L.100061.1 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; many small to medium ceramic and sand grit; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): slip 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow, paint 2.5YR 4/6 red, hand burnished.

9:7. Mug – Group 4 21/87 S101.90.128 No.10 L.90029 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; few small to medium lime and ceramic, few small organic and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip 10R 4/4 weak red. (Exterior): as interior.

9:18. Bowl sherd – Group 3 42/92 S101.91.134A No.2 L.91067 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; many small to medium sand, some small to medium lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): striped wash; slip 10YR 8/2 white, and slip 5YR 5/6 yellowish red.

9:8. Mug – Group 5 46/93 S101.91.214 No.3 L.91081.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; few small lime; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 7.5YR 4/4 weak red. (Exterior): as interior.

9:19. Juglet – Group 5 10/89 S101.101.90 No.1 L.101033 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; some small to large sand clumps, few small to large gravel type sand; gray core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

9:9. Mug –Group 5 46/93 S101.101/100.132 No.1 L.101051.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; few small lime and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

9:20. Jug – Group 3 10/89 S101.91.117 No.1 L.91052.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; some small to large ceramic, few small to large lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

9:10. Squared-rim bowl – Group 3 21/87 S101.90.79 No.1 L.90017 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/2 light gray core; few small to large ceramic, few small sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 4/4 reddish brown.

9:21. Jug – Group 4 10/89.S101.101.64 No.13 L.101033 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few small to medium ceramic and gravel type sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): slip 2.5YR 4/8 red. (Exterior): as interior.

9:11. Squared-rim bowl – Group 4 21/87 S101.90.97 No.9 L.90004 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink: few small to large ceramic and gravel type sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 9:12. Squared-rim bowl – Group 3 21/87 S101.100/90.207 No.2 L.100057.1 (Phase 8) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; some medium ceramic, some small lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior):

9:22. Juglet – Group 5 (Also see 20:23) 10/89 S101.100.253 No.20 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/6 light red; some small sand, few small lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): slip 10R 5/6 red. 9:23. Cornet base – Group 5 21/87 S101.91.59 No.3 L.91040.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5Y 7/3 pale yellow; few small to large gravel type sand; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): no interior. (Exterior): 10YR 7/4 very pale brown, burnished.

Plate 9

171

172

Plates

9:24. Cornet base – Group 5 21/87 S101.100.184 No.1 L.100057.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): no interior. (Exterior): slip 2.5YR 6/6 light red.

9:28. Stand(?) – Group 3 10/89 S101.100.265 No.1 L.100067 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; few small to large ceramic and gravel type sand; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

9:25. Cornet base – Group 5 21/87 S101.100/90.211 No.12 L.100058.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/2 light gray; few small lime, few small to medium ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): no interior. (Exterior): slip 10YR 6/2 light brownish gray.

9:29. Stand(?) – Group 3 10/89 S101.91.117 No.11 L.91052 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; some small to large lime and ceramic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

9:26. Churn handle _ Group 3 10/89 S101.91.114 No.3 L.91050 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; some small to large ceram, few small lime and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 9:27. Cornet base – Group 5 46/93 S101.91/90.206 No.1 L.91064.1 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 6/2 pinkish gray; some small lime and ceramic; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): no interior. (Exterior): as paste.

9:30. Cornet base – Group 3 46/93 S101.91/90/100/101.196 No.1 L.91081.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; some small to medium ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): no interior. (Exterior): as paste, pared.

Plate 10

173

10:1. Cup – Group 4 21/87 S101.90/91.86 No.4 L.90016.P (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few small lime and ceramic and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

10:13. Cup – Group 4 21/87 S101.90.115 No.42 L.90027 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few small to large ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

10:2. Cup – Group 4 20/86 S101.90.61 No.3 L.90012 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10R 6/6 light red; few small to large lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

10:14. Cup – Group 4 42/92 S101.90.156 No.2 L.90035.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; few small lime and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): slip 10R 5/8 red. (Exterior): as interior.

10:3. Cup – Group 4 21/87 S101.90.126 No.18 L.90028 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; few medium to large ceramic; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

10:15. Cup – Group 7 42/92 S101.101.110B No.8 L.101045.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; some small sand and organic, few small lime; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

10:4. Cup – Group 4 10/89 S101.101.95 No.6 L.101040 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 6/4 light brown; few medium to large sand clumps; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste with molded knob.

10:16. Mug – Group 3 21/87 S101.90.99 No.3 L.90021 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; few small to large ceramic, few small gravel type sand; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): 10YR 8/3 very pale brown. (Exterior): 10YR 8/3 very pale brown, slip 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow.

10:5. Cup – Group 4 21/87 S101.101.19 No.2 L.101017 (Phase 7) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 10:6. Cup – Group 5 21/87 S101.101/91 No.42 L.101023.P (Phase 7) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/2 pinkish white; few small to large ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. (Exterior): as paste. 10:7. Cup – Group 4 20/86 S101.100/101.134 No.2 L.100035 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few small ceramic and gravel type sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 10:8. Cup – Group 4 10/89 S101.101.71 No.3 L.101035.1 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; few small lime, some very small to small; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, scalloped rim. 10:9. Cup – Group 4 10/89 S101.91.108 No.9 L.91041 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; few medium to large ceramic and sand clumps; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): slip 10R 5/6 red. (Exterior): as interior. 10:10. Cup – Group 4 10/89 S101.90.135 No.11 L.90030 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; few large ceramic and sand clumps; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 10:11. Cup – Group 5 (Also see 20:11) 10/89 S101.100.259 No.3 L.100070.1 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; few medium ceramic and sand clumps; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 10:12. Cup – Group 4 10/89 S101.101.61 No.19 L.101031 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few small to medium lime, ceramic, and gravel type sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

10:17. Hemispherical bowl – Group 3 10/89.S101.91.100 No.9 L.91040 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 10R 4/8 red. (Exterior): as interior. 10:18. V-shaped bowl – Group 3 10/89 S101.91.97 No.10 L.91050 (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large gravel-type sand; no core, hard. Surface (Interior): 2.5YR 5/6 red, slip on rim 10R 4/8 red. (Exterior): as interior. 10:19. V-shaped bowl – Group 3 10/89 S101.91.97 No.3 L.91050 (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; few very small to small gravel-type sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 2.5YR 3/6 dark red, slip on rim 10YR 4/8 red. (Exterior): as interior. 10:20. Hemispherical bowl – Group 3 10/89 S101.100.264 No.1 L.100074.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/4 very pale brown; few very small lime, very few very small ceramic, few small sand, few very small to small wadi gravel; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 10R 4/8 red. (Exterior): as interior. 10:21. Hemispherical bowl – Group 4 21/87 S101.101.38 No.2 L.101019.1 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 10:22. Hemispherical bowl – Group 3 21/87 S101.91.48 No.1 L.91031.P (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; few small to large sand clumps, few small gravel-type sand; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 10R 3/6 dark red. (Exterior): slip 10R 3/6 dark red. 10:23. Hemispherical bowl – Group 4 20/86 S101.100.94 No.10 L.100030 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR7/6 reddish yellow; few small lime, some small to medium organic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. (Exterior): as interior.

174

Plates

10:24. Mug – Group 4 20/86 S101.100.117 No.15 L.100035 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; some medium organic, few very small lime and very few medium ceramic; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 10:25. Cup – Group 4 21/87 S101.101.39 No.4 L.101024.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/4 very pale brown; few small to large lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

10:26. Jar – Group 7 21/87 S101.100/101.228 No.1 L.100066 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; some medium organic, few small lime and medium ceramic; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

Plate 10

175

176

Plates

11:1. Hemispherical bowl – Group 6 21/87 S101.91.38 No.3 L.91031.P (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 5/1 gray; few very small to small ceramic and gravel type sand; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): 10YR 8/3 very pale brown. (Exterior): as paste. 11:2. Hemispherical bowl – Group 6 20/86 S101.100.94 No.8 L.100030 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; some small to medium sand, few small lime; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 5YR 5/3 reddish brown. (Exterior): slip 5YR 5/3 reddish brown. 11:3. Hemispherical bowl – Group 4 21/87 S101.91.48 No.1 L.91031.P (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; few small to large sand clumps, few small gravel type sand; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): slip 10R 3/6 dark red. (Exterior): as interior. X11:4. Hemispherical bowl – Group 4 21/87 S101.91.48 No.5 L.91031.P (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/6 light red; few small organic; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 11:5. Hemispherical bowl – Group 5 21/87 S101.91.48 No.4 L.91031.P (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; few very small to medium ceramic and gravel type sand; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 7.5YR 8/2 pinkish white, slip on rim 2.5YR 4/8 red. 11:6. Hemispherical bowl – Group 4 20/86 S101.90.54 No.3 L.90005 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large lime and ceramic; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 11:7. Hemispherical bowl – Group 3 21/87 S101.101/91.41 No.13 L.101020 (Phase 7) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10R 8/4 very pale brown; few very small and large gravel type sand and lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 11:8. Hemispherical bowl – Group 3 21/87 S101.101.19 No.4 L.101071 (Phase 7) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few very small to large ceramic and lime (shell); no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 10YR 8/3 very pale brown. (Exterior): as interior. 11:9. Hemispherical bowl – Group 4 21/87 S101.100/90.205 No.2 L.100057.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10R 6/6 light red; some small lime; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste with vertical bands of 2.5YR 5/8 red slip. (Exterior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 5/8 red slip. Line Group Painted Ware. 10:10. Hemispherical bowl – Group 4 21/87 S101.100/90.205 No.1 L.100057.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large line and ceramic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 4/4 reddish brown. (Exterior): as paste with vertical slip bands 2.5YR 4/4 reddish brown. Line Group Painted Ware 11:11. Hemispherical bowl – Group 3 21/87 S101.100/90.195 No.48 L.100054 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; some small to medium sand, few small lime; light gray core; hard.

Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 5YR 5/3 reddish brown. (Exterior): as interior. 11:12. Hemispherical bowl – Group 3 21/87 S101.101.39 No.6 L.101024.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/2 pinkish white; few small to large lime, ceramic, and wadi gravel; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 11:13. Hemispherical bowl – Group 4 21/87 S101.101.27 No.1 L.101019.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; few very small to small lime; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 11:14. Hemispherical bowl – Group 4 21/87 S101.100/101.190 No.4 L.100057.1 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, slip (basket pattern) 5YR 4/3 reddish brown. Line Group Painted Ware. 11:15. Hemispherical bowl – Group 5 21/87 S101.100/91/90/101.200 No.3 L.100056.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; some small to medium sand, few small lime; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 5YR 5/3 reddish brown. (Exterior): as interior. 11:16. Hemispherical bowl – Group 3 21/87 S101.100/90/91/101.219 No.1 L.100061.1 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few small lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 7.5YR 7/4 pink, slip on rim 2.5YR 4/4 reddish brown. (Exterior): as interior. 11:17. Hemispherical bowl – Group 3 10/89 S101.91.124 No.1 L.91064.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some medium to large gravel type sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 5YR 7/4 pink. (Exterior): as interior. 11:18. Hemispherical bowl – Group 4 21/87 S101.100/101.224 No.2 L.100064.P (phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/6 reddish yellow; few small to large lime and ceramic and organic (shell); gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): slip 5YR 5/3 reddish brown. (Exterior): as interior. 11:19. Hemispherical bowl – Group 5 21/87 S101.100/90/91/101.217 No.6 L.100061.1 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; few small to medium ceramic and lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 10R 6/6 light red. (Exterior): as paste, slip stripes on rim and down body 10R 6/6 light red. 11:20. Hemispherical bowl – Group 4 21/87 S101.90.115 No.39 L.90027 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; few medium organic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 11:21. Hemispherical bowl – Group 4 10/89 S101.100.257 No.10 L.100073 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; few small to large ceramic, few small lime, organic and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 5YR 5/4 reddish brown. (Exterior): slip 5YR 5/4 reddish brown.

Plate 11

177

178

Plates

11:22. Hemispherical bowl – Group 4 21/87 S101.90.112 No.8 L.90021 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large gravel type sand and lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 3/4 light reddish brown. (Exterior): as interior. 11:23. Hemispherical bowl – Group 4 10/89 S101.101.75 No.6 L.101033 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/4 light reddish brown; few very small to medium lime, few small to large sand clumps; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 11:24. V-shaped bowl – Group 5 42/92 S101.90.154 No.2 L.90034 (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few small lime and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 6/6 light red. (Exterior): as interior. 11:25. Hemispherical bowl = Group 4 42/92 S101.90.146 No.6 L.90032 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/6 reddish yellow; some small to medium lime and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): slip 2.5YR 6/8 light red. (Exterior): as interior.

11:26. Hemispherical bowl – Group 6 46/93 S101.101/100.125 No.2 L.101051.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; few small sand; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 5/6 red. (Exterior): as interior. 11:27. Hemispherical bowl – Group 5 42/92 S101.100/90.291 No.3 L.100071.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 6/2 pinkish gray; few small to medium sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 5YR 5/4 reddish brown. (Exterior): as interior. 11:28. Hemispherical bowl Group 7 42/92 S101.101.108B No.2 L.101045.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/2 white; some small to medium lime; many small organic; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): 10YR 8/4 very pale brown. (Exterior): 5YR 8/4 pink. 11:29. Hemispherical bowl – Group 4 10/89 S101.100.257 No.9 L.100073 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; few small to large lime and ceramic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 5/6 red. (Exterior): as paste, slip stripes at rim and down body 2.5YR 5/6 red.

Plate 12 12:1. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 21/87 S101.101/91.25 No.6 L.101018 (Phase 7) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; few very small to medium gravel type sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 10YR 4/6 red, slip on rim 2.5YR 4/6 red. (Exterior): as interior. 12:2. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 21/87 S101.91.58 No.9 L.91039 (Phase 8) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; few small to large gravel type sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 4/6 red. (Exterior): as interior. 12:3. V-shaped bowl – Group 5 (Also see 19:7) 10/89 S101.91.99 No.1 L.91053.P (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; few small to medium lime ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 10R 4/6 red. (Exterior): as interior. 12:4. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 10/89 S101.91.124 No.3 L.91064.P (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few very small to medium ceramic and lime (shell); no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 12:5. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 10/89 S101.91.124 No.4 L.91064.P (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few very small to large lime, few small to medium ceramic; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 10R 4/6 red. (Exterior): as interior.

179

12:12. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 21/87 S101.90.118 No.11x L.90026 (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large ceramic, few small sand; dark gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 10R 5/6 red. (Exterior): as interior. 12:13. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 42/92 S101.90.144 No.10 L.90031 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/4 very pale brown; few small lime some small organic; grey core; hard. Surface (Interior): 7.5 YR 7/4 pink. (Exterior): as interior. 12:14. V-shaped bowl – Group 3 46/93 S101.91/90.190 No.1 L.91077 (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 10YR 8/2 white; many medium ceramic, few medium lime; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 5YR 5/4 reddish brown. (Exterior): as paste. 12:15. V-shaped bowl – Group 5 46/93 S101.91/90.190 No.2 L.91077 (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; few small to medium ceramic and lime; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): 5YR 8/4 pink, slip on rim 2.5YR 5/4 reddish brown. (Exterior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 5/4 reddish brown. 12:16. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 46/93 S101.91/90.147 No.8 L.91084 (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; very few very small sand; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, slip on rim 5YR 5/4 reddish brown.

12:6. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 (Also see f19:8) 10/89 S101.91.99 No.2 L.91053.P (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; few small to medium lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim and striped wash 2.5YR 4/6 red. (Exterior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 4/6 red.

12:17. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 10/89 S101.100.257 No.13 L.100073 (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

12:7. V-shaped bowl – Group 5 Bowl base 21/87 S101.90.98 No.7 L.90021 (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

12:18. V-shaped bowl – Group 5 10/89 S101.101.95 No.7 L.101040 (Phase 10) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; none; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 4/4 reddish brown. (Exterior): as interior.

12:8. V-shaped bowl – Group 5 10/89 S101.91.118 No.2 L.91053.P (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large lime and ceramic, few small sand; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

12:19. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 (Also see 20:22) 10/89 S101.100.258 No.6 L.100070.1 (Phase 10) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 10YR 7/4 very pale brown; few very small to medium lime and sand clumps; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 7.5YR 7/4 pink. (Exterior): as paste.

12:9. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 10/89 S101.91.116 No.17 L.91057 (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; few large gravel type sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

12:20. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 (Also see 20:25) 10/89 S101.100.266 No.18 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few small to medium gravel type sand; no core; -hard. Surface (Interior): 5YR 7/4 pink, slip on rim 10R 4/6 red. (Exterior): as interior.

12:10. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 10/89 S101.91.116 No.10 L.91057 (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; few very small to small sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste; slip on rim 10R 4/3 weak red. (Exterior): as interior.

12:21. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 (Also See 20:28) 10/89 S101.100.266 No.19 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few very small to medium lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): slip 2.5YR 6/4 light reddish brown. (Exterior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 6/4 light reddish brown.

12:11. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 21/87 S101.90.110 No.10 L.90021 (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large organic and lime; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 5YR 5/4 reddish brown. (Exterior): slip 5YR 5/4 reddish brown.

12:22. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 42/92 S101.101.111A No.2 L.101045.P (Phase 10) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; some small to medium sand, some small lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 5YR 8/4 pink, slip on rim 10R 4/6 red. (Exterior): as interior.

180

Plates

12:23. V-shaped bowl – Group 4 42/92 S101.100/90.293 No.2 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few small to medium sand and lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim, 10R 5/6 red. (Exterior): as paste. 12:24. V-shaped bowl – Group 3 46/93 S101.101/100.124 No.3 L.100068B (Phase 10) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/2 pinkish gray; few very small ceramic and lime; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 12:25. V-shaped bowl – Group 3 46/93 S101.101/100.124 No.8 L.100068B (Phase 10) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; few medium ceramic; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

12:26. V-shaped bowl – Group 4 46/93 S101.101/100.128 No.2 L.101057.P (Phase 10) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; some small to medium lime, few small to medium ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 7.5YR 8/4 pink, slip on rim 10R 4/4 weak red. (Exterior): as interior. 12:27. V-shaped bowl – Group 3 46/93 S101.101/100.128 No.3 L.101057.P (Phase 10) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; some small to medium sand, few small to medium lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow, slip on rim 10R 4/8 red. (Exterior): as interior.

Plate 12

181

182

Plates

13:1. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 10/89 S101.101.95 No.19 L.101040 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/8 light red; few small to medium organic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

13:10. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 46/93 S101.91/90.176 No.1 L.91064.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; few small to large organic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

13:2. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 21/87 S101.100.211 No.23 L.100058.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 6/4 light yellowish brown; many medium organic, few large gravel type sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 10YR 7/4 very pale brown. (Exterior): as interior.

13:11. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 46/93 S101.90.160 No.1 and No.6 L.90036.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some large ceramic and lime, few medium to large organic; gray core; soft. Surface (Interior): 5YR 7/4 pink. (Exterior): as interior.

13:3. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 21/87 S101.100.211 No.19 L.100058.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 2/0 black; many small to large lime, few small to large gravel type sand, some medium organic; dark gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): 7.5YR 6/4 light brown. (Exterior): 7.5YR 7/4 pink. 13:4. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 21/87 S101.100/90.195 No.28 L.100054 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/8 light red; few small to medium organic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 13:5. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 21/87 S101.100.188 No.2 L.100058.1 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/4 very pale brown; some small lime; dark gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): 10YR 4/1 dark gray. (Exterior): as paste. 13:6. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 4 21/87 S101.100/90.195 No.23 L.100054 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 6/4 light yellowish brown; many medium organic, few large gravel-type sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 10YR 7/4 very pale brown. (Exterior): as interior. 13:7. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 21/87 S101.100.211 No.10 L.100058.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/2 light brownish gray; some small to large lime, some medium organic, few large gravel type sand; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): 7.5YR 7/4 pink. (Exterior): as interior. 13:8. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 20/86 S101.100.117 No.16 L.100035 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; some medium to large organic, few large lime; dark gray core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste, mottled slip 2.5YR 3/6 dark red. (Exterior): as paste. 13:9. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 21/87 S101.90.126 No.17 L.90028 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few medium to large organic; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

13:12. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 46/93 S101.90.160 No.2 L.90036.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some medium to large lime and organic; gray core; soft. Surface (Interior): 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. (Exterior): as interior. 13:13. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 46/93 S101.90.160 No.5 L.90036.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few small ceramic and lime, some medium to small organic; gray core; soft. Surface (Interior): 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. (Exterior): as interior. 13:14. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 42/92 S101.90.156 No.1 L.90035.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 6/3 pale brown to 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; some small to large lime, some small to medium organic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): 10YR 6/3 pale brown. (Exterior): 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. 13:15. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 42/92 S101.90.156 No.13 L.90035.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few small to medium lime and sand, some small organic; dark gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 13:16. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 42/92 S101.90.156 No.12 L.90035.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; some small to medium lime and organic; dark gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow. 13:17. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 21/87 S101.90.125 No.27 L.90028 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; few small to large lime; dark gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 13:18. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 4 10/89 S101.101.82 No.1 L.101033 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large lime and ceramic; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

Plate 13

183

184

Plates

14:1. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 21/87 S10l.90.102 No. 1 L.90022 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; some medium to large organic, few large lime; dark gray; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste, mottled slip 2.5YR 3/6 dark red. (Exterior): as paste, incised marks on base.

14:10. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 42/92 S101.101.11A No.3 L.101045.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; some small to large lime, some small to medium sand and organic; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 2.5YR 6/6 light red.

14:2. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 21/87 S101.90.121 No.1 L.90027 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; few small to medium organic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

14:11. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 42/92 S101.101.121 No.11 L.101043 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; few small lime, few small to medium sand, some small organic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 5YR 7/4 pink.

14:3. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 21/87 S101.90.121 No.9 L.90027 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some medium to large organic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 14:4. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 (Also see 20:35) 10/89 S101.100.253 No.1 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 6/4 light brown; some small sand, few small to large lime, few small to medium wadi gravel; dark gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 14:5. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 10/89 S101.101.95 No.8 L.101040 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 5/6 strong brown; few medium to large organic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 5YR 5/4 reddish brown. 14:6. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 (Also see 20:32) 10/89 S101.100.244 No.13 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large lime and ceramic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. 14:7 Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 21/87 S101.100/101.229 No.11 L.100067 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; few large sand and ceramic; gray core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 14:8. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 46/93 S101.91/90/100/101.200 No.1 L.91081.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/8 light red; few small to large lime, organic; gray core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as past 14:9. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 (Also see 20:37) 10/89 S101.100.253 No.2 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/4 light reddish brown; some small sand, few small wadi gravel, few very small lime; dark gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

14:12. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 42/92 S101.101.121 No.1 L.101043 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/4 very pale brown; some small lime and organic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 14:13. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 42/92 S101.101.121 No.8 L.101043 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/4 very pale brown; few small lime, some small organic; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, traces of slip 2.5YR 5/8 red. (Exterior): 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow, pierced holes. 14:14. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 46/93 S101.91/101.150 No.2 L.91081.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few medium organic, few small ceramic and lime; gray core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 14:15. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 42/92 S101.91.174 No.2 L.91081.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; some small to medium organic, few small to medium sand and lime; dark gray core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste to 7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. 14:16. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 10/89. 101.100.238 No.1 L.100064.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; few small to large lime and ceramic, few small organic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 14:17. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 10/89. 101.100.248 No.1 L.100067 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; few small to medium organic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

Plate 14

185

186

Plates

15:1. Jar – Group 8 20/86 S101.90.25 No.1 L.90005 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large gravel type sand and ceramic, few small to medium lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

15:13. Miniature jar – Group 8 21/87 S101.90/91.83 No.14 L.90019 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/6 light red; few very small lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): slip 2.5YR 3/6 dark red. (Exterior): as interior.

15:2. Jar – Group 8 20/86 S101.90.19 No.2 L.90005 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; few small to medium ceramic, few small sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 10YR 7/2 light gray.

15:14. Jar – Group 8 20/86 S101.90.56 Nos.2, 4, and 9 L.90008 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/4 light reddish brown; few small to large ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): slip 2.5YR 5/6 red.

15:3. Jar – Group 8 20/86 S101.90.19 Nos.5 and 14 L.90005 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/4 light reddish brown; few small ceramic and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 5/6 red. (Exterior): slip 2.5YR 5/6 red.

15:15. Jar – Group 10 20/86 S101.90.24 No.2 L.90005 (Phase 6) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 10R 5/6 red; few small to medium organic; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

15:4. Jar – Group 8 20/86 S101.90.19 No.3 L.90005 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 6/4 light yellowish brown; few small to large lime and ceramic; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

15:16. Straight-sided bowl – Group 8 20/86 S101.100.132 Nos.1 and 2 L.100027 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 6/4 light brown; few small to large lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip 2.5YR 5/6 red. (Exterior): as interior.

15:5. Drop juglet – Group 5 21/97 S101.91.37 No.1 L.91031.P (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 3/2 dark yellowish brown; very fine lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

15:17. Jar – Group 8 20/86 S101.90.23 No.1 L.90005 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few small to medium organic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

15:6. Holemouth jar – Group 8 20/86.101.90.56 No.7 L.90008 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 5/6 yellowish red; few small to large lime and ceramic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): 10YR 8/3 very pale brown. (Exterior): as interior, applied molding.

15:18. Jar – Group 10 20/86 S101.90.48 No.10 L.90004 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 5/4 reddish brown; few small to medium lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): slip 5YR 4/1 dark gray.

15:7. Jar – Group 10 20/86 S101.90.28 No.2 L.90004 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade, wheel finished. Paste: 2.5YR 5/6 red; few small to medium lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 15:8. Jar – Group 8 20/86. S101.90.36 No.2 L.90008.P (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few medium to large gravel type sand; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 15:9. Jar – Group 10 20/86 S101.90/91.50 No.17 L.90005 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade, wheel finished. Paste: 2.5YR 6/6 light red; few small organic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 15:10. Holemouth Jar – Group 8 20/86 S101.90/91.45 No.4 L.90004 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/6 light red; few very small lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 15:11. Jar – Group 8 20/86 S101.90.19 No.6 L.90005 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; few small to medium ceramic and lime, few small sand; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 15:12. Straight-sided bowl – Group 8 20/86 S101.90.48 No.16 L.90004 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 5/6 yellowish red; few small to large lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): slip 2.5YR 3/6 dark red, burnished. (Exterior): as interior.

15:19. Jar – Group 10 20/86 S101.91.13 No.6 L.91009 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 5/8 red; few small lime; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 15:20. Holemouth jar – Group 8 20/86 S101.90.56 No. 5 L.90008 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few small to medium ceramic, few small sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): slip 2.5YR 5/6 red. 15:21. Jar – Group 10 20/86 S101.90.34 No.3 L.90004 (Phase 6) Technique: handmade. Paste: 10R 4/8 red; few small to medium lime and ceramic, few small organic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 15:22. Miniature jar – Group 10 21/87 S101.91.61 No.4 L.91035 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/6 light red; few very small lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 15:23. Jar – Group 8 21/87 S101.100/90.195 No.45 L. 100054 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/4 light reddish brown; few small ceramic and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): slip 2.5YR 5/6 red.

Plate 15

187

188

Plates

16:1. Bread mold – Group 9 20/86 S101.90.36 No.3 L.90008.P (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 6/4 light yellowish brown; few medium to large organic; gray; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 16:2. Bread mold – Group 9 20/86 S101.100.121 No.3 L.100034.P (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10R 6/6 light red; few small to large lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 16:3. Bread mold – Group 9 (Also See 17:22) 20/86 S101.100.121 No.1 L.100034.P (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; many large organic, few very large gravel; light gray core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 16:4. Bread mold – Group 9 (Also see 17:23) 20/86 S101.100.121 No.2 L.100034.P (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; many medium to large sand, lime, and organic; gray core soft. Surface (Interior): 10YR 8/3 very pale brown. (Exterior): as interior. 16:5. Bread mold – Group 9 (Also see 17:21) 20/86 S101.100.116 No.5 L.100034.P (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some to many large organic, lime, and sand and gravel; dark gray core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 16:6. Bread mold – Group 9 (Also see 17:19) 20/86 S101.100.116 No.4 L.100034.P (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some to many large organic, sand and gravel; dark gray core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 16:7. Bread mold – Group 9 21/86 S101.100.87 No.6 L.100030 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/4 very pale brown; some medium to large sand, many large organic; gray core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

16:8. Bread mold – Group 8 10/89 S101.91.116 No.21 L.91051 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few medium to large organic, few large gravel type sand; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, vertical incisions. 16:9. Rolled-rim bowl – Group 3 20/86 S101.90/91.71 No.5 L.90014 (Phase 5) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/4 light reddish brown; few small to large ceramic, few small sand; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 16:10. Rolled-rim bowl – Group 8 20/86 S101.90.48 No.15 L.90014 (Phase 5) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/6 light red; few small to large lime and ceramic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 16:11. Rolled-rim bowl – Group 8 20/86 S101.90.50 No.3 L.90005 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few small to large gravel type sand, few small to medium organic; gray core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 16:12. Rolled-rim bowl – Group 8 20/86 S101.90.25 No.4 L.90005 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few small organic; light gray core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 16:13. Rolled-rim bowl – Group 8 21/87 S101.100/101.11 No.1 L.101007 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 7/2 light gray; few very small to small organic; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

Plate 16

189

190

Plates

17:1. Vat – Group 4 20/86 S101.100.136 No. 3 L.100022 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; many small lime, few large ceramic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, white lime encrusted patches.

17:12. V-shaped bowl – Group 5 20/86 S101.100.120 No.2 L.100022 (Phase 6) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 7.5YR 6/4 light brown; some medium to large sand and ceramics; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

17:2. Holemouth jar – Group 4 20/86 S101.100.136 No.1 L.100022 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; many medium to very large sand and crystal; dark gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

17:13. Holemouth jar – Group 3 20/86 S101.100.135 No. 8 L.100022 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; many medium to very large lime and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

17:3. Jar – Group 4 20/86 S101.100.135 No.2 L.100022 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some small lime and organic, few large sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

17:14. Holemouth jar – Group 5 20/86 S101.100.135 No.9 L.100022 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; many small lime; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

17:4. Holemouth jar – Group 4 20/86 S101.100.116 No.16 L.100034.P (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some small lime, ceramic and organic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 17:5. Holemouth jar – Group 4 20/86 S101.100.77 No.2 L.100022 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 6/4 light brown; some small to large sand and lime; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): 10YR 5/1 gray. (Exterior): 10YR 6/4 light yellowish brown, incised design (partial). 17:6. V-shaped bowl – Group 4 20/86 S101.100.135 No.4 L.100022 (Phase 6) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; some small to medium sand and ceramics, few large sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 5YR 5/3 reddish brown. (Exterior): as interior. 17:7. Hemispherical bowl – Group 6 20/86 S101.100.77 No.1 L.100022 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; some medium to large sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, slip on rim 5YR 6/2 light reddish brown. 17:8. Jar – Group 3 20/86 S101.100.119 No.1 L.100034.P (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; very many very small lime, very few very large sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 17:9. Jar – Group 10 20/86 S101.100.136 No.4 L.100022 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade, wheel finished. Paste: 7.5YR 5/2 brown; few small ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 5YR 6/3 light reddish brown. (Exterior): as interior. 17:10. V-shaped bowl – Group 5 20/86 S101.100.138 No.2 L.100022 (Phase 6) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; some small sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 7.5YR 5/4 brown. (Exterior): as interior. 17:11. Jar – Group 6 20/86 S101.100.77 No.4 L.100022 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few small-medium lime and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

17:15. Holemouth jar – Group 3 20/86 S101.100.101 No. 3 L.100022 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some medium to very large lime and sand; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): lime wash traces 10YR 8/2 white. 17:16. Vat – Group 3 20/86 S101.100.77 No.3 L.100022 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some medium to very large lime and sand; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): 10YR 7/3 very pale brown. (Exterior): as interior. 17:17. Holemouth jar – Group 1 (Cooking pot) 20/86 S101.100.137 No.1 L.100034.1 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/2 pinkish gray; many medium to very large sand and crystal; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 17:18. Holemouth jar – Group 1 (Cooking pot) 20/86 S101.100.136 No.1 L.100022 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some small to very large sand; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): 10YR 7/3 very pale brown. (Exterior): as interior. 17:19. Bread mold – Group 9 (Also see 16:6) 20/86 S101.100.116 No.4 L.100034.P (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some to many large organic, sand and gravel; dark gray core; soft. Surface (Interior): 7.5YR 7/2 pinkish gray. (Exterior): as interior slip. 17:20. Bread mold – Group 9 20/86 S101.100.77 No.6 L.100022 (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/4 very pale brown; some medium to large sand, many large organic; gray core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 17:21. Bread mold – Group 9 (Also see 16:5) 20/86 S101.100.116 No.5 L.100034.P (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some to many large organic, lime, sand and gravel; dark gray core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste, wet smoothed. (Exterior): as paste. 17:22. Bread mold – Group 9 (Also see 16:3) 20/86 S101.100.121 No.1 L.100034.P (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; many large organic, few very large gravel; light gray core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste, wet smoothed. (Exterior): as paste. 17:23. Bread mold – Group 9 (Also see 16:4) 20/86.S101.100.121 No.2 L.100034.P (Phase 6) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; many medium tolarge sand, lime, and organic; gray core, soft. Surface (Interior): 10YR 7/3–8/3 very pale brown. (Exterior): as interior.

Plate 17

191

192

Plates

18:1. Holemouth jar – Group 3 21/87 S101.101.148 No.1 L.101025.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/2 pinkish gray; some medium to large sand and lime; dark gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

18:13. Hemispherical bowl – Group 5 21/87 S101.101.50 No.5 L.101025.1 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/4 very pale brown; many very small sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

18:2. Holemouth jar – Group 3 21/87 S101.101.46 No.1 L.101025.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/3 pink; some small to large sand; dark gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

18:14. Jar – Group 3 21/87 S101.101.50 No.1 L.101025.1 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 4/0 dark gray; some small to medium sand and ceramic; dark gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): slip 2.5YR 5/4 reddish brown. (Exterior): as interior, lime wash traces 10YR 8/1 white.

18:3. Vat – Group 4 21/87 S101.101.46 No.13 L.101025.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/2 pinkish gray; many medium to large sand and ceramic; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): lime wash 10YR 8/1 white. 18:4. V-shaped bowl – Group 4 21/87 S101.101.48 No.13 L.101025.P (Phase 8) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; many small sand and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): slip 7.5YR 6/4 light brown. (Exterior): as paste. 18:5. V-shaped bowl – Group 5 21/87 S101.101.48 No.11 L.101025.P (Phase 8) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/2 pinkish gray; some medium sand; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 6/6 red. (Exterior): as interior. 18:6. Hemispherical bowl – Group 6 21/87 S101.101.48 No.16 L.101025.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; very many small lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 18:7. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 21/87 S101.101.48 No.2 L.101025.P (Phase 8) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 6/4 light reddish brown; many small lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, lime wash 10YR 8/1 white and slip 5YR 5/6 yellowish red.

18:15. Holemouth jar – Group 1 (Cooking pot) 21/87 S101.101.53 No.1 L.101026.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; some medium to large sand and crystal; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, thumb impressed applied molding. 18:16. Hemispherical bowl – Group 6 21/87 S101.101.49 No.3 L.101026.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; many small lime and sand, few medium-large ceramic; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 18:17. Jar – Group 3 21/87 S101.101.49 No.2 L.101026.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/8 light red; some small and few large lime and sand; dark gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): slip 2.5YR 6/6 light red. (Exterior): as interior. 18:18. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 21.87 S101.91.75 No.2 L.91046.P (Phase 8) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 7.5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; few small lime and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 7.5YR 7/4 pink. (Exterior): as interior. 18:19. Vat – Group 3 21/87 S101.91/75 No.1 L.91046.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some medium to large lime and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

18:8. Jar – Group 6 21/87 S101.101.46 No.6 L.101025.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some small sand and lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): slip 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow.

18:20. Holemouth jar – Group 4 21/87 S101.101.49 No.1 L.101026.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some medium sand, few large sand and ceramic; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): slip 10YR 7/3 very pale brown. (Exterior): as interior.

18:9. Jar – Group 6 21/87 S101.101.48 No.3 L.101025.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some small lime, few large lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, wash traces 10YR 8/1 white. (Exterior): wash 10YR 8/1 white with paint 5YR 5/6 yellowish red. Pajama Ware.

18:21. Vat – Group 4 10/89 S101.91.105 No.10 L.91046.1 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; some medium-large sand and ceramic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, scalloped rim. (Exterior): as interior

18:10. Jar – Group 6 21/87 S101.101.48 No.7 L.101025.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/4 very pale brown; some medium to large sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, slip traces 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow. 18:11. Juglet – Group 5 21/87 S101.101.46 No.15 L.101025.P (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; many small lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 18:12. Holemouth jar – Group 3 21/87 S101.101.47 No.2 L.101025.1 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 4/1 dark gray; some small to large lime and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

18:22. Jar – Group 4 21/87 S101.101.52 No.1 L.101026.1 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; some medium to large sand, lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): slip 7.5YR 5/6 red. 18:23. Holemouth jar – Group 4 21/87 S101.101.52 No.3 L.101026.1 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some medium to large sand and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 18:24. Vat – Group 3 21/87 S101.91.76 No.2 L.91046.1 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; some medium to very large sand and lime; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior):

Plate 18

193

194

Plates

10YR 7/3 very pale brown. (Exterior): 10YR 5/4 gray to 5/1 dark gray.

(Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, fragmentary remnant of applied molding band.

18:25. Vat – Group 6 21/87 S101.101.52 No.2 L.101026.1 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/2 pinkish white; very many very small lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): lime wash 10YR 8/1 white with painted band traces 5YR 5/6 yellowish red. Pajama Ware.

18:28. Jar – Group 3 21/87 S101.101.52 No.5 L.101026.1 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; some large sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 10YR 8/3 very pale brown. (Exterior): as interior.

18:26. Vat – Group 4 21/87 S101.101.52 No.6 L.101026.1 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; some large to very large sand and ceramic; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 18:27. Holemouth jar – Group 3 21/87 S101.101.52 No.7 L.101026.1 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some to many medium to large sand and lime; dark gray core; hard. Surface

18:29. Vat – Group 4 10/89 S101.91.105 No.11 L.91046.1 (Phase 8) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; some small to medium lime, sand, and ceramic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, scalloped rim.

Plate 19

195

19:1. Vat – Group 3 (Also see 8:19) 10/89 S101.91.118 No.1 L.91053.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/6 light red; some small to large lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, band combing.

19:12. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 10/89 S101.91.118 No.2 L.91052.P (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; some small to medium sand and lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 10YR 6/2 light brownish gray.

19:2. Holemouth jar – Group 3 10/89 S101.91.87 No.2 L.91053.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 5/2 grayish brown; some small lime, few small sand; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

19:13. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 10/89 S101.91.122 No.1 L.91053.1 (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; few small sand and lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 4/6 red. (Exterior): as interior.

19:3. Vat – Group 3 (Also see 8:17) 10/89 S101.91.87 No.1 L.91053.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some small sand and small to large lime, many small to large wadi gravel, few small to medium ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): lime wash 5YR 8/1 white with slip 2.5YR 6/4 light red. Pajama Ware.

19:14. Jar – Group 4 42/92 S101.91/90.149 No.13 L.91074 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; some small to medium ceramic, lime and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 7.5YR 6/4 light brown. (Exterior): as paste.

19:4. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 10/89 S101.91.122 No.2 L.91053.1 (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; some small to medium sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 4/6. (Exterior): as interior. 19:5. Holemouth jar – Group 1 (Cooking pot; also see 1:12) 42/92 S101.91.136 No.1 L.91068.1 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; many small to medium lime and some small to medium sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. (Exterior): as paste. 19:6. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 42/92 S101.91/101.147 No.2 L.91068.P (Phase 9) Technique: Mold and handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; some small lime and organic; dark gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): 10YR 7/4 very pale brown. (Exterior): as paste. 19:7. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 (Also see 12:3) 10/89 S101.91.99 No.1 L.91053.P (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; few small to medium lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 10YR 4/6 red. (Exterior): as interior. 19:8. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 Also see 12:6) 10/89 S101.91.99 No.2 L.91053.P (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; few small to medium lime and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim and striped vertically 2.5YR 4/6 red. (Exterior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 4/6 red. 19:9. Hemispherical bowl – Group 6 10/89 S101.91.99 No.3 L.91053.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; some small lime and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 4/6 red. (Exterior): as interior. 19:10. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 42/92 S101.91/101.147 No.1 L.91068.P (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; some small lime; dark gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. (Exterior): as paste. 19:11. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 10/89 S101.91.87 No.3 L.91053.P (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; some small-medium lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

19:15. Jar – Group 3 42/92 S101.91/90.150 No.10 L.91074 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; many small to edium sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 19:16. Jar – Group 4 42/92 S101.91/90.149 No.11 L.91074 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/8 light red yellow; some small to medium ceramics, sand, and lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. 19:17. Vat – Group 6 42/92 S101.91/90.150 No.9 L.91074 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 6/6 brownish yellow; some small to medium lime and sand; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): 10YR 6/3 pale brown. (Exterior): 10YR 4/0 light brownish gray. 19:18. Hemispherical bowl – Group 6 42/92 S101.91/90.149 No.10 L.91074 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; some lime and organic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 7.5YR 8/4 pink. 19:19. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 42/92 S101.91/90.150 No.6 L.91074 Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; some sand; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 6/7 light red. (Exterior): as interior. 19:20. Vat – Group 6 42/92 S101.91/90.150 No.7 L.91074 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; some small to medium sand, few small to medium lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 2.5YR 8/4 pink, slip on rim 2.5YR 5/4 reddish brown. (Exterior): as interior. 19:21. Jar – Group 4 42/92 S101.91/90.149 No.9 L.91074 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/1 white; some sand and ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 19:22. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 42/92 S101.91/90.150 No.2 L.91074 (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 10YR 8/3 very pale brown; some small to medium sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. (Exterior): as interior.

196

Plates

19:23. Holemouth jar – Group 3 42/92 S101.91/90.149 No.15 L.91074 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/6 light red; some small to medium lime and shell; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 7.5YR 6/4 light brown. (Exterior): 5YR 7/4 pink.

19:30. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 42/92 S101.91/90.149 No.1 L.91074 (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; few small sand and lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 7.5YR 8/4 pink, slip on rim 2.5YR 5/6 red. (Exterior): as paste.

19:24. Holemouth Jar – Group 3 42/92 S101.91/100.149 No.17 L.91074 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/4 light reddish brown; some small to many small to medium shell, lime and sand; dark gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

19:31. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 42/92 S101.91/90.150 No.14 L.91074 (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 7.5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; some small to medium sand and lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. (Exterior): 10YR 6/2 light brownish gray.

19:25. Holemouth jar – Group 3 42/92 S101.91/90.150 No.4 L.91074 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 5/2 grayish brown; some small to medium sand and lime; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): 10YR 7/3 very pale brown. (Exterior): 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow. 19:26. Jar – Group 4 (Also see 3:13) 42/92 S101.91/90.155 No.1 L.91074 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/4 very pale brown; some small to medium sand and lime; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

19:32. Hemispherical bowl – Group 6 42/92 S101.91/90.150 No.11 L.91074 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; some small to medium sand, few small lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, slip on rim 5YR 4/2 dark reddish gray. 19:33. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 42/92 S101.91/90.150 No.12 L.91074 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; some small to medium lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

19:27. Holemouth jar – Group 4 42/92 S101.91/90.149 No.5 L.91074 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/6 reddish yellow; few small to medium ceramic, some small lime and sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 7.5YR 8/4 pink. (Exterior): 5YR 8/4 pink.

19:34. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 42/92 S101.91/90.150 No.5 L.91074 (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; some small sand and lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

19:28. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 42/92 S101.91/90.150 No.15 L.91074 (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 8/4 pink; some small to medium sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5YR 4/6 red. (Exterior): as interior.

19:35. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 42/92 S101.91/90.150 No.13 L.91074 (Phase 9) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 7.6 reddish yellow; some small sand and lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow.

19:29. Mug – Group 6 42/92 S101.91/90.149 No.6 L.91074 (Phase 9) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/6 reddish yellow; some small sand, few small lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 7.5R 4/6 red. (Exterior): as interior.

Plate 19

197

198

Plates

20:1. Vat – Group 4 10/89 S101.100.244 No.28 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; few small to large lime and ceramic, few small sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): lime wash 10YR 8/2 white.

20:12. Jar – Group 4 10/89 S101.100.266 No.10 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few very small ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

20:2. Vat – Group 4 10/89 S101.100.244 No.16 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large lime and ceramic, few small sand; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste, scalloped rim.

20:13. Holemouth jar – Group 2 (Cooking pot) 10/89 S101.100.244 No.3 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; some small to very large lime and ceramic; dark gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 2.5YR 5/4 reddish brown, thumb impressed applied molding.

20:3. Vat – Group 4 10/89 S101.100.255 No.1 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; medium to large lime and sand; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 20:4. Holemouth jar – Group 2 (Cooking pot; also see 2:20) 10/89 S101.100.259 No.5 L.100070.1 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/4 light reddish brown; few medium ceramic and sand; grey core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

20:14. Vat – Group 3 10/89 S101.100.259 No.4 L.100070.1 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some small to large ceramic and lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste. 20:15. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 10/89 S101.100.253 No.23 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; many medium to large sand and lime; dark gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

20:5. Holemouth jar – Group 2 (Cooking pot; also see 2:3) 10/84 S101.100.253 No.4 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/4 light reddish brown; some small sand, some large to small lime, few small wadi gravel; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 7.5YR 6/4 light brown.

20:16. Holemouth jar – Group 4 10/89 S101.100.244 No.5 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; few small to large lime and ceramic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

20:6. Juglet – Group 5 10/89 S101.100.244 No.40 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/6 light red; some small to very large lime; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): slip trace 7.5YR 7/4 pink.

20:17. Vat – Group 3 10/89 S101.100.266 No.6 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/4 very pale brown; few very small to large lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

20:7. Vat – Group 4 (Also see 6:6) 10/89 S101.100.254 Nos.1 and 3 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/4 light reddish brown: some small sand, few small to medium wadi gravel and very small ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 7.5 YR 7/2 pinkish gray. (Exterior): as paste.

20:18. Vat – Group 4 10/89 S101.100.253 No.3 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; some small sand and wadi gravel, few small to medium lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

20:8. Holemouth jar – Group 1 (Cooking pot; also see 1:14) 10/89 S101.100.266 No.7 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 5/6 red; some very small to large lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, lime wash on rim 10YR 8/2 white. (Exterior): lime wash 10YR 8/2 white. 20:9. Cup – Group 3 10/89 S101.100.253 No.19 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow; some small sand, few small to medium wadi gravel and lime; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

20:19. Jar – Group 4 10/89 S101.100.258 No.9 L.100070.1 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large ceramic and lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste, slip on rim 10R 6/6 light red. (Exterior): as paste, slip 10R 6/6 light red. 20:20. Vat – Group 3 10/89 S101.100.258 No.1 L.100070.1 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 8/4 very pale brown; few medium to large ceramic and sand clumps; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): 7.5YR 7/4 pink and 10YR 8/3 very pale brown. (Exterior): as paste.

20:10. Holemouth jar – Group 2 (Cooking pot; Also see 2:5) 10/89 S101.100.253 No.22 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Hard core. Paste: 5YR 6/4 light reddish brown; some small sand, some small to large lime; few small wadi gravel, few large ceramic; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

20:21. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 10/89 S101.100.255 No.2 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; some small sand and wadi gravel; few small to medium lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

20:11. Cup – Group 5 (Also see 10:11) 10/89 S101.100.259 No.3 L.100070.1 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 8/4 pink; few medium ceramic and sand clumps; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

20:22. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 (Also see 13:19) 10/89 S101.100.258 No.6 L.100070.1 (Phase 10) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 10YR 7/4 very pale brown; few very small to medium lime and sand clumps; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 7.5YR 7/4 pink. (Exterior): as paste.

Plate 20

199

200

Plates

20:23. Juglet – Group 5 (Also see 9:22) 10/89 S101.100.253 No.20 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/6 light red; some small sand, few small lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): slip 10R 5/6 red.

20:31. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 10/89 S101.100.253 No.13 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/6 light red; some small sand, few very small lime; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

20:24. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 10/89 S101.100.266 No.26 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 5YR 7/4 pink; some very small to medium lime and shell; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

20:32. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 (Also see 14:6) 10/89 S101.100.244 No.13 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few small to large lime and ceramic; gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow.

20:25. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 (Also see 12:20) 10/89 S101.100.266 No.18 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few small to medium gravel-type sand; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 5YR 7/4 pink, slip on rim 10YR 4/6 red. (Exterior): as interior

20:33. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 10/89 S101.100.253 No.9 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/6 light red; some small sand, few lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): 7.5YR 7/4 pink. (Exterior): 2.5YR 6/6 light red.

20:26. Vat – Group 4 10/89 S101.100.259 No.2 L.100070.1 (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/8 light red; few medium to large organic, few very small to medium lime; no core; soft. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

20:34. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 10/89 S101.100.244 No.1 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 10YR 7/3 very pale brown; few small to very large lime; light gray; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): 5YR 7/4 pink.

20:27. Jar – Group 4 (Also see 5:16) 10/89 S101.100.266 No.14 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few very small to large gravel-type sand and lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

20:35. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 (Also see 14:4) 10/89 S101.100.253 No.1 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 6/4 light brown; some small sand, few small to large lime, few small to medium wadi gravel; dark gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

20:28. V-shaped bowl – Group 6 (Also see 12:21) 10/89 S101.100.266 No.19 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Wheelmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; few very small to medium lime; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): slip 2.5YR 6/4 light reddish brown. (Exterior): as paste, slip on rim 2.5 YR 5/4 light reddish brown.

20:36. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 10/89 S101.100.253 Nos. 6, 11 and 12 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): 7.5YR 7/4 pink, as paste on rim. (Exterior): as paste.

20:29. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 10/89 S101.100.253 No.18 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 2.5YR 6/6 light red; some small sand, few very small lime; light gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

20:37. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 (Also see 14:9) 10/89 S101.100.253 No.2 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 5YR 6/4 light reddish brown; some small sand, few small wadi gravel, few very small lime; dark gray core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

20:30. Straw-tempered beaker – Group 7 10/89 S101.100.253 No.7 L.100070.P (Phase 10) Technique: Handmade. Paste: 7.5YR 7/4 pink; some small sand, few small wadi gravel; no core; hard. Surface (Interior): as paste. (Exterior): as paste.

Works Cited Abel, F. M. 1938 Geographie de la Palestine. Tome II. Paris: Gabalda. Adams, R. B. 2002 From Farmers to Factories: The Development of Copper Production at Faynan, Southern Jordan, during the Early Bronze Age. Pp. 21–32 in Metals and Society, ed. B. S. Ottaway and E. C. Wagner. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series. Adams, R., and Genz, H. 1995 Excavations at Wadi Fidan 4: A Chalcolithic Village Complex in the Copper Ore District of Feinan, Southern Jordan. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 1227: 8–20. Adams, R. McC. 1981 Heartland of Cities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Adams, W. Y. 1984 The First Colonial Empire: Egypt in Nubia, 3200–1200 b.c. Comparative Studies in Society and History 26: 36–71. Aharoni, Y. 1961 Expedition B. Israel Exploration Journal 11: 11–24. 1962 Expedition B: The Cave of Horror. Israel Exploration Journal 12: 186–99. 1979 The Land of the Bible. Second edition. Philadelphia: Westminster. Albright, W. F. 1924a Researches of the School in Western Judea. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 15: 2–11. 1924b Egypt and the Early History of the Negeb. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 4: 131–61. 1929 The American Excavations at Tell Beit Mirsim. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 47: 1–18. 1932 The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim in Palestine, Volume I: The Pottery of the First Three Campaigns. Annual of American Schools of Oriental Research 12. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. 1935 Palestine in the Earliest Historical Period. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 15: 193–234. Algaze, G. 1989 The Uruk Expansion: Cross-Cultural Exchange in Early Mesopotamian Civilization. Current Anthropology 30: 571–608. 1993 The Uruk World System: The Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2001 The Prehistory of Imperialism The Case of Uruk Period Mesopotamia. Pp. 27–84 in Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors: Cross-Cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation, ed. M. S. Rothman. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. Alon, D. 1960 Early Settlements along the Nahal Gerar and Nahal Patish. M’befnim 1: 87–96. (Hebrew) 1972 Lahav. Hadashot Archaeologiyot 41–42: 34–35. (Hebrew) 1973 Tel Halif. Hadashot Archaeologiyot 47: 19–20. (Hebrew)

202

Works Cited

1974 Lahav–Tell Halif. Hadashot Archaeologiyo 51–52: 28–29. (Hebrew) 1976 Lahav–Tel Halif. Hadashot Archaeologiyot 57–58: 36. (Hebrew) 1977a Tel Halif. Hadashot Archaeologiyot 61–62: 40. (Hebrew) 1977b A Chalcolithic Temple at Gilath. Biblical Archaeologist 40: 63–65. 1978 Tel Halif. Hadashot Archaeologiyot 63–64: 57. (Hebrew) Alon, David and Yekultieli, Y. 1995 The Tel Halif Terrace “Silo Site” and Its Implications for the Early Bronze Age I. ºAtiqot 27: 149–89. Alt, A. 1935 Beiträge zur Historichen Geographie und Topographie des Negeb, III: Sharuhen, Ziklag, Horma, Gerar. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 15: 294–324. Amiran, R. 1955 The “Cream Ware” of Gezer and the Beersheba Late Chalcolithic. Israel Exploration Journal 5: 240–45. 1965 A Preliminary Note on the Synchronisms Between the Early Bronze Strata of Arad and the First Dynasty. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 179: 30–33. 1968 Two Canaanite Vessels Excavated in Egypt with Egyptian “Signatures.” Israel Exploration Journal 18: 241–43. 1969a Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Masada. 1969b Canaanite Jars Depicted on Egyptian First Dynasty Wooden Labels and Ivory Inlays. Eretz-Israel 9: 119–21. (Hebrew) 1970a The Egyptian Alabaster Vessels from Ai. Israel Exploration Journal 20: 170–79. 1970b A New Acquisition: An Egyptian First Dynasty Jar. The Israel Museum News, No. 8 vol. 4/2: 88–94. 1974 An Egyptian Jar Fragment with the Name of Narmer from Arad. Israel Exploration Journal 24: 4–12. 1976a The Narmer Jar Fragment from Arad: An Addendum. Israel Exploration Journal 26: 45– 46. 1976b Taur Ikhbeineh. ºAtiqot 11: 105–6. 1977 Excavations at Tell Maºahaz 1975, 1976. Israel Museum News 12: 63–64. 1981 Some Observations on Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Sanctuaries and Religion. Pp. 47–53 in Temples and High Places in Biblical Times, ed. A. Biran. Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology. 1985a The Transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age. Pp. 108–12 in Biblical Archaeology Today. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1985b Canaanite Merchants in Tombs of the Early Bronze Age I at Azor. ºAtiqot 17: 190–92. Amiran, R., et al. 1975 Tel Maºahaz. Israel Exploration Journal 25: 162. 1978 Early Arad: The Chalcolithic Settlement and the Early Bronze City I: First–Fifth Seasons of Excavation, 1962–1966. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1980 The Arad Countryside. Levant 12: 22–29. Amiran, R., Beit-Arieh, Y., and Glass, J. 1973 The Interrelationship between Arad and Sites in Southern Sinai in the Early Bronze II. Israel Exploration Journal 23: 193–97.

Works Cited

203

Amiran, R., and Glass, J. 1979 An Archaeological-Petrographical Study of 15 W-Ware Pots in the Ashmolean Museum. Tel Aviv 6: 54–59. Amiran, R., and Ilan, O. 1996 Early Arad: The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze IB Settlements and the Early Bronze II City, Architecture and Town Planning II: Sixth to Eighteenth Seasons of Excavation, 1971–1978, 1980–1984. Jerusalem: The Israel Museum / Israel Exploration Society. Amiran, R., Ilan, O., and Arnon, C. 1983 Excavations at Small Tel Malhata: Three Narmer Serekhs. Israel Museum Journal 2: 75– 83. Amiran, R., and Porat, N. 1984 The Basalt Vessels of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I. Tel Aviv 11: 11–19. Amiran, R., and Shenhav, D. 1984 Experiments with an Ancient Potter’s Wheel. Pp. 107–112 in Pots and Potters: Current Approaches in Ceramic Archaeology, ed. P. M. Rice. UCLA Institute of Archaeology Monograph 24. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, UCLA. Arnold, D. 1985 Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. As, A. van 1984 Reconstructing the Potter’s Craft. Pp. 129–164 in The Many Dimensions of Pottery, ed. S. van der Leeuw and A. van As. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. 1987 Towards a Corpus of Mesopotamian Pottery. Newsletter, Department of Pottery Technology, University of Leiden 5: 29–38. 1989 Some Techniques Used by the Potters of Tell Hadidi during the Second Millennium b.c. Pp. 41–79 in Pottery Technology: Ideas and Approaches, ed. G. Bronitsky. Boulder, CO: Westview. Asaro, F., Perlman, I., and Dothan, M. 1971 An Introductory Study of Mycenaean IIIC1 Ware from Tel Ashdod. Archaeometry 13: 169–75. Avner, U. 1984 Ancient Cult Sites in the Negev and Sinai Deserts. Tel Aviv 11: 115–131. Badé, W. F. 1928 Excavations at Tell en-Nasbeh 1926 and 1927. Palestine Institute Publication No. 1. Berkeley: Palestine Institute Publications. 1934 A Manual of Excavation in the Near East. Berkeley: University of California Press. Balfet, H. 1984 Methods and Formation and the Shape of Pottery. Pp. 173–201 in The Many Dimensions of Pottery, ed. S. van der Leeuw and A. van As. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Bar-Adon, P. 1980 The Cave of the Treasure. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Barnett, R. D. 1982 Ancient Ivories in the Middle East and Adjacent Countries. Qedem 14. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Bar-Yosef, O., et al. 1977 The Nawamis near ºEin Huderah (Eastern Sinai). Israel Exploration Journal 27: 65–88.

204

Works Cited

Bar-Yosef, O., et al. 1983 The Orientations of Nawamis Entrances in Southern Sinai: Expressions of Religious Belief and Seasonality? Tel Aviv 10: 52–60. Beck, P. 1985 An Early Bronze Age “Family” of Bowls from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 12: 17–28. 1989 Notes on the Style and Iconography of the Chalcolithic Hoard from Nahal Mishmar. Pp. 39–54 in Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene J. Kantor, ed. A. C. Leonard and B. B. Williams. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 47. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Beit-Arieh, I. 1974 An Early Bronze Age Site II Site at Nabi Salah in Southern Sinai. Tel Aviv 1: 14–56. 1980 A Chalcolithic Site Near Serabit el-Khadim. Tel Aviv 7: 45–64. 1981 An Early Bronze Age II Site near Sheikh ºAwad in Southern Sinai. Tel Aviv 8: 95–127. 1983 Central Southern Sinai in the Early Bronze Age II. Levant 15: 39–48. 1984 New Evidence on the Relations between Canaan and Egypt during the Proto-Dynastic Period. Israel Exploration Journal 34: 20–23. 1986 Two Cultures in Southern Sinai in the Third Millennium b.c. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 263: 27–54. Bentley, G. R. 1986 Kinship and Social Structure at Bab edh-Dhraº, Jordan: A Bioarchaeological Analysis of the Mortuary and Dental Data. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago. Ben-Tor, A. 1970 An Egyptian Stone Vessel from Tel-Yoqneªam. ºAtiqot 6: 78. (Hebrew) 1975 Two Burial Caves of the Proto-Urban Period at Azor, 1971. Qedem 1. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University. 1976 A Cylinder Seal from ºEn Besor. ºAtiqot 11: 13–15. 1977 Cult Scenes on Early Bronze Age Cylinder Seal Impressions from Palestine. Levant 9: 90– 100. 1978 Cylinder Seals of Third-Millennium Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Supplement Series 22. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. 1981 The Relations between Egypt and the Land of Canaan during the Third Millennium b.c. American Journal of Archaeology 85: 449–52. 1982 The Relations between Egypt and the Land of Canaan during the Third Millennium b.c. Journal of Jewish Studies 3: 3–18. 1986 The Trade Relations of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 29: 1–27. 1989 New Light on the Relations between Egypt and Southern Palestine During the Early Bronze Age. Eretz-Israel 20: 31–36. Benyon, D. E., et al. 1986 Tempering Types and Sources for Early Bronze Age Ceramics from Bab edh-Dhraº and Numeira, Jordan. Journal of Field Archaeology 13: 297–305. Biran, A., and Gophna, R. 1970 An Iron Age Burial Cave at Tell Halif. Israel Exploration Journal 11: 101–10.

Works Cited

205

Bishop, R. L. 1980 Aspects of Ceramic Compositional Modeling. Pp. 47–65 in Models and Methods in Regional Exchange, ed. R. E. Fry. SAA Paper No. 1. Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology. Bishop, R. L., Rands, R. L., and Holley, G. R. 1982 Ceramic Compositional Analysis in Archaeological Perspective. Pp. 275–330 in vol. 5 of Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, ed. M. B. Schiffer. New York: Academic. Blackham, M. 2002 Modeling Time and Transition in Prehistory: The Jordan Valley Chalcolithic (5500–3500 bc). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Borowski, O. 1975 Tel Halif. Unpublished manuscript. Pp. 1–15. 1976 General Introduction to the Lahav Area. Pp. 1–6 in Lahav Research Project: The 1976 Season, Part I, by J. Seger. Unpublished manuscript. 1988 The Biblical Identity of Tel Halif. Biblical Archaeologist 51: 21–27. Bourriau, J. 1981 Umm el-Gaªab Pottery from the Nile Valley before the Arab Conquest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Braidwood, R., and Braidwood, L. 1960 Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Brandl, B. 1989 Observations on the Early Bronze Age Strata of Tel Erani. Pp. 357–388 in L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze Ancien, part 2, ed. P. de Miroschedji. British Archaeological Reports International Series 527. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Braun, D. P. 1983 Pots as Tools. Pp. 107–134 in Archaeological Hammers and Theories, ed. J. A. Moore and A. S. Keene. New York: Academic. Braun, E. 1985 En Shadud. British Archaeological Reports S249. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 1989a The Transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age in Northern Israel and Transjordan: Is There a Missing Link? Pp. 7–28 in L’urbanisation à l’âge du Bronze Ancien, part 1, ed. P. de Miroschedji. British Archaeological Reports International Series 527. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 1989b The Problem of the Apsidal House: New Aspects of Early Bronze I Domestic Architecture in Israel, Jordan and Lebanon. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 121: 1–43. 1990 Basalt Bowls of the EB I Horizon in the Southern Levant. Paléorient 16: 87–96. 1997 Yifta˙ªel: Salvage and Rescue Excavations at a Prehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 2. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. 2001 Proto and Early Dynastic Egypt and the Early Bronze I–II of the Southern Levant: Some Uneasy Correlations 14C Correlation. Radiocarbon 43: 1202–18. 2003 Southern Levantine Encounters with Ancient Egypt at the Beginning of the Third Millennium. Pp. 21–39 in Ancient Perspectives on Egypt, ed. R. Matthews and C. Roemer. London: UCL Institute of Archaeology / Routledge Cavendish.

206

Works Cited

Braun, E., and Brink, E. C. M. van den 1998 Some Comments on the Relative Dating of Tomb U-j at Umm el Gaªab and Graves 330 and 787 from Minshat Abu Omar with Imported Ware: Views from Egypt and Canaan. Egypt and the Levant 7: 71–94. Braun, E., and Gophna, R. 2004 Excavations at Ashqelon, Afridar – Area G. ºAtiqot 45: 185–241. Brink, E. C. M. van den 1988 The Amsterdam University Survey Expedition to the Northeastern Nile Delta. Pp. 65–114 in The Archaeology of the Nile Delta Problems and Priorities, ed. E. C. M. van den Brink. Amsterdam: Netherlands Foundation for Archaeological Research in Egypt. 1998 Late Protodynastic–Early First Dynasty Egyptian Finds in Late-Early Bronze Age I Canaan: An Update. Pp. 215–21 in Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 82, ed. C. J. Eyre. Leuven: Peeters. 2001 The Pottery-Incised Serekh-Signs of Dynasties 0–1, Part II: Fragments and Additional Complete Vessels. Archéo-Nil 11: 23–100. Brink, E. C. M. van den, and Braun, E. 2002 Wine Jars With Serekhs From Early Bronze Lod: Appellation Vallée du Nil Contrôlée, But For Whom? Pp. 167–92 in In Quest of Ancient Settlements and Landscapes: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Ram Gophna, ed. E. C. M. van den Brink and E. Yannai. Tel Aviv: Ramot Publishing. Bronitsky, G. 1986 The Use of Materials Science Techniques in the Study of Pottery Construction and Use. Pp. 209–76 in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 9, ed. M. B. Schiffer. Orlando, FL: Academic. Brunton, G., and Caton Thompson, G. 1928 The Badarian Civilization and Predynastic Remains near Badari. British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account 46. London: Quaritch. Callaway, J. A. 1964 Pottery from the Tombs at ºAi (Et-Tell). Colt Archaeological Institute Monograph Series 2. London: Colt Archaeological Institute Publications. 1972 The Early Bronze Age Sanctuary at Ai (Et -Tell). London: Colt Archaeological Institute Publications. 1980 The Early Bronze Age Citadel and Lower City at Ai (Et-Tell): A Report of the Joint Archaeological Expedition to Ai (Et-Tell). Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. Callaway, J., and Weinstein, J. 1977 Radiocarbon Dating of Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 225: 1–16. Caneva, I., Frangipane, M., and Palmieri, A. 1987 Predynastic Egypt: New Data from Maadi. The African Archaeological Review 5: 105– 14. Clédat,J. 1913 Les vases de El-Beda. Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte 13: 115–24. Collon, D. 1987 First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Works Cited

207

Commenge-Pellerin, C. 1987 La Poterie D’Abou Matar et de L’Ouadi Zoumeili (Beershéva) au IVe millénaire avant l’ère chrétiene. Les Cahiers Du Centre Recherche Français De Jérusalem Volume 3. Paris: Association Paléorient. 1990 La Poterie De Safadi (Beershéva) au IVe millénaire avant l’ère chrétiene. Les Cahiers Du Centre Recherche Français De Jérusalem Volume 5. Paris: Association Paléorient. Conder, C. R., and Kitchener, H. H. 1883 The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrology, and Archaeology, volume 3, sheets 17–26: Judae. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Contenson, H. de 1956a La Ceramique Chalcolithique de Beersheva: Étude Typologique. Israel Exploration Journal 6: 163–79. 1956b La Ceramique Chalcolithique de Beersheva: Étude Typologique. Israel Exploration Journal 6: 226–38. Costin, C. L. 1991 Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production. Pp. 1–56 in Archaeological Methods and Theory 3, ed. M. B. Schiffer. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Crawford, H. 1973 Mesopotamian Invisible Exports in the Third Millennium. World Archaeology 5: 232–41. Crowfoot-Payne, J. 1968 Lapis Lazuli in Early Egypt. Iraq 10: 58–61. Debono, F., and Mortenson, B. 1988 The Predynastic Cemetery at Heliopolis. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abt. Kairo 63. Mainz: von Zabern. Delougaz, P. 1952 Pottery from the Diyala Region. Oriental Institute Publications 63. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dessel, J. P. 1991 Social Complexity in Fourth Millennium Canaan: A Case Study from the Tell Halif Terrace. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Arizona. 2001 The Relationship Between Ceramic Production and Socio-Political Reconfiguration in Fourth Millennium Canaan. Pp. 99–118 in Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse, ed. S. Wolff. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 59; ASOR Books 5. Chicago: Oriental Institue of the University of Chicago / Atlanta: American Schools of Oriental Research. Dessel, J. P., and Joffe, A. H. 2000 Alternative Approaches to Early Bronze Age Pottery. Pp. 31–58 n Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze of the Southern Levant, ed. G. Philip and D. Baird. Levantine Archaeology 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Dever, W. G. 1981 The Impact of the “New Archaeology” on Syro-Palestinian Archaeology. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 242: 15–29. 1988 The Pottery. Pp. 21–33 in Gezer V: The Field I Caves, ed. J. D. Seger et al. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College Biblical and Archaeological School in Jerusalem.

208

Works Cited

Dever, W. G., and Lance, H. D., eds. 1978 A Manual of Field Excavation. New York: Hebrew Union College / Jewish Institute of Religion. Dever, W. G., Lance, H. D., and Wright, G. E., eds. 1970 Gezer I. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College Biblical and Archaeological School in Jerusalem. Dever, W. G., et al. 1974 Gezer II: Report of the 1967–70 Seasons in Fields I and II. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College Biblical and Archaeological School in Jerusalem. Dothan, M. 1957 Excavations at Meser, 1956. Israel Exploration Journal 7: 217–28. 1959a Excavations at Meser, 1957. Israel Exploration Journal 9: 13–29. 1959b Excavations at Horvat Beter. ºAtiqot 2: 1–42. 1975 Tel Esur. Pp. 426–28 in vol. 2 of The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. Dothan, T. 1982 The Philistines and Their Material Culture. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Dunand, M. 1939 Fouilles de Byblos I. Paris: Geuthner. Dunayevsky, I., and Kempinski, A. 1973 The Megiddo Temples. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 89: 161–87. Eisenberg, E. 1986 Tell Shalem. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 5: 96–97. Eldar, I., and Baumgarten, Y. 1993 Beersheba. Pp. 161–166 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 1, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. Elliott, J. 1983 Lahav Area Survey, 1983. Pp. 1–10 in Lahav Research Project 1983 Season Field Report, ed. J. Seger. Unpublished manuscript. Emery, W. B. 1949 Great Tombs of the First Dynasty, vol. I. Cairo: Government Press. 1954 Great Tombs of the First Dynasty, vol. II. Oxford: Egyptian Exploration Society. 1958 Great Tombs of the First Dynasty, vol. III. Oxford: Egyptian Exploration Society. 1961 Archaic Egypt. New York: Pelican. Endesfelder, E. 1984 Social and Economic Development Towards the End of the Predynastic Period in Egypt. Origins and Early Development of Food-Producing Cultures in North-Eastern Africa. L. Kryzaniak and M. Kobusiwicz, eds. Poznan: Poznan Archaeological Museum. Pp. 95– 100. Engberg, R. M. 1938 Some Characteristics of the Successive Periods. Pp. 143–92 in Megiddo Tombs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Engberg, R. M., and Shipton, G. M. 1934 Notes on the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Pottery of Megiddo. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 10. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Works Cited

209

Epstein, C. 1972 Early Bronze Age Seal Impressions from the Golan. Israel Exploration Journal 22: 209– 17. 1982 Cult Symbols in Chalcolithic Palestine. Bolletino del Centro di Studi Prehistorici 19: 63– 82. 1985 Laden Animal Figurines from the Chalcolithic Period in Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 258: 53–62. 1988 Basalt Pillar Figures from the Golan and Huleh Region. Israel Exploration Journal 38: 205–23. Ericson, J. E., and Stickel, E. G. 1973 A Proposed Classification System for Ceramics. World Archaeology 4: 357–67. Esse, D. L. 1982 Beyond Subsistence: Beth Yerah and Northern Palestine in the Early Bronze Age. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation: University of Chicago. 1984 A Chronological Mirage: Reflections on Early Bronze IC in Palestine. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 43: 317–30. 1986 A Model for the Development and Collapse of Early Bronze Civilization. Unpublished manuscript. 1989a Village Potters in Early Bronze Age Palestine: A Case Study. Pp. 77–92 in Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene J. Kantor, ed. A. C. Leonard and B. B. Williams. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 47. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 1989b A Model for the Development and Collapse of Early Bronze Civilization. Pp. 81–96 in L’urbanisation à l’âge du Bronze Ancien, part 1, ed. P. de Miroschedji. British Archaeological Reports International Series 527. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 1991 Subsistence, Trade, and Social Change in Early Bronze Age Palestine. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization No. 50. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Falconer, S. 1977 The Lahav Regional Survey, 1977. Pp. 1–12 in Lahav Research Project: 1977 Season, Part I, ed. J. Seger. Unpublished manuscript. 1987 Heartland of Villages: Reconsidering Early Urbanism in the Southern Levant. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona. Falconer, S., and Magness-Gardiner, B. 1984 Preliminary Report of the First Season of the Tell el-Hayyat Project. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 255: 49–74. Fargo, V. 1979 Settlement in Southern Palestine during Early Bronze III. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago. Feinman, G. M., Upham, S., and Lightfoot, K. G. 1981 The Production Step Measure: An Ordinal Index of Labor Input in Ceramic Manufacture. American Antiquity 46: 871–84. Fischer, P. 2002 Egyptian-Transjordanian Interaction during Predyanstic and Protodynastic Times: The Evidence from Tell Abu al-Kharaz, Jordan Valley. Pp. 323–33 in Egypt and the Levant: Interrelationships from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium b.c.e., ed. E. C. M. van den Brink and T. E. Levy. London: Leicester University Press. .

210

Works Cited

Frangipane, M. 2001 Centralization Processes in Greater Mesopotamia Uruk “Expansion” as the Climax of Systemic Interactions among Areas of the Greater Mesopotamian Region. Pp. 307–48 in Uruk Mesopotamia & Its Neighbors: Cross Cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation, ed. M. S. Rothman. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. Frankel, D. 1988 Pottery Production in Prehistoric Bronze Age Cyprus: Assessing the Problem. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 1/2: 27–55. Franken, H. J. 1969 Excavations at Tell Deir ºAlla I. Leiden: Brill. 1971 Analysis of Potmaking in Archaeology. Harvard Theological Review 64: 227–55. 1974 In Search of the Jericho Potters: Ceramics from the Iron Age and from the Neolithic. North-Holland Ceramic Studies in Archaeology 1. Amsterdam: North Holland. 1982 A Technological Study of Iron Age I Pottery From Tell Deir ºAlla. Pp. 141–44 in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, vol. 1, ed. A. Hadidi. Amman: Department of Antiquities, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. 1986 The Colors of Pottery. Pp. 15–18 in Pottery and Potters—Past and Present: 7000 Years of Ceramic Art in Jordan. Ausstellungskataloge der Universität Tübingen 20, ed. D. HomsFredericq and H. J. Franken. Tübingen: University of Tübingen. Frankfort, H. 1924 Studies in Early Pottery of the Near East, vol. 1. London: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. Freeman-Grenville, G. S. P., Chapman, R. L., and Taylor, J. E. 2003 Palestine in the Fourth Century a.d.: The Onomasticon by Eusebius of Caesarea. Jerusalem: Carta. Gardiner, A. 1961 Egypt before the Pharaohs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garstang, J. 1936 Jericho: City and Necropolis. Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology Liverpool 23: 67– 100. Geller, J. 1992 From Prehistory to History: Beer in Egypt. Pp. 19–26 in The Followers of Horus: Studies Dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman, 1944–1990, ed. R. Friedman and B. Adams. Egyptian Studies Association Publication 2. Oxford: Oxbow. Gilead, I. 1986 Gerar 100: The Chalcolithic Site. Pp. 75–87 in Land of Gerar Expedition: Preliminary Report for the Season of 1982 and 1983. Preliminary Reports of ASOR-Sponsored Excavations 1980–84, ed. W. Rast. BASOR Supplement 24. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns for the American Schools of Oriental Research. 1987 A New Look at Chalcolithic Beer Sheva. Biblical Archaeologist 50: 110–17. 1988 The Chalcolithic Period in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory 2: 397–443. 1990 The Neolithic–Chalcolithic Transition and the Qatafian of the Northern Negev and Sinai. Levant 22: 47–63 1995 Grar: A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev. Beer-Sheva 7. Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press.

Works Cited

211

Gilead, I. and Goren, Y. 1986 Stations of the Chalcolithic period in Nahal Sekher, Northern Negev. Paléorient 12: 83– 90. 1989 Analyses of Fourth Millennium b.c. Pottery and Stone Vessels from the Northern Negev, Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 275: 5–14. 1995 Chapter Four: Pottery Assemblages from Grar. Pp. 137–22 in Grar: A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev. Beer-Sheva 7. Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press. Glass, J. 1978 Petrographic and Technological Analysis. Pp. 8–9, 43–44, 50–51, 117 in Early Arad: The Chalcolithic Settlement and the Early Bronze City I: First-Fifth Seasons of Excavation, 1962–1966, ed. R. Amiran et al. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Glueck, N. 1945 A Chalcolithic Settlement in the Jordan Valley. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 97: 10–22. Golden, J. 2002 The Origins of the Metals Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean: Social Organization of Production in the Early Copper Industries. Pp. 225–38 in Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium b.c.e., ed. E. C. M. van den Brink and T. E. Levy. London: Leicester University Press. Gopher, A., et al. 1990 Earliest Gold Artifacts in the Levant. Current Anthropology 31: 436–43. Gophna, R. 1968a Ashkelon (Afridar). Israel Exploration Journal 18: 256. 1968b Palmahim. Israel Exploration Journal 18: 132–33. 1972 Egyptian First Dynasty Pottery from Tel Halif Terrace. Museum Haaretz Bulletin 14: 47– 56. 1975 Beersheba. Pp. 153–159 in Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 1, ed. M. Avi-Yonah. London: Oxford University Press. 1976a Excavations at ºEn Besor. ºAtiqot 11: 1–9. 1976b Egyptian Immigration into Southern Canaan During the First Dynasty? Tel Aviv 3: 31–37. 1976c Besor Bridge (“Site H”). Israel Exploration Journal 26: 199. 1980 Excavations at ºEn Besor,1976. ºAtiqot 14: 9–16. 1987 Egyptian Trading Posts in Southern Canaan at the Dawn of the Archaic Period. Pp. 13–21 in Egypt, Israel, Sinai, ed. A. Rainey. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. 1990 The Early Bronze I Settlement at ºEn Besor Oasis. Israel Exploration Journal 40: 1–11. Gophna, R., and Gazit, D. 1985a The First Dynasty Egyptian Residency at ºEn Besor. Tel Aviv 12: 9–16. 1985b A Chalcolithic Flint Implement from Nahal Besor, Site M. ºAtiqot 17: 182–86. Gophna, R., and Lifshitz, S. 1980 Chalcolithic Burial Cave at Palmahim. ºAtiqot 14: 1–8. Goren, Y. 1987a Petrographic Analyses of the Ceramic Assemblage from the Terrace near Kibbutz Lahav, excavated by D. Alon. Unpublished manuscript. (Hebrew) 1987b The Petrography of Chalcolithic Pottery Complexes from Southern Israel. M.A. Thesis, The Hebrew University. (Hebrew) 1988 A Petrographic Analysis of Pottery from Sites P14 and DII. Mitekufat Haeven 21: 131–37.

212

Works Cited

The Beginnings of Pottery Production in Israel: Technology and Typology of ProtoHistoric Ceramic Assemblages in Eretz-Israel (6th–4th Millennia bce). Ph.D. Dissertation, The Hebrew University. 1991b Pottery from the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I Mortuary Sites in Israel: New Aspects of the Development of Ceramic Technology. Eretz-Israel 21: 119–26. (Hebrew) 1995 Shrines and Ceramics in Chalcolithic Israel: the View from the Petrographic Microscope. Archaeometry 37: 287–305. Goren, Y., and Gilead, I. 1987 Petrographic Analysis of Pottery from Shiqmim: A Preliminary Report. Pp. 411–18 in Shiqmim I, ed. T. E. Levy. British Archaeological Series International Series 365. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Greenberg, R., and Porat, N. 1996 A Third Millennium Levantine Pottery Production Center: Typology, Petrography and Provenance of the Metallic Ware of Northern Israel and Adjacent Regions. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 301: 2–24. Guy, P. L. O. 1938 Megiddo Tombs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gvirtzman, G., and Buchbinder, B. 1969 Outcrops of Neogene Formation in the Central and Southern Coastal Plain, Ha-Shephelah and Beªer Sheva Regions, Israel. Geological Survey of Israel Bulletin No. 50. Hagstrum, M. 1985 Measuring Prehistoric Ceramic Craft Specialization: A Test Case in the American Southwest. Journal of Field Archaeology 12: 65–75. Hallo, W. W. 1981 Introduction. Pp. ix–xv in Early Near Eastern Seals in the Yale Babylonian Collection, by B. Buchanan. New Haven: Yale University Press. Hallo, W. W., and Simpson, W. K. 1971 The Ancient Near East. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Hally, D. J. 1983 The Interpretive Potential of Pottery from Domestic Contexts. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 8: 163–96. Hammond, P. C. 1964 The Physical Nature of Nabataean Pottery. American Journal of Archaeology 68: 259–68. 1971 Ceramic Technology of South-West Asia, Syro-Palestine: Iron IIb, Hebron. Science and Archaeology 5: 11–21. Hanbury-Tenison, J. W. 1986 The Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze I Transition in Palestine and Transjordan. British Archaeological Reports International Series 311. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Harbottle, G. 1976 Activation Analysis in Archaeology. Pp. 33–72 in Radiochemistry, vol. 3, ed. G. W. Newton. London: The Chemical Society. Harrison, T. P. 1993 Economics with an Entrepreneurial Spirit: Early Bronze Age Trade with Late Predyanstic Egypt. Biblical Archaeologist 56: 81–93. Hassan, F. 1988 The Predynastic of Egypt. Journal of World Archaeology 2: 135–85. 1991a

Works Cited

213

Helck, W. 1979 Eine Betrachtungen zu den frühesten Beziehungen zwischen Ägypten und Vorderasien. Ugarit-Forschungen 11: 357–63. Helms, M. W. 1988 Ulyses’ Sail: An Ethnographic Odyssey of Power, Knowledge, and Geographic Distance. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1993 Craft and Kingly Ideal: Art, Trade and Power. Austin: University of Texas Press. Helms, S. 1984 Excavation at Tell Umm Hammad esh-Sharqiya in the Jordan Valley 1982. Levant 16: 35– 54. 1986 Excavations at Tell Um Hammad, 1984. Levant 18: 25–50. 1987 A Question of Economic Control During the Proto-Historical Era of Palestine/Transjordan. Pp. 41–51 in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, vol. 3, ed. A. Hadidi. Amman: Department of Antiquities, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Hendrickx, S. 1996 The Relative Chronology of the Naqada Culture: Problems and Possibilities. Pp. 36–69 in Aspects of Ancient Egypt, ed. A. J. Spencer. London: British Museum Press. Hennessy, J. B. 1967 The Foreign Relations of Palestine during the Early Bronze Age. London: Bernard Quaritch. 1969 Preliminary Report on a First Season of Excavation at Teleilat Ghassul. Levant 1: 1–24. 1982 Teleilat Ghassul: Its Place in the Archaeology of Jordan. Pp. 55–58 in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, vol. 1, ed. A. Hadidi. Amman: Department of Antiquities, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. 1986 Cornet Cups. Pp. 61–62 in Pottery and Potters—Past and Present: 7000 Years of Ceramic Art in Jordan. Ausstellungskataloge der Universität Tübingen 20, ed. D. Homs-Fredericq and H. J. Franken. Tübingen: University of Tübingen. Henrickson, E. F., and McDonald, M. M. A. 1983 Ceramic Form and Function: An Ethnographic Search and an Archaeological Application. American Anthropologist 85: 630–43. Hendrickx, S., and Bavay, L. 2002 The Relative Chronological Position of Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic Tombs with Objects Imported from the Near East and the Nature of Interregional Contacts. Pp. 58–80 in Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium b.c.e., ed. E. C. M. van den Brink and T. E. Levy. London: Leicester University Press. Heskil, D., and Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1980 An Alternative Sequence for the Development of Metallurgy: Tepe Yahya, Iran. Pp. 229– 65 in The Coming of Iron, ed. T. A. Wertime and J. D. Muhly. New Haven: Yale University Press. Hoffman, M. A. 1980 Egypt before the Pharaohs. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1982 General Summary and Conclusions: Issues in Predynastic Culture History. Pp. 139–48 in The Predynastic of Hierakonpolis: An Interim Report. Egyptian Studies Association Publication 1, ed. M. A. Hoffman et al. Cairo: Cairo University Herbarium. 1984 Predynastic Cultural Ecology and Patterns of Settlement in Upper Egypt as Viewed from Hierakonpolis. Pp. 235–45 in Origins and Early Development of Food-Producing Cul-

214

Works Cited

tures in North-Eastern Africa, ed. L. Krzyzaniak and M. Kobusiwicz. Poznan: Poznan Archaeological Museum. 1988 Prelude to Civilization: The Predynastic Period in Egypt. Pp. 33–46 in The First Egyptians, ed. K. L. Willoughby and E. B. Stanton. Columbia, SC: McKissick Museum, The University of South Carolina. Hoffman, M. A., and Berger, M. 1982 A Taxonomic System for Predynastic Settlement Ceramics and the Locality 29 Assemblage. Pp. 66–85 in The Predynastic of Hierakonpolis: An Interim Report. Egyptian Studies Association Publication 1 1982, ed. M. A. Hoffman et al. Cairo: Cairo University Herbarium. Hoffman, M. A., Hamroush, H. A., and Allen, R. O. 1986 A Model of Urban Development for the Hierakonpolis Region from Predynastic through Old Kingdom Times. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 23: 175–87. Horwitz, L., and Tchernov, E. 1990 Cultural and Environment Implications of Hippopotamus Bone Remains in Archaeological Contexts in the Levant. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 280: 67–76. Hulthen, B. 1976 On Thermal Colour Testing. Norwegian Archaeological Review 9. Pp. 1–6. Ilan, D. 2002 Mortuary Practices in Early Bronze Age Canaan. Near Eastern Archaeology 65: 92–104. Ilan, O., and Sebbane, M. 1989 Metallurgy, Trade and Urbanization of Southern Canaan in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. Pp. 139–62 in L’urbanisation à l’âge du Bronze Ancien, part 1, ed. P. de Miroschedji. British Archaeological Reports International Series 527. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Jacobs, P. 1985 Field Report Summary. Pp. 1–9 in Lahav Research Project :1985 Salvage Season Field Report, ed. J. Seger. Unpublished manuscript. Jacobs, P., and Forshey, H. 1988 Tel Halif, 1987. Israel Exploration Journal 38: 278–81. James, T. G. H. 1995 The Earliest History of Wine and Its Importance in Ancient Egypt. Pp. 197–214 in The Origins and Ancient History of Wine, ed. P. E. McGovern, S. J. Fleming, and S. H. Katz. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach. Jaquet-Gorden, H. 1981 A Tentative Typology of Egyptian Bread Molds. Pp. 11–24 in Studien zur Altägyptischen Keramik, ed. D. Arnold. Mainz: von Zabern. Joffe, A. 1991 Settlement and Society in Early Bronze I and II in Canaan. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona. 1993 Settlement and Society in the Early Bronze I and II Southern Levant. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 4. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 2000 Egypt and Syro-Mesopotamia in the Fourth Millennium: Implications of the New Chronology. Current Anthropology 41: 113–23.

Works Cited

215

Joffe, A. H., and Dessel, J. P. 1995 “Redefining Chronology and Terminology for the Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant.” Current Anthropology 36: 507–18. Joffe, A. H., Dessel, J. P., and Hallote, R. S. 2001 The “Gilat Woman,” Chalcolithic Cult, and the End of Southern Levantine Prehistory. Near Eastern Archaeology 64: 9–23. Johnson, G. A. 1988 Late Uruk in Greater Mesopotamia: Expansion or Collapse? Origini 14: 595–613. Junker, H. 1912 Bericht über die Gragungen der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien auf dem Friedhof in Turah,Winter 1909–1910. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 56 (1). Vienna: A. Hölder. Kaiser, W. 1956 Stand und Probleme der ägyptischen Vorgeschichtsforschung. Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 81: 87–109. 1957 Zur inneren Chronologie der Naqadakultur. Archaeologia Geographica 6: 69–77. Kaiser, W., and Dreyer, G. 1982 Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 38: 211–69. Kallai, Z. 1986 Historical Geography of the Bible. Jerusalem: Magnes. Kalsbeek, J. 1969 A Systematic Approach to the Study of the Iron Age Pottery. Pp. 73–80 in Excavations at Tell Deir ºAlla I. Leiden: Brill. Kamp, K., and Yoffee, N. 1980 Ethnicity in Ancient Western Asia During the Early Second millennium b.c.: Archaeological Assessments and Ethnoarchaeological Perspectives. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 237: 85–104. Kansa, E. 2001 Smitten by Narmer: Ethnicity, Economy and Trade in the 4th Millennium bce Egyptian Presence in the Southern Levant. Ph.D. Dissertation. Harvard University. Kansa, E., and Levy, T. E. 2002 Ceramics, Identity and the Role of the State: The View from Nahal Tillah. Pp. 190–212 in Egypt and the Levant: Interrelationships from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium b.c.e., ed. E. C. M. van den Brink and T. E. Levy. London: Leicester University Press. Kantor, H. J. 1942 The Early Relations of Egypt with Asia. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 1: 174–213. 1952 Further evidence for early Mesopotamian relations with Egypt. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 11: 239–250. 1965 The Relative Chronology of Egypt and Its Foreign Correlations before the Late Bronze Age. Pp. 1–46 in Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, ed. R. W. Ehrich. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1992 The Relative Chronology of Egypt and Its Foreign Correlations before the First Intermediate Period. Pp. 3–21 in vol. 1 of Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, ed. R. W. Ehrich. Third edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kaplan, J. 1954 Two Chalcolithic Vessels from Palestine. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 76: 97–100.

216

Works Cited

The Connections of the Palestinian Chalcolithic Culture with Prehistoric Egypt. Israel Exploration Journal 9: 134–36. 1963 Excavations at Benei Beraq 1951. Israel Exploration Journal 13: 300–312. Kaplan, M., Harbottle, G., and Sayre, E. 1984 Tell El Yehudiyeh Ware: A Re-evaluation. Pp. 227–41 in Pots and Potters: Current Approaches in Ceramic Archaeology, ed. P. M. Rice. Institute of Archaeology Monograph 24. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Kaplony, Peter 2002 The ºEn Besor Seal Impressions – Revised. Pp. 450–63, 487–98 in Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium b.c.e., ed. E. C. M. van den Brink and T. E. Levy. London: Leicester University Press. Pp. Kelso, J. L. 1962 Pottery. Pp. 846–53 in vol. 3 (K–Q) of Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. New York: Abingdon. Kelso, J. L., and Thorley, J. P. 1943 The Potter’s Technique at Tell Beit Mirsim, Particularly in Section A. Pp. 227–41 in The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, vol. III: The Iron Age, by W. F. Albright, J. L. Kelso, and J. P. Thorley. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 21–22. Baltimore: American Schools of Oriental Research. 1944 Ceramic Techniques in Early-Bronze Pottery From Bab ed-Dhraº in Moab. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 95: 3–14. Kemp, B. 1983 Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate period c. 2686–1552. Pp. 71–18 in Ancient Egypt: A Social History, ed. B. G. Trigger et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kenyon, K. 1960 Excavations at Jericho, vol. 1: The Tombs Excavated in 1952–4. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. 1965 Excavations at Jericho, vol. 2: The Tombs Excavated in 1955–8. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. 1979 Archaeology in the Holy Land. Fourth edition. London: Ernest Benn. Kenyon, K. M., and Holland, T. A. 1982 Excavations at Jericho, vol. 4: The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Key, C. A. 1980 The Trace-Element Composition of the Copper and Copper Alloy Artifacts of the Nahal Mishmar Hoard. Pp. 238–43 in The Cave of the Treasure, ed. P. Bar Adon. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Khalaily, H. 2004 An Early Bronze Age Site at Ashqelon, Afridar—Area F. ºAtiqot 45: 121–59. Kingery, W. D. 1982 Plausible Inferences from Ceramic Artifacts. Pp. 37–45 in Archaeological Ceramics, ed. J. S. Olin and A. D. Franklin. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Kloner, A. 1980 Hurvat Rimmon,1979. Israel Exploration Journal 30: 226–28. 1984 The Cemetery at Horvat Thala. Eretz-Israel 17: 325–32. (Hebrew) 1959

Works Cited

217

Knapp, A. B., et al. 1988 Ceramic Production and Social Change: Archaeometric Analysis of Bronze Age Pottery. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 1/2: 57–113. Kochavi, M. 1989 Excavations at Aphek-Antipatras. Qadmoniot 85–86: 2–20. (Hebrew) Koeppel, R. 1940 Teleilat Ghassul II. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Köhler, E. C. 2002 History or Ideology? New Reflections on the Narmer Palette and the Nature of Foreign Relations in Pre- and Early Dynastic Egypt. Pp. 499– 513 in Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium b.c.e., ed. E. C. M. van den Brink and T. E. Levy. London: Leicester University Press. Kramer, C. 1985 Ceramic Production and Specialization. Paléorient 11: 117–19. Kroeper, K. 1988 The Excavations of the Munich East-Delta Expedition in Minshat Abu Omar. Pp. 11–46 in The Archaeology of the Nile Delta: Problems and Priorities, ed. E. C. M. van den Brink. Amsterdam: Netherlands Foundation for Archaeological Research in Egypt. 1989 Palestinian Ceramic Imports in Pre- and Protohistoric Egypt. Pp. 407–22 in L’urbanisation à l’âge du Bronze Ancien, part 1, ed. P. de Miroschedji. British Archaeological Reports International Series 527. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Lapp, P. 1968 Bab edh-Dhraº Tomb A 76 and Early Bronze I in Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 189: 12–41. 1970 Palestine in the Early Bronze Age. Pp. 101–31 in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck, ed. J. A. Sanders. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Larsen, M. T. 1987 Commercial Networks in the Ancient Near East. Pp. 47–56 in Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, ed. M. Rowlands, M. Larsen, and K. Kristiansen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Laustrap, M. 1976 A Survey of the Geology, Soils and Geomorphology of the Lahav Area. Pp. 20–33 in Lahav Research Project: The 1976 Season, Part 1, ed. J. Seger. Unpublished manuscript. 1977 The Environment and Flora of Tell Halif. Pp. 1–17 in Lahav Research Project: 1977 Season, Part 1, ed. J. Seger. Unpublished manuscript. Leeuw, S. van der 1977 Toward a Study of the Economics of Pottery Making. Ex Horreo 4: 68–76. 1981 Ceramic Exchange and Manufacture: A “Flow Structure” Approach. Pp. 361–86 in Production and Distribution: A Ceramic Viewpoint, ed. H. Howard and E. L. Morris. British Archaeological Reports Interntional Series 120. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 1984 Pottery Manufacture: Some Complications for the Study of Trade. Pp. 55–70 in Pots and Potters: Current Approaches in Ceramic Archaeology, ed. P. M. Rice. Institute of Archaeology Monograph 24. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Leeuw, S. van der, and As, A. van, eds. 1984 The Many Dimensions of Pottery. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.

218

Works Cited

Leonard, A. 1983 The Proto-Urban/Early Bronze I Utilization of the Kataret es-Samra Plateau. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 251: 37–60. Levy, T. E. 1983 The Emergence of Specialized Pastoralism in the Southern Levant. World Archaeology 15: 15–36. 1986 The Chalcolithic Period. Biblical Archaeologist 49: 82–108. Levy, T. E., ed. 1987 Shiqmim I. British Archaeological Reports International Series 356. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Levy, T. E., and Alon, D. 1982 The Chalcolithic Mortuary Site Near Mezad Aluf, Northern Negev Desert: A Preliminary Study. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 248: 37–59. 1985a Shiqmim: A Chalcolithic Village and Mortuary Centre in the Northern Negev. Paléorient 11: 71–83. 1985b The Chalcolithic Mortuary Site Near Mezad Aluf, Northern Negev Desert: Third Preliminary Report, 1982 Season. Pp. 121–135 in Preliminary Reports of ASOR Sponsored Excavations 1981–1983, ed. W. Rast. BASOR Supplement 23. Baltimore, MD.: American Schools of Oriental Research. 1987a Excavations in the Shiqmim Village. Pp. 153–218 in Shiqmim I, ed. T. E. Levy. British Archaeological Reports International Series 356. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 1987b Excavations in Shiqmim Cemetery 3: Final Report on the 1982 Excavations. Pp. 333–55 in Shiqmim I, ed. T. E. Levy. British Archaeological Reports International Series 356. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Levy, T. E., et al. 1995 New Light on King Narmer and the Protodynastic Egyptian presence in Canaan. Biblical Archaeologist 58: 26–35. 1997 Egyptian-Canaanite Interaction at Nahal Tillah, Israel (4500–3000 b.c.e.): An Interim Report on the 1994–1995 Excavation. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 307: 1–51. 2001 A Protodynastic/Dynasty 1 Egyptian Presence in Southern Canaan: A Preliminary Report on the 1994 Excavation at Nahal Tillah, Israel. Pp. 411–43 in Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse, ed. S. Wolff. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 29 / ASOR Books 5. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. 2002 Early Bronze Age Metallurgy: A Newly Discovered Copper Manufactory in Southern Jordan. Antiquity 76: 425–37. Levy, T., and Goldberg, P. 1987 The Environmental Setting of the Northern Negev. Pp. 1–22 in Shiqmim I, ed. T. E. Levy. British Archaeological Reports International Series 356. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Levy, T. E., and Holl, A. 1987 Theory and Practice in Household Archaeology: A Case Study from the Chalcolithic Village at Shiqmim. Pp. 373–410 in Shiqmim I, ed. T. E. Levy. British Archaeological Reports International Series 356. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Liverani, M. 2002 International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 1600–1100 bc. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Works Cited

219

London, G. A. 1986 Response to Melissa Hagstrum, “Measuring Prehistoric Craft Specialization: a Rest Case in the American Southwest.” Journal of Field Archaeology 13: 511. 1987 Identification of Individual Potters Past and Present. Pp. 58–76 in Contributions to the Study of Pottery Technology. Publicatie van het Gallo-Romeins Museum´te Tongeren 34. Tongeren, Belgium: Gallo Romeins Museum. 1988 The Organization of the Early Bronze Age II and III Ceramics Industry at Tel Yarmouth: A Preliminary Report. Pp. 117–124 in Yarmouth I: Rapport sur les Trois Premieres Campagnes de Fouilles à Tel Yarmouth, 1980–1982, ed. P. de Miroschedji et al. ERC Memoire 76. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. 1989 A Comparison of Two Contemporaneous Lifestyles of the Late Second Millennium b.c. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 272: 37–55. Loud, G. 1948 Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–1939, Oriental Institute Publications 62. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lucas, A., and Harris, J. R. 1962 Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries. Fourth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Macalister, R. A. S. 1912a The Excavation of Gezer Volume II. London: Murray. 1912b The Excavation of Gezer Volume III. London: Murray. Macdonald, E. 1932 Prehistoric Fara. Pp. 1–16 in Beth Pelet II, by E. Macdonald, J. L. Starkey, and L. Harding. British School of Egyptian Archaeology 52. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Maisler, B., Stekelis, M., and Avi-Yonah, M. 1952 The Excavations at Beth Yerah (Khirbet Kerak) Israel Exploration Journal 2: 165–73. Mallon, A., Koeppel, R. and Neuville, R. 1934 Teleilat Ghassul I: Compte Rendu des Fouilles de l’Institut Biblique Pontifical 1929– 1932. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Marfoe, L. 1987 Cedar Forest to Silver Mountain: Social Change and the Development of Long-Distance Trade in Early Near Eastern Societies. Pp. 25–35 in Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, ed. M. Rowlands, M. Larsen, and K. Kristiansen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marquet-Krause, J. 1949 Les Fouilles de ºAy (Et-Tell) 1933–1935. Paris: Geuthner. Matson, F. R. 1943 Technological Notes. Pp. 81–95 in The Cream Glazed Pottery, Part 1 Fascicle 1. The Excavations at Dura Europas, Final Report 4, ed. M. I. Rostovtzeff et al. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1945 The Development of Pottery in Northern Syria During the Chalcolithic Age. Journal of the American Ceramic Society 28: 20–25. 1951 Ceramic Technology as an Aid to Cultural Interpretation: Techniques and Problems. Pp. 102–16 in Essays on Archaeological Methods, ed. J. B. Griffen. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 8. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 1955 Ceramic Archaeology. The American Ceramic Society Bulletin 34: 33–44.

220

Works Cited

Mazar, A., and de Miroschedji, P. 1989 Hartuv: An Early Bronze I Settlement in the Shephelah. Qadmoniot 22.1: 27–32. (Hebrew) 1996 Hartuv: An Aspect of the Early Bronze I Culture of Southern Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 302: 1–41. McCown, C. C. 1947 Tell en-Nasbeh I. Berkeley: The Palestine Institute of Pacific School of Religion and the American Schools of Oriental Research. McGovern, P. E., Glusker, D. L., and Exner, L. J. 2001 The Organic Contents of the Tomb U-j Syro-Palestinian Type Jars: Resinated Wine Flavored with Fig. Pp. 399–403 in Umm El-Qaab II: Importkeramik aus dem Friedhof U in Abydos (Umm el-Qaab) und die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr, U. Hartung. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. Mellaart, J. 1975 The Neolithic of the Near East. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Mienis, H. 1980 Mollusca. P. 94 in Tombes à Ossuaires, de la Région Côtière Palestinienne au IVe Millènaire avant l’ère Chrétienne, ed. J. Perrot and D. Ladiray. Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Préhistoriques Français de Jérusalem 1. Paris: Association Paléorient. Miller, D. 1985 Artefacts as Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Millett, M. 1979a How Much Pottery? Pp. 77–80 in Pottery and the Archaeologist, ed. M. Millett. Occasional Publication 4. London: Institute of Archaeology, University of London. 1979b An Approach to the Functional Interpretation of Pottery. Pp. 35–48 in Pottery and the Archaeologist, ed. M. Millett. Occasional Publication 4. London: Institute of Archaeology, University of London. Mills, J. O. 1992 Beyond Nutrition: Antibiotics Produced through Grain Storage Practices: Their Recognition and Implications for the Egyptian Predynastic. Pp. 27–35 in The Followers of Horus: Studies Dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman, 1944–1990, ed. R. Friedman and B. Adams. Egyptian Studies Association Publication 2. Oxford: Oxbow. Miroschedji, P. de 1971 L’epoque Pre-Urbaine en Palestine. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique. Paris: Gabalda. Miroschedji, P. de, et al. 2001 Les Fouilles de Tell es-Sakan (Gaza): Nouvelles Données sur les Contacts ÉgyptoCananéens aux IVe – IIIe Millénaires. Paléorient 27: 75–104. Mouer, L. D. n.d. Beyond Exchange: Ceramic Analysis and the Study of Social and Political System. Unpublished manuscript. Muller, J. 1984 Mississippian Specialization and Salt. American Antiquity 49: 489–507. Munsell Color Company 1975 Munsell Soil Color Charts. Baltimore MD: Munsell Color Company. Murphy, J. W. 1940 The Pottery of the Top Level of Tell 3. Pp. 53–85 in Teleilat Ghassul II, ed. R. Koeppel. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.

Works Cited

221

Naªaman, N. 1980 The Inheritance of the Sons of Simeon. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins 96: 136–52. 1992 Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbors in the Second Millennium b.c.e. Ugarit-Forschungen 24: 275–91. Needler, W. 1984 Predynastic and Archaic Egypt in the Brooklyn Museum. Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum. Nelson, B. A. 1981 Ethnoarchaeology and Paleodemography: A Test of Turner and Lofgren’s Hypothesis. Journal of Archaeological Research 37: 107–129. 1985 Ceramic Vessels and Their Contexts. Pp. 310–29 in Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, ed. B. A. Nelson. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Nodet, E. 1988 Jarres et marmites sans col: essai de classification typologique. Pp. 125–34 in Yarmouth I: Rapport sur les Trois Prémieres Campagnes de Fouilles à Tel Yarmouth, 1980–1982, ed. P. de Miroschedji et al. ERC Memoire 76. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Nordström, H. A. 1972 Neolithic and A-Group Sites, Vol. 3. The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia, Publications 3. Copenhagen: Scandinavian University Books. North, R. S. J. 1961 Ghassul 1960: Excavation Report. Analecta Biblica 14. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Olin, J. S., and Franklin, A. D., eds. 1982 Archaeological Ceramics. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Oren, E. 1973 The Overland Route Between Egypt and Canaan in the Early Bronze Age. Israel Exploration Journal 23: 198–205. 1982 Ziklag: A Biblical City on the Edge of Judah and Ephraim. Biblical Archaeologist 45: 155–66. 1989 Early Bronze Age Settlement in Northern Sinai: A Model for Egypto Canaanite Interconnections. Pp. 389–405 in L’urbanisation à l’âge du Bronze Ancien, part 2, ed. P. de Miroschedji. British Archaeological Reports International Series 527. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Oren, E., and Gilead, I. 1981 Chalcolithic Sites in Northern Sinai. Tel Aviv 8: 25–44. 1982 Gerar–1981. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 1: 27–28. 1983 Gerar–1982. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 2: 33–35. Oren, E., and Gophna, R. 1977 Taur Ikhbeineh. Hadashot Archaeologiyot 63–64: 61. (Hebrew) Oren, E., Gophna, R., and Yekutieli, Y. 1987 Taur Ikhbeineh. Hadashot Archaeologiyot 90: 53–54. (Hebrew) Oren, E., and Morrison, M. 1986 Land of Gerar Expedition: Preliminary Report for the Season of 1982 and 1983. Pp. 57– 75 in Preliminary Reports of ASOR-Sponsored Excavations 1980–84, ed. W. Rast. BASOR Supplement 24. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, for the American Schools of Oriental Research.

222

Works Cited

Oren E., and Yekultieli, Y. 1992 Taur Ikhbeineh: Earliest Evidence for Egyptian Interconnections. Pp. 361–84 in The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th–3rd Millennium b.c. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Orni, E., and Efrat, E. 1964 Geography of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Program for Scientific Translations. Ory, J. 1946 Chalcolithic Necropolis at Benei Beraq. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 12.3/4: 43–57. Parr, P. 1956 A Cave at Arqub el Dhahr. Annual of the Department of Antiquities in Jordan 3: 61–73. Peacock, D. P. S. 1970 The Scientific Analysis of Ancient Ceramics: A Review. World Archaeology 1: 375–89. 1981 Archaeology, Ethnography and Ceramic Production. Pp. 187–94 in Production and Distribution: A Ceramic Viewpoint, ed. H. Howard and E. L. Morris. British Archaeological Reports International Series 120. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Peregrine, P. 1991 Some Political Aspects of Craft Specialization. World Archaeology 23: 1–11. Perkins, A. L. 1949 The Comparative Archaeology of Early Mesopotamia. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 25. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Pernicka, E., and Hauptmann, A. 1989 Chemische und mineralogische Analyse einiger Erz- und Kupferfunde von Maadi. Pp. 137–40 in Maadi 3: The Non-lithic Small Finds and the Structural Remains of the Predynastic Settlement, ed. I. Rizkana and J. Seeher. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. Perrot, J. 1955 The Excavations at Tell Abu Matar, near Beersheba. Israel Exploration Journal 5: 73–84, 167–89. 1957 Les Fouilles d’Abou Matar près de Beersheba. Syria 34: 1–38. 1959 Statuettes en Ivoire et Autres Objèts en Ivoire et en Os Provenant des Gisements Préhistoriques de la Région de Beersheba. Syria 36: 8–19. 1961 Une Tombe à Ossuaires du IVe Millenaire à Azor près de Tel Aviv. ºAtiqot 3: 1–83. Perrot, J. and Ladiray, D. 1980 Tombes à Ossuaires de la Région Cotière Palestinienne au IV e Millènaire avant l’Ere Chrètienne. Mémoires et travaux du Centre de Recherches Préhistoriques Francais de Jerusalem 1. Paris: Association Paléorient. Petrie, W. M. F. 1899 Sequences in Prehistoric Remains. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 29: 295–301. 1900 The Royal Tombs of the First Dynasty, Part 1. London: Egypt Exploration Society. 1901 Diospolis Parva. Egypt Exploration Fund Memoir 20. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. 1913 Tarkhan I and Memphis V. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. 1920 Prehistoric Egypt. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. 1921 Corpus of Prehistoric Pottery and Palettes. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. 1953 Corpus of Proto-Dynastic Pottery. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt.

Works Cited

223

Philip, G. 2001 The Early Bronze I–III. Pp. 163–232 in The Archaeology of Jordan, ed. B. MacDonald, R. Adams, and P. Bienkowski. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 2002 Contacts between the “Uruk” World and the Levant during the Fourth Millennium bc: Evidence and Interpretation. Pp. 207–35 in Artefacts and Complexity: Tracking the Uruk in the Near East, ed. J. N. Postgate. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. 2003 The Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant: A Landscape Approach. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16: 103–32. Plog, S. 1985 Estimating Vessel Orifice Diameters: Measurement Methods and Measurement Error. Pp. 243–53 in Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, ed. B. A. Nelson. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Porat, N. 1987a Local Industry of Egyptian Pottery in Southern Palestine during the Early Bronze I Period. Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 8: 109–29. 1987b Trade of Pottery between Egypt and Canaºan in Ancient Times. The Israeli Academic Center in Cairo Newsletter 8. 1988 Petrography of Pottery From Lahav (Tell Halif). Unpublished manuscript. 1989a Composition of Pottery: Application to the Study of the Relations between Canaan and Egypt During the 3rd Millennium bc. Ph.D. Dissertation, The Hebrew University. 1989b Petrography of Pottery from Southern Israel and Sinai. Pp. 169–88 in L’urbanisation à l’âge du Bronze Ancien, part 1, ed. P. de Miroschedji. British Archaeological Reports International Series 527. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Porat, N., and Goren, Y. 2002 Petrography of the Naqada IIIa Canaanite Pottery from Tomb U-j in Abydos. Pp. 252–70 in Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium b.c.e., ed. E. C. M. van den Brink and T. E. Lev. London: Leicester University Press. Porat, N., and Seeher, J. 1988 Petrographic Analyses of Pottery and Basalt from Predynastic Maadi. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 44: 215–28. Porath, Y. 1985 A Chalcolithic Building at Fasaºel. ºAtiqot 17: 1–19. Potaszkin, R., and Bar-Avi, K. 1980 A Material Investigation of Metal Objects from the Nahal Mishmar Treasure. Pp. 235–37 in The Cave of the Treasure, ed. P. Bar Adon. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Prag, K. 1978 Silver in the Levant in the Fourth Millennium b.c. Pp. 36–45 in Archaeology in the Levant, ed. R. Moorey and P. Parr. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. 1986 Byblos and Egypt in the Fourth Millennium. Levant 18: 59–74. Pritchard, J. B. 1963 The Bronze Age Cemetery at Gibeon. Philadelphia: University Museum. Rands, R. 1988 Least-Cost and Function-Optimizing Interpretations of Ceramic Production: An Archaeological Perspective. Pp. 165–98 in Ceramic Ecology Revisited 1987: The Technology and Socioeconomics of Pottery, ed. C. Kolb. British Archaeological Reports International Series 436. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

224

Works Cited

Rast, W. E., and Schaub, R. T. 2003 Bâb edh-Dhrâº: Excavations at the Town Site (1975–1981). 2 volumes. Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan, Volume 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Redford, D. B. 1981 The Acquisition of Foreign Goods and Services in the Old Kingdom. Scripta Mediterranea 2: 5–16. 1986 Egypt and Western Asia in the Old Kingdom. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 23: 235–43. Reese, D. S., Mienis, H., and Woodward, F. R. 1986 On the Trade of Shells and Fish from the Nile River. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 264: 79–84. Renfrew, C. 1973 Monuments, Mobilization and Social Organization in Neolithic Essex. Pp. 539–58 in The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, ed. C. Renfrew. London: Gerald Duckworth. Rice, P. 1980 Petan Postclassic Pottery Production and Exchange: A View from Macanche. Pp. 67–82 in Models and Methods in Regional Exchange, ed. R. E. Fry. SAA Paper 1. Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology. 1981 Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production: A Trial Model. Current Anthropology 22: 219–40. 1982 Pottery Production, Pottery Classification, and the Role of Physiochemical Analyses. Pp. 47–56 in Archaeological Ceramics, ed. J. S. Olin and A. D. Franklin. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Publications. 1984a Change and Conservatism in Pottery-Producing Systems. Pp. 231–80 in The Many Dimensions of Pottery, ed. S. Van Der Leeuw and A. van As. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. 1984b The Archaeological Study of Specialized Pottery Production: Some Aspects of Method and Theory. Pp. 45–54 in Pots and Potters: Current Approaches in Ceramic Archaeology, ed. P. M. Rice. Institute of Archaeology Monograph 24. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1987a Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1987b Economic Change in the Lowland Maya Late Classic Period. Pp. 76– 85 in Specialization, Exchange and Complex Societies, ed. E. M. Brumfield and T. K. Earle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rice, P. M., and Saffer, M. E. 1982 Cluster Analysis of Mixed Level Data: Pottery Provenience as an Example. Journal of Archaeological Science 9: 395–409. Rizkana, I., and Seeher, J. 1987 Maadi I. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 64. Mainz: von Zabern. 1988 Maadi II. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 65. Mainz: von Zabern. 1989 Maadi III. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 80. Mainz: von Zabern. Rosen, A. M. 1995 The Social Response to Environmental Change in Early Bronze Age Canaan. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14: 26–44.

Works Cited 1997

225

Environmental Change and Human Adaptational Failure at the End of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant. Pp. 25–38 in Third Millennium bc Climate Change and Old World Collapse, ed. H. N. Dalfes, G. Kulka, and H. Weiss. New York: Springer.

Rosen, S. 1983a The Canaanean Blade and the Early Bronze Age. Israel Exploration Journal 33: 15–29. 1983b The Tabular Flint Scraper Trade: A Model for Material Culture Dispersion. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 249: 79–86. 1985 The Potentials of Lithic Analysis in the Historic Periods in Israel. Mitekufat Haeven 18: 37–43. 1986 The Analysis of Trade and Craft Specialization in the Chalcolithic Period: Comparisons from Different Realms of Material Culture. Michmanim 3: 21–32. 1987 The Potentials of Lithic Analysis in the Chalcolithic of the Northern Negev. Pp. 295–312 in Shiqmim I, ed. T. E. Levy. British Archaeological Reports International Series 356. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 1988 A Preliminary Note on the Egyptian Component of the Chipped Stone Assemblage from Tel ºErani. Israel Exploration Journal 38: 105–16. 1993. Metals, Rocks, Specialization and the Beginning of Urbanism in the Northern Negev. Pp. 41–56 in Biblical Archaeology Today 1990, Pre-Congress Symposium: Population, Production and Power, ed. A. Biran and J. Aviram. Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Roshwalb, A. 1981 Protohistory in the Wadi Ghazzeh: A Typological Study based on the Macdonald Excavations. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London. Rothenberg, B. 1972 Timna: Valley of the Biblical Copper Mines. London: Thames and Hudson. Rothman, M., ed. 2001 Uruk Mesopotamia and its Neighbors. Santa Fe: School of American Research. Rye, O. 1976 Keeping your Temper Under Control: Materials and Manufacture of Papuan Pottery. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 11: 106–37. 1981 Pottery Technology: Principles and Reconstructions. Manuals on Archaeology 4. Washington, DC: Taraxacum. Rye, O., and Evans, C. 1976 Traditional Pottery techniques of Pakistan: Field and Laboratory Studies. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 21. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Saghieh, M. 1983 Byblos in the Third Millennium b.c. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Sahlins, M. 1972 Stone Age Economics. New York: Aldine. Scandone-Matthiae, G. 1979 Vasi iscritti di Chefren e Pepi I nel Palazzo Reale G di Ebla. Studi Eblaiti 1: 33–43. Schaub, T. 1981 Ceramic Sequences in the Tomb Groups at Bab edh-Dhra. Pp. 69–118 in The Southeastern Dead Sea Plain Expedition: An Interim Report of the 1977 Season, ed. W. E. Rast and R. T. Schaub. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 46. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research.

226 1982

Works Cited

The Origins of the Early Bronze Age Walled Town Culture of Jordan: Assessment of Current Theories in the Light of Recent Evidence. Pp. 67–75 in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, vol. 1, ed. A. Hadidi. Amman: Department of Antiquities, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. 1987 Ceramic Vessels as Evidence for Trade Communications during the Early Bronze Age in Jordan. Pp. 247–50 in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, vol. 3, ed. A. Hadidi. Amman: Department of Antiquities, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Schaub, T., and Rast, W. 1989 Bab edh-Dhraº: Excavations in the Cemetery Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965–67). Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Schiffer, M. B., and Skibo, J. M. 1987 Theory and Experiment in the Study of Technological Change. Current Anthropology 28: 595–622. Schulman, A. R. 1976 The Egyptian Seal Impressions from ºEn Besor. ºAtiqot 11: 16–26. 1980 More Egyptian Seal Impressions from ºEn Besor. ºAtiqot 14: 17–33. 1983 On the Dating of the Egyptian Seal Impressions from ºEn Besor. Journal for the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 13: 249–51. 1989 At the Fringe: The Historiography and Historicity of the Relations of Egypt and Canaan in the Early Bronze Age I. Pp. 433–53 in L’urbanisation à l’âge du Bronze Ancien, part 1, ed. P. de Miroschedji. British Archaeological Reports International Series 527. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 1992 Still More Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor. Pp. 395–417 in The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th–3rd Millennium b.c. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Schulman, A., and Gophna, R. 1981 An Archaic Egyptian Serekh from Tel Maºahaz. Israel Exploration Journal 31: 165–67. Schwartz, G. 1988 A Ceramic Chronology from Tell Leilan Operation 1. New Haven: Yale University Press. Seger, J. 1976a Director’s Preface. Pp. i–iii in Lahav Research Project: The 1976 Season, Part 2, ed. J. Seger. Unpublished manuscript. 1976b The 1976 Season, A Summary. Pp.7–16 in Lahav Research Project: The 1976 Season, Part 1, ed. J. Seger. Unpublished manuscript. 1978 The Pottery Recording System. Pp. 108–38 in A Manual of Field Excavation, ed. W. G. Dever and H. D. Lance. New York: Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion. 1980 Field Operations Guidebook. Omaha, NE: Lahav Research Project. 1983 Investigations at Tell Halif, Israel,1976–1980. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 252: 1–23. 1984 The Location of Biblical Ziklag. Biblical Archaeologist 47: 47–53. 1989 Some Provisional Correlations in EB III Stratigraphy in Southern Palestine. Pp. 117–35 in L’urbanisation à l’âge du Bronze Ancien, part 1, ed. P. de Miroschedji. British Archaeological Reports International Series 527. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 1996 The Point One Principle: A Case Study from the Halif Terrace. Pp. 245–68 in Retrieving the Past: Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in Honor of Gus W. Van Beek, ed. J. D. Seger. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns / Starkville, MS: Cobb Institute of Archaeology.

Works Cited

227

Seger, J., et al. 1990 The Bronze Age Settlement at Tell Halif: Phase II Excavations, 1983, 1987. Pp. 1–32 in Preliminary Reports of ASOR-Sponsored Excavations 1983–1987, ed. W. Rast. BASOR Supplement 26. Baltimore, MD.: American Schools of Oriental Research. . Seger, K. 1976 General Summary. Pp. 1–12 in Lahav Research Project: The 1976 Season, Part 1, ed. J. Seger. Unpublished manuscript. Service, E. R. 1962 Primitive Social Organization. New York: Random House. Shalev, S., and Northover, P. 1987 Chalcolithic Metal and Metalworking from Shiqmim. Pp. 357–71 in Shiqmim I, ed. T. E. Levy. British Archaeological Reports International Series 356. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Shapiro, G. 1984 Ceramic Vessels, Site Permanence, and Group Size: A Mississippian Example. American Antiquity 49: 696–712. Shepard, A. 1936 Technology of Pecos Pottery. Pp. 389–587 in The Pottery of Pecos, vol. 2, ed. A. V. Kidder and A. O. Shepard. Papers of the Phillips Academy Southwestern Expedition 7. New Haven: Phillips Academy / Yale University Press. 1948 Plumbate: A Mesoamerican Trade Ware. Carnegie Institute Publication 573. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institute of Washington. 1980 Ceramics for the Archaeologist, Carnegie Institute Publication 609. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institute of Washington. Sherratt, A. 1993 “Who are you calling peripheral?” Pp. 245–55 in Dependence and Independence in European Prehistory, ed. C. Scarre and F. Healy. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 1994 Core, Periphery and Margin: Perspectives on the Bronze Age. Pp. 335–45 in Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age: Perspectives on the Bronze Age, ed. C. Mathers and S. Stoddart. Sheffield: Collis. Shipton, G. M. 1939 Notes on the Megiddo Pottery of Strata VI–XX. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 10. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shutler, M. E. 1976 The 1976 Site Survey. Pp. 17–19 in Lahav Research Project: The 1976 Season, Part 1, ed. J. Seger. Unpublished manuscript. Smith, G. A. 1966 The Historical Geography of the Holy Land. Repr., London: Fontana Library. Smith, M. F. 1985 Toward an Economic Interpretation of Ceramics: Relating Vessel Size and Shape to Use. Pp. 254–309 in Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, ed. B. A. Nelson. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Sowada, K. In press Aegyptiaca at Tel Yarmouth: An Interim Assessment. In Yarmouth II, ed. P. de Miroschedji. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

228 2000

Works Cited Egyptian Palettes in EB II and EB III Canaan. In Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, ed. P. Matthiae et al. Rome: Herder.

Stager, L. 1985 The Firstfruits of Civilization. Pp. 172–88 in Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages, ed. J. Tubb. London: Institute of Archaeology. 1992 The Periodization of Palestine from Neolithic through Early Bronze Times. Pp. 22–41 in Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, vol. I, ed. R. W. Ehrich. Third edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1995 The Impact of the Sea Peoples (1185–1050 bce). Pp. 332–48 in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. T. E. Levy. New York: Facts on File. Stein, G. 1999 Rethinking World-Systems: Diasporas, Colonies, and Interaction in Uruk Mesopotamia. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 2002 Colonies Without Colonialism: A Trade Diaspora Model of Fourth Millennium b.c. Mesopotamian Enclaves in Anatolia. Pp. 27–64 in The Archaeology of Colonialism, ed. C. L. Lyons and J. K Papadoupoulos. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute. Steponaitis, V. P. 1983 Ceramics, Chronology and Community Patterns. New York: Academic. Stienstra, P. 1986 Systematic Macroscopic Description of the Texture and Composition of Ancient Pottery: Some Basic Methods. Newsletter, Department of Pottery Technology, University of Leiden 4: 29–48. Sukenik, E. L. 1948 Archaeological Investigations at ºAffula. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 21: 1– 7. Survey of Israel 1982 Beer-Sheva, Map 14: 1:100,000 Map of Israel. Jerusalem: Survey of Israel. Tadmor, M. 1989 The Judean Desert Treasure from Nahal Mishmar: A Chalcolithic Traders’ Hoard? Pp. 249–61 in Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene J. Kantor, ed. A. C. Leonard and B. B. Williams. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 47. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Tosi, M. 1984 The Notion of Craft Specialization and Its Representation in the Archaeological Record of Early States in the Turanian Basin. Pp. 22–25 in Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology, ed. M. Spriggs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trigger, B. G. 1983 The Rise of Egyptian Civilization. Pp. 1–70 in Ancient Egypt: A Social History, ed. B. G. Trigger et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1984 The Mainlines of Socio-Economic Development in Dynastic Egypt to the End of the Old Kingdom. Pp. 101–8 in Origin and Early Development of Food-Producing Cultures in North-Eastern Africa, ed. L. Krzyzaniak and M. Kobusiewicz. Poznan: Polish Academy of Science / Polish Archaeological Museum. Tubb, J. 1989 Saªidiyeh. Pp. 551–42 in The Archaeology of Jordan, vol. 2: Field Reports, Sites L–Z, ed. D. Homes-Fredericq and J. B. Hennessy. Leuven: Peeters.

Works Cited

229

Tufnell, O. 1958 Lachish IV. London: Oxford University Press. Turner, C., and Lofgren, L. 1966 Household Size of Prehistoric Western Pueblo Indians. Southwest Journal of Archaeology 22: 117–32. Tutundzic, S. P. 1989 Relations between Late Predynastic Egypt and Palestine: Some Elements and Phenomena. Pp. 423–32 in L’urbanisation à l’âge du Bronze Ancien, part 1, ed. P. de Miroschedji. British Archaeological Reports International Series 527. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Ussishkin, D. 1971 The “Ghassulian” Temple in Ein Gedi and the Origin of the Hoard from Nahal Mishmar. Biblical Archaeologist 34:23–39. 1980 The Ghassulian Shrine at En-Gedi. Tel Aviv 7: 1–44. Vandiver, P. B. 1985 Sequential Slab Construction: A Near Eastern Pottery technology 8000–3000 b.c. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Vandiver, P., and Lacovara, P. 1985 An Outline of Technological Changes in Egyptian Pottery Manufacture. Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 7: 53–85. Vaux, R. de 1951 La troisième campagne de fouilles à Tell el-Farºah, près Naplouse: Rapport préliminaire. Revue Biblique 58: 393–430. 1952 La quatrième campagne de fouilles à Tell el-Farºah, près Naplouse: Rapport préliminaire. Revue Biblique 59: 551–83. 1955 La cinquième campagne de fouilles à Tell el-Farºah, près Naplouse: Rapport préliminaire. Revue Biblique 62: 541–89. 1957 La sixème campagne de fouilles à Tell el-Farºah, près Naplouse: Rapport préliminaire. Revue Biblique 64: 552–80. 1970 Palestine During the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods. Pp. 499–538 in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 1/1, ed. I. E. S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd, and N. G. L. Hammond. Third edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vaux, R. de, and Stève, A. M. 1947 La première campagne de fouilles à Tell el-Farºah, près Naplouse: Rapport préliminaire. Revue Biblique 54: 394–433. 1949 La deuxième campagne de fouilles à Tell el-Farºah, près Naplouse: Rapport préliminaire. Revue Biblique 56: 102–38. Wampler, J. C. 1947 Tell en-Nasbeh II. Berkeley: The Palestine Institute of Pacific School of Religion and the American Schools of Oriental Research. Warburton, D. 2001 Egypt and the Near East: Politics in the Bronze Age. Civilisations du Proche-Orient, Serie 4: Histoire-Essais 1. Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland: Recheches et Publications. Ward, W. A. 1963 Egypt and the East Mediterranean from Predynastic Times to the End of the Old Kingdom. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 6: 1–57.

230

Works Cited

The Supposed Asiatic Campaign of Narmer. Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 45: 205–21. Way, T. von der 1988 Investigations Concerning the Early Periods in the Northern Delta of Egypt. Pp. 245–49 in The Archaeology of the Nile Delta Problems and Priorities, ed. E. C. M. van den Brink. Amsterdam: Netherlands Foundation for Archaeological Research in Egypt. 1992 Indications of Architecture with Niches at Buto. Pp. 217–26 in The Followers of Horus: Studies Dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman, 1944–1990, ed. R. Friedman and B. Adams. Egyptian Studies Association Publication 2. Oxford: Oxbow. Weinstein, J. 1981 Egyptian Relations with Palestine in the Early Bronze I–II Periods. Unpublished manuscript, paper read at the ASOR Annual Meeting, San Fransisco. 1984a The Significance of Tell Areini for the Beginning of the Bronze Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 256: 61–69. 1984b Radiocarbon Dating in the Southern Levant. Radiocarbon 26: 297–366. Wenke, R. J. 1989 Egypt: Origins of Complex Societies. Annual Review of Anthropology 18: 129–55. Wildung, D. 1984 Terminal Prehistory of the Nile Delta: Theses. Pp. 265–69 in Origin and Early Development of Food-Producing Cultures in North-Eastern Africa, ed. L. Krzyzániak and M. Kobusiewicz. Poznan: Polish Academy of Science and Polish Archaeological Museum. Williams, B. 1980 The Lost Pharaohs of Nubia. Archaeology 33/5: 12–21. 1988 Decorated Pottery and the Art of Naqada III. Münchner Ägyptologigische Studien 45. Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag. Wilson, J. A. 1969 Egyptian Historical Texts. Oracles and Prophecies. Pp. 227–64, 441–52 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Pritchard. Third edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Winter, I. 1987 Legitimation of Authority Through Image and Legend: Seals Belonging to Officials in the Administrative Bureaucracy of the Ur III State. Pp. 69–116 in The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Gibson and R. Biggs Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 46. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Wright, G. E. 1937 The Pottery of Palestine from Earliest Times to the End of the Early Bronze Age. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. 1958 The Problem of the Transition between the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages. Eretz-Israel 5: 37–45. 1970 The Significance of Ai in the Third Millennium b.c. Pp. 299–320 in Archäologie und Altes Testament: Festschrift für Kurt Galling, ed. A. Kuschke and E. Kutsch. Tübingen: Mohr. Yadin, Y. 1955 The Earliest Record of Egypt’s Military Penetration into Asia? Israel Exploration Journal 5: 1–16. 1969

Works Cited

231

Yadin, Y. et al. 1958 Hazor I. Jerusalem: Magnes. Yeivin, E. 1976 Note on the Flint Implements from ºEn Besor. ºAtiqot 9: 10–12. Yeivin, S. 1960 Early Contacts between Canaan and Egypt. Israel Exploration Journal 10: 193–203. 1961 First Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tell “Gat” (Tell Sheykh ºAhmed elºAreyny) Seasons 1956–1958. Jerusalem: The Gat Expedition. 1963 Further Evidence of Narmer at “Gat.” Oriens Antiquus 2: 205–13. 1968 Additional Notes on the Early Relations Between Canaan and Egypt. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 27: 37–50. 1975 Tel ºErani. Pp. 417–22 in vol. 2 of New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. Yekultieli, Y. 1998 The Early Bronze Age I of North Sinai: Social, Economic, and Spatial Aspects. Ph.D. Dissertation, Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva. (Hebrew) Zori, N. 1962 An Archaeological Survey of the Beth Shan Valley. Pp. 135–98 in The Beth Shan Valley: The 17th Archaeological Convention. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.