Transitions During the Early Bronze Age in the Levant: Methodological Problems and Interpretative Perspectives (Agypten und Altes Testament, 109) 9783963271588, 3963271582

Citation preview

Ägypten und altes TestamenT 109 ÄAT 109 Transitions during the Early Bronze Age in the Levant

Transitions during the Early Bronze Age in the Levant Methodological Problems and Interpretative Perspectives Edited by Matthew J. Adams and Valentine Roux

www.zaphon.de

Zaphon

ÄAT-109-Cover-2.indd 1

03.12.2021 19:12:44

Transitions during the Early Bronze Age in the Levant Methodological Problems and Interpretative Perspectives

Edited by Matthew J. Adams and Valentine Roux

ÄGYPTEN UND ALTES TESTAMENT Studien zu Geschichte, Kultur und Religion Ägyptens und des Alten Testaments

Band 101

Gegründet von Manfred Görg Herausgegeben von Stefan Jakob Wimmer und Wolfgang Zwickel

Transitions during the Early Bronze Age in the Levant Methodological Problems and Interpretative Perspectives

Edited by Matthew J. Adams and Valentine Roux

Zaphon Münster 2022

Illustration on the Cover: A section drawing through the Great Temple of Early Bronze Age I Megiddo, showing the transitional strata from the Chalcolithic to the EB I. Courtesy of Matthew J. Adams.

Ägypten und Altes Testament, Band 109 Transitions during the Early Bronze Age in the Levant: Methodological Problems and Interpretative Perspectives Edited by Matthew J. Adams and Valentine Roux

© 2022 Zaphon, Enkingweg 36, Münster (www.zaphon.de) All rights reserved. Printed in Germany. Printed on acid-free paper.

ISBN 978-3-96327-158-8 (book) ISBN 978-3-96327-159-5 (e-book) ISSN 0720-9061

Contents Matthew J. Adams and Valentine Roux Transitions during the Early Bronze Age in the Levant: Methodological Problems and Interpretive Perspectives ....................................................................................................................... 1–6 Eliot Braun They Seek It Here, They Seek It There, “That Demned Elusive” Late-Chalcolithic to Early Bronze 1 Transition of the Southern Levant .......................................................................... 7–35 Amir Golani The Late Chalcolithic / Early Bronze I Transition and the Ashqelon Occupational Sequence ......... 37–59 Valentine Roux The Southern Levant during the Late Chalcolithic–Early Bronze I Transition: Dispersal and Return of the Descendants .......................................................................................................... 61–80 Alex Joffe New Models for the End of the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant ............................................. 81–115 Yuval Yekutieli “Let’s Make a Clean Slate of the Past!” Alternative Reading of the Chalcolithic–Early Bronze Age Transition ................................................................................... 117–120 Ian Cipin The Chalcolithic as Transitional Period: Looking at the Big Picture ............................................ 121–125 Ianir Milevski, Nimrod Getzov, and Yitzhak Paz Uneven and Combined: The Synchronization of the Early Bronze Age I and the First Urbanization of the Southern Levant ....................................................................... 127–142 Aaron Greener and Matthew J. Adams A Rich Early Bronze Age I Groundstone Assemblage from Tel Megiddo East, Israel ................ 143–165 Yitzhak Paz and Itai Elad New Vistas on the EB IB–EB II Transition in the Coastal Plain: A View from ʿEn Esur, an EB IB Proto-urban Settlement ......................................................................... 167–177 Maura Sala The EB IB–II Transition at Tell el-Far‘ah North: Continuity Versus Discontinuity: A Preliminary Reassessment ......................................................................................................... 179–196 Pierre de Miroschedji The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant: Questions of Sequence, Terminology, and Chronology .............................................................................................................................. 197–263 Liora Kolska Horwitz Dynamics of Early Bronze Age Faunal Exploitation in the Sinai Peninsula: Modes of Production, Commodity Production and Trade ............................................................. 265–284 Omer Shalev, Naama Walzer, and Yitzhak Paz The EBA–IBA Transition in the Judean Shephelah: A View from the IBA ................................. 285–300 Francesca Manclossi and Steven A. Rosen Transitions, Truncations, Correlations, and Disassociations in Early Bronze Age Lithic Systems of the Southern Levant: Issues of Process ............................................................ 301–318

Transitions during the Early Bronze Age in the Levant Methodological Problems and Interpretive Perspectives Matthew J. Adams1 and Valentine Roux2

Introduction The traditional approach to structuring the past is based on a rigid chronological perception of time forced upon dynamic and fluidly transforming societies. The one-dimensional nature of the chronological approach results in periods of well-defined spatiotemporal cultural entities separated by “transitional” periods. These defined cultural entities are often treated as static, though we know they were not, so that we may interpret cultural, historical, sociological, and political aspects of the society. Transition periods, however, are often treated as outliers interpreted against one or both of the periods that bracket them. In particular, they are characterized by a high variability of cultural traits, a form of “disorder” characterized by sets of old and new features, defying the clear delineation of socio-cultural boundaries. Discussions of transitional periods, therefore, are muddled by a paradigm in which the before and after are individually defined, while the transition introduces added variability that defies allocation to one or the other distinct spatial temporal cultural groups. In short, our chronological model of periods succeeding one another is one dimensional and fails to help explain the cultural and spatial development within societies, that move much more fluidly through time. The result is the shoehorning of variable societies into periods of “transition” from one solid cultural state to another, judged according to their predecessors and successors.

Figure 1. Front and back of the conference schedule brochure. 1 2

Director, W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research; email: [email protected]. Valentine Roux, CNRS, University of Paris Nanterre, Lab Pre&Tech (UMR7055); email: [email protected].

2

M. J. Adams and V. Roux

To address these issues, Matthew J. Adams, Valentine Roux, and Felix Höflmayer organized a workshop which took place 16–18 May 2018 in Jerusalem at the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and the Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem (Fig. 1–2). The event was supported by these institutions as well as the Institut für Orientalische und Europäische Archäologie (OREA) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. Twenty-eight papers were presented by forty authors and co-authors, and ample time was provided for formal and informal discussion over plentiful food and drink. The objective of this workshop was to confront scholarly interpretations of the various transitional phases across the late 4th–3rd Millennium (Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze I, EB I to EB II, and EB III to EB IV / Intermediate Bronze Age) in the southern Levant. The focus was on the nature of the cultural-period-defining traits and their value for distinguishing between changes related to endogenous or exogenous evolution, cultural or demic diffusion. These traits include material culture, architecture, mortuary practices as well as patterns of relationships between sites and subsistence strategies. The present volume brings together several papers which originated as presentations in this workshop and benefitted from the discussion therein.

From Late Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age The transitional period from Late Chalcolithic (LC) to the Early Bronze Age (EB) I had been the subject of a previous workshop published in Paleorient in 2013. One of the main results was the unanimous recognition by the participants that in the central and southern regions of the southern Levant there is a distinct transitional horizon dated between ca 3900/3800 BC and ca 3600 that is characterized by some inherited LC traits, the disappearance of some typical LC traits, and the appearance of new traits that would feature in the EB I repertoire.3 Since then, no new data have changed this picture of a transitional horizon present in only a few regions of the southern Levant. In some regions, such as in the Jordan Valley, only final LC sites have been documented,4 and in the north, excavated EB I sites show no stratigraphic continuity with the previous LC occupations.5 These circumstances have sparked numerous questions about the end of the LC period, the apparent desertion of certain regions, the nature of the relationship between the LC and the EB I populations, and the nature of the dynamics underlying the LC/EB I transition. These issues are tackled in this volume by Braun, who examines, on one hand, classic LC and EB I fossiles directeurs, and, on the other hand, LC and EB I elements found together during the transitional period. He focuses on sites dated from the first half of the 4th millennium BC and distributed among the different regions of the southern Levant. This enables Braun to conclude that the LC–EB I transition shows elements of continuity of LC elements, but is distinct from both the LC and the early EB. Hence, he suggests the use of “the term, LC–EB I transition, [as it] takes cognizance of the several aspects of material culture that clearly indicate transmission from the LC to the succeeding period…” He also underlines the dearth of evidence for this period, which he takes to indicate some “calamitous occurrence” which lead to a sparse settlement pattern in this period. As a complement to Braun’s panorama, Golani examines in detail the LC–EB I transition at Ashqelon. The material culture remains excavated at the site (burials, ceramics, flints, basalt bowls, faunal and botanical remains, metallurgy) are put in chronological perspective thanks to a large battery of radiocarbon dates. In doing so, he observes elements of continuity from the Chalcolithic of the northern Negev, which suggest that, during the first half of the 4th millennium, “Ashqelon was populated by Chalcolithic populations of the northern Negev that relocated northwards.” During the course of this relocation, the LC culture underwent transformations leading to the EB I culture, bringing with it a shift to “a broad-based market economy with far-reaching trade relations.”

3

Van den Brink, 2013; Golani, 2013; Paz and Nativ, 2013, Roux / van den Brink / Shalev, 2013. Bar, 2014; Bar / Bar-Oz / Cohen-Klonymus / Pinsky, 2014. 5 Van den Brink / Roux / Shapiro / Shemer, in press; van den Brink, 2019. 4

Transitions during the Early Bronze Age in the Levant

3

Figure 2. Interior of the conference schedule brochure.

The hypothesis of significant population movement at the end of the LC is also considered by Roux who examines ceramic assemblages from northern early EB I sites. Following a technological approach, she demonstrates that there is a technological filiation between the LC and EB I ceramic manufacture, testifying to social links between the LC and EB I populations. She suggests that the lack of evidence of transitional sites in the northern region should be viewed alongside the presence, at the same time, of Ghassulian ceramics in the central Levant (Lebanon), suggesting that LC groups had migrated northwards, but returned a few centuries later bearing with new ceramic features in their repertoire due to interactions with exogenous populations during their sojourn as well as innovations adapting to social aspects of return to their ancestral lands. The history of these descendants of LC groups helped to place them in new social networks that combined with the ancestral networks directly influenced the new dynamics of Early Bronze Age society. The reasons underlying the relocation and dispersal of the LC groups and the end of the Ghassulian culture are explored by Joffe. He suggests that the accumulation of a series of small and large changes led to ritual failure, collapse of the social order, and space reorganization. Among these changes, Joffe refers to earthquakes, tsunamis, climate change, and sea level changes. He suggests that these short-term changes participated to the collapse of ritual-political systems and pushed the people away from Chalcolithic centers, while new environmental conditions pulled them to new arid and Mediterranean zones, explaining thus the dearth of LC–EB I sites in previous LC zones. Considering both population continuity between the Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age and the collapse of LC ritual and social order over 200–300 years,

4

M. J. Adams and V. Roux

Joffe concludes that Chalcolithic and EB I societies were bound by cultural connections while by the same time dramatic religious and social ruptures contributed to a radical change in paradigm that resulted in the new Early Bronze Age order. This change of paradigm between LC and EB I societies is further argued by Yuketieli who focuses on the mentalités of Chalcolithic and EBA societies. He highlights the unique artistic richness of the Chalcolithic period and the vast world of craftsmanship, which he suggests involved the intellectual and spiritual interaction of a large part of the population. In contrast, he notes, the EBA is a world without art, largely devoid of figurines, ossuaries, frescoes, house idols, scepters and copper crowns, which defined Chalcolithic culture. The transition, therefore, meant the loss vast practical knowledge; “chains of transmission terminated; know-how, methods, and ideas became useless; a whole set of senses, smells, sounds, and visions was lost; certain words became meaningless, and certain values obsolete.” This world of crafts beyond the worldly was replaced by a world of utilitarian production. The author suggests that transitions in language would have accompanied these changes, reflecting a transformation that was not only religious and artistic, but an upheaval of mentalités which previously gave priority to the creative and artistic and which were now at the service of labor. Likewise, Cipin insists on the major socio-economic changes between the Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age but argues that the era that we call the Chalcolithic might be seen better as a “transitional period” itself, leading Neolithic societies to those of the Early Bronze Age which represents “the climax of a remarkable, one-thousand-year period of transition that carried society from the Neolithic Revolution to the first urban period”. Socio-economic and ritual practices are described from the Neolithic period onwards. According to a linear evolutionary perspective, Chalcolithic practices are considered on the one hand as having evolved from the Neolithic and, on the other hand, as transitional with the EBA given continuous features with the EBA; these would indeed indicate the role of LC societies in an evolution towards urbanity.

Transitions during the Early Bronze Age Over the course of some 100 years of scholarship on the Early Bronze Age Levant, our chronological resolution has been low, such that transformations of societies could not be seen directly, but only inferred from the fact that, for example, one time there was an EB I society and later there was an EB II that looked different. With the accumulation of new data, recent advances in radiocarbon chronologies, and more sophisticated theoretical approaches, transitional periods are beginning to come into sharp focus, and it is clear that our chronological approach severely limits our ability to interpret societal change across space and time. Milevski, Getzov and Paz observe that while there is regional and temporal variation in the EB I in the Southern Levant, the period is often treated monolithically. They set out to synchronize the different phases and regional characteristics of the EB I, primarily focused on the alignment of developments toward ‘urbanism’ in the northern and southern regions. Using the primary datasets of ceramics, domestic architecture, density of architecture across a settlement, settlement size, and monumental architecture, they attempt to correlate regional phases, leading ultimately toward ‘urbanism’. In doing so, they identify three distinct regions evincing fortified settlements in the late EB I, the lower Galilee/Jezreel Valley, the Jordan Valley, and the southern Coastal Plain. The developments they trace argue in favor of an urban character of settlements in these regions in the EB IB. The unique character of the EB IB and the previously unparalleled abilities of southern Levantine societies in this period is well-indicated by the Great Temple of Level J-4 Megiddo. Greener and Adams elaborate on the uniqueness of this period (though they find no utility in the term ‘urban’) with an explication of the exceptional groundstone assemblage at contemporary Tel Megiddo East, a satellite settlement of Megiddo. The assemblage stands out in the density of the collection (relative to area excavated), the amount of special material, and with its several unique and elaborate items demonstrating highly skilled artisanship. The authors conclude that the richness of the assemblage is directly connected to the proximity of the settlement to the Great Temple and infer the unique status of TME residents because of it. Paz and Elad consider the transition from the EB IB to the EB II in the northern Coastal Plain from the view of their excavations at ‘En Esur. Like Milevski et al., they take issue with the traditional view of the

Transitions during the Early Bronze Age in the Levant

5

Southern Levantine EB I as village-level society with urbanism manifesting in the EB II. They argue that EB IB has enough features of urbanism (proto-urban is the term they use) to consider it the beginning of the urban wave that defines the EB II–III. They bring to bear several aspects of ‘En Esur and other sites, including the settlements massive size and evidence for pre-planning, to make their case that the EB IB–EB II transition is not marked by discontinuity in all aspects of culture. These traits, they argue, indicate that the EB IB marks the beginning of the urban trend. Sala considers the subject of the EB IB–II transition with a view from Tell el-Far‘ah North, which is one of the few settlements that spans these periods uninterrupted. In her analysis of the architecture and material culture across this sequence, Sala was able to identify evidence for both continuity and change in different elements of the settlement. In particular, she contrasts the notable changes in settlement planning and architecture with the technological continuity in ceramic production, while also highlighting innovations in the latter. Overall, she is able to show that in the rare example of a settlement that survived continuously across the transition, that the ‘urban’ EB II society, while innovative in its own right is a direct development from seeds already sown in the ‘village-based’ EB IB society. She argues that the transition saw an intensification of socio-economic activities, differentiation among social groups, innovation in material and technological know-how, and maintenance of long-distance exchange networks. Ultimately, she suggests, like others in this volume, that the EB IB is better understood as the beginning of a period that includes the EB II, rather than the end of an era. Tell el-Far‘ah North also serves as the basis for de Miroschedji’s study of the EB I–II transition. He provides a detailed review of the stratigraphic phases of the Early Bronze Age at the site along with the relevant ceramic developments in order to build a comprehensive synchronized picture of the transition across the Southern Levant. In the process, he is able to more precisely define a ceramic phase observed by other scholars as representing a discrete period between the traditional EB IB and the EB II, known as Early Southern Levant 3 (ESL 3) following the terminology adopted by the ARCANE (‘Associated Regional Chronologies of the Ancient Near East’) project. Linking together strata from southern Levantine settlements fitting the ESL 3 description, de Miroschedji provides further remarks on the broader implications of the period for the development of village-based societies into competing territorial organizations of the EB II– III. Ultimately, he concludes that the transition from the EB IB to the period known as ESL 3, is the critical moment of radical change, with ESL 3 marking the beginning of a new era in all aspects of social and political organization as well as material culture and monumental architecture. He further suggests designating the ESL 3 as EB IIA, in order to emphasize the relationship between this phase and the succeeding EB II. Horwitz brings a zooarchaeological perspective to the EB I–II transition in the Sinai Peninsula, where she observes the growth of an animal economy based on the production of secondary products. She suggests that these products were destined for markets in the new EB II city-states of Canaan. She explains this switch from a meat-producing herding strategies in the EB I to strategies emphasizing secondary products in the EB II within the framework of Dependency Theory. In her model, EB I society of southern Sinai was highly dependent on the import of basic foodstuffs from Canaan. With the urbanism of Canaan in the EB II, the under-developed Sinai society was forced to produce new secondary products in an effort to maintain the flow of foodstuffs essential for their survival. In their paper, Shalev, Walzer, and Paz are able identify two phases in the Intermediate Bronze Age (IBA) settlements of Khirbet el-‘Alya Northeast and Naḥal Ha-’Ela Site in the Judean Shephelah, and use them to synchronize the settlement chronologies of the region. In characterizing these two periods, especially against the settlement patterns of the earlier EB III, they observe a hitherto-unimagined demographic decline from the EB III to the IBA, which only partly recovered in the second half of the IBA. While dramatic demographic changes have been hypothesized for some regions in the IBA, other regions show degree of continuity. The Shephelah, it would seem, fits the former pattern, and contributes to our understanding of the EB–IBA Transition as dynamic and differential across the Southern Levant. In the final contribution to this volume, Manclossi and Rosen remind us just how much ceramic typology dominates the periodization of Southern Levantine 3rd millennium chronology—and indeed most relative chronologies of the Near East and beyond. They demonstrate how “the lithic systems of the 4th and 3rd millennia BC of the Southern Levant follow chronological trajectories independent of the period's standard

6

M. J. Adams and V. Roux

periodization schemes,” which are, of course, based mainly on pottery—and, in the late 4th and early 4th millennia, on preconceived notions of ‘urbanism’. The introduction to their paper should be recommended reading for every student of archaeology, and their case study of lithics of the ‘Early Bronze Age’ to show how these issues affect our perceptions of chronology should be revisited every time we find ourselves quibbling over the periodization of the appearance and disappearance of, say, Light-faced Painted Ware.

Acknowledgments Thanks to all the sponsors and the various people who contributed directly to the workshop, especially Albright Communications Director Sarah Fairman, Albright Program Manager Aaron Greener and François Bon former director at CRFJ. We want also to express our thanks to Albright Chef Hisham M’Farreh and Housekeeping Supervisor Naual Herbawi and their teams for hospitality during the event. Thanks to Vivianna Muscovich for copy editing and formatting.

References Bar, S., 2014: The Dawn of the Bronze Age: The Pattern of Settlement in the Lower Jordan Valley and the Desert Fringes of Samaria during the Chalcolithic Period and Early Bronze Age I. Leiden/Boston. Bar, S. / Bar-Oz, G. / Cohen-Klonymus, H. / Pinsky, S., 2014: “Fazael 1, A Chalcolithic Site in the Jordan Valley: Report of the 2013–2014 Excavation Seasons”. Mitekufat Haeven: Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 44, 180–201. van den Brink, E. / Roux, V. / Shapiro, A. / Shemer, M., in press: “Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I Settlement Remains at Kafr Kanna in Lower Galilee”. ‘Atiqot. van den Brink, E., 2013: “A late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age I progression at the Buchman South quarter in Modi’in - in the central piedmont (Shephela) of Israel”. Paléorient 39(1), 15–22. — 2019: “Kafr Kanna. Preliminary report”. HA-EI 131. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=25524 & mag_id=127. Braun, E. / Roux, V., 2013: “The Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age I transition in the Southern Levant: Determining continuity and discontinuity or ‘mind the gap’”. Paléorient 39(1), 15–22. Golani, A., 2013: “2013 The transition from the Late Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze I in Southwestern Canaan-Ashqelon as a case for continuity”. Paléorient 39(1), 95–110. Paz, Y. / Nativ, A., 2013: “Yesodot, Israel: A Case for a post-Ghassulian Entity”. Paléorient 39(1), 83–93. Roux, V. / van den Brink, E. C. M. / Shalev, S., 2013: “Continuity and Discontinuity in the Shephela (Israel) between the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze I: The Modi‘in “Deep Deposits” Ceramic Assemblages as a Case Study”. Paléorient 39(1), 63–81.

They Seek It Here, They Seek It There, “That Demned Elusive” Late-Chalcolithic to Early Bronze 1 Transition of the Southern Levant Eliot Braun1

Abstract Despite more than a century of intense archaeological exploration in the southern Levant that has long recognized a chronological sequence including a Chalcolithic period followed by an Early Bronze Age,2 the transition between these chrono-cultural periods remains one of the most elusive aspects in the late prehistoric archaeological record; perhaps even more elusive than Baroness Orczy’s3 fictitious Scarlet Pimpernel. Its elusive character has earlier prompted me to give it another literature-derived appellation, ‘the lost horizon’4 from James Hilton’s5 novel of that name. Indeed, it is only in the last decades, after a modicum of significant evidence has been unearthed and recognized, that we have been able to document some aspects of that transition. This paper attempts to review the archaeological evidence for that transition, some of it quite recent.

Keywords: Late Chalcolithic, Early Bronze 1,6 Southern Levant, Transition, Fourth millennium.

Introduction South Levantine periodization is a heuristic, and to a great extent, artificial device, designed by scholars to chronologically classify sets of material culture,7 so-called ‘periods’, recognized in the archaeological record. It has long been perceived that basic differences in two sets of material culture within superimposed sequences at select sites in the southern Levant (as well as elsewhere) necessitated a nomenclature that would distinguish one from the other. Using Petrie’s8 observations that pottery styles were particularly indicative of chrono-cultural associations for periodization, early archaeologists9 excavating in the southern Levant10 adopted the terms Chalcolithic and Early Bronze (both essentially misnomers11) respectively for this particular sequence; terms that have, albeit with occasional exceptions,12 become accepted conventions. As such, these are very basic definitions that take no cognizance of other important features of human activity such as level and/or type of social organization, economic activities, regional patterns, etc. They are primarily simplistic constructs for sequential and relative chronologies, mere frameworks for a seminal understanding of the archaeological record, and a starting point for its discussion. 1

Sr. Fellow, W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research; Associate Researcher, Centre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem; email: [email protected]. 2 Albright, 1922, 1936. 3 Orczy, 2002. 4 Braun, 2011a. 5 Hilton, 1933. 6 This period is also known as EB I, EBI and, in earlier literature, some aspects of it as LC (Dothan, 1957; de Vaux, 1970). 7 Clarke / Chapman, 1978. 8 Petrie, 1891a. 9 Earlier periodization attempts by scholars (e.g., Petrie, 1891b; Macalister, 1902, 1912a, 1912b, 1912c)—ethnic (e.g., Amorite, Pre-Semitic and Semitic), technological (e.g., ‘Copper Age’), and historical (e.g., Israelite, Maccabean) terminologies—did not gain any significant acceptance and are no longer used. 10 E.g., Albright, 1926, 1932; Fitzgerald, 1935, 1936; Sukenik, 1936, 1937; Wright, 1936, 1937, 1958, 1971). 11 The term Chalcolithic, which signifies the use of copper and stone tools is probably not valid for early phases of this period for which there is no evidence of the existence of this metal (Gilead, 1988, 1994, 2011; Gilead / Fabian, 2010). Similarly, there is no evidence for the deliberate alloying of copper with tin to form bronze during most of the Early Bronze period, although arsenical bronzes, probably not due to deliberate alloying, are known. 12 For a brief discussion of earlier attempts at periodization, see Braun / Roux, 2013.

8

E. Braun

Although pottery was the primary factor in the original definitions of these particular periods, research soon added other aspects of material culture (e.g., architectural traditions, flint tool kits, ground stone tools, mortuary-related objects and iconography) that enhanced the definitions of these chrono-cultural entities and, to a great extent, emphasized their differences. So substantially different were deemed the material culture manifestations of the LC and the EB 1 that some scholars13 suggested that in the southern Levant there was a nearly complete break or even a chronological gap with a hiatus in human activity between them. Others, however, admitted some limited degree of continuity14 and occasionally even overlapping of the two cultural manifestations,15 but there was rather little evidence for any real transition from the earlier cultural phase to the later. Simply stated, the exposed archaeological record was to blame for those perceptions. Always offering a skewed view by virtue of the serendipitous nature of discoveries and limited preservation, the revealed record seemed to be lacking in information on the LC–EB 1 transition. Until recent decades, nowhere within the southern Levant was there anything approaching a good sequence of occupation that expressed that transition, nor was there any definitive information on a significant transference of the cultural burden; only mere hints of it could be discerned. The type sites for the LC, Teleilat Ghassul,16 excavated in the early years of the 20th Century, and the Beersheva cluster of sites17 excavated several decades thereafter, which lent their names to late exponents of Chalcolithic (i.e., Ghassulian-Beersheva) culture, were devoid of even hints at the continuity of traditions. As they lacked EB levels, they could be dated only relatively, based on material culture.18 Nowhere, until rather recently, were any sequences of LC to EB 1 discovered, while regional differences limited even the use of ‘horizontal stratigraphy’ for developing sequences within the two periods.19 Even today, with a greatly expanded, exposed archaeological record, there are no good sequences of the transition from the LC to the EB 1 applicable to the entire southern Levant. There are, however, some regional sequences that do offer relatively good evidence of periodization and some degree of continuity, and, with hindsight, it is possible now to discern limited evidence of ongoing traditions in select artifacts from a number of sites (see below). These data provide a view, albeit somewhat parochial, of a real transition from LC to EB 1 (Fig. 1).

Late Prehistoric Southern Levant Periodization—Some Caveats Most of the earliest exploration of late prehistoric sites arose from scholars’ attempts to elucidate biblical history. That was primarily undertaken at major tell sites such as Jericho,20 Megiddo,21 and Gezer,22 large, multi-period mounds in the well-watered zones where ‘pre-biblical’ occupations were found incidentally. Accordingly, early periodization schemes were based on material culture encountered at those sites. As archaeological exploration spread to encompass much greater areas of the southern Levant, other regions, marginal to the fertile centers—semi-arid and arid zones—were explored. Not unexpectedly, different sets of material culture were found there, and quite often, the most basic diagnostic forms for conventional periodization (primarily ceramics) were lacking, were very sparse or too poorly preserved to allow for correlations with conventional artifacts representing previously defined periods. That further complicates our ability to recognize evidence of the transition, as those additional data indicate a very complicated reality that is extremely difficult of comprehension in such a poorly preserved record. Some sites that may be termed as archaeologically ephemeral due to their dearth of material culture remains may well be representative of much or possibly even the bulk of human activity in those regions in the time span of the 13

E.g., de Vaux, 1970: 529–532; Kenyon, 1970: 82, 1979: 64; Elliott, 1978. E.g., Amiran, 1977; Braun, 1989a. 15 E.g., Kempinski / Gilead, 1991 16 Mallon et al., 1934; Koepel et al., 1940. 17 Dothan, 1959a; Perrot, 1955a, 1955b, 1955c, 1959. 18 E.g., Amiran, 1969. 19 E.g., Braun, 1989a. 20 Sellin and Watzinger, 1913; Garstang, 1935. 21 Schumacher, 1908; Fisher, 1929. 22 Macalister, 1902, 1912a, 1912b, 1912c. 14

They Seek It Here, They Seek It There

9

LC–EB transition. However, at present, the evidence they have yielded, some of which is noted below, offers only equivocal information on the period under discussion.

Figure 1. Map of the principal sites that yielded LC–EB 1 artifacts.

10

E. Braun

Disparities in Material Culture and Disruption of Occupation: The Late Chalcolithic versus the Early Bronze 1 Scholars interpreting the exposed archaeological record relied primarily on objects of material culture, fossiles directeurs, which distinguished LC from EB 1. These fossiles directeurs included a range of pottery types based on morphology, fabrics, and decoration, specific types of flint artifacts (tools, cores, and debitage), mortuary related objects and artistic representations. As there appeared to have been very few commonalities between the material culture of these periods, the evidence suggested a massive disturbance in the transference of the cultural burden, one also marked by a significant disruption in settlement patterns. Thus, there was full justification for the recognition of two distinct periods clearly evident in Amiran’s23 treatment of Chalcolithic and EB 1 ceramics. LC Fossiles Directeurs: A Brief Review Some pottery types that distinguish the LC from the EB 1 are churns, cornets, piriform jars with vertical tubular appendages, some of the so-called ‘Cream Ware,’24 and ceramic ossuaries. Typical LC chipped stone objects unknown in good EB 1 contexts are bifacials and single-edged, backed and truncated sickle blades.25 Ground stone objects, primarily of basalt and phosphorite that are exclusively associated with LC occupations, include relatively thin-walled bowls with thin bases, often decorated with incised triangles or herring bone-like patterns. Some examples are also made on delicate, high fenestrated bases26 that appear to be refined examples of earlier and cruder types. LC mortuary customs are often associated with stone ossuaries, while to date, there is no evidence for the use of ossuaries of either pottery or stone for EB 1 burials, although there are some rare instances of burials in ceramic vessels (see below). The extensive repertoire of LC artistic expression with its rich iconography and inherent symbolism expressed in stone artifacts (e.g., basalt pillar figurines), wall paintings, ceramics (primarily, ossuaries with anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations) and ivory figurines are unknown in EB 1 contexts.27 Indeed, by comparison with the Chalcolithic period, the south Levantine EB 1 is nearly devoid of 3dimensional, free-standing iconographic representations. Some notable exceptions include a remarkable figurine with pot atop its head from Bab edh-Dhra,28 some crude childlike representations in pottery similar to ‘gingerbread men’,29 and an unpublished30 small head in pottery with an open mouth reminiscent of Munch’s ‘Scream’ from a late EB 1 tomb near Beth Shan. Two ceramic handles with decorations in high relief may also be cited, one from ‘En Shadud31 (with a representation of a human head) and another from Beth Shan with a human hand.32 Notably, none of these artifacts bears any significant similarity to any LC object. Whether unknown or deliberately eschewed, this startling absence of humanoid figurines in EB 1 culture suggests major differences in the beliefs and spirituality of people inhabiting the same region in these two successive periods. Differences are also reflected in architectural practices. LC peoples built their houses using rectilinear principals thus continuing a tradition dating back to PPNB times. In addition, in select areas, they also carved 23

Amiran, 1969. Amiran, 1969: 29. 25 Vardi / Gilead, 2013: 115–116. 26 A so far unique example of a fenestrated basalt bowl with an EB 1 association is, I believe, a reworked fragment of a bowl of Chalcolithic origin (Braun, 1990: Fig. 4.3). 27 The EB 1 is not, however, completely devoid of artistic representation, although at present it appears to be primarily limited to glyptic art (e.g., Beck, 1967, 1975, 1984). 28 This object is on display at the Amman Citadel Museum, Jordan. It is a nude female body with pronounced breasts and two upraised arms holding a pot in the place of a head (Bienkowski, 1991). The vessel, with two handles and a wide neck decorated with a horizontal line of evenly spaced protuberances below the rim, is reminiscent of numerous larger examples with punctuated decoration found in early EB 1 tombs at Bab edh-Dhra. 29 Schaub / Rast, 1989: 275–286. 30 The object, excavated decades ago by Ruth Amiran and colleagues, was for many years on display at the Israel Museum, but to the best of my knowledge remains unpublished. 31 Braun, 1985: Fig. 24: 4. 32 Braun, 2004: Fig. 3.19: 2. 24

They Seek It Here, They Seek It There

11

out cavities in the ground within their communities, making substantial underground additions to their domiciles.33 The former tradition witnessed a brief hiatus with the advent of early EB 1 when curvilinear construction was apparently the norm.34 Harbingers of EB 1 Formerly, several types of material culture were considered to be LC fossiles directeurs. Recent discoveries have, however, shown that these artifact types made their appearance prior to what most scholars accept to be a full-blown EB 1 period. I suggest calling those contexts that encompass a very late LC and a less welldefined earliest EB 1 the ‘LC–EB 1’ chrono-cultural period to signify a transitional culture that may be defined as neither one nor the other but possessing elements of both.35 Straight-Walled and Bell-Shaped or Wavy-Sided Bowls Straight-walled bowls (so-called ‘V-shaped’)36 represent a well-known type that appears to continue into the LC–EB 1 horizon in the central and southern regions, and into the earliest phase of the traditional EB 1 (Fig. 2: 10–15). Included in this group are bowls with slightly curving sides (e.g., Fig. 2: 9, 11, 14–15, Figs. 3–4). These bowls were often wheel-made and have characteristic features resulting from that type of production (Roux / van den Brink / Shalev 2012). A notable feature of these bowls is the treatment of the bases, which are probably formed from a hump and then detached, leaving traces of vestigial rings and uneven surfaces with the ring (Fig. 2: 13) or, occasionally, evidence of having been detached with a string (Fig. 2: 17). There is an additional type of bowl, bell-shaped and fashioned in a similar manner (Fig. 2: 1–8), which appears to be associated with the LC–EB 1 horizon. Although most of the pottery excavated by Gophna remains unpublished, some of it was on display at Kibbutz Palmaḥim. It includes a large, unpublished assemblage of this bowl type from the LC tombs at Palmaḥim Quarry. Gophna, who also conducted a small sounding at the site, recovered evidence of several EB 1 phases, in which he found an example of this type. At least some of the pottery dated LC from the tombs could well belong to the LC–EB 1 phase, especially when it is contrasted with the pottery from a nearby Chalcolithic cemetery of constructed circular tombs at the site of Palmaḥim North, a scant 300 m distant.37 It seems likely the difference in mortuary and ceramic traditions are indicative of chronological disparity rather than two coeval populations inhabiting the same region. Numerous examples of straight-sided and bellshaped bowls were, for example, also found in LC burial caves at Ramla,38 Ben Shemen,39 and Shoham.40 Several such bowls are included in the ceramic repertoire of Afridar, Area E.41

33

Perrot, 1955a, 1955b, 1955c. Braun, 1989b. 35 Braun / Roux, 2013. 36 Bowls of this morphological group are often cited as ‘v-shaped’, although these vessels have flat bases, contrary to the pointed bases of the latter, resembling more the tapered bases of cornets. This group is not only distinguished by morphology but also by technological features derived from being finished on wheels or tournettes (Roux / van den Brink / Shalev, 2013: 70–73). 37 Gorzalczany, 2018. 38 Avrutis, 2012: Pl. 3.17: 1–7 and Pl. 3.18: 3–8, respectively. 39 Perrot / Ladiray, 1980: Figs. 123: 8–16, 125: 8–16. 40 Commenge, 2005: Fig. 6: 10. 41 Golani, 2004: Fig. 23: 4–5. 34

12

E. Braun

Figure 2. LC–EB 1 Types of Small Ceramic Vessels.

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

42 43

Type Bell-shaped bowl Bell-shaped bowl Bell-shaped bowl Bell-shaped bowl Bell-shaped bowl Bell-shaped bowl Bell-shaped bowl Bell-shaped bowl Small bowl Straight-sided bowl Straight-sided bowl Straight-sided bowl Straight-sided bowl Straight-sided bowl Straight-sided bowl GBW bowl Straight-sided bowl Cup with high loop handle Cup with high loop handle Bowl with pie-crust like rim

Site Ben Shemen Ben Shemen Ben Shemen Ben Shemen Ben Shemen Ben Shemen Ben Shemen Ben Shemen Afridar Area G Palmahim Quarry Nizzanim Palmahim Quarry Afridar Area G Palmahim Quarry Afridar Area G Yiftahel Stratum II Afridar Area G Giv‘at ha-Oranim

Source Perrot / Ladiray, 1980: Fig. 123: 10 Perrot / Ladiray, 1980: Fig. 123: 11 Perrot / Ladiray, 1980: Fig. 123: 12 Perrot / Ladiray, 1980: Fig. 123:13 Perrot / Ladiray, 1980: Fig. 123:14 Perrot / Ladiray, 1980: Fig. 123:15 Perrot / Ladiray, 1980: Fig. 123:16 Perrot / Ladiray, 1980: Fig. 123:8 Braun / Gophna, 2004: Fig. 17: 6 Author’s excavation42 Yekutieli / Gophna, 1994: Fig. 12:5 Author’s excavation Braun / Gophna, 2004: Fig. 15:1 Author’s excavation Braun / Gophna, 2004: Fig. 17: 9 Braun, 1997: Fig. 9.3: 2 Braun / Gophna, 2004: Fig. 15: 3 After Scheftelowitz / Oren, 2004: Fig. 3.16: 5

Zeita / Gat Guvrin

After Perrot, n.d.: Fig. 76:18

Afridar Area G

Author’s excavation43

With the kind permission of the Israel Antiquities Authority. With the kind permission of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

They Seek It Here, They Seek It There

Figure 2. LC–EB 1 Types of Small Ceramic Vessels.

13

14

E. Braun

The Indented Ledge Handle Amiran’s44 seminal work on early pottery of the southern Levant has a section devoted to the ledge handle, which may be understood as definitive of the EB 1 as there are no such appendages found in her chapter on Chalcolithic pottery. However, in the past two decades, several discoveries have shown that indented ledge handles first made their appearance in several LC contexts,45 which are discussed below. Noticeable characteristics of the style and placement of these ledge handles in this early period are that such appendages are generally (albeit not exclusively) rather small and do not protrude far from the vessels’ walls. Figure 3. A small bell-shaped bowl from an LC tomb They are often placed below the midpoints of these vessels’ at Palmahim Quarry (courtesy of Ram Gophna). heights (Fig. 4: 9–12), a feature uncharacteristic of later EB 1 ledge handles, which are most often placed at the widest and generally mid-point of a vessel’s body. Several examples have similar appendages placed obliquely on their shoulders (Figs. 6–7). The bases of these large LC–EB jars tend to be relatively narrow in proportion to their wide shoulders, a feature that also seems to be found in pithoi of the period (Fig. 5: 7–14). Some vessels have pie-crust-like wavy rims, a feature that continues into the early EB 1 at sites in the south (Fig. 5: 13– 14). The High-Loop Handle The earliest appearance of this handle, one of the hallmarks of the EB 1 found on many juglets, seems to be in the LC– EB 1 period. Although quite rare, at least two examples that may be cited are from the sites of Gat Guvrin/Zeita and Giv‘at ha-Oranim (Fig. 2: 18–19). The Prismatic, So-called “Canaanean Blade” 46 This very distinctive type of blade (Fig. 8), usually referred to by the French term “canaanean” after R. Neuville,47 is the product of a specialized technology long thought to be a fossile directeur of the Early Bronze Age in the southern Levant, although some suggested it may have appeared somewhat earlier.48 Others, more recently, have expressed the view that these distinctive objects were never definitively associated with Chalcolithic contexts.49 There is now, however, a small but growing body of evidence to suggest that these specialized blades actually did make their appearance in the southern Levant sometime at the Figure 4. A small bell-shaped bowl from a small end of the LC (see below). sounding at Palmahim Quarry (courtesy of Ram Gophna).

44

Amiran, 1969. Examples are found at Shoham (Commenge 2005: Figs. 6.7: 5, 6: 32), Ramla (Avrutis, 2012: Pl. 3.8: 7). 46 The term is unfortunate, as at times it has been translated to ‘Canaanite’ (see below), which infers an undeserved ethnic association, especially as it is found far beyond the Southern Levant. 47 Neuville, 1934. 48 E.g., Schick et al, 1998: 126–127. 49 E.g., Milevski / Fabian / Marder, 2011; Vardi / Gilead 2013: 116–117. 45

They Seek It Here, They Seek It There

15

Early EB 1 ‘Fossiles Directeurs’: A Brief Review A kind of pottery known as Gray Burnished Ware (GBW)50 is one of, if not the most outstanding artifact type associated with the early EB 1. Found in a stratigraphic context superimposed upon Ghassulian/Beersheva type ceramics at Afula,51 it was, early on, recognized as a fossile directeur of pottery believed to be related to types found at Chalcolithic Teleilat Ghassul.52 Although originally designated LC, GBW was later recognized as associated with a post LC horizon and more properly ascribed to the EB 1 period53 despite a purported claim by Moshe Dothan54 that it was found in all three levels at the site of Meser.55 The excavation of Yiftah’el II,56 where no evidence of Chalcolithic material culture was found, clearly demonstrated that claim to have been unwarranted. Other excavations have further demonstrated the veracity of this observation, such as Beth Shan57 and ‘En Esur (Assawir).58 While GBW (Fig. 2: 16) is mostly believed to be a northern phenomenon, it is also known in the Jordan Valley in Beth Shan and Herodian Jericho and at sites in the Mediterranean Littoral as far south as Tel Aviv and Palmaḥim c. 20 km south, as well as in the mountainous area of northern Samaria. There is apparently a close association between examples of this type of pottery and curvilinear architecture. These two aspects define the earliest definitively EB 1 occupations in those regions. Remarkably, neither of these aspects of EB 1 culture has apparent roots in the south Levantine LC, suggesting they are likely somewhat later developments and likely imported ideas59. By contrast, the archaeological record of the central and southern regions has yielded significant evidence of an LC to EB 1 transition. Evidence for LC: A Brief Review Galilee The archaeological record for developed60 Chalcolithic in Galilee is rather sparse and not well enough exposed for any definitive statement of what is the latest or even what is LC. Evidence is limited to exposures at only a few sites such as Marj Raba,61 Tel Te’o,62 Peqi‘in,63 and Tel Turmus.64 Marj Raba is demonstrably early, while Peqi‘in is a cave site with an early occupation below burials clearly representing a significant time span, with no clear stratigraphy. The cave has yielded radiocarbon dates that are well into the fifth millennium, and thus, there is no good evidence of LC there. In the absence of radiocarbon dates, pottery is the most sensitive indicator of chronological associations. However, the pottery of Tel Te’o and Tel Turmus, both in the Huleh Valley, is quite different from that of more southerly sites of the Ghassulian/Beersheva facies and thus cannot be chronologically correlated with it. Accordingly, with no radiocarbon dates that may be definitively ascribed to specific units of material culture, it is not possible to do more than define LC in that region in relative terms, while any ultimate or latest Chalcolithic phase, if it exists there, remains obscure.

50

Braun, 2012. Sukenik, 1936. 52 Wright, 1936, 1937. 53 Wright, 1958. 54 Dothan, 1957, 1959b. 55 The stratigraphy of the site was not clear from the publications, which were only brief notes (Dothan, 1957, 1959b), while a detailed study of the plans indicated that Stratum II was likely the source of GBW (Braun, 1989b: Notes 33, 34). Recently, I have examined pottery from the site and noted that, in addition to the EB 1 and LC pottery, there is also a significant quantity of Late Neolithic and/or Early Chalcolithic potsherds. 56 Braun, 1997. 57 Braun, 2004. 58 Yannai, 2006 59 Braun, 2020: 5–10,40–42. 60 This refers to sites later than those of Wadi Rabah, a cultural phase alternately considered as Late Neolithic or Early Chalcolithic. 61 Rowan / Kersel, 2014; Price et al., 2014. 62 Eisenberg / Gopher / Greenberg, 2001. 63 Shalem / Gal / Smithline, 2013. 64 Dayan, 1969. 51

16

E. Braun

Figure 5. LC–EB 1 Jar Handles and Jars.

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Type Indented ledge handle Indented ledge handle Indented ledge handle Indented ledge handle Jar with indented ledge handle Jar with indented ledge handle Jar with indented ledge handle Jar with indented ledge handle Jar with indented ledge handle Jar with indented ledge handle Jar with indented ledge handle Jar with indented ledge handle Jar with indented ledge handle Jar with indented ledge handle

Site Giv‘at ha-Oranim

Source Scheftelowitz / Oren, 2004: Fig. 3.18: 1

Giv‘at ha-Oranim

Scheftelowitz / Oren, 2004: Fig. 3.18: 3

Giv‘at ha-Oranim

Scheftelowitz / Oren, 2004: Fig. 3.18: 2

Giv‘at ha-Oranim

Scheftelowitz / Oren, 2004: Fig. 3.18: 4

Mazor Tomb Giv‘at ha-Oranim

Courtesy of I. Milevski and the Israel Antiquities Authority (approx. scale) Scheftelowitz / Oren, 2004: Fig. 3.14: 2

Giv‘at ha-Oranim

Scheftelowitz / Oren, 2004: Fig. 3.18: 1

Giv‘at ha-Oranim

Scheftelowitz / Oren, 2004: Fig. 3.18: 3

Ben Shemen

Perrot / Ladiray, 1980: Fig 129: 8

Zeita/Gat Guvrin

Perrot, n.d.: Fig.73: 22

Ben Shemen

Perrot / Ladiray, 1980: Fig 129: 9

Zeita/Gat Guvrin

Perrot, n.d.: Fig. 73: 2

Afridar Area F

Baumgarten, 2004: Fig. 15:5

Giv‘at ha-Oranim

Scheftelowitz / Oren, 2004: Fig. 315: 2

They Seek It Here, They Seek It There

Figure 5. LC–EB 1 Jar Handles and Jars.

17

18

E. Braun

Figure 6. A base of a pithos with indented ledge handles from the latest LC Stratum 4 at Modi‘in Buchman (courtesy of E .C. M. van den Brink and the Israel Antiquities Authority).

Figure 7. The upper part of a pithos from a pit below Stratum 3 at Palmahim Quarry. Note its pie-crust decorated rim and the oblique indented ledge-like addition/decoration (photo by the author).

They Seek It Here, They Seek It There

19

Golan Although the Chalcolithic of the Golan65 is better known than that of the Galilee, it is no less difficult to chronologically correlate it with the Ghassulian/Beersheva facies. While there are some radiocarbon based dates, they offer only equivocal information.66 The sole date derived from a short-lived sample (burnt wheat) is well into the fifth millennium, while other dates, from charcoal, range down into the mid, and even later 4th millennium. Their reliability seems rather questionable, as the material culture of these sites is quite homogeneous and thus highly unlikely to represent close to a millennium of human activity. In any event, for the present, there are no discernible clues in the Golan Chalcolithic sites of an LC–EB 1 transition. The Jordan Valley Several sites in the Jordan Valley have yielded Chalcolithic occupations such as those at Tel Kitan67 and Abu Ḥamid,68 but they include pre-LC occupations and are only cursorily published. However, a more recently exposed cluster of settlements in the Fazael Valley, near to where it debouches into the Jordan Valley, has yielded good evidence of LC occupations, while at Tell es Shuneh there appears to be evidence of an LC–EB 1 transition. The Fazael Cluster—Two in a cluster of Chalcolithic sites evidencing affinities with the Ghassulian/ Beersheva facies of material culture,69 Fazael 2 and Fazael 7, are clearly defined as latest LC by their excavators based on the absence of some aspects of material culture and the presence of others that suggest associations with the EB 1.70 Houses, in the LC tradition, are rectilinear. However, churns and cornets, hallmarks of the LC, are missing, while bifacial tools are relatively rare in the flint assemblage,71 suggesting this was the tail end of that particular tradition. The presence of “canaanean” blades,72 common throughout the Early Bronze Age, further indicates the tardiness of this LC phase. A notable addition definitively associated with this site is the indented ledge handle, found in an almost complete jar containing an infant burial below the floor of a house of Stratum 2 of Fazael 2 (Fig. 9).73 Radiocarbon dates on charcoal derived from Stratum 2 at Fazael 2 indicate the site was occupied late in the fifth millennium and early in the 4th millennium, which clearly puts it within an LC horizon, as indicated by the excavator.74 These, and additional dates from Teleilat Ghassul,75 suggest ending the Chalcolithic and the onset of the transitional period at the beginning of the 4th millennium.

65

Epstein, 1998. Carmi / Segal, 1998. 67 Eisenberg, 1993. 68 Dollfus / Kafah1988; Roux et al. 2011. 69 Bar et al., 2012. 70 Bar, 2013, 2014; Bar et al., 2014: 200; Bar et al., 2014, 2015. 71 Bar / Winter 2010. 72 While Milevski / Fabian / Marder (2011) have made a case against “canaanean” blades in situ in Chalcolithic contexts at a number of sites, contending that supposed instances actually derived from intrusions, that is clearly not the case at two sites in the Fazael cluster. Neither are they, as claimed by Vardi / Gilead (2013: 119) “… most probably due to post depositional processes that usually affect multi-layered sites”, as has been claimed for Modi‘in Buchman (see below). The nearest EB site is hundreds of metres away across the valley. Of note is one “canaanean” blade core found nearby by Porath (1985: 11; Fig. 6.6). Other examples found in LC contexts are discussed below. 73 Bar, 2014: 16–318, Fig. 10.23. 74 Bar, 2014: 319. 75 Bourke et al., 2001, 2004. 66

20

E. Braun

Figure 8. “Canaanean” blades and a “canaanean” blade core.

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Type “Canaanean” blade “Canaanean” blade “Canaanean” blade “Canaanean” blade “Canaanean” blade “Canaanean” blade “Canaanean” blade “Canaanean” blade core “Canaanean” blade “Canaanean” blade “Canaanean” blade “Canaanean” blade

Site Giv‘at ha-Oranim Giv‘at ha-Oranim Yesodot Yesodot Yesodot Zeita / Gat Guvrin Zeita / Gat Guvrin Zeita / Gat Guvrin

Source Scheftelowitz / Oren, 2004: Fig. 7.4: 3 Scheftelowitz / Oren, 2004: Fig. 7.4: 2 Paz / Nativ, 2013: Fig. 7 Paz / Nativ, 2013: Fig. 7 Paz / Nativ, 2013: Fig. 7 Perrot, n.d.: Fig. 82: 2 Perrot, n.d.: Fig. 82: 3 Perrot, n.d.: Fig. 82: 4

Zeita / Gat Guvrin Zeita / Gat Guvrin Zeita / Gat Guvrin Zeita / Gat Guvrin

Perrot, n.d.: Fig. 82: 5 Perrot, n.d.: Fig. 82: 6 Perrot, n.d.: Fig. 82: 7 Perrot, n.d.: Fig. 82: 16

They Seek It Here, They Seek It There

Figure 8. “Canaanean” blades and a “canaanean” blade core.

21

22

E. Braun

Figure 9. MRI image of a ceramic vessel used for the burial of a pre-natal infant from beneath a floor of an LC house at Fazael 2 in the Jordan Valley. Note the indented ledge handles (courtesy of Shay Bar).

Tell es-Shuna North—Although this site was sounded a number of times76 in different locations, it is difficult to understand the stratigraphic relationship between the Chalcolithic and EB 1 occupations, with one exception. This exception is in a deep, albeit quite restricted survey by Gustavson-Gaube77 documented in what is presented as a single, continuous sequence of occupation from Late Neolithic through EB 2. In her quite detailed reconstruction of the stratigraphy and associated pottery she noted:78 “In terms of its artifact repertoire, the es-Shuna North ceramic assemblage is striking in the persistent use of established potterymaking traditions throughout the excavated sequence, independent of what the archaeologist may wish to call Chalcolithic or Early Bronze I” (sic!). While this observation strongly suggests that the site preserved evidence of the LC–EB 1 transition,79 unfortunately, the size of the sounding and the ceramic evidence is too limited to offer a truly coherent picture 76

De Contenson, 1960a, 1960b, 1961; Mellaart, 1962; Baird / Philip 1992, 1993, 1994. Gustavson-Gaube, 1985, 1986. 78 Gustavson-Gaube, 1985: 49. 79 Blackham, 2002: 100. 77

They Seek It Here, They Seek It There

23

of what might constitute such deposits. In particular, the pottery is represented only by sherds, of which many are rather diminutive. Thus, while it appears likely that LC, transitional, and EB 1 occupations are, or were to be found at Tell es-Shuna North, they remain only cursorily known through excavation. The Cave of the Warrior/Jericho Region—This rather intriguing burial of a male in a cave just north of Jericho80 is notable for the extraordinary preservation of artifacts of generally perishable materials, as well as the absence of ceramics that might have indicated a chrono-cultural ascription. Accompanying the interred was an unusually long (30 c) “canaanean” blade, unbroken, and a fragment of another.81 Radiometric determinations place the burial, chronologically, within the first quarter of the 4th millennium, or the time span of the LC and the LC–EB 1 transition, dating it to earlier than the generally accepted chronological range for the EB 1.82 Notably, the publication’s title deliberately refrained from ascribing the burial of this single individual as Chalcolithic or EB 1, primarily because of the presence of the “canaanean” blades and the absence of additional fossiles directeurs.83 The Central Shephelah (Western Piedmont of the Samaria–Judean Incline) Shoham North—Salvage excavations in a karstic region at Shoham North yielded evidence of an LC troglodyte occupation.84 Included in the finds are several examples of narrow ledge handles. Most were detached from the vessels85 , but one example, similar to others of the LC–EB 1 horizon, was located very near the floor of the cave.86 Four “canaanean” blades from what appears to be an LC context may be associated with that horizon. However, as the cave was reused during the EB 1, those objects may have been intrusive into LC deposits.87 Mazor: A Burial Cave—A Chalcolithic burial cave, part of a larger cemetery in the Shephelah (piedmont) of the Samaria Incline, excavated by Milevski,88 is notable for two, complete vessels, a bowl and a mediumsized jar, each with opposing, indented ledge handles (Fig. 5: 5). Except for those vessels, no other finds in the cave bear any likeness to EB 1 artifacts. Giv‘at ha-Oranim—Remains of this site were recovered from a series of underground, karstic features including pits, caves, and all manner of rock-cut installations; many in a poor state of preservation.89 In addition to troglodytic domiciles, some of the features also served for burials. The pottery from this site includes mostly typically Ghassulian/Beersheva types, fragments of cornets, churns, fenestrated, straightwalled bowls, and ceramic ossuaries. Two complete jars and a portion of another (Fig. 5: 6–8) have opposing indented ledge handles. Also recovered from the site are a few smallish, indented ledge handles90 (Fig. 5: 1– 4). Similar jars are known from other sites (e.g., Fig. 5: 9–12). Additional typical Chalcolithic artifacts at Giv‘at ha-Oranim include copper standards, piriform haematite mace heads, a pierced hippopotamus tusk, and basalt bowls, some fenestrated, artifact types known from the Naḥal Mishmar hoard and Beersheva sites. Flint tools include bifacials and “canaanean” blades (Fig. 8: 1–2).91 Radiocarbon dates from the site suggest its final use was well into the 4th millennium.92 One determination from Cave 1179 indicates a date between c. 4000 and c. 3800 BC, which would place it within the LC–EB 1 transition. Two additional determinations, 80

Schick, 1998. Oshri / Schick, 1998; Rowan, 2001. 82 Braun et al., 2013. 83 Schick et al., 1998: 126–127. 84 Van den Brink / Gophna, 2005. 85 Commenge, 2005: Figs. 6.8: 5, 6: 32. 86 Commenge ,2005: Fig. 6.30: 1. 87 Marder, 2005: 146. 88 Lupu, forthcoming. 89 Scheftelowitz / Oren, 2004. 90 Scheftelowitz / Oren, 2004: Fig. 3.18: 1–4. 91 Scheftelowitz / Oren, 2004: Fig. 7: 4. 92 Carmi / Boaretto, 2004. 81

24

E. Braun

both from Cave 1185, are considerably later, with the dates between 3520 and 3370 BC, i.e., within traditional EB 1. Ben Shemen: A Burial Cave—Indented ledge handles were found among the Chalcolithic contents in a cave tomb (No. 510) at this site excavated by Perrot and Ladiray.93 However, little, if any attention was paid to their significance at the time, possibly because the idea that the indented ledge handle was a fossile directeur of the EB 1 was then accepted as axiomatic by scholars. Perhaps they were thought to be related to later EB 1 activity, as evidenced by pottery types found in the nearby Tomb 506.94 Modi‘in Buchman—This site in the southern Shephelah of the Judea–Samaria Incline, adjacent to the Ayalon Valley, is represented by a series of seven superimposed strata; a virtual ‘inverted tell’ (Deep Deposits) that filled a deep depression between two hills. It is part of a cluster of late prehistoric sites, which includes a cave utilized in the Chalcolithic period and numerous scattered Neolithic and Chalcolithic deposits and rock-cut installations, some of which apparently date to the LC.95 Strata 7 through 5 in the ‘Deep Deposits’ are dated to early and developed phases of the Chalcolithic period, while Stratum 4 is assigned by the excavator, van den Brink, to the latter of the two LC phases (i.e., LC II)96 and is notable for remains of rectilinear architecture. Stratum 3, identified as the earliest EB 1 occupation by the excavator, also yielded remains of rectilinear buildings and may well be part of the ‘missing link’, the elusive LC–EB 1 transition. In Stratum 2, there is a hint of curvilinear architecture, which may well mark a departure from a long-lived tradition. However, the unearthed wall segment is rather short and could be of a circular storage feature that is not inconsistent with Chalcolithic building traditions. The pottery of this site is the major clue to the transition, as opposed to pottery traditions in the northern region which see a major break in technological approaches between the LC and the EB 1. The pottery evinces a high degree of continuity between Strata 4 and 3, well documented in micro-studies on the ceramic assemblages of those strata97 that have vastly refined our knowledge of potting traditions. They indicate changes in clay sources and details of manufacture. Nevertheless, the last of these clearly indicate a significant degree of continuity in potting traditions. Of particular note is the small, straight-walled bowl (Fig. 2: 10– 13), a morphological type well known in LC contexts and which, as has been shown, continues into early EB 1 at sites in the central and southern regions.98 These bowls are part of a long-lived, southern tradition that actually transcends the LC and early EB 1 (see below), but are not found in the early EB 1 in the north. Apparently, in the LC, bowls of similar size but more bell-shaped make their appearance (Fig. 2: 1–8) and seem to harbinger the transition. Notably, a pithos with indented ledge handles is from Stratum 4 (Fig. 6). Although the “canaanean” blades from this site in Chalcolithic levels have all been claimed to be “probably intrusive”,99 the rather large number of 11 specimens in Stratum 4, the final Chalcolithic layer, suggests a different interpretation, particularly in light of the information from the Fazael Cluster and Giv‘at ha-Oranim (see above), and a newly discovered LC site in the Ashqelon Cluster (see below). That the blades were not made at the site does not in any way prejudice their having been found, in situ, in that stratum,100 while their appearance in earlier levels, in considerably lower frequencies, might well be the result of intrusions, although the four examples in Stratum 5, which is also LC, may mark their first appearance at the site. In this context, one may also note the appearance of prismatic or “canaanean” blades at the Chalcolithic site of Gilat.101 93

Perrot / Ladiray, 1980: Fig. 129: 8–9. Perrot / Ladiray, 1980: Figs. 132: 27, 30, 133: 16. 95 Van den Brink, 2011, 2013. 96 A slightly earlier phase associated with similar material culture is identified by him, in Stratum 5, as LC 1. 97 Roux / van den Brink / Shalev, 2013. 98 Braun 2000b. 99 Vardi / Gilead 2013: 119, Table 2. 100 Sites that have yielded “canaanean” blade cores are few and far between. Those that might be dated to the LC or LC to EB I transitional are Fazael 2 and Gat Guvrin / Zeita, where a number of large cores were found in a plough zone of this site by members of a nearby settlement (e.g., Fig. 8: 12). 101 Rowan / Levy, 1994; Rowan, 2001. 94

They Seek It Here, They Seek It There

25

Unfortunately, radiocarbon determinations from Modi‘in Buchman Strata 4 and 3, the latest LC and earliest EB 1 levels, are not available, but other dates sandwich in the transition between Stratum 5 and Stratum 2 (van den Brink 2011, Table 5.3) to sometime in the late 5th and early 4th millennium, which is consistent with information from other LC and early EB 1 sites.102 Giv‘atayim: Burial Cave 3—Six fragments of “canaanean” blades were found in this burial cave,103 together with significant fragments of typically Chalcolithic ceramic ossuaries.104 As noted by Schick et al.,105 the significance of their presence there was ignored, possibly because of a nearby burial cave (No. 4) dated, by pottery, to advanced phases of EB 1. However, the presence of this significant number of such blades, within a closed context, should be understood as yet additional evidence of these specialized tools appearing in LC contexts. Yesodot—A small sounding at this site yielded evidence of what appears to be a site dated to the LC–EB 1 transition.106 Published pottery includes small bowls made in the LC tradition but no other typical LC types. The site also yielded evidence of rectilinear architecture (Fig. 10) and some “canaanean” blades (Fig. 8: 3– 5).

Figure 10. Rectilinear architecture at Yesodot.

Palmaḥim Quarry—Salvage excavations by R. Gophna107 at this modern quarry site were conducted intermittently with the discovery of each of the 11 cave tombs, cut into a ridge, a petrified sand dune.108 Later, after additional destruction by modern quarrying operations, I was sent to salvage relatively scant remains of what had apparently been a large occupation that covered a goodly portion of this large ridge. Remains were mostly reduced to a small precinct adjacent to a massive, newly quarried cavity. Works in one area (A) had removed archaeological deposits atop the kurkar (calcareous sandstone of the fossilized dune), leaving evidence of numerous man-made cavities, some for burial and others possibly for storage or even habitations. Excavation of Area B proved to have remains of three strata, the earliest of which, based on ceramics

102

E.g., see above: Fazael 2; Bourke, 2001; Bourke et al., 2001, 2004. Sussman / Ben-Arieh 1966: Fig. 6: 5–9, 11. 104 E.g., Sussman / Ben Arieh, 1966: Fig. 4: 2. 105 Schick et al., 1998: 126. 106 Paz / Nativ, 2013. 107 Gophna, 1974; Gophna / Lifshitz, 1980. 108 Braun, 1985–1986. 103

26

E. Braun

including GBW (Fig. 2: 16) and sausage-shaped houses, was apparently closely contemporary with Yiftah’el II’s early EB 1 horizon. Together with the typical northern style pot types were also straight-walled bowls with flat bases that have distinctive ridges at their circumferences (Fig. 2: 13).109 I originally assumed they were residual evidence of an LC settlement probably destroyed by previous quarrying and associated with the 11 Chalcolithic burial caves found at the site.110 I suspected that those bowls, somewhat cruder than many LC types I had seen theretofore, might be late, degenerate exponents of Chalcolithic potting traditions which, in their heyday, had produced much finer, thin-walled examples. Only later, with the excavation of Afridar Area G (see below), would their full significance become clear. They apparently derive from a very late phase of the LC or are possible evidence of the LC–EB 1 transition, as indicated by the numerous parallels from EB 1 Afridar and many LC sites.111 Unfortunately, lack of funds and the unwillingness of the Israel Antiquities Authority to prevent the destruction of Area B, which at the time still preserved untouched deposits of at least three strata immediately adjacent to the limits of the excavation, stopped the salvage project.112 Despite my objections indicating there were likely additional man-made cavities beneath the layers of occupation, further quarrying eradicated not merely the excavated precinct, but additional unexcavated areas immediately adjacent to it. One had been discovered and was excavated by me in a deep probe between later buildings. Later, just as I was excavating Afridar Area G, a goodly number of cavities was discovered when the sand dune cover was bulldozed away in preparation for quarrying the underlying kurkar. Given a three-day window for exploring them, a kind colleague, Shlomo Gudovitch, generously agreed to explore them. One result was the recovery of a pithos with ledge handles quite similar to those from the Ben Shemen tomb (see above).113 Despite its lack of good archaeological context, I am convinced that, based on its morphology, it too should be dated to the LC–EB 1 transition. Zeita/Gat Guvrin (Nahal Qomem)—This northern Negev site near Kibbutz Gat was found buried below a cover of loessy soil. Although poorly preserved due to deep plowing, there appears to have been at least two strata, the uppermost of which may—based on the presence of certain types of artifacts—be dated to the LC– EB 1 horizon (e.g., Figs. 2, 5, 8).114 The Ashqelon Cluster of Sites Salvage work on the Mediterranean Littoral of modern Ashqelon has unearthed copious evidence of Chalcolithic and EB 1 sites occupying a strip of coastline extending c. 9 km in length in what is now the Afridar and Barnea neighborhoods of modern Ashqelon. Numerous excavations have been carried out there, but all after the flattening of kurkar ridges of the same type as quarried away at Palmaḥim (see above). Unfortunately, such bulldozing removed large segments of the archaeological record atop those ridges, leaving only those in low-lying deposits, at, or just below the modern surface (Braun and Gophna 2004). Although significant Chalcolithic deposits have been encountered in different locales in the area, despite the denied by some,115 indications of activity in the LC and LC–EB 1 transitional periods remain somewhat equivocal.

109

Roux / van den Brink / Shalev, 2013: Figs. 2: g, h, 7: d. Gophna, 1974; Gophna / Lifshitz, 1980. 111 Braun, 2000b. 112 The entire project was ‘funded’ by the major owner of the quarry, Kibbutz Palmaḥim, which only provided room and board for about 8 volunteers, but no provision for research, while the unwillingness of the Israel Antiquities Authority to fund publication of a final report largely written by me, leaves a nearly finished monograph moldering in its archives. 113 Braun, 2000a. 114 Perrot, n.d.; Khalaily, 2002. 115 Braun, 2019 contra Golani, 2013; Golani / Nagar 2011 have persistently claimed that there was no Chalcolithic occupation of the region, especially in areas they excavated. 110

They Seek It Here, They Seek It There

27

Ashqelon Agamim—About 2 km south of Tel Ashqelon and c. 3 km east of the coast, a large LC site, known as Agamim, was unearthed in a large-scale salvage excavation in the Summer of 2018, thus definitively proving the existence of an LC occupation in the area.116 This additional, incontrovertible evidence challenges Golani’s and colleagues’ claims that there was no Chalcolithic presence in the region. Remains of this occupation in other areas were, however, somewhat obliterated by an overburden of several phases of EB 1 activity. That led some scholars to ignore evidence of earlier occupations. Included in the associated assemblage of material culture is a respectable number of “canaanean” blades, additional proof of the initial appearance of this tradition in the LC. Afridar Area G—The curvilinear architecture of Area G and the associated material culture, primarily pottery, clearly indicate that potting traditions associated with full-blown LC sites continued into the earliest EB 1 at the site, and possibly for some time after that,117 which, after considering more than a decade of new discoveries, may well be styled as evidence of an LC–EB 1 transition. Radiocarbon dates from the excavation118 seemed, at the time of the publication, impossibly early by several centuries, when considered in light of other data from what were then believed to be very early EB 1 occupations.119 However, with evidence of the LC–EB 1 transition occurring in the late 4th millennium, those dates seem more likely to reflect the actual age of the occupations, although they might have suffered to some extent from the ‘old wood effect’ as those determinations derive from olive wood charcoal. Afridar Area E—A series of radiocarbon determinations from this site120 makes it virtually certain that it was occupied in the very latest Chalcolithic and LC–EB 1 horizons (see above Agamim) and afterward throughout the 4th millennium. However, these dates are of very little use for interpreting the settlement history of the site as not even a single one can be ascribed to a specific archaeological deposit (sic!).121 It should be noted that despite the sizable area included in this excavation, no real evidence of architecture was discerned; apparently, only surfaces associated with copper working activity and burials were unearthed. In addition, c. 120 pits intruded into the excavated portions of the site. It is possible that some copper working installations found there were associated with either LC or even LC–EB 1 activities, but their dating remains obscure as their precise chronological association is not specified in Golani’s publication.122 Despite the rather pithy record of the LC–EB 1 horizon, copper working in the latter period seems possible, as suggested by activity at the sites of Hujayrat al Ghuzlan and Tall al-Magass (see below) in the neighborhood of modern Aqaba, Jordan. Ashqelon Barnea—Another large-scale excavation was conducted in several precincts covering c. 1 ha on the littoral in the Barnea Quarter to the north of Afridar. There, the excavators described a series of three major strata (unearthed in several widely separated precincts representing c. 1 ha of a site estimated at c. 5.5 ha) purportedly representing a continuous occupation from the “late EB IA to the end of EB IB” (Golani and Nagar 2011: 86). However, as all excavations were begun from a freshly bulldozed surface that removed large segments of a high sandstone ridge—one of several paralleling the shore123—there is no clear justification for assuming the distant areas excavated represent a unique sequence of occupation. Indeed, a detailed examination by this writer124 of the published excavation reports125 and additional information not 116

Abadi-Reiss / Varga, 2018. Braun, 2000b. 118 Braun / Gophna, 2004: Table 1. 119 Braun / Gophna, 2004: 219–231, Tables 2–6. 120 Golani, 2004. 121 Braun / Gophna 2004: 220; Braun et al., 2013: 30–31. 122 Golani, 2004, 2014. 123 Long parallel ridges, fossilized sand dunes, covered the entire littoral with wide swales or troughs between them. While all were leveled in the built-up neighborhoods, their remains may still be discerned in the national park that encompasses Tel Ashqelon to the south of Afridar. 124 Braun, 2019: 5–13. 125 Golani / Nagar 2011; Golani / Rosenberg 2012; Golani, 2013. 117

28

E. Braun

found in the excavator’s report but perceived by me during a visit to the site, makes it clear that the local was actually utilized intermittently from the early Chalcolithic period until relatively late in the EB 1. Nizzanim This site, c. four kilometers north of Barnea on the littoral, should be included in the Ashqelon cluster. Although only a limited area was sounded, five strata were observed.126 The earliest, Stratum 5, is notable for having yielded bowls made in traditional Chalcolithic methods, as well as pithoi rims with pie-crust decorations, and a pithos with a narrow base and broad shoulders used for burial. Marginal, Semi-Arid and Arid Zones Several types of sites may be contemporary with the time span of the LC–EB transition (ca 3700–3500 BC). Jebel Mutawwaq Although the dating of Jebel Mutawwaq has been almost universally accepted as EB 1, primarily based on the purported relationship of the architecture to the early EB 1 sites, available evidence does not support that supposition. Based on comparanda for pottery derived from the site, as well as flint implements,127 I suggest that at least part of the site was also occupied much earlier, very likely intermittently during the LC–EB transition. The single radiocarbon date in the late 4th millennium BC comes from a unique (at the site) rectangular structure, labeled ‘temple’ because of a pithos with a snake decoration found in it. It is highly unlikely that that date reflects the major period of occupation, while the roughly curvilinear structures may well be earlier, as some of the pottery from the site suggests.128 Hujayrat al Ghuzlan This site near modern Aqaba was apparently primarily dedicated to copper working. Its unusual architecture, a dense concentration of smallish, rectangular rooms, is paralleled for the present only at the nearby site of Tall Magass (see below). Radiocarbon dates suggest an early occupation of the site in the mid-4th millennium, while some copper ingots are paralleled at the Egyptian site of Ma‘adi, which also may be roughly dated to that same period.129 The pottery from Hujayrat al Ghuzlan130 is quite distinct and rather crude. Although it does have some attributes that allow associating it with early pottery cultures of the southern Levant, most examples are quite different from normative LC and EB types. Mat impressions on vessels’ bases from this site are extraordinary features that suggest a technique unknown in LC pottery assemblages in other south Levantine zones but found on some Neolithic and early Chalcolithic pots as at 5th millennium Abu Hamid131 in the Jordan Valley. Tall al Magass These neighboring sites appear to share most of their attributes and were probably contemporary.132 Nawamis of Sinai A few finds from these extraordinarily well-preserved circular and above-ground graves suggest their use began in LC times and continued into the EB 1. Such sites, so far from the main population centers and serving the interests of local inhabitants, are largely devoid of diagnostic artifacts that allow for correlations with periods defined through the abundance of artifacts encountered in fertile zones.

126

Yekutieli / Gophna, 1994. Fernández-Tresguerres Velasco, 1992: Fig. 4: 2–3, 7, 10–12, 16–20; 2005, 2008. 128 Braun, in press: 86–87. 129 Hauptmann et al., 2009: 304; Klimscha, 2013. 130 Kerner, 2009. 131 Vaillant, 1988: Figs. 68, 78; Roux et al., 2011. 132 Khalil, 2009; Klimscha, 2009, 2013. 127

They Seek It Here, They Seek It There

29

Summary The traditional periodization schemes utilizing the term EB 1 and its corollaries do not consider the LC–EB 1 transition, especially as they are primarily based on ceramic styles which are inadequate to properly characterize human activity in the southern Levant in the seven to eight centuries from the end of the LC (c. 3800–3700 BC) to the end of the EB 1 (c. 3000 BC).133 While pottery is a significant element in the defining material culture that associates the period with LC traditions, it is only part of the story. The suggested term, LC–EB 1 transition, takes cognizance of the several aspects of material culture that clearly indicate transmission from the LC to the succeeding period, not only in pottery but in architecture and to a limited extent in flint knapping traditions. Although the evidence for this period as distinctive from its predecessor and its successor is conclusive, it nevertheless derives from an extremely poor archaeological record and is, therefore, lacking in the kind of precision we would like to have. The very fact that there is such a dearth of evidence for this period suggests that some calamitous occurrence or occurrences led to the demise of LC society and brought about a very sparsely settled landscape in the following centuries. The precise length of time for the duration of this transition is uncertain, but it seems that by c. 3500 there was a renewed peopling of the southern Levant, as may be discerned in the numerous early EB 1 settlements, especially in the north and central regions, where its association with GBW is an easily recognized marker. However, there is a significant dichotomy between the material culture of the LC–EB 1 transition between the central and probably southern regions (Modi‘in Buchman, Yesodot and the Ashqelon cluster of sites; Fig. 1) and those in the north and center, with a possible admixture of material culture from the two regions sofar recognizable only at Palmaḥim Quarry where straight-walled bowls and GBW were present. As there are no significant physical barriers between the Tel Aviv sites and Palmaḥim Quarry and Modi‘in and Yesodot, it is unclear whether the lack of GBW at these sites is merely a reflection of trade patterns or an indication of chronological disparity. It remains unclear whether those sites were truly coeval and whether curvilinear architecture at Ashqelon Area G, Palmaḥim Quarry, ‘En Esur III, and Yiftaḥ’el II are indications of contemporaneity or evidence of a somewhat longer-lived tradition than formerly suspected.134 A dearth of reliably attributed radiocarbon data for these sites leaves us without an answer to this question. Suffice it to note for the present that there is some modicum evidence for the existence of an LC–EB 1 transition, distinct from both the LC and the early EB 1.

Acknowledgments The primary research for this article was begun during a term as a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellow at the W.F. Albright Institute for Archaeological Research, Jerusalem, Israel. I am particularly grateful to Shay Bar for permission to publish illustrations from his excavations and for his help in understanding the archaeological record of the sites excavated by him in the Fazael Cluster. Thanks are also due to Ianir Milevski and Ronit Lupo of the Israel Antiquities Authority for sharing unpublished information. As always, Ram Gophna was generous with information and permissions on his excavations. I am grateful to Shlomo Gudovitz’s assistance in excavating several pits found below Stratum 3 at Palmaḥim. I also wish to thank the organizers for the convivial atmosphere of this conference that offered a venue for the presentation of this paper.

133

Indeed, the term EB 1, in whatever form, with its subperiods (EB Ia, EB Ib), and even its sub, subperiods (EB Ia2, EB Ia1, EB Ib2 and EB IB1; e.g., Yekutieli, 2000), do not adequately express the nature of the human activity, especially the rise of hierarchical, complex social organization (Braun, 2013: 148–150) in the last centuries of the 4th millennium. That, however, is beyond the scope of the present study. 134 That subject, however, is taken up in Braun, 1989b.

30

E. Braun

References Abadi-Reiss, Y. / Varga, D., 2018: “Preliminary Report on the Chalcolithic Site of Agamim Ashqelon”. Lecture presented at the Annual Meeting of the Israel Prehistory Society, 28/11/2018. Albright, W.F., 1926: “The Jordan Valley in the Bronze Age”. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research VI, 13–74. — 1932: “The Chalcolithic Age in Palestine”. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 48, 10– 13. Amiran, R., 1969: Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Jerusalem. 1977: “Pottery from the Chalcolithic Site near Tell Delhamiya and Some Notes on the Character of the Chalcolithic-Early Bronze I Transition”. Eretz-Israel XIII, 48–56 (Hebrew with English Summary). Avrutis, V.W., 2012: Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I Remains at Nesher-Ramla Quarry. Haifa. Baird, D. / Philip G., 1992: “Preliminary Report on the First (1991) Season of Excavations at Tell Esh-Shuna North”. ADAJ XXXVI, 71–88. — 1993: “Preliminary Report on the Second (1992) Season of Excavations at Tell esh-Shuna North”. Levant XXV, 13–36. — 1994: “Preliminary Report on the Third (1993) Season of Excavations at Tell esh-Shuna North”. Levant XXVI, 111–133. Bar, S., 2013: Yogvim VeNokdim 1: Reports of Archaeological Excavations of Sites Dating to the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I Periods in the Lower Jordan Valley and the Desert Fringes of Samaria (2006– 2011). Haifa (Hebrew). — 2014: The Dawn of the Bronze Age: The Pattern of Settlement in the Lower Jordan Valley and the Desert Fringes of Samaria during the Chalcolithic Period and Early Bronze Age I. Leiden/Boston. Bar, S. / Bar-Oz, G. / Cohen-Klonymus, H. / Pinsky, S., 2014: “Fazael 1, A Chalcolithic Site in the Jordan Valley: Report of the 2013–2014 Excavation Seasons”. Mitekufat Haeven: Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 44, 180–201. Bar, S. /Cohen, O. / Zuckerman, R. / Winter, H., 2012: “The Archaeological Excavation at the Early Bronze Age I Site Fazael 4, Jordan Valley, Israel”. Mitekufat Haeven: Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 42, 1–34. Bar, S. / Winter, H., 2010: “Canaanean Flint Blades in Chalcolithic Context and the Possible Onset of the Transition to the Early Bronze Age: A Case Study from Fazael 2”. Tel Aviv 37(1), 33–47. Beck, P., 1967: Problems in the Glyptic Art of Palestine. PhD Dissertation, Columbia University, New York. — 1975: “The Cylinder Seal Impressions from Megiddo, Stage V, and Related Problems”. Opuscula Atheniensia XI, 1–16. — 1984: “The Seals and Stamps of Early Arad”. Tel Aviv 11, 97–114. Bienkowski, P., 1991: Treasures from an Ancient Land: The Art of Jordan. Merseyside, UK. Blackham, M., 2002: Modeling Time and Transition in Prehistory: The Jordan Valley Chalcolithic (5500– 3500 BC). BAR International Series 1027. Oxford. Bourke, S.J., 2001: “Chapter 4: The Chalcolithic Period”. In B Macdonald / R. Adams / P. Bienkowski (eds.): The Archaeology of Jordan. Levantine Archaeology 1. Sheffield. Pp. 107–162. Bourke, S.J. / Lawson, E. / Lovell, J. / Hua, Q. / Zoppi, U. / Barbetti, M., 2001: “The Chronology of the Ghassulian Chalcolithic Period in the Southern Levant: New 14C Determinations from Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan”. Radiocarbon 3/3, 1204–1217. Bourke, S. / Zoppi, U. /Meadows, J. / Hua, Q. / Gibbins, S., 2004: “The end of the Chalcolithic Period in the South Jordan Valley: New 14C Determinations from Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan”. Radiocarbon 46(1), 315– 323. Braun, E., 1985: En Shadud: Salvage Excavations at a Farming Community in the Jezreel Valley, Israel. British Archaeological Reports International Series 249. Oxford. — 1985–6: “Of Megarons and Ovals: New Aspects of Late Prehistory in Israel”. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society, 17–26. — 1989a: “The Transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age in Northern Israel and Transjordan: Is there a Missing Link?”. In P. de Miroschedji (ed.): L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze

They Seek It Here, They Seek It There

31

ancien: bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles, Actes du Colloque d’Emmaüs: 20–24 octobre 1986. British Archaeological Reports International Series 527i. Oxford. Pp. 7–28. — 1989b: “The Problem of the Apsidal House: New Aspects of Early Bronze I Domestic Architecture in Israel, Jordan and Lebanon”. PEQ 121, 1–43. — 1990: “Basalt Bowls of the EB I Horizon in the Southern Levant”. Paléorient 16, 87–95. — 1997: Yiftah’el: Salvage and Rescue Excavations at a Prehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel. IAA Reports 2. Jerusalem. — 2000a: “Post Mortem: A Late Prehistoric Site at Palmahim Quarry”. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 17, 17–28. — 2000b: “Area G at Afridar, Palmahim Quarry 3 and the Earliest Pottery of Early Bronze I: Part of the Missing Link”. In G. Philip / D. Baird (eds.): Breaking with the Past: Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Sheffield. Pp. 113–128. — 2004: Early Beth Shan (Strata XIX–XIII): G.M. FitzGerald’s Deep Cut on the Tell. University Museum Monograph 121. Philadelphia. — 2011: “Chapter 12: The Transition from Chalcolithic to EB I in the Southern Levant: A ‘Lost Horizon’ Slowly Revealed”. In J. L. Lovell / Y. M. Rowan (eds.): Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition. CBRL Levant Supplementary Monograph Series Vol. 9. Oxford, Oakville. Pp. 160–177. — 2012: “On Some South Levantine Early Bronze Age Ceramic “Wares” and Styles”. PEQ 144/1, 5–32. — 2019: “Forging a Link: Evidence for a “Lost Horizon”. The Late Chalcolithic to EB 1 Transition in the southern Levant”. In H. Goldfus / P. Fabian / M. I. Gruber / S. Yona (eds.): “Isaac went out. . . to the field” (Genesis 24:63): Studies in Archaeology and Ancient Cultures in Honor of Isaac Gilead, Isaac Gilead Festschrift. Oxford. — 2020: “Reflections on South Levantine Early Bronze 1 Vernacular Architecture”. Open access, unpublished. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340807610_Braun-EB_1_Vernacular_Architecture (last accessed 6/7/20). Braun, E. / van den Brink, E. / Regev, J. / Boaretto, E. / Bar, S., 2013: “Aspects of Radiocarbon Determinations and the Dating of the Transition from the Chalcolithic Period to Early Bronze Age I in the Southern Levant”. Paléorient 39/1, 23–46. Braun, E. / Gophna, R., 2004: “Excavations at Afridar—Area G”. ‘Atiqot 45, 185–242. Braun, E. / Roux, V., 2013: “The Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age I transition in the Southern Levant: Determining continuity and discontinuity or ‘mind the gap’”. Paléorient 39/1, 15–22. van den Brink, E. C. M., 2011: “Continuity and Change—Cultural Transmission in the Late Chalcolithic– Early Bronze Age I: A View from Early Modi‘in, a Late Prehistoric Site in Central Israel”. In J. L. Lovell / Y. M. Rowan (eds.): Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition. CBRL Levant Supplementary Monograph Series Vol. 90. Oxford, Oakville. Pp. 61–70. — 2013: “A late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age I Progression at the Buchman South Quarter in Modi‘in in the Central Piedmont (Shephela) of Israel”. Paléorient 39(1), 47–61. van den Brink, E. C. M. / Gophna, R., 2005: Shoham (North): Late Chalcolithic Burial Caves in the Lod Valley, Israel. IAA Reports 27. Jerusalem. Carmi, I. / Boaretto, E., 2004: “Chapter 10: Determination of age using the 14C method”. In N. Scheftelowitz / R. Oren (eds.): Giv‘at ha-Oranim. A Chalcolithic Site. Salvage Excavation Reports 1. Tel Aviv. Pp. 127. Carmi, I. / D. Segal., 1998: “Appendix 3: 14C Dates from Chalcolithic Sites in the Golan”. In C. Epstein: The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan (IAA Reports 4). Jerusalem. Pp. 343. Clarke, D. L. / Chapman, B., 1978: Analytical Archaeology. Second Edition Revised by Bob Chapman. London. Commenge, C., 2005: “Chapter 6: The Late Chalcolithic Pottery”. In E. C. M. van den Brink /R. Gophna: Shoham (North): Late Chalcolithic Burial Caves in the Lod Valley, Israel. IAA Reports 27. Jerusalem. Pp. 51–98. de Contenson, H., 1960a: “Three Soundings in the Jordan Valley”. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan IV–V, 12–98. — 1960b: “La chronologie relative du niveau le plus ancien de Tell esh Shuna (Jordanie) d’après les

32

E. Braun

decouvertes recentes”. Mélanges de l’Université Saint Joseph XXXVII, 57–75. — 1961: “Remarques sur le chalcolithique récent de Tell esh-Shuneh”. Revue Biblique LXVIII, 546–556. Dayan, Y., 1969: “Tel Turmus in the Huleh Valley”. Israel Exploration Journal 19, 65–78. Dollfus, G. / Kafah, Z. (eds.), 1988: Abu Hamid: village du 4e millénaire de la vallée du Jourdain. Centre Culturel Français and Department of Antiquites of Jordan, Amman. Dothan, M., 1957: “Excavations at Meser 1956: Preliminary report on the first season”. IEJ 7, 217–228. — 1959a: “Excavations at Horvat Beter (Beersheba)”. ‘Atiqot English Series 11, 1–42. — 1959b: “Excavations at Meser 1957: Preliminary Report on the Second Season”. IEJ 9, 13–29. Fernández-Tresguerres Velasco, J.A.V., 1992: “Jebel Mutawwaq : Los inicios de la edad del Bronce en la zona de Wadi Zarqa (Jordania)”. Treballs d’Arqueologia 2, 128–143. — 2005: “Jabal Mutawwaq”. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 49, 365–372. — 2008: “The “Temple of the Serpents”, a Sanctuary of the Early Bronze Age I in the Village of Jabal al Mutawwaq (Jordan)”. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 52, 23–34. Eisenberg, E., 1993: “Tel Kitan”. In E. Stern / A. Lewinson-Gilboa / J. Aviram (eds.): The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 1–4. Jerusalem. Pp. 878–881. Eisenberg, E. / Gopher, A. / Greenberg, R., 2001: Tel Te’o: A Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley. IAA Reports 13. Jerusalem. Elliott, C., 1978: “The Ghassulian Culture in Palestine: Origins, Influences and Abandonment”. Levant 10, 37–54. Epstein, C., 1998: “The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan”. IAA Reports 4. Jerusalem. Fisher, C. S., 1929: The Excavation of Armageddon. The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Communications 4. Chicago. Fitzgerald, G. M., 1935: “Beth Shan: Earliest Pottery”. The Museum Journal (University of Pennsylvania) XXIV, 5–22. — 1936: “III: Pottery of the Early Bronze Age”. In J. Garstang / I. Ben-Dor / G. M. Fitzgerald: Jericho: City and Necropolis. Report for Sixth and Concluding Season 1936. Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 23, 91–100 and Plates XXXIV–XXXIX. Garstang, J., 1935: “Chapter VII: General Report for 1935: The Early Bronze Age, and Plates XXXVIII, XL– XLII, LV”. In J. Garstang / J. P. Droop / J. Crowfoot: Jericho: City and Necropolis: Fifth Report. Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 22, 143–163. Gilead, I., 1988: “The Chalcolithic Period in the Levant”. Journal of World Prehistory 2, 397–443. — 1994: “The History of the Chalcolithic Settlement in the Nahal Beer Sheva Area: The Radiocarbon Aspect”. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 296, 1–14. — 2011: “Chalcolithic Culture History: Ghassulian and Other Chalcolithic Entities in the Southern Levant”. In J. L. Lovell / Y. M. Rowan (eds.): Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition. CBRL Levant Supplementary Monograph Series Vol. 9. Oxford, Oakville. Pp. 12–24. Gilead, I. / Fabian, P., 2010: “Pre-Ghassulian Sites in the Ramot Neighborhood, Beer Sheva: Chronological and Cultural Perspectives”. In S. Yona (ed.): Or Le-Mayer: Studies in Bible, Semitic Languages, Rabbinic Literature and Ancient Civilizations Presented to Mayer Gruber on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Beersheva. Pp. *89–*107. Golani, A., 2004: “Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Afridar, Ashqelon: Area E”. ‘Atiqot 45, 9–62. — 2013: “The Transition from the Late Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze I in Southwestern Canaan: Ashqelon as a Case for Continuity”. Paléorient 39(1), 95–110. — 2014: “Ashqelon during the EB I Period – a Centre for Copper Processing and Trade”. In A. Mączyńska (ed.): The Nile Delta as a Centre of Cultural Interactions between Upper Egypt and the Southern Levant in the 4th millennium BC, Proceedings of the conference held in the Poznan Archaeological Museum, Poznań, Poland, 21–22 June 2013. Studies in African Archaeology Vol. 13. Poznań. Pp. 119–138 Golani, A. / Nagar, Y., 2011: “Newly Discovered Burials of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I in Southern Canaan: Evidence of Cultural Continuity?” In J. L. Lovell and Y. M. Rowan (eds.): Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition. CBRL Levant Supplementary Monograph

They Seek It Here, They Seek It There

33

Series Vol. 9. Oxford, Oakville. Pp. 84–96. Golani, A. / Rosenberg, D., 2012: “Groundstone Tools of a Copper-Smiths’ Community: Understanding Stone-Related Aspects of the Early Bronze Age Site of Ashqelon Barnea”. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 25(1), 21–57. Gophna, R., 1974: The Settlement of the Coastal Plain of Eretz Israel During the Early Bronze Age. PhD Dissertation, Tel Aviv University (Hebrew). Gophna, R. / Lifshitz, S., 1980: “A Chalcolithic Burial Cave at Palmaḥim”. ‘Atiqot English Series XIV, 1– 8. Gorzalczany, A., 2018: “The Chalcolithic cemetery at Palmaḥim (north): New Evidence of Burial Patterns from the Central Coastal Plain”. ‘Atiqot 91, 1–94. Gustavson-Gaube, C., 1985: “Tell esh-Shuna north 1984: A Preliminary Report”. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan XXIX, 43–87. — 1986: “Tell esh-Shuna North 1985: A Preliminary Report”. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan XXX, 69–113. Hauptmann, A. / Khalil, L. / Schmitt-Strecker, S., 2009: “Evidence of Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age I Copper Production from Timna Ores at Tall al-Magass, Aqaba”. In L. Khalil / K. Schmidt (eds.): Prehistoric ‘Aqaba I. Orient-Archäologie Band 23. Rahden, Westfalia. Pp. 295–305. Hilton, J., 1933: Lost Horizon. London. Kempinski, A. / Gilead, I., 1991: “New Excavations at Tel Erani: A Preliminary Report of the 1985–1988 Seasons”. Tel Aviv 18, 164–192. Kenyon, K. M., 1970: Archaeology in the Holy Land. Third Edition. New York. — 1979: Archaeology in the Holy Land. Fourth Edition. London. Kerner, S., 2009: “The Pottery of Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan 2000–2004”. In L. A. Khalil / K. Schmidt (eds.): Prehistoric ‘Aqaba I. Orient-Archäologie Band 23. Rahden, Westfalia. Pp. 127–232. Khalaily, H., 2002: “Naḥal Qomem”. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 114, *85. Khalil, L. A., 2009: “The Excavations at Tall al-Magass: Stratigraphy and Architecture”. In L. A. Khalil / K. Schmidt (eds.): Prehistoric ‘Aqaba I. Orient-Archäologie Band 23. Rahden, Westfalia. Pp. 5–16. Klimscha, F., 2009: “Radiocarbon Dates from Prehistoric ‘Aqaba and Other Related sites from the Chalcolithic Period”. In L. A. Khalil / K. Schmidt (eds.): Prehistoric ‘Aqaba I. Orient-Archäologie Band 23. Rahden, Westfalia. Pp. 363–419. — 2013. “Innovations in Chalcolithic Metallurgy in the Southern Levant During the 5th and 4th Millennium BC. Copper-production at Tall Hujayrāt al-Ghuzlān and Tall al-Magaṣṣ, ‘Aqaba Area, Jordan”. In S. Burmeister / S. Hansen / M. Kunst / N. Müller-Scheeßel, (eds.): Metal Matters: Innovative Technologies and Social Change in Prehistory and Antiquity. Rahden, Westfalia. Pp. 31–62. Koeppel, R. / Senès, H. / Murphy, J. W. / Mahan, G. S., 1940 : Teleilat Ghassul II: Compte Rendu des Fouilles de L’Institut Biblique Pontifical 1932–1936. Rome. Lupu, R., forthcoming: “The Pottery and Ossuaries from Cave B-2 at Mazor (West): Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Afge I”. In I. Milevski: Excavations at Quleh and Mazor (West), Two Chalcolithic Cemeteries in the Southern Levant. Eurasien Archäologie Nr. Berlin. Macalister, R. A. S., 1902: “Report on the Excavation of Gezer”. PEF Quarterly Statement 35, 347–363. — 1912a. The Excavation of Gezer I. London. — 1912b. The Excavation of Gezer II. London. — 1912c. The Excavation of Gezer III. London. Mallon, A. S. J. / Koeppel, S. J. / Neuville, R., 1934: Teleilat Ghassul I. Rome. Marder, O., 2005: “Chapter 10: The Flint Assemblages”. In E. C. M. van den Brink / R. Gophna: Shoham (North): Late Chalcolithic Burial Caves in the Lod Valley, Israel. IAA Reports 27. Jerusalem. Pp. 141– 148 Mellaart, J., 1962. “Preliminary Report of the Archaeological Survey in the Yarmouk and Jordan Valleys”. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 6–7, 126–57. Milevski, I. / Fabian, P. / Marder, O., 2011: “Canaanean Blades in Chalcolithic Contexts of the Southern Levant?” In J. L. Lovell / Y. M. Rowan (eds.): Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic: Theory and

34

E. Braun

Transition. CBRL Levant Supplementary Monograph Series Vol. 9. Oxford, Oakville. Pp. 149–159. Neuville, R., 1934: Les débuts de l’agriculture et la faucile préhistorique en Palestine. Extrait du Recueil de la Société Hébraique d’Exploration et d’Archéologie Palestiniennes. Tel Aviv. Orczy, B. E.; 2002: The Scarlet Pimpernel. Waterville, Maine. Oshri, A. / Schick, T., 1998: “Chapter 12: The Lithics”. In T. Schick: The Cave of the Warrior: A Fourth Millennium Burial in the Judean Desert. IAA Reports 5. Jerusalem. Pp. 59–62. Paz, Y. / Nativ, A., 2013: “Yesodot, Israel: A Case for a post-Ghassulian Entity”. Paléorient 39/1, 83–93. Perrot, J., 1955a: “The Excavations at Tell Abu Matar, near Beersheba”. IEJ 5, 17–40. — 1955b: “The Excavations at Tell Abu Matar, near Beersheba”. IEJ 5, 73–84. — 1955c: “The Excavations at Tell Abu Matar, near Beersheba”. IEJ 5, 167–189. — 1959: “Bir es Safadi”. Israel Exploration Journal 9, 141–142. — n.d.: Recherche a Oumm Qatafa—Ouadi Zoumeili—Patish-Gerar—O. Zeita—O. Ghazzeh, Complémentaires aux fouilles de Beershéva (1949–1961). Comptes rendus de la mission archéologique française en Israël Vol. I. Internal publication. Perrot, J. / Ladiray, D., 1980: “Tombes à ossuaires de la région côtière palestinienne au ive millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne”. Mémoires et travaux du Centre de Recherches Préhistoriques Français de Jérusalem 1. Paris. Petrie, W. M. F., 1891a: “Chronology of Pottery”. PEF Quarterly Statement 35, 68. — 1891b: Tell el Hesy (Lachish). London. Porath, Y., 1985: “A Chalcolithic Building at Fasa’el”. ‘Atiqot English Series XVII, 1–19. Price, M. / Buckley, M. / Kersel, M. M. / Rowan Y. M., 2014: “Animal Management Strategies during the Chalcolithic in the Lower Galilee: New Data from Marj Rabba (Israel)”. Paléorient 39(2), 183–200. Roux, V. / Courty, M-A. / Dollfus, G. / Lovell, J. L., 2011: “A Techno-Petrographic Approach for Defining Cultural Phases and Communities: Explaining the Variability of Abu Hamid (Jordan Valley): Early 5th Millennium cal. BC Ceramic Assemblage”. In J. L. Lovell / Y. M. Rowan (eds.): Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition. CBRL Levant Supplementary Monograph Series Vol. 9. Oxford, Oakville. Pp. 114–132. Roux, V. / van den Brink, E. C. M. / Shalev, S., 2013: “Continuity and Discontinuity in the Shephela (Israel) between the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze I: The Modi‘in “Deep Deposits” Ceramic Assemblages as a Case Study”. Paléorient 39(1), 63–81. Rowan, Y., 2001: “Prismatic Blades and Periodization. The Case of the Fourth Millennium B.C.E. “Cave of the Warrior””. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 117, 1–4. Rowan, Y. M. / Kersel, M. M., 2014: “New perspectives on the Chalcolithic Period in the Galilee: Investigations at the Site of Marj Rabba”. In J. R. Spencer / A. Brody / R. Mullins (eds.): Material Culture Matters: Essays on the Archaeology of the Southern Levant in Honor of Seymour Gitin. Winona Lake, Indiana. Pp. 221–238. Rowan, Y. M. / Levy, T. E., 1994 : “Proto-Canaanean Blades of the Chalcolithic Period”. Levant XXVI, 167–174. Schaub, R. T. / Rast, W. E., 1989: Bâb edh-Dhrâc: Excavations in the Cemetery Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965–67). Winona Lake, Indiana. Scheftelowitz, N. / Oren, R., 2004: Giv‘at ha-Oranim. A Chalcolithic Site. Salvage Excavation Reports 1. Tel Aviv. Schick, T., 1998: The Cave of the Warrior: A Fourth Millennium Burial in the Judean Desert. IAA Reports 5. Jerusalem. Schick, T. / Barshad, D. / Shaked, I. / Naga, Y. / Segal, D., 1998: “Chapter 22: Summary and Conclusions”. In T. Schick: The Cave of the Warrior: A Fourth Millennium Burial in the Judean Desert. IAA Reports 5. Jerusalem, 128–130. Schumacher, G., 1908: Tell el-Mutesellim: Report of the Excavations Conducted from 1903–1905. English Translation M.A.S. Martin. Leipzig. https://israelfinkelstein.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/schumacher-tell-el-mutsellim-plates-eng-trans-1908.pdf (last accessed 27/1/2019).

They Seek It Here, They Seek It There

35

Sellin, E. / Watzinger, C., 1913: Jericho: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen. Leipzig. Shalem, D. / Gal, Z. / Smithline, H. 2013: Peqi‘in: A Late Chalcolithic Burial Site, Upper Galilee, Israel. Land of Galilee 2, Kinneret Academic College. Tsemah, Israel. Sukenik, E. L., 1936: “Late Chalcolithic Pottery from ’Affuleh”. PEF Quarterly Statement 1936, 150–154. — 1937: “A Chalcolithic Necropolis at Hederah”. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society XVII, 15–30. Sussman, V. / Ben-Arieh, S., 1966: “Ancient Burials in Giv‘atayim”. ‘Atiqot Hebrew Series 3, 27–39, *4 (Hebrew with English Summary). Vaillant, N., 1988: “Les Techniques de la ceramique”. In G. Dollfus / Z. Kafah: Abu Hamid: Village du 4e millenaire de la Vallee du Jourdain. Amman. Pp. 44–46. Vardi, J. / Gilead, I., 2013: “Chalcolithic–Early Bronze Age I Transition in the Southern Levant: The Lithic Perspective”. Paléorient 39(2), 111–123. de Vaux, R., 1970: “Palestine during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods”. In I. E. S. Edwards / C. J. Gadd / N. G. L. Hammond (eds.): Cambridge Ancient History. Third Edition, Vol. 1, Part 1. Cambridge. Pp. 498–535. Wright, G. E., 1936: “The Chronology of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age”. BASOR 63, 12–21. — 1937: The Pottery of Palestine from the Earliest Times to the End of the Early Bronze Age. New Haven. — 1958: “The Problem of the Transition Between the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages”. Eretz-Israel V, 37*– 45*. — 1971: “The Archaeology of Palestine from the Neolithic through the Middle Bronze Age”. Journal of the American Oriental Society 91, 276–293. Yannai, E., 2006: ‘En Esur (‘Ein Assawir) I. Excavations at a Protohistoric Site in the Coastal Plain of Israel. IAA Reports 31. Jerusalem. Yekutieli, Y., 2000: “Early Bronze Age I Pottery in Southwestern Canaan”. In G. Philip / D. Baird (eds.): Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Sheffield. Pp. 129–152. Yekutieli, Y. / Gophna, R., 1994: “Excavations at an Early Bronze Age site near Nizzanim”. Tel Aviv 21, 162–185.

The Late Chalcolithic / Early Bronze I Transition and the Ashqelon Occupational Sequence Amir Golani1

Abstract With more data coming to light every year, the transition between the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze I in the Southern Levant continues to arouse interest and debate among scholars. The centuries immediately after the cessation of the Late Chalcolithic (Ghassulian) culture, generally accepted at around 3800/3700 BC, are often regarded as a transitional period, until the appearance of an established EB I cultural entity in the second half of the 4th millennium BC. While earlier studies on the transition from the Late Chalcolithic to the EB I have stressed the discontinuity between these two periods, more recent ones have been able to highlight substantial continuity, largely due to the EB I settlement at Ashqelon and other sites where numerous calibrated radiocarbon dates have demonstrated the presence of a continuous settlement from approximately 3850/3750 BC to the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC (c. 2900 BC). A range of early dates within this sequence (c. 3850/3750–3500/3400 BC) is associated with a material culture that shows clear continuity, with elements from the Late Chalcolithic alongside those of the EB I. At Ashqelon, this material culture, often regarded as transitional Late Chalcolithic / Early Bronze I, appears to herald the beginning of an evolving social structure that should be associated with the Early Bronze Age in the region, pushing back the beginning of the EB I to the beginning of the settlement.

Keywords: Ashqelon, Early Bronze I, Late Chalcolithic, Transitions, Radiocarbon, Cultural continuity.

Introduction During the first half of the 4th millennium BC, a major cultural change occurred in the Southern Levant. The well-defined Ghassulian culture of the Late Chalcolithic (henceforth LC) dissipated, giving way to the Early Bronze I (henceforth EB I). Within the region of the Southern Levant, the Ghassulian culture defines the LC period in the Transjordan, the northern Negev, the southern and central Coastal Plain, and the Shefelah. This region will henceforth be termed ‘Southern Canaan’, though the term ‘Southwestern Canaan’ is common in published research.2 The LC–EB I interface within the first half of the 4th millennium BC and its chrono-cultural context has become a subject of great interest. With more new data coming to light from sites throughout Southern Canaan, older views of a cultural break and discontinuity have gradually given way to acknowledging substantial cultural continuity between the two periods, due to the relocation of LC populations of the northern Negev northwards.3 Thus, the LC–EB I interface now appears to have been much more fluid than once thought. The continuity seen at the LC/EB I boundary may deem this chrono-cultural phase as a transitional period; still, the weight of the evidence appears to indicate a clear shift to a new EB I social order.

The Chrono-Cultural Framework of the LC/EB I Transition Until the founding of the First Dynasty in Egypt and the occurrence of Egyptian correlations with the Southern Levant at the very end of the 4th millennium BC, the absolute chronology of the Chalcolithic and the Chalcolithic/EB I transition in this region is based solely on radiocarbon dating. These dates have shown that a developed Late Chalcolithic culture that thrived in the Northern Negev region of Israel and the Transjordan dissipated nearing the end of the 5th millennium BC and was practically non-existent at the 1

Israel Antiquities Authority; email: [email protected]. See Yekutieli, 2000, 2001; de Miroschedji, 2006; Golani, 2013. 3 See Dessel, 2009: 106; Yekutieli, 2000, 2001; van den Brink, 2013; Golani, 2013; Paz / Nativ, 2013; Roux et al., 2013; Roux, this volume. 2

38

A. Golani

beginning of the 4th millennium BC.4 Thus, a date of c. 3800 BC can be accepted as representing the end of the Chalcolithic period in Southern Canaan. While earlier chronological correlations with the founding of the first Egyptian dynasty have placed the very beginning of the subsequent EB I period in Southern Canaan at the second half of the 4th millennium, around 3300/3400 BC,5 the advent of new excavations, coupled with radiometric data, has pushed back the beginning of the EB I to 3500 calBC or even slightly earlier, at 3700/3600 calBC.6 As more radiocarbon data from LC sites have come to light, recent analyses have placed the beginning of the EB I much closer to the end of the Chalcolithic, c. 3800 calBC.7 In the Northern Negev, the end of the Chalcolithic settlement system at the end of the 5th millennium BC and the identification of the first EB I sites of the latter half of the 4th millennium have led some to conclude that this region remained mostly abandoned after 3900/3800 BC and until the beginning of the EB I and that the Chalcolithic culture of the Northern Negev contributed very little to the emergence of the succeeding EB I.8 Although by this interpretation the developed Chalcolithic culture of the Northern Negev, as well as the LC Ghassulian of Transjordan, disappear without a trace, such a drastic conclusion is hard to accept, especially when numerous aspects of continuity may be observed from the LC to the EB I (see below). Other scholars, uneasy with such a drastic conclusion, sought to bridge the gap between 3800–3500 BC, recognizing the need to find a temporal and cultural continuity between the two periods, and created a new subdivision, the “Terminal Chalcolithic”,9 a term that stresses the fragmented and decayed character of settlement and material culture after the collapse of the leading regional centers of the Chalcolithic Northern Negev. However, this division was a shaky construct based on a few and somewhat uncertain radiocarbon dates associated with the first half of the 4th millennium BC from a small handful of sites that had clearly yielded mixed archaeological assemblages. Since that publication, radiocarbon dating identified this same period at Modi‘in, where a sequential stratigraphy showed two occupational strata sandwiched between 4000 and 3600 calBC (Strata 4–3) with clear affinities with both the LC and the EB I.10 Excavations at the site of Yesodot11 also identified an archaeological culture defined as ‘post-Ghassulian’ that included elements of both periods yet with no radiocarbon determinations to anchor its chronological context. An archaeological material culture excavated at Ashqelon Afridar Area E (see below), which appears very early in the EB I and exhibits numerous elements of continuity with the previous LC,12 was associated with a large battery of radiocarbon dates that fall just within this time period, c. 3800–3500 BC, prompting the suggestion that there was no ‘gap’ or ‘transitional’ period, as the EB I in Southern Canaan was a direct outcome of the LC and actually began several centuries earlier than accepted, thus bridging the seemingly LC–EB I chrono-cultural gap13. The dates obtained for the same material culture excavated at Ashqelon Afridar Area G also fall within this ‘temporal gap’. However, while recognizing the end of the Chalcolithic at 3800 BC, a 3600/3500 BC date was still upheld for the onset of the EB I; the 200/300 year interlude between the end of the Chalcolithic and the beginning of the EB I was regarded as a ‘transitional’ stage, neither LC nor EB I, a ‘Missing Link’ or ‘Lost Horizon’,14 all terms seeking to define a transitional period but implicitly recognizing the temporal and cultural continuity between the end of the LC and the beginning of the EB I. With that said, the validity of the early dates from Ashqelon mentioned earlier and their association with an EB I material culture have been disputed (see below), as they appear to reposition the 4

Cf. Gilead, 1993, 1994; Bourke, 2004, 2009; Burton / Levy, 2011; Braun et al., 2013; van den Brink, 2013; Golani, 2013: 99–100. However, as a period defined primarily by the regional attributes of its material culture, the Chalcolithic may have continued slightly later in other regions, as suggested by radiocarbon dates from the Golan, where a Chalcolithic occupation may have lasted until the mid-4th millennium BC (Carmi / Epstein / Segal, 1995). 5 See for example in Stager, 1992: 27. 6 See de Miroschedji, 2006; Braun / Roux, 2013: 18. For the earlier dating, see Yekutieli, 2000, 2001, 2007. 7 See in Regev et al., 2012. 8 Gilead, 1993, 1994. 9 Joffe / Dessel, 1995. 10 Van den Brink, 2011, 2013. 11 Paz / Nativ, 2013. 12 Yekutieli, 2000, 2001: 667. 13 Golani / Segal, 2002; Golani, 2004. 14 See Braun, 2000, 2011; Braun / Roux, 2013: 18–19.

The Late Chalcolithic / Early Bronze I Transition

39

beginning of the EB I to immediately after the end of the LC, causing the EB I to be defined as an extraordinarily long period beginning c. 3800 BC. With the validity of the early Ashqelon radiocarbon dates cast in doubt, the apparent cultural continuity between the LC and the EB I, as expressed at Ashqelon, was also downplayed. Some claimed for a substantial LC occupation that left residual, non-stratified remains at the site prior to the EB I occupation,15 suggesting an earlier LC occupation mixed with that of the EB I and with which the early radiocarbon dates should be associated. These early radiocarbon dates from Area E at Ashqelon were deemed to 1) be of questionable archaeological context as they were retrieved from pits, 2) be composed of both charcoal and seeds 3) have been found associated with material culture remains typical of both the LC and the EB I, and 4) probably apparently date, if accepted, the beginning of the Early EB I occupation at the site as too early,16 pushing back the beginning of the EB I by some 300 years. Unfortunately, discrediting the evidence from Ashqelon has permeated the archaeological discourse.17 While the same scholars would recognize the period at hand as transitional between the LC and the EB I based on cultural continuity, the very elements of this continuity are not recognized as integral to this period but rather seen as associated with an earlier, LC occupation. Therefore, the chrono-cultural role of the early stages of the Ashqelon occupation has become the focus of debate for the nature of the LC–EB I transition in Southern Canaan. Despite this, the most recent holistic treatment of radiocarbon dating has defined the Early EB I (EB IA) at Ashqelon to have begun in the second quarter of the 4th millennium BC (3750–3500 calBC),18 a time deemed transitional between the LC and the EB I. This same analysis has determined the transition from the Early EB I (EB IA) to the Late EB I (EB IB) to have occurred around 3500 calBC so that the beginning of the Early EB I must have taken place sometime earlier. The present article seeks to characterize this transitional period at Ashqelon, putting it in chronological and cultural perspective and showing that it should not be considered a transitional period but instead be viewed as an early stage of the EB I in Southern Canaan characterized by a significant degree of continuity with the preceding LC. Further excavations carried out at Ashqelon in the last decade have led to significant growth in the radiometric and material culture database, enabling a better definition and understanding of the Early EB I settlement and its material culture.

The Early Bronze Age I Site of Ashqelon The EB I site of Ashqelon is located near the seashore, within the confines of the modern city on Israel’s southern coast. The settlement was situated within a natural ‘trough’ created by two long, wide, and low kurkar ridges that ran parallel to the coastline. Within this area, an ecological niche wherein fertile soils, high groundwater, and varied flora and fauna created a self-contained ‘subsistence area’ of distinctive character where a pattern of agricultural subsistence was exploited during the EB I owing to the high water table that was easily accessible by digging shallow wells.19 Moreover, Ashqelon’s position on the western side of a break in the dunes that constrict this area to the east allowed easy access from the inland regions to the coast. Direct access to the coast apparently made Ashqelon an important entrepôt for maritime and land trade throughout the EB I as the location provides a convenient anchorage for maritime trade that is easily accessed from inland regions.20 Nilotic shells within a typical EB I juglet found off the coast of ‘Atlit have provided evidence for maritime trade with Egypt along the Mediterranean coast at this time.21 Increased precipitation, rising groundwater, and the formation of marshlands due to inadequate drainage apparently caused this region

15

Braun et al., 2013: 24–5; Milevski, 2013: 194, Fig. 1. Braun / Gophna, 2004: 220–225; Braun et al., 2013: 36. 17 “The very earliest dates from Ashqelon EB IA are questionable, since the site also had a Chalcolithic occupation, and the pottery associated with the earliest dates could be mixed EB and Chalcolithic assemblages” (Regev et al., 2012: 545; after Braun / Gophna, 2004). 18 See Regev et al., 2012: 550–551. 19 Gophna, 1997; Gophna / Liphschitz, 1996: 145; Nir, 2008. 20 Gophna, 2002; Golani, 2014a. 21 Sharvit et al., 2002. 16

40

A. Golani

and much of the coastal plain in Israel to be largely abandoned from the onset of the EB II, at around 2900 BC.22 Ashqelon is one of the largest and most extensively excavated EB I occupations in the Southern Levant. Since 1990, intensified development of the modern city became the impetus for rescue excavations and extensive mechanical test trenching, their majority carried out by the Israel Antiquities Authority. These revealed a large and sporadic settlement spreading out from Tel Ashqelon in the south to the Barne‘a neighborhood in the north, and from the seashore to approximately one kilometer inland (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Location of the Early Bronze I remains at Ashqelon.

22

For more on this phenomenon and its archaeological implications, see Faust / Ashkenazy, 2007; Ackermann et al., 2019.

The Late Chalcolithic / Early Bronze I Transition

41

The EB I occupation is composed of several non-nucleated patches separated by large open areas where no archaeological remains were found23 and may be seen as comprising one settlement of long duration, wherein the foci of settlement shifted over time. Among the various excavation areas, some revealed remains of one occupational stratum, while others revealed up to six, all associated by their material culture to the EB I (Table 1). The site was first probed in 1968 when Ram Gophna exposed massive mudbrick building remains of the Late EB I in Afridar Area A (Fig. 2, Table 1).

Figure 2. Location of excavation areas with EB I remains in the Afridar region.

23

However, it should be noted that the ‘open spaces’ are essentially where mechanical trenching was not able to discern any ancient occupational remains. As a very thick overburden of dunes often covered these, the maximum depth the mechanical backhoe could reach from the modern ground surface was approximately four meters. Thus, any possible remains below this would not be accessible unless much of the sand covering them is removed. While the overlying sands include remains of the Roman–Byzantine period, more ancient remains were always situated on sterile sands or on kurkar bedrock, which was reached in nearly all the excavation areas discussed here.

42

A. Golani

Since then, numerous rescue projects at the site (see Table 1; Fig. 2) have revealed the presence of a settlement throughout the entire EB I. Though all the excavations were regarded as relating to one site, each was treated as a separate excavation area that was processed, analyzed and published individually (see Table 1), although several syntheses have also been published.24 Table 1. Summary of Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Ashqelon.

Excavation Afridar Area A* Afridar Area B* Afridar Area C* Afridar Area D (E4) Afridar Area E

Afridar Area F

Afridar Area G Afridar Area H Afridar Area I Afridar Area J

24

Main Features Architectural remains

Early EB I (EB IA) –

Late EB I (EB IB) EB IB

Publication Gophna, 2002, 2004

Mechanical test probes

–

EB IB?

Gophna, 2002, 2004

Remains of large, massive mudbrick structure Pits

–

EB IB

EB IA

–

Area E-1—pits Area E-2—pits, architectural remains, metallurgical activity, burials Area E-3—pits Stratum II—pits Stratum I—architectural remains

EB IA

–

–

Stratum II—architectural remains, burials Stratum I— architectural remains No finds

Stratum II, early EB IA; Stratum I, late EB IA Strata II–I, early EB IA

Brandl / Gophna, 1993; Gophna, 2002 Gophna, 2002, 2004; Wallach, 2003 E-1: Golani, 2004, 2018 E-2: Golani, 2004, Golani / Paran, 2014; Golani / Paran, in press E-3: Golani, 2004 Khalaily, 2004

–

Braun / Gophna, 2004

–

–

Braun / Gophna, 2004

Designation not used

–

–

–

Stratum VI—pits, architectural remains, metallurgical activity, pottery kiln Stratum V—pits, architectural remains, metallurgical activity, hearths Stratum IV—pits, hearths, architectural remains Stratum III—pits, metallurgical activity Stratum II—architectural remains Stratum I—architectural remains

Strata VI– IV, EB IA

Strata III– I, EB IB

Baumgarten, 2004

E.g., Golani / Segal, 2002; Golani / Nagar, 2011; Rosenberg / Golani, 2012; Golani, 2013; 2014a.

The Late Chalcolithic / Early Bronze I Transition

Excavation Afridar Area K Afridar Area L Afridar Area M

Afridar Area N

Afridar Area O

Afridar Area P Afridar Area 10 Barne‘a

Delilah Beach* Tel Ashqelon

Main Features

43

Early EB I (EB IA) EB I

Late EB I (EB IB) EB I

Pits (identified by excavators as ‘Late Chalcolithic’) Stratum II—architectural remains, metallurgical activity Stratum I—architectural remains, metallurgical activity, burial Stratum II—architectural remains Stratum I—architectural remains Area O-1, Stratum III— habitational debris Area O-1, Stratum II— architectural remains Area O-2—pits, architectural remains Pits

EB IA

–

Baumgarten, 2006; Haimi, 2009 Garfinkel, 2008

EB IA

–

Golani, 2008b

EB IA

–

Golani, 2014b; in press

EB IA

–

Paran, 2014; Golani / Pasternak, 2020

EB IA

–

Golani, 2017

Pits, architectural remains, metallurgical activity

EB IA

–

Stratum IV—pits, architectural remains, metallurgical activity, burials Stratum III—pits, architectural remains, metallurgical activity, burials Stratum II—pits, architectural remains, metallurgical activity, burials Pits, metallurgical activity

Stratum IV, late EB IA/EB IA– B transition

Stratum III, early EB IB Stratum II, late EB IB

Yekutieli / Paran, unpublished, Ben-Gurion University Golani, 2005, 2007, 2008a; Golani, 2019; Golani, forthcoming

EB I

EB I

Toueg, 2010

Pits (central portion of tell)

EB IA

–

D. Master / J. Walton, pers. comm., 2015

Architectural remains

Publication

*The locations of the excavations in Afridar Areas A, B and C, and the excavations at Delilah Beach, were not recorded in sufficient detail and are therefore approximate in Fig. 2.

The Ashqelon Occupational Dating Sequence Since the Ashqelon settlement seems to be a non-nucleated site sampled by excavation areas where different phases of the EB I have been found (a horizontal stratigraphy), absolute radiocarbon dating may be employed to create an occupational dating sequence. When arranged in a simple sequential order, the dates show a continuous occupation spanning nearly a thousand years (Table 2, Fig. 3), from the very earliest stages of the

44

A. Golani

EB I in the first half of the 4th millennium BC (c. 3850/3750 BC), all the way to its very end at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC (c. 2900 BC).25 Among the various excavation areas, two primary chrono-cultural subperiods within the EB I may be identified: The Early EB I, also termed EB IA, and the Late EB I, also termed EB IB. Based on the morphological and technological character of various ceramic assemblages from Southern Canaan, the chrono-cultural framework of the EB IA and the EB IB in Southern Canaan has been further subdivided into the EB IA1–EB IA2 and the EB IB1–EB IB2. The EB IA1 is dated to 3700/3600–3500/3400 calBC; the EB IA2 to 3500–3350 calBC; the EB IB1 to 3350–3200 calBC; and the EB IB2 to 3200–2900 calBC.26 More recent radiocarbon analysis has determined the absolute chronology of the Early EB I (EB IA1–2) at 3850/3750 calBC–3500/3400 calBC, and the Late EB I (EB IB1–2) from 3500/3400 calBC to 3000/2900 calBC.27At Ashqelon, most excavation areas produced remains of either one or another of these subperiods. Some included both, and some did not have enough stratified material to reach a clear identification beyond a general ascription to the EB I based on the similarity of the finds to assemblages of both subperiods. To date, a total of 43 dates are related to the different excavation areas at the site (Table 2, Fig. 3).28 When correlated with the associated ceramic finds from each excavation area, these indicate a continuous occupation through all stages of the EB I.29 Such a large amount of dates from one site, along with the material culture remains associated with them, characteristic of the EB I in Southern Canaan, posit Ashqelon as one of the earliest and longest-lived occupations of the EB I in this region.30 The first batch of radiocarbon samples from Ashqelon that were processed for dating originated from pits and surfaces in Afridar Areas E–1 and E–2 and included both yearly growths of seeds and charcoal (see Table 2, Fig. 3).31 The material culture finds discovered in association with these samples dated from the Early EB I and also included various components generally associated with the LC (see below). Since the publication of these first dates, many more samples of seeds from stratified contexts associated with architectural remains, and not from pits, have been processed, producing very similar results (see Table 2, Fig. 3). Besides the dates from Afridar Area E, radiocarbon samples from Afridar Areas G, M, and N, as well as more samples from Afridar Area E also consisting of seeds and charcoal, produced similar results and were associated with the same material culture (see Table 2, Fig. 3). As all these radiocarbon samples were found alongside Early EB I archaeological deposits where no clear evidence of a previous LC occupation (see below) was found, there is no valid reason for not accepting them. The early dates cannot be dismissed;32 their direct association with clear and well-defined archaeological contexts and their sheer amount only makes their validity stronger. The large battery of radiocarbon dates from Ashqelon now enables us to bridge the gap between the end of the Chalcolithic and the beginning of the EB I in Southern Canaan.

25

However, a radiocarbon date from Stratum IIIA at Barne‘a (no. 43 in Table 2 and Fig. 3) produced a very wide range, and thus appears to be an outlier as it postdates earlier dates of the succeeding Stratum II. Likewise, dates nos. 1–4 in the sequence, consisting of both seeds (nos. 1, 2, 4) and charcoal (no. 3), may be early outliers within the sequence as they appear to predate 3800 BC by far. The reason why dates of yearly growths of seeds can appear as outliers within a radiocarbon dating sequence can lie in numerous variables, yet outliers can only be identified once they are compared to a larger assemblage of dates associated with clear stratigraphic contexts. 26 See Alon / Yekutieli, 1995: 183, Table 1; Yekutieli, 2000: Table 8.3. 27 Regev et al, 2012: 551. 28 The radiocarbon samples were processed by Segal and Carmi and by Boaretto at the D-REAMS Radiocarbon Laboratory of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot. All the dates presented in Fig. 3 were calibrated by Y. Asscher of the IAA using InCal 13. The numerical dates are presented as 14C age BP, followed by a standard deviation determination of 1ẟ. 29 Each of the calibrated dates presented here has a ‘range’ of probabilities that are graphically presented in Table 2. Most of the dates (nos. 6–30, Table 2, Fig. 3) associated with the Early EB I (EB IA) occupation in Areas E–1, E–2, G, M and N clearly show a more constricted range, while a smaller number of dates (nos. 31–43, Table 2, Fig. 3) have a wider range and are associated with the transition from the Early to the Late EB I and to the Late EB I itself. 30 Cf. Golani / Segal, 2002; Golani, 2013. 31 Cf. Golani / Segal, 2002; Segal / Carmi, 2004. 32 Braun, 2001; Braun / Gophna, 2004: 219–225.

The Late Chalcolithic / Early Bronze I Transition Table 2. Radiocarbon determinations for the EB I Site of Ashqelon (Fig. 3).

No.

D-REAMS Laboratory #

1

RT-2634

2

RT-2254

3

RT-2256

4 5

RT-7460 RT-2469b

6 7

RT-7459 RT-2157

8

RT-2258b

9 10 11

RT-2644 RT2441/2442 RT-2258a

12

RT-2469a

13

RT-2272

14 15 16

RT-2645b RT-2645a RT-2447

17 18 19 20

RT-2647 RT-4672 RTD-7728 RT-2255

21 22 23 24

RTD-9098 RT-4673 RT-5429 RT-2258c

25 26 27 28 29 30

RTD-7729 RT-2219 RTD-7730 RTD-7727 RT-4674 RT-7458

31

RT-5432

Type of Excavation Area Reference Sample EB IA Beginning Boundary (3850/3750 BC) Seeds Afridar Area E-1 Golani / Segal, 2002; Segal / Carmi, 2004 Seeds Afridar Area E-1 Golani / Segal, 2002; Segal / Carmi, 2004 Charcoal Afridar Area E-1 Golani / Segal, 2002; Segal / Carmi, 2004 Seeds Afridar Area E-2 Stratum III Golani / Paran, 2014; in press Charcoal Afridar Area E-2 Golani / Segal, 2002; Segal / Carmi, 2004 Seeds Afridar Area E-2 Stratum II Golani / Paran, 2014; in press Charcoal Afridar Area E-2 Golani / Segal, 2002; Segal / Carmi, 2004 Charcoal Afridar Area E-2 Golani / Segal, 2002; Segal / Carmi, 2004 Charcoal Afridar Area G Braun / Gophna, 2004:219–220 Charcoal Afridar Area J Stratum V Baumgarten 2004:179 Charcoal

Afridar Area E-2

Golani / Segal, 2002; Segal / Carmi, 2004 Charcoal Afridar E-2 Golani / Segal, 2002; Segal / Carmi, 2004 Charcoal Afridar Area E-1 Golani / Segal, 2002; Segal / and seeds Carmi, 2004 Charcoal Afridar Area G Stratum I Braun / Gophna, 2004: 219–220 Charcoal Afridar Area G Stratum I Braun / Gophna, 2004: 219–220 Charcoal Afridar Area E-2 Golani / Segal, 2002; Segal / and seeds Carmi, 2004 Charcoal Afridar Area G Stratum I Braun / Gophna, 2004: 219–220 Seeds Afridar Area M Strata I–II Boaretto, 2008 Seeds Afridar Area N Stratum III Golani, in press Charcoal Afridar Area E-1 Golani / Segal, 2002; Segal / Carmi, 2004 Seeds Afridar Area E-1 Golani, 2018 Seeds Afridar Area M Strata I–II Boaretto, 2008 Seeds Barne'a Stratum IV Boaretto, 2019 Charcoal Afridar Area E-2 Golani / Segal, 2002; Segal / Carmi, 2004 Seeds Afridar Area N Stratum III Golani, in press Charcoal Afridar Area E-1 Segal / Carmi, 2004 Seeds Afridar Area N Stratum III Golani, in press Seeds Afridar Area N Stratum II Golani, in press Seeds Afridar Area M Strata I–I Boaretto, 2008 Charcoal Afridar Area E-2 Stratum II Golani / Paran, 2014; in press EB IA–EB IB Boundary (3400/3300 BC) Seeds Barne‘a Stratum IIIB Boaretto, 2019

45

46

No. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

A. Golani

D-REAMS Laboratory # RT-5431 RTD-9978 RT-2567 RT-2247/8 RT-2337 RT-5430 RT-5428 RT-5434 RT-5433 RT-5436 RT-5437 RT-5435

Type of Excavation Area Reference Sample Seeds Barne‘a Stratum IV Boaretto, 2019 Charcoal Afridar Area O-2 Golani / Pasternak, 2020 Charcoal Afridar Area F Stratum I Khalaily, 2004: 156 Charcoal Afridar Area F Stratum I Khalaily, 2004: 156 Charcoal? Afridar Area D (E-4) Wallach, 2003 Seeds Barne‘a Stratum IV Boaretto, 2019 Charcoal Barne‘a Stratum IV Boaretto, 2019 Seeds Barne‘a Stratum III Boaretto, 2019 Seeds Barne‘a Stratum IIIB Boaretto, 2019 Seeds Barne‘a Stratum II Boaretto, 2019 Seeds Barne‘a Stratum II Boaretto, 2019 Seeds Barne‘a Stratum IIIA Boaretto, 2019 EB IB End Boundary (2900/2800 BC)

Figure 3. Radiocarbon determinations from the EB I Site of Ashqelon, see Tab. 2. The numerical dates are presented as 14C Age BP, followed by a standard deviation determination of 1ẟ. The dates were calibrated using InCal 13.

The Late Chalcolithic / Early Bronze I Transition

47

Shifts in the EB I Settlement at Ashqelon according to Radiocarbon Dating Arrangement of the individual radiocarbon dates in sequential order33 from earliest to latest may provide further evidence of a shifting settlement pattern at the site, linking stratified archaeological assemblages in each excavation area with those in other excavation areas to determine which were contemporaneous. The results of this approach show a close affinity in the archaeological material culture assemblages recovered in Afridar Areas E–1, E–2, Afridar Area G, Afridar Area J Stratum V, Afridar Area M Strata II–I and Afridar Area N Strata II–III. The radiocarbon dates from these areas all indicate a range of 3850/3750–3400/3300 BC34 of the Early EB I at Ashqelon. Furthermore, as the material culture of Barne‘a Stratum IV and Afridar Area F Stratum I are dated to slightly later in the occupational sequence, the ceramic assemblages from these locales may be associated with the latter part of the Early EB I, termed EB IA2.35 Integration of the material culture finds with the radiocarbon dates now enables to identify the beginning of settlement in the Early EB I at Ashqelon in three primary locales (see Figs. 1–2, Table 1): 1. The Afridar region (Areas E–1, E–2, Strata II–III; E–3; Area F, Stratum II; Area G, Strata II–I; Area J, Strata VI–III; Area M, Strata II–I; Area N, Strata II–I; Area O; Area P; and the Delilah beach). This region appears to have been the earliest to be settled, as it includes the earliest remains associated with the earliest radiocarbon dates. 2. The Barne‘a region (Stratum IV). Settlement in this region appears to have begun slightly later within the Early EB I (EB IA2). The occupation at Ashqelon Afridar Area F (Stratum I) may also be associated with this phase. 3. Tel Ashqelon. Though the actual extent of the finds in this locale is still unclear, they appear to be identical in character to those revealed in Areas G, M, and N, and especially those identified in Areas E–1 and E– 2.36 During the latter part of the EB I (EB IB), the settlement appears to have shrunk somewhat and may so far be identified in only two regions: 1. Barne‘a (Strata III–II). Stratum III at Barne‘a was a large occupation of approximately 55 dunams, while the ensuing Stratum II was much smaller in size.37 2. The Afridar region (Areas A, B, C, and Area J [Strata II–I]. Occupation in the Afridar region appears to have been more restricted in size than that of the preceding Early EB I.

Continuity and Change in the Material Culture of the Early EB I at Ashqelon The material culture at Ashqelon as revealed in Afridar Areas E–1, E–2, F, G, M, N, O, P and Barne‘a Stratum IV, dated by radiocarbon 14C to between 3850/3750–3400/3300 calBC and associated with the Early EB I, is a homogenous assemblage, yet shows a great deal of continuity from the preceding LC of the Northern Negev. After the end of the LC, at 3800/3750 BC, the presence of LC material culture components alongside those of the early EB I at Ashqelon has been the subject of dispute, some scholars contending that the presence of LC components evidences an LC settlement while those of the Early EB I bear witness to another, succeeding settlement that existed sometime later.38 If the end of the LC in the northern Negev is determined at approximately 3800 BC, then the presence of LC components within a material culture after this time appears 33

Application of Bayesian date modelling, a technique used to provide a more restricted dating probability within a known stratigraphic/chronological sequence, produces very similar results yet is not presented here. 34 The date results from Barne‘a Stratum IV and Afridar Area O–2 (see nos. 32–33, 37–38 in Table 2, Fig. 3) are somewhat late in the sequence as this stratum is dated by its material culture finds to the late portion of the Early EB I (EB IA2). 35 Cf. Yekutieli, 2000; 2001. 36 The author would like to thank Daniel Master and Joshua Walton for allowing to visit this as yet unpublished excavation area, yet the author takes full responsibility for their initial interpretation as presented here. 37 The material culture of Barne‘a Strata III–II is similar to the ‘Erani C’ cultural horizon. Insofar as the typical ‘Erani C’ ceramics is present in both these strata, the radiocarbon dates that may be conclusively associated with Barne‘a Strata III–II (nos. 39–43, see Table 2, Fig. 3), appear to postdate 3000 calBC. 38 Braun, 2001: 1281; Braun / Gophna, 2004: 219–231.

48

A. Golani

problematic, unless the continuity of LC cultural components postdating 3800 BC is accepted. At Ashqelon, typical LC material cultural components have always been found alongside those of the Early EB I, and none of the excavated areas have revealed stratified in situ remains that may be unequivocally associated solely with the LC period. In all the areas excavated by the author and other excavators, particular emphasis has been undertaken to understand the original topographical layout, revealing a stratigraphical profile, from topsoil to base, of the occupational sequence on the sterile sands or kurkar bedrock. None of these investigations has exposed any in situ archaeological deposit that may be exclusively associated with the LC. As no exclusive LC occupation is identified at the site, LC-type finds revealed in association with those of the Early EB I, together with radiometric dates that consistently postdate the LC period, cannot be the result of any “mixtures of archaeological material from different phases of occupation” or the remains of preexisting LC settlement that ‘vaporized’ leaving a few ‘residual’ artifacts behind39 but are to be rather seen as a component of the Early EB I material culture that is characterized by the retention of numerous holdovers from the LC period.40 Late Chalcolithic-type finds are found throughout the excavated areas at EB I Ashqelon from the earliest levels of settlement. Since the first publication of radiometric and material culture data, the Early EB I occupation at Ashqelon has been proposed as representing the material culture of groups that migrated northwards to the southern coastal plain after the collapse and the abandonment of the northern Negev by the LC population.41 Other scholars have also noted that Early EB I peoples may have been the descendants of an LC population.42 Accordingly, this scenario would allow a post-LC occupation to include material culture elements of both the LC and the EB I that would coexist as one culture and not represent two separate consecutive cultures. The continuity of the LC at Ashqelon may be seen in many aspects of the material culture. Alongside this continuity, however, numerous changes are found. Together with the radiocarbon dates that position the material culture within a chronological context, elements of both continuity and change define the occupation at Ashqelon as associated with the Early EB I. Burial Customs As one of the prime indicators of specific cultural practices, burial customs at Ashqelon show a direct continuity with the preceding Chalcolithic. In one locale at Barne‘a, a series of stone-built rectangular cists arranged in “ladder-fashion” and containing secondary burials was found.43 Secondary burials in stone cists are known from Chalcolithic period sites such as Palmahim and Adeimeh (Jordan) and were also found at Ala-Safat in Jordan, where they were dated to the EB I,44 showing that use of stone cists appears to have continued from the LC into the EB Ib, though in the EB I, the use of ceramic ossuaries was apparently abandoned along with much of their attendant iconographic elements, indicating changes in religious beliefs. 39

See Milevski, 2013: 194. This also appears to be the interpretation given by the excavators of Area G, who found a few cornet fragments in the ceramic assemblage from that area and assigned them as ‘residual’ from an earlier occupation (Stratum -2) that, based on these fragments, was assumed but not really found (Braun / Gophna, 2004: 212, 224, note 13). Cornets from Ashqelon have also been reported by other excavators (see below, note 60). 40 Within the region of the EB I site, no exclusive LC occupation has been found. However, a new excavation carried out by Abadi Reis and Varga on behalf of the IAA in the expanding neighborhood of Agamim in Ashqelon, located approximately five km south of Ashqelon Afridar and three km southeast of Tel Ashqelon, has revealed a multi-layered occupation exclusively dated to the LC, with no Early EB I finds (Abadi-Reiss and Varga 2019). It could well be that the EB I site of Ashqelon was initially populated by the same groups that had previously resided at Agamim. Initial radiocarbon dates from Agamim have indicated occupation at this site at the end of the millennium yet no later than 3800 BC. The forthcoming research and publication of the LC archaeological deposits at Agamim can serve to characterise the LC in the Ashqelon region and should be compared to those associated with the Early EB I at Ashqelon. The author would like to thank the excavators of Agamim for making this as yet unpublished data available yet takes sole responsibility for their interpretation as presented here. 41 Golani / Segal, 2002; Golani, 2004: 46–48; Golani / Nagar, 2011; Golani, 2013. 42 See Dessel, 2009: 106; van den Brink, 2013; Roux et al., 2013; Roux, this volume. 43 Cf. Golani / Nagar, 2011. 44 See Gorzalczany, 2018; Stekelis, 1960–1961.

The Late Chalcolithic / Early Bronze I Transition

49

No remains of ceramic ossuaries were found at Ashqelon. The stone cist burials were found with no datable finds yet are associated with the EB I based on their proximity to the Barne‘a site where no LC occupation has been found, yet this determination has been strongly disputed.45 The presence of secondary stone cist burials is documented in both the LC and the EB I, and, if continuity in cultural traditions is recognized between these periods, there is no valid reason not to accept their association with the adjacent EB I occupation at Barne‘a. Other burial forms at Ashqelon include nearly thirty intra-site infant burials in several areas of the site. Such burials are also known at southern Early EB I sites such as Nizzanim and other EB I sites throughout the Southern Levant.46 In Ashqelon, these were all found within jars or covered in ceramic vessel fragments, in shallow pits cut into floors or in mudbrick cists. Intra-site infant burials are considered characteristic of the Chalcolithic period, usually found within the habitational site.47 The chrono-cultural ascription of these infant burials to the EB I at Ashqelon has been regarded as an ‘anomaly’,48 and their stratigraphic association and dating to the EB I called into question. However, all these burials were clearly associated with stratified and datable remains of the EB I, at times even being sealed between floors of successive phases associated with this period, so that their association with the EB I at this site appears certain. Architecture One of the major differences in the transition between the LC and the EB I is the introduction of curvilinear architecture, long regarded as one of the definitive hallmarks of the EB I.49 Oval-shaped buildings are found in the earliest stages of the Ashqelon occupational sequence, such as at Afridar Area G and Afridar Area M.50 Another two such structures were exposed at Barne‘a Stratum IV, associated with the latter part of the Early EB I, where they also continue into Stratum III, dated to the Late EB I.51 Subrectangular structures with rounded corners, a commonly known Late EB I feature throughout the Southern Levant,52 were found at Afridar Area F Stratum I as well.53 All these buildings may be dated by their associated finds to the EB I. At the same time, rectilinear architecture, a typical trait of the Chalcolithic period, is also found in the Early EB I, such as in Stratum 3 of the deep deposits at Modi‘in.54 This structure was initially constructed in Stratum 4, associated with the LC period, and continued in use during Stratum 3 of the Early EB I, highlighting the continuation of Chalcolithic architectural traditions and their implementation into the EB I at this site. Based on the radiocarbon data from Modi‘in, Stratum 4 of the LC is dated “post-4000 BC”, while Stratum 3 of the EB I “predates 3600 BC”.55 Identical rectilinear architecture has also been found at Yesodot, where it is associated with a post-Ghassulian, pre-EB I cultural horizon.56 Ceramics The similarity of morphological and technological traditions from the LC present within the Early EB I of Southern Canaan, as found at Ashqelon, expresses a direct cultural continuity. Recent summaries concerning EB I ceramics in Southern Canaan all support the notion concerning the transfer of ceramic cultural traditions from the LC into the Early EB I, especially in Southern Canaan.57 This transfer is seen not only in the direct 45

Braun et al., 2013: 24–25. For Nizzanim see Yekutieli / Gophna, 1994: 166–167. See also Golani / Nagar, 2011: Table 7.2; and also at Yesodot, see Paz / Nativ 2013: Fig. 5. 47 Cf. Streit, 2016; see also Yekutieli, 2001 for a differing view. 48 Braun et al., 2013: 25. 49 Cf. Braun, 1989. 50 Braun / Gophna, 2004: Plans 1–3; Golani, 2008b: Plan 3. 51 Golani, 2019: 252–253. 52 Golani, 1999. 53 Khalaily, 2004: Plans 2–3. 54 Van den Brink, 2013: Fig. 2. 55 Van den Brink, 2011: 68. 56 Paz / Nativ, 2013: Figs. 3–4. 57 Cf. Yekutieli, 2000, 2001; Dessel, 2009: 105–106; Braun, 2011: 162–167, Figs. 12.1–5; van den Brink, 2011: 63, 67– 68; Braun et al., 2013: 30; Golani, 2013: 101–102. 46

50

A. Golani

continuation of specific forms and decorative elements but also in the direct continuation of potting techniques themselves,58 though a clear decline is also apparent in manufacturing skill. Among other forms, LC ‘holdovers’ appearing in EB I Ashqelon include ‘V’-shaped bowls, pithoi with wide sloping shoulders and small bases, alongside distinctive decorative elements such as thumb-indented impressions (also known as ‘pie-crust’) decorations on rims of bowls, storage jars, and holemouth jars. For all these forms, the fabric characterizing the Ashqelon ceramics is also slightly different from what is usually found in LC deposits in the same region, such as those found at Agamim.59 Other distinctive LC features, such as red-painted ‘lipstick’ rims on ‘V’-shaped bowls are absent at Ashqelon and other sites of the Early EB I, representing perhaps a small though clearly distinctive difference between the LC and the Early EB I. Despite the general acknowledgment of cultural transfer of numerous LC ‘holdovers’ into the Early EB I, the recognition that cornets, an LC fossile directeur, is also part of the same cultural continuity into the EB I, has been more difficult to accept.60 Ceramic fragments of cornet bases are consistently found in small amounts among the Early EB I assemblages and even into the Late EB I at Ashqelon.61 If a cultural transfer from the LC is accepted for some elements within the EB I ceramic assemblage at Ashqelon, there is no valid reason to oppose its recognition for other elements as well. Other ceramics found in the earliest occupations at Ashqelon are clear testimony to the EB I association of the assemblage. These include hemispherical bowls, holemouths with thickened rims and sculpted pie-crust decoration, small jars with long necks, thumbindented and folded ledge handles, and, especially, grey burnished bowls that are related to the northern part of the country during the Early EB I. In addition, ceramic imports of Egyptian vessels as well as local imitations of Egyptian forms begin to appear near the end of the Early EB I and become more common in the subsequent EB IB, although these were never a very significant component of the ceramic assemblage.62 The Flint Industry The flint industry of Early EB I Ashqelon may be seen as typical of the EB, characterized by wide and long Canaanean blades making up perhaps almost two-thirds of the assemblage and tabular scrapers.63 The latter have already been shown to have been one of the technological transfers from the Chalcolithic to the EB I.64 Canaanean blades, once considered a fossile directeur of the EB,65 may now be recognized as beginning in the Chalcolithic.66 Recently, impressive examples of long and wide Canaanean blades with typical trapezoidal cross-sections have been found in a clearly LC occupation at Agamim, a few kilometers from the Ashqelon site (see note 39) where there are no later occupations or disturbances from the EB. Hence, the presence of such blades within the material culture of the LC now appears conclusive. However, they may have been an

58

Roux, 2003, 2005; Roux / van den Brink / Shalev, 2013. This is the author’s impression after briefly reviewing the ceramic material from the excavation at Agamim (see above, note 39). However, further research is needed to confirm this. 60 Van den Brink, 2011: 63. 61 The lack of cornets at sites such as Yesodot has been seen as representing a ‘post-Ghassulian’ phase (Paz / Nativ, 2013), although even within LC sites in the northern Negev cornets are not always found among contemporaneous ceramic assemblages (see in Garfinkel, 1999: 219, Table 20), meaning that their absence does not necessarily indicate a post-Ghassulian phase of the Chalcolithic and is more likely an outcome of the specific types of activity carried out at a site or within a certain area of a site. At Ashqelon, cornet bases have been recovered in small amounts at Afridar Area E (Golani, 2004: Fig. 30: 1–2; Golani, 2018: Fig. 4: 23–24); Area F Stratum II (Khalaily, 2004: Fig. 13: 1–4); Area G (Braun / Gophna, 2004: Fig. 21: 1); Area J Stratum 5 (Baumgarten, 2004: Figs. 10: 16; 16: 6–7); and Area M Stratum II (Golani, 2008b: Fig. 10: 11–12). At Barne‘a, cornet bases make up 0.5 % (n=3) of all the typed ceramic forms (n=563) from clearly stratified loci in Stratum IV, and 0.4 % (n=7) of all the typed ceramic forms (n=1638) from clearly stratified loci in Stratum III (Golani, 2020). At the Tel Halif Terrace Site 101, Stratum XVIII, Phase 9A–B of the Early EB I (EB IA) also includes cornets (Dessel, 2009: 105–106). 62 Yekutieli, 2001: 679. 63 Golani, 2013: 102. 64 Rosen, 1983a; 1997: 71–80. 65 Rosen, 1983b. 66 See in Golani, 2013: 102–103; Braun, 2011: 169–171; yet see Milevski / Fabian / Marder, 2011; Vardi / Gilead, 2013 for different views. 59

The Late Chalcolithic / Early Bronze I Transition

51

imported technology in the LC and later became a local industry during the EB I.67 Bifacial tools are common in the Chalcolithic, and their absence in the EB I is seen as a profound cultural change taking place during the transition between these two periods.68 Notably, no bifacial tools have been recovered from the Early EB I occupation at Ashqelon. Backed blades typical of the Chalcolithic are also found in small amounts within the Ashqelon EB I flint assemblage. With the introduction of Canaanean blade technology, backed blades become a less significant component of the flint assemblage yet appear to have been another Chalcolithic holdover into the EB I along with retouched bladelets.69 One of the more interesting aspects of the flint assemblage at Ashqelon is the presence of Egyptian imported flint tools, known primarily from the Late EB I, such as at ‘En Besor, and less so from the Early EB I.70 In the Early EB I levels at Ashqelon, Egyptian flints have been identified in Areas N, O and P at Ashqelon Afridar and in Strata IV–II at Barne‘a, continuing into the beginning of the Late EB I (Stratum III at Barne‘a). Though appearing in small amounts, these items indicate Egyptian imports to southwestern Canaan already at this time.71 This is significant, as it provides further corroborative evidence for growing long-distance trade contacts during the Early EB I. Basalt Bowls The morphological similarity between the LC and EB I basalt bowls, many of which exhibit flat bases, deep interiors, and flaring sides, has already been remarked in previous publications, as has been the sophisticated and labor-intensive technology needed to produce them.72 The basalt bowls from Early EB I Ashqelon are characterized by the continuation of Chalcolithic forms and decorative techniques alongside new variants, with a general preference for functional or utilitarian items.73 Pointed rims and incised triangular chevron decoration typical of the LC are also common on basalt bowls at EB I Ashqelon,74 while some are fashioned with more vertical walls and a beveled or squared rim, and bear a thick base, as generally common in the EB I. Fenestrated basalt bowls with legs with a triangular cross-section and decorated with incised lines are also found at Ashqelon. All these forms are found together during the earliest settlement phases at the site and bear witness to the direct continuity of basalt bowl manufacture from the LC into the EB I. In contrast to the LC, the relatively large percentage of basalt items at the Early EB I Ashqelon, situated far away from basalt sources, often exceeds 50% of the entire groundstone vessel assemblage, seemingly indicating increased and significant trade contacts during the Early EB I and perhaps reflecting the wealth of Ashqelon’s inhabitants.75 Faunal and Botanical Remains Differences between the LC and the EB I in agriculture and animal husbandry have been reviewed in previous publications as indicating a change to a more efficient agricultural and secondary-products production.76 The faunal assemblages of the Early EB I at Ashqelon include a variety of species that evidence a well-based and diverse subsistence economy based on the exploitation of sheep/goat and cattle and pigs, in contrast to the LC of the Northern Negev that included cattle and pigs, yet was more heavily dependent on sheep and goat.77 A significant amount of donkeys, up to 20 percent of the faunal assemblage in Ashqelon, Afridar Area E alone, and beyond that usually found in the LC, is possible evidence of their growing use as pack animals and indicates increased trade during this period as modes of production and distribution underwent significant 67

Vardi / Gilead, 2013: 116–117. Vardi / Gilead, 2013: 120. 69 Yekutieli, 2001: 669. 70 See Gophna / Friedmann, 1993. However, for twisted Egyptian bladelets at Site H, see Roshwalb, 1981: 278. 71 The Egyptian flint component at Ashqelon is presently under study by Maya Oron of the IAA. At Barne‘a, the Egyptian flint component comprises less than one percent (n=21) of the total Strata IV–II assemblage and appears to be related primarily to Strata IV–III, and less so to Stratum II from which only three items were retrieved. 72 Amiran / Porat, 1984; Braun, 1990, 2011: Fig. 12.7: 7–10; van den Brink, 2011: 65. 73 Rowan, 2004. 74 See Chasan / van den Brink / Rosenberg, 2019; Rowan, 2004: Fig. 4: 1–3. 75 Rosenberg / Golani, 2012. 76 Yekutieli, 2001: 675–676. 77 Sade, 2008; Whitcher-Kansa, 2004. However, this difference may also be due to specific environmental constraints. 68

52

A. Golani

changes.78 This conclusion is reinforced by the presence of Egyptian Nile perch, Nilotic shells (Chambardia rubens), and botanical remains of Cedarwood and Turkish Oak—the latter two apparently originating from the northern Levant—which were also recovered from the Early EB I levels at the site.79 Metallurgy One of the outstanding features of the EB I site of Ashqelon is the presence of a developed metallurgical industry that existed from the beginning of the settlement in the Early EB I until well into the Late EB I as well. Remains of this industry were recognized in Afridar Area E–2, Afridar Area J Strata VI–V and III, Afridar Area M, and Barne‘a Strata IV–II (Figs. 1–2, Table 1). In these areas, burnt mudbrick debris, ash slags, and prills were found along with remains of smelting installations (the largest amount concentrated in Area E–2) and numerous copper tools such as awls, pins, axes, and knives.80 At Barne‘a Stratum III, at least two large “industrial” enclosures of the Late EB I included large amounts of industrial waste and were apparently dedicated to the processing of copper for making tools. From the Early EB I occupation at Ashqelon, the source of most of the copper analyzed so far appears to have been from Feinan,81 one of the main copper sources also exploited during the Chalcolithic period, indicating continuity in the transport and trade mechanisms that brought the copper overland from the mines to the Ashqelon region. Excavations at Tāll Hujayrat al-Ghuzlān near Aqaba in Jordan have revealed a densely built-up site that appears to have been a miner’s camp consecrated to the mining and initial smelting of copper ore. Activity at this site has been dated by numerous radiocarbon assays to within the first half of 4th millennium BC,82 and it is likely that trade connections existed between this site and Ashqelon during the Early EB I. Previous studies have also noted that the transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age is marked by a reconfiguration of production locales. Whereas during the Chalcolithic, the ore was transported to the metal production sites, during the EB I, initial smelting was carried out in the mining area, and semi-refined copper was then transported to the production sites.83 Though Chalcolithic metal technology continued into the EB I,84 a radical change in production took place between the two periods wherein the LC localized or individual ‘cottage’ or ‘household’ production,85 specializing in ritual cultic vessels such as mace heads, crowns, and scepters, gave way, in the EB I, to a more focused and concentrated production mode that produced only utilitarian items, such as awls, pins, axes, and knives. The move from the ritualized production mode manufacturing only cultic items to the utilitarian production mode producing only tools probably reflected a major change in the social organization, from a primarily prestige technology geared mainly towards the fabrication of cultic objects in the LC86 to that of the EB, apparently to be market-oriented and geared exclusively towards the production of utilitarian items. This may reflect an even greater transformation in the nature of the cultic ritual between the LC and the Early EB I, also expressing, perhaps, a significant cultural change.87

78

Cf. Yekutieli, 2001: 676–677; Milevski, 2013. Lernau, 2004: 301; Liphschitz, 2004: 309. 80 See Golani, 2014a. 81 Segal / Halicz / Kamenski, 2004. 82 Klimscha, 2009, 2012. 83 Cf. Golden, 2002; Shalev, 1994. 84 Cf. Shalev, 1994; Shalev, 2003: 322. 85 See in Kerner, 2008. 86 See Gošić, 2008; Gošić / Gilead, 2015. A recent study has suggested that some of the decorations found on Chalcolithic copper cultic objects are evidence of a glyptic writing system that encoded ritual information concerning copper production (Amzallag, 2018). 87 However, certain cultic objects do appear to have continued in use as well, such as schematic female ‘violin’-shaped figurines made of stone, an example of which was found at Barne‘a Stratum IV (Golani, forthcoming). This object has also been upheld as representing residual elements of an LC occupation at Ashqelon, yet similar ‘violin’-shaped figurines, from the Early EB I, have been found at the Tel Halif Terrace (Yekutieli, 2001: 674, Fig. 33.8: 4), indicating continuity from the LC to the EB I in cult and religion as well. 79

The Late Chalcolithic / Early Bronze I Transition

53

Conclusion: Ashqelon –Transitional Period (LC/EB I) or the Beginning of EB I? The combined excavations at the Early Bronze Age site of Ashqelon have provided us with a rare opportunity to study the transition from the Chalcolithic to the EB I in Southern Canaan. With the collapse of the developed Chalcolithic culture in the northern Negev and Jordan, most Chalcolithic sites in these regions do not appear to have endured after 3800 BC. As the beginning of EB I was set at around 3500/3400 BC at the earliest, what happened in these regions immediately after 3800 BC has left us with a hiatus of several hundred years. With a large and growing amount of radiocarbon dates, alongside a large corpus of material culture finds, the extensive excavations at Ashqelon now enable us to partially fill this gap. From its beginnings, the material culture found at Ashqelon exhibits clear elements of continuity from the previous Chalcolithic of the Northern Negev. The radiocarbon evidence provides a chronological context for the Ashqelon occupation and an opportunity to track the development of its material culture throughout the EB I. Elements of this continuity carry on throughout the Ashqelon occupational sequence. Expressed in almost every facet of Ashqelon’s material culture, it probably reflects that Ashqelon was populated, from its beginnings, by Chalcolithic populations of the northern Negev that relocated northwards. Gradual movement out of their geocultural sphere and adaptation to new settings brought about the formation, during the first half of the 4th millennium, of a cultural entity that may be termed ‘EB I’. Thus, at Ashqelon, these changes do not indicate the existence of two separate cultures, but rather the transformations that one culture underwent over time.88 Alongside expressions of continuity, the EB I material culture at Ashqelon is defined by change, and not as a transitional period. The overall weight of the evidence at Ashqelon and other sites points to the beginnings of a new social order. While continuity is expressed in the endurance of burial customs and rectilinear architectural plans, change is manifested in the introduction of new architectural styles, such as curvilinear buildings.89 While LC ‘holdovers’ in ceramic forms, decorations and potting techniques express continuity, change is apparent in the introduction of numerous new forms, a clear decline in their general manufacture skills, compared to the LC, and the initial appearance of Egyptian imports, an expression of long-distance trade contacts. Within the flint assemblage, continuity is seen in some tool types, such as backed blades and Canaanean blades, the latter becoming more predominant as an established, probably local industry. The absence of bifacial tools in the Early EB I indicates a change from the preceding Chalcolithic, while the presence of Egyptian imported flints and their technology points to broadening trade contacts. Among the Ashqelon basalt vessels, forms and decorative techniques typical of the LC continue alongside new forms characteristic of the EB I. However, the significant percentage of basalt items, all imported to the site, appears to reflect the growing wealth of the inhabitants and their ability to obtain basalt through longdistance trade. Within the faunal assemblage, Ashqelon exhibits a well-based and diverse subsistence economy based on the exploitation of sheep/goats, cattle, and pigs. At the same time, increased trade is expressed in the growing dependence on donkeys for traction and transport along with imported Chambardia shells from Egypt, and imported Cedar and Turkish Oak from the northern Levant. At Ashqelon, most of these changes may be detected beginning in the Early EB I occupational levels and increasing during those of the Late EB I. The most significant transformation from the Chalcolithic to the Early EB I, as expressed at Ashqelon, appears to be the shifting to a broad-based market economy with far-reaching trade relations. The overall changes include a significant degree of continuity, yet they are all the expression of a socio-economic change in the organization of production and distribution.90 The accelerated development of trade and Ashqelon’s subsequent integration into a broader economic framework are expressed in the development of the material culture of the Early EB I at the site. The most revealing change evident at Ashqelon is probably in the realm of metallurgy. From a localized and highly ritualized cottage industry importing ore from the mines to the production centers for the primary manufacture of ritual and cultic objects during the Chalcolithic period, metal production during the EB I in general and at Ashqelon, in particular, appears to be better organized and 88

See Philip, 2011: 196. Golani, 2013: 101. 90 See Milevski, 2013. 89

54

A. Golani

geared exclusively towards the production of utilitarian items. The total absence of ritual metal objects at Ashqelon in particular, and throughout the EB I, in general, may indicate a general change in the overall social organization. With the realization that the same acquired metallurgical knowledge and skills from the Chalcolithic period can be better and more profitably employed for trading than for ritual, production became totally focused on utilitarian items. If Ashqelon may be regarded as defining the Early EB I in Southern Canaan, can other sites be associated with this dating, or is the Ashqelon EB I settlement an anomaly? Such sites would need to exhibit both the continuity from the LC and the change into the EB I within one or more preferably successive strata, coupled with enough radiocarbon dates that could anchor their chrono-cultural range of occupation to the period between 3800–3500 BC. At present, this is problematic, since outside of Ashqelon, identification of the Early EB I in Southern Canaan is elusive. Surveys that provide much of the data for settlement patterns can differentiate between the LC and the later stages of the EB (EB IB, EB II–III) but have difficulty in identifying the Early EB I, which, more often than not, is termed “Chalco/EB”. Only excavated sites with enough material culture finds and radiocarbon dates can at present be associated with this stage of the Early EB I. Excavations at sites such as Yesodot have revealed a material culture that exhibits traits common to both the Chalcolithic and the EB I, prompting the excavators to term it a “post-Ghassulian entity” that preserves many aspects of Chalcolithic traditions yet shows significant changes within its socio-economic context. 91 However, the absence of radiocarbon dates from this excavation does not allow placing it in an absolute chronological context. Excavations of the ‘deep deposits’ at Modi‘in have produced a stratigraphical sequence from the LC into the EB I, along with several radiocarbon determinations that bracket Stratum 4 of the LC and Stratum 3 of the Early EB I between 4000 and 3600 BC,92 making Stratum 3 a viable candidate. Stratum 3 at Modi‘in exhibits a great deal of continuity from the previous Chalcolithic in the use of rectilinear architecture (the same building in reuse from Stratum 4 of the LC) and many of the potting traditions; the association of Stratum 3 with the EB I by the excavator is based primarily on the assemblage of portable finds such as ceramics. Other sites, such as Taur Ikhbeineh Phases III–IV, Nizzanim Strata 4–5, Site H, and the Tel Halif Terrace Site 101 Stratum XVIII are relatively small excavations with only a limited amount of material or lacking radiocarbon dates to help set the material in a clear chronological perspective.93 Future excavations, research, and publication of other sites in Southern Canaan, such as Ḥorbat Ptorah, Naḥal Patish, and Tel ‘Erani, for example, may one day expand our understanding of the Late Chalcolithic / Early Bronze I transition beyond the data presently available from Ashqelon and other few sites of the Early EB I.

References Abadi-Reiss, Y., / Varga, D., 2019: “Inter-Site Complexity in the Ghassulian Chalcolithic Site of Agamim, Ashqelon”. In D. Varga / Y. Abadi-Reiss / G. Lehmann / D. Vainstub (eds.): Worship and Burial in the Shfela and the Negev Regions throughout the Ages, Proceedings of the 15th Annual Southern Congress, The Israel Antiquities Authority and Ben-Gurion University. Beersheba. Pp. 67–78 (Hebrew). Ackermann, O. / Osban M. / Bar-Matthews, M. / Ayalon, A., 2019: “The Geographical Setting, Geoarchaeology and Sedimentology”. In A. Golani (ed.): Ashqelon Barne‘a – The Early Bronze Age Site I: The Excavations. IAA Reports 65. Jerusalem. Pp. 17–36. Alon, D. / Yekutieli, Y., 1995: “The Tel Halif Terrace ‘Silo Site’ and its Implications for the Early Bronze Age I”. ‘Atiqot 27, 149–189. Amiran, R. / Porath, N., 1984: “The Basalt Vessels of the Chalcolithic Period and Early Bronze Age I”. Tel Aviv 11, 11–19. Amzallag, N., 2018: “Visual Code in the Nahal Mishmar Hoard: The Earliest Case of Proto-Writing?” Antiguo Oriente 16, 45–92. Baumgarten, Y. Y., 2004: “An Excavation at Ashqelon, Afridar – Area J”. ‘Atiqot 45, 161–184.

91

Paz and Nativ, 2013. Van den Brink, 2011, 2013. 93 See in Oren and Yekutieli 1992; Yekutieli and Gophna 1994; Roshwalb 1981; Dessel 2009. 92

The Late Chalcolithic / Early Bronze I Transition

55

— 2006: “Ashqelon”. HA-ESI 118 (July 6). http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id =374&mag_id=111 (last accessed November 26, 2009) Boaretto, E., 2008: “Radiocarbon Dating”. In A. Golani: The Early Bronze Age Site of Ashqelon, Afridar— Area M. ‘Atiqot 60, 45–46. — 2019: “Appendix 1: Radiocarbon Dating of Archaeobotanical Samples”. In A. Golani (ed.): Ashqelon Barne‘a – The Early Bronze Age Site I: The Excavations. IAA Reports 65. Jerusalem. Pp. 271–274. Bourke, S., 2004: “The End of the Chalcolithic Period in the South Jordan Valley: New 14C Determinations from Teleilat Gahssul, Jordan”. Radiocarbon 46(1), 315–323. — 2009: “The Beginning of the Early Bronze Age in the North Jordan Valley: New 14C Determinations from Pella in Jordan”. Radiocarbon 51(3), 905–913. Brandl, B. / Gophna, R., 1993: “Ashqelon–Afridar”. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 12, 89. Braun, E., 1989: “The Problem of the Apsidal House. New Aspects of Early Bronze I Domestic Architecture in Israel, Jordan and Lebanon”. PEQ 121, 1–43. — 1990: “Basalt Bowls of EB I Horizon in the Southern Levant”. Paléorient 16(1), 87–396. — 2000: “Area G at Afridar, Palmahim Quarry 3 and the Earliest Pottery of Early Bronze Age I: Part of the “Missing Link”. In G. Philip / D. Baird (eds.): Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Levantine Archaeology 2. Sheffield. Pp. 113–128. — 2001: “Proto, Early Dynastic Egypt, and Early Bronze I–II of the Southern Levant: Some Uneasy 14C Correlations”. Radiocarbon 43(3), 1279–1295. — 2011: “The Transition from Chalcolithic to Early Bronze I in the Southern Levant: A “Lost Horizon” Slowly Revealed”. In J. L. Lovell / Y. M. Rowan (eds.): Culture Chronology and the Chalcolithic Theory and Transition. Levant Supplementary Series 9. Oxford. Pp. 160–177. Braun, E. / van den Brink, E. C. M. / Regev, J. / Boaretto, E. / Bar, S., 2013: “Aspects of Radiocarbon Determinations and the Dating of the Transition from the Chalcolithic Period to the Early Bronze Age I in the Southern Levant”. In E. Braun / V. Roux (eds.): The Transition Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant. Paléorient Thematic Issue 39(1), 23–46. Braun, E. / Gophna, R., 2004: “Excavations at Ashqelon, Afridar–Area G”. ‘Atiqot 45, 185–241. Braun, E. / Roux, V., 2013: “The Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age Transition in the Southern Levant: Determining Continuity or Discontinuity or “Mind the Gap”. In E. Braun / V. Roux (eds.): The Transition Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant. Paléorient Thematic Issue 39(1), 15–22. van den Brink, E. C. M., 2011: “Continuity and Change – Cultural Transmission in the Late ChalcolithicEarly Bronze Age I: A View from Early Modi‘in, a Late Prehistoric Site in Central Israel”. in: J. L. Lovell / Y. M. Rowan (eds.): Culture Chronology and the Chalcolithic Theory and Transition. Levant Supplementary Series 9. Oxford. Pp. 61–70. — 2013: “A Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age I Progression at the Buchman South Quarter in Modi‘in in the Central Piedmont (Shephela) of Israel”. In E. Braun / V. Roux (eds.): The Transition Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant. Paléorient Thematic Issue 39(1), 47–61. Burton, M. / Levy, T. E., 2011: “The End of the Chalcolithic Period (4500–3600 BC) in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel”. In J. L. Lovell / Y. M. Rowan (eds.): Culture Chronology and the Chalcolithic Theory and Transition. Levant Supplementary Series 9. Oxford. Pp. 178–191. Carmi, I. / Epstein, C. / Segal, D., 1995: “Radiocarbon Dates from Chalcolithic Sites in the Golan”. ‘Atiqot 27, 207–209. Chasan, R. / van den Brink, E. C. M. / Rosenberg, D., 2019: ““Crossing the Lines” – Elaborately Decorate Chalcolithic Basalt Bowls in the Southern Levant”. BASOR 381, 145–162. Dessel, J. P., 2009: Lahav I. Pottery and Politics: The Halif Terrace Site 101 and Egypt in the Fourth Millennium B.C.E.. Reports of the Lahav Research Project/Excavations at Tell Halif, Israel. Winona Lake IN. Faust, A. / Ashkenazi, Y., 2009: “Settlement Fluctuations and Environmental Changes in Israel’s Coastal Plain during the Early Bronze Age”. Levant 41(1), 19–39. Garfinkel, Y., 1999: Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Southern Levant. Qedem 39. Jerusalem.

56

A. Golani

— 2008: “Appendix C. Layer III: Late Chalcolithic Remains”. In Y. Garfinkel / D. Dag: Neolithic Ashkelon. Qedem 47. Jerusalem. Pp. 310–314. Gilead, I., 1993: “Sociopolitical Organization in the Northern Negev at the end of the Chalcolithic”. In A. Biran / J. Aviram (eds.): Biblical Archaeology Today 1990, Pre-Congress Symposium: Population, Production and Power, Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology. Jerusalem. Pp. 82–97. — 1994: “The History of the Chalcolithic Settlement in the Nahal Beer Sheva Area: The Radiocarbon Aspect”. BASOR 296, 1–13. Golani, A., 1999: “New Perspectives on Domestic Architecture during the Initial Stages of Urbanization in Canaan”. Levant 31, 123–133. — 2004: “Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site at Ashqelon Afridar Area E”. ‘Atiqot 45, 9– 120. — 2005: “Ashqelon Barne‘a B–C”. HA-ESI 117, http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx? id=134&mag_id=110 (last accessed August 27, 2019). — 2007: “Ashqelon Barne‘a B–C”. HA-ESI 119, http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id= 533&mag_id=112 (last accessed August 27, 2019). — 2008a: “Ashqelon Barne‘a B–C”. HA-ESI 120, http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx? id=805&mag_id=114 (last accessed August 27, 2019). — 2008b: “The Early Bronze Age Site of Ashkelon, Afridar – Area M”. ‘Atiqot 60, 19–51. — 2013: “The Transition from the Late Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze I in Southwestern Canaan – Ashqelon as a Case for Continuity”. In E. Braun / V. Roux (eds.): The Transition Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant. Paléorient 39(1), 95–210. — 2014a: “Ashqelon during the EB I Period – A Centre for Copper Processing and Trade”. In A. Mączyńska (ed.): “The Nile Delta as a centre of cultural interactions between Upper Egypt and the Southern Levant in the 4th Millennium BC”. Studies in African Archaeology 13, 119–137. — 2014b: “Ashqelon, Afridar Area N: Preliminary Report”. HA-ESI 126. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/ report_detail_eng.aspx?id=13680&mag_id=121 (last accessed July 25, 2018). — 2017: “Ashqelon. Final Report”. (December 16). HA–ESI 129. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_ Detail_Eng.aspx?id=25352&mag_id=125 (last accessed January 28, 2018). — 2018: “Ashqelon. Final Report”. (March 28). HA–ESI 130. http://www.hadas hot-esi.org.il/Report_ Detail_Eng.aspx?id=25425&mag_id=126 (last accessed February 10, 2019). — 2019: Ashqelon Barne‘a – The Early Bronze Age Site I: The Excavations. IAA Reports 65. Jerusalem. — in press: “Rescue Excavations at the Early EB I site of Ashqelon Afridar – Area N”. ‘Atiqot. — forthcoming: Ashqelon Barne‘a: The Early Bronze Age Site II: The Finds (IAA Reports). Jerusalem. Golani, A. / Nagar, Y., 2011: “Newly Discovered Burials of the Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age I in Southern Canaan–Evidence of Cultural Continuity?”. In J. L. Lovell / Y. M. Rowan (eds.): Culture Chronology and the Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition. Levant Supplementary Series 9. Oxford / Oakville. Pp. 84–96. Golani, A. / N. S. Paran, 2014: “Ashqelon, Afridar Area E–2: Preliminary Report”. HA-ESI 126. http:// www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=13679&mag_id=121 (last accessed July 25, 2018). — in press: “Rescue Excavations at the Early EB I site of Ashqelon Afridar–Area E–2”. ‘Atiqot. Golani, A. / Pasternak, M. D., 2020: “Ashqelon Afridar Area O–2”. HA-ESI. http://www.hadashot-esi.org. il/default_eng.aspx Golani, A. / Segal, D., 2002: “Redefining the Onset of the Early Bronze Age in Southern Canaan: New Evidence of 14C Dating from Ashkelon Afridar”. In E. C. M. van den Brink / E. Yannai (eds.): In Quest of Ancient Landscapes. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Ram Gophna. Tel Aviv. Pp. 135–154. Golden, J., 2002: “The Origins of the Metals Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean: Social Organization of Production in the Early Copper Industries”. In E. C. M. van den Brink / T. E. Levy (eds.): Egypt and the Levant Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium BCE. London / New York. Pp. 225– 238. Gophna, R., 1997: “The Southern Coastal Troughs as EB I Subsistence Areas”. IEJ 47, 155–161.

The Late Chalcolithic / Early Bronze I Transition

57

— 2002: “Afridar 1968: Soundings in an EB I occupation of the “Erani C Horizon” (Aharon Kempinski Memorial Volume. Studies in Archaeology and Related Disciplines)”. Beer Sheva 15, 129–137. — 2004: “Excavations at Ashqelon, Afridar –Introduction”. ‘Atiqot 45, 1–8. Gophna, R. / Friedmann, E., 1993: “The Flint Implements from Tel ‘En Besor”. Tel Aviv 20, 147–163. Gophna, R. / Liphschitz, N., 1996: “The Ashqelon Trough Settlements in the Early Bronze Age I: New Evidence for Maritime Trade”. Tel Aviv 23, 143–154. Gorzalczany, A., 2018: “The Chalcolithic Cemetery at Palmahim (North): New Evidence of Burial Patterns from the Central Coastal Plain”. ‘Atiqot 91, 1–94. Gošić, M., 2008: “Chalcolithic Metallurgy of the Southern Levant: Production Centers and Social Context”. Journal of the Serbian Archaeological Society 24, 67–80. Gošić, M. / Gilead, I., 2015: “Casting the Sacred: Chalcolithic Ritual and Metallurgy in the Southern Levant”. In N. Laneri (ed.): Defining the Sacred: Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion in the Near East. Oxford / Philadelphia. Pp. 161–175. Haimi, Y., 2009: “Ashqelon, Final Report”. HA-ESI 121. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_ eng.asp?id=1119&mag_id=115 (last accessed November 26, 2009). Joffe, A. / Dessel, J. P., 1995: “Redefining Chronology and Terminology for the Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant”. Current Anthropology 36, 507–518. Kerner, S., 2008: “The Transition between the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant”. In H. Kuehne / R. M. Czichon / F. J. Kreppner (eds.): Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Vol. 2. Wiesbaden. Pp. 155–165. Khalaily, H., 2004: “An Early Bronze Age Site at Ashqelon, Afridar— Area F”. ‘Atiqot 45, 121–159. Klimscha, F., 2009: “Radiocarbon Dates from Prehistoric Aqaba and other Related Sites from the Chalcolithic Period”. In L. Khalil / K. Schmidt (eds.): Prehistoric Aqaba I. Rahden. Pp. 363–402. — 2012: “Die absolute Chronologie der Besiedlung von Tāll Hujayrat al-Ghuzlān bei ‘Aqaba, Jordanien im Verhältnis zum Chalko Chalkowlithikum der südlichen Levante”. Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 5, 188–208. Lernau, O., 2004: “Fish Remains from Early Bronze Age Ashqelon, Afridar”. ‘Atiqot 45, 299–304. Liphschitz, N., 2004: “Archaeobotanical Remains from Ashqelon, Afridar”. ‘Atiqot 45, 305–310. Milevski, I., 2013: “The Transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant in Socio-Economic Context”. In E. Braun / V. Roux (eds.): The Transition Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant. Paléorient 39(1), 194–208. Milevski, I. / Fabian, P. / Marder, O., 2011: “Canaanean Blades in Chalcolithic Contexts of the Southern Levant?” In J. L. Lovell / Y. M. Rowan (eds.): Culture Chronology and the Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition. Levant Supplementary Series 9. Pp. 149–159. de Miroschedji, P., 2006: “At the dawn of history: sociopolitical developments in southwestern Canaan in Early Bronze Age III”. In A. Maeir / P. de Miroschedji (eds.): ‘I Will Speak in the Riddles of Ancient Times’ (Ps 78: 2b): Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. Winona Lake, IN. Pp. 55–78. Nir, Y., 2008: “The Wells of Ashkelon”. In L. E. Stager / J. D. Schloen / D. M. Master (eds.): Ashkelon 1, Introduction and Overview (1985–2006). Winona Lake, IN. Pp. 105–106. Oren, E. D. / Yekutieli, Y., 1992: “Taur Ikhbeineh: Earliest Evidence for Egyptian Interconnections”. In E. C. M van den Brink (ed.): The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th–3rd Millennium B.C. Tel Aviv. Pp. 361–384. Paran, N. S., 2014: “Ashqelon, Marina: Final Report”. HA-ESI 126 (December 31), http://www. hadashot6esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=13693&mag_id=121 (last accessed March 3, 2016). Paz, Y. / Nativ, A., 2013: “Yesodot, Israel: A Case for a Post-Ghassulian Entity”. In E. Braun / V. Roux (eds.): The Transition Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant. Paléorient 39(1), 83–93. Philip, G., 2011: “The later prehistory of the Southern Levant: Issues of Practice and Context”. In J. L. Lovell / Y. M. Rowan (eds.): Culture Chronology and the Chalcolithic Theory and Transition. Levant Supplementary Series 9. Pp. 192–209.

58

A. Golani

Regev, J. / de Miroschedji, P. / Greenberg, R. / Braun, E. / Greenhut, Z. / Boaretto, E., 2012: “Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: New Analysis for a High Chronology”. Radiocarbon 54(3), 525–566. Rosen, S. A., 1983a: “The Tabular Scraper Trade: A Model for Material Cultural Dispersion”. BASOR 249, 79–86. — 1983b: “The Canaanean Blade and the Early Bronze Age”. IEJ 33, 15– 29. — 1997: Lithics after the Stone Age. A Handbook of Stone Tools from the Levant. Walnut Creek. Rosenberg, D. / Golani, A., 2012: “Groundstone Tools of a Copper Smith’s Community–Understanding Stone-Related Aspects of the Early Bronze Age Site of Ashqelon Barne‘a”. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 25(1), 27–51. Roshwalb, A. F., 1981: Protohistory in Wadi Ghazzeh: a Typological and Technological Study Based on the Macdonald Excavations. PhD Dissertation, University of London. Roux, V., 2003: “A Dynamic Systems Framework for Studying Technological Change: Application to the Emergence of the Potter’s Wheel in the Southern Levant”. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 10(1), 1–30. — 2005: “Pottery Manufacturing Processes: Reconstitution and Interpretation”. In A. L. Smith / D. Bosquet / R. Martineau (eds.): Acts of the XIVth UISPP Congress, University of Liege, Belgium, 2–8 September 2001. BAR Int. Ser. 1349. Oxford. Pp. 201–213. Roux, V. / van den Brink, E. C. M. / Shalev, S., 2013: “Continuity and Discontinuity in the Shephela (Israel) between the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze I: The Modi‘in “Deep Deposits” as a Case Study”. In E. Braun and V. Roux (eds.): The Transition Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant. Paléorient 39(1), 63–81. Rowan, Y. M., 2004: “The Ground Stone Assemblage from Ashqelon, Afridar–Area E”. ‘Atiqot 45, 85–96. Sade, M., 2008: “The Archaeozoological Material, in: Amir Golani, The Early Bronze Age Site of Ashqelon, Afridar—Area M”. ‘Atiqot 60, 40–45. Segal, D., / Carmi, I., 2004: “Determination of Age using the 14C Method on Archaeobotanical Samples from Ashqelon, Afridar—Area E”. ‘Atiqot 45, 119–120. Segal, I. / Halicz,L. Kamenski, A., 2004: “The Metallurgical Remains from Ashqelon, Afridar—Areas E, G and H”. ‘Atiqot 45, 311–330. Shalev, S., 1994: “The Change in Metal Production from the Chalcolithic Period to the Early Bronze Age in Israel and Jordan”. Antiquity 68, 630–637. — 2003: “Early Bronze Age I Copper Production on the Coast of Israel: Archaeometallurgical Analysis of Finds from Ashkelon-Afridar”. In T. F. Potts / M. Roaf / D. L. Stein (eds.): Culture through Objects Ancient Near Eastern, Studies in Honour of P.R.S. Moorey. Oxford. Pp. 313–324. Sharvit, J. / Galili, E. / Rosen, B. / van den Brink, E. C. M., 2002: “Predynastic Maritime Traffic along the Carmel Coast of Israel: A Submerged Find from North ‘Atlit Bay”. In E. C. M. van den Brink / E. Yannai (eds.): In Quest of Ancient Settlements and Landscapes Archaeological Studies in Honour of Ram Gophna. Tel Aviv. Pp. 159–166. Stager, L. E., 1992: “The Periodisation of Palestine from Neolithic through Early Bronze Times”. In: R. W. Ehrlich (ed.): Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Vol. I. Third edition. Chicago. Pp. 22–41. Stekelis, M., 1960/1961: “La Necróplis Megalítica de Ala-Safat, Transjordania”. Ampurias 22–23, 49–128. Streit, K., 2016: “Protohistoric Infant Jar Burials of the Southern Levant in Context: Tracing Cultural Influences in the Late Sixth and Fifth Millennia BCE” In S. Ganor / I. Kreimerman / K. Streit / M. Mumcuoglu (eds.): From Sha‘ar Hagolan to Shaaraim Essays in Honor of Prof. Yosef Garfinkel. Jerusalem. Pp. 171–186. Toueg, R., 2010: “Ashqelon, Final Report”. HA-ESI 122 (May 26). http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/ Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1401&mag_id=117 (last accessed March 3, 2016). Vardi, J. / Gilead, I., 2013: “Chalcolithic – Early Bronze Age I Transition in the Southern Levant: The Lithic Perspective”. In E. Braun / V. Roux (eds.): The Transition Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant. Paléorient 3(1), 111–123. Wallach, Z., 2003: “Ashqelon (A)”. Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 115, 58*.

The Late Chalcolithic / Early Bronze I Transition

59

Whitcher Kansa, S., 2004: “Animal Exploitation at Early Bronze Age Ashqelon, Afridar: What the Bones Tell Us-Initial Analysis of the Animal Bones from Areas E, F and G”. ‘Atiqot 45, 279–298. Yekutieli, Y., 2000: “Early Bronze Age I Pottery in Southwestern Canaan”. In G. Philip / D. Baird (eds.): Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Levantine Archaeology 2. Sheffield. Pp. 129–152. — 2001: “The Early Bronze Age IA of Southwestern Canaan”. In S. R. Wolff (ed.): Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 59. Chicago. Pp. 659–688. — 2007: “The relations between Egypt and Canaan in the Early Bronze Age 1—a view from southwestern Canaan”. Qadmoniot 134, 66–74 (Hebrew). Yekutieli, Y. / Gophna, R., 1994: “Excavations at an Early Bronze Age Site near Nizzanim”. Tel Aviv 21, 162–185.

The Southern Levant during the Late Chalcolithic–Early Bronze I Transition Dispersal and Return of the Descendants Valentine Roux1

Abstract This paper considers the Late Chalcolithic (LC) to Early Bronze Age I (EB I) transition in Southern Levant from the point of view of the filiation between LC and EB IA ceramic assemblages. The analysis, applied to three northern EB IA ceramic assemblages (Yiftah’el, Kafr Kanna, Assawir), is carried out following a technological approach. First, I call attention to the fact that during the LC period, a single chaîne opératoire was shared at the Southern Levant level, testifying to its transmission within the same social group. Second, I summarize results obtained on the LC–EB IA ceramic assemblages of Modi’in, which argue in favor of a phylogenetic link between Ghassulian populations and people living in the Shephelah. Last, I present the results obtained on the EB IA northern assemblages, which indicate a filiation with the Ghassulian tradition. Of course, the shapes had evolved, if only by the principle of descent with modification, or through interactions. Since the presence of northern Ghassulian groups during the first half of the 4th millennium BC in southern Lebanon has been identified, the hypothesis is that, in the northern region, marked by a gap between the LC and the EB I, ceramic changes relate on the one hand to the group’s movement (innovations) and, on the other, to interactions with exogenous populations (borrowings). In the central–southern region, where the occupation was continuous between the LC and the EB I, changes relate to local history (local adaptations and innovations). As a result, the LC ceramic traditions of these two regions evolved differently, leading to both common and different traits in the EB IA. In conclusion, I propose new theories on the social networks of the EB I groups as these relate to the dispersal of their ancestors, i.e., the LC groups.

Keywords: Ghassulian, Ceramic tradition, Chaîne opératoire, Southern Levant, Filiation, LC–EB I transition.

Introduction In the southern Levant, the transition period between the Late Chalcolithic (LC) and the Early Bronze Age I (EB I) is still widely debated, chiefly because of the scarcity of sites dated between c. 3900 and c. 3600 calBC, the approximate period of the transition, and regional differences in material culture.2 These factors led scholars to question the existence of a transitional period until it was well recognized at a few sites, mostly located in the central–southern region.3 However, the links between the LC and EB I populations have not yet been entirely elucidated, especially since both continuity and discontinuity elements are present between the two related material cultures, mainly in ceramic types,4 basalt vessels,5 and copper production techniques.6 In other words, the EB I material culture includes sets of old (LC) and new (EB I) traits which make attribution to specific groups difficult. Are the EB I and LC populations the same, with new traits such as Grey Burnished Ware (GBW) and curvilinear house constructions corresponding to local adaptation, evolution of inherited traits (innovations), or interactions? Or, on the contrary, is the EB I population a new one, which nonetheless shares traits with the old one given local adaptation and/or interactions? 1

CNRS, University Paris-Nanterre, France. [email protected]. Braun / Roux, 2013. 3 Braun, 2000; Braun / Gophna, 2004; van den Brink, 2013; van den Brink / Gophna, 2005; Golani / Nagar, 2011; Paz / Nativ 2013; Yekutieli 2000; Yekutieli 2001; Braun this volume. 4 Braun, 2011; Braun, this volume. 5 Rosenberg / Golani, 2012. 6 Shalev, 2007. 2

62

Figure 1. Location of the sites cited in the text.

V. Roux

The Southern Levant during the Late Chalcolithic–Early Bronze I Transition

63

These questions come down to the issue of filiation between LC and EB I ceramic assemblages. This issue is specifically relevant for Israel’s northern region, where the EB I has been well recognized and no LC/EB I transitional site has so far been identified. The working hypothesis is that a filiation between the northern LC and EB I assemblages will argue in favor of a sociological link between the two populations. This link would suggest, in turn, the return of LC descendants to the land of their origin. In contrast, the lack of filiation would favor the arrival of a new population bearing the so-called EB I culture. The filiation analysis among the LC and EB I assemblages is carried out here following a technological approach. First, I recall previous results on the LC ceramic tradition7 and the transitional period—3900–3600 calBC—in the Shephelah (the piedmont of the Judean–Samarian Incline).8 I subsequently analyze the LC– EB I filiation for the northern region based on three early EB I ceramic assemblages. The technological results obtained enable us to characterize links between the LC and EB I groups. In the conclusions, hypotheses are suggested concerning the dispersal of LC groups in Southern Levant by the early 4th millennium BC.

Materials and Method As shown in anthropological studies, one of the signals enabling establishing cultural lineages and thus assessing filiation between assemblages is the chaîne opératoire.9 Chaînes opératoires describe unique culturally bound series of actions that transform raw materials into finished products, therefore distinguishing between traditions linked through the transmission of information and convergent solutions to specific situations.10 Transmission of information occurs in the course of learning, which is always supervised by trainers usually selected within the same social group.11 As a result, the similarity of ceramic chaînes opératoires between assemblages (synchronous or not) signals individuals affiliated to the same social group. In contrast, dissimilarity in chaînes opératoires between sites signals different communities, whose individuals do not share the same practices. The chaîne opératoire approach should thus enable us to assess a possible filiation between the Southern Levant’s LC and EB I social groups. The analysis, based in the chaîne opératoire concept, involves two complementary and inseparable observation scales for identifying different technical operations conveyed during the fabrication process of a vessel: The macroscopic scale, where elements are seen by the naked eye or at low magnifications with lowangled light; and the microscopic one where the elements are viewed through a stereomicroscope (between 1 to 40 x magnification).12 The reconstructions of chaînes opératoires are more detailed and reliable when based on these two observation scales. This technological approach has been applied to EB I northern Israel assemblages from three sites presenting early phases of an EB I occupation (also called EB IA): Kafr Kanna,13 Yiftah’el,14 and Assawir.15 Kafr Kanna is located in western Lower Galilee. Salvage excavations were conducted at the site in 2016 by van den Brink on behalf of the Antiquities Authority. Late Chalcolithic and EB IA settlement remains had been previously recorded at Kafr Kanna16 and were again duly recognized both stratigraphically and from associated finds. Two strata were clearly defined, one with Ghassulian pottery and the second with early EB I pottery associated with curvilinear architecture. No transitional phase was found, though the two strata are locally separated by a c. 40-cm thick, featureless soil fill.17

7

Roux, 2019c. Roux / van den Brink / Shalev, 2013. 9 Roux, 2019a. 10 O’Brien et al., 2001; Shennan, 2002: 73. 11 Roux / Bril / Cauliez / Goujon / Lara / de Saulieu / Zangato, 2017. 12 Roux, 2019a. 13 Van den Brink et al., in press; van den Brink, 2019. 14 Braun, 1997. 15 Yannai, 2006. 16 Be’eri, 2015, and references therein. 17 Van den Brink / Roux / Shapiro / Shemer, in press; van den Brink, 2019. 8

64

V. Roux

Yiftah’el is located in the Jezreel Valley. Stratum II is an early EB I site with no previous LC occupation, which is dated to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period.18 A technological analysis has been applied to the main morphological types belonging to Stratum II and kept in the Israel Antiquities Authority’s storerooms (those sent for drawing), where they were examined. The data include the main 22 types published in Braun 1997.19 We examined the dominant (holemouths and bowls) and common types (pithoi, storage jars, basins, high loop handled and other handled vessels), as illustrated in that monograph, as well as related sherds in boxes sorted according to morphological types. Assawir is located in Israel’s Coastal Plain at the western end of the Megiddo Pass. According to the excavator: “The pottery assemblage from Stratum III was collected from within the oval-shaped buildings and the open areas around them. These loci are stratigraphically clean and do not include ceramics from earlier strata”.20 All the vessels illustrated in Figures 4.32 to 4.5121 were examined, as well as additional sherds related to each type: GBW rims and bowls, holemouth jars, jars, pithoi, amphoriskoi, jugs, bowls, and kraters. In general, for all the three assemblages, the state of preservation of the studied ceramics is not particularly good—the surfaces are covered by calcite deposits or degraded, preventing fine analysis of surface features. As a result, the manufacturing process could not be identified on each vessel. However, when a type (such as storage jars) repeatedly evinced the same surface features over a sufficient number of legible specimens, it was inferred that these specimens were representative of this type’s manufacture method.

The Southern-Levant LC Ceramic Tradition The Southern-Levant LC ceramic tradition has been characterized based on ceramic assemblages belonging to well-established Late Chalcolithic horizons.22 These assemblages come from sites located in the Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea basin (Tuleilat Ghassul, Fazael, Abu Hamid, Pella, Tel el-Farʼâh [N., cave U], Neve Ur), in the Negev (Abu Matar, Safadi, Grar), in the Shephelah (Modi’in), in the Coastal Plain (Azor), in the Galilee (Kafr Kanna Levels 112–115; Megiddo Level J-4[-5]), in the Hulah Valley (Tel Teo, Turmus), and in the Golan (Rasm Harbush) (Fig. 1). Except for Kafr Kanna and Megiddo, all the ceramic assemblages have been published. Each of the main vessel types illustrated in the publications has been examined. Analysis of sherds’ batches served to verify the general scope of the observations made on the various vessel types. The results highlight that a single chaîne opératoire was carried out over the whole Southern Levant for making utilitarian vessels of all sizes and shapes. Clay material is usually local,23 mixed with 20–30% coarse mineral grains whose size depends on the vessel’s walls’ intended thickness. The bases are modeled from a lump of clay into a disk with raised edges. An inner peripheral coil is applied on the disc, against the edges, and the next successive coils are placed by internal apposition against the inner face using the coiling by spreading technique. The coils are quite small, measuring between 1 and 2 cm, their size depending on the thickness of the vessels. Once the body is formed, the rim is thinned and shaped with a wet cloth, with or without rotary motion. After shaping the rim, the wet inner faces of the vessels and the outer faces are smoothed. The vessel is then left to dry to a leather-hard consistency. Elements are applied at this stage: decorative bands, handles, and, in all the vessels, an extra coil around the base’s exterior, probably as a reinforcement piece. Coating is then applied vertically or obliquely on the outer face in closed vessels, and on outer and inner faces in open vessels. This coating is attested in all the ceramic types, whatever their size, shape, and function. Once dried, the vessels were fired in oxidizing atmospheres. As stated above, this chaîne opératoire has been identified at all the previously mentioned sites. It was used for fashioning all kinds of vessels, with the sole exception of bowls made on rotary devices (mainly the so-called “V-shaped” bowls), which are not coated and are finished on tournettes. The use of the same chaîne opératoire, shared on a Southern-Levant scale (restricted here to the geographic zone defined by the 18

Braun, 1997; Khalaily /Milevski / Getzov, 2009. Braun, 1997: 44. 20 Yannai, 2006: 79. 21 Yannai, 2006. 22 Roux, 2019c. 23 Rowan / Golden, 2009. 19

The Southern Levant during the Late Chalcolithic–Early Bronze I Transition

65

Ghassulian culture)24 is a major result of this study, since it testifies to individuals having learned in the same way. The question is whether this chaîne opératoire spread among distinct LC social groups or if it was taught within the LC learning network itself, thus indicating social links between groups. Two series of facts argue in favor of the second hypothesis. First, ceramic techno-petrographic studies reveal interactions at both the regional25 and the macro-regional scale, as shown by the Abu Hamid ceramic assemblage, which is composed of vessels from the whole Southern Levant.26 Second, technological observations on the ceramic assemblages from a few sites dated from the end of the 7th to the beginning of the 5th millennium BC27 suggest that the “Ghassulian chaîne opératoire”—named as such because its distribution overlaps the zone of the socalled Ghassulian culture—prevailed in the Southern Levant since the 7th millennium BC, testifying to the existence of a phylogenetic link between Neolithic and Chalcolithic assemblages in the region. Such a link suggests that the use of the same chaîne opératoire during the Ghassulian period was not the result of diffusion, but the result of varying degrees of kinship ties that may have united all the persons forming the Ghassulian society of the Southern Levant, integrating them into the same learning network. With that said, some technical variants can be found in this Ghassulian chaîne opératoire, reflected in the use of a red slip in the northern sites, or in the frequent use of matt supports at Teleilat Ghassul in the south, and therefore corresponding to distinct geographical areas. Thus, the hypothesis is that if, on the one hand, the macro-regional network finds its roots in an ancestral social network, on the other, regional networks may have emerged over time through geographical connectivity. These regional networks are well attested: While in the north, recent petrographic studies highlighted that “no exchange of ceramic vessels occurred between the central and southern regions of the southern Levant and the Galilee”,28 the distribution of the red-slipped assemblages partly overlaps the distribution zone of the perforated flint tools.29 Perforated flint objects are unique items with a geographically30 marked northern/eastern distribution network, including the Jordan Valley, northern Jordan, and southern Syria.31 In contrast, ivory and copper items circulate mainly in the southern/western regions.32 Thus, macro-regional networks, based on the distribution of prestige objects, demarcate roughly between northern/eastern and southern/western clusters of sites, while smaller regional networks are apparent through the distribution of technical and stylistic traits, such as red slip, which characterizes a northern group including the Galilee, the Golan and the Hula Valley.

The Central–Southern LC–EB I Transition (3900–3600 calBC) In the Shephelah, a lowland in central Israel stretching between the Judean Hills and the Coastal Plain, recent excavations at sites such as Modi’in33 and Yesodot34 have revealed occupations dated from the first half of the 4th millennium BC characterized by continuity in LC and early EB I (EB IA) materials and expressing, therefore, social links between the populations of these two periods. A technological approach has been applied to ceramic diagnostic pieces35 from the Deep Deposits of Modi’in, distributed between Strata 6 and 3:36 Strata 6–5 correspond to the so-called LC I phase,37 Stratum 4 to the LC 2 phase, and Stratum 3 to an early EB I phase. Following are the main results obtained for pottery technology. Four main technical groups (MOD1–MOD4) were defined. Two include vessels made in the 24

Gilead, 2011. Goren, 1995. 26 Roux / Courty, 2007. 27 These include sites from the Jordan Valley (Abu Hamid, Tel Tsaf, Beth Shean XVIII, Munhata, Shaar Hagolan), the Shephelah (Teluliyot Batash), and the Jordanian plateau (Ain Ghazal, Abu Tawwab); pers. Observations; Silvain, 2015. 28 Shalem / Cohen-Weinberger / Gandulla / Milevski, 2019: 274. 29 Rosenberg / Shimelmitz 2017. 30 Rosen, 1997; Rosenberg / Shimelmitz 2017. 31 Rosenberg / Chasan / van den Brink, 2016. 32 Rowan / Golden, 2009. 33 Van den Brink, 2011; van den Brink, 2013. 34 Paz / Nativ, 2013. 35 Roux / van den Brink / Shalev, 2013. 36 Van den Brink, 2013. 37 For a further sub-phasing, see van den Brink, 2013: 53–54. 25

66

V. Roux

“Ghassulian” tradition (coiled-coated). The first group (MOD-1), the major in number, includes a wide range of utilitarian vessels, and is found throughout the LC–EB I strata. From Stratum 3 onward, there is a noticeable evolution of shapes and a change in clay sources. However, the vessel-making method does not change, testifying to its transmission across generations. Notably, the LC rectangular broad-room building tradition still persists in this stratum (as opposed to curvilinear structures appearing only from the subsequent Stratum 2). The other “Ghassulian” group (MOD-2) is restricted to large open vessels found in a cache in Strata 6–5 and finished by rotary motion, typical of the LC1 period. The next two groups, in minor numbers, include non-coated vessels finished on tournettes. One group (MOD-4) is composed of the well-known “Vshaped” bowls found mainly in the LC 1 Strata 6 and 5. The other group (MOD-3) is composed of the socalled “bell-shaped” bowls, appearing in very small quantities in the LC1 Strata 6–5. Their number increases significantly in the LC 2 Stratum 4 and EB IA Stratum 3. Data at the regional scale highlight that these bellshaped bowls are found in both late LC and transitional horizons,38 continuing to the very beginning of the EB IA period before disappearing by the end of EB IA. As with the V-shaped bowls, the use of tournette smoothing suggests they had a sign value.39 The main conclusion of this technological study is that the vast range of utilitarian vessels found at Modi’in’s Deep Deposits was manufactured by the same Ghassulian tradition throughout the site’s occupation, namely from the LC1 to the EB IA period. However, these vessels also attest to evolution in clay sources and morphological and stylistic traits. In this regard, they testify to changes in the continuity, considering both the transmission of the same technical practices within the same social group and an evolutive dynamic through time. Going one step further, because the LC tradition was transmitted unchanged across centuries, EB IA potters can be considered the descendants of LC potters. At Modi’in, the disappearance of sign value vessels (the V-shaped bowls first, and later on, the bellshaped bowls) is concomitant with the general disappearance of the LC ceremonial/ ritual objects (such as violin figurines, perforated flint tools, ivory and copper objects), and to several other LC pottery hallmarks, including cornets and churns. To understand these two phenomena (discontinuity and continuity), one must bear in mind that the production context of these distinct categories of objects might have been different— specialized for the sign value vessels, domestic for the utilitarian ones. Specialized production ceased with the loss of demand for ritual objects, while the domestic one went on due to the continued demand for utilitarian vessels. Similar observations have been made on other Shephelah40 and Coastal Plain sites,41 testifying to a period of transition marked by both LC and EB I traits, and therefore to an evolving situation over time within the same social group marked by both continuous changes (evolution of ceramic stylistic traits) and discontinuous changes (disappearance of sign value objects and abandonment of numerous sites on a Southern Levant scale).

The Northern Early EB I Ceramic Tradition The technological analysis of the ceramic assemblages of Kafr Kanna, Yiftah’el and Assawir highlighted the presence, in each assemblage, of two dominant technical groups: 1) A predominant group characterized by clay-coated vessels with a chaîne opératoire similar to the “Ghassulian” and applied to a broad range of

38

“Bell-shaped” bowls produced in MOD-3 are met also in late LC Shephalite sites like Shoham North (Commenge, 2005, Figs. 6.2:1, 6.10:12–15), Giv’at ha-Oranim (Scheftelowitz 2004, Figs. 3.2: 12–15) and Yesodot (Paz / Nativ, 2013, Fig. 6:1–2); at several Coastal Plain LC burial caves in Palmahim (Gophna / Lifshitz, 1980, Fig. 4: 1) and Azor (Perrot / Ladiray, 1980, Fig. 75: 14–15); and at late LC sites, beyond the central and coastal regions, like at Fazael in the Jordan Valley (Bar, 2014: 283). 39 Sign value denotes the social/symbolic value accorded to an object by opposition to use value derived from the function and the primary use of the object. 40 E.g., Horbat Nevallat (van den Brink / Lazar, 2019), Shoham (van den Brink / Gophna, 2005), Yesodot (Paz / Nativ, 2013). 41 Braun, 2000; Braun, 2019; Baumgarten, 2004; Braun / Gophna, 2004.

The Southern Levant during the Late Chalcolithic–Early Bronze I Transition

67

utilitarian vessels; 2) A minority group characterized by GBW, with a new chaîne opératoire applied to sign value recipients42 (bowls and pedestaled bowls). Each assemblage also comprises a few red- or black-burnished sherds (16 at Kafr Kanna; 28 at Yiftah’el), usually of small size. Their small number and the lack of analytical data prevented their inclusion in this study. Clay Coated Ceramics At Kafr Kanna, Yiftah’el, and Assawir, clay-coated vessels are represented by a wide range of shapes (open and closed vessels): storage jars and pithoi; holemouths; open vessels including small bowls, a few carinated bowls, large bowls and basins, loop handles, and flat bases. The chaîne opératoire is the same for the three EB I assemblages and is similar to the “Ghassulian chaîne opératoire”. The paste is made of local clay tempered with coarse inclusions (from 0.2 mm to 1 mm), mostly heterogeneous in nature. Thus, at Kafr Kanna, the clay matrix indicates the use of calcareous foraminiferous marl during the LC and EB I periods.43 The main difference is in the use of grog and the number of coarse inclusions which seems to be lower during the EB I (at Kafr Kanna, on the two sherds examined, the LC sherd temper was 20% against 2–3% in the EB I sherd;44 however, there are EB I sherds with a higher percentage of coarse inclusions). The bases are made from a clay disc with raised edges and an inner peripheral coil placed against the edges (Fig. 2a–b, and Fig. 3a–b). The coils are placed inwards, with oblique coil joints. These joints and the strong oblique direction of elongated voids testify to the coiling by spreading technique (Fig. 1.c, Fig. 2.c, Fig. 3a–b). The coil size is between 1 and 2 cm, depending on the size of the wall. Walls were wet smoothed with the fingers, as evidenced on the inner faces by the threaded striations, reticulated striations, and irregular microtopography. Once the vessel became leather hard, an outer peripheral coil (around 2 cm wide for the storage jars) was placed around the outer base. Often, this outer coil is hardly visible; however, a slight thickening indicates its presence; this thickening may be visible at the junction with the base, either in the form of irregular topography, or a surplus of clay paste around the base (Fig. 2f, Fig. 3e–f, Fig. 4f). The outer peripheral coil was sometimes folded against the outer base, forming on it a concentric thickening. Handles and decorative bands were also applied at this leather hard stage. Subsequently, the vessels were clay-coated (Fig. 2d–f; Fig. 3c; Fig. 4c–e). This coating was applied to the outer faces of closed vessels and the outer and inner faces of open vessels from the rim downwards, leaving a slight thickening on the inner rim of closed vessels. It was also applied to the external face of the bases. Following the coating, the outer walls and bases of closed vessels and the outer and inner walls of open vessels were red-slipped (Fig. 2d–e; Fig. 3d–f; Fig. 4c–f). All the examined handles were clay-coated and red-slipped, whatever their type. The slip was applied with the hand, as evidenced by the type of striations (reticulated ribbed striations). It should be specified that, in some cases, the poor preservation of the vessels’ surface layer did not enable deciding whether the absence of a red slip was intentional or related to bad preservation (in particular at Yiftah’el). Hence, no “unslipped” technical group was defined. The vessels were fired in an oxidizing atmosphere, as shown by the pale surface of the walls. The colors of the radial section vary: From outer and inner margins of the same beige color of the core to substantial color variation between the core and the margins. The color variation in the radial section seems higher in the EB I than during the LC. However, it cannot be considered a difference in firing techniques, and it could just reveal a different time exposure within the firing structures. At Kafr Kanna, EB I sherds reveal lower firing temperatures (below 700°C) than LC sherds (c. 700°–750° C).45

42

Goren / Zuckermann, 2000: 176 Two thin sections have been made and analyzed by Shapiro; one ceramic comes from the LC layer, the other one from the EB I layer (according to Shapiro in van den Brink / Roux / Shapiro / Shemer, in press). 44 Ibid. 45 Shapiro, in van den Brink / Roux / Shapiro / Shemer, in press. 43

68

V. Roux

A similar chaine opératoire was observed at Tel Teo, located in the Hulah Valley.46 Holemouths, necked jars, and pithoi present attributes diagnostic of the “Ghassulian chaîne opératoire”, i.e., a tempered clay paste with coarse inclusions and clay-coated and red-slipped vessels (Fig. 5). Gray Burnished Ware We examined 34 GBW body sherds from Kafr Kanna, probably belonging to carinated bowls with projecting sinuous line; GBW bowls with projecting sinuous line (Braun 1997, figs. 9.2, 9.3: 1–7) and GBW sherds (171) from Yiftah’el; and the GBW bowls with projecting sinuous line (Yannai 2006, figs. 4.49, 4.50) and a few rim sherds from Assawir. In general, the GBW vessels are made with local material (from the Galilee) mixed with coarse inclusions, grog being the major non-plastic material.47 At Kafr Kanna, a recent study highlights that the major component consists of rounded and subrounded grog fragments (0.5–2.0 mm) of the same composition as the examined sherds.48 The coarse inclusions represent 7–15% of the sherds’ volume. They also include mineral and organic inclusions. The radial sections of the GBW bowls show that the coils are rather small, between 1 and 1.5 cm, applied inwards, with the coiling by spreading technique, as evidenced by the elongated oblique porosity (Fig. 6b). The few GBW bases from Yiftah’el show that they were made in the Ghassulian tradition: They present a flat disc with the raised edges and an inner peripheral coil against these edges. Not enough specimens could be examined to assess whether an outer peripheral coil had also been placed. The inside/outside surfaces are of smoothed clay; the slip is made of finely sieved clay, as shown by the ribbed striations, fluid microtopography (Fig. 6c), and drying cracks (Fig. 6d). After applying the slip, surfaces were shined with the help of a soft tool (cloth), rubbing it against the leather hard/dry clay paste (Fig. 6a). The shining shows narrow bands suggesting that shining gestures were not as repetitive as to cover the whole surface. We can suggest with confidence that they were not burnished since no facet obtained by burnishing, namely rubbing the leather-hard clay paste with a hard tool (e.g., pebble), is present; moreover, the ribbed striations obtained when applying the slip are still visible after shining, corroborating the use of a soft tool as opposed to a hard one49 (Fig. 6c–d). Finally, it should be noted that many GBW sherds have lost their luster, contributing to the claim that the shining was superficial. The radial sections are mostly gray, testifying to a reduced firing atmosphere. The sporadic presence of beige sherds or complete vessels (surface and section) (Fig. 6.a) suggests that the reduced atmosphere was not fully controlled, resulting in variable colors. The estimated maximum firing temperature is low, around 700°C (below 800°C).50 It should be specified that at Tel Teo, the so-called GBW is black-slipped. The slip was applied unevenly, and the vessels were fired in an oxidizing atmosphere as evidenced by a surface with an orange / black color and a beige section (margins and core) (Fig. 6e). The surfaces were shined, as illustrated by the residual ribbed striations (Fig. 6f). The intention was to make a dark, shiny vessel. At this stage, it is hard to interpret the technical differences within the GBW.

46

Eisenberg, 1989: 124–132, Figs. 7.3–7.8; we examined some of the published vessels and sherds kept at Israel Antiquities Authority’s storerooms. 47 Goren / Zuckermann, 2000. 48 Analysis, by Shapiro, of six GBW sherds (Shapiro, in van den Brink / Roux / Shapiro / Shemer, in press). 49 Lepère, 2014. 50 Shapiro, in van den Brink / Roux / Shapiro / Shemer, in press.

The Southern Levant during the Late Chalcolithic–Early Bronze I Transition

69

Figure 2. Diagnostic features of the chaîne opératoire used for making Kafr Kanna EB 1 utilitarian ceramics. a) and b) radial sections of bases showing a contrasted pattern of porosity and alignment of inclusions testifying to both the raising of the edges of the base to start the body, and the adding of an inner peripheral coil; c) porosity with an oblique pattern indicating the coiling by spreading technique and internal apposition of the coils; d) and f) red lumpy wall surfaces testifying to clay coating covered by a red slip; e) thickening around the base indicating an outer peripheral coil.

70

V. Roux

Figure 3. Diagnostic features of the chaîne opératoire used for making Yiftah'el EB 1 utilitarian ceramics. a) and b) radial sections of bases showing a contrasted pattern of porosity and alignment of inclusions testifying to both the raising of the edges of the base to start the body, and the adding of an inner peripheral coil; c) porosity with an oblique pattern indicating the coiling by spreading technique and internal apposition of the coils; d) red lumpy wall surfaces testifying to clay coating covered by a red slip; e) and f) thickening around the base indicating an outer peripheral coil; both the bases and the walls are clay coated and red slipped.

The Southern Levant during the Late Chalcolithic–Early Bronze I Transition

71

Figure 4. Diagnostic features of the chaîne opératoire used for making Assawir EB 1 utilitarian ceramics. a and b) porosity with an oblique pattern indicating the coiling by spreading technique and internal apposition of the coils; c), d) and e) red lumpy wall surfaces testifying to clay coating covered by a red slip; f) thickening around the base indicating an outer peripheral coil.

72

V. Roux

Figure 5. Diagnostic features of the chaîne opératoire used for making Tel Teo EB 1 utilitarian ceramics. Red lumpy wall surfaces testifying to clay coating covered by a red slip.

The Southern Levant during the Late Chalcolithic–Early Bronze I Transition

73

Figure 6. Diagnostic features of the chaîne opératoire used for making GBW ceramics. a) beige GBW vessel from Yftah’el; b) porosity with an oblique pattern indicating the coiling by spreading technique and internal apposition of the coils (Kafr Kanna); c) slip made out of finely sieved clay, as shown by ribbed striations and fluid microtopography (Kafr Kanna); d) drying cracks diagnostic of slip (Kafr Kanna); e) and f) application of a black slip; residual ribbed striations indicate that the surfaces were shined (and not burnished) (Tel Teo).

74

V. Roux

Filiation Between the Ghassulian and the EB I Traditions Based on the results, the filiation between the LC and EB I ceramic assemblages will be discussed first for the clay-coated ceramics, followed by the GBW. Clay-Coated Ceramics The EB I clay-coated ceramics of the three northern ceramic assemblages, Kafr Kanna, Yiftah’el, and Assawir, were made conforming to the Ghassulian tradition chaîne opératoire, characterized by original forming techniques and methods different from those carried out by the Southern Levant LC neighbors.51 It should be emphasized that the methods of manufacture of bases and application of coils are not visible on the finished products and cannot diffuse only through the circulation of vessels. In this respect, base and wall forming methods and techniques are highly significant for tracing cultural transmission, linking assemblages together. In addition, the northern EB I ceramics have revealed technical details well observed on northern LC ceramics (Fig. 3e), such as the way the outer peripheral coil is folded on the base. Lastly, let us recall that the northern LC ceramics present a unique technical variant compared to the other LC regions, namely a red slip covering walls and bases. The similarity of the chaîne opératoire between northern Ghassulian and EB I ceramic assemblages indicates a phylogenetic link between them, all the more since chaînes opératoires are never copied as a whole,52 and thus, such similarity cannot be the result of borrowing. This phylogenetic link between the northern LC and EB I assemblages amounts to indicating that the Ghassulian tradition was transmitted across generations down to the EB I, within the same social group, and, therefore, that the northern Ghassulian communities were the ancestors of the northern EB I communities. In other words, this phylogenetic link suggests that the northern early EB I communities are the descendants of those who left the Southern Levant’s northern regions by the early 4th millennium BC. The ceramic shapes had, of course, evolved, if only by the descent with modification principle,53 or perhaps through interactions between the Ghassulian groups and local populations inhabiting territories where Ghassulian people circulated. Recently, research has identified northern Ghassulian groups in South Lebanon during the first half of the 4th millennium BC.54 Their presence is well attested by ceramic assemblages, which differ from the local ones:55 The vessels are characterized by “Ghassulian shapes” and are conform to the northern “Ghassulian chaîne opératoire”, marked by the application of a red slip on claycoated walls. Only one technical change is noted: The introduction of grog in the clay paste, an element not present in LC Ghassulian assemblages and also absent in Central Levant (Lebanon) pottery.56 It may be regarded as a technical or symbolic improvement in the clay material.57 Now, the Ghassulian way of accommodating clay paste is to add coarse mineral fragments (whatever their nature), and these are also present in the Ghassulian-related assemblages of South Lebanon.58 Thus, it can be hypothesized that, in the case of the Lebanon assemblages, the addition of grog was not meant to improve the clay-paste properties but was, instead, related to symbolic reasons. Ethnographic examples indicate the recycling of sherds “to tie new vessels with those of the ancestors”.59 Based on these examples, it is tempting to interpret the addition of grog by the Ghassulian, now settled in South Lebanon, as a way to keep a link with their ancestors by introducing fragments of old pots into new pots. In other words, grog could be an invention of the Ghassulian groups related to their installation in new territories.

51

Egypt and Central Levant; Roux, 2019c. Except in exceedingly rare cases attesting to the adoption of a new technical system to change status; Gosselain, 2011. 53 Shennan, 2011. 54 Baldi, pers. comm. 55 Baldi, 2017. 56 Ibid. 57 Gosselain / Livingstone Smith, 2005. 58 Baldi, pers. comm. 59 Gosselain / Livingstone Smith, 2005: 41. 52

The Southern Levant during the Late Chalcolithic–Early Bronze I Transition

75

Gray Burnished Ware Compared to the clay-coating tradition, the GBW chaîne opératoire is characterized by two new technical operations: shining and reduced firing atmosphere. The forming technique and method is the same as the one used in utilitarian vessels: Small coils are placed inwards by spreading; bases are made from a flat disc with raised edges raised; and an inner coil is placed against the latter. Morphological traits, such as the pedestal bowls, are also in continuity with LC shapes.60 This combination of old and new traits suggests that the new technical operations took place within the framework of an old tradition. Another argument in favor of continuity with the LC tradition is that at Kafr Kanna at least, the clay material and preparation do not differ radically between the clay-coated ceramics—affiliated with the LC tradition—and the GBW, except for the quantity and size of the inclusions consisting mainly of grog. Now, no early EB I GBW vessels with projecting sinuous line have ever been found outside of the Southern Levant. In this respect, GBW can be considered a local invention perhaps linked to the return of the Ghassulian groups to their lands, given that GBW appears at that time and only within this social group. Going one step further, some elements enable us to hypothesize on their function. GBW ceramics are systematically found in all the northern early EB I sites. They are made of local clays,61 thus reflecting the site where they were produced since they show the same clay compound as utilitarian vessels. Their morphology, however, suggests they had a sign value.62 They are associated with both habitat and funerary contexts, thus excluding a use related only to mortuary practices. Knowing that the GBW is a local invention for vessels with a sign value, found in both habitat and funerary contexts, and that the GBW appears at the time of the return to the ancestors’ land, we suggest that the production and use of the GBW might be well related to an ancestor cult. This hypothesis may indeed explain why the shapes are reminiscent of those of the LC cultic vessels (in particular the pedestaled bowls), why their function is not restricted to mortuary practices, why their clay paste also includes grog in continuity to a tradition linking ancestors and the living through pot fragments, and, finally, why they did not diffuse beyond the zone occupied by the previous LC groups who once left their land. The Central–Southern and Northern EB I Groups As already pointed out in the introduction to the Paléorient 39 issue on the LC–EB I transition,63 it is reasonable to distinguish between the 4th millennium BC central–southern and northern sites of the southern Levant, the former providing a transition period (LC2/EB IA) dated between 3900 and 3600 BC, and the latter revealing a gap.64 During this gap, there was an abandonment of sites by groups who left the northern and eastern regions. The ceramic technological analysis suggests their return a few centuries later, attested in the three sites studied. When they returned, they came back with a material culture presenting old and new traits—old Ghassulian traits and new traits related to their return (the GBW) and their interactions (the curvilinear houses) with the populations of the Southern Lebanon (where curvilinear houses are known).65 In other words, when the northern groups returned to their land, their material culture had evolved through both descent with modifications and interactions. In Southern Lebanon, the absence of Ghassulian traits in the local ceramic assemblages, if verified, cannot be taken as evidence of an absence of interactions between groups. Ethnoarchaeological studies have shown that the more two ethnic groups interact in a close geographical area, the less they borrow ceramic techniques or shapes from each other (as per the principle by differentiation and the cognitive bias associating shapes/techniques with ethnic identity).66

60

Braun, 2011; Braun, this volume. Goren / Zuckermann, 2000. 62 Ibid. 63 Braun / Roux, 2013. 64 Braun / van den Brink / Regev / Boaretto / Bar, 2013; Braun, 2019; Regev / de Miroschedji / Greenberg / Braun / Greenhut / Boaretto, 2012. 65 Braun, 1989b; Braun, 1989a. 66 Roux / Bril / Cauliez / Goujon / Lara / de Saulieu / Zangato, 2017. 61

76

V. Roux

Parallelly, the central–southern communities witnessed their own evolution, also in continuity (visible not only in ceramic traits but also in copper production), resulting in different regions showing distinct material production while still sharing common traits. The most conspicuous common trait is an old one: the “Ghassulian chaîne opératoire”. The new common traits are the GBW and/or the curvilinear houses. They appear in the north at the start of the EB IA, or just after, and are found, together or individually, at a few southern sites (Ashqelon, Palmahim Quarry, and Tel Aviv).67 To understand the presence of these new common traits in the central–southern communities and interpret them in terms of the relationship between the central–southern and northern groups, one should remember that the Southern-Levant LC groups were embedded in a tight social network,68 linked by strong ties, and probably belonged to the same ethnolinguistic group. It follows that the presence of GBW and/or curvilinear houses in southern sites can be interpreted as the expression of the reactivation of ancient social links, given a preexisting social network with the same ethnolinguistic group. In the same vein, researchers have noted that the routes of some EB I distribution networks of artifacts are rooted in the Chalcolithic and Neolithic periods.69 These routes are the expression of ancient social ties which used to link the different regions of the Southern Levant before the dispersal of LC groups by the early 4th millennium BC.

Conclusions In this paper, the LC–EB I transition in the Southern Levant has been approached through the analysis of the filiation between the Shephelah and Central–northern region LC and EB I ceramic assemblages. This analysis revealed the presence of only one manufacturing method for utilitarian vessels, indicating a phylogenetic link between the two assemblages. However, the different histories of these two regions led to the LC ceramic traditions evolving differently in each area. In the Shephelah, where the occupation was continuous between the LC and EB I, changes related to the local history (with local adaptations and innovations); in the northern region, marked by a gap during the LC and EB I periods, changes related, on the one hand, to the group’s movements—going back and forth between the north of Israel and South Lebanon (innovations)—and, on the other hand, to interactions with exogenous populations (borrowings). The abandonment of numerous sites indicates the dispersal of LC groups by the early 4th millennium BC both in the northern regions, and the Negev and the Jordan Valley. Fazael, located in the Jordan Valley and dated to 4030–3910 calBC,70 represents probably one of the latest LC occupations in this eastern area.71 In fact, between c. 3900 and 3600 calBC, only the central–southern regions (Shephelah and Coastal Plain) remained inhabited, though sporadically.72 Two questions follow, needing further research: Where did the different groups go? And why? Preliminary studies furnished the first hints for answering the first question. As shown above, Ghassulian northern groups have been recently identified in South Lebanon by the first half of the 4th millennium BC.73 Ghassulian groups are also present in Egypt in the early 4th millennium BC.74 Some studies reveal that the EB I copper production in the Coastal Plain might have been the result of a demic diffusion of the LC Negev groups, while other studies surmise the presence of Ghassulian groups in the Jordan highlands75 or southern Syria76 during the first half of the 4th millennium BC. The dispersal of the Ghassulian communities took thus

67

Braun, 2000; Braun / Gophna, 2004. Roux, 2019b. 69 For example, the EB I basalt bowls; Rosenberg / Golani, 2012: 28. 70 Bar, 2014; Braun / van den Brink / Regev / Boaretto / Bar, 2013. 71 Whether there is a gap, or not, between the LC and EB IA occupations of Tell esh-Shunah north (Gustavson-Gaube, 1986; Gustavson-Gaube / Erskine, 1985), Beth Shean XIX–XIII (Braun, 2004) or Tell Umm-Hammad stage 2 (Betts, 1992) is still a matter of discussion. 72 Braun, 2019. 73 Baldi. pers. comm. 74 See details in Hartung, 2013. 75 Kafafi, 2011. 76 Baldi, 2013. 68

The Southern Levant during the Late Chalcolithic–Early Bronze I Transition

77

different directions depending on each community’s network. Further broad, regional-scale research on these networks should help better understand the modalities and timing of this dispersal. Concerning the second question, the “why”, it should be first noted that LC cultic objects disappeared concomitantly with the dispersal of the LC communities. As suggested by several scholars, the end of the LC cultic objects may suggest the end of the associated beliefs correlated with a major disruptive environmental issue.77 At Fazael 2 (Stratum 2), a late LC site, a significant number of ceramics present a very compact clay paste with no visible fine porosity and an almost melted-like appearance, being hard to break, as if overfired. Preliminary analyses78 suggest that these clay pastes might reflect meteorological episodes, which would have severely affected the Ghassulian people, causing their dispersal and the collapse of their symbolic universe, negated by its lack of effectiveness in protecting them. When the Ghassulian descendants came back to their land by the mid of the 4th millennium BC, they had already built and developed new social networks, opening a new page in their history, conditioned by both the ancient broad regional LC social network and new ones, geographically dispersed and proper to each community. Consequently, a new complex dynamic was at work from which the first cities of the 3rd millennium would emerge.

Acknowledgments The Yiftah’el, Assawir, and Tel Teo ceramic collections are stored at the Israel Antiquity Authority. We would like to warmly thank Galit Litani for her help in accessing these collections. We are incredibly grateful to Edwin van den Brink for giving us the opportunity to study the ceramics from Kafr Kanna. We are also grateful to Edwin van den Brink, Eliot Braun and Johnny Baldi for their careful reading and relevant comments on a first version of this paper. This study was conducted during my appointment at the CRFJ (Centre de Recherches Français de Jérusalem).

References Baldi, J. S., 2013: “Ceramic technology at Tell Qarassa North (southern Syria): from “cultures” to “ways of doing”. In L. Bombardieri / A. D’Agostino / G. Guarducci / V. Orsi / S. Valentini (eds.): Identity and Connectivity, Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology. Oxford. Pp. 17–24. — 2017: “Collections céramiques du Musée de Préhistoire Libanaise: une étude technique”. ArchéOrient – Le Blog. http://archeorient.hypotheses.org/7431 Bar, S., 2014: The Dawn of the Bronze Age. The Pattern of Settlement in the Lower Jordan Valley and the Desert Fringes of Samaria during the Chalcolithic Period and Early Bronze Age I. Leiden / Boston. Be’eri, R., 2015: “Kafr Kanna. Final report”. HA-ESI 127. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_ eng.aspx?id=24885&mag_id=122 Betts, A. V. G. (ed), 1992: Excavations at Tell Um Hammad, 1982‒1984, The Early Assemblages (EBI–II). Edinburgh. Braun, E., 1989a: “The problem of the apsidal house: new aspects of Early Bronze I domestic architecture in Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon”. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 121 (1): 1–42. — 1989b: “The transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age I in Northern Israel and Transjordan: Is there a missing link?” In P. de Miroschedji, (ed.), L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien. Bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles. Actes du colloque d’Emmaüs (20–24 octobre 1986). Oxford. Pp. 7–28. — 1997: Yiftah’el. Savage and rescue excavations at a prehistoric village in Lower Galilee, Israel. Jerusalem. — 2000: “Area G at Afridar, Palmahim Quarry 3 and the Earliest Pottery of Early Bronze Age I: Part of the “Missing Link”. In G. Philip / D. Baird (eds.): Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Sheffield. Pp. 113–128. 77 78

Joffe, this volume; Rowan and Golden, 2009. Analyses in progress led by M.-A. Courty, CNRS.

78

V. Roux

— 2004: Early Beth Shan (Strata XIX–XIII): G.M. Fitzgerald’s Deep Cut on the Tell. Philadelphia. — 2011: “The Transition from Chalcolithic to Early Bronze I in the Southern Levant: A ‘Lost Horizon’ Slowly Revealed”. In J. L. Lovell / Y. M. Rowan (eds.): Culture, Chronology, and the Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition. Oxford. Pp. 160–177. — 2019: “Forging a Link: Evidence for a ‘Lost Horizon’—The Late Chalcolithic to EBI 1 Transition in the Southern Levant”. In H. Goldfus / M. I. Gruber / S. Yona / P. Fabian (eds.): Studies in Archaeology and Ancient Cultures in Honor of Isaac Gilead. Oxford. Pp. 66–95. Braun, E. / van den Brink, E. C. M. / Regev, J. / Boaretto, E. / Bar, S., 2013: “Aspects of Radiocarbon Determinations and the Dating of the Transition from the Chalcolithic period to Early Bronze Age I in the Southern Levant”. Paléorient 39: 23–46. Braun, E. / Gophna, R., 2004: “Excavation at Ashqelon, Afridar–Area G”. ‘Atiqot 45: 185–241. Braun, E, / Roux, V., 2013: “The late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age I Transition in the Southern Levant: Determining Continuity and Discontinuity or ‘Mind the Gap’”. Paléorient 39: 15–22. van den Brink, E. C. M., 2013: “A Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age I Progression at the Buchman South quarter in Modi‘in – in the central piedmont (Shephela) of Israel”. Paléorient 39 (1): 47–61. van den Brink, E. C. M., 2011: “Continuity and Change. Cultural Transmission in the Late Chalcolithic – Early Bronze Age I: A View from Early Modi‘in, a Late Prehistoric Site in Central Israel”. In J. L. Lovell / Y. M. Rowan (eds.): Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition. Levant Supplementary Series. Oxford / Oakville. Pp. 61–70. van den Brink, E. C. M., 2019: “Kafr Kanna. Preliminary Report”. HA-ESI 131. http://www.hadashotesi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=25524&mag_id=127 van den Brink, E. C. M. / Gophna, R., 2005: Shoham (North), Late Chalcolithic Burial Caves in the Lod Valley, Israel. Jerusalem. van den Brink, E. C. M. / Lazar, D., 2019: “Horbat Nevallat. A Chalcolithic Habitation Site and Agricultural Installations in the Shephelah Foothills”. ‘Atiqot 94: 1–88. van den Brink, E. C. M. / Roux, V. / Shapiro, A. / Shemer, M., in press: “Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I Settlement Remains at Kafr Kanna in Lower Galilee”. ‘Atiqot. Commenge, C., 2005: “The Late Chalcolithic Pottery”. In E. C. M. van den Brink / R. Gophna (eds.): Shoham (North). Late Chalcolithic Burial Caves in the Lod Valley, Israel. IAA Reports 27. Jerusalem. Pp. 51–98. Eisenberg, E., 1989: “The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I occupations at Tel Teo”. In P. de Miroschedji (ed.): L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien. Bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles. Actes du colloque d’Emmaüs (20–24 octobre 1986). Oxford. Pp. 29–40. Gilead, I., 2011: “Chalcolithic culture history: Ghassulian and other entities in the southern Levant”. In J. L. Lovell / Y. M. Rowan (eds.): Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic. Theory and Transition, Oxford. Pp. 12–24. Golani, A. / Nagar, Y., 2011: “Newly Discovered Burials of the Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age I in Southern Canaan—Evidence of Cultural Continuity”. In J. Lowell / Y.M. Rowan (eds.): Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition. Oxford. Pp. 84–96. Gophna, R. / Lifshitz, S., 1980: “A Chalcolithic Burial Care at Palmahim”. ‘Atiqot 14: 1–8. Goren, Y., 1995: “Shrines and Ceramics in Chalcolithic Israel: The View Through the Petrographic Microscope”. Archaeometry 37 (2): 287–305. Goren, Y. / Zuckermann, S., 2000: “An Overview of the Typology, Provenance and Technology of the Early Bronze Age I ‘Grey Burnished Ware’”. In G. Philip / D. Baird (eds.): Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Sheffield. Pp. 165–182. Gosselain, O. P., 2011: “Fine if I do, Fine if I don’t. Dynamics of technical knowledge in Sub-Saharan Africa”. In B. W. Roberts / M. Vander Linden (eds.): Investigating Archaeological Cultures: Material Culture, Variability, and Transmission. New York, London. Pp. 211–227. Gosselain, O. P. / Livingstone Smith, A., 2005: “The source clay selection and processing practices in SubSaharan Africa”. In A. Livingstone Smith / D. Bosquet / R. Martineau (eds.): Pottery Manufacturing Processes: Reconstruction and Interpretation. Oxford. Pp. 33–48.

The Southern Levant during the Late Chalcolithic–Early Bronze I Transition

79

Gustavson-Gaube, C., 1986: “Tell esh-Shuna North 1985: A Preliminary Report”. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 30: 69–113. Gustavson-Gaube, C. / Erskine, R. A., 1985: “Tell esh-Shuna North 1984: A Preliminary Report”. Annual of the Department of Antiquities 29: 43–87. Hartung, U., 2013: “Some Remarks on the Chronological Position of the Predynastic Settlement at Maadi (Egypt) and its Relations to the Southern Levant”. Paléorient 39: 177–191. Kafafi, Z., 2011: “Neither Early Bronze Age Cities nor States in the South of the Levant: Another Perspective”. Syria 88: 47–57. Khalaily, H. / Milevski, I. / Getzov, N., 2009: “Yiftah’el. Preliminary report”. HA-ESI 121. http://www.hada shot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1102&mag_id=115 Lepère, C., 2014: “Experimental and traceological approach for a technical interpretation of ceramic polished surfaces”. Journal of Archaeological Science 46: 144–155. O’Brien, M. J. / Darwent, J. / Lyman, R. L., 2001: “Cladistics is Useful for Reconstructing Archaeological Phylogenies: Palaeoindian Points from the Southeastern United States”. Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 1115–1136. Paz, Y. / Nativ, A., 2013: “Yesodot, Israel: A Case for a Post-Ghassulian Entity”. Paléorient 39: 83–93. Perrot, J. / Ladiray, D., 1980: Tombes à ossuaires de la région côtière palestinienne au IVe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne. Paris. Regev, J. / de Miroschedji, P. / Greenberg, R. / Braun, E. / Greenhut, Z. / Boaretto, E., 2012: “Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: New Analysis for a High Chronology”. Radiocarbon 54: 525–566. Rosen, S. A., 1997: Lithics After Stone Age. A Handbook of Stone Tools from the Levant. Walnut Creek / London / New Delhi. Rosenberg, D. / Chasan, R. / van den Brink, E. C. M., 2016: “Craft Specialization, Production and Exchange in the Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant: Insights from the Study of the Basalt bowl Assemblage from Namir Road, Tel Aviv, Israel”. Euroasian Prehistory 13: 105–128. Rosenberg, D. / Golani, A., 2012: “Groundstone Tools of a ‘Coppersmiths’ Community-Understanding Stone-Related Aspects of the Early Bronze Age site of Ashqelon Barnea”. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 25: 27–51. Rosenberg, D. / Shimelmitz, R., 2017: “Perforated Stars: Networks of Prestige Item Exchange and the Role of Perforated Flint Objects in the Late Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant”. Current Anthropology 58: 295–306. Roux, V., 2019a: Ceramics and Society. A Technological Approach to Archaeological Assemblages. New York. — 2019b: “Technical traditions, relational structure of societies and evolution process. The Late Chalcolithic of southern Levant as a case study”. In M. Saqalli / M. Vander Linden (eds.): Integrating Qualitative and Social Science Factors in Archaeological Modelling. New York. — 2019c. “The Ghassulian ceramic tradition: a single chaîne opératoire prevalent throughout the southern Levant”. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 7: 23–43. Roux, V. / Bril, B. / Cauliez, J. / Goujon, A. L. / Lara, C. / de Saulieu, G. / Zangato, E., 2017: “Persisting Technological Boundaries: Social Interactions, Cognitive Correlations and Polarization”. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48: 320–335. Roux, V. / van den Brink, E. C. M. / Shalev, S., 2013: “Continuity and Discontinuity in the Shephela (Israel) Between the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze I: The Modi‘in ‘Deep Deposits’ Ceramic Assemblages as a Case Study”. Paléorient 39: 63–81. Roux, V. / Courty, M. A., 2007: “Analyse techno-pétrographique céramique et interprétation fonctionnelle des sites: un exemple d’application dans le Levant Sud Chalcolithique”. In A. Bain / J. Chabot / M. Mousette (eds.): Recherches en archéométrie: la mesure du passé. Oxford. Pp. 153–167. Rowan, Y. M. / Golden, J., 2009: “The Chalcolithic Period of the Southern Levant: A Synthetic Review”. Journal of World Prehistory 22: 1–92.

80

V. Roux

Scheftelowitz, N., 2004: “The Pottery Assemblage”. In N. Scheftelowitz / R. Oren (eds.): Givat Ha-Oranim. A Chalcolithic Site. Salvage Excavation Reports. Tel Aviv. Pp. 37–58. Shalem, D. / Cohen-Weinberger, A. / Gandulla, B. / Milevski, I., 2019: “Ceramic Connections and Regional Entities: The Petrography of Late Chalcolithic Pottery from Sites in the Galilee (Israel)”. In H. Goldfus / M. I. Gruber/ S. Yona / P. Fabian (eds.): Studies in Archaeology and Ancient Cultures in Honor of Isaac Gilead. Oxford. Pp. 262–277. Shalev, S., 2007: “A brief outline summary of nonferrous archaeometallurgy in Israel”. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 56: 133–138. Shennan, S. J., 2011: “Descent with Modification and the Archaeological Record”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 36: 1070–1079. — 2002 Genes, Memes and Human History: Darwinian Archaeology and Cultural Evolution. London. Silvain, M., 2015: Tel Tsaf et les sociétés de la vallée du Jourdain dans la première moitié du 5e millénaire: une approche technologique des assemblages céramiques. Nanterre. Yannai, E., 2006: ‘En Asur (‘Ein Asawir) I. Excavations at a protohistoric site in the coastal plain of Israel. Jerusalem. Yekutieli, Y., 2000: “Early Bronze Age I Pottery in Southwestern Canaan”. In G. Philip / D. Baird (eds.): Ceramics and change in the Early Bronze Age of the southern Levant. Sheffield. — 2001: “The Early Bronze Age IA of southwestern Canaan”. In S. R. Wolff (ed.): Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse. Chicago. Pp. 659–688.

New Models for the End of the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant Alex Joffe1

Abstract Explaining the collapse of the Chalcolithic has been a persistent problem. New evidence has emerged for environmental changes and shifts in resource procurement and technological systems. Ritual failure provides a framework for understanding these and other impacts on a society where religion, sensu lato, was everything.

Keywords: Collapse, Chalcolithic, ritual failure, environment.

Introduction What happens when a cultural system collapses? What happens when a belief system that penetrates, supports and defines domains we separate into ‘politics’, ‘economics’, ‘technology’, ‘daily life’ and much more, can no longer explain and sustain the world? Who stays behind, who goes forward, and who takes a different path? The Chalcolithic period in the Southern Levant (ca. 5500–3700 BC) is well-known for its copper metallurgy and elaborate symbolism, agro-pastoralism and secondary-products economies, complex burial rituals, craft specialization, and regionalism (Fig. 1), but it is also well-known for its collapse. From its high point between 4500 and 4000 BC, barely a trace remained by 3800, save specific technologies and styles that persisted irregularly into the Early Bronze Age (c. 3700–2000 BC). The pervasiveness of iconography and what we define as a religious practice in the Chalcolithic are among its most notable attributes. Ceramics, metals, ivories, burial practices, ritual architecture, and wall frescos point to the deep penetration of ‘religion’ into society. These were supported, in turn, by resource acquisition and craft specialization, and by a much-debated political organization. But why did it end? And how did that ending play out across the Southern Levant and adjacent regions during the late 5th and early 4th millennium? What pushed change, and what pulled it?

Understanding ‘Collapse’ Classic interpretations by pioneering 20th-century archaeologists looked to invaders or ‘immigrants’ as the cause of Chalcolithic collapse.2 Later, environmental change was regarded as a major cause. More refined studies expanded on environmental change and also posited contacts with Egypt as drivers of change.3 However, newer data, especially for higher chronology, have made earlier proposals problematic.4 There is no evidence for invaders or for an influx of population, nor dramatic, much less catastrophic, climate change. The causes of Chalcolithic collapse now appear at once more subtle and more profound. New approaches to understanding Chalcolithic collapse are necessary to go beyond the limitations of demographic, climatic, and economic explanations. For better and for worse, ‘endings’ in archaeology attract almost as much attention as ‘origins’. During the 1970s and 1980s, many studies addressed theoretical and practical dimensions of collapse.5 While these contributed valuable insights regarding individual societies and broader evolutionary perspectives, few gave religion and ritual a central place, as opposed to ecology and administration.

1

Independent Scholar; email: [email protected]. E.g., Kenyon, 1979: 64–65. 3 Joffe, 1993: 36–37. 4 See Regev / de Miroschedji / Greenberg / Braun / Greenhut / Boaretto, 2012. Needless to say, the framework offered in Joffe / Dessel, 1995 has been long superseded. 5 E.g., Tainter, 1988; Yoffee / Cowgill, 1988. 2

82

A. Joffe

Figure 1. Map of the principal Chalcolithic sites and approximate regions (adapted from Rowan / Golden 2009: Fig. 1).

New Models for the End of the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant

83

The ‘environmental turn’ in the early 21st century placed even less emphasis on religion and ritual.6 Nevertheless, newer literature has usefully stressed the role of elite ideologies and what might be called the problem of ‘narrating’ collapse as success or failure, as well as local issues of ‘resilience’, the ways societies coped, or not, with changing conditions.7 One key insight from collapse studies is to look carefully at precisely what collapsed—politics and political units, cultural behaviors and traditions, or populations—and the subsequent trajectory of that region. In this light, the Chalcolithic collapse in the Southern Levant amounted to little more than minor changes in village-level settlement patterns, pottery styles, and modes of production, which were eventually superseded by a fortified town culture with international commercial connections. Collapse, in this sense, was ‘upwards’. A more in-depth look at the transition suggests, however, that the Chalcolithic underwent a more profound sort of collapse. Almost all its symbolic behavior disappeared, including not only iconography and specialized craft products, but the symbolic universe encoded through quotidian craft production. What collapsed at the end of the Chalcolithic was, first and foremost, the idea of being and doing Chalcolithic. Individual elements persisted, but the overarching concepts that had defined and bound people together through belief and behavior dissolved and were subsumed into something new.

Ritual Failure Ritual failure is a new if broad analytical framework that places religion and ritual at the center.8 For our purposes, it provides a means for understanding the impact of environmental and other changes on a society where religion, sensu lato, was pervasive. The question, however, is not the meaning of rituals in the sense of the underlying religious concepts but, rather, their social roles. Rituals are means for expressing a comprehension of the world, for bringing it into harmony, through prayers, specific requests for intervention, or through other intercessions such as shamanic consultations with spirits. Rituals situate the individual into the broader social and ideological whole. Furthermore, for communities, rituals are the means by which to continually regenerate society, to reintegrate into a singular entity, and to give it meaning. However, as with many things, past performances are no guarantee of future results. Bell believes rituals have at least six features: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Formalism, in the sense of restrictions on speech and action. Traditionalism, in the sense of archaisms and anachronisms. Invariance, meaning strict or repetitive patterns. Rule-governance, or codes determining appropriate behavior. Sacred symbolism. Performance, meaning public displays of rituals.9

Archaeologists have discussed the questions of religion and ritual at length, the key questions being whether ancient cultures made Durkheimian distinctions between the ‘sacred’ and the ‘profane’, that is, between ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ realms, and whether this carried on to distinctions between religious and secular rituals and daily life.10 These issues cannot be resolved here, but it seems clear that rituals, expressed materially, were critical to Chalcolithic culture. Some time ago, I suggested, together with a number of colleagues, that Chalcolithic ‘religion’ was not an epiphenomenon or instrument for the accumulation of power but an essential feature of that culture, reflective of a pervasive enchantment of the world.11 Today I would qualify this in light of Jacques Cauvin’s immensely important theory of ‘neolithization’: the Neolithic represented a period in which cognition and imagination revolutionized human control over

6

Diamond, 2005; cf. McAnany / Yoffee, 2010. Middleton, 2017a, b. 8 Kouftrafouri / Sanders, 2013. 9 Bell, 1997; Fogelin, 2007: 57–58. 10 See Fogelin, 2007: 59–65. 11 Joffe / Dessel / Hallote, 2001. 7

84

A. Joffe

nature and speculation regarding the human place in the cosmos.12 Neolithization is also a process of commodifying and valuating the world, transforming plants, animals, places, and people into ‘things’ while generating explanations in social and symbolic terms.13 With this in mind, I still maintain that religion and ritual, magic and totem defined and constituted Chalcolithic culture; they touched every aspect of life, behavior, belief, and practice. The details of these religious conceptions are still much debated and are necessarily difficult to quantify,14 but regardless of the ‘totality of enchantment’, Chalcolithic culture is inexplicable without them. Agropastoralism and complex symbolism instantiated in metal and ceramic are the Southern Levantine Chalcolithic. But, the Chalcolithic world was also thoroughly ‘materialized’—structured into social or corporate groups, territorialized, replete with competition and ‘politics’, and susceptible to external pushes and pulls. Nevertheless, symbols and rituals underpinned all these structures, generating meanings, and the means of integration. The Chalcolithic synthesis of the quotidian and the transcendent was defining but brittle. That brittleness, the cracks between the ideal and real worlds, are the sites of ritual failure. Chalcolithic culture should thus not merely be defined in chronological, typological, or technological terms, but as a constellation of beliefs and behaviors manifest in representation and ritual and material culture and practice. The advantage of this conception is also archaeological in that the presence or absence of representation and ritual may help to index the extent to which sites or regions were ‘Chalcolithic’, that is, to gauge their integration into the broader culture.15 ‘Dechalcolithicization’ is, therefore, a clumsy but effective neologism for this process of collapse. However, it also describes a pervasive cultural change, a shift in balance away from the ‘neolithization’ world—where commodification and ritual/symbolic behavior were in rough equilibrium—to a thoroughly commodified Bronze Age world where ritual and symbol were subservient to power. This world would prevail until the Axial Age of the 1st millennium BC. It will be argued below that small and significant changes in the Chalcolithic world undermined that culture’s understanding of the universe, along with patterns of authority and behavior. The Chalcolithic collapse was a cascading failure, at the center of which was ritual failure. What were those small and more significant changes? Which changes acted as push factors, and which as pull factors?

A Word on Chronology In this discussion, the end of the Chalcolithic is framed by the new and dramatically higher Early Bronze Age chronology that has raised the earliest EB IA dates to c. 3700 BC.16 At the same time, the latest occupation dates at Ghassul indicate the site was abandoned by 3900/3800 BC, serving as a symbolic terminus post quem.17 It is also becoming clear that the bulk of the ‘classic’ Chalcolithic culture, characterized by the Be’er Sheva-Ghassul sites and those of the Coastal Plain and the Galilee date from c. 4500 to 4000 BC, albeit with complex internal phasing.18 Thus, when discussing the ‘collapse’ or ‘end’ of the Chalcolithic, we are referring to the period from c. 4000 to c. 3800 or even 3700 BC. This point is critical. Chalcolithic society ‘ended’ over the course of 200– 300 years, and reconstructions must take this into account. The local specific collapse of sites or even regions may have been rapid, but the collapse of culture as a whole took centuries. Notwithstanding, there is new and intriguing evidence that falls into this period, especially from Tall Maqass and Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan, but also from other sites with disputed radiocarbon dates and with ambiguous or mixed material culture.19 It is not yet possible to entirely chart these ‘transitional’ data, much

12

Cauvin, 2000. Gebel, 2010; Rollefson, 2011. 14 E.g., Ilan / Rowan, 2012. 15 Cf. Gilead, 2011. 16 Regev / de Miroschedji / Greenberg / Braun / Greenhut / Boaretto, 2012. 17 Bourke / Lawson / Lovell / Hua / Zoppi / Barbetti, 2001. 18 Gilead, 2011. 19 Klimscha / Notroff / Siegel, 2014; Braun / van den Brink / Regev / Boaretto, 2012. 13

New Models for the End of the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant

85

less integrate them fully into a model of collapse, but the initial picture seems to show localized settlement gaps, as well as the possibility of continuous occupations. These issues will be further discussed below.

Paleoenvironmental Data There is a rapidly growing body of paleoenvironmental data relevant to the end of the 5th and the beginning of the 4th millennia BC. Four categories of evidence are of particular relevance here. Earthquakes Earthquakes have long been posited as having a role at the end of the Chalcolithic, notably at Ghassul,20 which lies at the heart of the Dead Sea Transform. More recent analysis has shown numerous signs of faulting and displacement throughout the site, as well as in a nearby wadi.21 The impact of earthquakes on Ghassul was likely significant, but dating these events and assessing their site-wide impact is problematic, given Ghassul’s extremely complex stratigraphy. The latest event should be apparently dated to around 4000 BC and the site was finally abandoned about a century later (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Deep sounding at Ghassul, 1988 (photo by the author).

More recent evidence from well-dated cores of lacustrine sediments taken the west coast of the Dead Sea and from damaged speleothems in Judean-Hills cave deposits points to possible earthquakes at c. 4450 and 4200 BC, and a more firmly dated earthquake at c. 4000 BC.22 Evidence for 5th-millennium earthquakes does not yet exist for the Carmel fault zone, but additional data from there and from the Dead Sea Transform indicate

20

Hennessey, 1969: 2–3. Galli, 1999: 2790. 22 Migowski / Agnon / Bookman / Negendank / Stein, 2004; Kagan / Bar-Matthews / Ayalon / Agnon, 2005; Agnon, 2014. 21

86

A. Joffe

earthquakes during the 4th millennium.23 In particular, two earthquakes appear attested at Hujayrat alGhuzlan, one during the early 4th-millennium occupation, and a second after which the settlement was not rebuilt.24 Earthquakes are uniquely traumatic experiences, culturally explained in different ways. Robinson usefully catalogs how historical cultures incorporated earthquakes into their religious and (quasi-political) thought,25 attributing them to cosmic animals, demons, and gods, also blaming sinful individuals, incompetent governments, and foreigners. Historically, the search for causality frequently turned against leaders who failed to plan or execute adequate responses. Tsunamis Some of the most provocative new paleoenvironmental data relate to tsunamis. Tyuleneva and her colleagues have offshore sedimentary evidence for two events near Caesarea, one during the Chalcolithic, at 6043–6060 BP, and another during the ‘transition’ at 5699–5565 BP.26 As noted, there do not appear to have been earthquakes in the Carmel range, and the source of the tsunamis must be sought elsewhere. The extent of landward inundation is also unknown, but the impact of these events was probably local. The individual and social traumas associated with tsunamis are profound.27 In contemporary New Guinea, tsunamis have become important parts of the oral knowledge of individual communities.28 However, while highly disruptive of the social order, unlike cultural responses to volcanic activity, communities frequently return to the affected areas. Contemporary “tsunami culture” adopts a scientific conceit of event prediction, early warning, and mitigation that gives settlements the resources to remain in the same locations.29 Indeed, Chalcolithic settlement on the coast appears to have been slight, although it is likely that some sites were inundated by rising sea level (see below), while there are many more for the Early Bronze I. Ancient belief systems likely acted the same way, locally generating explanations that permitted some highly productive environments to be continuously occupied. Conversely, in New Zealand, tsunamis prompted the abandonment of shorelines and movement to uplands.30 For our purposes, it should be noted that the Coastal Plain, as a whole, was settled both during the Chalcolithic and the EB I. Climate Change Climate change is another factor long regarded as having a role in Chalcolithic collapse, but accurate data have until recently been lacking. A variety of proxy data, including speleothems, pollen, and marine cores are now available but remain difficult to coordinate precisely, especially between regions.31 The underlying global climate mechanisms are beyond the scope of this discussion. The Soreq Cave speleothems are key data that present an extremely long sequence for Holocene precipitation. For our purposes, these oxygen isotope data show that annual rainfall peaked c. 6550–6450 BP at a remarkable 700 mm or more, and declined gradually, reaching a low of approximately 350 mm by c. 5700–5600 BP. Within this long period, shorter-term wet events are also identified at c. 6550–6450 BP and 5760–5740 BP, as well as a dry event at 6250–6180 BP.32 Palynological evidence from cores also points to

23

Braun et al., 2011. Earthquakes in the third millennium remain an understudied factor in Early Bronze Age cultural development. See the summary of data in Bourke, 2014, and Gallo, 2014. 24 Korjenkov / Schmidt, 2009. 25 Robinson, 2013. 26 Tyuleneva / Braun / Katz / Suchkov / Goodman-Tchernov, 2018. 27 I am grateful to Beverly Goodman-Tchernov for bringing her data to my attention and for discussing the phenomenon of tsunamis with me. 28 Davies, 2002. 29 Esteban / Tsimopoulou / Shibayama / Mikamia / Ohira, 2013. 30 Goff / MacFadgen, 2003. 31 Roberts / Woodbridge / Palmisano / Bevan / Fyfe / Shennan, 2019. 32 Bar-Matthews / Ayalon, 2011: 169; Zancetta et. al., 2014, esp. Fig. 4; see also Clarke et al., 2016: 6. Speleothem data mesh generally with the more coarse evidence of Dead Sea sedimentary sequences that show high stands during the midHolocene, correlated to increased precipitation followed by gradual drying. There are, however, a number of

New Models for the End of the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant

87

a more humid climate through the early 4th millennium, which supported the rapid expansion of olive cultivation.33 Extensive reconstructions of vegetation suggest Mediterranean woodlands were much more prevalent until declining from c. 5400 to c. 3000 BP34 (Fig. 3). Localized reconstructions of environment, for example, geomorphic data from around Tell es-Safi, show that Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age rainfall were approximately 120% of current levels, but with lower rainfall intensity. Combined with the denser vegetation cover and relatively low runoff, these factors allowed soil formation in valley bottoms.35

Figure 3. Map of maximum vegetation at c. 5400 BP (Soto-Berelov et al., 2015: Fig. 5; courtesy of the authors).

discontinuities between the two data types that appear related to local environmental conditions (Frumkin et al., 2001; Bookman et al., 2004; Migowski et al., 2006). See the discussion in Clarke et al., 2016. 33 Langutt / Finkelstein / Litt / Neumann / Stein, 2015; Langutt / Adams / Finkelstein, 2016. 34 Soto-Berelov / Fall / Falconer / Ridder, 2015: 101, Fig. 5. 35 Ackerman et al., 2014.

88

A. Joffe

Anthropogenic impact on forests beyond olive cultivation is difficult to measure. The key question remains the extent to which human action—based on stone tools, fire, and domesticated animals—reduced forest cover before the 2nd millennium.36 Still, the episodes of rapid downcutting noted by Hourani through the Chalcolithic sites in the eastern Jordan Valley points to the potentially catastrophic local effects of short-term drought and soil destabilization.37 The picture of drying conditions at the very end of the Chalcolithic is also broadly supported by evidence from marine cores from the Carmel coast that show changes in sedimentation c. 5800 ± 0.3 BP. AvnaimKatav and her colleagues attribute this to reduced fluvial activity and channel narrowing.38 The long-held notion that Chalcolithic climate was drying is thus supported by new data, but the level of precipitation through most of the period was extremely high. The drying trend was also punctuated by shortterm improvements at c. 4200 BC and more significantly at c. 3800 BC. These paleoclimate data are broadly consistent with others for the ‘Middle Holocene Climatic Transition’,39 but the cultural implications are complex and counterintuitive. Did climate change have much impact in the Mediterranean, as opposed to the Irano-Turanian zones? In the former, the mixture and density of vegetation may have varied somewhat in the mixed Quercus-pistacia forests.40 Late Chalcolithic settlements in Samaria and the Central Hills generally appear small and scattered, suggesting generalized agropastoralism with little sedentism.41 In the major valleys and on the Coastal Plain, changes in precipitation would have also resulted in the growth or reduction in marshlands and associated resources. Chalcolithic habitation was also geared, however, toward exploiting forests for wood and fuel using bifacial tools,42 tree crops like olives, pistacia palaestina products such as turpentine and seeds, ceratonia siliqua seeds, pistacia lentiscus products such as mastic, and flint mining.43 A drying climate that reduced vegetation cover opened new opportunities for olive and cereal cultivation—both of which were storable and thus convertible into means of staple finance—also creating incentives for labor pooling and settlement agglomeration, and thus the generation of social inequality. As a whole, subsequent Early Bronze Age social complexity was a result of worsening conditions. These environmental changes were likely felt over decadal scales but only became perceptible archaeologically over a few centuries. The social impact in terms of group and ideological disruptions may have occurred more quickly. In the Irano-Turanian zones, however, even slight reductions in precipitation caused significant changes in biota. In the northern Negev, the southern Coastal Plain, and the southern Jordan Valley, familiar agropastoral environments receded, perhaps by tens of kilometers over decadal scales or even less. Local settlement and cultural systems would have been disrupted, with effects that rippled to the north. These may well have been amplified by the fact that the Be’er Sheva sites were the centers of Chalcolithic culture. High levels of precipitation and humidity would have had unseen effects not only on biota but also on human health. Neither Chalcolithic nor Early Bronze populations were particularly healthy. Diseases like malaria and porotic hyperostosis are more prevalent in more humid conditions,44 while zoonotic diseases, such as tuberculosis, were spread by human-animal interaction and intensified by secondary-products

36

Gophna et al., 1986. Hourani, 2010. 38 Avnaim-Katz, 2017: 271. 39 Roberts et al., 2011a; Brooks, 2013. 40 Lipschitz, 2008. 41 E.g., Bar, 2015; Gibson / Rowan, 2006. 42 Yerkes / Barkai, 2013. 43 Discussions of possible Chalcolithic terracing and bedrock processing installations such as cup marks should be reexamined in the light of a broader mix of tree crops and products beyond olives (see Eitam, 2009; Van Den Brink et al., 2001; Cohen-Klonymous / Bar, 2016). 44 Angel, 1966. 37

New Models for the End of the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant

89

manufacture.45 In this sense, drying conditions may have resulted in localized health improvements and thus been looked on favorably, further challenging existing economic adaptations and cultural conventions. Overall, the trend was toward gradual aridification, punctuated by short-term wet and dry events on a decadal scale. ‘Rapid climate change’ has become a topic of intense debate among archaeologists, particularly regarding the much-vaunted 4.2 ka event),46 as well as a question of contemporary public policy. The Chalcolithic scenarios do not appear to have been as dramatic, but they were pervasive. Whatever the stability and reliability existing during the ‘classic’ period, from 4500 to 4000 BC, it was punctuated by positive and negative fluctuations whose impact had to be culturally explained in all regions. Sea Level Change It is generally accepted that during the Chalcolithic, Mediterranean sea level was approximately three meters lower than today and rose gradually, reaching the current level by the end of the 3rd millennium.47 The landward migration associated with sea-level rise was rapid, c. 150 cm per year from c. 7700 BP, after which the rate slowed dramatically to c. 12 cm per year.48 Recently, however, Goodman-Tchernov and Katz have suggested that this included punctuated sea-level rise, that is, sudden increases, possibly attributed to meltwater pulses.49 The cultural implications of sea-level rise, including punctuated events, are difficult to reconstruct. Some Chalcolithic sites may have been flooded, and thus, the full range of shoreline utilization remains unknown. Furthermore, with gradually rising sea levels, subsistence routines based on the exploitation of offshore and coastal resources would have slowly changed. Shorter-term pulses may have been individually perceptible and perhaps even culturally cognized. Still, if cultures can develop responses to catastrophic tsunamis to retain access to productive environments, they could undoubtedly adapt to rising sea levels the same way. Along with precipitation and erosion, higher sea levels necessarily change the onshore configuration of wetlands and marshes, bays and estuaries, freshwater sources, and accompanying biota. In addition, from over the horizon, a new maritime impact was growing in the early 4th millennium, that of trade with Egypt.50 This alone changed cultural perceptions of coasts and seas, albeit slowly. Assessment How can we reconstruct the cultural impact of both short- and long-term paleoenvironmental events? While earthquakes and tsunamis are quintessential short-term events, they are also highly localized. A tsunami along the coast or an earthquake in the southern Jordan Valley may have gone unnoticed a few kilometers away, although stories regarding these events would have filtered through the local culture. Longer-term events, such as climate change producing changes in biota, may have been perceived in some regions like the northern Negev and not in others, for example, in the Galilee. Cultural explanations for an event lasting a few minutes, like an earthquake, are different than for those occurring over decades, like climate change. Still, both must be explained and adapted to, not least of all, by the cultural system itself. Individually, none of the paleoenvironmental changes described here are likely to have prompted Chalcolithic collapse. Rapid impacts, such as earthquake damage, or middle-term changes, such as resource availability, necessarily disrupted local routines, including patterns of belief and authority, and likely had outward ripple effects on adjacent settlements or regions. The effects were cumulative. At centers affected by catastrophic events, such as Ghassul, the continuation of ‘temples’ indicates the persistence of certain patterns of behavior and belief, although we cannot extrapolate this broadly across either time or space. True believers regularly persist with behaviors regardless of circumstances, even catastrophic ones. However, local effects could also be intensely disruptive; food shortages, interpersonal

45

Lev-Tov et al., 2003. E.g., Weiss, 2017; cf. Höflmayer, 2015. 47 Sivan et al., 2001; Zviely et al., 2006; Benjamin et al., 2017. 48 Porat et al., 2008. 49 Goodman-Tchernox / Katz, 2016. 50 Marcus, 2002; Sharvit et al., 2002; cf. Faust / Ashkenazy, 2007. 46

90

A. Joffe

and intergroup violence, and epidemics are among the most profound impacts, which are also among the most difficult to perceive archaeologically. Other, more complex, but equally profound social impacts are also difficult to perceive. It has long been clear that the Chalcolithic landscape, at least near major settlement clusters around Be’er Sheva and the southern Coast Plain, was, in terms of spacing and distribution, thoroughly territorialized.51 Recent studies have also shown that the location of the settlements was associated with environmental resources, especially riverbank gradients, thick soils, and areas of high flow accumulation. Both dry farming and floodplain irrigation have been demonstrated by botanical evidence. The use of water-diversion techniques, such as dams, remains suggestive but challenging to prove.52 Similar territorialism and locational criteria are likely to have developed in other significant Chalcolithicsettlement regions like the Jordan Valley, the Beth Shean Valley, the Jezreel Valley, and elsewhere. These systems represent significant investments that become objects of competition and foundational for group identities. Whether driven by competition or climate change, disruptions to territories become disruptions to social organization, authority, and belief. Spatial analysis of mortuary sites and monuments by Winter-Livneh and her colleagues has also connected the living world with the next.53 They showed that in the Coastal Plain, burial sites were located away from habitation sites, suggesting territories outside of the settlements were claimed by specific families or other social units. Moreover, the area visible from Chalcolithic burial sites was considerably larger than that visible from habitation sites. Which reinforces the idea that territories were claimed and held as part of recognized, multigenerational land tenure systems. Pressures on one part of a settlement system, which connected both this world and the next, would have wide-ranging effects. Pressures on difficult-to-perceive mortuary systems could have been especially disruptive, as they impinged on the metaphysical realm of ancestors and deities. Conversely, they could have been tolerated, with locations being retained at the expense of ideology. For example, the large number of caves reused for burials in the Chalcolithic and EB I indicates that information regarding locations was retained as local knowledge over long periods, whether by the same social groups and with the same religiouspolitical beliefs is unknown. The value of land remains, even if underlying religion or values change. The level of mortuary disruption and its connection with spatial phenomena should not be underestimated. Indeed, the apparent explosion of dolmen construction in the Galilee, Golan, Jordan Valley, and Jordanian highlands, perhaps at the very end of the Chalcolithic and certainly during the EB I, suggests that (re) territorializing the landscape through mortuary behavior was a default mode for social groups or communities who experienced ‘collapse’, but not necessarily due to climate.54 I also speculate that the ‘standing stone’ phenomenon that seems to expand during this same time, particularly in the southern Jordan Valley, represents the adaptation of ancient desert iconography as a cultic means of regenerating community, in this case, ‘tribalizing’ groups on the peripheries.55 Finally, the scenarios described here may also help explain the evidence for Chalcolithic interpersonal violence. Maceheads and sling stones are common, the latter much less so late in the period,56 and there is evidence of violence in burials at Shiqmim57 and towards 21 individuals buried in the Naḥal Mishmar caves.58 Whether violence escalated at the end of the period is unclear, but the nature of unsettled circumstances may now be in better focus.59 Yekutieli links the evidence of interpersonal violence with Freikman’s discovery of deliberately mutilated house idols in the Golan to suggest an “aniconic revolution” at the end of the Chalcolithic, which targeted 51

Levy, 1981. Winter-Livneh et al., 2010. 53 Winter-Livneh et al., 2012. 54 Fraser, 2015: 436–441. 55 Andersson, 2015; Avner, 1984. 56 Shimelmitz / Rosenberg, 2013. 57 Dawson et al., 2003. 58 Haas / Nathan, 1973. 59 Cf. Shimelmitz / Rosenberg, 2013. 52

New Models for the End of the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant

91

elites and symbols. To this may be added Freikman’s discovery of dwellings at el ‘Arbain, which appear to be deliberately buried, suggesting they were ritually ‘killed’. 60 Freikman also cites other evidence, such as metal items in the Nahal Mishmar hoard and ceramics from other burials that were damaged before being deposited.61 Ritually killing objects and decommissioning sites was a longstanding concept in the ancient Near East—witness, for example, the filling in the PPNA Göbekli Tepe temple—and does not necessarily support a fundamental political or ideological shift during the Chalcolithic. Thus, while not all the events Freikman notes should be linked to the end of the Chalcolithic, the idea that there was a cultural concept of endings seems important. Overall, I suggest that cumulatively a series of environmental events and changes, some violent, others perceptible only over years or even decades, and still others essentially not perceptible at all, posed challenges to the accepted social order, to culture itself. Subsistence routines were disrupted, as were social patterns of territorial exploitation and claims. Inter- and intra-group behavior and beliefs were disrupted, all by events that had no good explanations. Ultimately, ‘leadership’, ‘religion’, and other structuring concepts of culture came into question. Beliefs regarding how the universe was structured, about the beneficence of deities or the utility of rituals, were sometimes shattered by violent or jarring events such as an earthquake or drought, and sometimes undermined by slower processes—changes in the distribution of species or other resources, the gradual appearance of new species, or the sea itself at the doorstep. Who was responsible? How could things turn out this way? What had they done wrong? As noted above, the underlying concepts of Chalcolithic ‘religion’—which I propose was seamlessly interwoven with ‘politics’—are much discussed, yet little consensus has emerged. I will offer some suggestions below to speculate on which particular concepts collapsed. At this point, whether ‘chiefs’ or ‘shamans’ led Chalcolithic society matters little; is it is sufficient to say that although paleoenvironments pushed humans away from the Chalcolithic culture, they also pulled them towards new opportunities.

The New Worlds of the Late-5th and Early-4th Millennia As noted above, paleoclimate data present a counterintuitive scene. Wetter and more humid conditions prevailed, along with dense Mediterranean forests. These gradually receded over the later 5th and early 4th millennia, yet were punctuated by shorter periods of increased rainfall. This was the setting for Chalcolithic decline and collapse, but also for the rise of the EB. Part of the explanation is the movement away from Chalcolithic centers and ideas as a result of pressures from environmental conditions, yet there were also pulls, namely opportunities for extensification in arid and semi-arid regions that led to sedentarization. This new world of pastoral settlement, together with the trade opportunities it generated for settled zone populations, helped create new economies that further undermined or attenuated the Chalcolithic world. But, while these latter phenomena fall broadly into the ‘ChalcolithicEB’, their precise chronologies remain problematic. At present, it appears that arid zone settlement in southern Jordan and northern Arabia may predate that in the basalt regions and the central Levant. Separating causes and effects is still extremely difficult, and the comments here are highly provisional. The Sheep and Stone Economies of the Steppe and Desert Higher precipitation during the mid-5th millennium opened new habitats for more intense exploitation; gradual reductions from that point onward helped shape local adaptations. The phenomenon emerged in a great arc of steppes and deserts surrounding the Mediterranean zones of the central and southern Levant, into the Negev, Sinai, and southeastern Jordan, and extended as far south as Yemen.62 While many local elements have been known for some time, it may now be possible to integrate them into a generalized model of the 5th and 4th millennia and speculate on their relationship to Chalcolithic collapse and the emergence of the Early Bronze Age.

60

Yekutieli, 2014; Freikman, 2014. Freikman, 2014: 18–2. 62 Braemer et al., 2010. 61

92

A. Joffe

In the basalt steppe regions of southern Syria and northeastern Jordan, the emergence of Jawa has been a long-known, if much debated, development showing, among other things, complex water harvesting technologies.63 Jawa was only one in a series of sites in the region and should now be dated to the early–mid 4th millennium.64 Other sites like Tulul al-Ghusayn, Khirbet al-Ja’bariya and Khirbet Abu al-Husayn were constructed in the basalt desert far to the east of Jawa and date to the late 5th and early 4th millennia.65 Perhaps slightly later in the 4th millennium is Khirbet al-Umbashi, which, like Jawa and Labwe,66 reached its peak during the 3rd millennium.67 Jawa is thus a product in a sequence that begins to the east during the second half of the 5th millennium. The small dwellings, animal enclosures, gardens, and later, fortifications and complex water systems, suggest that livestock herders who supplemented their subsistence with small-scale agriculture constructed these sites. The appearance of fortifications, what Müller-Neuhof calls ‘hillforts’, suggests a competitive and territorialized landscape. He also points to the appearance of EB I hillforts and enclosures in the Hauran and Samaria and indicates the phenomenon is widespread.68 However, it also points to the emergence of a new scale of animal economy, and with it, a form of staple finance. In the Wadi Ruwayshid region in the limestone desert to the east of the hillfort region, and around al-Jafr in southeastern Jordan, another economy was becoming fully developed: Stone mining and production of cortical scrapers and blades.69 The al-Jafr complex is composed of quarries, one (J-12) over 12 hectares in extent, including trench mines, reduction areas, and associated structures. These sites were utilized seasonally for at least a few weeks at a time.70 The sheer scale of fan-scraper production is astonishing. Abe describes one trench mine 700 m long from which he estimates at least 410 tons of flint nodules were extracted.71 Müller-Neuhof further estimates that 1.9 million cortical fan scrapers were produced at the Wadi Ruwayshid complex.72 The discovery of a lost cache of scrapers at the site of Wadi Quwayr 173 provides hints of the structure and scale of this trade. Fujii estimates that 20 individuals could transport 300–350 tools per season and that 20 such groups would, therefore, transport 6000–7000 tools.73 These figures suggest production far above local requirements, implying commensurate consumption in Mediterranean zones (Fig. 4). The connection of fan scrapers to animal butchering and hide production is evident.74 The industrial-scale production of cortical scrapers must therefore be seen in terms of commensurate demand. Chalcolithic equid exploitation, which included both horses and donkeys, should be re-examined in this context,75 as well as the expanding contacts with Egypt during the later 5th and especially early 4th millennia. By the Early Bronze Age, donkeys clearly became an important means of transportation, and one of the few items symbolized in the plastic art of the period.76 The symbolic importance of scrapers and animals may also be reflected in perforated and star-shaped lithics, non-utilitarian and technologically difficult to produce items whose distribution is skewed toward the Golan, and whose significance, as Rosenberg and Shimelmitz suggest may mirror that of metal and ivory objects in the Be’er Sheva/Ghassul areas.77

63

Whitehead et al., 2008. Müller-Neuhof et al., 2015. 65 Müller-Neuhof, 2014; Müller-Neuhof / Abu-Azizeh, 2016. 66 Al-Maqdissi / Braemer, 2006. 67 Braemer et al., 2004. 68 Müller-Neuhof, 2017: 129; see also Zertal, 1993. 69 Müller-Neuhof, 2013a, b, c, 2014; Quintero et al., 2002; Fujii, 2013. 70 Abe, 2008: 178–180. 71 Abe, 2008: 173. 72 Müller-Neuhof, 2013b: 226. 73 Fujii, 2011: 11. 74 Zutovski et al., 2016. 75 Grigson, 2012. 76 Shai et al., 2016. 77 Rosenberg / Shimelmitz, 2017: 302. 64

New Models for the End of the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant

93

Figure 4. Map showing schematic aspects of desert cortex-tool production and trade (Abu-Azizeh, 2013: Fig. 15; courtesy of Wael Abu-Azizeh).

‘Non-Chalcolithic’ late-5th- and early 4th-millennia herders supplying animals and stone tools to the Mediterranean zones were undoubtedly an important part of the broader Levantine economy, yet influxes of staple commodities at any new scales were also a challenge to the Chalcolithic agropastoral economy; significant resources were potentially available outside conventional relationships. Sedentarizing herders were also gradually converting animal wealth into means of staple finance, capable of supporting communitywide projects such as fortifications. This process intensified in both the arid and Mediterranean zones during the 4th millennium, reaching a kind of peak in the sacrificial animal economy of the Megiddo EB I temple, as well as being inscribed in local iconography.78 Still, as Quintero and her colleagues pointed out, if millions of scrapers were being produced, where are they in the archaeological record?79 Their absence remains a key problem, and an indicator could be the sourcing studies of cortical stone tools, which are not yet fully developed.80 The desert economies were, however, expanding, and the wetter conditions of the Early and mid-Holocene enabled, even in the now arid reaches of North Arabia, the emergence of steppe vegetation and various forms of agriculture based on irrigation at sites such as al-Jawf and further southeast, what Gebel and Mahasneh called “pastoral well/lake culture”.81 At Tayma, malacological evidence suggests that by c. 4500 BC, a 10 sq km lake was utilized by herders.82 Deep wells are also evidenced at many sites.

78

Allentuck, 2013: 56; Adams et al., 2104. Quintero et al., 2002: 46. 80 E.g., Finkel et al., 2019; Müller-Neuhof, pers. comm. 81 Gebel / Mahasneh, 2013. There is significant disagreement regarding both the geomorphology and thus nature of Holocene paleolakes in Arabia and the underlying climate mechanisms. See Enzel et al., 2013. 82 Eichmann et al., 2006: 164; Dinies et al., 2011. 79

94

A. Joffe

Complementing these are the long-known sites in the Negev and Sinai, best understood as part of the local Timnian culture.83 In the Negev, these are typically small, isolated structures and animal pens and larger site clusters. The domination of projectile points in Timnian lithic assemblages demonstrates the continued importance of hunting in local subsistence. The boundary between the Be’er Sheva / Ghassul and Timnian culture appears to be between the northern Negev and the thinly occupied central Negev, a boundary that is also characterized by important geographic contrasts.84 In the southern Negev and southwest Sinai, the local culture was established along a wide swath of microenvironments that provided opportunities for small-scale agriculture and transhumance. Overall, the Negev and Sinai appear not to have been revolutionized in the same way, or at least as early as the regions to the east, by large-scale herding and lithic production. It would, however, be affected by the collapse of smallscale Chalcolithic copper extraction and the emergence of a much larger scale production and trade with Egypt. This settlement axis began in the early 4th millennium, expanded dramatically through the Egyptian imperial interlude of the later EB I and brief ‘Aradian’ intrusion of EB II, and now appears to have persisted through EB III, as a function of copper trade with Egypt.85 One consistent feature of all the arid zone cultures, however, is lavish attention to territorialized religious life, expressed in terms of shrines, sanctuaries, and burial sites.86 This emphasis harmonizes broadly with Chalcolithic practice. Fujii also proposes that the various types of burial cairns are related to changes not only in mobility but in social organization, namely the emergence of local chiefdoms.87 While in all regions, the precise balance of sedentism, agriculture, herding, and other economic activities necessarily varied, it is clear that the overall trajectory was toward ‘pastoral nomadism’.88 This question is beyond the scope of the present study. To all these settlements were added enormous complexes of desert kites, a Late Neolithic animal trapping architecture that appears to have expanded during the Late Chalcolithic–EB as the primary subsistence and social balances in the arid zones shifted between hunting and gathering, herding, and agriculture.89 Thus, in the broadest sense, the early and mid-Holocene climates permitted a process of gradual extensification, particularly in animal economies. The core Chalcolithic zones were shaken by short-term changes, forcing localized settlement shifts and the collapse of ritual-political systems. However, these, too, took advantage of new opportunities that emerged with sedentarization. in arid regions, far away from the Chalcolithic core. The rapid growth of EB IA sites in the Jordan highlands is an example of a region that reorganized to develop much higher levels of connectivity in the context of arid-zone economies.90 Aggregation sites like Jebel al-Mutawwaq, for example, shows rapid growth at the beginning of the EB I. Hundreds of dolmens were first constructed, followed by agricultural terraces, then oblong houses, enclosures, and apparent cultic spaces. Ceramic assemblages are difficult to classify but are clearly ‘Chalcolithic–EB’.91 It should thus be noted, following Roberts et al.,92 that what is generally called ‘urbanization’ began under worsening climate conditions. In an evolutionary sense, the Levantine fortified town culture of the mid-4th millennium and what followed were partial adaptations to aridity, intensifications of social, political, and other economic pathways based on social storage and the accumulation of various forms of power that had originated during more climatically favorable conditions. So, too, were related developments in Egypt, where climate change and its impact may have been even more profound. When placed on a longer timescale, ‘Chalcolithic collapse’ was upward.

83

Rosen, 2011. Rosen, 2013. 85 Finkelstein et al., 2018. 86 E.g., Abu-Azizeh et al., 2014; Avner, 2002. 87 Fujii, 2013: 98–99. 88 Compare Fujii, 2013: 100–105, Bradbury et al., 2014: 224–225; Rosen, 2017. 89 Bar-Yosef, 2016. 90 Bradbury et al., 2014: 220–225. 91 Nicolle, 2012; Nicolle / Braemer, 2012; Casadei, 2018. 92 Roberts et al., 2011b: 151–152. 84

New Models for the End of the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant

95

The ‘Copper Rush’ Wetter and more humid conditions provided the opportunity for pastoral nomads to partially sedentarize and effectively inhabit steppe regions and launch a higher-level animal and stone economy. These brought arid zone dwellers into closer contact with Mediterranean zone communities than at any time since the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, pulling the latter away from patterns and concepts at the same time as environmental pushes were accruing. The copper economy of the 4th millennium, however, was both a push and a pull. Few Chalcolithic topics have been discussed more than metallurgy, and the issue cannot be summarized adequately here. In brief, there were apparently two levels of industry, one utilitarian, using relatively pure copper, and the other symbolic, using copper alloyed with arsenic and antimony. Simple copper tools appear to have been produced at several sites in the Negev, while the alloyed symbolic items were seemingly produced at a more limited number of sites.93 The famous Naḥal Mishmar hoard, for example, was apparently created in the lower Jordan Valley area, moderately close to the caves in which it was found and to the Chalcolithic temple above the Dead Sea94 (Fig. 5). There is also evidence that toward the end of the Chalcolithic symbolic items were being produced in pure copper.95 Although the source of arsenic, antimony, or naturally alloyed copper ores is still problematic, evidence points to southeastern Anatolia.

Figure 5. En Gedi temple, 1984 (photo by the author).

The Naḥal Mishmar hoard remains a signature cultural achievement, indicative, first and foremost, of a pattern of high-level copper metallurgy, which includes the entire process of resource extraction, production, exchange, and consumption, for symbolic purposes.96 Notwithstanding, whatever the connections to putative ‘elites’ (‘priestly’, ‘shamanistic’, or ‘chiefly’), the imagery and associated behaviors were symbolic (the 93

Levy / Shalev, 1989. Goren, 2008. 95 Shuar / Gohm, 2011: 141–142; Gosic / Gilead, 2015. 96 Gosic / Gilead, 2015. 94

96

A. Joffe

symbolism itself has been discussed many times and need not be addressed here). It should be reiterated, however, that the typical Chalcolithic iconography they present disappears in the Early Bronze Age. The sources of copper ore have also been discussed at length. While there is limited evidence for Chalcolithic copper mining at Timna, metallurgical analyses now point to Feinan as the primary source. Excavations at several sites in that region over the past two decades have shown evidence for small scale Chalcolithic mining of high-quality self-fluxing ores, which were then transported to Negev sites for smelting and production of tools. During the EB I, this pattern changed; Feinan copper mining increased, but ores were mostly refined locally and cast into ingots for transportation. Consequently, copper production grew enormously and reached a peak by the mid-to-late third millennium, as ingots and ore were exported throughout the Southern Levant and into Egypt.97 Our understanding of the transition from the small-scale Chalcolithic mining to the Early Bronze Age copper industry has been fundamentally reshaped, however, by the results from the residential site of Tell Maqass and the nearby industrial site of Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan near Aqaba. The dating of these astonishing sites is critical; most of their radiocarbon dates fall precisely in the ‘transition’ between the Chalcolithic and the EB I, from ca. 4000 to 3600 BC.98 The alluvial fan of Yadi al-Yutum was utilized for runoff agriculture, in a manner familiar to smaller nearby regions such as the Uvda Valley.99 Large numbers of crucibles, molds, slag, and prills were discovered, along with ore, grinding stones, and hammers; unlike Chalcolithic sites, the entire copper production process is present.100 The source of copper ores being processed into tools—including axes, awls, pins, and chisels—and ingots appear to have been both at Feinan and Wadi Amram.101 Klimscha emphasizes the practical and perhaps psychological dominance of copper; no flint axes or awls were found at Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan.102 Copper was king. The connection with Maadi is another critical piece of the puzzle—Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan ingots and molds match material found at the Delta site.103 Glazed steatite beads, ostrich eggshell items, and stone jars provide additional links to Naqada I and II Egypt.104 In turn, the physical presence of Chalcolithic groups there is indicated by material culture, including pottery, lithics, basalt, and asphalt, and attempts to replicate familiar underground dwellings,105 as well as at Buto.106 Trade from the Southern Arava to Egypt was apparently being mediated in part by groups that were ‘still’ Chalcolithic, although it is unknown whether these were migrants or refugees. Many elements of these Aqaba sites are worth highlighting. First, these sites are local manifestations of an indigenous culture; the ceramic culture is technologically similar to those of the Be’er Sheva-Ghassul Chalcolithic but reflects a limited repertoire, while the lithic assemblage is dominated by cortex tools in the desert tradition.107 Second, the extraordinary level of specialization—virtually all of Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan was an industrial site, suggesting high levels of technological skills, but also commensurate demand. What did craft specialists receive in return for their tools and ingots? How was trade organized? Third, the fortifications, which imply organizational capability in terms of planning and labor mobilization, the perception of threats, and the desire to signal the surrounding communities the site’s strength, wealth, and capability. But why did Tell Maqass and Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan exist at all? There were at least four local factors that are unique in the mid-Holocene Aqaba area: More precipitation and hence vegetation; large alluvial fans suitable for simple runoff irrigation; a higher water table creating springs and making wells possible; coastal

97

Barker et al., 2008; Ben-Yosef et al., 2016; Finkelstein et al., 2018; see also Golden, 2009. Klimscha, 2009. 99 Siegel, 2009; Avner, 2006. 100 Pfeiffer, 2009: Table 1. 101 Ketelaer / Hauptmann, 2016. 102 Klimscha, 2013: 42–43. 103 Pfeiffer, 2009: 321–324. 104 Klimscha, 2011: 189–197. 105 Hartung, 2013. 106 Faltings, 2002. 107 Kerner, 2009; Hikade, 2009. 98

New Models for the End of the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant

97

resources and, of course, access to copper from Timna / Wadi Amram and Feinan. The Southern Arava as a whole was a unique environment, particularly at the immediate mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba. The shoreline was much further north, and higher precipitation generated runoff that supported coastal wetlands and a more extensive range of resources.108 It was also well located at the center of emerging trade networks that involved pastoral nomads, bringing together the animal, stone, and copper economies.109 Environmental conditions, local knowledge, and access to reasonably close copper sources created thus the circumstances for a unique indigenous ‘agro-pastoral-industrial’ experiment, precisely as the larger Chalcolithic was breaking down. However, the Southern Arava location was not advantageous enough for the sites to be rebuilt after earthquakes, particularly as copper production at Feinan was scaling up, and an anthropogenic desertification crisis may have taken hold.110 The new radiocarbon dates and reconstruction presented by Finkelstein and his colleagues,111 who reanalyze Arad and the EB I–III sites of the central Negev and Sinai as functions of trade with Egypt, may also be further contextualized. Tell Magass and Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan were abandoned by approximately 3600 BC, and only the latter was reoccupied later on, after one millennium. This abandonment ended copper production in the southern Arava but also simplified trade with Egypt since copper did not have to travel east the 30km from Timna/Wadi Amram or 150 km south from Feinan and then move again to the north and west. Instead, it was transported directly west across the Arava to the Negev, and then to Egypt, as well as to Early EB I sites that had Egyptian connections, such as Ashkelon.112 Arad’s development in the EB I and later was thus like that of Jawa and steppe sites, only with a focus on copper. How then can we characterize the role of copper at the end of the Chalcolithic? Copper demand from Egypt cannot be quantified, but the sheer scale of copper production at Tell Maqass and Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan and the sites’ dating—precisely between the end of the Chalcolithic and the beginning of the Early Bronze Age—suggest that new patterns of production, exchange, and consumption had thoroughly subsumed earlier ones. The nature of demand changed, and producers responded. Symbolic production disappeared while utilitarian production soared. Still, which was the cause and which the effect? Did increased demand help drive collapse, or did collapse remove constraints on production? Viewed either way, in the first centuries of the 4th millennium, whatever remained of Chalcolithic society, its long-established patterns of long-distance trade and specialized craft production, inherently connected with elites, symbols, and ideologies, experienced another significant influence from its margins. The copper economy, like those of animals and chipped stones, changed the Southern Levant fundamentally; a tightly circulated and ritually charged technology was demystified and widely proliferated, including internationally. Like animals, chipped stones, and olives, copper became another commodity for accumulation, conversion into other sources of wealth, and power.

Local Effects of Collapse: Continuities and Changes The Problem of Settlement Continuity For the moment, it appears there was continuity in population between the Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age.113 Also, as noted at the outset ritual failure—the collapse of longstanding ideological and social

108

Allison / Niemi, 2010. Abu-Azizeh, 2013. 110 Henry et al., 2017. 111 Finkelstein et al., 2018. 112 Golani, 2014. 113 Tangri et al., 1994. The question of Chalcolithic–Early Bronze Age population continuity has been greatly complicated by genetic analyses. Studies suggest an overall population continuity from the Epipaleolithic through the Chalcolithic but also the introduction of new populations bearing variants of the J1 haplotype during the 4th millennium (Salamon et al., 2010; Lazaridis et al., 2016). This would roughly coincide with computational linguistic reconstructions for the divergence of ancestral Semitic languages at c. 3750 BCE followed by their spread to the southern Levant by the end of the 3rd millennium (Kitchen et al., 2009). A recent study also indicated Iranian and Anatolian admixtures to Chalcolithic descendants of local Neolithic populations (Harney et al., 2018). As is often the case, however, integrating 109

98

A. Joffe

structures—explains the end of the Chalcolithic. With these two notions in mind, how can we better explain settlement and material culture and underlying social organization and ideology in the early- to mid-4th millennium? The question of settlement patterns is one that I addressed long ago.114 Far more data from surveys and excavations have become available in the interim, along with countless analyses of material culture, so many that it is not possible to summarize them here. Overall, my early observations regarding regional patterns of Chalcolithic and EB settlement appear to have been broadly supported. With that said, some important qualifications must be emphasized. Hundreds of Chalcolithic sites are known, but there are important contrasts between regions, even between wadi systems, which represent not only stylistic differences but poorly perceived spatial-temporal processes of physical movement and social interaction. Simply put, we do not know how many sites were contemporary, and there are reasons to believe that many settlements were short-lived.115 A related factor is that the Chalcolithic collapse took place over 200–300 years, or even longer when we factor in the late 5th-millennium dissolution of the Be’er Sheva sites. From a material culture perspective, excavated sequences should be reexamined with an eye towards ambiguous assemblages from nebulous contexts dating to this horizon. Also, mixed assemblages in geological, survey, and mortuary contexts116 should be reexamined with an emphasis on stratigraphy, radiocarbon dating, and a broader view of cultural features, and not merely through a ceramic typology imposed on assemblages. Changes in ceramic technologies appear to be a particularly informative area of investigation. At Modi‘in, for example, the most significant changes between the Late Chalcolithic and the EB I levels are in ceramic technologies and materials, less so in vessel shape or type.117 The earliest evidence for EB I settlement comes from a series of sites in different regions, such as Yesodot, Modi‘in-Buchmann, Ashkelon, and perhaps Basatin, Ḥorvat Ptora and Gat Guvrin, and very-small exposures at large sites like Beth Shean, Tell eshShuna, Jericho, Lachish, and Bab edh-Dhra. All show elements that may well represent the elusive ‘transition’, particularly in the difficult to define 3900–3700 BC period. Thus, given what is now known about the chronology and sheer length of the Chalcolithic collapse, my earlier observations regarding settlement continuity need to be revised. Without widerspread excavated evidence showing directly superimposed settlements that can be confirmed by radiocarbon assays to be a more or less continuous sequence, the best we can say is that a number of Chalcolithic sites were ‘reoccupied’ in the EB I, particularly in regions like the Jordan and Beth Shean valleys. Settlement continuity needs to be demonstrated, not assumed, although the timeframe for reconstructing settlement shifts (and locally spiraling stratigraphy) has shrunk to only a few centuries. Intensive regional survey and excavation projects may yield useful data on the shift from the Chalcolithic to the EB, particularly if coupled with micromorphological and other paleoenvironmental research. However, a twin analogy with the EB IV may be cautiously suggested. First, thanks to the lack of evidence and poorly understood ephemeral data, that period was understood for decades as a ‘dark age’. The result was a stream of speculation, most of which is now long outdated. Second, a profound settlement change appeared to take place in that period, with the disappearance of cities and a shift to pastoral nomadism or transhumance. We now understand the progression as being from EB III fortified towns and cities to EB IV agro-pastoral villages and even fortified towns, and arid zone transhumance. Furthermore, most tells were not abandoned completely—they were reduced to villages, i.e., to more ephemeral agricultural settlements—nor were there invaders from the north. Instead, trade routes to both Egypt and North Syria persisted and became vital for transmitting populations, technologies, motifs, and ideologies. This implies, in my opinion, that there were ‘transitional’ Chalcolithic–EB I settlements, and that some of these have already been excavated without being clearly identified, precisely because the genetic, archaeological, and linguistic data is difficult, in part because there are no clear procedures to weigh different categories of evidence, or means to assess the chronology of genetic ‘admixtures’. 114 Joffe, 1993. 115 Fletcher et al., 2007. 116 E.g., Hourani, 2010; Kaptijn / De Vreeze, 2008; Golani / Nagar, 2011. 117 Roux et al., 2013.

New Models for the End of the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant

99

archaeological inclination has been to look for clearly continuous or discontinuous development in material culture; either transitional fossils or a dramatic dividing line, akin to the end of the dinosaurs and the beginning of mammals. However, these transitions may simply be represented in the abundant already excavated remains, including nondescript pits and scattered walls, and by undiagnostic ‘Chalcolithic–EB’ sherds from basal levels and surveys. Chalcolithic material culture, especially pottery, fitted Chalcolithic needs, not our present typologies and chronologies. Different forms could change at different rates in different regions, based on local needs and traditions. Thus, elusive ‘transitional’ materials are likely to be found among these difficult to collect, collate, and date ‘undiagnostic’ remains. We are, after all, looking for remains of a mere few thousands or tens of thousands of people118 spread out over the Southern Levant with relatively little ongoing interaction with one another, sharing a basic ‘culture’ with beliefs and styles—namely pottery styles, a religious-political organization of daily life, land, and especially death—and whose society ‘collapsed’ over a few centuries. Therefore, whatever ‘continuity’ meant, it was on a minute scale, perhaps groups of a few tens or hundreds of people. Collapse simply meant settlements spreading out into new areas and adopting lifeways that were, initially, materially lighter. There were fewer visible investments and fewer specialized craft products, rapidly, or gradually, in terms of ideology and organization. Upward reorganization gradually resumed, taking advantage of newly available technologies, economies, and environmental conditions. Indeed, on the margins—in regions in contact with the evolving animal and stone economies like the Jordanian highlands, the southern Jordan Valley and the Golan—investments appear to have been greater than in the center during this ‘transition’. ‘Collapse’ was thus broadly upward and perhaps quite rapid, proceeding from the outside in. Still, overall, a scenario of a multi-century process that affected regions differentially may also help explain patterns of material and symbolic discontinuity and continuity. Symbolic Collapse and Survival Material remains provide a slightly more concrete basis to assess continuity and discontinuity than settlement patterns. Three observations must be made. The first is that the Chalcolithic period’s elaborate figurative iconography and industries in metal, ivory and ceramic, disappear. Second, certain types of symbolic craft products continue, albeit with very simplified forms and production processes. Third, the basic ceramic repertoire remains, but with significant changes in the organization of craft production. Symbolic collapse has long been one of the most commented-on aspects of the end of the Chalcolithic. It is useful to review some of these features once again. Above all, the tradition of elaborate metalwork, exemplified by the Naḥal Mishmar hoard with its ‘wands’, crowns, and animal iconography, disappeared. Carved ivory and bone objects also disappeared, as did ceramic statues, such as the Gilat Woman. Burials in decorated ossuaries disappeared along with the structural and representational or facial motifs that included the stereotypical Chalcolithic nose and painted designs reminiscent of tattooing. Basalt pillar figurines and violin figurines disappeared too, as did wall paintings with their complex motifs (except in Hujayrat alGhuzlan).119 Noses, breasts, beards, and horns disappear as motifs.120 These symbolic endings were doubly significant; they represent the abandonment of both symbols themselves and highly skilled craft production (and resource procurement) patterns. If nothing else, this represents a dramatic manifestation of ritual failure, and perhaps, as Yekutieli suggests, an aniconic revolution. Still, it should be emphasized that there were also local survivals or refractions of various Chalcolithic ritualized craft traditions that persisted, irregularly and with modifications, into the Early Bronze Age. It is not possible to chart a full chronological or typological sequence for these objects, and hence it is impossible to say what the social or ideological bases for these might have been. Were they conscious survivals, revivals, or mere habit? Or are they merely similar material expressions of familiar or recurring social needs?

118

E.g., Finkelstein / Gophna, 1993. Schmidt, 2009. 120 Milevski / Gadulla, 2014; Shalem, 2015; Drabsch / Bourke, 2014. 119

100

A. Joffe

Maceheads are the clearest example of persistence. Indeed, these objects originated in Northern Mesopotamia and Southeastern Anatolia in the PPNA (e.g., Nemrik 9 and Hallan Cemi) and were symbolic elements that were gradually transmitted to the Southern Levant by the very end of the PPN or certainly the early Pottery Neolithic.121 Chalcolithic maceheads are best known in copper but were made, in fact, of a wide variety of stones as well, while EB examples were made exclusively in stone.122 That these ancient symbols of power and practical tools of violence continued from the Chalcolithic to the EB suggests, if nothing else, that the symbol itself did not disappear, regardless of who wielded it, the underlying ideology, and the mundanity of the material. Maceheads may, in fact, have gained additional resonance in the Early Bronze Age Southern Levant as they were adopted, in Egypt, as symbols of Royal power. The second symbolic item that persisted, albeit with significant changes, were basalt bowls, a topic on which there is an extensive literature. A full discussion of the typologies is beyond the scope of this paper, but a few points should be made.123 First, these items are found in both occupational and mortuary contexts. Second, they are elaborate craft products requiring a complex procurement and/or trade system for raw materials and high-skill manufacturing levels. Third, despite some variation in shape and decoration, there is an overall adherence to basic design conventions.124 EB I basalt bowls, in contrast, are simpler in design and execution, most having flat bases and flaring sides. There are no pedestalled examples, although it might be argued that the most elaborate variety, with four handles, takes Chalcolithic pedestals and bends them over into handles.125 Both Chalcolithic and EB I basalt bowls were static installations for communal drinking or perhaps eating. These two activities were critical for generating and reinforcing social ties, although their premises changed from the Chalcolithic into the EB.126 The need to produce social cohesion through commensality is a kind of human universal. However, while in the Chalcolithic there were close connections between craft production, the objects themselves, and the ritualized behavior, the less elaborate nature of the EB objects suggests these ties loosened in this period, pointing to continuity in resource procurement and basic craft production but not in elaborate rituals. Behavior was the key. Perhaps, above all, the fundamental continuities between Chalcolithic and EB ceramic assemblages should be highlighted. Holemouth jars and straight-sided bowls are the hallmarks of both periods, along with pithoi. The potter’s wheel disappears, and specialized workshops or craftspeople stop producing v-shaped bowls, although the shape effectively continues, as does household production of other utilitarian shapes.127 However, the extensive Chalcolithic repertoire of specialized shapes, such as the globular and pedestalled vessels, is reduced in the EB I to fenestrated pedestalled vessels, often in Grey Burnished Ware.128 Some of these individual shape continuities may be partially explained by localized patterns of collapse, continuity, and regeneration129 (Fig. 6). They may even be explained by limited overlaps between Chalcolithic and EB I communities, similar to those proposed by de Vaux.130

121

Rosenberg, 2010; see also Goring-Morris / Belfer-Cohen, 2016. Rowan / Levy, 2011. 123 See Chasen /Rosenberg, 2018. 124 Rosenberg et al., 2016: 120–124. 125 Braun, 1990. Cf. Rosenberg / Chasen, 2017. The image of the gazelle or ibex present on four handled cups, Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan frescoes, rock art and pavement drawings, and EB cylinder seals, deserves further analysis. Broadly speaking, the connections between desert belief systems, discussed recently by Avner (2018), and those of the Mediterranean zones in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age suggest that both shared an underlying common ‘religion’. Indeed, the concept of a ‘pantheon’ may have been articulated earlier and more clearly in the desert and then spread back to the settled zones. 126 Joffe, 2018. 127 Baldi / Roux, 2016; see also Roux et al., 2013. 128 Braun, 2011: 164–166. 129 I continue to believe that cornets, a Chalcolithic hallmark, persisted in the EB I at some sites, including Megiddo. Unfortunately, this remains a minoritarian view (but see Ussishkin, 2015: 88). 130 De Vaux, 1971. 122

New Models for the End of the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant

101

Figure 6. A selection of cornet bases from Megiddo EB I contexts (photo by the author).

Other elements of material continuity could also be cited, including the persistence of Canaanean blades, which have by now been shown to originate in the Chalcolithic,131 as well as tabular scrapers, albeit with important changes in the organization of production.132 A full systematic treatment of the entire data is thus required. Overall, pottery and craft production with symbolic significance ceases, while those connected to both domestic use and social rituals of cohesion, including commensality, continue. Indeed, drinking appears to increase during the EB I, suggesting, as Homer Simpson once noted, that alcohol is “the cause of, and solution to, all of life’s problems.”

Comparative Perspectives Can a look at other cultures help us understand the end of the Chalcolithic? The ritual-failure scenario described here is familiar to archaeologists, particularly those studying colonial encounters. However, such disruptions may have been more common in prehistory and early historical periods than previously recognized. Levantine prehistory, for example, suggests other environmentally mediated episodes of full or partial collapse, such as the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (ca. 6000 BC). Native American religious-political behavior and thought, for instance, has much to offer to Southern Levantine archaeology. The concept of the kiva, usually regarded as a semi-subterranean ritual structure, has already been applied thoughtfully to extraordinary structures found in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Levant.133 The use of masks in rituals, as well as dolls, also provides much food for thought.

131

Bar / Winter, 2010. Cf. Vardi / Gilead, 2013. 133 Goring-Morris / Belfer-Cohen, 2016: 187–193. 132

102

A. Joffe

Certain regions, particularly in the American Southwest, where short- and long-term environmental changes forced changes on delicately calibrated semi-arid zones cultures, provide rich comparative material. For example, the transition from the pre-classic to the classic Hohokam periods, at c. 1300 CE, saw a shift from communal to individual leadership, yet the persistence of close connections between material culture and craft production deeply suffused with symbolic meanings that were critical for social reproduction.134 The collapse of the Hohokam culture at c. 1450 CE, spreading over some 50,000 sq km, was brought about in large part by climate change, soil degradation, and the abandonment of irrigation systems, though it also showed ‘continuity’ with subsequent cultures. Many such comparisons deserve a more comprehensive study. One avenue, connected to ritual failure, however, seems especially promising; the question of revitalization movements. ‘Revitalization Movements’ Hopi culture of the Southwest, and Native American cultures of the 19th and early 20th centuries more broadly, provide examples of ritual failure and reformulation. The advent of Euro-American populations with superior technologies, organization, and, ultimately, numbers produced repeated crises in Native American religious systems. Unlike crises produced by natural events, like earthquakes and tsunamis, those affecting Native Americans had precise political as well as cultural parameters. Comparisons with ancient societies like the Chalcolithic Southern Levant are thus generalized rather than specific. A framework formulated many years ago by Wallace is of particular use for understanding the psychological dynamics of cultural collapse,135 but also reformulation: the concept of the mazeway. As Wallace put it, the mazeway “is nature, society, culture, personality, and body image, as seen by one person.”136 The mazeway is thus an all-encompassing system situating the individual locally and in the world. Construed more broadly, it describes tensions between the ideal images of self, society, and ‘reality’. However, stress, such as environmental change, produces incongruities between ‘reality’ and the mazeway, which must be resolved somehow. Revitalization movements, in Wallace’s view, encompass a spectrum of responses, including cargo cults that “emphasize the importation of alien values, customs, and materiel into the mazeway”, while “Vitalistic movements” emphasize the importation of alien elements into the mazeway but do not necessarily invoke ship and cargo as the mechanism. “Millenarian movements” emphasize mazeway transformation in an apocalyptic world transformation engineered by the supernatural. “Messianic movements” emphasize the participation of a divine savior in human flesh in the mazeway transformation. These and parallel terms do not denote mutually exclusive categories, for a given revitalization movement may be nativistic, millenarian, messianic, and revivalistic all at once, and it may (in fact, usually does) display ambivalence with respect to nativistic, revivalistic, and importation themes.137 Depending on the circumstances, some individual and groups are better prepared psychologically and culturally to cope with stress and change, while others express “psychodynamically regressive innovations; the regressive response empirically exhibits itself in increasing incidences of such things as alcoholism, extreme passivity and indolence, the development of highly ambivalent dependency relationships, intragroup violence, disregard of kinship and sexual mores, irresponsibility in public officials, states of depression and self-reproach, and probably a variety of psychosomatic and neurotic disorders.”138 As I argued at the outset of this paper, the Chalcolithic was the apotheosis of ‘Neolithization’, a culture balancing on the edge of ‘enchantment’ and ‘materialization’. It may be seen as a series of mazeways, idealized versions of self, society, and reality, with finely tuned tolerances, where harmonic reality was engineered through elaborate rituals through life and death. The environmental, economic, social, and political disruptions described above threw various elements of this system out of kilter; individual and

134

Bayman, 2002. Wallace, 1956. 136 Wallace, 1956: 267. 137 Wallace, 1956: 267. 138 Wallace, 1956: 269. 135

New Models for the End of the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant

103

groups saw their mazeways become unhinged as reality no longer conformed to expectations, and their own actions no longer held reality in check. This is ritual failure. How did Chalcolithic groups respond? As noted above, Chalcolithic settlement systems had begun to dissolve and reform even before the turn of the 5th millennium. We may, most tentatively, posit a westward movement from the Be’er Sheva region to the southern Coastal Plain, while the Jordan Valley remained inhabited. Occupation in the uplands of Samaria and northern Jordan gradually began to increase after 3800 or 3700 BC, as it did in the southeastern Dead Sea region. However, socially and mentally, the template was changed. The social needs for generating social cohesion remained, but the methods and symbols were different. Understanding regeneration is almost as difficult as understanding collapse. Many of the same theories are applied to ‘invaders’ or, more nebulously, ‘influences’ that stimulate upward change. More broadly, archaeology is always confronted with the question of beginnings; how, and who got things started? A few comments are offered, fully recognizing that evidence from the earliest EB I is still fragmentary. The idea of revitalization movements may, however, offer clues. Early Bronze Age religion and cult have been discussed many times, and I do not propose to do so again but only to point out a few suggestive elements. Both Amiran and de Miroschedji pointed out, long ago, that Early Bronze Age art appears to include images of a dying and rising god.139 Fertility rituals, sacred marriages, divine couples, goddesses and their male partners, temple shrines, and bovine images make up most of EB symbolism.140 Clearly, Mesopotamian-styled religious imagery shaped ideology and practice by the EB IB. The evidence for EB I temples is ample, above all at Megiddo, but it also includes a variety of other spaces, ranging from open cult spaces at Jebel al-Mutawwaq to smaller ones within settlements.141 There is also evidence at many sites for ‘communal’ buildings devoid of any apparent religious connotation, and structures dedicated to storage.142 Communal forms of leadership appear to have vied with the monopolization of social storage as pathways for generating social inequality and new institutional forms. However, the Megiddo EB IB temple also forces us to consider the EB temple as a political and economic institution. Where did these temples originate? Who helped post-Chalcolithic society navigate a path toward Mesopotamian-themed imagery and organization? Here, the concept of the revitalization movement may be especially helpful. In 1870 CE, the Paiute tribe of the southwestern state of Nevada faced both Euro-American invaders and catastrophic diseases. A prophet named Wodziwob told his people that he had visited with the dead and had been reassured that they would return to the earth within a few years. Wodziwob’s message appears intended to reassure his people about eternal life but also to encourage demographic revival.143 A few years later, during a full eclipse of the sun on 1 January 1889, another Paiute called Wovoka, also known as Jack Wilson, fell unconscious and had a vision. In it, spirits told him that to restore the world and ultimately be reunited with the dead, they would have to adopt new patterns of work and behavior and perform a five-day ceremony of dancing.144 Word of the Ghost Dance religion, as it became known, spread rapidly across Native American groups, who sent representatives to watch. Many were converted to the new faith and wrote songs that became local expressions of the Ghost Dance religion (Fig. 7).

139

Amiran, 1972; de Miroschedji, 1993. De Miroschedji, 2011. 141 Sala, 2011. 142 Golani / Yannai, 2016. 143 Thornton, 1986: 106. 144 See Lynch, 1990. 140

104

A. Joffe

Figure 7. ‘The Ghost Dance of the Sioux’ (The Illustrated London News, January 3, 1891).

Black Elk of the Oglala Sioux, born in 1863 CE, from a long line of healers and medicine men, had participated in the Battle of Little Big Horn, had been a member of Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show, and had also fought at Wounded Knee. He described the first word of Wovoka’s revelation as “foolish talk that somebody had started somewhere” of “a sacred man among Paiutes who had talked to the Great Spirit in a vision, and the Great Spirit had told him how to save the Indian peoples, and make the Wasichus [white people] disappear and bring back all the bison and all the people who were dead and how there would be a new earth.”145 Though skeptical, he sent emissaries and was convinced by their accounts. Black Elk recalled that groups who had followed Wovoka’s instructions and undertaken the Ghost Dance had seen and conversed with their dead relatives. For his part, Black Elk later converted to Roman Catholicism and became Nicholas Black Elk and is a nominee for beatification. The rapid movement of news regarding revelations and prophecies across the vast area of the Western United States, the catalytic effect that messages had on local communities, and the syncretic nature of resulting religious movements, provide much food for thought for the 4th-millennium-BC Levant and the ancient Near East as a whole. The role of religious messages and messengers in providing one strand of communal leadership and becoming the core of formal institutional adaptations may help explain Early Bronze Age religion and social organization, in particular the sudden emphasis on temples in the EB IB. Shamans who directed the spiritual journey of their community became priests who commanded the extraction of surpluses, sometimes at extraordinary scales. A claim of prophecy would be a useful bridge between one system and another, particularly for emerging elites.

145

Black Elk / Neihardt, 1972: 178.

New Models for the End of the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant

105

Some prophets or their messengers, however, appear to preach steadfastness and adherence to the old faith. In The Plague, Albert Camus’ Father Paneloux character puts the question to his ravaged congregation: “‘My brothers, each one of us must be the one who stays!’ ... No, we should go forward, groping our way through the darkness, stumbling perhaps at times, and try to do what good lay in our power. As for the rest, we must hold fast, trusting in the divine goodness, even as to the deaths of little children, and not seeking personal respite.”146 Smoholla, called The Preacher, was born in 1815 CE in what would become the State of Washington, in the northwest United States. As a young man, he had participated in a vision quest to the sacred mountain Le Lac. There, he ‘died’ and was transported to the spirit world, where he conferred with the Creator, who gave him instructions for his people. He fought in unsuccessful wars against Euro-Americans, but renounced violence and experienced still more epiphanies, which enhanced his standing and prophetic message to his people. He put the question succinctly: “I want my people to stay with me here. All the dead men will come to life again; their spirits will come to their bodies again. We must wait here, in the homes of our fathers, and be ready to meet them in the bosoms of our mother.”147 Who stays behind, who goes forward, and who takes a different path? Of course, we cannot say whether there were Chalcolithic or Early Bronze Age shamans who became prophets and then priests, leading their people to new adaptations. Still, even the most seemingly conservative messages may carry the seeds of redemption.

Conclusions Chalcolithic understanding of the world was the culmination of a ‘psycho-social revolution’, an explosion of cognitive and symbolic behavior that helped construct and maintain Neolithic agro-pastoral communities and identities.148 Replacing it in the Early Bronze Age were new modes of production and social organization where selected elements of Chalcolithic technology and practice persisted, if only for a time. Subsequently, religion, politics, and economics would become separable threads, understandable through the more familiar frameworks of power and accumulation. The Chalcolithic was a paradigm, a way of life, and a system of being. In contrast, the Early Bronze Age transformation was profound and pervasive. Space was decisively reorganized with new concepts of land use and ownership. Time was shifted as the routines of pastoral nomadism, intensified agricultural production, and craft specialization took hold. Commodification reconfigured the material world as weights and measures created standards based around the idea of converting values into another. Labor needs drove social reorganization, as expandable kin groups became the fundamental production units in the Mediterranean zones, and clans and tribes established in the arid zones. Above it all, emerging elites specialized in storage and administration, religion, and violence, who by the EB III became located in palaces. Yet while Chalcolithic collapse was pervasive, some threads connect it with the Early Bronze Age. If nothing else, the need for individuals and groups to reconfigure their mazeways using ‘religion’ persisted as a means to situate themselves, an element of continuity with later periods and perhaps even today.

146

Camus, 1948: 211. Mooney, 1896: 721. 148 Watkins, 2016. 147

106

A. Joffe

Acknowledgments I wish to thank the organizers of the 2018 conference for the opportunity to present the talk on which this paper is based. I also thank Bernadette Drabsch, Bernd Müller-Neuhof, Frank Braemer, Uri Davidovich, Eliot Braun, Shay Bar, Andrew John Wade, James Goff, James Fraser, Tina Niemi, Ricardo Eichmann, Eadaoin Harney, Yuval Yekutieli, and Motti Zohar, for their comments on specific issues, offprints, and opportunities to examine material. Finally, special thanks to Beverly Goodman-Tchernov for discussing with me her data, which provided key inspiration for the ideas described here.

References Abe, M., 2008: The Development of Urbanism and Pastoral Nomads in the Southern Levant: Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Stone Tool Production Industries and Flint Mines in the Jafr Basin, Southern Jordan. PhD Dissertation, University of Liverpool. Abu-Azizeh, W., 2013: “The South-Eastern Jordan’s Chalcolithic – Early Bronze Age Pastoral Nomadic Complex: Patterns of Mobility and Interaction”. Paléorient 39, 149–176. Abu-Azizeh, W. / Tarawneh, M. / Abudanah, F. / Twaissi, S. / Al-Salameen, A., 2014: “Variability within consistency: Cairns and Funerary Practices of the Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic in the AlThulaythuwat Area, Southern Jordan”. Levant 46, 161–185. Ackermann, O. / Greenbaum, N. / Bruins, H. / Bar-Matthews, M. / Almogi-Labin, A. / Schilman, B. / Ayalon, A. / Horwitz, L. K. / Weiss, E. / Maeir, A. M., 2014: “Palaeoenvironment and Anthropogenic Activity in the Southeastern Mediterranean Since the Mid-Holocene: The Case of Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel”. Quaternary International 328–329: 226–243. Adams, M. J. / Finkelstein, I. / Ussishkin, D., 2014: “The Great Temple of Early Bronze I Megiddo”. AJA 118, 1–21. Al-Maqdissi, M. / Braemer, F., 2006: “Labwe (Syrie): Une Ville du Bronze Ancien du Levant Sud”. Paléorient 32, 113–24. Amiran, R., 1972: “A cult stele from Arad”. IEJ 22, 86–88. Angel, J. L., 1966: “Porotic Hyperostosis, Anaemias, Malarias, and Marshes in the Prehistoric Eastern Mediterranean”. Science 153, 760–763. Agnon, A., 2014: “Pre-instrumental Earthquakes Along the Dead Sea Rift”. In Z. Garfunkel / Z. BenAvraham / E. Kagan (eds.): Dead Sea Transform Fault System: Reviews. Dordrecht. Pp. 207–261. Allentuck, A. E., 2013: Human-livestock Relations in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. PhD Dissertation, University of Toronto. Allison, A. J. / Niemi, T., 2010: “Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction of Holocene Coastal Sediments Adjacent to Archaeological Ruins in Aqaba, Jordan”. Geoarchaeology 25, 602–625. Andersson, A., 2015: “Thoughts on material expressions of cultic practice. Standing stone monuments of the Early Bronze Age in the southern Levant”. In N. Laneri (ed.): Defining the Sacred, Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion in the Near East. Oxford. Pp. 161–175. Asouti, E. / Kabukcu, C. / White, C. E. / Kuijt, I. / Finlayson, B. / Makarewicz, C., 2015: “Early Holocene Woodland Vegetation and Human Impacts in the Arid Zone of the Southern Levant”. The Holocene 25, 1565–1580. Avnaim-Katav, S. / Almogi-Labin, A. / Agnon, A. / Porat, N. / Sivan, D., 2017: “Holocene Hydrological Events and Human Induced Environmental Changes Reflected in a Southeastern Mediterranean Fluvial Archive”. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 468, 263–275. Avner, U., 1984: “Ancient Cult Sites in the Negev and Sinai Deserts”. Tel Aviv 11, 115–131. — 2002: Studies in the material and spiritual culture of the Negev and Sinai population during the 6th–3rd millennia B.C. PhD Dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. — 2006: “Settlement pattern in the ‘Araba Valley and the adjacent desert areas, a view from the Eilat region”. In P. Bienkowski / K. Galor (eds): Crossing the Rift: Resources, Settlements Patterns and Interaction in the Wadi Arabah. Oxford. Pp. 51–74. — 2018: “Protohistoric Developments of Religion and Cult in the Negev Desert”. Tel Aviv 45, 23–62.

New Models for the End of the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant

107

Avner, U. / Horwitz, L. K. / Horwitz, W., 2018: “Symbolism of the Ibex Motif in Negev Rock Art.” Journal of Arid Environments 143, 35–43. Baldi, J. / Roux, V., 2016: “The Innovation of The Potter’s Wheel: A Comparative Perspective Between Mesopotamia and the Southern Levant”. Levant 48, 236–253. Bar, S., 2015: “The Settlement Patterns in the Northern Samaria Highlands During the Late Chalcolithic Period”. PEQ 147, 87–103. Bar, S. / Winter, H., 2010: “Canaanean Flint Blades in Chalcolithic Context and the Possible Onset of the Transition to the Early Bronze Age: A Case Study from Fazael 2”. Tel Aviv 37, 33–47. Bar-Matthews, M. / Ayalon, A., 2011: “Mid-Holocene Climate Variations Revealed by High-Resolution Speleothem Records from Soreq Cave, Israel and their Correlation with Cultural Changes”. The Holocene 21, 163–171. Bar-Yosef, O., 2016: “Changes in “Demand And Supply” for Mass Killings of Gazelles During the Holocene”. In N. Marom / R. Yeshurun / L. Weissbrod / G. Bar-Oz (eds.): Bones and Identity, Zooarchaeological Approaches to Reconstructing Social and Cultural Landscapes in Southwest Asia. Oxford. Pp. 113–124. Barker, G. / Adams, R. / Creighton, O. / el-Rishi, H. / Gilbertson, D. / Grattan, J. / Hunt, C. / Newson, P. / Pyatt, B. / Reynolds, T., 2008: “Chalcolithic (c.5000–3600 cal. BC) and Bronze Age (c.3600–1200 cal. BC) Settlement in Wadi Faynan: Metallurgy and Social Complexity”. In G. Barker / D. Gilbertson / D. J. Mattingly (eds.): Archaeology and Desertification: The Wadi Faynan Landscape Survey, Southern Jordan. Oxford. Pp. 227–270. Bayman, J. M., 2002: “Hohokam Craft Economies and the Materialization of Power”. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9, 69–95. Bell, C., 1997: Rituals, Perspectives and Dimensions. Oxford. Ben-Yosef, E. / Gidding, A. D. / Tauxe, L. / Davidovich, U. / Najjar, M. / Levy, T. E., 2016: “Early Bronze Age Copper Production Systems in the Northern Arabah Valley: New Insights from Archaeomagnetic Study of Slag Deposits in Jordan and Israel”. Journal of Archaeological Science 72, 71–84. Benjamin, J. / Rovere, A. / Fontana, A. / Furlani, S. / Vacchi, M. / Inglis, R. H. / Galili, E. / Antonioli, F. / Sivan, D. / Miko, S. / Mourtzas, N. / Felja, I. / Meredith-Williams, M. / Goodman-Tchernov, B. / Kolaiti, E. / Anzidei, M. / Gehrel, W. R., 2017: “Late Quaternary Sea-Level Changes and Early Human Societies in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean Basin: An Interdisciplinary Review”. Quaternary International 449, 29–57 Black Elk, N. / Neihardt, J. G., 1972: Black Elk Speaks:Being the Life Story of a Holy Man of the Oglala Sioux. Lincoln. Bookman (Ken-Tor), R. / Enzel, Y. / Agnon, A. / Stein, M., 2004: “Late Holocene Lake Levels of the Dead Sea”. Geological Society of America Bulletin 116, 555–571. Bourke, S. J., 2014: “Urban Origins in the Early Bronze Age Jordan Valley: Recent Discoveries from Pella in Jordan”. In F. Höflmayer / R. Eichmann (eds.): Egypt and the Southern Levant during the Early Bronze Age. Rahden / Westfalen. Pp. 3–18. Bourke, S. J. / Lawson, E. / Lovell, J. / Hua, Q. / Zoppi, U. / Barbetti, M., 2001: “The Chronology of the Ghassulian Chalcolithic Period in the Southern Levant: New 1 4 C Determinations from Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan”. Radiocarbon 43, 1217–1222. Bradbury, J. / Braemer, F. / Sala, M., 2014: “Fitting Upland, Steppe, and Desert into a ‘Big Picture’ Perspective: A Case Study from Northern Jordan” Levant 46, 206–229. Braemer, F. / Echallier, J-C / al-Taraqji, A. (eds.), 2004: Khirbet al-Umbashi. Villages et campements de pasteurs dans le désert noir (Syrie) à l’âge du Bronze. Beyrouth. Braemer, F. / Geyer, B. / Castel, C. / Abdulkarim, M., 2010: “Conquest of New Lands and Water Systems in the Western Fertile Crescent (Central and Southern Syria)”. Water History 2, 91–114. Braun, E., 1990: “Basalt Vessels of the EB I Horizon in the Southern Levant”. Paléorient 16, 87–96. — 2011: “The Transition from Chalcolithic to Early Bronze I in the Southern Levant: A ‘Lost Horizon’ slowly revealed”. In J. L. Lovell / Y. M. Rowan (eds.): Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic, Theory and Transition. Oxford. Pp. 160–177.

108

A. Joffe

Braun, E. / van den Brink, E. C. M. / Regev, J. / Boaretto, E. / Bar, S., 2012: “Aspects of Radiocarbon Determinations and the Dating of the Transition from the Chalcolithic Period to Early Bronze Age I in the Southern Levant”. Paléorient 39, 23–46. Braun, Y. / Kagan, E. J. / Bar-Matthews, M. / Ayalon, A. / Agnon, A., 2011: “Dating Speleoseismites near the Dead Sea Transform and the Carmel Fault: Clues to Coupling of a Plate Boundary and its Branch”. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 58, 257–273. van den Brink, E. C. M., 2011 : “Continuity and change – Cultural Transmission in the Late Chalcolithic– Early Bronze Age I: A View from Modi‘in, a Late Prehistoric Site in Central Israel” In J. L. Lovell / Y. M. Rowan, (eds.): Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic, Theory and Transition. Oxford. Pp. 61–70. van den Brink, E. C. M. / Liphschitz, N. / Lazar, D. / Bonani, G., 2001: “Chalcolithic Dwelling Remains, Cup Marks and Olive (Olea europaea) Stones at Nevallat”. IEJ 51, 36–43. Brooks, N., 2013: “Beyond Collapse: Climate Change and Causality During the Middle Holocene Climatic Transition, 6400–5000 Years Before Present”. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 112, 93–104. Camus, A., 1948: The Plague. Translated from French by Stuart Gilbert. New York. Casadei, E., 2018: “Linking the river and the desert: The Early Bronze Age I pottery assemblage of the Wadi Zarqa region”. In F. Höflmayer (ed.): Economy & Society, Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Volume 2. Wiesbaden. Pp. 287–301. Cauvin, J., 2000: The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture. Translated by T. Watkins. Cambridge. Chasen, R. / Rosenberg, D., 2018: “Basalt vessels in Chalcolithic burial caves: Variations in Prestige Burial Offerings During the Chalcolithic Period of the Southern Levant and their Social Significance”. Quaternary International 464 Part A, 226–240. Clarke, J. / Brooks, N. / Banning, E. B. / Bar-Matthews, M. / Campbell, S. / Clare, L. / Cremaschi, M. / di Lernia, S. / Drake, N. / Gallinaro , M. / Manning, S. / Nicoll, K. / Philip, G. / Rosen, S. / Schoop, U-D / Tafuri, M. A. / Weninger, B. / Zerboni, A., 2016: “Climatic Changes and Social Transformations in the Near East and North Africa During the ‘Long’ 4th Millennium BC: A Comparative Study of Environmental and Archaeological Evidence”. Quaternary Science Reviews 136, 96–121. Cohen-Klonymus, H. / Bar, S., 2016: “Ground Stone Tool Assemblages at the End of the Chalcolithic Period: A Preliminary Analysis of the Late Chalcolithic Sites in the Fazael Valley”. Journal of Lithic Studies 3, 103–123. Dawson, L. / Levy, T. E. / Smith, P., 2003: “Evidence of Interpersonal Violence at the Chalcolithic Village of Shiqmim (Israel)”. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 13, 115–119. Davies, H., 2002: “Tsunamis and the Coastal Communities of Papua New Guinea”. In R. Torrance / J. Grattan (eds.): Natural Disasters and Cultural Change. London. Pp. 28–42. Diamond, J., 2005: Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. London. Dinies, M. / Neef, R. / Kürschner, L., 2011: “Holocene Vegetational Development and the Beginning of Oasis Cultivation in Tayma, North-Western Saudi-Arabia – First Results”. Polen 21, 9–14. Drabsch, B. / Bourke, S. J., 2014: “Ritual, Art and Society in the Levantine Chalcolithic: The ‘Processional’ Wall Painting from Teleilat Ghassul”. Antiquity 88, 1081–1098. Eichmann, R. / Schaudig, H. / Hausleiter, A., 2006: “Archaeology and Epigraphy at Tayma (Saudi Arabia)”. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 17, 163–176. Eitam, D., 2009: “Cereal in the Ghassulian Culture in Central Israel: Grinding Installation as a Case Study”. IEJ 59, 63–79. Enzel, Y. / Kushnir, Y. / Quade, J., 2015: “The Middle Holocene Climatic Records from Arabia: Reassessing Lacustrine Environments, Shift of ITCZ in Arabian Sea, and Impacts of the Southwest Indian and African Monsoons”. Global and Planetary Change 129, 69–91. Estebana, M. / Tsimopoulou, V. / Shibayama, T. / Mikamia, T. / Ohira, K., 2013: “Analysis of Tsunami Culture in Countries Affected by Recent Tsunamis”. Procedia Environmental Sciences 17, 693–702. Faltings, D. A., 1998: “The Chronological Frame and Social Structure of Buto in the Fourth Millennium BCE”. In E. C. M. van den Brink / T. E. Levy (eds.): Egypt and rhe Levant: Interrelations from the 4th Through the Early 3rd Millennium BCE. Leicester. Pp. 65–170.

New Models for the End of the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant

109

Faust, A. / Ashkenazy, Y., 2007: “Excess in Precipitation as a Cause for Settlement Decline Along the Israeli Coastal Plain During the Third Millennium BC”. Quaternary Research 68, 37–44. Finkel, M. / Barkai, R. / Gopher, A. / Tirosh, O. / Ben-Yosef, E., 2019: “The “Flint Depot” of Prehistoric Northern Israel: Comprehensive Geochemical Analyses of Flint Extraction and Reduction Complexes and Implications for Provenance Studies”. Geoarchaeology 2019, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.21727. Finkelstein, I. / Adams, M. J. / Dunseth, Z. C. / Shahack-Gross, R., 2018: “The Archaeology and History of the Negev and Neighbouring Areas in the Third Millennium BCE: A New Paradigm”. Tel Aviv 45, 63– 88. Finkelstein, I. / Gophna, R., 1993: “Settlement, Demographic, and Economic Patterns in the Highlands of Palestine in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Periods and The Beginning of Urbanism”. BASOR 289, 1–23. Fletcher, R. / Winter, R. / Gilead, I., 2007: “Patterning Human Behavior in Chalcolithic Southern Palestine: Differing Scales of Physical and Environmental Analysis”. In A. Posluschny / K. Lambers / I. Herzog (eds.): Computer Applications in Archaeology Conference, Berlin, 2–6/2007. Bonn. Pp. 257–265. Fogelin, L., 2007: “The Archaeology of Religious Ritual”. Annual Review of Anthropology 36, 55–71. Fraser, J. A., 2015: Dolmens in the Levant. PhD Dissertation, University of Sydney. Freikman, M., 2011: “Pillar Figures of the Golan Chalcolithic: Evidence of Ritual Destruction”. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 41, 83–94. — 2014: “Ritual Burial of Houses: Evidence from the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant”. Judaica Petropolitana 2, 5–24. Frumkin, A. / Kadan, G. / Enzel, Y. / Eyal, Y., 2001: “Radiocarbon Chronology of the Holocene Dead Sea: Attempting a Regional Correlation”. Radiocarbon 43, 1179–1189. Fujii, S., 2011: “‘Lost Property’ at Wadi Qusayr 173: Evidence for the Transportation of Tabular Scrapers in the Jafr Basin, Southern Jordan”. Levant 43, 1–14. — 2013: “Chronology of the Jafr Prehistory and Protohistory: A Key to the Process of Pastoral Nomadization in the Southern Levant”. Syria 90, 49–125. Galli, P., 1999: “Active Tectonics Along the Wadi Araba-Jordan Valley Transform Fault”. Journal of Geophysical Research 104 (B2), 2777–2796. Gallo, E., 2014: “Destructions in Early Bronze Age Southern Levant”. In L. Nigro (ed.): Overcoming Catastrophes, Essays on Disastrous Agents Characterization and Resilience Strategies in Pre-Classical Southern Levant. Rome. Pp. 141–169. Gebel, H. G. K., 2010: “Commodification and Tthe Formation of Early Neolithic Social Identity. The Issues as seen from The Southern Jordanian Highlands”. In M. Benz (ed.): The Principle of Sharing. Segregation and Construction of Social Identities at the Transition from Foraging to Farming. Berlin. Pp. 35–80. Gebel, H. G. K. / Mahasneh, H. M., 2013: “Disappeared by Climate Change: The Shepherd Cultures of Qulban Ceni Murra (2nd Half of the 5th Millennium BC) and their Aftermath”. Syria 90, 127–158. Gibson, S. / Rowan, Y. M., 2006: “The Chalcolithic in the Central Highlands of Palestine: A Reassessment Based on a New Examination of Khirbet es-Sauma‘a”. Levant 38, 85–108. Gilead, I., 2002: “Religio-Magic Behavior in the Chalcolithic Period of Palestine”. In S. Ahituv / E. D. Oren (eds.): Aharon Kempinski Memorial Volume: Studies in Archaeology and Related Disciplines. Beersheva. Pp. 103– 128. — 2011: “Chalcolithic Culture History: Ghassulian and Other Entities in the Southern Levant”. In J. L. Lovell / Y. M. Rowan (eds.): Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic, Theory and Transition. Oxford. Pp. 12– 24. Goff, J. R. / McFadgen, B. G., 2003: “Large Earthquakes and the Abandonment of Prehistoric Coastal Settlements in 15th Century New Zealand”. Geoarchaeology 18, 609–623. Golani, A., 2014: “Ashqelon During the EB I Period – A Centre for Copper Processing and Trade”. In A. Mączyńska (ed.): The Nile Delta as a Centre of Cultural Interactions between Upper Egypt and the Southern Levant in the 4th Millennium BC. Poznań. Pp. 119–137.

110

A. Joffe

Golani, A. / Nagar, Y., 2011: “Newly Discovered Burials of the Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age in Southern Canaan –Evidence of Cultural Continuity?” In J. L. Lovell / Y. M. Rowan (eds.): Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic, Theory and Transition. Oxford. Pp. 84–96. Golani, A. / Yannai, E., 2016: “Storage Structures of the Late Early Bronze I in the Southern Levant and the Urbanisation Process”. PEQ 148, 8–41. Golden, J., 2009: “New Light on the Development of Chalcolithic Metal Technology in the Southern Levant”. Journal of World Prehistory 22, 283–300. Goodman-Tchernov, B. / Katz, O., 2016 : “Holocene-Era Submerged Notches Along the Southern Levantine Coastline: Punctuated Sea Level Rise?” Quaternary International 401, 17–27. Gophna, R. / Liphschitz, N. / Lev-Yadun, S., 1986: “Man’s Impact on the Natural Vegetation of the Central Coastal Plain of Israel During the Chalcolithic Period and the Bronze Age”. Tel Aviv 13, 71–84. Goren, Y., 2008: “The Location of Specialized Copper Production by the Lost Wax Technique in the Chalcolithic Southern Levant”. Geoarchaeology 23, 374–397. Goring-Morris, A. N. / Belfer-Cohen, A., 2016: “The Appearance of the Neolithic in the Levant: Sudden? Gradual? And Where From?” Der Anschnitt 31, 185–198. Gosic, M. / Gilead, I., 2015: “Casting the Sacred: Chalcolithic Metallurgy and Ritual in the Southern Levant”. In N. Laneri (ed.): Defining the Sacred, Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion in the Near East. Oxford. Pp. 161–175. Grigson C., 2012: “Size Matters – Donkeys and Horses in the Prehistory of the Southernmost Levant”. Paléorient 38, 185–201. Haas, N. / Nathan, H., 1973: “An Attempt at a Social Interpretation of the Chalcolithic Burials in the Nahal Mishmar Caves”. In Y. Aharoni (ed.): Excavations and Studies: Essays in Honor of Professor Shemuel Yeivin. Tel Aviv. Pp. 143–153. Harney, E. / May, H. / Shalem, D. / Rohland, N. / Mallick, S. / Lazaridis, I. / Sarig, R. / Stewardson, K. / Nordenfelt, S. / Patterson, N. / Hershkovitz, I. / Reich, D., 2018: “Ancient DNA from Chalcolithic Israel Reveals the Role of Population Mixture in Cultural Transformation”. Nature Communications 9, 3316. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05649-9 Hartung, U., 2013: “Some Remarks on the Chronological Position of the Predynastic Settlement at Maadi (Egypt) and its Relations to the Southern Levant”. Paléorient 39, 177–191. — 2014: “Interconnections Between the Nile Valley and the Southern Levant in the 4th Millennium BC”. In F. Höflmayer / R. Eichmann (eds.): Egypt and the Southern Levant During the Early Bronze Age. Rahden / Westfalen. Pp. 107–133. Hennessy, J. B., 1969: “Preliminary Report on a First Season of Excavations at Teieilat Ghassul”. Levant 1, 1–24. Henry, D. O. / Cordova, C. E. / Portillo, M. / Albert, R-M / DeWitt, R. / Emery-Barbie, A., 2017: “Blame it on the Goats? Desertification in the Near East During the Holocene”. The Holocene 27, 625–637. Hikade, T., 2009: “The Lithic Industry at Tall Hujayrat Al-Ghuzlan – Campaigns 2000–2003”. In L. Khalil / K. Schmidt (eds.): Prehistoric Aqaba I. Rahden / Westfalen. Pp. 233–246. Höflmayer, F., 2015: “The Southern Levant, Egypt, and the 4.2 ka BP Event”. In H. Meller / H. W. Arz / R. Jung / R. Risch (eds.): 2200 BC – Ein Klimasturz als Ursache für den Zerfall der Alten Welt? 2200 BC – A Climatic Breakdown as a Cause for the Collapse of the Old World? Halle. Pp. 113–130. Hourani, F., 2010: “Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I Transition Settlements in the Middle Jordan Valley: Investigating Alluvial Sequences as a Chronostratigraphic Framework, and Cycles as a Social Organising Component”. Paléorient 36, 123–139. Ilan, D. / Rowan, Y. M., 2012: “Deconstructing and Recomposing the Narrative of Spiritual Life in the Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant (4500–3600 B.C.E.)”. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 21, 89–113. Joffe, A. H., 1993: Settlement and Society in the Early Bronze I–II Southern Levant. Sheffield. — 2018: “Notes on Early Bronze Age Commensality”. In I. Shai / J. R. Chadwick / L. Hitchcock / A. Dagan / C. McKinny / J. Uziel (eds.): Tell it in Gath: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel. Essays in Honor of A. M. Maeir on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. Münster. Pp. 41–70.

New Models for the End of the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant

111

Joffe, A. H. / Dessel, J. P., 1995: “Redefining Chronology and Terminology for the Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant”. Current Anthropology 36, 507–518. Joffe, A. H. / Dessel, J. P. / Hallote, R. S., 2001: “The Gilat Woman: Female Iconography, Chalcolithic Cult, and the End of Southern Levantine Prehistory”. Near Eastern Archaeology 61, 8–23. Kagan, E. M. / Bar-Matthews, M. / Ayalon, A. / Agnon, A., 2005: “Dating Large and Infrequent Earthquakes Using Damaged Cave Deposits”. Geology 33, 251–264. Kaptijn, E. / de Vreeze, M., 2008: “Different Communities or Changing Pottery Techniques? The Transition from the Late Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age Discovered at Qatar Damiyeh (Jordan Valley)”. Leiden Journal of Pottery Studies 24, 75–94. Kenyon, K., 1979: Archaeology in the Holy Land. London. Kerner, S., 2009: “The Pottery of Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan 1998 to 2004”. In L. Khalil / K. Schmidt (eds.): Prehistoric Aqaba I. Rahden / Westfalen. Pp. 127–232. Ketelaer, A. / Hauptmann, A., 2016: “In the Shadow of Timna? The Mining Region of Wadi Amram, New Analytical and Archaeological Aspects”. Metalla 22, 169–183. Kitchen, A. / Ehret, C. / Assefa, S. / Mulligan, C. J., 2009: “Bayesian Phylogenetic Analysis of Semitic Languages Identifies an Early Bronze Age Origin of Semitic in The Near East”. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 276, 2703–2710. Klimscha, F., 2009: “Radiocarbon Dates from Prehistoric Aqaba and Other Related Sites from the Chalcolithic Period”. In L. Khalil / K. Schmidt (eds.): Prehistoric Aqaba I. Rahden / Westfalen. Pp. 363– 401. — 2011: “Long-Range Contacts in the Late Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant. Excavations at Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan and Tall al-Magass Near Aqaba, Jordan”. In J. Mynářová (ed.): Egypt and the Near East – the Crossroads. Proceedings of an International Conference on the Relations of Egypt and the Near East in the Bronze Age, Prague, September 1–3, 2010. Prague. PP. 177–210. — 2013: “Innovations in Chalcolithic Metallurgy in the Southern Levant During the 5th and 4th Millennium BC. Copper-Production at Tall Hujayrāt al-Ghuzlān and Tall al-Magaṣṣ, Άqaba Area, Jordan”. In S. Burmeister / S. Hansen / M. Kunst / N. Müller-Scheeßel (eds.): Metal Matters. Innovative Technologies and Social Change in Prehistory and Antiquity. Rahden / Westfalen. Pp. 31–64. Klimscha, F. / Notroff, J. / Siegel, U., 2014: “New Data on the Socio-Economic Relations Between Egypt and the Southern Levant in the 4th Millennium BC. A Jordanian Perspective”. In F. Höflmayer / R. Eichmann (eds.): Egypt and the Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age. Rahden / Westfalen. Pp. 165– 180. Korjenkov, A. M. / Schmidt, K., 2009: “An Archaeoseismological study at Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan: Seismic Destruction of Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Structures”. In L. Khalil / K. Schmidt. (eds.): Prehistoric Aqaba I. Rahden / Westfalen. Pp. 79–97. Langgut, D. / Finkelstein, I., Litt, T. / Neumann, F. H. / Stein, M., 2015: “Vegetation and Climate Changes During the Bronze and Iron Ages (~3600–600 BCE) in the Southern Levant Based on Palynological Records”. Radiocarbon 57, 217–335. Langgut, D. / Adams, M. J. / Finkelstein, I., 2016: “Climate, Settlement Patterns and Olive Horticulture in the Southern Levant During the Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Ages (c. 3600–1950 BC)”. Levant 48, 117–134. Lazaridis, I. / Nadel, D. / Rollefson, G. et al., 2016: “Genomic Insights into the Origin of Farming in the Ancient Near East.” Nature 536 (7617), 419–424. Lev-Tov N. / Gopher, A. / Smith, P. E. L., 2003: “Dental Evidence for Dietary Practices in the Chalcolithic period. The Findings from a Burial Cave in Peqi‘in (Northern Israel)”. Paléorient 29, 121–134. Levy, T. E., 1981: Chalcolithic Settlement and Subsistence in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel. PhD Dissertation, University of Sheffield. — 1998: “Cult, Metallurgy, and Rank Societies–Chalcolithic Period (ca. 4500–3500 BCE)”. In T. E. Levy (ed.): The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. New York. Pp. 226–243. Levy, T. E. / Shalev, S., 1989: “Prehistoric Metalworking in the Southern Levant: Archaeometallurgical and Social Perspectives”. World Archaeology 20, 352–372.

112

A. Joffe

Liphschitz, N., 2008: “Reconstruction of the Arboreal Vegetation of the Judean and Samarian Mountains During Antiquity as Evident from Archaeological Wood Remains”. In S. Bar (ed.): In the Hill-Country, and in the Shephelah, and in the Arabah, Jerusalem (Joshua 12, 8): Studies and Researches Presented to Adam Zertal in the Thirtieth Anniversary of the Manasseh Hill-Country Survey. Jerusalem. Pp. 44–51. Lynch, D., (ed.), 1990: Wovoka and the Ghost Dance. Lincoln. Marco, S. / Agnon, A. / Ussishkin, D. / Finkelstein, I., 2006: “Megiddo Earthquakes”. In I. Finkelstein / D. Ussishkin / B. Halpern (eds.): Megiddo IV. The 1998–2002 Seasons. Tel Aviv. PP. 568–575. Marcus, E., 2002: “Early Seafaring and Maritime Activity in the Southern Levant from Prehistory Through the Third Millennium BCE”. In E. C. M. van den Brink / T. E. Levy (eds.): Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th Through the Early 3rd Millennium BCE. London. Pp. 403–417. McAnany, P. A. / Yoffee, N., (eds.), 2010: Questioning Collapse: Human Resilience, Ecological Vulnerability, and the Aftermath of Empire. Cambridge. Middleton, G. D., 2017a: Understanding Collapse: Ancient history and Modern Myths. Cambridge. — 2017b: “The show must go on: Collapse, Resilience, and Transformation in 21st-Century Archaeology”. Reviews in Anthropology 46, 78–105. Migowski, C. / Agnon, A. / Bookman, R. / Negendank, J. F. W. / Stein, M., 2004: “Recurrence Pattern of Holocene Earthquakes Along the Dead Sea Transform Revealed by Varve-Counting and Radiocarbon Dating of Lacustrine Sediments”. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 222, 301–314. Migowski, C. / Stein, M. / Prasad, S. Negendank, / J. F. W. / Agnon, A., 2006: “Holocene Climate Variability and Cultural Evolution in the Near East from the Dead Sea Sedimentary Record”. Quaternary Research 66, 421–431. Milevski, I. / Gadulla, B., 2014: “Minor Arts and Society in the Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant”. In P. Bieliński / M. Gawlikowski / R. Koliński / D. Ławecka / A. Sołtysiak / Z. Wygnańska (eds.): Plenary Sessions, Township and Villages, High and Low – The Minor Arts for the Elite and for the Populace. Wiesbaden. Pp. 489–503. de Miroschedji, P., 1993: “Cult and religions in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age”. In A. Biran / J. Aviram (eds.): Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990, Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June–July 1990. Jerusalem. Pp. 208–220. — 2011: “At the Origin of Canaanite Cult and Religion: The Early Bronze Age Fertility Ritual in Palestine”. Eretz Israel 30, 74*–103*. Mooney, J., 1890: The Ghost-Dance religion and the Sioux Outbreak of 1890. Washington, D.C. Müller-Neuhof, B., 2013a: “Preliminary Results of the 2010 Cortical Scraper Mine Survey in the Greater Wadi Ruwayshid Region (N/E Jordan)”. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 11, 71–80. — 2013b: “Southwest Asian Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age Demand for ‘Big Tools’: Specialised Flint Exploitation Beyond the Fringes of Settled Regions”. Lithic Technology 37, 220–236. — 2013c: “Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age Flint Mines in the Northern Badia”. Syria 90, 177–188. — 2014: “A ‘Marginal’ Region with Many Options: The Diversity of Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age SocioEconomic Activities in the Hinterland of Jawa”. Levant 46, 230–248. — 2017: “The Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age Hillfort Phenomenon in the Northern Badia”. Near Eastern Archaeology 80, 124–131. Müller-Neuhof, B. / Abu-Azizeh, W., 2016: “Milestones for a Tentative Chronological Framework for the Late Prehistoric Colonization of the Basalt Desert (Northeastern Jordan)”. Levant 48, 220–235. Müller-Neuhof, B. / Betts, A. / Wilcox, G., 2015: “Jawa, Northeastern Jordan: The first 14C Dates for the Early Occupation Phase”. Zeitschrift für Orientarchäologie 8, 124–131. Nicolle, C., 2012: “The mid-4th Millennium Gathering Site of Mutawwaq in Northern Jordan”. In J. R. Muniz Alvarez (ed.): Ad Orientem. Del final del Paleolítico en el norte de España a las primeras civilizaciones del Oriente Próximo. Estudios en Homenaje al Professor Juan Antonio Fernández-Tresguerres. Oviedo. Pp. 431–446. Nicolle, C. / Braemer, F., 2013: “Settlement Networks in the Southern Levant in the mid-4th Millennium BC: Sites with Double-Apsed Houses in the Leja Area of Southern Syria During the EBA IA”. Levant 44, 1– 16.

New Models for the End of the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant

113

Porat, N. / Sivan, D. / Zviely, D., 2008: “Late Holocene Embayment Infill and Shoreline Migration, Haifa Bay, Eastern Mediterranean”. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 57, 21–31. Quintero, L. / Wilke, P. / Rollefson, G. O., 2002: “From Flint Mine to Fan Scraper: The Late Prehistoric Jafr Industrial Complex”. BASOR 327, 17–48. Regev, J. / de Miroschedji, P. / Greenberg, R. / Braun, E. / Greenhut, Z. / Boaretto, E., 2012: “Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: New Analysis for a High Chronology”. Radiocarbon 54, 525–566. Regev, J. / Regev, L. / Mintz, E. / Boaretto, E., 2017: “Radiocarbon Assessment of Early Bronze Arad: The 20 Year Lifespan of Stratum II”. Tel Aviv 44, 156–177. Roberts, C. N. / Brayshaw, D. J. / Kuzucuoglu, C. / Perez, R. / Sadori, L.,2011: “The mid-Holocene Climatic Transition in the Mediterranean: Causes and Consequences”. The Holocene 21, 3–13. Roberts, C. N. / Eastwood, W. J. / Kuzucuoglu, C. / Fiorentino, G. / Caracuta, V., 2011: “Climatic, Vegetation and Cultural Change in the Eastern Mediterranean During the mid-Holocene Environmental Transition”. The Holocene 21, 147–162. Roberts, C. N. / Woodbridge, J. / Palmisano, A. / Bevan, A. / Fyfe, R. / Shennan, S., 2019: “Mediterranean Landscape Change During the Holocene: Synthesis, Comparison and Regional Trends in Population, Land Cover and Climate”. The Holocene 29, 923–937. Robinson, W. A., 2013: Earthquake: Nature and Culture. London. Rollefson, G. O., 2011: “The Greening of the Badlands: Pastoral Nomads and the “Conclusion” of Neolithization in the Southern Levant”. Paléorient 37, 101–109. Rosen, S. A., 2011: “Desert Chronologies and Periodization Systems”. In Y. M. Rowan / J. Lovell (eds.): Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic. London. Pp. 71–83. — 2013: “Scale and Discontinuity in the Central Negev (Israel) in the Fourth Millennium BCE”. Paléorient 39, 139–148. — 2017: Revolutions in the Desert: The Rise of Mobile Pastoralism in the Southern Levant. New York. Rosenberg, D., 2010: “Early Maceheads in the Southern Levant: A ‘‘Chalcolithic’’ Hallmark in Neolithic Context”. Journal of Field Archaeology 35, 204–216. Rosenberg, D. / Chasen, R., 2017: “The Characteristics and Significance of Prestige Goods During the Early Bronze Age Period of the Southern Levant: The Particular Case of the Four-Handled Basalt Vessels Phenomenon”. Quaternary International 464 (Part A), 241–259. Rosenberg, D. / Chasen, R. / van den Brink, E. C. M., 2016: “Craft Specialization, Production and Exchange in the Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant: Insights from the Study of the Basalt Bowl Assemblage from Namir Road, Tel Aviv, Israel”. Eurasian Prehistory 13, 105–128. Rosenberg, D. / Shimelmitz. R., 2017: “Perforated Stars: Networks of Prestige Item Exchange and the Role of Perforated Flint Objects in the Late Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant”. Current Anthropology 58, 295–306. Roux, V. / van den Brink, E. C. M. / Shalev, S., 2013: “Continuity and Discontinuity in the Shephela (Israel) Between the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze I: The Modi‘in “Deep Deposits” Ceramic Assemblages as a Case Study”. Paléorient 39, 63–81. Rowan, Y. M. / Golden, J., 2009: “The Chalcolithic Period of the Southern Levant: A Synthetic Review”. Journal of World Prehistory 22, 1–92. Rowan, Y. M. / Levy, T. E., 2011: “Transition in Macehead Manufacture in the Ancient Levant: A Case Study from Nahal Tillah (Tel Halif Terrace) Israel”. In M. S. Chesson (ed.): Daily Life, Materiality, and Complexity in Early Urban Communities of the Southern Levant: Papers in Honor of Walter E. Rast and R. Thomas Schaub. Winona Lake. Pp. 199–218. Sala, M., 2011: “Sanctuaries, Temples and Cult Places in Early Bronze I Southern Levant”. Vicino and Medio Oriente XV, 1–32. Salamon, M. / Tzur, S. / Arensburg, B. / Zias, J. / Nagar, Y. / Weiner, S. / Boaretto, E., 2010: “Ancient Mtdna Sequences and Radiocarbon Dating of Human Bones from the Chalcolithic Caves of Wadi El-Makkukh”. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 10, 1–14

114

A. Joffe

Shai, I. / Greenfield, H. J. / Brown, A. / Albaz, S. / Maeir, A. M., 2016: “The Importance of the Donkey as a Pack Animal in the Early Bronze Age Southern Levant: A View from Tell es-Sa ̄f ı̄ /Gath”. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 132, 1–25. Shalem, D., 2015: “Motifs on the Nahal Mishmar Hoard and the Ossuaries: Comparative Observations and Interpretations”. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 45, 217–237. Sharvit, J. / Galili, E. / Rosen, B. / van den Brink, E. C. M., 2002: “Predynastic Maritime Traffic Along the Carmel Coast of Israel: A Submerged Find from North Atlit Bay”. In E. C. M. van den Brink / E. Yannai (eds.): In Quest of Ancient Settlements and Landscape: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Ram Gophna. Tel Aviv. Pp. 150–166. Schmidt, K., 2009: “Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan – the Wall Decorations”. In L. Khalil / K. Schmidt (eds.): Prehistoric Aqaba I. Rahden / Westfalen. Pp. 99–112. Shimlemitz, R. / Rosenberg, D., 2013: “Dull-Edged Weapons and Low-Level Fighting in the Late Prehistoric Southern Levant”. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 23, 433–452. Shugar, A. N. / Gohm, C. J., 2011: “Developmental Trends in Chalcolithic Copper Metallurgy: A Radiometric Perspective”. In J. L. Lovell / Y. M. Rowan (eds.): Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic, Theory and Transition. Oxford. Pp. 131–146. Siegel, U., 2009: “Hydrological Structures in the Wadi al-Yutum Fan in the Vicinity of Tall Hujayrat alGhuzlan”. In L. Khalil / K. Schmidt (eds.): Prehistoric Aqaba I. Rahden / Westfalen. Pp. 273–419. Sivan, D. / Wdowinski, S./ Lamback, K. / Galili, E. / Raban, A., 2001: “Holocene Sea-Level Changes Along the Mediterranean Coast of Israel, Based on Archaeological Observations and Numerical Model”. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 167, 101–117. Soto-Berelov, M. / Fall, P. L. / Falconer, S. E. / Ridder, E., 2015: “Modeling Vegetation Dynamics in the Southern Levant Through the Bronze Age”. Journal of Archaeological Science 53, 94–109. Tangri, D. / Cameron, D. W. / Zias, J., 1994: “A Reconsideration of “Races” and their Impact on the Origins of the Chalcolithic in the Levant Using Available Anthropological and Archaeological Data”. Human Evolution 9, 53–61. Thornton, R., 1986: We Shall Live Again: The 1870 and 1890 Ghost Dance Movements as Demographic Revitalization. Cambridge. Tyuleneva, N. / Braun, Y. / Katz, T. / Suchkov, I. / Goodman-Tchernov, B., 2018: “A New Chalcolithic-Era Tsunami Event Identified in the Offshore Sedimentary Record of Jisr al-Zarka (Israel)”. Marine Geology 396, 67–78. Ussishkin, D., 2015: “The Sacred Area of Early Bronze Megiddo: History and Interpretation”. BASOR 373, 69–104. Vardi, J. / Gilead, I., 2013: “Chalcolithic – Early Bronze Age I Transition in the Southern Levant: The Lithic Perspective”. Paléorient 36, 111–123. de Vaux, R., 1971: “Palestine in the Early Bronze Age”. In I. E. S. Edwards / C. J. Gadd / N. G. L. Hammond (eds.): Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 1, Part 2. Cambridge. Pp. 208–237. Wallace, A. F. C., 1956: “Revitalization Movements”. American Anthropologist 58, 264–281. Watkins, T., 2016: “The Cultural Dimension of Cognition”. Quaternary International 405, 91–97. Weiss, H., 2017: “4.2. ka BP Megadrought and the Akkadian Collapse. In H. Weiss (ed.): Megadrought and Collapse from Early Agriculture to Angkor. New York. Pp. 93–159. Whitehead, P. G. / Smith, S. J. / Wade, A. J. / Mithen, S. J. / Finlayson, B. L. / Sellwood, B. W. / Valdes, B. / Valdes, P. J., 2008: “Modelling of Hydrology and Potential Population Levels at Bronze Age Jawa, Northern Jordan: a Monte Carlo Approach to cope with Uncertainty”. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 517–529. Winter-Livneh, R. / Svoray, T. / Gilead, I., 2010: “Settlement Patterns, Social Complexity and Agricultural Strategies During the Chalcolithic Period in the Northern Negev, Israel”. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 284–294. Winter-Livneh, R. / Svoray, T. / Gilead, I., 2012: “Secondary Burial Cemeteries, Visibility and Land Tenure: A view from the Southern Levant Chalcolithic Period”. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31, 423– 438.

New Models for the End of the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant

115

Yekutieli, Y., 2014: “The Early Bronze Age Southern Levant: The Ideology of an Aniconic Reformation”. In A. B. Knapp / P. van Dommelen (eds.): The Cambridge Prehistory of the Bronze and Iron Age Mediterranean. Cambridge. Pp. 609–618. Yerkes, R. W. / Barkai, R., 2013: “Tree-Felling, Woodworking, and Changing Perceptions of the Landscape During the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods in the Southern Levant”. Current Anthropology 54, 222– 231. Yoffee, N. / Cowgill, G., (eds.), 1988: The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilizations. Tucson. Zanchetta, G. / Bar-Matthews, M. / Drysdale, R. N. / Lionello, P. / Ayalon, A. / Hellstrom, J. C. / Isola, I. / Regattieri, E., 2014: “Coeval Dry Events in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean Basin at 5.2 and 5.6 ka Recorded in Corchia (Italy) and Soreq Caves (Israel) Speleothems”. Global and Planetary Change 122, 130–139. Zertal, A., 1993: “Fortified Enclosures of the Early Bronze Age in the Samaria Region and the Beginning of Urbanization”. Levant 25, 113–25. Zutovski, K. / Yerkes, R. W. / Agam, A. / Wilson, L. / Getzov, N. / Milevski, I. / Gopher, A., 2016: “A Techno–Typological Analysis of Fan (Tabular) Scrapers from Ein Zippori, Israel”. Journal of Lithic Studies 3, 207–238. Zviely, D. / Sivan, D. / Ecker, A. / Bakler, N. / Rohrlich, V. / Galili, E. / Boaretto, E. / Klein, M. / Kit, E., 2006: “Holocene Evolution of the Haifa Bay Area, Israel, and its Influence on Ancient Tell Settlements”. The Holocene 16, 849–861.

“Let’s Make a Clean Slate of the Past!” 1 Alternative Reading of the Chalcolithic–Early Bronze Age Transition Yuval Yekutieli2

Abstract This paper presents some thoughts on the much-debated Chalcolithic–Early Bronze Age (EBA) transition in the Southern Levant. To visualize the transition, it proposes putting human behaviors and sensations, rather than artifact-types analyses, at the center of the discussion. Observing the difference between the periods through this lens gives it additional substance, as, beyond technological change, society’s mentalité, or mindset, was apparently dramatically transformed. The paper proposes that the effects of the Chalcolithic– EBA transition were immense. The change brought about entirely different religion and cult rites conceptions, most notably their abstraction, and a profound transformation in the perception of labor and the ways in which people related to it. The paper further suggests that the grand reformation that occurred along the Chalcolithic–EBA transition exhibited conceptual seeds which matured during later social developments in the region, such as urbanization and the control of human mind it created, the preference of community over individual, and the prohibition of cult icons (aniconism) which, in the long run, came to identify southern Levantine monotheistic religions.

Keywords: Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age, Crafts, Labor, Aniconism, Urbanization.

This paper presents some thoughts about the much-debated transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age (henceforth EBA) in the southern Levant,3 also proposing an interpretation. Its main claim is that conventional archaeological methods, such as typologies, stratigraphy, spatial analysis, petrography and archaeometallurgy, supply invaluable data that can illustrate aspects of this change but are insufficient for wholly appreciating it. The scenario proposed below rests on an analysis of supposed human behaviors, experiences, and sensations deduced from observing changes in material culture along with the shift from the Chalcolithic to the EBA. This analysis puts at the center human thought and ingenuity rather than objects. It is built on calculated speculations involving social values such as loyalty, obedience, honor, morality, knowledge, secrecy, and creativity. This approach enables a better appreciation of the mindset or mentalité aspects of Southern Levant Chalcolithic and EBA societies, and how they transformed throughout the transition. After exposing southern Levantine Chalcolithic and EBA cultures through scientific archaeological excavations for over 120 years, it is now undeniably clear that what we label as ‘artistic’ representations noticeable in a vast array of materials and forms—whatever their meaning—were abundant in the Chalcolithic, and very scarce throughout the EBA’s 1700-years-long duration.4 I propose, therefore, that to apprehend the meaning of this difference, we should try moving beyond the explication of data into the full cognitive and interpersonal world behind it. The unique, artistic richness of the Chalcolithic period was produced in artisanal workshops. Since Chalcolithic society was not so large and the production of its numerous ‘art’ objects—sophisticated basalt, flint, copper, clay, and ivory objects, to name the main crafts5—consumed a great deal of energy, it may be assumed that a significant part of the community dealt with crafts at one level or the other. This deep involvement in crafts means that besides the considerable time and energy invested in craftwork, significant mental resources were also devoted to teaching and training new generations of artisans (thus maintaining 1

A quote from ‘The International’ as translated by Bester, 2011. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev; email: [email protected]. 3 More about this debate, see Braun / Roux 2013. 4 Yekutieli, 2014. 5 Rowan / Golden, 2009. 2

118

Y. Yekutieli

cultural transmission), passing the secrets of the art to select youth (through intergenerational relationships), and discussing matters of quality, skill, pride, social values associated with craftsmanship such as the honor of the master, the respect and loyalty due to him by his apprentices, and the ways of dealing with the rich world of materials, objects, tools, and techniques. The great variety of crafts witnessed in the Chalcolithic period means that a large part of society was also intellectually occupied with it. To illustrate one aspect of this phenomenon: Language must have supplied enough terms for this richness of crafts and products, and such a vibrant language must have reciprocally shaped cultural realities and human relations. The passion for quality and diversity—which is a clear mark of Chalcolithic objects—forced a large part of society to be actively involved not only in production but also in the discourse of artisanal ingenuity and its communal and spiritual purposes. This extensive artisanal world witnessed an abrupt transformation immediately with the onset of the aniconic age that begun at that point in time-space-culture currently labeled ‘the beginning of the EBA’.6 The reality of the new, ‘artless’ world was much more than a world devoid of figurines, ossuaries, frescoes, houseidols, copper scepters and crowns. It meant that a vast practical knowledge was lost; chains of transmission terminated; knowhow, methods, and ideas became useless; a whole set of senses, smells, sounds, and visions was lost; certain words became meaningless, and certain values obsolete. Simultaneously, because a large part of craft-production was discarded, much time and energy became available at the community level. Based on the visible archaeological finds, EBA craftspeople continued manufacturing utilitarian tools and vessels: hoes, axes, pots, bowls, sickle blades, and more. However, objects that are beyond the worldly and the practical had vanished. Indeed, with the disappearance of the fantastic Chalcolithic objects that needed so much time, energy, and skill to be produced, a great resource was suddenly set free: time. The released time and energy were now ready for other exploitations, which were inevitably involved with the change in concepts about materiality and the divine—each nourishing the other. The previous need to embody the divine, construct it, cloth it, celebrate its forms and colors evaporated into a different dimension. Since people are inherently intelligent, the mental and physical skills unchained from producing and revering the various icons must have been directed elsewhere. People continued working. However, work in the EBA was aimed primarily at life-sustaining goals such as agriculture, trade, storage, and construction,7 while spirituality moved from material representations of the divine to its abstraction. Not only that. In the EBA, the reduced objects’ corpus and the multiple work chains associated with it must have generated a change in vocabulary—one did not need the many words once required to express materials, processes, decorations, technical stages, colors, temperatures, degrees of moisture; all these became out-of-date. The restricted material diversity needed much fewer terms and words. The change opened up space for new vocabulary, and this new vocabulary could have led the change forward. Linguistic richness was probably relocated to other realms that became more pronounced in the EBA, such as establishing norms of order, discipline, politics, and religious procedures. Culture and reality mutually changed. Observing the archaeological record of the EBA transmits the feeling that people were now directed at practicing intensive labor: land cultivation, building, trading with people from across the desert, creating surpluses, and that these replaced the ‘worthless’ expenditure of time and efforts once spent on creating ‘exaggerated’ and ever-innovative icons. It seems that the lines on the EBA wall read: “People should be more efficient, more modest and less extravagant and wasteful than their Chalcolithic predecessors”. Observing the difference between the periods through the lens proposed above gives it additional substance: It was not just a technological change but a transformation of society’s mentalité or mindset. The transformation between the two mindsets was set in motion somewhere for reasons yet unknown. In another place, I have suggested that its realization occurred through a deliberate social action that transferred spirituality from the visual-sensual iconic to the abstract aniconic.8 The transformation was not only religious; 6 7 8

Yekutieli, 2014. Milevski, 2011. Yekutieli, 2014.

“Let’s Make a Clean Slate of the Past!”

119

it also left a clear mark on everyday life, practices, and discourses. When a multitude of previously indispensable crafts became unnecessary, the mental world bound with them disappeared too. Accordingly, and since the Chalcolithic–EBA transition witnessed a radical transformation that had extremely long-ranging repercussions, I proposed labeling this event ‘The EBA Aniconic Reformation’. I suggested that its initial stage also included acts of iconoclasm.9 Having elaborated on these aspects earlier, the focus below will be on what I propose seeing as ‘a change of mindsets’. Chalcolithic and EBA represent two different mindsets. In the earlier, creativity, ingenuity, and iconic expressionism were among the most important aspects of life, while in the later, the focus turned towards work, efficiency, and restraint. In the EBA, so it seems, people praised work, not creativity. A mere few generations separated these two ways of life connected by thick threads of memory. During the short transition, a Chalcolithic homo faber—‘creating man’—was replaced by an EBA animal laborans— ‘working animal.’ In her search for understanding the human condition in the modern age, Hannah Arendt wrote about the objectives of these prototypical personas, the homo faber and the animal laborans: “To make the world more useful and more beautiful in the case of homo faber, to make life easier and longer in the case of the animal laborans”. She further elaborated: “For the animal laborans, therefore, as it is subject to and constantly occupied with the devouring processes of life, the durability and stability of the world are primarily represented in the tools and instruments it uses…”. In contrast, “…homo faber, the toolmaker, invented tools and implements in order to erect a world, not—at least, not primarily—to help the human life process”.10 Interested in the modern age and not in antiquity, Arendt contends that, surprisingly, in modernity, animal laborans defeated homo faber. Labor, not creativity, was elevated to the highest rank of man’s achievements in the modern period.11 I propose that a similar scenario—preferring labor to inventiveness—had been the social ideal at the onset of the EBA, at the beginning of the 4th millennium BC. A focus on creativity, diversity, and ingenuity in the Chalcolithic period, turned into down to earth, utilitarian uniformity in the EBA. When we come to think of the Chalcolithic–EBA transition, framed around the revolutionary event of the EBA aniconic reformation which by promoting new ways left a crushed old world behind, two lines from one of the most known revolutionary poems—L’Internationale—come to mind: “Let’s make a clean slate of the past! […] The world is going to change its foundation!” 12 Using these lines as a link to the realms of Marxist thought and looking through this lens at the longue durée of the transition and its effects raises other ideas which amplify the significance of the Chalcolithic–EBA transition. Following a 300–400-years-long time gap after the start of the EBA, urbanization began in the Southern Levant. One of the hallmarks of EBA urbanization was the transformation of the concept of labor. To use Marxist terminology, with urbanization, ‘labor’ turned into ‘social labor’; during the Chalcolithic period, people produced objects, usually in small work-units, and had a direct touch with their products, which were often for their own communities’ use. The change in the conceptualization of labor in the EBA— namely turning parts of it into public projects—saw the gathering of masses of people for creating constructions and producing commodities not directly for their personal use. They now took part in public projects like constructing a city wall, a palace, large storage facilities, or producing huge surpluses for bulk exchange. As Omer Shalev has recently calculated, about 154,000 working days, representing 1,000 people constantly working for more than five months, were required to construct Tel Erani’s early EB1b1 (c. 3400 BC) city wall.13 Following my proposed interpretation above of the ways of thought in the periods under discussion, this could not have happened in the Chalcolithic period. Not because the Chalcolithic population

9

Yekutieli, 2014. Arendt 1958, 151. 11 Arendt 1958, 313. 12 As quoted in Bester, 2011. 13 Shalev 2018, 207. 10

120

Y. Yekutieli

was not capable of such projects, but because the people’s mindset could not have accepted such a ridiculous waste of human ingenuity and creativity. What bizarre mind could invent the idea of monotonously laying brick by brick to raise a 1,300-meter long, eight-meter wide, and five-meter high mind-numbing construction? To make a living—an essential requirement in both the Chalcolithic and the EBA—a person had to work a certain number of hours per day. The rest of the person’s time could be used for other activities. In the Chalcolithic period, these activities could have been the production of imaginative ossuaries, ivory figurines, copper scepters, frescoes, house idols, or fancy flint star-shaped discs. Since all those became unnecessary or even blasphemous in the EBA, the additional time was now used to build monstrous constructions, generate surpluses, and make the elite—not every individual—rich. In some delay from the beginning of the EBA, after the incubation of this ideological change—which began as an antithesis of Chalcolithic society’s values—someone, or someones, realized that they could seize the opportunity and channel the unleashed forces into economic and political achievements. Channeling meant regulating the surpluses so that an elite could live in luxury by manipulating the public’s mind, as elaborated by archaeological Marxist theorists since Gordon Childe.14 The effects of the Chalcolithic–EBA transition were immense. Not only is there a distinguishable change in material culture, but also in mindsets, which are allegedly harder to decipher as concerns preliterate cultures. The change brought forth an entirely different conception of religion and cult rites, most notably abstracted, and a profound transformation of the concept of labor and how people relate to it. Seeds of thought which matured in later social developments—urbanization and its control of human mind, the preference of community over the individual, the prohibition of cult icons which came to identify, much later, southern Levantine monotheistic religions—were all sown in the grand reformation that occurred in the Chalcolithic–EBA transition around 3800 BC.

References Bester, D., 2011: “Song and struggle: ‘The Internationale’”. https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/song-andstruggle-the-internationale (accessed May 13, 2020). Braun, E. / Roux, V., 2013: The Transition Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant. Paléorient 39.1. Arendt, H., 1958: The Human Condition. Chicago. Childe, V. G., 1936: Man Makes Himself. London. Milevski, I., 2011: Early Bronze Age Goods Exchange in the Southern Levant: A Marxist Perspective. London. Rowan, Y. M. / Golden, J., 2009: “The Chalcolithic Period of the Southern Levant: A Synthetic Review”. Journal of World Prehistory 22, 1–92. Shalev, O., 2018: “The Fortification Wall of Tel Erani: A Labour Perspective”. Tel Aviv 45, 193–215. Yekutieli, Y., 2014: “The Early Bronze Age Southern Levant: The Ideology of an Aniconic Reformation”. In B. Knapp / P. van Dommelen (eds.): Cambridge Handbook of the Bronze Age–Iron Age Mediterranean World. Cambridge. Pp. 609–618.

14

Childe, 1936.

The Chalcolithic as Transitional Period Looking at the Big Picture Ian Cipin1 Abstract Sometime towards the end of the Chalcolithic period and the early stages of the Early Bronze Age in the southern Levant, significant changes took place in terms of subsistence economies, settlement patterns, modes of production, and social complexity and organization. Also, regional settlement patterns, such as in Tel T’eo in the Huleh Valley, Bir es-Safadi and Gilat in the Negev, and Rasm Harbush and other sites in the Golan, disappeared, and more evenly distributed, larger settlements emerged with a more homogeneous material culture. Thus, it may be more useful to view the last phase of the Chalcolithic and beginning of the Early Bronze Age as the end of a longer transitional period rather than a transitional period itself. Although focusing on defining ‘subperiods’ is invaluable for temporal resolution, this paper will argue that it is more appropriate to view the entire Chalcolithic period as a transition from the Neolithic Revolution to the Urban Revolution of the Early Bronze Age, and that the emphasis placed on the study of ‘subperiods’ in the context of the transition from the Late Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age has resulted in the loss of perspective on the transitional nature of the Chalcolithic period as a whole.

Keywords: Late Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age, Transition.

Introduction Archaeologists working in the southern Levant have placed great emphasis on investigating how the Early Bronze Age I developed out of the Late Chalcolithic; until relatively recently, however, few have directed their attention to the factors behind this transformation. Much has been written of late by scholars on what we have come to call the ‘Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age transition’. Indeed, an entire volume of Paléorient2 dedicated to this subject and published in 2013 prompted a two-day symposium held at the Albright Institute in May 2018 on this topic and resulted in the papers included in the present volume. I believe, however, that the whole Chalcolithic period should be viewed as a transitional period between the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age. As archaeologists interested in the late prehistoric and protohistoric periods, we are constantly on a quest for an ever finer temporal resolution, and it is fair to say that many advances have been made in this aspect in recent years.3 While it cannot be denied that the terminal Chalcolithic culminated sometime around 3600 BCE, with abrupt changes in settlement distribution, social organization, subsistence and economy that led to the emergence of the Early Bronze Age I period,4 such intent focus on the nature and causes of these changes has distracted us from looking at the whole Chalcolithic period as a dynamic and significant transitional period.

A Thousand Years of Transition To support my assertion that the Chalcolithic period represents a ‘transitional period’ in its own right, I will first review the primary signifiers of the Late Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I.5 Rather than

1

University of Haifa; email: [email protected]. Braun / Roux, 2013. This thematic volume was dedicated entirely to the topic of the Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age transition. 3 Braun / Roux, 2013. 4 E.g., Braun / Roux, 2013. 5 For more information, see recent syntheses for each period, such as Rowan / Golden, who begin their review in the Late Neolithic, and Braun, 2011, who studies the beginning of the Early Bronze Age. 2

122

I. Cipin

get into a detailed discussion on chronology, I will focus on how the changes in material culture express socio-economic changes within society. Milevski has attempted to define the transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age from a socio-economic perspective, defining ‘transition’ as “not only the change from one state to another but also the timespan when such change occurs”.6 He limits this to an analysis of differences between the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age and lists various economic signifiers by way of comparison.7 While the comparison between such economic factors is both valid and useful, true understanding and appreciation of how society evolved cannot be achieved without taking into account the final phases of the Neolithic Period. The debate on whether the Wadi Rabah sequence should be assigned to the Late Neolithic or Early Chalcolithic illustrates the relevance of this.8 For many years, few available syntheses of the Chalcolithic period were available.9 However, increased interest in this fascinating period has resulted in the excavation of several Chalcolithic sites using modern techniques. Detailed and comprehensive publications are now available for sites such as Gilat,10 Shiqmim,11 and Telelat Ghassul,12 as well as recent and comprehensive syntheses13 dealing with the broader picture and more significant signatures, such as subterranean activity,14 and chronological discussions15 resulting from an ever-increasing body of radiocarbon data.16 Following is a brief summary of the key signifiers pertaining to material culture that have a bearing on this discussion.

Settlement, Subsistence and Material Culture By the latter part of the Neolithic, people were living in what can be described as organized settlements, such as Sha‘ar HaGolan,17 with reasonably sized villages appearing by the PPNB, particularly in the Jordan Valley.18 During the Chalcolithic, settlements grew in size and number but displayed regional variation in type, ranging from chain houses in the Golan19 to subterranean dwellings at Bir Safadi20 and more rectangular settlement layouts at sites such as Tel Te’o.21 Much of this regional variation in settlement pattern disappeared at the start of the Early Bronze Age with the emergence of larger settlements more evenly distributed throughout the Southern Levant. Although Chalcolithic settlements were located in more marginal semiarid zones, they were close to water sources. This was not necessarily so with Early Bronze Age I settlements. Subtle climate changes may have made water harder to come by, forcing people living in marginal areas to move to sites that did not suffer from the same problem. This influx would have led to the growth of these settlements both in size and power, as one of the most useful resources of all, i.e., people, became more plentiful. Early Bronze Age I sites were still located close enough to water sources that enabled them to farm efficiently; this, coupled with improved water storage technology, would have allowed the settlement to flourish and better weather times of stress.22

6

Milevski, 2013: 195. Milevski, 2013: 198. 8 For a summary of the discussion, see Rowan / Golden, 2009: 7–10. 9 Gilead, 1988; Levy, 1995. 10 Levy, 2006. 11 Levy / Alon, 1987. 12 Bourke et al., 1995, 2000, 2001. 13 Rowan / Golden, 2009; Rowan, 2019: 122–145. 14 Rowan / Ilan, 2013. 15 Rowan / Lovell, 2011. 16 Braun et al., 2013: 23–46. 17 Garfinkel, 2004. 18 Rowan / Golden, 2009. 19 Epstein, 1998. 20 Gonen, 1992. 21 Eisenberg / Gopher / Greenberg, 2001. 22 Milevski, 2013. 7

The Chalcolithic as Transitional Period

123

In terms of subsistence, the Chalcolithic sits between two so-called ‘revolutions’: the Neolithic Revolution and the Early Bronze Age Urban Revolution, defined by changes in subsistence strategies. The Neolithic witnessed plant and animal domestication, which allowed people to stay in the same place for extended periods as an alternative to a mobile, hunter-gatherer lifestyle. By the Chalcolithic, significant changes in subsistence economies are evident, with an increasing population, larger villages (between 6 and 12 ha), and houses of varying sizes,23 although, likely, a seminomadic lifestyle was still practiced to some degree. The archaeological record has revealed that the Chalcolithic diet comprised domesticated wheat and barley, pulses, and fruit, along with domesticated sheep/goat, pig, and cattle. This pattern continued into the Early Bronze Age, with the noticeable primary difference being that storage of foodstuff was now a common practice. An important development during the Chalcolithic period, made possible by the domestication of animals, was that of secondary products.24 Not present in the Neolithic, this activity, once begun, has continued into present times. Flint tools typically associated with the Chalcolithic period include micro endscrapers, retouched bladelets, fan-scrapers, perforated discs, and sickle blades. One would expect to find all of these forms in a society in which the processing of faunal and floral products was increasingly becoming the norm. Ground stone assemblages routinely recovered from habitation sites typically include grinding slabs, mortars, pestles and hand stones, grinders and pounders, as well as the enigmatic ‘digging stick weights’.25 These tools reflect a more sedentary lifestyle based on an agricultural economy.26 Distinctive stone vessels, both flat-based and with fenestrated stands, are found in both domestic and ritual settings and are unique to the Chalcolithic period. Raw stone was usually sourced from locally available materials, including basalt, beachrock, and limestone. While pottery of the period is typified by bowls, holemouth jars, cornets, and churns, petrographic analysis has revealed that, despite relative homogeneity, there is little evidence to suggest centers of production. Instead, pottery was produced relatively locally by the communities that used it.27 This discovery gave rise to the idea that communities remained ‘settled’ within their own environments with a low level of economic integration between regions.28 This argument cannot stand, however, given the evidence of interaction with the broader world (discussed further below). While pottery forms and shapes did develop, continuity carried into the Early Bronze Age, as seen in the continued presence of ledge handles, holemouth jars, and Grey Burnished Ware.29 One aspect of material culture that is synonymous with the Chalcolithic is metallurgy. Although its origins lie in Iran and Anatolia during the Neolithic, by the Chalcolithic, local metallurgy is highly developed. Copper artifacts can be grouped into two types. The first, utilitarian group, includes tool items such as axes, adzes, chisels, and awls. The second type is composed of artifacts made using the lost wax technique and believed to be symbolic, including items such as standards, mace heads, vessels, and ‘crowns’.30 The utilitarian items are generally made from copper sources in the region, such as Faynan. The raw material was worked in domestic settings,31 suggesting this early form of metalworking is akin to craft production. In contrast, items made using the lost wax technique, such as those associated with the Naḥal Mishmar Hoard, are made from arsenical copper, of which the nearest source is over 1000 km away in the Transcaucasus and Azerbaijan regions.32 This demonstrates that the model for low contact with regions further afield is not at all the case since resources were clearly moved over great distances.

23

Rowan, 2019: 122. Sherratt, 1981. 25 Ilan, 2016: 261–277. 26 Rowan / Golden, 2009: 37–41. 27 Gilead, 1988. 28 Gilead, 1988: 423. 29 Braun / Roux, 2013: 15–22. 30 Rowan / Golden, 2009. 31 Golden, 2010. 32 Tadmor et al., 1995: 95–148. 24

124

I. Cipin

Evaluation of ritual, symbolism, and burial practices warrants special attention since they reveal peoples’ belief expressions and how they perceived their world. In the Neolithic, these three were explicitly brought into the domestic setting, and the ancestors were kept within the household, as illustrated by the plastered skulls from Jericho and the plastered human figurines found at ‘Ain Ghazal.33 During the Chalcolithic, ritual and symbolic activity seems to have moved into the public domain. It has been suggested that sites such as Ein Gedi,34 Gilat,35 and Teleilat Ghassul36 operated as centers for the wider population to congregate and come together while still living in relatively dispersed settlements. It should be kept in mind that each of these sites, while likely to have performed the same function, display very distinct regional variation. Burial practices also display distinctive characteristics during the Chalcolithic with the appearance of the first extramural cemeteries at sites such as Shiqmim37 and the unique use of clay ossuaries for secondary burials in deep, faraway places. Such dispersed public displays of socio-religious activity seem to disappear in the Early Bronze Age I.

Conclusions This brief review of evolving practices from the Neolithic through the Early Bronze Age shows that, throughout this long period, there are distinct points of continuity in certain instances and distinct points of breakage in others. Based solely on an examination of the archaeological record at the end of the Chalcolithic and the beginning of the Bronze Age, Milevski claims that “the transition from the Chalcolithic to EB I should be understood as an abrupt changeover”.38 As shown in the present study, this approach may be misleading. For whatever reason, whether climatic conditions, the emergence of social elites, or a combination of various factors,39 society developed from a largely dispersed settlement format to one that can be described as proto-urban. However, to better understand these developments, the entire Chalcolithic period should be considered as the transition from the beginning of sedentism to the beginning of urbanism rather than continue to look for a more narrowly defined transitional period. The end of the Chalcolithic / beginning of the Early Bronze Age was the climax of a remarkable, one-thousand-year period of transition that carried society from the Neolithic Revolution to the first urban period.

Acknowledgments Thanks go to Karen Wright and Jennie Ebeling for their comments on early draughts of this paper and Valentine Roux for her insightful reflections. I would also like to thank the editors of this volume for allowing my inclusion in what was a most stimulating and enjoyable symposium.

References Bourke, S. J. / Lawson, E. / Lovell, J. / Hua, Q. / Zoppj, U. / Barbetti, M., 2001: “The Chronology of the Ghassulian Chalcolithic Period in the Southern Levant: New C14 Determinations from Teleilat Ghassul”. Radiocarbon 43(3), 1–6. Bourke, S. J. / Lovell, J. / Sparks, R. / Seaton, P. L. / Mairs, L. /Meadows, J., 2000: “A Second and Third Season of Renewed Excavation by the University of Sydney at Tulaylat al-Ghassul (1995–1997), ADAJ 44, 37–89. Bourke, S. J. / Sparks, R. T. / Seaton, P. L. / Lovell, J. / Mairs, L. D., 1995: “A First Season of Renewed Excavation by the University of Sydney at Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan, 1994”. ADAJ 39, 31–63. 33

Rowan / Golden, 2009. Ussishkin, 1980: 1–44; Ussishkin, 2014: 15–26. 35 Levy, 2006. 36 Bourke et al., 1995, 2000, 2001. 37 Levy / Alon, 1987: 333–356. 38 Milevski, 2013: 203. 39 Lovell, 2002, 89–102. 34

The Chalcolithic as Transitional Period

125

Braun, E., 2011: “The Transition from Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age: A “Lost Horizon” Slowly Revealed”. In J. L. Lovell and Y. M. Rowan (eds.): Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic, Theory and Transition. Oxford. Pp. 160–177. Braun, E. / Roux, V. (eds.), 2013: “The Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age I Transition in the Southern Levant: Determining Continuity and Disconuity or “Mind the Gap””. Paléorient 39(1), 15–22. Braun, E. / van den Brink, E.C.M. / Regev, J. / Boaretto, E. / Bar, S., 2013: “Determinations and the Dating of the Transition from the Chalcolithic Period to the Early Bronze Age I in the Southern Levant”. Paléorient, 39(1), 23–46. Eisenberg, E. / Gopher, A. / Greenberg, R., 2001: Tel Te’o: A Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley. IAA Reports 13. Jerusalem. Epstein, C., 1998: The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan. IAA Reports 4. Jerusalem. Garfinkel, Y., 2004: The Goddess of Sha‘ar Hagolan: Excavations at a Neolithic Site in Israel. Jerusalem. Gilead, I., 1988: “The Chalcolithic Period in the Levant”. Journal of World Prehistory 2(4), 397–443. Golden, J. M., 2010: Dawn of the Metal Age: Technology and Society during the Levantine Chalcolithic. London. Gonen, R., 1992: “The Chalcolithic Period”. In A. Ben-Tor (ed.): The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. New Haven. Pp. 40–80. Ilan, D., 2016: “The Ground Stone Components of Drills in the Ancient Near East: Sockets, Flywheels, Cobble Weights, and Drill Bits”. Journal of Lithic Studies 3(3), 261–277. Levy, T., 1995: “Cult, Metallurgy and Rank Societies – Chalcolithic Period (ca. 4500–3500 BCE)”. In T. E. Levy (ed.): The Archaeology of the Holy Land. Leicester. Pp. 224–243. — 2006: Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctuary at Gilat, Israel. London. Levy, T. E. / Alon, D., 1987: “Excavations in Shiqmim Cemetery 3: Final Report on the 1982 Season”. In T. E.Levy (ed.): Shiqmim I – Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel, 1982–1984. Oxford. Pp. 333–356. Milevski, I., 2013: “The Transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant in Socioeconomic Context”. Paléorient 39(1), 193–208. Rowan, Y. M., 2019: “The Spiritual and Social Landscape During the Chalcolithic Period”. In A. YassurLandau / E. H. Cline / Y. M. Rowan (eds.): The Social Archaeology of the Levant: From Prehistory to Present. Cambridge. Pp. 122–145. Rowan, Y. M. / Golden, J., 2009: “The Chalcolithic Period of the Southern Levant: A Synthetic Review”. Journal of World Prehistory 22(1), 1–92. Rowan, Y. M. / Ilan, D., 2013: “The Subterranean Landscape of the Southern Levant During the Chalcolithic Period”. In H. Moyes (ed.): Sacred Darkness: A Global Perspective on the Ritual Use of Caves. Colorado. Pp. 87–107. Sherratt, A. G., 1981: “Plough and Pastoralism: Aspects of the Secondary Products Revolution”. In I. Hodder / G. Isaac / M. Hammond (eds.): Patterns of the Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke, Cambridge. Pp. 261–305. Tadmor, M. / Kedem, D. / Begemann, F. / Hauptmann, A. / Pernicka, E. /Schmidt Strecker, S., 1995: “The Nahal Mishmar Hoard from the Judean Desert: technology, composition and provenance”. ‘Atiqot 27, 95–148. Ussishkin, D., 1980: “The Ghassulian Shrine at En-Gedi”. Tel Aviv 7, 1–44. — 2014: “The Chalcolithic Temple in Ein Gedi: Fifty Years after its Discovery”. Near Eastern Archaeology 77(1), 15–26.

Uneven and Combined The Synchronization of the Early Bronze Age I and the First Urbanization of the Southern Levant Ianir Milevski,1 Nimrod Getzov,2 and Yitzhak Paz3

Abstract The Early Bronze Age (EBA) I of the southern Levant is characterized by a relatively strong regionality in both its early (EBA IA) and late (EBA IB) phases. While the southern part of the southern Levant is relatively well known from chrono-stratigraphic sequences established in the past, the northern regions have been discussed without clear agreement on the subphases. However, it is evident that, at the beginning of the EBA I, we are in the presence of small villages and, at the end, of fortified towns, testifying to an early urbanization of the region. Contrary to past and current studies, which ascribe the earliest southern Levantine urbanization to the EB II, we believe, based on accumulated data from large-scale excavations, that defensive walls and protopalaces existed already at the middle of the EBA IB as part of an early urbanization process that would spread throughout the Southern Levant during the EBA II. This paper aims to suggest a synchronization between the different southern Levantine areas, taking a dialectical rather than mechanical viewpoint and to understand the dynamics of the communities acting in the region, the interaction mechanisms between these regions during the EBA I, and the causes that led to the first urbanization of the Southern Levant.

Keywords: Early Bronze Age I, Southern Levant, Synchronization, Fortifications, Urbanization.

Introduction This paper is a preliminary and necessary attempt to synchronize the different phases and regional traits of the Early Bronze Age (EBA) I in the southern Levant, mainly between the northern and southern regions. We will deal with pottery and architectural features, often discussed by several colleagues,4 as well as consider radiocarbon dates despite the numerous debates they still engender.5 Following a preliminary correlation between the different phases of the northern and southern regions of the EBA I, with their different paces, we will present a synthesis of architectural features—the appearance of the first defensive walls and public buildings—and a portrayal of the southern-Levant first urbanization, dated between 3300 and 3100 BC. By so doing, we aspire to place our study in the framework of the so-called law of uneven and combined development in History. The law of uneven and combined development is a scientific social law of the widest application to the historic processes. Although it was suggested in the 19th century by Hegel6 and Marx7 on the grounds of their Philosophy of History, it was popularly presented by Novack.8 Simpson suggested that this law also exists in Natural History.9

1

Israel Antiquities Authority; Programa “Raíces”, Secretaría de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Productiva, Argentina; email: [email protected]. 2 Israel Antiquities Authority; email: [email protected]. 3 Israel Antiquities Authority; email: [email protected]. 4 E.g., Braun, 1996; Yekutieli 2000. 5 See Regev, 2013. 6 Hegel, 1975 [1820]. 7 Marx, 1970 [1859]. 8 Novack, 2002: 75–122. 9 Simpson 1949, 1953. See also Novack 2002: 78–80.

128

I. Milevski, N. Getzov, and Y. Paz

According to this law, as history advances, a faster or slower growth of the economy and social forces occurs owing to differences in natural conditions and historical connections. These disparities give either an expanded or a compressed character to entire periods, imparting varying rates and extents of growth to different peoples, branches of economy, classes, social institutions, and cultural fields. We believe this dual law of uneven and combined development could be applied to archaeology and, in the present case, to the developments witnessed in the southern Levant during the EBA I.

Urban Revolution The terms “city” and “urban center” used in this paper refer to the occurrence of large communities that provide evidence of a common association of human forces, most probably with social stratification, in a delimited area, and physically differentiated from the surrounding countryside. This social organization is characterized, among other things, by the construction of defensive or bordering massive walls, towers, and public buildings, and the presence of neighborhoods with streets between clusters of houses.10 Yoffee,11 following Childe’s “Urban Revolution”,12 defined the city as a permanent settlement with a socially diverse population residing closely together, with subordinates and leaders who control the tracking of people and things. The city has a center with an imposing architecture that allows and/or restricts political, social, and/or ideological activity. It relies on food produced in the surrounding countryside to benefit those living in the city, providing certain services and products to the population of the surrounding countryside, and acquiring, through exchange, luxury and utilitarian goods. The city provides a sense of communal identity to the people who live in it, but it is also characterized by the social drama happening within the different social, cultural, and economic groups living there.13 These definitions seem insufficient to explain the total experience of the urban settlements, both from the material and the ideological points of view. As Finley suggested: “It is difficult to capture the feeling of an ancient city”.14 Of course, under some of those definitions, southern Levantine urban settlements are not comparable to Mesopotamian city-states like Uruk,15 not to speak about the cities of the ancient Greek and Roman worlds. Southern Levantine urban settlements were based more on agriculture and less on craftmanship and exchange, and we may perhaps apply to them the expression coined by Earle: “agrarian states”.16 It should be noted that, before the EBA IB, it is possible to find examples of complex Neolithic settlements such as Jericho with its tower,17 or Sha‘ar Hagolan, where courtyard houses and streets are present.18 Also, a defensive wall seemed to have existed in already in the EBA IA at Kafr Kanna.19 However, the processes observed in the EBA IB were not isolated cases present at particular places, but a real cultural turning point that spread to many communities, beginning the urban revolution before what only some time ago was considered a period of pre-urban settlements.20 10

Childe, 1950; Yoffee, 2015. Yoffee, 2015. 12 Childe, 1950. 13 For different interpretations on the early urbanization of the southern Levant, see Chesson, 2003; 2019. Although this debate is beyond the scope of this paper, we find the models proposed by Chesson inadequate, as they see the social evolution of southern Levantine sites at the end of the 4th–beginning of the 3rd millennium BC as the product of simple clusters of household societies. This is not only in sites such as Qiryat ‘Ata (Faust / Golani, 2008) but in most Early Bronze Age urban centers. 14 Finley, 1987–1989: 309. 15 Liverani, 2006. 16 Earle, 2002. 17 Kenyon, 1957. 18 See Garfinkel / Ben-Shlomo (2009: 67–84), who suggest that Sha‘ar Hagolan is located, in an evolutionary perspective, from the Neolithic village to the Mesopotamian cities. These authors overestimated, in our opinion, some elements of the settlement of Sha‘ar Hagolan and did not take into account socio-economic parameters that would make it not a site with urban concepts but a village. 19 H. Smithline, pers. comm. 20 Observed already in Paz, 2002. But see de Miroschedji, 1989; Herzog, 1997; Greenberg, 2002. 11

Uneven and Combined

129

Pottery and Chronology The chronology of the southern EBA I was discussed and established in the works of Amiran, Gophna,21 Yekutieli,22 and others in the last two decades, with some additional inputs by Braun,23 although this does not mean that they all agree with one another. This chronology was mainly based on the definition of pottery types from the very beginning of the EBA IA.24 Table 1. Chronology of EBA I southern Levant northern and southern sites.

Years BCE

Period

3,700–3,500

EBA IA1

W. Gaza H (early), Afridar, Palmahim 3, Jericho

3,500–3,400

EBA IA2

W. Gaza H (late), Erani D, Halif, Afridar, Motza

3,400–3,300

EBA IB1

E. Besor IV, Erani C, Ptora, Lachish, Amazia, T.Halif, Eshtaol, Barnea, Afridar, Jericho, `Ai, Nasbeh, Afridar

3,300–3,100

EBA IB2

South

North Yiftahel II, Bet Yerah GB (N9), Tel Teo, Uza 14, K. Kanna

Q.Ata III, M. Haemeq III, Bet Yerah Q.Ata II, Ein Zippori VIII, Megiddo, En Esur

Lod, Arad, T.Halif, Erani B, Beqoa, H. Illin, E. Besor III, Gezer, Lachish, T. Sakan, Afridar?

Table 1 presents a selection of sites from the north and the south of Israel mentioned in this paper, and for which chrono-stratigraphic ascriptions have been discussed and published. In the south, pottery typology, which shows more changes than in the north, is marked by the division into four phases (EBA IA1, EBA IA2, EBA IB1, and EBA IB2). In the north, it is divided only into two phases (EBA IA and EBA IB), and Braun25 suggested subdividing the EB IB phase based on the presence or absence of the late-type Gray Burnished Ware, mainly Family IV, since this family only appears in the early phase of the EBA IB. However, we believe that the presence or absence of this type is rather result from regional settings.26 Regional differences are also present in the northern EBA IB, with bow-rim jars present mainly in the west (from the Jezreel Valley up to Qiryat ‘Ata) and round rail-rim pithoi mainly in the east (the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan Valley). Crackled ware is also found mostly in the east.27

21

Amiran / Gophna, 1992. Yekutieli, 2000. 23 Braun, 2011. 24 For the transition from the Ghassulian Chalcolithic to the EBA IA see different points of view in Braun / Roux, 2013; Paz / Nativ, 2013; Vardi / Gilead, 2013; Milevski, 2013. 25 Braun, 1996. 26 For the Gray Burnished Ware, see Wright, 1937; Goren / Zuckerman, 2000. 27 Esse, 1989; Milevski, 2011: 76. 22

130

I. Milevski, N. Getzov, and Y. Paz

Figure 1. Distribution of Gray Burnished Ware, families Figure 2. Distribution of Gray Burnished Ware, families I and II, EBA IA. III and IV, EBA IB.

For the synchronization of northern and southern regions, we have a few cases where pottery, appearing first in the north, is also present in the southern regions, such as the EBA IA Gray-Burnished-Ware Families I and II at sites like Tel Aviv Ha-Masger Street, Palmahim Quarry, Ashqelon Afridar, and Jericho (Fig. 1), and the EBA IB Family IV at Jericho, `Ai (et-Tell), and Tel en-Nasbeh (Fig. 2). Another aspect of this phenomenon relates to the “Erani C” Horizon, dated to the EBA IB1, mainly concentrated around Tel Erani, within a region that mainly does not exceed the eastern Soreq basin.28 “Erani C” pottery was also found sporadically outside this region: in the Judean Desert, the Hill Country, and the Jordan Valley.29 In some cases, this pottery was found in caves together with EBA IB northern wares like Crackle Ware and Grain Wash pottery (Fig. 3), although this does not imply they were strictly contemporaneous.30 Grain Wash pottery is probably later to the “Erani C” Horizon; at Tel Erani (Area P–Q), Grain-Wash jar sherds were found in a layer representing most probably the beginning of the EBA IB2.31 Conversely, southern wares (Fig. 4) also appear in the north during the EBA IB, in very few and disputable cases, for instance, the line-painted wares containing dolomite seemingly appearing at Tel Qishyon, and a version of the so-called Tel Aphek bowls at Beth Shean.32

28

Gophna / Paz, 2014. Yekutieli, 2002; Milevski, 2011: 80. 30 McCown, 1947: Pl.25: 37; Wampler, 1947: Pls. 10: 151; 52: 1124; Tufnell et al., 1958: Pls. 57–58; Bar-Adon, 1980: Ills. 13: 7–8, 14: 1, 16: 1, 4. 31 Personal observation (I.M.). 32 For dolomitic wares, several with line-painted or basket-style decoration and contemporaneous with the “Erani C” Horizon, see Stager, 1990; Milevski, 2011: 83; Braun, 2012: 13–15. For the Tel Aphek bowls, see Beck, 1985. 29

Uneven and Combined

Figure 3. Distribution of Grain Wash and “Crackled” Ware pottery of the EBA IB.

131

Figure 4. Distribution of the EBA IB “Erani C” Horizon pottery, Dolomitic Wares, and Tel Aphek bowls.

Architecture The similarity of the EBA I architecture in the different regions should be emphasized (Figs. 5–7), although in this case, the uneven and combined developments differ. At the beginning of the EBA IA, the oval-shaped (“sausage”) houses are a common feature both in the northern and southern regions, as seen in Yiftahel and Palmahim.33 Braun,34 who studied this type of curvilinear architecture for a long time, suggested that its origins were to be looked for in Lebanon, where it lasted for a longer time. During the EBA IB, in the Southern Levant’s northern regions, several house shapes developed, probably a sort of evolution of the oval-shaped secluded houses.35 Capsule-like to rectangular buildings with round corners and roofs sustained by pillars make their appearance.36 In the south, this development is less clear, although two different phases are present in this region during the EBA IA. At the beginning of the EBA IB in this area, rectangular houses with round corners are present at sites like Horvat Ptora,37 dated to the EBA IB1 (the ‘Erani C’ Horizon in the region), and at Ashqelon Barnea, Eshtaol38 and probably other sites in the Shephelah.39 This feature also continues in the EBA IB2 and will be a distinctive feature of the later part of the EBA IB in the northern regions of the southern Levant.

33

Braun, 1992; 1997. Braun, 1989: 16. 35 Braun, 1985; Braun 1989: 17–18. 36 See, inter alia: Braun, 1999; 2003; Golani, 2004; Milevski et al., 2014; Paz / Elad, this volume. 37 Milevski / Baumgarten, 2008. 38 Golani, 2008; Golani / Storchan, 2014. 39 E.g., Golani / Storchan / Eirikh-Rose, 2018. 34

132

I. Milevski, N. Getzov, and Y. Paz

Nevertheless, some sites from the EBA IB1, like Tel Erani itself, exhibit houses with rectangular rooms constructed with mudbrick walls without round corners.40 In a late phase of this subperiod, however, both in Erani and Ptora, the construction became denser and separate buildings were integrated into clusters. A kind of proto-palace (probably built in two phases) existed at Erani and another one probably also at Ptora.41 At Erani, defensive walls were probably built during the late stage of the EBA IB1 (see below). In EBA IB2 Palmahim and Lower Horvat Illin, we can already see a dense town, with house clusters and streets inbetween.42

Figure 5. Early Bronze Age I northern domestic buildings: 1. Yiftahel, Area A, Stratum II, EBA IA (adapted from Braun 1989, fig. 3B); 2. En Shadud, Stratum 1b, EBA IB (adapted from Braun 1985, fig. 6); 3. Qiryat ‘Ata, Area A, Stratum III, EBA IB (adapted from Golani 2003, fig. 3.3).

Figure 6. Early Bronze Age I Southern domestic buildings: 1. Palmahim Quarry, Strata 1–2 (EBA IB) and 3 (EBA IA) (according to Braun 1992). 2. Horvat Ptora, Area D–F, Stratum I (EBA IB1) (courtesy of the IAA).

40

Yeivin, 1961; Kempinski / Gilead, 1991. Milevski / Baumgarten, 2008 42 Braun, 1992. At Horvat Illin, a cluster of buildings similar to Palmahim was found, but the existence of streets is not clear (Braun / Milevski, 1993). 41

Uneven and Combined

133

Figure 7. Ein Zippori houses in Areas B and C, several phases of the EBA IB at the site, from earliest to latest.

Figure 8. Ein Zippori. The town wall (marked by the arrows) in areas D3 and N5, looking north-east (courtesy of the IAA).

The development of the architecture at sites like Ein Zippori (Fig. 7) and ‘En Esur (Asawir)43 is reflected in the enlargement of houses, building clusters, the addition of silos, among other. Some of us have also suggested to include the defensive round inner towers built within the sites, such as those seen in Area C in Ein Zippori with an entrance to that part of the settlement.44 This is more than an adaptation45 to population growth; it is the physical evidence of a concept change, i.e., from villages to towns where buildings are arranged in kinds of clusters with alleys and streets in-between, and where defensive walls not only mark the border between the settlement and its environment but also define a socioeconomic unit. There is no single recipe for the several phases that EBA IB architecture followed from the secluded curvilinear houses of the EBA IA to the mottled capsular and rectangular building shapes of the end of the EBA IB. For instance, at Ein Zippori (Fig. 7), the development of the cluster of houses in Area B could have undergone different construction stages with the addition of walls and rooms, all of them during the EBA IB. Other sites, such as ‘En Esur in the northern Sharon Plain, have demonstrated a similar building process, with houses’ addition during the EB IB and the separation into clusters, or neighborhoods, by the streets.46 The site is an impressive settlement measuring around 65 ha and divided into neighborhood clusters separated by streets and squares.

43

See Paz / Elad, this volume. Milevski / Liran / Getzov, 2014. 45 Golani, 1999; Sebag, 2005. 46 See Paz / Elad, this volume. 44

134

I. Milevski, N. Getzov, and Y. Paz

Defensive Walls and Public Buildings The EBA IB settlement at the c. 25–30-ha site of Ein Zippori, together with the attached Giv‘at Rabi hill, may have occupied c. 50 ha. A c. 2 m wide defensive wall was exposed to a length of c. 70 m (Fig. 8). This wall, constructed of mudbrick on a fieldstone foundation, comprises a narrow passage, a postern, and a tower—a rectangle with round corners—attached to it. For the sake of clarity, the wall’s EBA IB date was confirmed both by pottery associated with the defensive wall and olive pits found on the floor of a house attached to the wall C14 dated to 3300–3100 calBC.47 This finding can be added to a growing list of settlements with defensive walls dated not to the EBA II but the late EBA I such as Bet Yerah, Tel Shalem, Tel Abu al Kharaz, Tel Es-Saidiyeh, Pella, Tel Aphek, Jericho.48 In the southern regions, the most interesting case is Tel Erani, which seems to be the earliest settlement with public buildings and defensive walls in this region (Fig. 9, 10), predating Egyptian presence at the site and the whole area.49

Figure 9. Tel Erani. Public building(s) in area D (adapted from Kempinski and Gilead 1991, fig. 4).

47

Milevski / Getzov, 2014; Milevski / Liran / Getzov, 2014; Yaroshevich, 2016. Radiocarbon dates of Ein Zippori and Tel Erani (see below) were processed at the Laboratory of the Weizmann Institute by Elisabetta Boaretto and Joanna Regev, to whom we are indebted. 48 Paz. 2002, with bibliography therein. 49 Milevski et al., 2016; Shalev, 2018.

Uneven and Combined

135

Figure 10. Tel Erani. Fortification walls in Area P. 1) aerial view, 2) view looking north (from Milevski et al. 2016, courtesy of the IAA).

136

I. Milevski, N. Getzov, and Y. Paz

Figure 11. Defensive walls at Tel Bet Yerah (looking east), Fortification A, EBA IB (after Getzov 2006).

In the northern regions of Israel, other examples can be given. At Bet Yerah, a defensive wall system (Fig.11), starting in the EBA IB, was revealed in the 1995 excavations. This massive 8-m-wide brick wall was preserved to a height of 4.5 m. Stratum V, associated with the wall system, is dated to 3300–3100 BC.50 At ‘En Esur Area N15, the 2018–2019 excavation season also exposed a stone fortification wall (2-m wide) running from north to south.51 A horseshoe-shaped tower is attached to the wall from the west, very similar to that of Ein Zippori. Also notable at ‘En Esur are several monumental structures among which the most impressive is a complex at least 22 m long and 14 m wide that can plausibly be identified as a temple (Area N5). Together with defensive or fortification walls, the EBA IB in the north also witnessed the emergence of huge ceremonial public buildings, like that of Megiddo.52 Such public buildings sometimes identified at other settlements are disputable. In the south, the early excavations at Tel Erani exposed a public building named “proto-palace” by de Miroschedji.53 In fact, the building was excavated during two different excavation seasons, directed by

50

Getzov, 2006: 7–39. Greenberg and Paz dated the wall to the EBA II and explained that EBA IB pottery sherds are completely dominant there because the workers who built the wall during the EBA II utilized materials from the layers of the previous period (2014, Plan 2.3). However, in our view, the claim is completely incorrect for two reasons: 1) In Locus 179, according to Greenberg and Paz the source of the construction material, layers of the EBA IB were found in situ; 2) the defensive-wall and the houses’ prolonged construction, expansion, and renewal after destruction over four phases. It is not plausible for the people of the site to have been careful to use only ancient material for such a long time (from the EBA IB), and that pottery of their time (the EBA II) did not penetrate the defensive walls if really built at this time. 51 See Paz / Elad, this volume. 52 Adams / Finkelstein / Ussishkin, 2014. 53 De Miroschedji 2012–13.

Uneven and Combined

137

Yeivin54 and by Kempinski and Gilead.55 Both parts of the building or buildings56 date from the ‘Erani C’ Horizon, i.e., the EBA IB1. Also of importance is the question of the date of the EBA IB early defensive walls. The Tel Aviv University team led by Yeivin and Ben Gurion University of the Negev, led by Kempinski and Gilead, suggested dating the fortification walls in Area N to the EBA IB.57 The renewed excavations carried out by the Ben Gurion and Jagiellonian Universities in the last years have confirmed an ‘Erani C’ Horizon date, i.e., EBA IB1.58 In salvage excavations conducted at the site by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) in 2015–2016, an excavated probe yielded two massive defensive brick walls, labeled W200 and W204, located at the southern borders of the tell’s lower terrace, labeled Area P–Q.59 In Area N, the wall was 8 m wide. The walls in Area P–Q, at least 8-m wide, were not fully excavated. However, “Erani C” Horizon pottery was found during the 2018–2019 excavations in layers inside the settlement abutting the defensive walls. Layers laid up against the walls from the outside also contained “Erani C” pottery and were dated to c. 3200–3140 calBC.60

Discussion Within the discussion of the location of fortified EBA IB sites which can be considered urban settlements (Fig. 12), we suggest relating some types of regional elements to this phenomenon. Three primary regions are characterized by EBA IB fortified settlements: the Lower Galilee with the contiguous Jezreel Valley, the Jordan Valley, and the southern Coastal Plain. After the EBA IB, fortification became a general phenomenon. During the EBA II and III, the spatial organization of the urban centers, including their fortification walls, changed to planning the precise locations of neighborhoods, proto-palaces and palaces, and temples. EBA II sites spread over the whole territory, while the EBA III shows a reduction in the number of urban settlements.61 However, according to de Miroschedji, the EBA III represents the actual peak of urbanized Southern Levant, showing spectacular effects in architectural planning.62 Population density and built-up areas peaked in the EBA IB and decreased from the EBA II to the EBA III, yet this process was also combined and uneven, with the southern regions showing a lower decrease rate.63 Figure 12. Location map with EBA IB fortified settlements.

54

Yeivin 1961, Kempinski / Gilead 1991. Kempinski / Gilead 1991. 56 E. Braun / M. Czarnowicz, pers. comm., suggest these are two different buildings belonging to two different phases of the “Erani C” Horizon. 57 Yeivin, 1961, Kempinski / Gilead, 1991, contra Brandl, 1988. 58 Ciałowicz / Yekutieli / Czarnowicz, 2016; Shalev, 2018. 59 Milevski et al., 2016. 60 Milevski et al., 2016. 61 Broshi / Gophna, 1984; Getzov / Paz / Gophna, 2001. 62 De Miroschedji, 2000, 2006. 63 Getzov / Paz / Gophna, 2001. See also de Miroschedji, 1989. 55

138

I. Milevski, N. Getzov, and Y. Paz

Changes were observed in the urban topography within the several phases of the Early Bronze Age. At Ein Zippori, the wall was discovered at the valley–hill passage point, and another section stands out on the surface at the top of the hill at Givat Rabi.64 It is thus likely that the two sections represent parts of the same wall that served to delimitate three areas: one at the bottom of the slope, a rocky area in the middle of the slope, and the top of the hill. A similar topography is visible at ‘Ai: The wall runs close to the tell’s top while also surrounding a lower area at the bottom of the slope.65 It seems that the fortified city planners of the EBA II had left a relatively small space in the higher part and a clean lay on lower steps. It is only during the EBA III that large spaces for the construction of palaces are built, such as in Tel Yarmuth, where the dedicated space was established during the EBA II only in the lower part of the city.66 Figure 13 synthesizes our ideas for a reconstruction of the synchronization in the EBA I. Pottery-type changes in the southern regions are faster than in the north. Still, we cannot assert a synchronization of these changes with the architecture of houses and sites since, unfortunately, we do not have sufficient architecture in the south for the EBA IA2. In contrast, it is difficult to see a change in the pottery during the EBA IA in the north. Still, cultural influences do occur during the EBA IA, i.e., from north to south, or the apparition of pottery from one region in the other. The Jordan Valley, as the main communication route, appears to receive a considerable quantity of northern pottery. Rapid changes in house shapes occur in the north during the EBA IB with the concentration of these houses in clusters and the beginning of urbanization. The first defensive walls can be dated to as early as 3300 BC. During this last phase of the EBA I, influences are two-way: from north to south and vice versa. In the south, the EBA IB pottery has two main phases, and houses rapidly became rectangular with round corners after the “sausage”-shaped houses of the EBA IA. If right, we suggest dating the first defensive walls in the southern regions to around 3300–3100 BC.

Figure 13. A chart presenting the correlation of urbanization processes in the northern and southern regions of Southern Levant.

64

Milevski / Getzov, 2014; Yaroshevich, 2016. Marquet-Krause, 1949; Callaway, 1980. 66 De Miroschedji 1990, 2006, 2012–2013, 2019. 65

Uneven and Combined

139

Finally, to summarize our paper, we suggest the following conclusions: 1. When comparing the material culture traits of the northern and southern regions of the southern Levant, uneven and combined development rhythms are manifest during the EBA I. These disparities give either an expanded or a compressed character to the period from the village system of the EBA IA to the urban settlements of the EBA IB, varying in rates and extents of growth in different settlements and regions and different branches of economy and cultural developments. 2. With the onset of the EBA IB, there is a vast increase in the number and size of settlements. In some cases, EBA IB settlements were several times larger than those of the EBA IA at the same sites. Settlements also grow in population density, and neighborhoods are organized in blocks with paths or streets in-between. 3. Fortifications became a phenomenon already in the EBA IB. Many settlements, located mainly in the Lower Galilee and Jezreel Valley, the Jordan Valley, and the Coastal Plain, became fortified during the EBA IB and reflect other early urban traits such as urban design and public buildings. Moreover, the overall settlement system to which they belong clearly reflects their centrality. 4. The first urbanization occurred concomitantly with a major exchange of goods within the southern Levant; these were fortified settlements adjacent to several communication routes. The cities included different social, cultural, and economic groups. 5. This process continues into the EBA II and then spreads to almost all regions, implying a new social and economic order and producing new ideological and iconographic images adapted to it. This cycle peaked during the EBA III. 6. The southern Levant’s first urbanization occurred several centuries after the emergence of urbanization in Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and the Northern Levant, where large urban centers flourished as soon as the early 4th millennium BC. This chronological difference displays another aspect of the uneven and combined urbanization process of the Ancient Near East.

Acknowledgements We want to thank the organizers of the conference who also originated this volume for the opportunity to express our ideas on the first urbanization in the Southern Levant. Furthermore, we are indebted to our colleagues for providing access to the material and information published here; in alphabetical order: Eli Cohen Sasson, Krystof Ciałowicz, Marcin Czarnowicz, Itai Elad, Agniezka Ochal-Czarnowicz, Dina Shalem, Dmitry Yegorov, and Yuval Yekutieli. We are also indebted to the staff and workers of Ein Zippori, ‘En Esur, and Tel Erani. We also wish to thank the Publications Department of the IAA for giving permission to reproduce some illustrations from Tel Erani and Ein Zippori.

References Adams, M. J. / Finkelstein, I. / Ussishkin, D., 2014: “The Great Temple of Megiddo”. American Journal of Archaeology 118 (2), 285–305. Amiran, R. / Gophna, R., 1992: “The Correlation between Lower Egypt and Southern Canaan in the EB I Period”. In E. C. M. van den Brink (ed.): The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th–3rd Millennium BC. Tel Aviv. Pp. 357–360. Bar-Adon, P., 1980: The Cave of the Treasure. The Finds from the Caves of Nahal Mishmar. Jerusalem. Beck, P. / Kochavi, M., 1993: “Aphek (in Sharon)”. In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 1. Jerusalem, Pp. 62–72. Brandl, B., 1989: “Observations on the Early Bronze Strata of Tel Erani”. In P. de Miroschedji (ed.): L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancient. BAR International Series 527. Oxford. Pp. 357– 388. Braun, E., 1985: En Shadud. Salvage Excavations at a Farming Community in the Jezreel Valley, Israel. BAR International Series 249. Oxford.

140

I. Milevski, N. Getzov, and Y. Paz

— 1989: “The Problem of the Apsidal House: New Aspects of Early Bronze I Domestic Architecture in Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon”. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 121 (1), 1–43. — 1992: “Palmahim Quarry”. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 10, 21–23. — 1996: Cultural Diversity and Change in the Early Bronze I of Israel and Jordan. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Tel Aviv University. — 1997: Yiftah’el Salvage and Rescue Excavations at a Prehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel. IAA Reports 2. Jerusalem. — 2011: “South Levantine Early Bronze Age Chronological Correlations with Egypt in Light of the Narmer Serekhs from Tel Erani and Arad: New Interpretation”. In R. F. Friedman / P. N. Fiske (eds.): Egypt and its Origins 3. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 205. Leuven. Pp. 975–100. — 2012: “On Some South Levantine Early Bronze Age Ceramic ‘Wares’ and Styles”. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 144 (1), 4–31. Braun, E. / Milevski, I., 1993: “Bajar Khorvat Illin, Una aldea del Bronce Antiguo cerca de Beth Shemesh”. Revista de Arqueología 142, 8–15. Braun, E. / Roux, V., 2013: “The Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age I Transition in the Southern Levant: Determining Continuity and Discontinuity”. Paléorient 39(1), 15–22. Broshi, M. / Gophna, R., 1984: “The Settlements and Population of Palestine During the Early Bronze Age II–III. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 261, 73–90. Callaway, J. A., 1980: The Early Bronze Age Citadel and Lower City at Ai (et–Tell). Cambridge, MA. Chesson, M. S., 2003: “Households, Houses, Neighborhoods and Corporate Villages: Modeling the Early Bronze Age as a House Society”. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16.1: 79−102. — 2019: “The Southern Levant during the early Bronze Age I–III”. In A. Yassur-Landau / E. H. Cline / Y. M. Rowan (eds.): The Social Archaeology of the Levant. Cambridge, Pp. 163–182. Childe, V. G., 1950: “The Urban Revolution”. Town Planning Review 21(1), 3–17. Ciałowicz, K. M. / Yekutieli, Y. / Czarnowicz, M. (eds.), 2016: Tel Erani I – Preliminary Report of the 2013– 2015 Excavations. Krákow. Esse, D. L., 1989: “Village Potters in Early Bronze Palestine: A Case Study”. In A. Leonard Jr. / B. B. Williams (eds.): Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene J. Kantor. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 47. Chicago, IL. Pp. 77–92. Faust, A. / Golani, A., 2008: “A Community in Transition. The Early Bronze Age Site at Qiryat Ata as a Test Case”. Tel Aviv 35, 215–243. Finley, M. I., 1987–89: “The City”. Opus 6–8, 305–315. Garfinkel, Y. / Ben-Shlomo, D., 2009: Sha‘ar Hagolan Vol. 2. The Rise of Urban Concepts in the Ancient Near East. Qedem Reports 9. Jerusalem. Getzov, N., 2006: The Tel Bet Yerah Excavations –1995. IAA Reports 28. Jerusalem. Getzov, N. / Paz, Y / Gophna, R., 2001: Shifting Urban Landscapes during the Early Bronze Age in the Land of Israel. Tel Aviv. Golani, A., 1999: “New Perspectives on Domestic Architecture and the Initial Stages of Urbanization in Canaan”. Levant 31, 123–133. — 2003: Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat Ata. IAA Reports 18. Jerusalem. — 2008: “Barne‘a B–C”. Hadashot Arkheologyitot –Excavations and Surveys in Israel 120. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=805&mag_id=114 Golani, A. / Storchan, B. D., 2014: “Eshta’ol – A Proto-Historic Site in Transition: Preliminary Inter/IntraSite”. In G. D. Stiebel / O. Peleg-Barkat / D. Ben-Ami / Y. Gadot (eds.): New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region. Collected Papers Volume VIII. Jerusalem. Pp. 18*–31*. Gophna, R. / Paz, Y., 2014: “From Village to Town to Village Again: Settlement Dynamics in the Central Coastal Plain and Adjacent Shephela from the Late Early Bronze I to Early Bronze Age III”. Strata – Bulletin of the Anglo-Israeli Archaeological Society 32, 13–36. Greenberg, R., 2002: Early Urbanizations in the Levant: A Regional Narrative. Sheffield.

Uneven and Combined

141

Greenberg, R. / Paz, S., 2014: “Early Bronze Age Architecture, Function, and Planning”. In R. Greenberg (ed.): Beth Yerah, The Early Bronze Age Mound. Vol. II, Urban Structure and Material Culture, 1933– 1986 Excavations. IAA Reports 54. Jerusalem. Pp. 15–52. Goren, Y. / Zuckerman, S., 2000: “An Overview of the Typology, Provenance and technology of the Early Bronze Age I ‘Gray Burnished Ware’”. In G. Philip / D. Baird (eds.): Ceramics in Change in the in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Sheffield. Pp. 165–182. Hegel, G. W. F., 1975[1820]: Lectures on the Philosophy of World History. Introduction: Reason in History. Transl. by H.B. Nisbet from the German edition of J. Hoffmeister. Cambridge. Herzog, Z., 1997: Archaeology of the City. Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and its Social Implications. Monograph Series 13 of the Institute of Archaeology. Tel Aviv. Kempinski, A. / Gilead, I., 1991: “New Excavations at Tel Erani: A Preliminary Report of the 1985–1988 Season”. Tel Aviv 18, 164–191. Marquet-Krause, J., 1949: Les fouilles de ‘Ay (Et-Tell) 1933–1935. Paris. Marx, K., 1970 [1859]: A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. With an Introduction by Maurice Dobb. New York, NY. Liverani, M., 2006: Uruk: The First City. London. Milevski, I., 2011: Early Bronze Age Goods Exchange in the Southern Levant. A Marxist Perspective. London. — 2013: “The Transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant in SocioEconomic Context”. Paléorient 39 (1), 193–208. Milevski, I. / Baumgarten, Y., 2008: “Between Lachish and Tel Erani: Horvat Ptora, a New Late Prehistoric Site in the Southern Levant”. In J. M. Córdoba Zoilo / M. Molist / C. Pérez Aparicio / I. Rubio de Miguel / S. Marínez Lillo (eds.): Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaelogy of the Ancient Near East. Madrid. Pp. 609–626. Milevski, I., / Getzov, N., 2014: “‘En Zippori”. Hadashot Arkheologyiot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 126. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=13675 Milevski, I. / Liran, R. / Getzov, N., 2014: “The Early Bronze Age Town of ‘En Zippori in the Galilee (Israel)”. Antiquity Project Gallery 339. http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/milevski339/ Milevski, I. / Yegorov, D. / Aladjem, E. / Pasternak, M. D., 2016: “Salvage Excavation at Tel Erani, Areas P to U”. In K. M. Ciałowicz / Y. Yekutieli / M. Czarnowicz (eds.): Tel Erani I – Preliminary Report of the 2013–2015 Excavations. Krákow. Pp. 45–57. de Miroschedji, P., 1989: “Le processus d’urbanisation de la Palestineau Bronce ancien: Chronologie et rythmes”. In P. de Miroschedji (ed.): L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancient. BAR International Series 527. Oxford. Pp. 357–388. — 1990: “The Early Bronze Age Fortifications at Tel Yarmuth – An Interim Statement”. Eretz Israel 21, 48*–61*. — 2000: “Notes on Early Bronze Age Metrology and the Birth of Architecture in Palestine”. In S. Wolf (ed.): Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas Esse. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 59. Chicago, IL. Pp. 465–492. — 2006: “At the Dawn of History. Sociopolitical Developments in Southwestern Canaan in Early Bronze Age III”. In A. Maeir / P. de Miroschedji (eds.): “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”. Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Winnona Lake, IN. Pp. 55–78. — 2012–2013: “L’apparition des palais au Levant méridional au Bronze ancien et sa signification”. In C. Michel (ed.): De la maison à la ville dans l’orient ancien: bâtiments publics et lieux de pouvoir, Séminaire d’Histoire et d’Archéologie des Mondes Orientaux 2012–13. Nanterre. Pp. 95–101. — 2019: “Early Bronze Age Palaces in the Southern Levant”. In M. Bietak / P. Matthiae / S. Prell (eds.): Ancient Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Palaces Vol. II. Contributions to the Archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and the Levant 8. Wiesbaden. Pp. 159–180. Novack, G., 2002: Understanding History. Newtown, Australia.

142

I. Milevski, N. Getzov, and Y. Paz

Paz, Y., 2002: “Fortified Settlements of the EB IB and the Emergence of the First Urban System”. Tel Aviv 29, 238–261. Paz, Y. / Nativ, A., 2013: “Yesodot, Israel: A Case for a Post-Ghassulian Entity”. Paléorient 39(1), 83–93. Regev, J., 2013: Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant Based on 14C Dates in Relation to Context, Stratigraphy6 and Cultural Remains, Modeled with Bayesian Analysis. PhD Thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan. Sebag, D., 2005: “The Early Bronze Age Dwellings in the Southern Levant”. Bulletin du Centre de Recherche Français à Jérusalem 15, 222–235. Shalev, O., 2018: “The Fortification Wall of Tel Erani: A Labour Perspective”. Tel Aviv 45 (2), 193–215. Simpson, G. G., 1949: Meaning of Evolution. New Haven. — 1953: Life of Past: An Introduction. New Haven. Stager, L. E., 1990: “Painted Pottery and its Relationship to the Weaving Crafts in Canaan during the Early Bronze Age I”. Eretz-Israel 21, 83*–88*. Tufnell, O. / Baden-Powell, D.F.W. / Bate, D. M. A. / Černy, J. / Diringer. D / Giles, M. / Helbaek, H. / Isserlin, D. S. J. / Murray, M. A. / Parker, B. / Porada, E. / Thomson, F. C. / Todd, E. / Waechter, J., 1958: Lachish IV (Tell ed-Duweir): The Bronze Age. London. Vardi, J. / Gilead, I., 2013: “Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age I Transition in the Southern Levant: The Lithic Perspective”. Paléorient 39 (1), 111–123. Wampler, J. C., 1947: Tell en-Nasbeh II. The Pottery. Berkeley. Wright, G. E., 1937: The Pottery of Palestine from the Earliest Times to the End of the Early Bronze Age. New Haven. Yaroshevich, A., 2016: “‘En Zippori”. Hadashot Arkheologyiot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 126. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=24979&mag_id=124 Yeivin, S., 1961: First Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tel “Gat” (Tell Sheykh Ahmed el-‘Areyny): Seasons 1956–1958. Jerusalem. Yekutieli, Y., 2000: “Early Bronze Age I pottery in Southwestern Canaan”. In G. Philip / D. Baird (eds.): Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Sheffield. Pp. 129–152. — 2002: “The Pottery Assemblage of Phase C from the Early Bronze IB1 in Area DII at Tel Erani”. Beer– Sheva 15, 59*–79* (Hebrew). Yoffee, N., 2015: Early Cities in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge World History 3. Cambridge.

A Rich Early Bronze Age I Groundstone Assemblage from Tel Megiddo East, Israel Aaron Greener1 and Matthew J. Adams2

Abstract Excavations at Tel Megiddo have revealed evidence of an unprecedented leap in monumental building activity in the late Early Bronze Age I with the construction of the 1,100-square-meter Great Temple. Subsequent research, survey, and excavation by the Jezreel Valley Regional Project identified a contemporary site just east of this cultic acropolis, now called Tel Megiddo East (TME), which appears to have been the primary settlement associated with it. Four seasons of field work at TME have yielded a surprisingly rich ground-stone artifact assemblage of finely crafted tools and vessels. These include many hallmark Early Bronze Age I basalt vessels, such as four handled bowls and large flaring bowls. Other tools include small standardized basalt rings, cuboid and domeshaped objects, abraders, polishers, grinding stones, and other unique objects. In this paper we present the ground-stone artifact assemblage from TME, and use this assemblage to give insight into the relationship between TME and the cultic activities which took place in the large well-planned Early Bronze Age I temple situated only a few hundred meters away on the acropolis of Tel Megiddo.

Keywords: Early Bronze Age I, Ground stone, Four-handled bowls.

Introduction Tel Megiddo East (TME), located c. 400 m east of the better-known site of Megiddo, was one of the closest hinterland settlements of this important town in the Early Bronze (EB) IB (ca. 3300–3000 BCE) (Fig. 1).3 The four excavation seasons conducted at the Tel Megiddo East EB I site (2010–2013) by the Jezreel Valley Regional Project4 yielded a surprisingly rich groundstone artifact collection of finely crafted tools and vessels. These included many hallmark Early Bronze Age I basalt vessels such as four-handled bowls and “open form” bowls, and other tools such as many small, standardized basalt rings, abraders, polishers, grinding stones, and cuboid- and dome-shaped and unique objects. In this paper, we present the groundstone artifact assemblage from Tel Megiddo East and use it to define the site’s nature and its possible relation to the cultic activities which took place in the large and well-planned Early Bronze Age I temples on the acropolis of Megiddo, situated only a few hundred meters away. At Megiddo, each of the three main EB IB strata (Levels J-2–4) yielded its own cult building in sequence, culminating in the Great Temple of Level J-4 (Fig. 2), excavated between 1994 and 2010 by the Tel Aviv University Megiddo Expedition.5 While the earliest Megiddo Level J-2 EB IB temple is known primarily from sondages,6 that of Level J-3 has been held up as the representative Early Bronze Age temple in the scholarly literature since its discovery, in the 1930s, in the University of Chicago excavations.7 Both Level

1

W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem; email: [email protected] W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem; email: [email protected] 3 Adams / David / Homsher / Cohen, 2014. 4 The Jezreel Valley Regional Project (JVRP) is a long-term, multi-disciplinary survey and excavation project investigating the history of human activity in the Jezreel Valley from the Paleolithic through the Ottoman period. This project strives for a total history of the region using the tools and theoretical approaches of such disciplines as archaeology, anthropology, geography, history, ethnography, and the natural sciences, within an organizational framework provided by landscape archaeology. The JVRP excavations at TME were directed by Matthew J. Adams. www.jezreelvalleyregionalproject.com 5 Adams, 2013a; Adams / Finkelstein / Ussishkin, 2014. 6 Finkelstein / Ussishkin, 2000; Adams, 2013a. 7 Loud, 1948; Adams, 2013a; Keinan, 2013. 2

144

A. Greener and M. J. Adams

J-2 and J-3 cult buildings were broad-room structures of similar size, which were approached from the east through a paved courtyard featuring incised drawings of animals, cultic practitioners, and other cultic symbols.8 While all three Megiddo temples are some of the best examples of the period in the Levant, the 1100 sq m Great Temple stands out as one of the most remarkable architectural achievements of the Early Bronze Age Levantine cultures.9 It was a massive, broad-room style structure (47.5 × 22 m), more than seven times the size of its predecessors, featuring twelve basalt slabs, an altar within the main sanctuary, and two long and narrow chambers in the rear filled with sacrificial faunal remains.10 Equally impressive are the craftsmanship precision, the labor scale, and the underlying organization of the society responsible for it. Behind the temple was a large open courtyard with evidence of food preparation and consumption, probably associated with the temple cult. This leap forward in monumental architecture should be seen within the context of developments at other sites in the very latest phase of the EB IB (sometimes called Transitional EB I–II or ESL 311). Overall, across these three EB IB strata, Megiddo was undoubtedly an important regional cult center that served a broad hinterland across the Jezreel Valley, and perhaps beyond.12

Figure 1. The dual site of Megiddo and Tel Megiddo East in the Early Bronze Age IB.

Excavations carried out at Tel Megiddo East aimed to provide some context to Megiddo’s Great Temple by exploring one of its hinterland towns.13 To date, ca. 600-sq-m area has been exposed in Area C (Fig. 3). While there is evidence of later Roman/Byzantine stone quarrying at the site, the three or four occupational strata date exclusively to the EB IB and can be roughly correlated with the three EB IB strata at Megiddo based on material culture typology and architectural developments (Table 1). Together, the hinterland settlement (TME) and cultic center (Megiddo) provide new evidence for significant developments in monumental architecture, centralized planning, and the remarkable control of resources that would be the harbinger of EB II–III (ca. 3000–2500 BCE) urban societies. 8

Keinan, 2013; Yekutieli, 2008. Adams, 2013a; Adams / Finkelstein / Ussishkin, 2014. 10 Wapnish / Hesse, 2000; Sapir-Hen, L. / Fulton, D. N. / Adams, M. J. / Finkelstein, in press. 11 See Adams, 2013b; de Miroschedji, this volume. 12 See Braun, 2014: 112, 145 for some suggestions on the range of this hinterland. 13 Adams / David / Homsher / Cohen, 2014. 9

A Rich Early Bronze Age I Groundstone Assemblage from Tel Megiddo East, Israel

145

Figure 2. Isometric drawing of the Great Temple of Level J-4.

Figure 3. Photogrammetric plan of the JVRP Excavations at TME (Area C) showing primarily elements belonging to Phase 6, the period of the Great Temple.

146

A. Greener and M. J. Adams

Table 1. Stratigraphic chart correlating Megiddo and Tel Megiddo East.

TAU Level J-4

OI Stratum

Description

Megiddo East Slope14 Stage Description

XVIII

Great Temple

IV

Cemetery

J–3

XIX

V

Cemetery

J-2

not detected

120 m2 Broadroom Temple Pre-XIX Temple

Megiddo

Tel Megiddo East JVRP Phase TME 6 TME 7– 8 TME 9

Description Buildings A, B, D (Fig. 3) Building C structures Not enough data

Dates c. 3090– 295015 c. 3150– 3090 c. 3250– 3150

In this article, we present the results of our systematic study of the exceptional assemblage of 160 groundstone-vessels and tools found at Tel Megiddo East—as demonstrated first and foremost by the abundance of basalt vessels and other unique items—including their attributes, typology, and quantitative analysis.16 We suggest that the accumulation of such a collection of stone items at Tel Megiddo East stemmed from its proximity to the Megiddo temples.

Methodology The Tel Megiddo East groundstone assemblage was sorted, examined, and classified based on typomorphological characteristics. However, when possible, functional similarities of the stone artifacts were also used as a classification attribute. Thus, the assumption that most slabs were used primarily to grind grains was considered the primary attribute for certain tool types, despite some morphological variability. For the same reason, artifacts considered “upper grinding stones” and “abraders/polishers” are distinguished as separate categories based on the morphology of the original blank selected for the different tools and the raw material.17 Tool types of unknown function are grouped together below, mainly for descriptive purposes, though they may have served various functions.18 The 160 groundstone tools and vessels of this assemblage were recovered from the EB IB settlement (TME), Area C (Table 2), and reflect a systematic collection of stone finds. Most groundstone tool fragments (124 items) are made of basalt (vesicular or dense); thirty-four of limestone (some with high barium or flint content) and two of flint nodules (a pounder and a small ring). Raw-material identification was carried out by the naked eye. These tools and vessels were discovered in fills within rooms, on floors, in pits, incorporated into installations and architectural features, in streets, courtyards, and other open areas. Only a few items come from secure contexts on surfaces. Although many of the items were found in topsoil and in late, mixed, or unclear/undatable loci, most should be attributed to the EB IB phases at the site since no pottery from other periods was found in any loci during the 2010–2013 excavations, suggesting that all the finds from these excavations should be considered as belonging to the EB IB.19 Notwithstanding, and in this context, the presence of several basalt vessel fragments with apparent Chalcolithic characteristics will be addressed below.

14

Braun, 2014. Dates for Level J-4 are based on the radiocarbon study by Regev / Finkelstein / Adams / Boaretto, 2014. 16 A comprehensive, detailed description of the individual Tel Megiddo East ground stone vessels and tools, however, will be presented in the final publication. 17 For an exhaustive discussion of the various methods by which to categorize GST, including the pros and cons of each method, see Cohen-Klonymus, 2014: 17–25. 18 See Rowan, 2003: 183. 19 Exceptions include Roman and Byzantine pottery found in relation to sections of the site that were quarried in later times. 15

A Rich Early Bronze Age I Groundstone Assemblage from Tel Megiddo East, Israel

147

The Assemblage (N=160) The assemblage is presented typologically, divided into the following categories: A. Basalt vessels; B. Small rings; C. Grinding stones; D. Abraders/polishers; E. Dome-shaped objects (weights?); F. Cuboids; G. Pounders; H. Pestles; I. Round stones (slingstones); J. Large rings; K. Limestone bowls and bowlets; L. Perforated stones; M. Stoppers?; N. Hammer; O. Varia (unidentified objects); P. Non-diagnostic fragments. A detailed discussion of the assemblage components’ chronological and (or) cultic significance follows the typological presentation. Table 2. Tel Megiddo East Vessels and Groundstone Tools.

Type Fenestrated pedestalled bowls “Open form” bowls (Chalcolithic?) “Open form” bowls (EB I?)

Category A

Figure Fig. 4

Basalt 10

A

Fig. 5: 1–4

6

6

A

Fig. 5: 5–6

5

5

“Open form” bowls (fragments) Four-handled bowls

A

–

9

9

A

Fig. 6

9

9

Additional bowls Bowl mortars

A A

Fig. 7: 1–4 Fig. 7: 5–8

4 4

4 4

Small rings Grinding stones – upper Grinding stones – lower Grinding stones (unspecified) Abraders/polishers Dome-shaped objects (weights?) Cuboids Pounders Pestles Round stones (slingstones) Large rings Limestone bowls and bowlets Perforated stones Stoppers? Hammer Varia (unidentified objects)

B C C C

Fig. 8 Fig. 9: 1–3 Fig. 9: 4 –

18 12 20 2

1

D E

Fig. 10: 1–2 Fig. 10: 3

3

5 2

F G H I J K

Fig. 10: 4 Fig. 10: 5 Fig. 10: 6 Fig. 10: 7–8 Fig. 11: 1–2 Fig. 11: 3–4

4 1 3

L M N O

Fig. 11: 5 Fig. 11: 6 Fig. 11: 7 Fig. 11: 8

Non-diagnostic fragments

P

Total

Limestone

2 3 9

Flint nodule

1

Total 10

20 12 20 2 8 2

1

3 3 2

4 4 6 9 3 3

3

2 2 1 3

8

4

12

124

34

2 1

2

160

148

A. Greener and M. J. Adams

A. Basalt Vessels (n=47) Forty-seven basalt vessels were found in the assemblage and are discussed below.20 Fenestrated Pedestalled Bowls (n=10; Fig. 4) Ten basalt vessel fragments were classified as fenestrated pedestalled bowls (Rowan’s Type 4Cii), traditionally dated to the Chalcolithic period.21 These large bowls with flaring walls were set on top of a three- or four-legged pedestal. The legs were joined at the bottom by a distinctive ring. The fragments include ring bases and leg fragments of varying profiles and dimensions, and with various decorations. This bowl type is probably underrepresented since it is not possible to distinguish between fenestrated pedestalled bowls and “open form” flat-based bowls (below) rims and wall fragments. Two fragments of fenestrated pedestalled bowls were discovered at Megiddo in EB I contexts.22 Many fragments were discovered in EB III strata in Area J (in the vicinity of the EB IB Temples) as well as in later and non-secure strata in other excavation areas on the tell. “Open-form” Bowls (n=20; Fig. 5) Twenty basalt bowl fragments can be classified as “open-form” bowls with flat bases. The vessels range from the simple or widely flaring walls associated with Chalcolithic basalt bowls (Rowan’s Type 3A–B)23 to the typical EB I type, with the characteristic thick base and concave external walls, sometimes with beveled rims (Rowan’s Type 3C).24 Although one should be cautious in determining the vessel type (and thus its date) based solely on the fragments wall curvature, six bowl fragments better fit the “Chalcolithic” style (e.g., Fig. 5: 1–4; including a rim fragment with faint triangular designs on the inner rim; Fig. 5: 2), while four have “Early Bronze Age” characteristics (e.g., Fig. 5: 5–6). The fragmentary state of nine additional wall and rim fragments of open-form bowls does not enable chronological identification. Two fragments belonging to “open-form” bowls were discovered at Megiddo in EB I contexts.25

Figure 4. Fenestrated pedestalled basalt bowls

20

Item 1 2 3 4

Registration No. 13/C/110 PT1 AR1 11/C/023 PT5 AR3 13/C/027 PT1 AR1 11/C/072 PT5 AR3

5 6

11/C/001 PT1 AR3 11/C/018 PT8 AR7

7 8 9

12/C/039 PT2 AR1 12/C/012 PT2 AR2 13/C/098 PT3 AR1

Description Leg fragment. Unique chevron pattern. Incised on the inner side. Cylindrical leg fragment. Roughly semicircular section. Triangular-profile leg. Pockmarked decoration on the inner side. Flat-base fragment with flaring wall, set on a broken leg. Very smooth interior. Rounded base fragment with flaring wall, set on a broken leg. Ring-base fragment with an attached leg part. A drilled hole and deep grooves on both sides of the fragment perhaps represent evidence of reuse as a weight. Ring diameter = 240 mm. Ring-base fragment. Curved cylinder. Ring diameter = 140 mm. Ring base. Oval profile. Ring diameter = 200 mm. Ring base. Rectangular profile. Ring diameter = 200 mm.

The classification of most of these fragments follows the typological scheme developed by Rowan (1998: 257–265). E.g., Rosenberg / Chasan / van den Brink, 2016. See Table 4 there for a list of for a list of Chalcolithic sites with similar basalt bowls. 22 Guy / Engberg, 1938: Fig. 21; Weingarten / Hershkovitz, in press: item 10/J/183. 23 Amiran / Porat, 1984; Rowan, 1998: Figs. 19–20. 24 Braun, 1990; 1997: Fig. 12.1; Rowan, 1998: Figs. 21–24; Rowan, 2003: Fig. 6.4: 1–6. 25 Weingarten / Hershkovitz, in press: item 10/J/187/AR1; Lamon / Shipton, 1939: Pl. 112: 7. 21

A Rich Early Bronze Age I Groundstone Assemblage from Tel Megiddo East, Israel

149

Figure 4. Fenestrated pedestalled basalt bowls.

Four-handled Bowls (n=9; Fig. 6) Nine four-handled bowl fragments, typical of the Early Bronze Age I (Rowan’s type 4Civ), were found in the assemblage. These bowls, of various sizes, have concave walls and four handles extending from rim to base.26 One such fragment was discovered at Megiddo in an EB I context.27 Many fragments were discovered in EB III strata in Area J (in the vicinity of the EB IB Temples) as well as in later and non-secure strata in other excavation areas on the tell.

26 27

See Rosenberg / Chasan, 2017. Weingarten / Hershkovitz, in press: item 10/J/58/AR2.

150

A. Greener and M. J. Adams

Other Basalt Vessels (n=4; Fig. 7: 1–4) Four unique basalt vessel fragments did not belong to any of the above categories. These include an intriguing discoid object discovered in a non-secure context (Fig. 7: 1), perhaps a mortar with a very shallow circular depression (1cm) on top, showing light use-marks, or a preform of a small base-ring basalt bowl, with its base-ring completed, but with the uneven and (or) fractured blank being discarded before working the surface down to make a bowl (less likely given the small stature of the piece).28 Fig. 7: 2 represents a bowl with a square base and a thickened “ribbon” ridge on the outer wall, discovered in topsoil. No parallels could be found. The small bowl with a solid cone-shaped base or pedestal in Fig. 7: 3 is typical of the Neolithic or Early Chalcolithic periods (Rowan’s type 4A–B).29 Fig. 7:4 is an unidentified fragmentary vessel with a flat oval base and the beginning of two protruding bands on its exterior. Bowl Mortars (n=4; Fig. 7: 5–8) Four fragments belonged to differently sized bowl mortars with thick rounded convex walls and smoothed interiors.30 B. Small Rings (n=20; Fig. 8) These small circular stone rings characterize many Early Bronze Age stone assemblages. Five are complete and the other fifteen broken (usually between a quarter or half of the total ring was found). These items vary somewhat in size and shape, though the similarities point to a certain standardization degree.31 Their outer diameters range between 3.2 cm and 5.1 cm (nine of them range between 3.5 and 4.5 cm). The items were bifacially drilled, and their perforations’ diameters measure mostly 1.2 cm. They range in thickness from 1.5 to 3 cm, and weigh from 27 to 120 grams (including the estimated weights of the broken items), though half of them weigh between 50 and 60 grams.32 The rings are polished on all sides, including their inner perforations, suggesting continuous rotary motion. Nine can be defined as doughnut-shaped “rings” (oblate spheroids) (Fig. 8: 1–7), while another eleven resemble miniature mace-heads with their thickness greater than their diameter (prolate spheroids) (Fig. 8: 8–18).33 Most are made of basalt except two of the “maceheads”, which are made of a flint nodule and gray limestone/dolomite. According to Shamir,34 these items were hafted on suspended spindles and provided continuous rotary motion on the flywheel principle, enabling twisting the fibers to fashion threads. Others refer to them as flywheels or loom weights.35 However, this interpretation is far from secure. Either way, Rosenberg and Greenberg were convinced that the choice of basalt as raw material for their production during the Early Bronze Age I goes beyond functional needs, as is further attested by the investment in their shaping and finishing. Similar items were discovered at many Early Bronze Age sites, such as Qiryat Ata and Bet Yerah.36 Many of these were found at Megiddo: Five in EB I contexts during the TAU renewed excavations,37 and several more in the older University of Chicago excavations in Area BB and the “Stages” (dated to the EB

28

See possible Iron Age parallel from Hazor (Yadin, 1958: pl. LIX:1). We thank Jennie Ebeling for this suggestion and reference. 29 Rowan, 1998: 153–162; see also Braun, 1997: Fig. 15.6: 3–6. 30 See Rowan, 2003: Fig. 6.2: 10 for a possible parallel. 31 Standardization in the production of the small rings was identified at other EBI sites as well (e.g., Shamir, 2003; Rosenberg / Greenberg, 2014a). 32 Another five items weigh 27–40 grams; the remaining five items weigh between 75–120 grams. 33 Shamir (2003: 210) divided these objects differently into rings and doughnut-shaped items according to the ratio between the perforation diameter and the thickness of the ring. 34 Shamir, 2003. 35 Rowan, 2003: 189; Rosenberg / Greenberg, 2014a: 200. 36 Shamir, 2003; Rosenberg / Greenberg, 2014a: 200–201 (including an exhaustive list of parallels). 37 Sass, 2000: 94/J/45/AR8, 94/J/11/AR1, 96/J/62/AR1, 96/J/86/AR2; Sass / Cinnamon, 2006: 00/J/136/AR1.

A Rich Early Bronze Age I Groundstone Assemblage from Tel Megiddo East, Israel

151

I).38 Many others were discovered in later and non-secure strata in these locations as well as in other excavation areas on the tell.39 C. Grinding Stones (n=34; Fig. 9) From a functional point of view, these objects are rough tools suitable for grinding grains. Due to their elongated shapes, these tools tended to break along their transversal axes. Twenty fragments belonged to upper grinding stones, twelve to lower ones, and another two could not be categorized as either. Most were manufactured of vesicular basalt. Similar basalt grinding stones dated to the EB I were found in many Early Bronze Age domestic contexts, including Megiddo,40 ‘En Shadud, Jericho, ‘Arad, Kiryat Ata, Beth Yeraḥ, and Tel Qashish.41 Upper Grinding Stones (n=20; Fig. 9: 1–3) These grinding stones are the upper mobile grinders used in conjunction with larger querns and grinding slabs. All those discovered at Tel Megiddo East showed evidence of plano-convex cross-sections and were utilized only unifacially. All had been shaped by a combination of pecking and flaking on their dorsal and lateral sides. The working surfaces of the upper grinding stones are generally convex on their transversal sections and concave longitudinally. Four of these items, complete or nearly complete, are either loaf-shaped or had a wider and lower profile, reminiscent of a turtleback. The remaining fragments also seemingly originated from similarly shaped grinding tools. Lower Grinding Stones (n=12; Fig. 9: 4) Lower grinding stones are generally immobile stones on which a second, smaller upper stone was used for grinding coarse material, usually grains and other foodstuffs. Wright classified them into grinding slabs, where the working motion was longitudinal, and querns, with “rims” around edges of the concave working surfaces,42 where the working motion was rotary or circular. All the examples had plano-convex crosssections and were utilized unifacially. Continuous grinding motion turned their working surfaces concave on both their transversal and longitudinal sections. As far as we can tell from the fragments, there is no great diversity of shapes in the TME grounding stone assemblage. Six of these tools had an elongated rectangular (or loaf) shape, while four others seemed to have been either wider or “querns” (e.g. Fig. 9: 4). Two additional items seemed to have flat grinding surfaces. All had been shaped by a combination of pecking and flaking on the ventral and lateral sides. Unspecified Grinding Stones (Lower/Upper) Two grinding stone fragments (originating from tools plano-convex in cross-section and used unifacially) could not be further categorized. Wright referred to such items as “unidentifiable groundstone fragments”.43

38

Loud, 1948: Pl. 171: 4–6; Guy / Engberg, 1938: Pls. 76: 5–6, 85: 12; Braun, 2014: Pls. 75a–d, 33–34. See also Loud, 1948: Pl. 171: 1–2, 7–8, 11; Lamon / Shipton, 1939: Pl. 114: 6–8. 39 Braun (2014: 101) described the small basalt rings/whorls as “well known EB I types” and assumed that all of the ones which were discovered in the Megiddo “Stages” should be considered as originating from EB I contexts. However, we should be cautious to unequivocally determine that these are products of the EB I. 40 Braun, 2014: 102, Pls. 32, 34; Sass / Cinnamon, 2006: 98/J/17, 00/J/174; Rosenberg, 2013: 06/J/82, 6/J/8208/J/142; Weingarten / Hershkowitz, in press: 10/J/138. 41 Braun, 1985: Figs. 39: 3, 40: 1–9; Dorrell, 1983: Fig. 230: 11; Amiran / Paran / Shiloh / Brown / Tsafrir / Ben-Tor, 1978: Pl. 79: 1–7; Rowan, 2003: Fig. 6.1; Getzov, 2006: Fig. 3.59; Rosenberg / Greenberg, 2014a: Fig. 5.1–5.3; BenTor / Bonfil 2003: Figs. 14: 17, 54: 9–10. 42 Wright, 1992. 43 Wright, 1992.

152

A. Greener and M. J. Adams

Figure 5. Open form basalt bowls.

Item 1 2

Registration No. 12/C/121 PT1 AR2 12/C/090 PT2 AR1

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

11/C/024 PT2 AR2 13/C/030 PT1 AR2 12/C/109 PT4 AR2 11/C/055 PT1 AR6 11/C/047 PT1 AR1 11/C/057 PT1 AR2 11/C/032 PT5 AR3

Figure 5. Open form basalt bowls.

Description Flaring wall and tapering rim. Flaring wall and tapering rim. Faint triangular designs on the inner rim. Rim diameter = 300 mm. Flaring wall and round-base fragment. Well ground. Flat base of a small bowl with flaring walls. Very smooth inside. Flaring wall with tapering rim. Rim diameter = 300 mm. Flaring wall and tapering rim. Circular-base fragment. Smooth interior. Base fragment. The bowl seems to have been oval or rectangular. Flaring wall and beveled rim. The rough inner surface suggests that it was not finished. Rim diameter = 260mm.

A Rich Early Bronze Age I Groundstone Assemblage from Tel Megiddo East, Israel Figure 6. Four-handled basalt bowls.

Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Registration No. 13/C/101 PT1 AR1 11/C/055 PT7 AR5 11/C/022 PT3 AR2 13/C/019 PT2 AR 11/C/010 PT5 AR5 13/C/078 PT1 AR1 12/C/053 PT1 AR1

8

13/C/073 PT1 AR2

9

13/C/012 PT2 AR1

Description Rim and handle. Vessel diameter = 260 mm. Rim and handle. Vessel diameter = 270 mm. Small rim and handle. Rim and handle. Vessel diameter = 360 mm. Rim and handle. Vessel diameter = 200 mm. Rim and handle. Vessel diameter = 240 mm. Wall and base. Beginning of handle is identified near the base. Base diameter = 200 mm. Wall and base. Beginning of handle is identified near the base. The slightly concave base is battered from extensive pounding. Irregular thickness. Wall and base. Beginning of handle is identified near the base. Base diameter = 320 mm.

Figure 6. Four-handled basalt bowls.

153

154

A. Greener and M. J. Adams

Figure 7. Other basalt unique vessels and bowl mortars.

Item 1

2 3

4 5 6 7 8

Registration No. Description 12/C/060 PT2 AR1 Discoidal basalt object, possibly a mortar, widening towards the bottom. It has a shallow (1 cm), roughly circular depression at the top with grinding/ pounding marks (Diameter = 82–124 mm. Height = 46 mm). Alternatively, this may be a preform of a small ring-base basalt bowl. The ring base was completed, but the uneven and/or fractured blank was discarded before working the surface down to make a bowl. 13/C/030 PT1 AR1 One quarter of an oval mortar/bowl with a square base and a protruding ribbon on the exterior. Smooth and shallow. Probably postdates the EBI. 13/C/122 PT1 AR1 Circular shallow mortar or bowl with a solid cone-shaped ridged base or pedestal. Rounded rim. Bowl diameter = 60 mm. Such solid-base bowls are typical of the Neolithic or Early Chalcolithic period (Rowan’s type 4A–B) 13/C/133 PT1 AR2 Flat small base of an oval or rectilinear mortar or bowl. Two protruding bands can be seen on the exterior. 13/C/097 PT2 AR1 Bowl mortar with thick round base. Thick crust. Very thick sides and base. 13/C/066 PT1 AR2 Wall and rounded base of a basalt bowl mortar. Smoothed on the interior. 11/C/019 PT9 AR3 Rounded rim of a round shallow bowl mortar. Rim diameter = 80 mm. 11/C/009 PT1 AR2 Rim of small, delicate bowl mortar with convex walls. Rim diameter = 100 mm.

Figure 7. Other basalt unique vessels and bowl mortars.

A Rich Early Bronze Age I Groundstone Assemblage from Tel Megiddo East, Israel

155

D. Abraders and Polishers (n=8; Figs. 10: 1–2) These palm-sized ovoid tools with smoothed facets were used for rubbing, abrading, polishing and similar activities which took place directly against the worked material (rather than in between two stones as in upper and lower grinding stones). The term ‘abrader’ refers to the items with evidence of rough rubbing/abrading while ‘polisher’ describes items whose working surface was used for polishing or burnishing, leaving smooth surfaces. We group them together due to the overlap between the two types and difficulty to adequately differentiate between them. All these items were found complete. Five were made of limestone (with either a high quartz or flint content, e.g., Fig. 10:1), and three of dense and smooth basalt (e.g., Fig. 10:2). Most have multiple working surfaces that became smoothed or polished with use. Three of the abraders are cube-shaped, with at least one of their facets smoothed as a result of abrasion. We note that additional similar-shaped cuboid objects from this assemblage were not worked and were assigned their own category (see below). Abraders have been observed in ethnographic contexts, being used for hide-working, crushing temper or pigments and used for polishing or burnishing other tools or vessels.44 Small tools such as these are common in domestic contexts at EB sites like Qiryat Ata, Jericho, and ‘Arad.45 E. Dome-shaped objects (weights?) (n=2; Fig. 10: 3) These dome-shaped items, distinguished morphologically from the other abraders/polishers, each with one flat facet, are made of limestone with a high concentration of barite. While they could have been used as abraders, their small sizes, perfect spherical shapes, and brittleness suggest they had a different use, perhaps as weights. The prolate object in Fig. 10:3 weighed 147 gr, while the second item (not illustrated), oblate, weighed 114 gr. F. Cuboid Objects (n=4; Fig. 10: 4) These items – three of dense basalt of one of limestone - retained their symmetric, nearly cubic shape with rounded contours and showed little or no abrasion signs. They may have been used as weights46 or intended as abraders or pounders.47 The tools’ facets measure 4–5 x 4–5 cm, and their weights range from 98 to 273 gr. G. Pounders (n=4; Fig. 10: 5) The four pounders (or hammerstones) found in the assemblage were defined primarily by their morphology and the evidence of battering wear and flaking scars (often on multiple facets) caused by pounding. They are made of basalt, flint, and limestone. Battered nodules of various rock types are commonly found at sites dating from various periods, including Early Bronze Age Qiryat Ata, Jericho, and ‘Arad.48 H. Pestles (n=6; Fig. 10: 6) Three large, dense-basalt (one nearly complete and two fragments) and three smaller, limestone pestles were identified in the assemblage. These items, cylindrical with an elliptical cross-section, have one or two pecked and flattened ends and are cracked and chipped due to prolonged crushing and grinding through rotary motion. The large, harder basalt tools may have been used to crush grains, while the somewhat softer and smaller limestone objects might have served for finer grinding. Comparable basalt items were found in Early Bronze Age contexts such as Qiryat Ata, Jericho, and ‘Arad.49 44

Adams, 1989. Rowan, 2003: Fig. 6.1: 5–7; Dorrell, 1983: Fig. 230: 3; Amiran / Paran / Shiloh / Brown / Tsafrir / Ben-Tor, 1978: Pl. 80: 9–11, 13–15. 46 Rosenberg / Greenberg, 2014a: 206. 47 Rowan, 2003: Fig. 6.2: 1–3. 48 Rowan, 2003: Fig. 6.2: 4; Dorrell, 1983: Pl. 20d; Amiran / Paran / Shiloh / Brown / Tsafrir / Ben-Tor, 1978: 58. 49 Rowan 2003, Fig. 6.2: 5–6; Dorrell 1983, Fig. 230:6; Amiran / Paran / Shiloh / Brown / Tsafrir / Ben-Tor, 1978: Pl. 80:12. 45

156

A. Greener and M. J. Adams

I. Round Stones (“slingstones”) (n=9; Figs. 10: 7–8) These items seem to be made of natural rock nodules only slightly worked into spherical oblate shapes. They demonstrate no significant wear, i.e., pounding, grinding, or abrading, and vary in size and weight. Their diameters range from 2.6 to 6.9 cm. Six of them are made of heavy barite-rich limestone (weight range 99– 684 gr) (Fig. 10: 7), while three are made of a lighter limestone (Fig. 10: 8). J. Large Rings (n=3; Figs. 11: 1–2) These basalt large oval ring fragments show bi-conical perforations (diam. range 1.2–6 cm), possibly to lower the risk of fracturing the blanks. The item with the narrowest perforation (Fig. 11:1) may have had a different function than the other two, or perhaps was not completed. All are asymmetric and do not seem to have been standardized. Their outer diameters vary from 12 to 22 cm, and their estimated original weights range from 800 to 3000 gr. Rowan noted that though large stone rings are common in Early Bronze Age sites, their function(s) are far from being understood.50 They are often referred to as “digging stick weights” or “dibble stick weights”. Rosenberg and Greenberg suggested that these were perhaps utilized in different tasks, e.g., as weights for nets or looms, in throwing games, and as counterweights on digging sticks.51 Examples of large stone rings from other EB I sites include Qiryat Ata, ‘Arad, and Beth Yerah.52

Figure 8. Small basalt rings.

50

Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Registration No. 12/C/121 PT1 AR1 12/C/098 PT1 AR1 13/C/137 PT1 AR1 13/C/067 PT1 AR1 11/C/023 PT7 AR2 11/C/007 PT2 AR3 12/C/108 PT1 AR1 12/C/026 PT1 AR1

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

12/C/057 PT2 AR2 12/C/007 PT1 AR1 12/C/006 PT1 AR1 11/C/018 PT10 AR8 12/C/122 PT1 AR1 11/C/052 PT1 AR2 12/C/057 PT5 AR2 13/C/066 PT1 AR1 12/C/057 PT5 AR3 13/C/128 PT3 AR1

Description Oblate spheroid Oblate spheroid Oblate spheroid Oblate spheroid Oblate spheroid Oblate spheroid Oblate spheroid Prolate spheroid. Drilled from both sides but not completely penetrating the item. May have been intended to be used as a spindle whorl, flywheel, or weight, but broke during production. Prolate spheroid Prolate spheroid Prolate spheroid Prolate spheroid Prolate spheroid Prolate spheroid Prolate spheroid Prolate spheroid Prolate spheroid Prolate spheroid

Rowan, 2003: 189. Rosenberg / Greenberg, 2014a: 202; see also Adams, 2002: 203. 52 Rowan, 2003: 189; Amiran / Paran / Shiloh / Brown / Tsafrir / Ben-Tor, 1978: Pl. 77: 12–23; Rosenberg / Greenberg, 2014a: 201, and see more references there. 51

A Rich Early Bronze Age I Groundstone Assemblage from Tel Megiddo East, Israel

Figure 8. Small basalt rings.

157

158

A. Greener and M. J. Adams

K. Limestone Bowls and Bowlets (n=3; Figs. 11: 3–4) Two limestone bowl fragments and a complete bowlet were found in the assemblage. Fig. 11: 3 is a slightly convex limestone practice piece (?) with nine drill holes, only three of which are fully preserved. The object’s curvature is reminiscent of a bowl’s wall. The perforations do not penetrate the outer side of the object. We can discern two parallel perforation lines with one perpendicular line between them. On both the interior and the exterior, striations which resemble wheel-marks are visible, though the orientation of these marks is different on the interior and the exterior. The second bowl fragment may have been used as an (upper) drill cup. The socket deepens toward the center and looks very symmetrical. The outer surface of this bowl is neither worked nor symmetrical. Items like the latter, dating to the Early Bronze Age, were discovered at Bet Yerah.53 The complete oval limestone bowlet (Fig. 11: 4), although made of soft stone, may have been used as a light mortar, or (less likely) as a pounder, fitting nicely into the palm of the hand. Similar items were discovered at Beth Yerah, Qiryat ‘Ata, and Jericho.54 L. Perforated Stones (n=2; Fig. 11: 5) Two perforated limestone objects, one is cylindrical and the other has a thin rectangle shape. Both seem to have broken as a result of the drilling. It is unlikely that these were used as suspension weights, which has been suggested for the larger irregularly shaped drilled stones which are discovered at other archaeological excavations.55 M. Stoppers (n=2; Fig. 11: 6) Two discoid basalt objects, each c. 5 cm in diameter, may have been used as jar stoppers. The first (Fig. 11: 6) shows slight depressions in the center of both wide facets, which may have been created by light pounding. The second (not illustrated), irregularly shaped, is covered with clumps of hardened sediment. N. Hammer (n=1; Fig. 11: 7) The assemblage yielded one rounded rectangular dense-basalt hammer. Several facets are smoothed, and all bear pounding or pecking marks, most noticeable on the narrow facets. One of the wide surfaces is darkened from use or fire. This item was probably fastened, with a cord, to a wooden handle. O. Varia (Unidentified Objects) (n=3; Fig. 11: 8) Three items could not be ascribed to any of the above categories. The first is a soft limestone fragment (Fig. 11: 8) showing incised parallel lines encircled by two incised lines that follow the curvature of the item. The object seems to be the rounded corner of a larger one. This item resembles incised pebbles of the Neolithic period.56 The additional two items are triangular and oblong pebbles which fit into the palm of the hand. Though they do not demonstrate any clear use-marks, though some of the sides are smoother than others. P. Non-diagnostic Fragments (n=12) Twelve additional stone fragments with use wear, but not much can be said about their function or original shape due to their fragmentary condition. Six were made of fine-grained basalt and may have belonged to various types or grinding surfaces.

53

E.g., Rosenberg / Greenberg, 2014a: Fig. 5.6. Rosenberg / Greenberg, 2014a: Figs. 5.7: c, 5.20; Rowan, 2003: Fig. 6.2: 11; Dorrell, 1983: Fig. 230: 1–2. 55 E.g., Rowan 2003: Fig. 6.2, 8–9. 56 E.g., Rosenberg / Greenberg, 2014b: 205–234. 54

A Rich Early Bronze Age I Groundstone Assemblage from Tel Megiddo East, Israel Figure 9. Basalt grinding stones.

Item 1 2 3 4

Registration No. 11/C/050 PT4 AR1 12/C/060 PT2 AR2 12/C/014 PT4 AR3 11/C/043 PT5 AR2

Figure 9. Basalt grinding stones.

Description Upper grinding stone. Turtle-back shape. Upper grinding stone. Turtle-back shape. Upper oval grinding stone. Used with one or two hands. Medial section of a vesicular-basalt lower grinding stone. Probably a quern.

159

160

A. Greener and M. J. Adams

Figure 10. Abraders/polishers, dome-shaped and cuboid items, pounders, and slingstones.

Item 1 2 3 4 5

Registration No. 11/C/001 PT2 AR7 12/C/081 PT1 AR1 11/C/073 PT1 AR1 12/C/039 PT1 AR1 12/C/017 PT1 AR1

6 7 8

12/C/056 PT2 AR1 11/C/004 PT1 AR1 13/C/005 PT1 AR1

Description Discoidal abrader/polisher. Limestone. Smooth triangular basalt abrader/polisher. Dome-shaped limestone (Barium) object. Weight? Compact basalt cuboid-shaped item. Large, roughly spherical flint pounder with many pecking and battering marks. Cylindrical compact-basalt pestle. Spherical limestone object. Slingstone? Small and heavy limestone object. Slingstone?

Figure 10. Abraders/polishers, dome-shaped and cuboid items, pounders, and slingstones.

A Rich Early Bronze Age I Groundstone Assemblage from Tel Megiddo East, Israel Figure 11. Various stone items.

Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Registration No. 13/C/019 PT1 AR1 12/C/097 PT4 AR1 11/C/001 PT4 AR12 13/C/033 PT4 AR3 11/C/016 PT1 AR1 12/C/019 PT1 AR1 13/C/033 PT4 AR2 12/C/054 PT1 AR1

Figure 11. Various stone items.

Description Large compact-basalt ring. Large compact-basalt ring. Slightly convex (bowl fragment?); limestone practice piece (?) with nine drill holes, only three of which are fully preserved. Roughly oval limestone bowlet. Unfinished cylindrical perforated limestone. Discoid basalt object. Stopper? Rectangular compact-basalt object with rounded corners. Hammer? Soft limestone fragment with incised parallel lines.

161

162

A. Greener and M. J. Adams

Discussion and Conclusions While most of the groundstone tools reviewed above are typical of Early Bronze Age domestic sites, the high number of basalt vessel fragments discovered at Tel Megiddo East is striking (compared to the excavated area and total stone collection) and not typical of an ordinary Early Bronze Age domestic settlement. These vessels include fenestrated pedestalled bowls, four-handled basalt bowls, “open form” basalt bowls, and several unique and elaborate items. The highly skilled artisanship required to produce such basalt vessels suggests that these were considered prestige items. Their production involved considerable risk-taking and risk-management during a multiphasic production process. The vessels’ value could be even further compounded by the functions the bowls fulfilled and their specific social setting. Among the basalt bowls, the intriguing four-handled bowls require special attention. Only 58 specimens of this type have been thus far published from the entire Southern Levant. The nine examples from Tel Megiddo East represent, thus, the largest collection recorded at any single site in the region. Rosenberg and Chasan proposed that four-handled bowls were manufactured and used during the Early Bronze Age IB, suggesting that examples found in later Early Bronze Age contexts are residual.57 Most four-handled bowls have been discovered in the northern part of the country, and most Early Bronze Age sites have yielded only one or a few examples,58 suggesting that these vessels had a special significance or function (sites with over five examples include Tel Megiddo, Beth Shean, and Tel Bet Yerah). Rosenberg and Chasan elaborated on the possible cultic (rotary grinding?) role that these highly invested items played during this period. Although some of these vessels were discovered in domestic contexts,59 they assumed these served in ceremonies or rituals, probably at the community level and not within the nuclear family or other restricted social contexts. Ten basalt fenestrated pedestalled bowls, traditionally associated with the preceding Chalcolithic period, were also discovered at Tel Megiddo East, raising the question of their discovery in EB IB contexts. Rowan observed a similar phenomenon at Qiryat ‘Ata and mentioned several possible explanations.60 According to Rowan, these could represent artifacts or fragments that were curated as “heirlooms”, or perhaps being found and reused by the later occupants at the site. Alternatively, their presence could stem from “mixing” with an earlier local Chalcolithic deposit due to pitting by the later inhabitants or other site-formation processes.61 However, while Chalcolithic material is known from nearby Megiddo (discovered in various strata), it is important to note that no Chalcolithic pottery was found in the TME excavations where these basalt vessels were discovered. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the TME fenestrated pedestalled bowl fragments arrived via site-formation processes that otherwise did not also bring earlier ceramic material. Finally, one may suggest the continuation of these vessel types into the EB I period, though the lack of sufficient parallels from well-documented Early Bronze Age I contexts makes it difficult to support such a theory. Several other basalt vessels discovered at Tel Megiddo East also seem to originate in earlier periods such as the Neolithic or Early Chalcolithic (e.g., Fig. 7:3). The question of the reason for such a high concentration of basalt vessel fragments at Tel Megiddo East may help reveal the site’s character and the activities which took place in it. Although the state of the site and the finds do not allow for a direct answer to these issues, we suggest that the strong presence of valued stone products at Tel Megiddo East stems from its proximity and relationship with the contemporaneous cultic center at Megiddo.62 In other words, the Tel Megiddo East ground stone tools, rings, and vessels indicate that this small site existed in symbiosis with the Megiddo temples, the status of the finds from TME complementing that of the temple.63 Tel Megiddo East’s unique status meant that its residents could afford 57

Rosenberg / Chasan, 2017. For more about the circulation and exchange of goods during the EB, see Milevski, 2011. See also Braun, 1990: 94. 59 Rosenberg / Chasan, 2017: 18. See also Braun, 1990: 94. 60 Rowan, 2003: 194. 61 In fact, Braun (2012) critiqued the excavation methodology at Qiryat Ata and claimed that these vessels fragments originated from Chalcolithic contexts which were indeed present at the site. 62 Adams / Finkelstein / Ussishkin, 2014. 63 The faunal assemblages at both sites also supports a strong link between the two sites; Sapir-Hen / Fulton / Adams / Finkelstein, in press. 58

A Rich Early Bronze Age I Groundstone Assemblage from Tel Megiddo East, Israel

163

or be afforded a special set of stone vessels and tools.64 The few groundstone tools and vessels discovered in the Megiddo EB I strata and published by the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute and the renewed Tel Aviv University excavations may provide more information about the cultic activities within the tell’s temples.65 Their analysis and comparison, in the future, to the Tel Megiddo East groundstone tool assemblage may result in further and profitable data, allowing for a more comprehensive picture of the functions and values of the groundstone tools and vessels at both the domestic and ritual EB I Megiddo sites.66

Acknowledgments The Tel Megiddo East groundstone tools study was made possible thanks to Aaron Greener’s institutional Postdoctoral Fellowship at the Zinman Institute of Archaeology’s Laboratory for Ground Stone Tool Research of the University of Haifa. We wish to thank the laboratory’s staff and director, Prof. Danny Rosenberg, for their kind assistance and advice. We would also like to thank Eliot Braun for his comments on the manuscript, and Jennie Ebeling and Yorke Rowan for their insights on the stone collection. Finally, we wish to thank Yoav Weingarten for sharing information from his groundstone tool chapter, which will be published in an upcoming Megiddo excavation report. The artifacts were photographed and drawn by Sapir Haad.

References Adams, J., 1989: “Methods for Improving Ground Stone Artifacts Analysis: Experiments in Mano Wear Patterns”. In: D. S. Amick / R. P. Mauldin (eds.): Experiments in Lithic Technology. BAR International Series 528. Oxford. Pp. 259–276. — 2002: Ground Stone Analysis. Salt Lake City. Adams, M. J. 2013a. “Area J, Part III: The Main Sector of Area J: The Early Bronze Age, Stratigraphy and Architecture. In I. Finkelstein / D. Ussishkin / E. Cline / M. Adams / E. Arie / N. Franklin / M. Martin (eds.): Megiddo V: The 2004–2008 Seasons. Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series, 31. Tel Aviv. Pp. 47–118. — 2013b: “The Early Bronze Pottery from Area J”. In: Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin / E. Cline / M. Adams / E. Arie / N. Franklin / M. Martin (eds.): Megiddo V: The 2004–2008 Seasons. Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series, 31. Institute of Archaeology. Tel Aviv. Pp. 295–334. Adams, M. J. / David, J. / Homsher, R. / Cohen, M. E. 2014: “New Evidence for the Rise of a Complex Society in the Late Fourth Millennium at Tel Megiddo East in the Jezreel Valley”. Near Eastern Archaeology 77(1), 32–43. Adams, M. J. / Finkelstein, I. / Ussishkin, D., 2014: “The Great Temple of Early Bronze I Megiddo”. American Journal of Archaeology 118(2), 1–21. Amiran, R. / Porat, N. 1984: “The Basalt Bowls of the Chalcolithic Period and the Early Bronze Age I”. Tel Aviv 11, 11–19. Amiran, R. / Paran, U. / Shiloh, Y. / Brown, R. / Tsafrir, Y. / Ben-Tor, A., 1978: Early Arad I: The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze Age City, First–Fifth Seasons of Excavations, 1962–1966. Jerusalem. Ben-Tor, A. / Bonfil, R., 2003: “The Stratigraphy of the Early Bronze Age”. In A. Ben-Tor / R. Bonfil / S. Zuckerman (eds.): Tel Qashish: A Village in the Jezreel Valley. Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1978–1987). Jerusalem. Pp. 10–30. Braun, E., 1985: En Shadud: Salvage Excavations at a Farming Community in the Jezreel Valley, Israel. BAR International Series 249. Oxford. 64

Greener et al. in preparation. See for example Weingarten, 2018. 66 A comparative study of the EB IB assemblages from the cult area and TME is underway by the authors along with Y. Weingarten. 65

164

A. Greener and M. J. Adams

— 1990: “Basalt Bowls on the EBI Horizon in the Southern Levant”. Paléorient 16(1), 87–96. — 1997: Yiftah’el: Salvage and Rescue Excavations at a Prehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel. IAA Reports 2. Jerusalem. — 2012: “Qiryat Ata. New Perspectives on a Late Prehistoric Site in the Southern Levant”. Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization 16, 7–37. — 2014: Early Megiddo on the East Slope (The “Megiddo Stages”): A Report on the Early Occupation of the East Slope of Megiddo. Results of the Oriental Institute’s Excavations, 1925–1933. Oriental Institute Publications 139. Chicago. Cohen-Klonymus, H., 2014: The Iron Age Groundstone Tools Assemblage of Khirbet Qeiyafa: Typology, Spatial Analysis and Sociological Aspects. MA Thesis. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Dorrell, P. G., 1983: “Appendix A. Stone Vessels, Tools, and Objects”. In K. M. Kenyon / T. Holland (eds.): Excavations at Jericho V. The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. London. Pp. 485–575. Finkelstein, I. / Ussishkin, D., 2000: “Area J”. In I. Finkelstein / D. Ussishkin / B. Halpern (eds.): Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 18. Tel Aviv. Pp. 25–74. Finkelstein, I. / Ussishkin, D. / Peersmann, J., 2006: “Area J (The 1998–2000 Seasons)”. In I. Finkelstein / D. Ussishkin / B. Halpern (eds.): Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Seasons. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 24. Tel Aviv. Pp. 29–53. Getzov, N., 2006: The Tel Bet Yeraḥ Excavations 1994–1995. IAA Reports 28. Jerusalem. Greener, A. / Adams, M. J. / Herriott, C., in preparation: An EB I Ritual Bowl from Tel Megiddo East. Guy, P. L. O. / Engberg, R., 1938: Megiddo Tombs. Chicago. Keinan, A., 2013: “Area J, Part II: Sub-Area Lower J”. In I. Finkelstein / D. Ussishkin / E. Cline / M. Adams / E. Arie / N. Franklin / M. Martin (eds.): Megiddo V: The 2004–2008 Seasons. Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 31. Tel Aviv. Pp. 28–46. Lamon, R. / Shipton, G.M., 1939: Megiddo I: Seasons of 1925–34, Strata I–V. Chicago. Loud, G., 1948: Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–39. Oriental Institute Publications 62. Chicago. Milevski, I., 2011: Early Bronze Age Goods Exchange in the Southern Levant: A Marxist Perspective. Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology. London. Regev, J. / Finkelstein, I. / Adams, M.J. / Boaretto, E., 2014: “Wiggle-Matched ¹⁴C Chronology of Early Bronze Megiddo and the Synchronization of Egyptian and Levantine Chronologies”. Ägypten und Levante / Egypt and the Levant 24, 241–264. Rosenberg, D., 2013: “Chapter 16: The Groundstone Assemblage”. In I. Finkelstein / D. Ussishkin / E. Cline / M. Adams / E. Arie / N. Franklin / M. Martin (eds.): Megiddo V: The 2004–2008 Seasons, Volume III. Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series, 31. Instittute of Archaeology. Tel Aviv. Pp. 930–976. Rosenberg, D. / Chasan, R., 2017: “The Characteristics and Significance of Prestige Goods during the Early Bronze Age Period of the Southern Levant: The Particular Case of the Four-Handled Basalt Vessels Phenomenon”. Quaternary International 30, 1–19. Rosenberg, D. / Chasan, R. / van den Brink, E. C. M., 2016: “Craft Specialization, Production and Exchange in the Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant: Insights from the Study of the Basalt Bowl Assemblage from Namir Road, Tel Aviv, Israel”. Eurasian Prehistory 13(1–2), 105–128. Rosenberg, D. / Greenberg, R., 2014a: “The Stone Assemblage”. In R. Greenberg (ed.): Beth Yeraḥ: The Early Bronze Age Mound. Volume II: Urban Structure and Material Culture: 1933–1986 Excavations. IAA Reports 54. Jerusalem. Rosenberg, D. / Greenberg, R., 2014b: Sha’ar Hagolan 4: The Ground-Stone Industry: Stone Working at the Dawn of Pottery Production in the Southern Levant. Jerusalem. Rowan, Y., 1998: Ancient Distribution and Deposition of Prehistoric Objects: Basalt Vessels during Late Prehistory in the Southern Levant. PhD Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. — 2003: “The Groundstone Assemblage”. In A. Golani (ed.): Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat Ata. IAA Reports 18. Jerusalem. Pp. 183–202.

A Rich Early Bronze Age I Groundstone Assemblage from Tel Megiddo East, Israel

165

Sapir-Hen, L. / Fulton, D. N. / Adams, M. J. / Finkelstein, I., in press: “Temple and the Town at Early Bronze Age I Megiddo: Faunal Evidence for the Emergence of Complexity”. BASOR. Sass, B., 2000: “Chapter 12: The Small Finds”. In I. Finkelstein / D. Ussishkin / B. Halpern (eds.): Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons. Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 18. Tel Aviv. Pp. 349–423. Sass, B. / Cinamon, G., 2006: “Chapter 18: The Small Finds. In I. Finkelstein / D. Ussishkin / B. Halpern (eds.): Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Seasons. Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 24. Tel Aviv. Pp. 353–425. Shamir, O., 2003: “Spindle Whorls”. In A. Golani (ed.): Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat Ata. IAA Reports 18. Jerusalem. Pp. 209–215. Wapnish, P. / Hesse, B., 2000: “Mammal remains from the Early Bronze sacred compound”. In I. Finkelstein / D. Ussishkin / B. Halpern (eds.): Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons. Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 18. Tel Aviv. Pp. 429–462. Weingarten, Y., 2018: Quantitative Research of Bronze and Iron Ages Ground Stone Tools from Tel Megiddo: Function, Method of Operation, and Production and Discard Patterns. MA Thesis, University of Tel Aviv. Weingarten, Y. / Hershkovitz, Y., in press: “Ground Stone Tools”. In I. Finkelstein (ed.): Megiddo VI: The 2010–2014 Seasons. Tel Aviv. Wright, K., 1992: “A Classification System for Ground Stone Tools from the Prehistoric Levant”. Paléorient 18, 53–81. Yadin, Y., 1958: Hazor I: An Account of the First Season of Excavations, 1955. Jerusalem. Yekutieli, Y., 2008: “Symbols in Action – The Megiddo Graffiti Reassessed”. In B. Midant-Reynes / Y. Tristant (eds.): Egypt and its Origins 2. Louven. Pp. 807–837.

New Vistas on the EB IB–EB II Transition in the Coastal Plain A View from ʿEn Esur, an EB IB Proto-urban Settlement Yitzhak Paz1 and Itai Elad2

Abstract The transition between the late EB IB and the EB II, dated to the end of the 4th millennium BC, is considered by many scholars as a critical point that ended one cultural phenomenon (village life) and started another (urbanization). Many scholars claim that while the EB IB reflects rural village life, the EB II reflects an entirely new way of living expressed through urbanization, characterized by a new ideological framework that dictated an entirely different socio-political order. With that said, the data accumulated from recent excavations and studies seems to reflect a different situation. It can be stated that urbanization did not emerge ‘out of the blue’ during the EB II and that it is well-rooted in very large and often fortified EB IB settlements like ʿEn Zippori, Tel Shalem, and ʿEn Esur. The excavations at ʿEn Esur have revealed a huge c. 65-ha carefully planned settlement—the largest EB IB settlement known to date—with social differentiation that can be attested through the analysis of its architecture. Moreover, this site, located on a central junction leading from the Coastal Plain to the Jezreel Valley, was a trading center, as evidenced by finds originating in other regions, including the Jordan Valley and Egypt. The current paper presents some of the main aspects of the vast EB IB settlement of ʿEn Esur, which can no longer be considered a ‘village’ and, as many other settlements in the Southern Levant, reflects the protourban wave under which the first towns emerged. Keywords: Urbanization, Fortifications, Public structures, Streets, Planning.

Introduction: In Search of Early Urbanization in the Southern Levant3 The ongoing quest for the roots of early urbanization during the EBA in the Southern Levant is one of the most controversial issues in the research of this period. Kempinski was the first to define the urbanization process in Southern Levant, and, using a Marxist approach, he focused on socio-political mechanisms leading to a process that ended in the urban entities of the 3rd millennium BC.4 Scholars such as Esse, Finkelstein, and Gophna, tended to look for a foreign agency as a motivator for socio-political change. This agency, be it Egyptian or Mesopotamian, was considered an important trigger in the urbanization process.5 Portugali and Gophna expressed the view that urbanization started as a response to a crisis occurring by the end of the EB IB, and thus, urbanization should be firmly placed at the beginning of the EB II.6 Other scholars tended to relate the rise of urbanization to local trajectories, and Greenberg was entirely right in stating that southern Levantine urbanization should be defined as a local phenomenon, characterized by regional patterns of development, many transformations, and not just one ‘trajectory’.7 The accumulating evidence for the presence of fortifications and monumental architecture at EB IB sites, such as Tel Shalem, Tel Megiddo, Tel Aphek, and Tel Erani, has led to the notion that urbanization of the Southern Levant may have begun already during the late 4th millennium BC, terming this initial phenomenon

1

Israel Antiquities Authority; email: [email protected]. Israel Antiquities Authority; email: [email protected]. 3 This article was submitted for publication in February 2019, therefore, some of the details presented here are not up to date. However, the main theme of early urbanization of ʿEn Esur remains valid. 4 Kempinski, 1978. 5 Esse, 1989; Finkelstein / Gophna 1993 6 Portugali / Gophna, 1993. 7 E.g. Joffe, 1991; 1993; Greenberg, 2002. 2

168

Y. Paz and I. Elad

‘proto-urban’.8 In a recent and thorough study of the rise of urbanization in the Southern Levant, Sarit Paz dismissed the ‘proto-urban’ character of EB IB sites. She claimed that fortifications, streets, and large structures could not testify for urbanization since they lack a whole set of ideas standing at the base of urban life and essential for the definition of a site as ‘urban’.9 For example, in Ḥorvat ’Ilin Tahtit, the alleys were only used to allow access to the houses, yet not as connecting channels for humans, commodities, and ideas.10 Furthermore, these ideas emerged at the beginning of the EB II and are best reflected at Bet Yerah, where straight streets separate quarters formed by rectangular structures that exhibit an ideology of homogeneity.11 At the same time, Paz is aware of many regional variations in the manifestations of urban ideas. In EB-II Tel Bareqet, the streets divide domestic quarters and enable movement between the various sectors of the town. Some streets were straight, and some followed the topography.12 Both Tel Arad and Tel Bareqet reflect urban planning that has both functional and socio-political aspects, and includes consideration of traditional kin structure.13 Although the plans of houses are not homogenous, there are still shared principles and a general similarity in the spatial arrangement of the dwelling units.14 The quarter represents a system of social connections, a separation between public and private circles, and the development of combined identities—a city member, a square member, a house member.15 As will be demonstrated below, the data accumulated to date from the thorough excavations at ‘En Esur enable us to reconstruct the rise of a huge settlement where lived thousands of people. This settlement, divided into quarters, fortified and with public facilities and where thousands of people lived should rightfully be defined as an urban settlement.

‘En Esur: A Proto-historical Site in the Coastal Plain of Israel ‘En Esur (Assawir) is located in the northeastern Sharon Plain, near the western outlet of Naḥal ‘Iron (Wadi ‘Ara; Fig. 1). Situated in a vast alluvial plain adjacent to the tributaries of Naḥal ʿIron, the site was a preferred area for human habitation in many periods. The site comprises three main elements: the mound (Tel Esur), the proto-historic settlement at the base of the mound (ʿEn Esur), and the cemeteries to the east and south of the settlement. ‘En Esur was first surveyed by the Palestine Exploration Fund and W. F. Albright, who mistakenly identified the tell as Yaham.16 Albrecht Alt identified the site as Aruboth after conducting his own survey,17 but this suggestion also lacked a factual base. The first comprehensive survey of the site and its surroundings was carried out by Ram Gophna,18 who was the first to estimate the dimensions of the protohistoric site. The mound has been excavated, since 2001, by a team from Haifa University, and seems to comprise mainly Middle and Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Hellenistic strata.19 The proto-historic site was first excavated in the 1990s by Eli Yannai. This salvage excavation was conducted alongside Road 65, and its rather large scale enabled the discovery of a continuous settlement dated between the 5th and the late 4th millennium BC (Chalcolithic–EB IB).20 The eastern cemeteries were examined during salvage excavations that were partly published.21

8

Paz, 2002; Getzov, Paz / Gophna, 2001, 20–22; Adams / Finkelstein / Ussishkin, 2014. Paz, 2010: 58. 10 Paz, 2010: 50. 11 Greenberg / Paz, 2011. 12 Paz, 2010: 123. 13 Paz, 2010: 123–133. 14 Paz, 2010: 186. 15 Paz, 2010: 181. 16 Albright, 1923: 9. 17 Alt, 1929: 34. 18 Gophna, 1974. 19 E.g., Zertal, 2003. 20 Yannai, 2006. 21 Yannai, 2014. 9

New Vistas on the EB IB–EB II Transition in the Coastal Plain

169

Figure 1. Location map of ‘En Esur and other sites referred to in the text.

The Salvage Excavation at ‘En Esur Between 2017 and 2019, large-scale salvage excavations were conducted at the proto-historic site of ʿEn Esur, on both sides of Road 65, in a combined area measuring 41250 sq m (Fig. 2). These excavations were carried out on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority within the framework of the construction of an interchange and a road connecting Route 65 with the new city of Harish. The remains excavated date from the Pottery Neolithic (6th millennium BC), the Early Chalcolithic th (5 millennium BC), and the late Chalcolithic period (mid-5th–early 4th millennium BC), the EB IA (3650– 3300 BC), the EB IB (3300–3050 BC), and the Intermediate Bronze Age (2500–2000 BC). The current article will focus on the late EB IB settlement, a period when it reached its maximum size (65 ha) and reflecting proto-urban traits. The following account uses the data collected so far from the excavations, and supplementary studies within the project, such as the magnetometric survey and GIS study of the site’s surroundings (Table 1).

170

Y. Paz and I. Elad

Figure 2. Location of the excavated areas with estimated extension of the settlement during the EB IA and late EB IB. Table 1. The main traits of the settlement at ʿEn Esur throughout the periods detected during the excavations.

Period

Settlement character

PN Early Chalcolithic

Village Large settlement

Estimated size (in ha) Unknown c. 40

Middle Chalcolithic Late Chalcolithic

Village Village

unknown unknown

EB IA

Village

c. 1

Early EB IB Late EB IB

Large village Urban settlement

c. 60 c. 65

IBA

Squatters

unknown

Remarks Sporadic remains Remains throughout the site, monumental architecture Sporadic remains Rectangular structures, close to the spring. Oval and round structures close to the spring Sparsely arranged structures Dense buildings, fortifications, public structures, urban planning Pits and installations

New Vistas on the EB IB–EB II Transition in the Coastal Plain

171

The EB IB Period: Settlement Growth and Early Urbanization During the EB IA, the settlement of ‘En Esur was concentrated in a relatively small area between the two springs at the site. The settlement does not seem to have exceeded 1 ha, a small village. During the early phase of the EB IB, the settlement grew significantly; domestic units developed sporadically across the site, and large open spaces were left between the structures. The transition between the early and late EB IB at ‘En Esur is characterized by a revolutionary change in several aspects of material culture. Late EB IB ‘En Esur is a crowded and massive 65 ha settlement, the largest known to date in the southern Levant (Fig. 2). Dozens of structures were revealed in all areas of the site. Only the stone-built foundations of the buildings were preserved, while upper courses, built most probably of mud bricks, did not survive. The walls of most buildings are at least 1-m wide, though many of these have walls reaching a width of 1.30– 1.50 m possibly reflecting two-story structures. Several types of domestic structures were revealed, including capsular, rectangular, and rectilinear structures with rounded corners, all contemporary; thus, the various shapes do not seem to have chronological significance. The settlement’s internal arrangement underwent a revolutionary change manifested as a planning process visible in both the northwestern and southwestern parts of the site, where large and continuous areas were excavated (Figs. 3–4). The settlement was divided into quarters and residential clusters, separated by a series of streets and alleyways. Central squares were formed at street junctions and were probably used to regulate the movement of people, livestock, commodities, and ideas. The streets were often paved with small stones or slabs. Drainage channels were built in some of them, and water management measures were taken in places where water flowed inside the settlement (Fig. 5). The quarters or sectors separated by streets seem to reflect a local autonomous construction development. While most structures throughout the settlement were built in a south-north or east-west orientation, reflecting central authoritative planning, various types of buildings and construction methods were used within the quarters. Stone storage installations, of various sizes and used for grain or containers, were found in large numbers throughout the settlement. The smallest ones measured up to 1 m in diameter while the largest exceeded 2 m. They were placed either in open spaces between houses or enclosed walled courtyards (Fig. 5). It can be suggested that diversity in storage facility size, concurrently connected to a similar diversity in domestic structures, may manifest some social differentiation. One of the most impressive architectural complexes is located on the western side of the site—a massive building consisting of several rooms or enclosed spaces, estimated to have measured 26 × 16 m. The most impressive element within this building was a huge stone basin, carved from a single block. Besides typical EB IB pottery, the basin contained pig bones. Cattle bones were found in the immediate surroundings of the basin and other locations within the building. Also found within the building were fragments of a basalt fourhandled bowl, a ceramic chalice, and a figurative ‘cultic’ cylinder seal impression with a human figure raising its hand in an ‘orant’ posture standing behind a horned animal.22 Based on the available data, this complex clearly seems to be public, and a possible cultic function can be at least hypothesized. The settlement at ʿEn Esur appears to have been fortified with a wide wall (Fig. 6), a small segment of which was detected at the western edge of the site, where topography descends westwards. The wall was built of a foundation course of stones, apparantly topped with mudbrick courses that did not survive. Another important aspect of ‘En Esur’s material culture is the finds, mainly imported pottery vessels, imported ground stone vessels, and cylinder seal impressions. Imported pottery vessels were abundant in the cemetery, excavated by Eli Yannai and securely related to the settlement.23 The large amounts of imported pottery from Egypt and even from the Euphrates Valley testify to the central role played by the settlement of ʿEn Esur during the EB IB. Imported Egyptian vessels are mostly represented by drop-shaped bottles, as well as one cylindrical vessel. Other imports are storage jars from the Jordan valley and the southern regions of Israel.

22 23

Paz, in press; Paz et. al., 2018. Yannai, 2016.

172

Y. Paz and I. Elad

Figure 3. Junction of two main streets separating domestic quarters. View to the northeast.

Figure 4. Main street, with a drainage channel, separating domestic quarters. View to the northwest.

New Vistas on the EB IB–EB II Transition in the Coastal Plain

173

Figure 5. Drainage channel inside the main street. View to the south.

Figure 6. A segment of the fortification wall. View to the southwest. On the northwest part of the wall is a later-phase structure.

174

Y. Paz and I. Elad

Many basalt vessels, such as grinding stones, four handled bowls, and basins, reflect a prosperous trade with the northern regions of Southern Levant. Another astounding phenomenon at ʿEn Esur is the discovery of twenty-five cylinder-seal impressions applied on several types of vessels: storage jars, a jug, a krater, and a holemouth jar. Most of these impressions were geometric, and two figurative, one depicting a scene with human figures and a structure and the other a human figure and a horned animal (described above). The geometric designs used in those impressions find parallels in EB II–III contexts at sites like Qiryat Ata, Bet Ha-Emeq, Mizpe Zevulun, and Khirbet ez-Zeraqon, where the impressions were almost always impressed on ‘Metallic Ware’.24 However, the cylinder seal impressions from ʿEn Esur, and several more from ʿEn Zippori, all found on indisputable EB IB non-‘Metallic Ware’ vessels, dictate dating their early appearance to the late 4th millennium BC.25

ʿEn Esur within the EB IB Settlement Pattern of the Coastal Plain During the late EB IB period, the settlement at ‘En Esur became crowded with hundreds of houses, indicative of high population growth. Moreover, the internal arrangement within the domestic clusters, and the inner division of large spaces into smaller units during the late 4th millennium BC, all point to the need to accommodate a growing number of people. In this sense, ‘En Esur became the central focal point of the period in the coastal plain north of the Yarkon River or the Sharon region. The only other ‘large’ sites of the period in this region are Tell Jatt (7 ha) and probably Tel Megadin (unknown size). Other sites surveyed and excavated in the Sharon Plain that can be dated to the EB IB are generally very small in size; some of them were defined as camping sites26 while others, such as Rishpon 4,27 Sede Dov,28 and Tell Qudadi, may reflect short-lived occupations.29 The probable concentration of thousands of persons within ‘En Esur must have had a severe impact on the settlement pattern in its vicinity, as evidenced by the almost complete lack of EB IB sites in a c. 10-km radius around the settlement.30 This pattern seems to be similar to a settlement system where an urban settlement dominates its surroundings and becomes a magnet that pulls the population into the central settlement. The urban fortified EB IB settlement at Tel Aphek reflects this very phenomenon.31 The opposite settlement pattern is reflected in the western Yarkon-Ayalon basin, where the lack of a central urban entity induced population spread through many small settlements.32

ʿEn Esur: The Largest Known Southern Levantine EB IB Urban Settlement There can be little doubt that the site of ‘En Esur reached its zenith during the EB IB. The settlement grew on a monstrous scale, from 0.1 ha to c. 65 ha and, for the first time, reflects planning and urban layout. Furthermore, this is a very crowded built-up settlement, whose architectural remains, including monumentally built structures, were found in various locations in the site. Based on the data presented above, we can now conclude that the various traits of EB IB ʿEn Esur can be summarized as follows: At ‘En Esur, as at Tel Bareqet and Arad, the fortified settlement reflects a rather low degree of preplanning. As suggested by Sarit Paz, both EB II settlements of Tel Arad and Tel Bareqet reflect a situation where the inner division of the towns was planned, streets were paved, and quarters were defined between them. However, the internal arrangement within the quarters was left to local families/clans rather than

24

See, e.g., Greenberg, 2002: 94. Paz et. al., 2018. 26 Gophna, 1978: 138–140. 27 Gophna / Paz, 2017. 28 Marmelstein / van den Brink, personal communication. 29 Gophna / Paz, 2011. 30 Elad / Paz, in press. 31 Gophna / Paz, 2014. 32 Gophna / Paz, 2014. 25

New Vistas on the EB IB–EB II Transition in the Coastal Plain

175

imposed from above.33 Thus, the house plans were not homogenous, yet there were common principles and a general similarity in the spatial arrangement of dwelling units.34 We believe that this precise situation is reflected in EB IB ‘En Esur. The overall planning of the site ‘stopped’ at the streets’ layout, allowing local dwellers of the various quarters to build their houses freely, yet at the same time following the general rules of the settlement planning—plotting the structures in two possible orientations, avoiding any building activities in the streets, and, in most cases, arranging the domestic units so that the street led to a courtyard and, from there, into the house.

Conclusions ‘En Esur was not alone in the Southern Levant’s early urbanization of the late 4th millennium BC. As already emphasized by Y. Paz and others,35 there was a ‘proto-urban’ settlement process during which EB IB settlements gained urban characteristics. Furthermore, recent research and excavations seem to prove that the beginning of urbanization in Southern Levant may be found earlier in the EB IB. The renewed excavations at Tel Erani clearly show that the early EB IB settlement was fortified with a massive 8-m wide brick wall.36 Excavations at ‘En Zippori37 and Hittin38 all testify to the early emergence of urban entities during the EB IB. The abandonment of many late EB I settlements, some, like Tel Megiddo and Bet She’an, large and prosperous, has called the attention of scholars. These tend to explain this phenomenon in light of new cultural and ideological concepts of socio-political organization, i.e., that urbanization first appeared in the Southern Levant only after the demise of the late EB I settlement system and flourished by the beginning of the EB II early 3rd millennium BC.39 These views argue for a complete discontinuity in every aspect of material culture between late EB I and EB II, not only for those sites that were abandoned by the late EB I but also for those where no occupation gap was apparent. At sites like Bet Yerah and Tell el-Farah (N), village life gave way to a planned urban settlement surrounded by fortifications that reflects an entirely new architectural layout compared to the former EB I agglomerated disorder.40 The accumulated data from old and new excavations seem to show that this view should be reexamined, as it does not seem accurate, specifically for the Coastal Pain study region. First, as shown by 'Ad and Yannai,41 the settlement of Magal reflects a seamless continuity between EB I–EB II in every aspect of material culture, especially architecture. Moreover, no break and no major differences can be discerned during the EB I–EB II transition. Furthermore, the pottery of the EB II strata at Magal seems to include many types that typologically relate to the late EB IB.42 Continuous urban life between the EB IB and the EB II can also be seen at Tell es-Saidiyeh.43 All in all, the settlement at ‘En Esur seems to reflect an EB IB urban center, one of the largest and most important predecessors of the fully urbanized Southern Levant, contemporaneous to an increasing number of equivalents such as Tel Megiddo, ‘En Zippori, Tel Shalem, Tell es-Saidiyeh.44

33

Paz, 2010: 123–133. Paz, 2010: 186. 35 Paz, 2002; Getzov / Paz / Gophna, 2001: 22–24. 36 Yegorov / Milevski, 2017. 37 Milevski / Getzov, 2014. 38 Hartal, 2011. 39 See, e.g., Greenberg, 2002; Paz, 2010. 40 Greenberg / Paz, 2011: 157. 41 ‘Ad / Yannai, 2017. 42 Yannai, 2017. 43 Tubb / Dorell / Cobbing, 1997. 34

176

Y. Paz and I. Elad

References ‘Ad, U. / Yannai, E., 2017: “Remains from the Pottery Neolithic Period and Early Bronze Age at Tel Magal”. ‘Atiqot 89, 1–38 (Hebrew). Adams, M. J. / Finkelstein, I / Ussishkin, D., 2014: “The Great Temple of EBI Megiddo.” AJA 118 (2): 285– 305. Albright, W. F., 1923: “Some Archaeological and Topographical Results of a Trip through Palestine”. BASOR 11, 3–14. Alt, A., 1929: “Arubboth”. Palästinajahrbuch des Deutschen Evangelischen Instituts für Altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen Landes zu Jerusalem 25, 33–36. Eisenberg, E., 1996: “Tel Shalem: Soundings in a Fortified Site of the Early Bronze Age IB”. ‘Atiqot 30, 1– 24. Elad, I. / Paz, Y., in press: “On the Way to the City: The Central Role Played by the Site of ʿEn Esur (Asawir) in the EBIB Settlement Pattern in the Coastal Plain of Israel”. In. G.D. Stiebel / D. Ben-Ami / A. Gorzalczany / I. Koch (eds.), Centrum 1: Motion, Movement and Mobility. Tel Aviv. Esse, D. L., 1989: “Secondary State Formation and Collapse in Early Bronze Age Palestine”. In P. de Miroschedji (ed.): L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien. Bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles. Actes du Colloque d’Emmaüs (20–24 octobre 1986). BAR International Series 527. Oxford. Pp. 81–95. Finkelstein, I. / Gophna, R., 1993: “Economic Patterns in the Highlands of Palestine in the Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Periods and the Beginning of Urbanism”. BASOR 289, 1–22. Getzov, N. / Paz, Y. / Gophna, R. 2001: Shifting Urban Landscapes during the Early Bronze Age in Canaan. Tel Aviv. Gophna, R., 1974: The Settlement of the Coastal Plain of Eretz Israel during the Early Bronze Age. PhD Dissertation. Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew) — 1978: “Archaeological Survey of the Central Coastal Plain, 1977. Preliminary Report”. Tel Aviv 5 (3–4), 136–147. Gophna, R. / Paz, Y., 2011: “Tell Qudadi and Tel Gerisah: Two Early Bronze Age Sites on the Yarkon River”. Tel Aviv 38 (1), 42–51. — 2014: “From Village to Town to Village Again: Settlement Dynamics in the Central Coastal Plain and Adjacent Shephelah from the Late Early Bronze Age I to Early Bronze Age III”. Strata 32, 13–35. — 2017: “Excavations at Rishpon-4, Tel Aviv”. In A. Gopher / R. Gophna / R. Eyal / Y. Paz (eds.): Jacob Kaplan’s Excavations of Protohistoric Sites 1950s–1980s. Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series Number 36. Tel Aviv. Pp. 627–642. Greenberg, R., 2002: Early Urbanizations in the Levant: A Regional Narrative. London. Greenberg R. / Paz, S., 2011: “The Streets of Bet Yerah”. Eretz Israel 30, 156–164. (Hebrew) Hartal, M., 2011: “Hittin”. HA-ESI 123. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail.aspx?id=1707&mag_ id=118. Joffe, A. H., 1991: “Early Bronze I and the Evolution of Social Complexity in the Southern Levant”. JMA 4 (1), 3–58. https://doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v4i1.3 Joffe, A. H., 1993: Settlement and Society in the Early Bronze I and II, Southern Levant. Sheffield. Kempinski, A., 1978: The Rise of an Urban Culture: The Urbanization of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age, 3000–2150 BC. Jerusalem. Milevski, I. / Getzov, N., 2014: “‘En Zippori”. HA-ESI 126. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_ eng.aspx?id=13675&mag_id=121. Paz, S., 2010: Life in the City: The Birth of an Urban Habitus in the Early Bronze Age of Israel. PhD Dissertation, Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew) Paz, Y., 2002: “Fortified Settlements of the EBIB and the Emergence of the First Urban System”. Tel Aviv 29 (2), 238–261. — in press: “Prisoners of Worship? Interpreting the ‘Orant’ Posture in Ancient Near Eastern Imagery”. Ugarit-Forschungen 48.

New Vistas on the EB IB–EB II Transition in the Coastal Plain

177

Paz, Y. / Elad, I. / Milevski, I. / Getzov, N., 2018: “Geometric Motifs and a Scene on Cylinder Seal Impressions Found in Early Bronze IB Towns of the Southern Levant”. Ugarit-Forschungen 49: 285–298. Portugali, Y. / Gophna, R., 1993: “Crisis, Progress and Urbanization: The Transition from Early Bronze I to Early Bronze II in Palestine”. Tel Aviv 20, 164–186. Tubb, J. N. / Dorrell, P. G. / Cobbing, F. J., 1997: “Interim Report on the Ninth Season (1996) of Excavations at Tell es-Saidiyeh, Jordan”. PEQ 129, 54–77. Yannai, E. 2006: ‘En Esur (ʿEin Asawir) I. Excavations at a Protohistoric Site in the Coastal Plain of Israel. IAA Reports 31/1. Jerusalem. — 2014: “‘En Esur”. HA-ESI 126. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail.aspx?id=10616&mag_id =121 — 2016: ‘En Esur (ʿEin Assawir) II: Excavations at the ʿEin Assawir Cemeteries. IAA Reports 31/2. Jerusalem. — 2017: “Remains from the Pottery Neolithic Period and Early Bronze Age at Tel Magal”. ‘Atiqot 89: 1*– 38*. (Hebrew, English Summary pp. 115–116). Yegorov, D. / Milevski, I., 2017: “Tel Erani”. HA-ESI 129. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail. aspx?id=25179&mag_id=125 Zertal, A., 2003: The Excavations at Tel Asawir, Preliminary Report of the First Two Seasons 2001–2002. Haifa. (Hebrew).

The EB IB–II Transition at Tell el-Far‘ah North Continuity Versus Discontinuity A Preliminary Reassessment Maura Sala1

Abstract The later phase of EB I and the transition to the EB II represent a key period in the social, economic and cultural transformation of the Southern Levant, which witnessed the passage from a village-based organization to an urban-centered society. This paper considers the topic of the EB IB–II transition by focusing on the site of Tell el-Far‘ah North, which was uninterruptedly inhabited throughout the two periods. The EB IB–II shift is examined in view of the changes in the settlement size, planning and layout, and design and construction of domestic buildings, as well as through a technological analysis of pottery industry from the two settlement phases. Despite noticeable transformations, a continuity in occupation, socio-economic milieu, and technological know-how has been outlined through the two phases; and the changes that mark the rise of the EB II urbanized center at Tell el-Far‘ah North appear to be placed in the riverbed of a developmental trajectory that began in EB IB.

Keywords: Early Bronze Age, Tell el-Far‘ah North, Urbanism.

1. Introduction The later phase of Early Bronze I (henceforth EB I) and the transition to the Early Bronze II represent a key period in the social, economic and cultural transformation of the Southern Levant, which witnessed the passage from a village-based organization to an urban-centered society. The nature of the EB IB phase, which displays a new or intensified occupation at many south-Levantine sites accompanied by major changes in demographic patterns and social behavior, as well as the issue of its continuity versus discontinuity compared to the subsequent urban period, are still the subject of lively debate, mainly due to the diversified developments of south-Levantine communities in the late 4th millennium BC following different settings in different districts of the country. This paper considers the topic of the EB IB–II transition by focusing on the site of Tell el-Far‘ah North, which was continuously inhabited throughout the two periods.2 The settlement of Tell el-Far‘ah North, located on a prominent ridge within the hills of northern Samaria, is a crucial site for documenting the passage from the EB IB rural villages to the EB II urbanized society, thanks to its uninterrupted occupational sequence, developing site layout and architecture, and technological accomplishments through the EB IB–II shift. The site allows an evaluation of the EB IB societal system, related know-how, and regional interconnectivity, and an assessment of the formative stages of the earliest urbanized structure, linked to an increasing complexity of its socio-economic organization (e.g., town planning, craft management, expanding long-distance exchanges), entangled with the dissemination of ideological and technological innovations.

2. From the Late EB I Village to the EB II Urbanized Society The EB I was a period of settlement peak and intensified activity in the Wadi Far‘ah and surrounding highlands of Samaria. Most of the sites therein were newly established at this time, primarily in the EB IB

1

Faculty of Theology of Lugano; email: [email protected]. Nine excavation seasons were carried out between 1946 and 1960 at Tell el-Far‘ah North, currently located in the Nablus district (West Bank), under the direction of Roland de Vaux on the behalf of the École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem. These excavations extensively exposed the Early Bronze Age remains in four areas (for a summary, see de Miroschedji, 1993). 2

180

M. Sala

Figure 1. Tell el-Far ‘ah North, Area II. Plan of EB I remains, with the earliest EB II walls hatched (after de Vaux, 1961: pl. XXXI).

phase,3 when the exploitation of new districts (e.g. the western Wadi Far‘ah) and the economic transition toward a more intensive exploitation of cereal and orchard crops took place. This fostered settlement and demographic growth in the area,4 which might also be linked to the inroad and/or relocation of new people from the outside, attracted by a favorable environment. Several rural hamlets and villages spread out, and beginnings of social differentiation also emerged in the final stage of the EB I.5 3

Bar, 2014: 410–415. Bar, 2014, 454–455. The central hill country was the most suitable region for horticulture-based economy, introduced during the EB I, bringing about a dramatic settlement and demographic expansion in the second half of the 4th millennium BC (Finkelstein / Gophna, 1993:6, 11–14). The area of northern Samaria, where Tell el-Far‘ah North stood, was one of the most favorable districts for habitation thanks to the presence of numerous water sources and fertile intermountain valleys (Finkelstein / Gophna, 1993: 2). 5 Bar, 2013: 99–103. The EB I phase was long-lasting and characterized by great inequality in social development levels among the diverse subregions of the Southern Levant. However, the advanced phase of the EB I (i.e., the EB IB) witnessed major transformations in social behavior, increasing craft specialization, and expanding trade networks (Milevski, 2013: 197–200), along with the appearance of the earliest administrative structures and public fortifications (Paz, 2002). Evidence from these late EB I communities indicates diversified leaps in the socio-economic structure and hints at incipient tendencies toward a more complex urban-like system (Faust / Golani, 2008: 231–232, 236–237; Braun, 2009: 233–235; 2011, 266–267, 269–275; Milevski, 2013: 202–203). 4

The EB IB–II Transition at Tell el-Far‘ah North

181

The village of Tell el-Far‘ah North was located in the western part of the fertile Wadi Far‘ah Valley, at the end of the highest settlement concentration, working as a possible link between the valley and the hillcountry sites. Thanks to the presence of two close springs (‘Ain Far‘ah and ‘Ain Daleib), the proximity to agriculture areas, and the strategic, naturally defended position on a main thoroughfare between the western hilly district and the Jordan Valley,6 the occupation at the mound was resumed7 and got denser in the late 4th millennium BC when Tell el-Far‘ah North arose as one of the district’s main sites (if not the main one).8 2.1. The Late EB I Community: An Expanding Village of Huts In the late EB I (Énéolithique Supérieur or Chalcolithique Supérieur according to de Vaux’s terminology), slightly sunken dwellings consisting of shallow pits (up to 80 cm deep) with plastered or beaten-earth floors, mud walls and a possible adobe covering, resembling circular or oval huts (2.5 m to 4 m in diameter),9 spread out on the northern and north-western sectors of the mound (Fig. 1).10 Dwellings of the EB IB village thus adhere to the EB I south-Levantine tradition of curvilinear architecture, as observed in other late EB I contexts in the North,11 and neighboring sites between the Samaria highlands and the south-central Jordan Valley, like the rural hamlets of Sheikh Diab 212 and Fazael 4.13 A similar layout of a mid-EB I rural village composed of curvilinear and circular huts was unearthed at Tell es-Sultan/ancient Jericho. Therein, the first EB I settlement consisted mainly of juxtaposed circular huts with mudbricks laid upon stone foundations, sunken floors and a possible straw or adobe dome.14 If the inhabitation way of the EB I village at Tell el-Far‘ah North resembles that of the previous Chalcolithic period, the EB IB occupation became substantially denser. Such settlement growth must have been linked to an intensification of agricultural and herding activities, but also to an increase of trade contacts that triggered some specialized productions (e.g., the 'Um Hammad Ware; see below).15 As also detectable elsewhere in favorable ecological niches and strategic districts with access to wider networks of exchange, the EB IB village-based community of Tell el-Far‘ah North displays demographic expansion, improved management of local resources, and expanding intra- and inter-regional contacts. In fact, the overall reassessment of material from the Samaria area, carried out by S. Bar, indicates that a major drive in this region took place precisely during the EB IB. Tell el-Far‘ah North was one of the thriving centers within this

6

Bar, 2014: 32. At Tell el-Far‘ah North, the transition from the Chalcolithic to the EB I was marked by an occupational gap, indicated by a layer of sterile earth (de Vaux, 1961: 561–562). In the Wadi Far‘ah district and surrounding highlands of Samaria, up to the central Jordan Valley, most of the EB I sites were newly founded, established either above or close to former Chalcolithic settlements. However, so far, none of them show continuity between the two periods (Bar, 2013: 92). 8 Bar, 2014: 103–106, 449–450. 9 These features represent, so far, the only dwelling remains unearthed in sectors where the EB I occupation was stratigraphically exposed to some extent (squares K5, J5, J6, and I6: de Vaux, 1961: 560–564, pls. XXXI, XXXIX). Some fireplaces were also recognized inside these houses. The occupational level excavated in the 1946–1947 seasons in Squares 1 and 2, at first ascribed to the Énéolithique Supérieur (de Vaux / Steve, 1947: 400; 1948: 546–548, pl. IX), was actually the earliest EB II layer (de Vaux, 1961: 563–564; 1962: 216, note 18). 10 The southwestern sector does not seem to have been occupied at this stage. According to de Vaux’s excavations, this part of the mound (Area III) was first settled at the beginning of the EB II (de Vaux, 1961: 558–559.) 11 E.g., Qiryat ‘Ata, ‘Ain Shadud and Tel Kabri (Golani, 1999: 123–124; Faust / Golani, 2008: 219–222); Beth Shean (Stratum XV, dated to the early EB IB; Braun, 2004: 18–19, 49–51, figs. 2.23–2.28); and Khirbet Kerak, where two adjoined round domestic structures have been ascribed to the late EB I settlement (Greenberg / Paz, 2014: 20). 12 Bar, 2014: 112–118, 348–365, 368–371, figs. 12.4–12.18. Extensive dwelling complexes separated by alleys and squares were exposed at the site. Each complex was a curvilinear— elliptical or roughly circular—enclosure that included one or more living units, each one consisting of a courtyard and a covered room or rooms with rounded corners, along with round structures probably used as silos and hinting at an increased crop production and storage. An elliptical, ‘sausage-shaped’ residential unit was also found in one of the residential complexes. 13 Bar, 2014: 410–415, 441, figs. 13.2–5. 14 Nigro, 2005: 23–32, plan II. Huts were frequently grouped in couples, as were the two EB IB round houses unearthed at Khirbet Kerak (see above note 11). 15 Rosenberg / Golani, 2012: 28, 46. 7

182

M. Sala

process16 until it became the dominant settlement of the whole area between the hills of Samaria and the south-central Jordan Valley at the dawn of the EB II. 2.2. A Rising Urbanized Center: The EB II Walled Town The EB I–II transition in the Southern Levant was an uneven process, characterized by internal demographic pressures and the relocation of people, produced and/or triggered by natural, economic, or political circumstances.17 Several areas were affected by a shrinking in settlement distribution, mainly as a consequence of population gathering in a few fortified centers at the beginning of the EB II.18 The rising fortified town of Tell el-Far‘ah North played a catalyzing role in the surrounding area, where many EB I sites were abandoned. However, despite a decrease in site numbers, the foothills of Samaria and the central hill country witnessed demographic growth and intensifying exploitation of local resources in the shift to the EB II.19 The transition from the EB IB rural village to the EB II walled town seems to have occurred fairly abruptly at Tell el-Far‘ah North, and uninterruptedly.20 The settlement grew in size (including the whole mound),21 density, and complexity: A monumental city-gate and massive fortifications surrounded the town, while packed dwelling quarters consisting of rectangular houses and specialized craft installations were built,22 displaying a well-developed and developing urbanized settlement. The major intervention marking the birth of the urbanized center was the erection of the fortification line (except for the southern side naturally protected by the cliff descending towards the Wadi Daleib), enclosing a settlement of c. 5 ha. Fortifications were renovated several times throughout the period, but two main phases can be distinguished. The earliest city-wall, consisting of a 2.80 m wide mudbrick wall on stone foundations (élément I), was built at the onset of the EB II (Phase IA; de Vaux’s Period 1); it was strengthened with rectangular bastions and towers, and later reinforced by adding a 1.50 m wide outer wall (élément II) 3 m in front of the inner defensive line (Phase IB).23 Around the mid-EB II (de Vaux’s Period 3), a 3 m wide stone city-wall (élément III) was erected against the outer face of the mudbrick rampart on the western side of the mound (Phase IIA), thus doubling the thickness of the fortifications.24 In contrast, on the northern side, the fortification line was moved inwards by about 12 m, and a new stone city-wall (5.5 m to 8.5 m wide) was 16

Bar, 2013. Bar distinguishes three main settlement clusters in the examined area: the southern Beth Shan Valley, Wadi Far‘ah, and Wadi Fazael, each one characterized by a main center and by a level of social-settlement hierarchy. Tell elFar‘ah North arose as the main center of the Wadi Far‘ah cluster. Given the presence of open sites, enclosures, and sparse cemeteries, a different explanatory paradigm has been also proposed, suggesting the use of these ‘micro-regions’ by multi-sited communities (Bradbury / Braemer / Sala: 2014, 222). However, the activity peak registered in the latter half of the EB I clearly indicates a transitional stage towards an emerging social complexity, increasing control and amassing of economic resources, and extending interconnectivity networks. 17 Joffe, 1993; Portugali / Gophna, 1993. 18 Abandonment of EB IB sites was a trend registered all over the Southern Levant in the shift to the EB II (Esse, 1991: 146–152), with diversification on the regional level (Greenberg, 2019: 72–76). See, for instance, the detailed analyses recently carried out in the northeastern Lod Valley (Gophna, 1996: 158–162); the western Soreq Valley (Gophna / Paz / Taxel, 2010: 33–34); the Upper Wadi Zarqa (Nigro, 2011: 60–62); and the eastern fringes of Samaria and the southcentral Jordan Valley (Bar, 2013; 2014). 19 Bar, 2014: 131–133; Finkelstein / Gophna, 1993: 6–8. 20 In Area II, the houses of the earliest EB II level directly overlapped the remains of the EB IB occupation (de Vaux, 1955: 553; 1961, 576), as did the earliest city-wall (de Vaux, 1961: 576–577; 1962: 213). 21 See above, note 10. 22 The foundation of the city-wall and the construction of the new dwelling quarters are stratigraphically correlated from the onset (de Vaux, 1962: 213). 23 De Vaux, 1962: 212–215, pls. XVI (section AB), XVII, XXIIa. In the EB II–III south-Levantine urban centers, defensive systems were often reinforced by adding a second advanced wall, located at a certain distance from the inner defensive line. This solution was adopted at Tell el-Far‘ah North and Khirbet Yarmouk (de Miroschedji, 2018: 143∗– 144∗, 153∗–155∗) already during the EB II, whereas elsewhere, for instance at Tell es-Sultan (Nigro, 2006: 361–364, 369–373), it is attested to from the EB III. 24 De Vaux, 1962: 216–218, pls. XVI (section AB), XVII. On the western side, the EB II fortifications were widely investigated, for a length of 125 m.

The EB IB–II Transition at Tell el-Far‘ah North

183

built over the abandoned houses of the earlier phase, adjoining the inner face of the previous mudbrick wall.25 In the last phase (Phase IIB), a sort of glacis (élément IV) was realized on the western side by covering the slope along the fortifications with an earth fill 7 m long and more than 2 m high arranged in almost horizontal terraces by means of two small retaining walls (IVa and IVb).26 Finally, a 1.70 m wide outer wall (élément Vb) was added on the top of the glacis (Phase IIC, de Vaux’s Period 6). The whole fortification system, from the innermost (earliest) mudbrick wall up to the edge of the glacis, was at least 15 m wide. As with the fortifications, the towered city-gate on the western side was built at the beginning of the EB II and underwent several modifications throughout the period, even if three main phases (related to Phase I, IIA, and IIB of the city-wall) can be distinguished.27 The urban layout of the EB II town seems to have been established by and large from the onset according to the line of the fortifications: In fact, two main phases were distinguished, corresponding to the erection and major refurbishment of the city-wall, when the town moved slightly to the south (respectively, de Vaux’s Periods 1 and 3; Figs. 2–3).28 A well-planned and packed occupation with clearly outlined streets provided with stone-lined drainage channels, which bounded blocks of rectilinear houses, promptly spread out on the mound.29 Houses were integrated into a crowded urban space, so that they were, at times, forcibly adapted to a space getting denser through the period. Because of the urban pressure, some dwellings were deformed to include triangular, trapezoidal, or curved rooms (Fig. 4). If the increasing density of the site's layout suggests a new level of social integration, the concurrent disappearance of communal spaces outside the houses reflects novel trends in the arrangement and spatial organization of daily activities, and, ultimately, changes in the social structure of households. Each domestic unit was now inhabited and managed by a nuclear family, which became the basic social and economic component, whereas some specialized activities (e.g., some craft productions) were removed from the households to appointed specialists. EB II rectilinear houses, usually consisting of a courtyard and one or more rectangular units, display a strong architectural break from EB IB dwellings.30 Rooms could be equipped with a row of wooden posts on stone slabs supporting the roof, inner benches and a series of domestic installations (sunken pithoi, stonelined basins, stone or pottery slabs to accommodate vessels). Some larger multi-room houses might be identified as residences for elite families, pointing to the dwellers’ high social status—further evidence of social differentiation.31 Such would be the case of the so-called ‘Maison des Jarres’ that included five rooms, where the inner-space division would also indicate the beginning of domestic-space specialization.32 Houses

25

De Vaux, 1962: 214–216. On the western side of the town, the new stone city-wall was preceded, in turn, by a narrow outer wall (0.75 m wide; élément III1); while on the northern side, a 1.7 m high small glacis was accumulated against its outer face (de Vaux, 1962: 216, pl. XXIIIa). 26 De Vaux, 1962: 218–220, pl. XVI (section AB). A similar situation is seen in the EB III fortifications of Tell el-Hesi, where an artificial accumulation created a c. 9 m wide flat area in front of the city-wall, before running down the slope of the mound. It had supposedly been built to counter the erosion and stabilize the hillside, perhaps supporting the town’s access road. (Dobermann / Fargo, 1985: 16–17). 27 The earliest city-gate, consisting of a 7 m long and 3.5 m wide passageway and flanked by two squared mudbrick towers on stone foundations (Phase I); a major refurbishment, with the addition of a ramp ascending from the outside within the passageway (Phase II); and the closing of the city-gate by means of a 4.5 m wide stone wall built at the passageway’s exit (Phase III), contemporary with the blockage of the postern in Trench 747 by the glacis. The gate was briefly reopened toward the end of the period (Phase IV) when the towers had nevertheless already fallen into disuse (de Vaux, 1962: 221–234, fig. 1, pls. XVIII–XXI). 28 De Vaux, 1961: 576, 582–583, plans XXXI–XXXIV. 29 De Vaux, 1961: 576–588. Rectilinear architecture was preferred with the emergence of fortified towns, since it was more flexible, fitting more easily the available space, needs, and/or status of single families (Sebag, 2005: 31–32). 30 Rectangular units were generally 5–6 m long and 3–4 m wide, and they opened onto a street or a yard (de Vaux, 1961: 576). 31 Such houses have been called ‘patrician houses’, due to their dimensions and their careful building technique (Sebag, 2005: 32). 32 The house was excavated during the 1946 season in Trench V (de Vaux / Steve, 1947: 403–404, pls. XI, XVII). An oblong chamber within the ‘Maison des Jarres’, located east of the main room, has been identified, for instance, as the kitchen.

184

M. Sala

Figure 2. Tell el-Far‘ah North, Area II. Plan of the earliest EB II town (de Vaux’s Period 1; after de Vaux, 1961: pl. XXXIII).

were rebuilt following roughly the same external lines throughout the period, although they gradually show a more complex inner distribution, sometimes splitting pre-existing spaces. A peculiar building (Building 671) belonging to the early EB II (de Vaux’s Period 1), whose layout and inner fine plastered refining differed from those of contemporary houses, was identified as a cult structure.33 33

De Vaux, 1961: 577–578, pls. XXXIII, XLII; Sala, 2008: 121–125, fig. 35, pl. 8. The building had a roughly rectangular layout (c. 9 × 5 m) and consisted of two rooms: A deep, open vestibule to the east, which led into a small trapezoidal chamber (c. 3.7 × 2.4 m) with a central pillar and an off-axis entrance, lined with a thick plastered bench. The structure differed from the official tradition of EBA south-Levantine Breitraum temples (Sala, 2008). Building 671 was leveled at the end of Period 1 and replaced by domestic buildings (de Vaux, 1961: 579, pl. XXIV). According to de Vaux, this would explain the absence of cult objects (de Vaux, 1961: 579), though the excavator proposed to ascribe to

The EB IB–II Transition at Tell el-Far‘ah North

185

Figure 3. Tell el-Far‘ah North, Area II. Plan of the mid-EB II town (de Vaux’s Period 3; after de Vaux, 1961: pl. XXXIV).

Based on its location within a residential quarter, small dimensions, and distinctive layout, it was most probably a small neighborhood shrine. The EB II town was further distinguished by some craft installations, among them a potter’s workshop, whose activity is evidenced by the tools retrieved and processing waste, and a closed potter’s kiln, which was built just over the workshop in the following occupational phase, possibly pointing to the functional specialization of some areas within the town.34 the shrine a bull’s head in polished green stone and a stone human figurine coming from two adjacent loci (room 648 and street 614). 34 De Vaux, 1961: 582, 584. For the potter’s kiln, see below.

186

M. Sala

Figure 4. Tell el-Far‘ah North, Area I, 1947 excavations. Superimposed phases of the EB II town: a) the earliest EB II level (after de Vaux and Steve, 1948: pl. IX); b–c) the mid-EB II levels (after de Vaux and Steve, 1948: pls. X–XI); d) the latest EB II level (after de Vaux and Steve, 1948: pl. XII).

3. Ceramics as a Mirror of the EB IB–II Transition The social and economic changes, marking the EB IB–II transition and matching the rise of the urbanized center, are reflected in the material culture, namely in the pottery industry and related technological developments. This industry exhibits a progressive differentiation and standardization of vessel shapes, fabrics, and functions, attesting to achievements in the socio-economic systems of production, distribution, and consumption. The EB IB ceramic horizon displays a strongly regional character.35 Most vessels from the settlement belong to common, at times red-slip wares.36 Tableware vessels exhibit a relatively high typological 35

The EB I south-Levantine ceramic material culture is characterized by a pronounced typological variability and a ‘highly parochial regionalism’, with very distinctive techno-stylistic traits and types, either site-specific (e.g., the socalled Safi Cup; Braun, 2006) or with a limited distribution range. This variability points to communities relying mainly on indigenous resources, small-scale production and consumption networks, and local village workshops, where a rather significant number of people, with uneven degrees of expertise, were involved in the manufacturing process (Braun, 2009: 238; Eisenberg / Rotem, 2016: 29–30; Greenberg, 2019: 56). Still, ceramic assemblages of the advanced EB I start to exhibit a higher level of skill and standardization in certain types, associated with the presence of nucleated workshops, also indicating wide-ranging links among a greater number of sites (Braun, 2009: 241–244), as in the case of the socalled ‘Um Hammad Ware’, whose manufacturing center was located in the western Wadi Far‘ah, possibly at Tell el Far‘ah North itself (Bar, 2010: 88–89, 93; 2014: 188–189). Likewise, Tell el Far‘ah North was probably the production center of some ‘eminently recognizable vessels’ from the nearby cemeteries, exported up to the central Mediterranean Littoral (Braun, 2009: 244–247; 2012: 17–19). 36 De Vaux / Steve, 1947: figs. 1.22–37, 2 (except nos. 7, 19, 24–27, 31), 5.16, 17; 7.16, 26; 1948: fig. 5 (except nos. 7,

The EB IB–II Transition at Tell el-Far‘ah North

187

variability and chiefly include small rounded bowls with simple, upright, or slightly everted rims; mediumsized bowls with thick curving walls and thickened, squared or slightly beveled rims; and some larger rounded bowls with flattened inverted rim. Thick-walled kraters with widened, straight, or inverted rim; mediumsized jars with high, straight, or slightly out-flaring neck; short-necked jars with sharply everted rim; and holemouth jars with ledge handles are frequent. A few amphoriskoi and fenestrated pedestal vases complete the assemblage. Among these vessels, a prominent group belongs to the so-called ‘Um Hammad Ware’ (or ‘Um Hammad style’), made of well-levigated, hard fabric, ranging in color from brick red to dark brown and gray.37 Distinctive neckless jars with a prominent everted rim, bag-shaped jars with an outer expanded guttered rim, and large ovoid jars with a short flaring neck (the three types mostly belonging to the ‘Um Hammad group; Fig. 5), along with prevalent holemouth jars and pithoi at times covered with a red-washed decoration, were the main storage containers. In a very characteristic way (in particular, but not exclusively, in the 'Um Hammad Ware), bowls with thick curving walls, and above all kraters, jars, and pithoi, exhibit a variety of rope decorations—incised or impressed plastic stripes applied on the rim and/or the shoulder. Moreover, close-up strokes or thumb indentations were frequently applied on the edge of ledge handles and around the rim of holemouth jars, while a pronounced ridge could be applied to thickened holemouth rims. The latter feature is representative of the last part of the EB IB, as were some bowl types—e.g., curved bowls with flattened inverted rim, platterbowls, and carinated bowls, often red-slipped—amphoriskoi, and pithoi with vertical flaring necks38 that continued into the EB II. A few specialized productions are attested in the EB IB village, particularly some red-burnished vessels like small rounded bowls, carinated bowls, and juglets, revealing some level of craft specialization. GrayBurnished bowls—widespread in the necropolis—are limited in number on the mound,39 as are the painted vessels and grain wash/band slip decorations. Vessels were basically handmade in the coiling technique, but the use of tournette is partially attested to in finishing operations for smoothing the walls of open shapes, or in fashioning some vessel parts, as rims and necks of jars and pithoi.40 This variegated pottery ensemble progressively gave way to an increasing typological standardization of ceramic containers at the beginning of the EB II. Many EB I pottery types were cast off through a process of selection and introduction of new shapes (partly derived from the earlier tradition). Among tableware vessels, small hemispherical bowls, thin-walled carinated cups and bowls (at times with a lug handle applied at the girth), medium-sized bowls with flattened inverted rim, and rather deep platters with short triangular or elongated rim, mostly red-burnished, were the most common types in the earlier EB II strata, along with simple ware amphoriskoi and medium-sized jars with flaring neck and a couple of ledge handles. Holemouth jars with rounded and/or inner thickened rim, and pithoi with vertical or slightly outcurved neck and outflaring, folded-over or molded rims, became the common storage containers. The later EB II phase was typified by shallower, wider platters with vertical rim, and elongated ovoid jugs (a few with a peculiar trefoil mouth). All vessels range in color from light red to pink and beige, with a gray section in thicker walls. Pithoi, as well as medium-sized jars and holemouth jars, regularly exhibit a red-washed finishing, whereas the use of red slip becomes common to refine the outer surface of tableware vessels and a red painted-striped decoration occasionally appears on medium-size jars.

24–25, 27), 6.7, 14; 1955: fig. 5 (except no.13); 1961: figs. 2, 3.14–17. 37 Braun, 2012: 20; Bar, 2014: 179–189, 194. The so-called ‘Um Hammad Ware’ is typical of the EB IB phase (Bar, 2010: 88; 2014: 185). 38 Gophna / Paz / Taxel, 2010: 15–17. 39 De Vaux / Steve, 1947: figs. 2.12–14; 5.16; de Vaux, 1961: fig. 2.41. 40 As preliminary suggested by visual examination and indicated by a small group of samples analyzed so far (Medeghini et al., 2019: 11466; see below, note 48). A similar use of the tournette seems to be attested to in the EB IB pottery assemblage from Tel Kitan (Eisenberg / Rotem, 2016: 5).

188

M. Sala

Figure 5. Tell el-Far‘ah North. ‘Um Hammad Ware from the EB IB settlement (no. 1 after de Vaux, 1955: fig. 5.1; no. 2 after de Vaux and Steve, 1947: fig. 2.1; nos. 3–4 after de Vaux, 1961: figs. 3.16–17; no. 5 after de Vaux, 1955: fig. 5.26; nos. 6–8 after de Vaux and Steve,1948: figs. 5.12–13, 4; nos. 9–11 after de Vaux, 1955: figs. 5.11, 17, 27; nos. 12– 13 after de Vaux, 1961: figs. 2.9–10; no. 14 after de Vaux and Steve, 1947: fig. 5:17; no. 15 after de Vaux and Steve, 1948: fig. 5.9; nos. 16–17 after de Vaux, 1955: figs. 5.18, 22; nos. 18–19 after de Vaux, 1961: figs. 3.14–15; no. 20 after de Vaux, 1955: fig. 5.10; nos. 21–22 after de Vaux, 1961: figs. 2.11–12).

Specialized productions, namely red-burnished vessels, spread throughout the EB II. These included the majority of tableware vessels: carinated bowls, platters, jugs/juglets, and characteristic small globular jars with vertical lug handles. Metallic ware vessels also appear at this stage, in particular, carinated bowls, made in a distinctive highly sieved reddish-brown ware with a burnished decoration, at times, and a small horizontal lug handle applied at the girth, typical of an advanced phase of the EB II (from de Vaux’s Period 3 onward).41 41

It should be noted that thin-walled carinated bowls made of fine, well-levigated clay, ranging in color from brownishred to dark brown and gray, self-slipped and hand-burnished inside and outside, are a hallmark of the central hill country

The EB IB–II Transition at Tell el-Far‘ah North

189

The appearance of this ‘metallic ware’ industry was most probably related to significant technological achievements in the chaîne opératoire, such as improved sieving procedures for the preparation of clay pastes and the introduction of close kilns for the firing process. In fact, a two-story updraft pottery kiln (2.6 m in diameter) was revealed in the EB II settlement (from de Vaux’s Period 3).42 It represents one of the earliest and very few examples known so far in the EBA Southern Levant, along with a furnace recently discovered at Tel Lod and likewise dated to the EB II.43 The Tell el-Far‘ah kiln is an elaborate structure consisting of two chambers: A rounded firing chamber delimited by mudbrick walls, with a clay floor pierced by holes and supported by elongated stones, resting on a central stone pillar; and a half-buried furnace (the heating chamber), with a small opening for adding and discarding fuel (Fig. 6). Such a structure points to a step forward in the potters’ material and technological knowledge during the transition from the EB IB community to the EB II urbanized centre, and suggests the presence of professional artisans at the site, as does the spreading of tournettes. Several potter’s wheels were found at the site,44 as elsewhere in Southern Levant starting from the EB II,45 a further indicator of manufacturing specialization. In fact, the EB II ceramic ensemble of Tell el-Far‘ah North includes wheel-coiled vessels: Bowls were finished and, at times, even fashioned on the wheel (e.g., the upper part of carinated bowls),46 as were the rims of platters; necks and rims of jugs, jars and pithoi were wheel-shaped as well. Both typological and archaeometric analyses show that the EBA pottery industry of Tell el-Far‘ah North was predominantly local.47 A preliminary archaeometric investigation48 allowed the reconstruction of the nature and provenance of raw materials, indicating that ceramics were produced using calcareous clays with similar natural inclusions (calcareous rock fragments, calcite, quartz, and iron oxides) that support an indigenous supply. Moreover, two different clays have been distinguished so far,49 based on the presence (clay α) or absence (clay β) of microfossils in the matrix, whose nature (planktonic and benthic foraminifera) proves once again the local origin of the raw material. Two main petrographic fabrics have been identified50. They show a general similar petrographic composition, differentiated by the presence (Fabric A) or absence (Fabric B) of dominant coarse and angular crystals of calcite. Fabric B was, in turn, subdivided into two subfabrics: B1 (clay α), characterized by the presence of diffuse microfossils and resulting in a strong calcareous matrix; and B2 (clay β), displaying microfeatures of the matrix. All the fabrics are found in both the EB IB and EB II periods, pointing to specific choices related to the production technology and functional destination

in the EB II. However, the location of their production center has yet to be ascertained (Beck, 1985: 17–20; Gophna / Paz / Taxel, 2010: 21–23). 42 De Vaux, 1955: 558–563, figs. 8–10, pl. IX 43 Golani / Asscher, in preparation. 44 At least four items (two made of basalt, one made of limestone, and one made of clay), still unpublished but quoted in archival documents, come from the Tell el-Far‘ah North EB II settlement. One of them is mentioned in the preliminary report of the 1946 season: «un disque de basalte, assez mince, poli sur une surface et percé d’un trou central; c’est probablement une pièce de tournette» (de Vaux / Steve, 1947: 405). 45 Roux / de Miroschedji, 2009: 163. 46 For a distinction between the different wheel-coiling techniques see Roux, 2009: 199–202; Roux / de Miroschedji, 2009: 166–169. 47 As evidenced also by petrographic analyses carried out on samples coming from sites in the vicinity, Wadi Far‘ah, and the desert fringes of Samaria (Bar 2014: 176). 48 A first preliminary mineralogical and petrographic characterization of ceramics from the EB IB–II settlements of Tell el-Far‘ah North has been recently carried out and reported in Medeghini et al. 2019. Heartfelt thanks are addressed to L. Medeghini, who acquired and interpreted petrographic and SEM-EDS data, and to S. Mignardi and C. De Vito, who contributed to the manuscript. Fourteen samples dated to the EB IB and twenty dated to the EB II have been preliminarily collected to serve as representative of the Tell el-Far‘ah EBA pottery industry. Additional analyses are in progress, with particular reference to a better characterization of the so-called ‘Um Hammad Ware’ (three samples analyzed so far, not sufficient for a specific description, but of certain local origin), and the EB II ‘metallic ware’ bowls (one analyzed sample: F.718). 49 Analyses seem to indicate that different clay sources were used indistinctly by the local industry, even for similar vessels, probably reflecting the preference of single potters. 50 Medeghini et al., 2019: 11460–11465.

190

M. Sala

of the vessels, and to an ongoing process of selection and standardization in the pottery production from the EB IB to the EB II. In fact, Fabric A, characterized by the conscious addition of coarse calcite inclusions (obtained by manual grinding) to improve the vessel's resistance and to produce containers suitable for food storage, was employed in the manufacture of storage vessels (large jars, holemouth jars, pithoi). Conversely, Fabric B was used for tableware vessels, in both simple and red-burnished wares. The two fabrics thus matched macro-functional levels within the Tell el-Far‘ah North pottery ensemble. With the start of the EB II, a more specific selection in the use of fabrics was accomplished: While during the EB IB, Fabric A was predominantly but not exclusively used in the production of Storage Ware, in the subsequent EB II all the storage containers were produced choosing such a fabric; likewise, starting from the EB II, Fabric B2 was mainly employed for Simple Ware and a few highly-fired jars, whereas Fabric B1 was chosen for most of the red -burnished tableware vessels.51 Finally, a specimen from the very distinctive and highly specialized group of EB II ‘metallic ware’ carinated bowls was analyzed (F.718; = TFN.1947.L.84/2; Fig. 4:d).52 This bowl represents the only loner so-far identified in the Tell el-Far‘ah North pottery ensemble. It is characterized by a completely different fabric, with fine grain-sized inclusions aligned to the margins and mainly represented by quartz and feldspars, minor amounts of iron and iron-titanium oxides, and fragments of calcareous and siliceous sedimentary rocks. In conclusion, the ceramic industry of Tell el-Far‘ah North shows a high degree of continuity in local material and technological knowledge through the EB IB–EB II. Elements of the chaîne opératoire were improved, but not substantially changed: Clay recipes remained the same; vessel shapes evolved within the same basic technical tradition, notwithstanding the dismissal of some morphological types and the introduction of new ones; some specialized productions disappeared (the 'Um Hammad group, and the Gray Burnished Ware) and other ones developed (‘metallic ware’ vessels); this was mainly the consequence of a transformation in cultural choices, demand, and influence networks among social groups within the region, linked to the rising urban-centered system.

4. Conclusions Diversified patterns of change occurred at Tell el-Far‘ah North during the EB IB–II transition. The settlement was marked by an apparent transformation in the inhabitation system, illustrated in the town planning and layout, public structures (city-wall and city-gate), plan, size, and quality of housing facilities. The simultaneous appearance of fortifications, planned streets, and a new dwelling type, along with notable changes in the pottery ensemble, led de Vaux to highlight the break between the EB I and EB II periods at the site.53 However, despite noticeable transformations, a sound continuity in occupation, social milieu, and technological know-how is registered in the EB IB–II transition, thus indicating that the EB IB settlement at Tell el-Far‘ah North preempted—with a developing socioeconomic organization—the flourishing of the subsequent EB II town. In fact, while the transition from the Neolithic to the Chalcolithic and from the latter to the EB I are both stressed by an occupational gap,54 no stratigraphic interruption marks the passage from the EB IB to the EB II at the site.

51

Similarly, at Khirbet Kerak, at the beginning of the EB II (Period C), vessels started to be produced in a standardized way, using a single clay source for the different products (Greenberg et al., 2012: 95). 52 De Vaux / Steve, 1948: fig. 9.5. Bowl F.718 was found in Locus L.84, in the uppermost EB II layer (de Vaux / Steve, 1948: pl. XII). 53 Conversely, the similar type of huts unearthed in the Chalcolithic and EB I settlements led de Vaux to put the two periods under the same ‘Eneolithic’/‘Chalcolithic’ label. 54 “Une couche stérile d’environ 30 cm” (de Vaux, 1961: 561).

The EB IB–II Transition at Tell el-Far‘ah North

191

Figure 6. Tell el-Far‘ah North. Plan, section, and position of the EB II potter’s kiln (after de Vaux, 1955: figs. 8–9).

With the start of the EB II, the settlement expanded to c. 5 ha in size, including the southern sector of the mound (apparently not settled during the previous EB IB). While the EB IB village seems to have been unplanned, a high degree of site planning—requiring an advanced level of labor recruiting and organization— is evident from the onset in the EB II town, with the simultaneous arrangement of city-walls, streets and living quarters, reflecting an overall, public building project visibly indicating the advent of an integrated societal structure. The town’s layout was kept the same throughout the whole EB II, within a gradually denser agglomeration of buildings (up to five stratified architectural phases). Domestic architecture shows a major transformation throughout the EB IB–EB II. Oval and rounded huts of the EB IB village adhere to the tradition of the EB I south-Levantine curvilinear architecture.55 With the start of the EB II, the curvilinear design was replaced by rectilinear architecture—which could better fit a delimited urban space—following a pre-planned grid and becoming gradually more crowded. EB II dwellings display inner partitions, pointing to increasing complexity and domestic space specialization, and diversified dimensions, some houses being larger than others (up to five rooms), indicating socio-economic differentiation. Even the construction method improved, with lime-plastered floors and walls, and rows of wooden pillars supporting the roofs. The significant changes in both the plan and architecture of houses and the overall site layout reveal a discontinuity with the EB IB village and point to a reconfiguration of the societal system. The new, well-planned, built environment reflects a new social environment and represents the result of social and political processes that shaped the interaction and daily practices of the inhabitants of the emerging urbanized community.56

55

Such an architectural tradition survived at some northern sites (e.g., Qiryat ‘Ata, ‘Ain Shadud, Tel Kabri) until the late EB IB, whereas elsewhere it was replaced by rectilinear broad-rooms with rounded corners, associated with a certain degree of overall planning (Golani, 1999; Faust / Golani, 2008: 219, 227; more recently, Golani / Storchan / Eirikh-Rose, 2018: 15, 48–49). 56 As it has been illustrated, for instance, in the detailed analysis carried out on the houses and households system at Khirbet Kerak in the EB I–II transition (Paz, 2012).

192

M. Sala

If settlement layout and housing facilities exhibit a somehow dramatic change in the EB IB–II transition, the local pottery industry did not witness a typological and technical break,57 but rather a continuous and progressive change throughout the two periods. On the one hand, petrographic evidence suggests that Tell el-Far‘ah North was a likely center of ceramic production starting from the EB IB, when nucleated workshops within the settlement were places of manufacturing and distribution of some specialized wares (as the socalled ‘Um Hammad Ware’ or the group of highly recognizable vessels from the cemeteries; see above note 35). The use of the same clays in both the EB IB and EB II phases points to a similar source of raw material; likewise, the occurrence of the same fabrics, progressively attributed to specific categories and vessels shapes, displays a continuous development of material and technological knowledge by the Tell el-Far‘ah potters throughout the EB IB–II. On the other hand, the typological selection, functional differentiation, and standardization in pottery shapes and related fabrics observed with the start of the EB II, attests to new achievements in the socio-economic system of pottery production and consumption, craft management, and work specialization at the site, as also evidenced by the appearance of the two-story updraft kiln and the diffusion of tournettes. In particular, the use of the wheel-coiling technique involved long-learning skills that should be a prerogative of an appointed specialized group of artisans with a specific social status.58 The tournettes themselves held a specific socio-economic value related to the high cost of procurement, being basalt objects that were not locally made and thus indicating long-distance exchanges.59 Such wide-ranging trade and cultural contacts are similarly evidenced in the EB II town by the presence of a few Egyptian imports (e.g. two fine stone vessels)60. The spreading of tournettes, along with the construction of a professional potter’s kiln, testifies to the on-site existence of a group of specialized artisans. Such craft specialization, especially as related to pottery production, is similarly attested to in EB II Khirbet Kerak, by an increased presence of potters’ wheels and a potter’s laboratory in the southern sector of the town;61 therein, many examples of complete potters’ wheels were found.62 Potters using the wheel-coiling technique had to be a restricted group, possibly attached to the elite of a major center, occasionally moving and sharing out their competence among nearby settlements within a region.63 Tell el-Far‘ah North was certainly one of these major centers of ceramic production. However, against this increasing process of specialization and 57

As it happened, for instance, at Khirbet Kerak (Eisenberg / Greenberg, 2006: 354–357; Paz, 2012: 427). Roux, 2009: 207–209. 59 The use of basalt for the potter’s wheels was not only a practical but also a cultural choice, since other stones easier to find and to work with (such as limestone, with one such item found at Tell el-Far‘ah North, n. F.4030), and clay (one item from Tell el-Far‘ah North, n. F.3243), were also used. Basalt was a prestigious raw material, characterized by a specific social (even symbolic) significance linked to its properties and economic value (Rosenberg / Golani, 2012: 41– 42). Geochemical analyses demonstrated that a few specific outcrops of basaltic rock were exploited in the Southern Levant from the Chalcolithic into the Iron Age (Rutter / Philip, 2008: 344–345). Analysis of the upper disk of an EB III tournette from Khirbet Yarmouk indicates that it originated from a Neogene basalt area in the Golan or Jordan (Roux / de Miroschedji, 2009: 159).. 60 Sowada, 2009: 48–49, fig. 4a–b, 232. 61 Area EY (Period C, local strata 9B–7: Eisenberg / Greenberg, 2006: 347–368): The location of a potter’s workshop is documented by the presence of numerous finds related to the manufacturing process, i.e., craft tools (shaping and burnishing implements and potter’s wheels starting from Stratum 9 in room EY 196; Greenberg / Paz, 2014: 25, 29) and waste materials (namely, unbaked pottery fragments and scraps of kneaded leftover clay deposited in a refuse pit in Courtyard EY 575, Stratum 7; Eisenberg / Greenberg, 2006: 352–354; Greenberg / Paz, 2014: 32–34, fig. 2.9:1–11; Greenberg / Iserlis, 2014: 63–64, 68–75). A conspicuous group of potter’s wheels was found in Area EY, Stratum 7 in room EY 160, and the nearby Courtyard EY 575, which possibly represented the focal point of the workshop, as evidenced by production debris (Eisenberg / Greenberg, 2006: 366, fig. 8.30; Greenberg / Iserlis, 2014: 70–72, figs. 3.15–3.17). It is interesting to underline that Room EY 160 was a non-domestic building, possibly a ritual structure, such as a small neighborhood shrine (Eisenberg / Greenberg, 2006: 365–366, plan 8.9), pointing once more to the specific social role and peculiar status of specialized potters within the developing urbanized society (Eisenberg / Greenberg, 2006: 368). 62 At least 17 specimens of EB II–III potter’s wheels were retrieved at Khirbet Kerak (Greenberg / Iserlis, 2014: tab. 3.4), among which were six tournette pairs (Roux / de Miroschedji, 2009: 160, 163, tab. 1) and an unfinished wheel (Greenberg et al., 2012: 95, fig. 14a). 63 Roux / de Miroschedji, 2009: 171. 58

The EB IB–II Transition at Tell el-Far‘ah North

193

standardization, and related morphological changes that occurred in the ceramic ensemble with the start of the EB II, the technological features of the local pottery industry, as reflected in the specifics of the chaîne opératoire (preparation of clay pastes, fashioning and finishing procedures, firing),64 indicate a strong degree of continuity throughout the two periods.65 The EB II town arose in the furrow of the previous village-based society, by an intensification of socioeconomic activities, a differentiation of social groups—as evidenced, for instance, in craft specialization—, a development of material and technological know-how, increased control, and an exchange of objects through long-distance routes as shown by the presence of imported objects from both the east (basalt potter’s wheels) and the west (Egyptian items). Nonetheless, evidence for extended networks of interconnectivity, along with an increasing level of expertise and craft specialization, is documented at Tell el-Far‘ah North already in the later EB I, as attested by a few specialized wares, such as the 'Um Hammad Ware, whose center of manufacture recently identified in the western Wadi Far‘ah could be Tell el-Far‘ah North itself (see above note 35), and whose production and dissemination would point to a significant degree of intra- and inter-site integration achieved by the EB IB community. The EB IB community of Tell Far‘ah North experienced social and economic dynamics—as evidenced in the technological and trade achievements accomplished in the ceramic industry—which launched a farreaching transformation. The rapid and fundamental changes that distinguish the dawn of the EB II at Tell el-Far‘ah North and mark the advent of a novel form of organization were placed in the riverbed of a developmental trajectory started in the EB IB. Thus, the EB IB marks the beginning of a process that culminated in a new socio-political organization, a new form of labor and crafts management, and an expanded system of control and transfer of goods: the urbanized societal system of the 3rd millennium BC walled town.

Acknowledgements I wish to deeply thank J.-B. Humbert and the École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem, where Tell el-Far‘ah North ceramic materials are currently stored, for allowing me access to the Museum of the École biblique and for the support given to the study of these materials that is currently underway.

References Bar, S., 2010: “Early Bronze Age I ‘Um Hammad Ware’: A Study in Regionalism”. PEQ 142 (2), 82–94. — 2013: “Shifting Settlement Patterns in the Southern Jordan Valley and Desert Fringes on Samaria during the Early Bronze Age I Period”. PEQ 145 (2), 90–107. — 2014: The Dawn of the Bronze Age. The Pattern of Settlement in the Lower Jordan Valley and the Desert Fringes of Samaria during the Chalcolithic Period and Early Bronze Age I. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 72. Leiden / Boston. Beck, P., 1985: “An Early Bronze Age “Family” of Bowls from Tel Aphek”. Tel Aviv 12, 17–28. Bradbury, J. / Braemer, F. / Sala, M., 2014: “Fitting Upland, Steppe, and Desert into a ‘Big Picture’ Perspective: A Case Study from Northern Jordan”. Levant 46 (2), 206–229. Braun, E., 2004: Early Beth Shan (Strata XIX–XIII): G.M. Fitzgerald’s Deep Cut on the Tell. University Museum Monograph 121. Chicago. — 2006: “Parochialism in Early Bronze Age I Ceramic Traditions: The Case of a “Safi Cup” from the EB I Site at Palmahim, Israel”. In A. Maeir / P. de Miroschedji (eds.): “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”. Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Volume 1. Winona Lake. Pp. 3–6.

64

Concerning the firing process of the samples analyzed so far, the optical activity of the matrix and the presence of calcareous inclusions indicate a maximum firing temperature below 850 °C and in the 700–850 °C range for both the EB IB and EB II ceramics (Medeghini et al., 2019: 11466). 65 For the theoretical framework of this approach, see Roux / van den Brink / Shalev, 2013.

194

M. Sala

— 2009: “Social Development in Early Bronze Age I of the Southern Levant: Reflections on Evidence for Different Modes of Ceramic Productions”. In S. A. Rosen / V. Roux (eds.): Techniques and People: Anthropological Perspectives on Technology in the Archaeology of the Proto-Historic and Early Historic Periods in the Southern Levant. Mémoires et travaux du centre de Recherche Français à Jérusalem. Archéologie et sciences de l’Antiquité et du Moyen Âge 9. Paris. Pp. 233–252. — 2011: “Of Pots and Towns: Old and New Perspectives on EB I of the Southern Levant”. In M. Chesson (ed.): Daily Life, Materiality, and Complexity in Early Urban Communities of the Southern Levant: Papers in Honor of Walter E. Rast and R. Thomas Schaub. Winona Lake. Pp. 265–280. — 2012: “On Some South Levantine Early Bronze Age Ceramic ‘Wares’ and Styles”. PEQ 144 (1), 5–32. Dobermann, R. W. / Fargo, V. M., 1985: “Tell el-Hesi, 1983”. PEQ 117, 1–24. Eisenberg, E. / Greenberg, R., 2006: “Chapter 8: Area EY: The Eisenberg – Yogev Excavations, 1981–1982, 1985–1986”. In R. Greenberg / E. Eisenberg / S. Paz / Y. Paz (eds.): Bet Yerah: The Early Bronze Age Mound. Volume I: Excavations Reports 1933–1986. IAA Reports 29. Jerusalem. Pp. 339–468. Eisenberg, E. / Rotem, Y., 2016: “The Early Bronze Age IB Pottery Assemblage from Tel Kitan, Central Jordan Valley”. IES 66 (1), 1–33. Esse, D. L., 1991: Subsistence, Trade and Social Change in Early Bronze Age Palestine, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 50. Chicago. Faust, A. / Golani, A., 2008: “A Community in Transition: The Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat Ata as a Test Case”. Tel Aviv 35 (2), 215–243. Finkelstein, I. / Gophna, R., 1993: “Settlement, Demographic, and Economic Patterns in the Highlands of Palestine in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Periods and the Beginning of Urbanism”. BASOR 289, 1– 22. Golani A., 1999: “New Perspectives on Domestic Architecture during the Initial Stages of Urbanization in Canaan”. Levant 31, 123–133. Golani, A. / Asscher, Y., in preparation: Archaeometrical Analyses of an EBII Ceramic Kiln from Tel Lod and Technological Development during the First Urbanization of the Southern Levant. Golani, A. / Storchan, B. / Eirikh-Rose, A., 2018: “The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age IB Site of Beqo‘a”. ‘Atiqot 90, 9–54. Gophna, R., 1996: Excavations at Tel Dalit. An Early Bronze Age Walled Town in Central Israel. Tel Aviv. Gophna, R. / Paz, Y. / Taxel, I., 2010: “Al-Maghar – An Early Bronze Age Walled Town in the Lower Soreq Valley and the EB IB–II Sequence in the Central Coastal Plain of Israel”. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 28, 9–37. Greenberg, R., 2019: The Archaeology of the Bronze Age Levant. From Urban Origins to the Demise of City-States, 3700–1000 BCE. Cambridge World Archaeology. Cambridge. Greenberg, R. / Iserlis, M., 2014: “Chapter 3: The Early Bronze Age Pottery Industries”. In R. Greenberg (ed.): Bet Yerah: The Early Bronze Age Mound. Volume II: Urban Structure and Material Culture, 1933– 1986 Excavations. IAA Reports 54. Jerusalem. Pp. 53–149. Greenberg, R. / Paz, S., 2014: “Chapter 2: Early Bronze Age Architecture, Function, and Planning”. In R. Greenberg (ed.): Bet Yerah: The Early Bronze Age Mound. Volume II: Urban Structure and Material Culture, 1933–1986 Excavations. IAA Reports 54. Jerusalem. Pp. 15–52. Greenberg, R./ Paz, S. / Wengrow, D. / Iserlis, M., 2012: “Tel Bet Yerah: Hub of the Early Bronze Age Levant”. Near Eastern Archaeology 75 (2), 88–107. Huot, J. L., 1967: “Typologie et Chronologie relative de la céramique du Bronze ancien à Tell al-Fâr‘ah”. Revue Biblique 74, 517–554. Joffe, A. H., 1993: Settlement and Society in the Early Bronze Age I and II, Southern Levant: Complementarity and Contradiction in a Small Scale Complex Society. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 4. Sheffield. Medeghini, L. / Sala, M. / De Vito, C. / Mignardi, S., 2019: “A forgotten Centre of Ceramic Production in Southern Levant: Preliminary Analytical Study of the Early Bronze Age Pottery from Tell el-Far‘ah North (West Bank)”. Ceramics International 45, 11457–11467.

The EB IB–II Transition at Tell el-Far‘ah North

195

Milevski, I., 2013: “The Transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant in Socioeconomic Context”. Paléorient 39 (1), 193–208. de Miroschedji, P., 1993: “Far‘ah, Tell el- (North). Neolithic Period to Middle Bronze Age”. In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 2. Jerusalem. Pp. 433–438. — 2018: “The Early Bronze Age Fortifications at Tel Yarmut—an Update”. Eretz Israel 33, 142∗–162∗. Nigro, L., 2005: Tell es-Sultan/Gerico alle soglie della prima urbanizzazione: il villaggio e la necropoli del Bronzo Antico I (3300–3000 a.C.). “La Sapienza” Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine & Transjordan 1. Rome. — 2006: “Sulle mura di Gerico. Le fortificazioni di Tell es-Sultan come indicatori della nascita e dello sviluppo della prima città di Gerico nel III millennio a.C.”. In F. Baffi / R. Dolce / S. Mazzoni / F. Pinnock (eds.): Ina Kibrāt Erbetti, Studi di Archeologia orientale dedicati a Paolo Matthiae. Rome. Pp. 349–397. — 2011: “Dominating the River: Khirbet al-Batrawy, an EB II–III City in North-Central Jordan”. Syria 88, 59–74. Paz, S., 2012: “Changing Households at the Rise of Urbanism: The EB I–II Transition at Tel Bet Yerah”. In B. J. Parker / C. P. Foster (eds.): New Perspectives on Household Archaeology. Winona Lake. Pp. 407– 434. Paz, Y., 2002: “Fortified Settlements of the EB IB and the Emergence of the First Urban System”. Tel Aviv 29 (2), 238–261. Portugali, Y. / Gophna, R., 1993: “Crisis, Progress and Urbanization: The Transition from the Early Bronze I to the Early Bronze II in Palestine”. Tel Aviv 20, 164–185. Rosenberg, D. / Golani, A., 2012: “Groundstone Tools of a Copper-Smiths’ Community: Understanding Stone-Related Aspects of the Early Bronze Age Site of Ashqelon Barnea”. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 25 (1), 27–51. Rotem, Y., 2012: “The Early Bronze Age IB Pottery from Strata M-3 and M-2,”. In A. Mazar (ed.): Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean, Volume IV: The Fourth and Third Millennia BCE. Jerusalem. Pp. 123– 235. Roux, V., 2009: “Wheel Fashioned Ceramic Production during the Third Millennium BCE in the Southern Levant: A Perspective from Tel Yarmuth”. In A. Rosen / V. Roux (eds.): Techniques and People: Anthropological Perspectives on Technology in the Archaeology of the Proto-Historic and Early Historic Periods in the Southern Levant. Mémoires et travaux du Centre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem 9. Paris. Pp. 195–212. Roux, V. / de Miroschedji, P., 2009: “Revisiting the History of the Potter’s Wheel in the Southern Levant”. Levant 41 (2), 155–173. Roux, V. / van den Brink, E. C. M. / Shalev, S., 2013: “Continuity and Discontinuity in the Shephela (Israel) Between the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze I: The Modi’in “Deep Deposits” Ceramic Assemblages as a Case Study”. Paléorient 39 (1), 63–81. Rutter, G. / Philip, G., 2008: “Beyond Provenance Analysis: The Movement of Basaltic Artefacts through a Social Landscape”. In Y. M. Rowan / J. M. Ebeling (eds.): New Approaches to Old Stones; Recent Studies on Ground Stone Artifacts. London / Oakville. Pp. 343–360. Sala, M., 2008: L’architettura sacra della Palestina nell’età del Bronzo Antico I–III. Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale XIII. Rome. Sebag, D., 2005: “Les habitats au Bronze Ancien au Levant sud”. Bulletin du Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem 16, 20–44. Sowada, K. N., 2009: Egypt in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Old Kingdom. An Archaeological Perspective. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 237. Fribourg. de Vaux, R., 1955: “La cinquième campagne de fouilles à Tell el-Far‘ah, près Naplouse”. Revue Biblique 62, 541–589. — 1961: “Les fouilles de Tell el-Far‘ah. Rapport préliminaire sur les 7e, 8e, 9e campagnes, 1958–1960”. Revue Biblique 68, 557–592. — 1962: “Les fouilles de Tell el-Far‘ah. Rapport préliminaire sur les 7e, 8e, 9e campagnes, 1958–1960 (suite)”. Revue Biblique 69, 212–253.

196

M. Sala

de Vaux, R. / Steve, A. M., 1947: “La première campagne de fouilles à Tell el-Far‘ah, près Naplouse”. Revue Biblique 54, 394–433, 573–589. — 1948: “La second campagne de fouilles à Tell el-Far‘ah, près Naplouse”. Revue Biblique 55, 544–580.

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant Questions of Sequence, Terminology, and Chronology Pierre de Miroschedji1

Abstract This paper reevaluates the chronological-stratigraphical basis of the EB I–II transition in order to reach a more precise definition of the archaeological periodization of this time-span. It reviews the periodization schemes used since the beginning of Early Bronze Age studies, and their successive changes and emendations. Against this background, it examines the archaeological sequence of sites where the EB I–II transition is documented, mainly the still largely unpublished data of Tell el-Far‘ah, which is compared to that of the other contemporary sites of the Jordan valley and northern Israel. Enlarging the discussion, the paper argues for an archaeological definition of the EB I–II transition based not solely on variations in pottery typology, but rather on the combination of all aspects of material culture and their economic, social and political implications. With the addition of as yet unpublished C14 dates of Tell es-Sakan, the paper intends also to reaffirm a dating of the EB I–EB II transition at ca. 3100/3050 BCE.

Keywords: Early Bronze Age, Chronology, Tell el-Far‘ah, Tell es-Sakan,

1. Introduction Transitional periods are notoriously difficult to delineate and to define archaeologically, and the transition from EB I to EB II in the Southern Levant offers an almost paradigmatic example of this difficulty. From an archaeological-historical point of view, the EB I and the EB II are two clearly distinct periods: The EB I represents a village society, while the EB II is characterized by the existence of fortified settlements described as “urban”, which represent a radically different kind of socio-political organization.2 The terminology EB I / EB II plainly expresses this essential dichotomy. However, this dichotomy is not straightforward in the actual practice of archaeological research, as it is based mainly on pottery typology. As a transition of such magnitude was neither a sudden nor a general phenomenon, affecting simultaneously the entire southern Levant, it is sometimes difficult to decide whether an archaeological stratum should be ascribed to either the EB I or the EB II on the sole basis of typological criteria. This difficulty has become more acute in recent decades as the multiplication of archaeological excavations has revealed subtle transitional situations as well as regional or local variations, especially in village settlements, likely to give rise to different descriptions and interpretations. The resulting terminological fluctuations (see Table 1), aggravated by the use of assemblages of uncertain stratigraphic integrity, were actually embedded in the earliest classification attempted by G.E. Wright in 1937, who distinguished a Late Chalcolithic, an EB Ia, and an EB Ib, followed by a full-fledged EB II.3 Later, the same scholar proposed to bring together the three first phases into a single period, EB I, with three subphases, EB IA, EB IB, and EB IC, based on a purported sequence of bowls in Grey Burnished Ware.4 This scheme was generally accepted at the time, except for the last phase, EB IC, whose stratigraphic definition was questionable, as demonstrated by D.L. Esse.5 Thanks to the progress of excavations, Wright’s typological criteria for the EB I phasing have been de facto abandoned in favor of a stratigraphically sound periodization based on the recognition of several regional facies appearing in succession, maintaining, however, the initial framework. Consequently, a consensus has emerged among 1

CNRS, UMR 7041, Nanterre, email: [email protected]. For an evaluation of EB II–III “urbanism” and its socio-political significance, see de Miroschedji, 2018a. 3 Wright, 1937. 4 Wright, 1958; 1961: 81–82; 1971: 280–284. 5 Esse, 1984. 2

198

P. de Miroschedji

scholars about a sequence consisting of an early EB I, or EB IA phase, followed by a late EB I, or EB IB phase, both phases exhibiting regional/local aspects.6 It is basically this scheme that has dominated the archaeological research in the southern Levant since the 1980s. Table 1. The different terminologies used for the EB I–EB II transition.

Scholars Wright, 1937

EB IA EB IB Late Chalcolithic EB Ia (“Esdraelon Culture”) Énéolithique supérieur

EB IB – EB II EB Ib

EB II EB II

EB I (Ancien Bronze I)

Wright, 1958, 1961 Kenyon, 1960a, 1960b de Vaux, 1961

EB IA EB IB Proto-Urban Chalcolithique supérieur

EB IC EB I EB I (Ancien Bronze I)

Amiran, 1963/1969 Albright, 1965 de Vaux, 1966/1971a, 1966/1971b Lapp, 1970 de Miroschedji, 1971, 1976

EB I Late Chalcolithic / EB I Chalcolithic / EB Ia

End of EB I EB Ib

EB II (Ancien Bronze II) EB II EB II EB II (Ancien Bronze II) EB II EB II EB II

EB IA Pré-Urbain 1

EB IB Pré-Urbain 2–3

EB IC EB I (Ancien Bronze I)

EB I EB IB Middle and Late EB I Early + middle EB Ib EB I EB IB

EB II EB II EB II

EB II EB II (Ancien Bronze II) EB II EB II EB II

Late EB Ib

EB II

Final EB I/EB IB EB II

EB II EB II

End of EB IB/ beginning of EB II End of EB I

EB II

de Vaux / Stève, 1947, 1948

Kempinski, 1978 Esse, 1984, 1991 Stager, 1992

Early EB I

Amiran / Gophna, 1992

EB Ia

Beck, 1985, 2000 de Miroschedji, 1989, 1993 Kempinski, 1992 Ben-Tor, 1992 Joffee, 1993 Gophna / Iron-Lubin, 1996 Braun, 1996a Getzov / Paz / Gophna, 2001 6

EB IB EB I Late EB I EB IB EB IB

Late EB IB Late EB IB

EB II EB II EB II EB II

For discussions of the EB I phasing, see Alon / Yekutieli, 1995; Braun, 1985, 1996a, 1997, 2009, 2012; Braun / van den Brink, 1998; van den Brink / Braun, 2002; Eisenberg / Rotem, 2016; Esse, 1991; Gophna / Paz / Taxel, 2010; Greenberg / Rotem / Paz, 2013; Greenberg / Iserlis, 2014; Greenberg, 2019; de Miroschedji, 1971; Nigro, 2019; Rotem, 2012, 2015; Stager, 1992; Zuckerman, 2003a, 2003b.

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

Scholars van den Brink, 2002 Paz, 2002 Yannai, 2002 Yekutieli, 2000, 2004; Cialowicz et al., 2014 Greenberg, 2006; 2019; Greenberg / Iserlis, 2014 Fisher, 2008, 2015 Nigro, 2010, 2019 Gophna et al., 2010 Paz, 2010 Mazar, 2012 Rotem, 2012

EB IA

EB IB EB IB Late EB I (EB Ib late) EB Ib1

EB IA

EB I–EB II transition / Early EB II EB Ib2

EB IB

EB IB EB 1B1 EB IB EB IB

de Miroschedji, 2014

EB IB

Bourke, 2015 Rotem et al., 2019 ARCANE ESL sequence

EB IB ESL 1

EB IB – EB II “End of the Late EB I”

ESL 2

199

EB II

EB II EB II

Late EB IB or ESL 3 EB IIA EB 1B2–EB 1B3 Late EB IB Terminal EB IB / Transitional EB I–II Final EB IB / Early EB II EB IB/II transition EB IB ESL 3

EB II EB IIB EB II

EB II EB II ESL 4

However, in the course of the last three decades, several archaeological assemblages (some actually known since the 1930s) have been described, which do not really fit into this scheme. They clearly belong to a phase positioned between an undisputed EB IB and an EB II stricto sensu. For example, some strata yielding the earliest fortifications of the southern Levant were incorporated into the EB I;7 this apparent oddity was explained through chronology—these strata belong to a phase later than EB IB but should still be included in the EB I on the ground of pottery typology—or the nature of the settlement, already ‘urban’ while contemporary villages were still living in an older (EB IB) culture.8 The ambivalent status of this phase explains why it has been either ignored or if acknowledged given a variety of ad hoc designations. Table 1, not claiming to be exhaustive, lists more than a dozen terms to designate this phase, in turn incorporated into the EB I or the EB II, or defined as transitional, or else as a discrete period. In addition, it appears that similar assemblages received different labels, or, vice-versa, that the same label was applied to two different and successive assemblages, resulting in a significant confusion in the reading of archaeological reports and (or) the interpretation of sociopolitical developments.

7

E.g., Braun, 1996a: 31–33, 2004a: 27; Getzov / Paz / Gophna, 2001: 22–24; Paz, 2002; Bar, 2013a: 99–102; Greenberg 2019: 48. Note that the attribution of these earliest fortifications to the end of the EB I had been already pointed out by Lapp (1970) and Wright (1971: 284), both ascribing them to the “EB IC” phase. 8 E.g., Rotem, 2012; Rotem et al., 2019.

200

P. de Miroschedji

Figure 1. Map of the southern Levant in the EB IB – EB II periods, showing the sites mentioned in the text.

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

201

This paper is just one more contribution to the study of this problem, with the bold aim of clarifying a highly controversial question.9 Given the uncertain and disputed status of the phase marking the transition from EB I to EB II, there is at once a terminological difficulty: How to designate this phase, which has received so many different denominations without desperately confusing the following paper? The delicate question of an adequate archaeological terminology will be dealt with near the end of this paper (§ 4.2). Meanwhile, I have opted for a neutral designation, which has a purely sequential significance and does not prejudge its archaeological definition. It follows the terminology adopted by the ARCANE (‘Associated Regional Chronologies of the Ancient Near East’) project, whose aim is to synchronize the archaeological sequences of the different regions of the third millennium Near East.10 In this project, each region is designated by an initialism (e.g., ESL for Early Southern Levant, ENL for Early Northern Levant, EME for Early Middle Euphrates) followed by an Arabic serial number for the phase. Thus, the EB I–III sequence of the southern Levant has been divided into five phases, ESL 1 to 5, corresponding respectively to what is usually called the EB IA, the EB IB, the transition from EB I to EB II, the EB II and the EB III (see Table 1, bottom line). Accordingly, I shall use in this paper the denomination ‘ESL 3’ for the third phase corresponding to the transition from EB IB (ESL 2) to EB II (ESL 4). The inquiry will begin with a presentation of the Tell el-Fâr‘ah (North) [henceforth Tell el-Fâr‘ah] Early Bronze Age sequence; first, because it is imperfectly known (only preliminary reports on the EBA strata have been published to date), and sometimes also misrepresented in recent discussions; second, because it has been, for the last sixty years, frequently invoked to justify the archaeological terminology used nowadays in most publications; and third, because it is also, to a large extent, representative, or at least closely evocative, of the archaeological sequence observed on many contemporary sites of the southern Levant where the EB I–EB II transition is documented. This last remark serves as the basis for the second part of the paper, in which I shall review, against the backdrop of the Tell el-Fâr‘ah sequence, the archaeological sequence of several contemporary sites of the southern Levant where the EB I–EB II transition is documented; this should contribute to outline the main characteristics of this transitional phase. The last section will endeavor to evaluate the archaeological and historical significance of this phase and tackle the tricky question of its most appropriate designation, together with that of its absolute chronology.

2. The EB I–II transition at Tell el-Fâr‘ah 2.1. The Fâr‘ah EBA Stratigraphic Sequence Tell el-Fâr‘ah is a major site located at the head of the Wadi Fâr‘ah, close to a powerful spring whose stream flows down the wadi and joins the Jordan river (Fig. 1). It was occupied from the Neolithic to the Iron Age.11 The wadi is dotted with EB sites.12 Nine seasons of excavation were conducted at Tell el-Fâr‘ah by Father Roland de Vaux between 1946 and 1960 on behalf of the École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem. A rich sequence of EB strata was exposed in four different areas of excavations (Fig. 2; Table 2):

9

For the main earlier systematic attempts, see, a.o., and in chronological order of publication, Wright, 1937, 1958, 1961, 1971; Kenyon, 1960a, 1960b; de Vaux, 1961, 1966/1971a, 1966/1971b; Lapp, 1970; de Miroschedji, 1971; Esse, 1984, 1991; Ben-Tor, 1992; Rotem 2012, 2015; Rotem et al. 2019. 10 See http://www.arcane.uni-tuebingen.de/welcome.html and Lebeau 2011 for a general outline of the project. 11 De Miroschedji, 1993, with references. 12 De Miroschedji, 1976: 58–59, Pl. 20; Bar, 2013a, 2013b.

202

P. de Miroschedji

Figure 2. Tell el-Fâr‘ah, schematic topographical plan (after de Miroschedji 1976, pl. 24).

1. Area I (1946–1947; 400 m2), where four construction phases were identified termed Énéolithique supérieur, Ancien Bronze I, Ancien Bronze IIa, and Ancien Bronze IIb.13 Énéolithique supérieur is an alternative designation for the Late Chalcolithic used at the time by French archaeologists, especially in connection with the archaeological sequence of Byblos; in the excavator’s terminology, the Énéolithique supérieur was equivalent to the phases termed “Chalcolithic” (“Esdraelon Culture”) and EB Ia by Wright (1937). The terminology used to express this archaeological sequence reflects the field impressions of the excavator, who felt a clear cut difference between the Énéolithique supérieur and the Ancien Bronze I, but a strong continuity between the Ancien Bronze I and the two following phases.14 The Ancien Bronze I was considered as essentially comparable to Wright’s (1937) “Early Bronze Age Ib”, and the Ancien Bronze II as interchangeable with Wright’s (1937) Early Bronze II.15 However, it is noteworthy that de Vaux’s Énéolithique supérieur was not well isolated stratigraphically; it is actually to a large extent a mixed stratum, which includes pottery shapes belonging to this phase and the following Ancien Bronze I (see Table 2).16 Therefore, the assemblage of the Énéolithique supérieur should not be relied upon for comparative purposes, a conclusion expressed in private exchanges with this writer by R. de Vaux, who considered that the sequence evidenced in his excavations of Area II is more reliable.

13

De Vaux / Stève, 1947, 1948. De Vaux / Stève, 1947: 425–426; 1948: 548. 15 De Vaux / Stève, 1947: 403, 423. 16 See, e.g., de Vaux / Stève, 1947: Fig. 2: Nos. 1–4 (Tell Um Hammad Ware / PU D), 12–13 (Grey Burnished Ware), 28 (painted ware) and 29 (typical bowl, as found in the Fâr‘ah EB I necropolis: see our Fig. 5, type 1.4) coexisting with No. 19 (typical local EB II arched pushed-up ledge-handle: see our Fig. 8: 18) and Nos. 25–26 (carinated bowls characterizing the following EB II strata: see our Fig. 6: 11). Compare this figure with de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 2. This mixture had been recognized and discussed by de Vaux, 1962: 216, n. 18. 14

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

203

Table 2. Stratigraphic chart of the EBA at Tell el-Fâr‘ah.

2. Area II (1950–1959), where the excavations covered c. 1100 m2 and brought to light both the line of fortifications and an adjacent domestic quarter (Fig. 3).17 De Vaux distinguished a stratum ascribed to the Chalcolithique supérieur (an alternative designation for his previous Énéolithique supérieur) followed by six building phases, called périodes in order to stress that they illustrate six successive phases in the continuous cultural and architectural evolution of this part of the site, from the beginning of the Ancien Bronze I to the end of the Ancien Bronze II, when the site was abandoned until the MB IIA.18 The first two périodes were ascribed to the Ancien Bronze I, while the following four périodes were labeled Ancien Bronze II, which started with Période 3, although the latter has a somewhat transitional 17

De Vaux, 1951: 394–396 (strata), 421–422 (fortifications); 1955: 553–571 (strata), 573–575 (fortifications); 1957: 568 (fortification); 1961: 576–588 (strata); 1962: 212–221 (fortifications). 18 On this continuity, see de Vaux, 1955: 565, 570. To the five périodes of de Vaux’s latest reports (de Vaux, 1955: 292–310; 1961: 576–588), one must add the Période finale mentioned in earlier reports (de Vaux, 1951: 394–396; 1955: 564–565; 1957: 557–559; 1961: 588).

204

P. de Miroschedji

character.19 The assemblages uncovered in the previous stratum ascribed to the Chalcolithique supérieur is essentially comparable (albeit typologically more coherent) to the Énéolithique supérieur of Area I and corresponds to what was called “Proto-Urban” by K. M. Kenyon20 and to what is nowadays commonly called EB IB (see Table 1). Actually, de Vaux’s periodization paralleled that of Kenyon, the only difference being that his Chalcolithique supérieur was called “Proto-Urban Period” by the latter.21

Figure 3. Tell el-Fâr‘ah, partial schematic plan of Stratum IVA (Période 1) with the fortification lines of Période 1 (Wall I) and Période 3 (Wall II) (after de Miroschedji 1976, plans 1 and 5).

19

De Vaux, 1955: 571; 1962: 235. Kenyon, 1960a: 84–100; 1960b: 4–10; Hennessy, 1967: 7–10, 15–18. 21 See de Vaux, 1961: 591. 20

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

205

3. Area III (1959; “chantier du sud-ouest”, 160 m2), where four building strata ascribed to the Ancien Bronze I and Ancien Bronze II were excavated. This excavation is as yet unpublished.22 4. Area IV (1950 and 1959–1960) designates the area where the EBA gate connected to Wall I of the fortifications was excavated.23 Five building phases were reconstructed, corresponding to the Ancien Bronze I–II occupation in the other areas. 5. In addition to the excavations on the tell, 17 EBA tombs (some reused in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages) were excavated in three cemeteries located in close proximity to the settlement.24 Table 2 presents the correlations between the stratigraphic sequence of these four areas and cemeteries and the various terminologies used by de Vaux in his successive reports. The reference area is Area II, which offered, in de Vaux’s estimation, the most reliable stratigraphic sequence. As only preliminary reports were published, its stratigraphy was reexamined under de Vaux’s guidance in 1969–70 in the framework of my doctoral research; it resulted in only minor changes in terms of the ascription of loci, but new designations were proposed for the three major phases of the Early Bronze Age at Tell el-Fâr‘ah and the corresponding strata:25 – Fâr‘ah Period III for de Vaux’s Énéolithique / Chalcolithique supérieur, which corresponds to the EB IB (ESL 2) of the mainstream archaeological terminology for the EBA. – Fâr‘ah Period IVA for de Vaux’s Ancien Bronze I, represented by Périodes 1–2 (i.e., Strata IV1 and IV2), which correspond to the ESL 3 phase. – Fâr‘ah Period IVB for de Vaux’s Ancien Bronze II, extending over Périodes 3–5 and dernière période (i.e., Strata IV3 to IV6); it corresponds to the ESL 4 phase, i.e. to the traditional EB II. 2.2. Fâr‘ah Period III: de Vaux’s Énéolithique Supérieur/Chalcolithique Supérieur In Area II, the stratum ascribed to Period III, represented by pit-houses (maisons-fosses), was found on that ascribed to the earlier Chalcolithique moyen or on bedrock. As noted above, the pottery published for this phase in 1948 mixes pottery types of Periods III and IV, unlike the pottery published in 1955,26 and especially in 1961,27 which represents coherent assemblages (Fig. 4). These assemblages include the main categories of ware and pottery types, including Grey Burnished Ware28 and its local imitation (Fig. 4: 12), Red Burnished Ware (Fig. 4: 1–5), and Um Hammad Ware (also called PU D)29 (Fig. 4: 21–26). Except for the latter, they were also found in tombs of cemeteries identified in the vicinity of the site.

22

De Vaux, 1961: 252–253; see de Miroschedji, 1976: 80–81, Plans 8–11. De Vaux, 1962: 221–234; de Miroschedji, 1976: 118–119. 24 See de Vaux / Stève, 1949: 102–136 (tombes 1–8); de Vaux, 1951: 566–590 (tombes 6, 9–12); 1952: 576–582 (tombes 13–14); 1955: 543–550 (tombes 15–17). For an overview of the other burial sites to which these cemeteries were connected, see Bar, 2013b: 109–110. 25 De Miroschedji, 1976: 13–24, 74–81, 115–119; 1993. 26 De Vaux, 1955: Fig. 5. 27 De Vaux, 1961: Fig. 2. 28 See de Vaux / Stève, 1948: Fig. 2: 12–13. 29 On this ware, see de Miroschedji 1971: 37–39; Bar, 2013b: 179–189. 23

206

P. de Miroschedji

Figure 4. Tell el-Fâr‘ah, selected sherds from Period III (EB IB) (after de Vaux, 1955: Fig. 5; 1961: Fig. 2).

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Inv. No. / / L / / / / / F.4472 /

Locus 686, hearth 288 Tr. 1, 6b Below 649 705 279 Below 649 Below 281 Tr. 1, 6b 685

Period III III III III III III III III III III

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

/ /

718 689 Below 280 Tr. 1,6b Below 280 686, hearth 672 689 Tr. 1, 6a 688 281 Tr. 686 Below 282 279-280 689 Tr. J, 5-6b

III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III

/ / F.4406 / / / / / F.4512 / / / .

Description Buff clay, well fired. No slip Buff clay, fine ware. No slip. Red clay. Red burnished slip. Buff clay, coarse. Brown slip. Buff clay. Soot on rim. Coarse red clay. Brown slip. Pink clay. Red slip. Red clay. Burnishing outside. Buff clay. Red burnished slip. Buff clay, gray core, poorly fired. Red slip Red clay. Red slip. Red clay, coarse grit. Red slip. Red clay. Red slip. Red clay. Red burnished slip. Red clay. Red slip. Red clay. Combing. Buff clay. Red slip outside. Red clay. Red slip outside. Red clay. Red slip outside. Red clay. Red slip. Red clay. Red slip. Pink clay. Red slip. Red clay. Red slip. Buff clay. Red slip. Red clay. Red slip outside. Red clay. Red slip.

Reference de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 2: 30. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 2: 32. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 2: 40. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 2: 33. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 2: 34. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 5: 19. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 2: 42. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 5: 25. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 2: 29. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 2: 5. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 2: 7. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 2: 22. de Vaux, 1955: Fig. 5: 7. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 2: 2. de Vaux, 1955: Fig. 5: 6. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 2: 8. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 2: 25. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 2: 24. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 2: 21. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 2: 3. de Vaux, 1955: Fig. 5: 11. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 2: 9. de Vaux, 1955: Fig. 5: 29. de Vaux, 1955: Fig. 5: 26. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 2: 11. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 2: 12.

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

Figure 4. Tell el-Fâr‘ah, selected sherds from Period III (EB IB) (after de Vaux, 1955: Fig. 5; 1961: Fig. 2).

207

208

P. de Miroschedji

The pottery assemblage unearthed in the 17 excavated tombs is typical of this period, as illustrated in Figure 5, which brings the complete typology of the Period III pottery found in these tombs. The repertoire of shapes and wares parallels that found in the occupation strata on the tell, except for the large storage vessels (hole-mouth jars, large jars, and pithoi) which do not appear in the tombs. This assemblage is contemporary with the EB IB in the Jezreel Valley and its vicinity (Braun’s “En Shadud Horizon”),30 and the EB IB in the Coastal Plain and the Shephelah (“Erani C Horizon”).31

Figure 5. Tell el-Fâr‘ah, typological chart of the pottery recovered in the Period III (EB IB) tombs (after de Miroschedji, forthcoming).

2.3. Fâr‘ah Period IV: de Vaux’s Ancien Bronze I and Ancien Bronze II The beginning of Period IV is marked by a radical change in the settlement pattern of the site and its material culture. Already organized along streets, the dwellings of Stratum IV1 (de Vaux’s Période 1) had been founded on the ruins of the last maisons-fosses of Period III (Fig. 3) and were stratigraphically connected to the first city-wall (Wall I) built of mudbricks on a shallow stone base. These changes in settlement layout appear together with marked changes in the pottery. The subsequent phase unfolds without noted rupture. It is marked by successive reconstructions of dwellings, without significant modifications in the urban layout, and by substantial changes of the fortifications: After the partial crumbling of Wall I at the end of Stratum IV2, a second city-wall (Wall II) was built in stone, together with Stratum IV3 (de Vaux’s Période 3), followed by several additions on the outer slope during the EB II.

30

See Braun, 1996a: 82–87. This horizon is also well documented at Qiryat Ata III–II (Golani, 2003, 2013) and ‘En Esur (Asawir) Stratum II and “Late EB I” tombs (Dothan, 1970; Yannai, 1996; Yannai/ Lazar-Shorer / Grosinger, 2006; Gorzalczany / Sharvit, 2010). 31 On the “Erani C Horizon”, see Yekutieli, 2006; Braun, 2012: 11–13 (with references); 2016a. Some tombs of the Azor cemetery suggest a broad contemporaneity of the Fâr‘ah EB IB tombs with the Asawir “Late EB I” tombs and the Erani C Ware, cf. Ben-Tor, 1975: Figs. 5–11, 6:3; Ben-Shlomo, 2012: Figs. 2.7: 6, 2.8: 4.

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

209

Stratum IV6 witnessed a dissolution of the urban layout before the abandonment of the site for more than seven centuries. The pottery recovered in the six strata of Period IV—altogether 1041 vessels and typologically diagnostic sherds recovered in satisfactory stratigraphic conditions—forms the basis of this study32 and reflects this essential continuity of occupation. The changes that occur are never sudden and are mostly perceptible through quantitative analyses. The 86 pottery types identified in these strata are illustrated in Figs. 6–8 and 11–13, and their frequencies are indicated in Tables 3–5. The analysis of these frequencies indicates a discrete change with the transition from Strata IV2 to IV3 (de Vaux’s Périodes 2 to 3), i.e., from Period IVA to Period IVB, although Stratum IV3 appears somewhat transitional. 2.3.1. The Pottery of Fâr‘ah Period IVA (de Vaux’s Périodes 1–2 = Ancien Bronze I) Most pottery types and wares characteristic of Period III—especially the Grey Burnished Ware, the Um Hammad Ware, and most of the red burnished ware found in the necropolis—disappear with Stratum IV1, and only a few older types survive (e.g., Figs. 6: 1,7–8; 7: 1,9; 8: 5,11). The other pottery types of Strata IV1–2 (altogether 36, as well as three types of horizontal ledge-handles) are recorded here for the first time: 17 in Stratum IV1, 10 in Stratum IV2, and nine from uncertain contexts, Stratum IV1 or IV2. Among these 36 new pottery types, six appear only in the first two or three strata (Figs. 6: 9–10, 24, 25, 34; 7: 17; 8: 9– 10), while the others are also found in the subsequent strata (nine up to Stratum IV4, and 21 up to the end of the period). A detailed analysis of these pottery types is outside the scope of the present paper, but the bowls and platters deserve special mention because they are particularly relevant in the discussion of the EB I–EB II transition. The bowls with a flattened base and an upright or concave wall (Fig. 6: 7–8, 9–10), and the bowls with a rounded base, a marked carination and a straight wall (Fig. 6: 11–12) are typical of the first three strata. The relatively high frequency of the small carinated bowls with a high concave and flaring wall (Fig. 6: 13–15) (not to be confused with the so-called “Aphek bowls” of the following strata) make them also typical of Period IVA, although they were also found in small numbers in the succeeding strata. The same remark applies to the large bowls with an inturned rim and the first platters with a comparable profile (Fig. 6: 16–23) which also appear with Stratum IV1. In the necropolis, at least in tombs 3 (Fig. 9), 14 (Fig. 10) and 16,33 a small assemblage of pottery types typical of Period IVA was found, clearly different from those of Period III, the main period of use of these tombs.

32

See Huot, 1967 for a presentation of the typology, and de Miroschedji, 1976: 13–24 for a synthesis based on a reworking of the stratigraphy which is summarized here. 33 De Vaux, 1955: Fig. 5: 10, 13, 19.

210

P. de Miroschedji

Figure 6. Tell el-Fâr‘ah, types of bowls, platters and basins appearing in Period IVA (de Vaux’s Périodes 1–2) (after de Miroschedji, 1976: Pl. 2).

No. 1 2

Inv. No. F.275 F.4349

Locus Area I 681

Stratum AB I IV1–2

3

F.4103

643

IV4

4

F.3948

613

IV4–5

5

F.3915

609

IV3–4

6 7 8 9 10 11

F.3097 F.4064 F.4228 F.4084 F.4327 F.3151

257 638 Below 651 Below 623 Below 654 269

IV4 IV3–4 IV3 IV3 IV1 IV3

12 13 14

F.3217 F.4357 F.3240

281 682 271

IV1 IV1 IV3

15

F.4078

643

IV4

16 17

F.4176 F.3239

Below 611 271

IV3–4 IV2

18

F.4147

657

IV1–2

19 20

F.2982 F.4154

Below 229 E of 657

IV6 IV1–2

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

F.4031 / F.4157 F.812 / / / F.4070 F.4065

618 F.582 655 Area I, 84 Below 624 Below 646 Below 619 Below 615 638

IV4–5 IV5 IVB AB IIb IV1–2 IV4 IV5 IV4 IV3–4

30 31 32 33 34 35

/ / / / / F.3247

Below 651 Below 646 618 Below 618 715 Below 270

IV2–3 IV4 IV4–5 IV3 Area III IV2

36

/

Below 630

IV4

Description Buff clay. Buff clay. Burnished inside and out. Light brown clay, fine ware. Red burnished slip. Red-brown clay. Red burnished slip inside and out. Red-brown clay. Red slip, with burnishing radiating inside and haphazard outside. Buff clay. Burnished. Pink clay. Pinkish gray clay. Buff clay. Red burnished slip. Buff clay. Light brown clay. Red slip out. Buff clay. Pink clay. Pink clay. Orange slip with criss-cross burnishing outside. Buff clay, rather fine. Red slip. Pink clay. Red burnished slip. Pink clay. Orange slip with criss-cross burnishing outside. Buff clay. Red-brwn burnished slip. Buff clay. Red burnished slip. Pink clay. Red slip with radiat. burnishing inside and outside. Pink and gray clay. No slip. Buff clay. Buff clay, large grits. Red slip. Gray clay. Pink slip Buff clay. Buff clay. Buff clay. Pink clay, poorly fired. Pink and gray clay. Red slip. Scale: 1/10. Buff clay. Buff clay. Buff clay. Buff clay. Red clay. Red slip in and out. Buff clay, dark gray grits. Red burnished slip. Buff clay.

Reference Huot, 1967: Fig. 1: DIa.

de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 4: 17.

de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 4: 7. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 4: 6. de Vaux, 1955: Fig. 13: 39. Huot, 1967: Fig. 1: BI. de Vaux, 1955: Fig. 13: 31. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 4: 8.

de Vaux, 1955: Fig. 13: 35. Huot, 1967: Fig. 1: AIb.

Huot, 1967: Fig. 8: IIIB1c. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 4: 12.

de Vaux / Stève, 1948: Fig. 9: 3.

de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 4: 15.

de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 3: 31. Huot, 1967: Fig. 1: DIIb.

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

No. 37

Inv. No. F.313

Locus Area I

Stratum AB I

38

/

626

IV4

Description Grayish brown clay. Redbrown slip inside and outside. Buff clay.

211

Reference de Vaux / Stève, 1947: Fig. 4: 5.

Figure 6. Tell el-Fâr‘ah, types of bowls, platters and basins appearing in Period IVA (de Vaux’s Périodes 1–2) (after de Miroschedji 1976, pl. 2).

212

P. de Miroschedji

Figure 7. Tell el-Fâr‘ah, types of hole-mouth jars (1–9), pithoi (10–19) and necked jars (20–27) appearing in Period IVA (de Vaux’s Périodes 1–2). Nos. 1–3, 5–9 and 11–18 at 1/5 (after de Miroschedji, 1976: Pl. 3).

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Inv. No. / / / F.4022 / / F.4173 / / F.4569 / / /

Locus 671 655 668 605 664 655 E of 657 668 668 680 279 659 649

Stratum IV1 IV2 IV1–2 IV6 IV2 IV2 IV1–2 IV1–2 IV1–2 IV2 IV1 IV2 IV1–2

Description Gray-brown clay. Gray-brown clay. Gray-brown clay. Pink and gray clay, heavy grits. Gray-brown clay. Gray-brown clay. Gray-brown clay. Red-brown slip. Gray-brown clay. Gray-brown clay. Brown clay. Brown clay. Brown clay. Brown clay.

14

/

619

IV5

Brown clay.

15

/

664

IV2

Brown clay.

16 17

/ /

664 668

IV1 IV1–2

Brown clay. Brown clay.

18 19 20

/ F.4114 F.315

664 624 Area I

IV2 IV3 AB I

Brown clay. Gray and pink clay. Coarse grits. Pink clay.

21

F.686

AB II

Light brown clay, coarse.

22 23

F.4484 F.4006

Area I, 88 673 619

IV2 IV5

24 25

F.3889 F.3023

605 250

IV6 IV5

26

F.4943

IVb

27

F.4425

Area III, 775 Below 658

Pinkish gray clay. Red-brown clay. Red paint on white background. Pink clay. Red-brown clay. Red paint on cream background. Red-brown clay. Red paint on cream background. Red-brown clay. Red paint on cream background.

IV1

Reference Huot, 1967: Fig. 2: BII. Huot, 1967: Fig. 2: BIe. Huot, 1967: Fig. 2: BId. Huot, 1967: Fig. 2: BIc. Huot, 1967: Fig. 2: BIf. Huot, 1967: Fig. 2: BIa. Huot, 1967: Fig. 2: BIb.

Huot, 1967: Fig. 2: AIc. Huot, 1967: Fig. 2: AIIb. Huot, 1967: Fig. 2: AIId. Huot, 1967: Fig. 2: AIIc2. Huot, 1967: Fig. 2: Aid. Huot, 1967: Fig. 2: AIb. Huot, 1967: Fig. 2: AIa de Vaux / Stève 1947: Fig. 3: 11.

Huot, 1967: Fig. 8: IA.

Huot, 1967: Fig. 8: IA. Huot, 1967: Fig. 8: IB. Huot, 1967: Fig. 8: IB.

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

213

Figure 7. Tell el-Fâr‘ah, types of hole-mouth jars (1–9), pithoi (10–19), and necked jars (20–27) appearing in Period IVA (de Vaux’s Périodes 1–2). Nos. 1–3, 5–9 and 11–18 at 1/5 (after de Miroschedji 1976, pl. 3).

214

P. de Miroschedji

Figure 8. Tell el-Fâr‘ah, various shapes (1–10) and horizontal ledge-handle types (11–18) appearing in Period IVA (de Vaux’s Périodes 1–2) (after de Miroschedji, 1976: Pl. 4)

No. 1

Inv. No. F.717

F.4159

Locus Area I, 84 686, hearth 661

2

F.4408

3 4

F.4066

638

IV3–4

5

F.3910

606

IV6

6

F.5033

IVb

7

F.314

Area III, 778 Area I

Red-brown clay. Red slip and dark red paint. Pink clay. Red slip.

AB I

Red-brown clay. Brown-red slip.

8

F.4037

616

IV5

9

/

IVa

10

/

11

/

12 13

/ /

Area III, 783 Below 679–680 Below 622 654 667

Red-brown clay, rather fine. Whitish slip with traces of red paint. Pale brown clay. Orange slip.

14 15 16

/ / /

17 18

/ /

667 643 Below 651 638 638

Stratum ABIIb

Description Buff clay. Red burnished slip.

IV1

Buff clay. Red burnished slip.

IV2

Red-brown clay, poorly fired, coarsely made. Buff clay. Pink slip.

IV1 IV3

Light brown clay. Red sip inside and outside. Red-brown clay.

IV2 IV1–2

Red-brown clay. Red-brown clay.

IV1–2 IV4 IV2–3

Red-brown clay. Red-brown clay. Red-brown clay.

IV3–4 IV3–4

Red-brown clay. Red-brown clay.

Reference de Vaux / Stève 1948: Fig. 9: 6.

de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 4: 13 Huot, 1967: Fig. 3: IIb.

de Vaux / Stève, 1947: Fig. 3: 6. Huot, 1967: Fig. 5.

de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 3: 18.

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

215

Figure 8. Tell el-Fâr‘ah, various shapes (1–10) and horizontal ledge-handle types (11–18) appearing in Period IVA (de Vaux’s Périodes 1–2) (after de Miroschedji 1976, pl. 4).

216

P. de Miroschedji

Figure 9. Tell el-Fâr‘ah, Period IVA-related vessels from Tomb 3 (after de Miroschedji, forthcoming).

No. 1

Inv. No. F.881

Tomb and No. 3, no. 67

2

F.880

3, no. 66

Description Light red clay. Dark red burnished slip inside and outside. Pink clay. Red burnished slip outside.

3

F.775

3, no. 29

Light brown-red clay.

4 5

F.5461 F.5475

3 3

6

F.5472–74

3

7

F.5470–71

3

8

F.883

3, no. 69

Yellowish red clay. Pink clay. Red burnished slip inside and outside. Pink clay. Red burnished slip inside and outside. Yellowish red clay. Red slip inside and outside. Pink clay. Burnished red slip outside.

9

F.5466–67

3

10 11 12 13 14 15

F.5464 F.5465 F.5477 F.5483 F.5481 F.771

3 3 3. 3 3 3, no. 25

Yellowish red clay. Red burnished slip outside. Pink clay. Red burnished slip outside. Yellowish red clay. Red burnished slip. Pink clay. Red burnished slip. Yellowish red clay. Red burnished slip. Light red clay. Pink clay.

16

F.878

3, no. 64

Light red clay. Red slip vertically burnished.

Reference

de Vaux, 1949: Fig. 1: 6. de Vaux, 1949: Fig. 1: 5.

de Vaux, 1949: Fig. 1: 10.

de Vaux, 1949: Fig. 1: 24. de Vaux, 1949: Fig. 1: 25.

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

Figure 9. Tell el-Fâr‘ah, Period IVA-related vessels from Tomb 3 (after de Miroschedji, forthcoming).

217

218

P. de Miroschedji

Figure 10. Tell el-Fâr‘ah, Period IVA-related vessels from Tomb 14 (after de Miroschedji, forthcoming)

No. 1 2

Inv. No. F.2657 F.2656

Tomb and No. 14, no. 27 14, no. 26

Description Buff clay. Red burnished slip outside. Light buff clay. Red burnished slip outside.

3

F.2738

14, no. 108

Pinkish gray clay. Red burnished slip outside.

4

F.2750

14, no. 120

5

F.2693

14, no. 63

6

F.2742

14, no. 112

Yellowish red clay. Red slip vertically burnished. Yellowish red clay. Red slip vertically burnished. Red clay. Red slip vertically burnished.

7

F.2741

14, no. 111

Light buff clay. Red burnished slip.

Reference de Vaux, 1952: Fig. 12: 14. de Vaux, 1952: Fig. 12: 13.

de Vaux, 1952: Fig. 11: 20. de Vaux, 1952: Fig. 11: 19. de Vaux, 1952: Fig. 11: 18.

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

Figure 10. Tell el-Fâr‘ah, Period IVA-related vessels from Tomb 14 (after de Miroschedji, forthcoming).

219

220

P. de Miroschedji

2.3.2. The Pottery of Fâr‘ah Period IVB (de Vaux’s Périodes 3–5 = Ancien Bronze II) The beginning of Period IVB can be placed conveniently at Stratum IV3 (de Vaux’s Période 3), which has a somewhat transitional character. Period IVB is marked by the appearance of several new pottery types (27 new types in Stratum IV3 and 14 new types in Stratum IV5), while several of the previous types remain in use (see Tables 3–5). Two innovations are especially significant: The appearance of true platters, in particular, medium-sized platters slightly concave under the carination (Fig. 11: 18–19); and the introduction of metallic ware, represented by small jars (Fig. 11: 28), juglets (Fig. 12: 17), slender jugs (Fig. 12: 1–11,15–16)—often improperly called “Abydos jugs”, since they are a typical Canaanite production—, and the carinated so-called “Aphek bowls” (Fig. 11: 6–8). As stated by Esse,34 “these small carinated metallic ware bowls can be considered a hallmark of EB II”. Indeed, their presence is uncertain in undisputable pre-EB II contexts;35 they disappear at the end of the EB II and are replaced, in the EB III, by other kinds of carinated bowls.36 Frequently used as lamps, this very distinctive type of bowls has been described by Beck,37 who listed their occurrences up to the time of publication. Today, several other sites can be added to her list.38 These vessels appear most frequently in a variety of metallic ware that differs from the North Canaanite Metallic Ware (NCMW) described by Greenberg and Porat.39 In addition, quite a few of these bowls appear in a local red burnished ware, suggesting that they were locally imitated. Beck had pointed out that these bowls are all similar,40 and surmised that their production center might have been at Tel Aphek.41 According to Paz and Uziel, recent petrographic analyses suggest that this production center should rather be sought in the Samaria region,42 a suggestion that corroborates their abundance at Tell el-Fâr‘ah and explains their frequency in the Jordan valley, the Coastal Plain and the Shephelah. In the necropolis, tombs 2, 7, and 13, at least, were reused during the EB II and yielded classic EB II pottery (Fig. 14).

34

Esse, 1991: 45–46; see also Esse, 1984: 324. Contra Beck, 1985; Braun, 2004b: 53; Gophna / Paz, 2017: 628; Gophna / van den Brink, 2005: Fig. 7.2: 5; Paz / Uziel, 2016: 168; Greenberg / Iserlis, 2014: 64. 36 It has been suggested that the tradition of the EB II carinated bowls continued into the EB III (Beck, 1985: 24–25; Paz / Uziel, 2016: 168–170). This supposition can be hardly sustained after an examination of the vessels (including those from Tel Nagila which, in my view, belong to an EB II assemblage: cf. Paz / Uziel, 2016: Fig. 11: 1–9). The few known EB III carinated bowls are quite different from their purported predecessors in terms of clay (never in Metallic Ware), surface treatment (red burnished slip), and profile. They show significant variations which suggest that they were produced by varous local workshops, in sharp contrast with the EB II carinated bowls in metallic ware, which reflect a fairly standardized production. At Tel Yarmuth, these carinated bowls appear only in Period E, that is in a mature EB III (de Miroschedji, 1988: Pl. 41: 1; there are twelve other unpublished examples from EB III contexts in seven other excavation areas, including Palace B1). Similar EB III carinated bowls have been reported at Lachish (Tufnell, 1958: Pl. 64: 340 [“cyma profile”]), Tell es-Sakan C-4 (de Miroschedji et al., 2001: Fig. 17: 4, with another three unpublished carinated bowls of varied profiles), Bâb edh-Dhra‘ Stratum II (Rast / Schaub, 2003: Fig. 11.10:13,17), at Jericho in Tomb F4 (Kenyon 1960b, Fig. 43:5) and in EB III strata (Hennessy, 1967: Pl. X: 96 [EB IIIB]; Marchetti / Nigro 2000: Fig. 1.40: 6 [Period IIIC1]), Tel Beth Yerah Period D (Greenberg / Iserlis, 2014: Fig. 3.54: 3), Hazor XIX (Yadin et al., 1961: Pl. CLV: 3), and Khirbet ez-Zeraqon “Mittlere Phase” (Genz, 2002: Tfl. 134: 12). 37 Beck, 1985; see also Milevski, 2011: 83–84. 38 A.o., Khirbet ez-Zeraqon: Genz, 2002: Tfl. 65: 6, 78: 7 (EB II); Tel Nagila: Paz / Uziel, 2016: Fig. 11: 1 (EB II); Tel Beth Yerah Period C: Greenberg / Iserlis, 2014: Fig. 3.38: 7–8 (EB II); Qiryat Ata I: Golani, 2003: 124–125 (type BVII), Fig. 4.24: 25–26; Tel Gerisah: Gophna / Paz, 2011: Fig. 3:2–4; Tel Bareqet (EB II, abundant): Paz / Segal / Nadelman, 2018: 129. 39 Greenberg / Porat, 1996. Cf. Greenberg / Iserlis, 2014: 65. 40 Beck, 1985: 17, 25. 41 Beck, 1985: 25. 42 Paz / Uziel, 2016: 168. 35

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

221

2.4. Summary of the Tell el-Fâr‘ah Archaeological Sequence The main aspects of this sequence relevant to the purpose of this paper can be summarized as follows: – Period III marks both the culmination and termination of the local EB IB culture (ESL 2 phase). – The beginning of Period IV marks a radical change in the cultural history of the settlement, with the simultaneous appearance of fortifications, an urban layout, and a new pottery assemblage. This drastic change has been emphatically stated by de Vaux.43 – Subsequently, the evolution of the period is smooth and continuous, without significant rupture. Nevertheless, a discrete change is perceptible in the pottery assemblages with the transition from Stratum IV2 to IV3 (Périodes 2 to 3), which justifies a distinction between two phases, Period IVA and IVB, the latter being characterized by the appearance and frequent occurrence of the typical small carinated metallic ware so-called “Aphek bowls” (appearing in Stratum IV3), by the classic EB II carinated platers and by Metallic ware vessels, especially the elongated jugs of the so-called ‘Abydos’ type. Consequently, Periods IVA and IVB correspond respectively to the ESL 3 and ESL 4 phases. – The site seems to have been abandoned at the end (?) of the EB II, yielding no pottery that can be dated to the EB IIIA. Delving into such details of the Tell el-Fâr‘ah EBA sequence was necessary since it has been often misused in discussions on the EB I–EB II transition. Although a few archaeologists have ascribed Tell el-Fâr‘ah IVA (Périodes 1–2) to the EB II,44 most have dated these strata to the EB IB, and this dating was even attributed to the excavator himself.45 In fact, de Vaux never dated Périodes 1 and 2 to the ‘EB IB’—a terminology introduced by Wright in 195846 that he had explicitly rejected, stating his preference for Wright’s old 1937 nomenclature instead—, calling Énéolithique/Chalcolithique supérieur the Esdraelon Culture and the EB Ia, but retaining the denomination EB Ib for the following phase.47 Actually, de Vaux’s Ancien Bronze I or EB Ib corresponds to Kenyon’s Early Bronze I and is coterminous with the ESL 3 phase that follows the EB IB (ESL 2) and precedes the EB II stricto sensu (ESL 4) (see Tables 1–2). Above all, de Vaux insisted on the radical difference between his Ancien Bronze I / EB Ib and the preceding Chalcolithique supérieur (Fâr‘ah III = EB IB).48

43

De Vaux, 1961: 592. E.g., Kempinski, 1978: 20–21; and see our Table 1. 45 E.g., Beck, 1985: 24; 2000: 97; Herzog, 1986: 14; Kempinski, 1992: 69; Paz, 2002: 242. See also Rotem, 2012: 168. 46 Wright, 1958, 1961. 47 De Vaux, 1961: 588–591; 1971a: 535–536; 1971b: 211–212. See also Huot, 1967: 550 (contra Paz, 2002: 242, n. 8). 48 See de Miroschedji, 1989: 64–65. 44

222

P. de Miroschedji

Figure 11. Tell el-Fâr‘ah, types of bowls and platters (1–23), pithoi (24) and necked jars (25–31) appearing in Period IVB (de Vaux’s Périodes 3–6). Miroschedji 1976, pl. 5.

No. 1 2 3 4 5

Inv. No. F.4116 F.4069 F.3924 F.4117 /

Locus 638 Below 615 612 Below 646 Area I

Stratum IV3–4 IV4 IV4–5 IV4 AB II

6

F.3296

605

IV6

7

F.3796

582

IV5

8

F.4079

644

IV4

9

/

Area III, 743

IVd

10

/

Area I

AB IIa

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

F.3696 / F.4177 / F.214 / / / / F.3847 /

563 Area III, 715 656 618 Area I Below 652 Below 619 Below 619 632 589 Area III, 787

IV6 IVd IV3 IV4–5 AB II IV3 IV5 IV5 IV5 IV5 IVb

22 23 24

F.3885 F.3032 F.1339

608 616 Area I

IV6 IV5 AB IIa

25

F.3991

619

IV5

26 27 28

/ F.4015 /

Below 635 635 564

IV3 IV4 IV6

29 30 31

/ / /

647 Area III, 743 619

IV4 IVd IV5

Description Buff clay, coarse. Buff-grey clay. Red slip. Pink clay. Cream slip. Buff clay. Red slip. Grey clay, very well fired (“metallic”), surface dark brown and dark grey. Buff and grey clay, rather fine. Red burnished slip outside. Red-brown clay. Red burnished slip. Grey clay, very well fired (“metallic”). Irregular burnishing. Light brown clay. Brown burnished slip with radiating burnishing inside. Buff and grey clay, with abundant grits. Red burnished slip inside. Buff clay. Red burnished slip. Buff clay. Buff clay. Buff clay. Buff clay. Buff clay Buff clay. Buff clay. Buff clay. Pink clay, well fired. Brown clay, coarse. Red wash. Poorly made. Pink clay. Grey clay, coarse. Light red-brown clay, surface brown and red. Small protuberances on the body. Light brown clay. Traces of vertical burnishing. Buff clay. Buff clay. Greyish brown clay, very well fired (“metallic”). Brown slip. Buff clay Light brown clay. Red wash. Buff clay.

Reference de Vaux 1961, fig. 4: 5. Huot 1967, fig. 1: II.

Huot 1967, fig. 1: BIIa. de Vaux 1961, fig. 4: 18.

de Vaux and Stève 1948, fig. 8: 8. Huot 1967, fig. 1: AII.

Huot 1967, fig. 5. de Vaux and Stève 1948, fig. 7: 1.

de Vaux 1961, fig. 4: 4.

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

223

Figure 11. Tell el-Fâr‘ah, types of bowls and platters (1–23), pithoi (24) and necked jars (25–31) appearing in Period IVB (de Vaux’s Périodes 3–6). Miroschedji 1976, pl. 5.

224

P. de Miroschedji

Figure 12. Tell el-Fâr‘ah, types of jugs (1–11) and juglets (12–21) appearing in Period IVB (de Vaux’s Périodes 3–6 ) (after de Miroschedji, 1976: Pl. 6).

No. 1

Inv. No. F.4013

Locus 605

Stratum IV6

2

F.4115

616

IV5

3

F.3861

589

IV5

4

F.3886

605

IV6

5

F.4035

635

IV4

6

F.1337

Area I

AB II

7 8

F.1338 F.3100

AB II IV4

9

F.3838

Area I Below 254 589

IV5

10

F.3857

589

IV5

11 12 13 14 15

F.4046 F.3897 F.4034 F.4023 /

IV5 IV5 IV5 IV4 IV6

16

F.1338

616 619 616 635 Below 566 Area I

17

/

IV5

18

F.4033

Below 247 616

19

F.3967

20 21

F.3884 F.3795

Below 606 606 582

Description Brown-red clay, gray in section. Red burnished slip. Buff clay, fine and well fired. Red burnished slip. Brown-red clay. Red burnished slip. Brown-red clay, gray in section. Red slip, burnished vertically. Pale brown clay. Red burnished slip. Pinkish brown clay. Brown-red burnished slip. Buff clay. Pinkish brown slip.

IV6

Brown-red clay. Buff burnished slip. Brown-red clay. Buff burnished slip. Buff clay. Red burnished slip. Pink clay. Red burnished slip. Brown-red clay. Brown-red slip. Brown-red clay. No slip. Light brown clay. Red burnished slip. Gray clay, well fired. Brown-red slip with vertical burnishing. Light brown clay, very well fired (“metallic”). Pink clay, gray in section. Red slip. Brown-red clay.

IV6 IV5

Pink clay. Gray clay. Pink slip.

AB II

IV5

Reference

Huot, 1967: Fig. 5. Huot 1967: Fig. 3: Ia3.

de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 4: 2. Huot, 1967: Fig. 3: Ia1. Huot, 1967: Fig. 3: Ia2. de Vaux, 1955: Fig. 14: 4.

de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 4: 16.

Huot, 1967: Fig. 3: Ia2.

Huot, 1967: Fig. 3: Ic.

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

225

Figure 12. Tell el-Fâr‘ah, types of jugs (1–11) and juglets (12–21) appearing in Period IVB (de Vaux’s Périodes 3–6 ) (after de Miroschedji, 1976: Pl. 6).

226

P. de Miroschedji

Figure 13. Tell el-Fâr‘ah, types of amphoriskoi (1–10), funnel-spouted jar (11), and twin-vessels (12–14) appearing in Period IVB (de Vaux’s Périodes 3–6 ) (after de Miroschedji, 1976: Pl. 7).

No. 1 2 3

Inv. No. F.4054 F.4073 F.4077

Locus 628 638 638

Stratum IV4 IV3–4 IV3–4

4

F.4047

619

IV5

5

F.4024

618

IV4–5

6 7

F.852 F.3794

Area I, 96 581

AB IIa IV5

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

F.3793 F.813 F.2129 / F.4174 F.4373 F.3859

581 Area I 226 647 656 586 605–608

IV5 AB IIa IV6 IV4 IV3 IV5 IV6

Description Red clay. Brown-red clay. Red slip. Pink clay, gray in section. Red slip. Buff clay, red in section. Red slip. Pink clay; gray in section. Red burnished slip. Grayish buff clay. Pink slip. Brown-red clay. Red burnished slip. Brown-red clay. Pink clay. Pink slip. Buff clay. Pink slip. Red paint. Buff clay. Red slip. Buff clay. Red slip. Buff clay. Red-brown clay.

Reference de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 4: 9. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 4: 3. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 4: 1. Huot, 1967: Fig. 3: IIa1. de Vaux, 1961: Fig. 4:11.

Huot, 1967: Fig. 3: IIa5. de Vaux, 1951: Fig. 1: 3. Huot, 1967: Fig. 5.

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

227

Figure 13. Tell el-Fâr‘ah, types of amphoriskoi (1–10), funnel-spouted jar (11), and twin-vessels (12–14) appearing in Period IVB (de Vaux’s Périodes 3–6 ) (after de Miroschedji, 1976: Pl. 7).

228

P. de Miroschedji

Figure 14. Tell el-Fâr‘ah, Period IVB-related vessels from Tomb 2 (after de Miroschedji, forthcoming).

No. 1

Inv. No. F.507

Tomb and No. 2, n° 64

Description Yellowish red clay. Red slip outside.

2

F.5292

2

3 4

F.5320 F.442

2 2, no. 12

5

F.473

2, no. 30

Yellowish red clay. Red slip inside and outside. Pink clay. Gray brown slip. Gray-brown clay, well fired. Red burnished slip inside and outside. Buff clay. Brown burnished slip.

6

F.474,

2, no. 31

7

F.5294

8

F.533

2, no. 90

9

F.5295

2

10 11

F.5291 F.506

2 2, no. 63

Yellowish red clay. Red slip inside and outside. Yellowish red clay. Red burnished slip inside and outside. Buff clay. Light red slip inside and outside burnished obliquely. Yellowish red clay. Red burnished slip inside and outside. Yellowish red clay. Light red clay. Red slip inside and outside.

12

F.438

2, no. 8

Light buff clay.

13 14

F.5293 F.478

2 2, no. 35

Light red clay. Red slip outside. Yellowish red clay. Red burnished slip.

15 16 17

F.5500 F.467 F.463

2 2, no. 2, no. 20

Pink clay. Red burnished slip. Yellowish red clay. Red burnished slip. Pale red clay. Red slip burnished vertically

Reference de Vaux / Stève, 1949: Fig. 6: 24.

de Vaux / Stève, 1949: Fig. 6: 25. de Vaux / Stève, 1949: Fig. 6: 23.

de Vaux / Stève, 1949: Fig. 6: 22. de Vaux / Stève, 1949: Fig. 6: 26. de Vaux / Stève, 1949: Fig. 6: 39.

de Vaux / Stève, 1949: Fig. 6: 38.

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

Figure 14. Tell el-Fâr‘ah, Period IVB-related vessels from Tomb 2 (after de Miroschedji, forthcoming).

229

230

P. de Miroschedji

Table 3. Stratigraphic distribution of bowl, and platter and basin types at Tell el-Fâr'âh Period IV, Strata IV1– IV6.

Bowls, Platters, and Basins Fig. 8. 1–5 6 7–8 9–10 11–12 13–15 16–23 24 25 26 – 27 28 – 31 32–33 34 35–36 37–38 Fig. 11. 1 2 3–4 5–8 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18–19 20 22 23 TOTAL

Tell el-Fâr‘ah, Area II, Period IV, Strata IV1 to IV6 1 1/2 2 2/3 3 3/4 4 4/5

4

1 2 1 2 1 4 6

1

1 2

1 3 1

2

2

2

1 3 3 6 2 1 1 8 3 1

1

1 1 2 1 6 2 3 4 3 1

1 1 1 2 1

3 4

TOTAL 5

5/6

1 1

1

6

1 1 1

2 1

2 2

6 3

3 1

1 1

1

5

6 2

1 3 1

2 1

1 1

1

2 2 2

1 1

1

1 6 1 4 1

1 1

1 1 1 3 6 3

2

1 3 2 1

3 4 4

1 1

1

1 1 1 1

1

1 1

11

21

31

14

46

13

35

8

1 24

2

21

12 8 5 10 7 21 18 5 3 39 15 2 1 7 2 3 1 2 19 16 18 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 226

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

231

Table 4. Stratigraphic distribution of holemouth-jar, phitos and necked-jar types jar types at Tell el-Fâr'âh Period IV, Strata IV1 to IV6.

Jars Fig. 9.

1 2 3 4–5 6 7–8 9 10–11 12 13 14 15 16, 19 17 18 21 22–27 Fig. 11. 24 25 26–27 28 29 30–31 Fig. 13. 11 TOTAL

Tell el-Fâr‘ah, Area II, Period IV, Strata IV1 to IV6 1 1/2 2 2/3 3 3/4 4 4/5 7 1 11 1 2 1 2 6 1 5 2 2 2 7 3 17 5 2 2 1 10 6 9 5 1 3 2 9 3 17 1 10 2 7 21 22 5 25 4 7 6 3 3 8 10 13 2 1 3 4 4 5 2 1 4 2 5 2 3 4 3 5 7 2 1 3 2 1 1 2 2 11 1 4 3 2 2 5 1 1 2 6 6 6 1 2 4 4 6 2 3 5 2 7 2 5 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 1 1

TOTAL 5 3 2 1 2 5 5 2 1 4

5/6 1 3 5 2 1 5 2 1

1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1

1 3

6 2 2 6 12 1 9 6 4 4 2 4 5

4 1 2

1 1 1 1

30

57

107

50

147

11

1 53

19

36

24

65

28 21 48 53 55 112 52 26 26 23 12 27 15 20 21 35 12 6 1 2 1 1 1 1 599

232

P. de Miroschedji

Table 5. Stratigraphic distribution of jug, juglet, bottle, basin, twin-vessels and ledge-handle types at Tell el-Fâr‘âh, Strata IV–IV6.

Vessel Jugs and juglets Fig. 8. 3 4 Fig. 12. 1 2–8 2–5 6–7 8 12–14 17 18–20 21 Amphoriskoi Fig. 8. 5 Fig. 13. 1–2 3 4–9 10 Basins Fig. 8. 6–8 9–10 Twin-vessels Fig. 13. 12–13 14 Ledge-handles Fig. 10. 11 12–14 15 16–18 TOTAL

Tell el-Fâr‘ah, Area II, Period IV, Strata IV1 to IV6 1 1/2 2 2/3 3 3/4 4 4/5 1 2

5

5/6

6

1 1

2

1

1 2 3 2

4 5

2

1

TOTAL

2 2

1 1 1 1 1

2

1 1

1 1

1

1 2

2 1

1

1 1

2 1

1

2

2

1

1

4

3 1

4

1 13 2 4 21

2 6 2 5 23

2 5 5 16

2 16 2 9 36

1

6 11

2 2 4 9 26

2 3 8

3 3 1 13 1

4

12 3

2

3 1

1

3

1 3 1 9 10 2 4 3 1 3 1

3 1 12 40

1

3

4 5

6 26

10 54 11 63 216

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

233

3. The Tell el-Fâr‘ah EB Sequence in Context: The EB I–II Transition at Contemporary Sites A review of the archaeological data of the Southern Levant’s major EBA sites strongly suggests that the Tell el-Fâr‘ah EBA sequence, illustrated by the Periods IVA and IVB sequence, is not singular; actually, it seems to be duplicated at several sites (see Fig. 1 and Table 6). The following review does not aim to present an exhaustive analysis of the southern Levantine sites pertaining to the topic of the EB I–EB II transition, but rather to show that the Tell el-Fâr‘ah sequence under discussion may contribute much to understand the socio-political and cultural transformations of the southern Levant at the turn of the fourth to the third millennium. 3.1. Lower Jordan valley and Dead Sea Basin 3.1.1. Jericho Given the proximity and easy communication of Tell el-Fâr‘ah with the Jordan Valley, the sites of this area should be considered first. At Jericho, the EB I–II sequence could be monitored in the stratigraphy exposed during the several successive excavations at the site since 1907. The EB IB (represented by Garstang’s Strata VII–VI, Kenyon’s “Proto-Urban”, and the Period Sultan IIIA of the Italian-Palestinian Expedition) is followed by two phases which parallel rather precisely the Period IV sequence at Tell el-Fâr‘ah: Strata V and IV of the Garstang excavations, Phases L-G and F–D of Kenyon’s soundings in Squares E III-IV, and Periods Sultan IIIb1 and IIIb2 of the Italian-Palestinian excavations.49 As with Tell el-Fâr‘ah, the earliest fortifications of the site mark the first occupation of the Sultan IIIb1 phase. Indeed, the pottery assemblage ascribed to this phase is very similar to that of Tell el-Fâr‘ah Period IVA;50 in the necropolis, it is attested in Garstang’s Tombs A and 2451 and Kenyon’s Tombs A 108 and A 122.52 The presence of a cache of Nilotic shells in a sealed context of the Sultan IIIb1 phase is noteworthy, as it may imply the continuation of contacts with the Egyptian colonies of the southern Coastal Plain (see below, § 3.9).53 The pottery assemblage corresponding to the second phase (Sultan IIIb2) is similar to that of Tell elFâr‘ah Period IVB;54 in the necropolis, it is found in Kenyon’s Tomb A12755 and among the pottery from an earlier use of Tomb D 12.56 It is noteworthy that the transition from Sultan IIIb1 to Sultan IIIb2 is fairly smooth and that the so-called carinated “Aphek bowls” in metallic ware, or their local imitation in common red burnished ware, are found exclusively, as in Tell el-Fâr‘ah, in the second phase, Sultan IIIb2.57 3.1.2. Bâb edh-Dhra‘ Further south in the Dead Sea Basin, an EB I–III sequence is documented at Bâb edh-Dhra‘, but with pronounced idiosyncratic characters. Lapp claimed having identified burials of the ‘EB IC’ period among the tombs he excavated,58 but they do not appear in the final publication.59 Continuity in the occupation of

49

For a synthesis of the stratigraphy and the finds in the domestic quarters uncovered in Jericho by the successive expeditions, see Nigro, 2010: 1–9, 51–61, 75–109, 325–338; 2019: Table 9. Note that Hennessy (1967: 10–13, 18–22) ascribed phases L–K and G–J to Kenyon’s EB I and EB II, respectively. 50 See Sala, 2010a: Pls. VI–X; 2010b: Pls. X–XV, XXIV–XXX; and compare with our Figs. 6–8. 51 Nigro, 2010: 211–213, 221. 52 Nigro, 2010: 213–214, 220. As these two tombs contained a significant number of EB IB painted vessels, their use may have begun during a transitional phase with the preceding period. 53 See Nigro et al., 2018. 54 See Sala, 2010b: Pls. XVI–XXIII, XXXI–XXXVII; and compare with our Figs. 11–13. 55 Nigro, 2010: 214–220. 56 Nigro, 2010: 221–224 (the bull’s head and the palette should probably be ascribed to the EB III, which is the main period of use of this tomb). 57 See Garstang, 1935: Pls. XXX: 20, XXXIX: 10; 1936: Pls. XXVII: 6, 10, XXXVIII: 2–3; Kenyon / Holland, 1982: 144–146, Fig. 51: 7–13 (types CIII and CIV); Sala, 2010c: 267–269, Pl. XCII: 1–5 (Phase Sultan IIIb2). 58 Lapp, 1970: 107, n. 49. 59 Schaub / Rast, 1989.

234

P. de Miroschedji

the settlement is also assumed between Strata IV (EB IB) and III (EB II), although their direct succession is not certain.60 3.2. Judean Hills For ‘Ai—a site located in the Judean mountain but culturally related to Jericho—the Callaway expedition’s report presented a unified periodization based on finds (mainly small sherds) recovered from contrasting contexts, the so-called “Sanctuary”,61 the fortifications, and a few houses nearby.62 Insofar as it can be precisely reconstructed, the pottery assemblages from Phase III is comparable to that of Tell el-Fâr‘ah IVA,63 while that of Phases IV–V corresponds to Tell el-Fâr‘ah Period IVB and other contemporary EB II sites.64 Phase III at ‘Ai also marks the construction of the first fortifications. This reading of the stratigraphy of ‘Ai is essentially the same as that of Esse, who dated ‘Ai’s Phase III to the beginning of his EB II, i.e., to a phase corresponding with Fâr‘ah IVA.65 Concerning the carinated so-called “Aphek bowls” in metallic ware, they characterize Phases IV–V in the Sanctuary area,66 although some are also ascribed to Phase III.67 The EB IB tombs from ‘Ai were reused at a later phase seemingly corresponding to Tell el-Fâr‘ah IVA.68 3.3. Central Jordan Valley 3.3.1. Tell Abu al-Kharaz In the central Jordan Valley, the Tell el-Fâr‘ah IVA–B sequence is precisely paralleled at Tell Abu alKharaz Phases I–III.69 Phase IA marks the foundation of the settlement. Like Tell el-Fâr‘ah, it was abandoned at the end of the EB II (Phase IIIB) until the Middle Bronze II. In a construction sequence similar to that of Tell el-Fâr‘ah, the site was fortified in Phase I (IB?) with a mudbrick wall, overlaid in Phase IIA by a massive stone wall.70 The Phase IB settlement ended in severe destructions attributed to an earthquake,71 possibly at the same time as the partial destruction of the first city-wall of Tell el-Fâr‘ah at the end of Period IVA (see above, § 2.3). Phases I–III show the same evidence of strong cultural continuity as Tell el-Fâr‘ah, documented by extremely reliable assemblages originating mostly from primary contexts, i.e., in situ material recovered on floors of rooms sealed by collapsed roofs.72 The pottery assemblage of Phase I is ascribed by Fischer to a “Late EB IB” period equated with the ESL 3 phase of the ARCANE project,73 and it looks practically identical to that of Tell el-Fâr‘ah Period IVA (Figs. 6–8).74 The discovery in Phase IB of two Egyptian imported cylindrical jars of the Late Dynasty 0 provides, again, an important link with the “Late EB

60

See Rast / Schaub, 2003: 156. Callaway, 1972. 62 Callaway, 1980. 63 For Phase II, see Callaway, 1972: Figs. 16: 4, 20–29, 17: 1–5, 31 (an Egyptian small jar), 23: 15–18 (Erani C types); Callaway, 1980: Fig. 37: 11–12, 29. For Phase III, see Callaway, 1972: Figs. 26: 18–32, 27: 1–2; Callaway, 1980: Figs. 61–70. 64 For Phase IV, see Callaway, 1972: Figs. 35–42; 1980: Fig. 87. For Phase V, see Callaway, 1972: Figs. 44–55; 1980: Fig. 90. 65 Esse, 1984: 323–325. 66 Callaway, 1972: Figs. 35: 18–23, 44: 6, 8, 10, 56: 8; 1980: 4, 17–18. 67 Callaway, 1980: 83, Figs. 61: 36, 68: 5–8. 68 Callaway, 1964: 39–51 (tombs B, C and G – but not tomb F). 69 Fischer, 2008; 2015. 70 Fischer, 2008: 215–225, 345, Fig. 304; 2015: 21, 24. This reconstruction followed a “major catastrophe” at the end of Phase IB. It is tempting to make a parallel with the crumbling of Wall A at Tell el-Fâr‘ah at the end of Stratum IV2 (see § 2.3), although the latter collapse was a localized accident which did not affect the wall on its entire exposed length. 71 Fischer, 2008: 49, 83, 181, 217, 237. 72 Fischer, 2015: 23. 73 Fischer, 2008: 366–368; 2015: 19. Note that Fischer participated in the 2008 ARCANE workshop at Blaubeuren (Germany) during which the ESL 3 phase was defined. 74 See the list of selected comparanda compiled by Fischer, 2008: 373–375. 61

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

235

IB”/Early EB II settlements of the southern Coastal plain75 (see below, § 3.9). Phases II and III are dated to the EB II and exhibit the same material culture as Period IVB at Tell el-Fâr‘ah.76 Phase IIA is also marked by the appearance of fully developed carinated platters, of true metallic ware (NCMW), similar to that found in northern sites, and by that of the carinated metallic ware so-called “Aphek bowls”;77 hence, here again, the appearance of the “Aphek bowls” is a later EB II development. 3.3.2. Pella and other sites on the eastern side of the Jordan Valley A sequence comparable to that of Tell el-Fâr‘ah and Tell Abu al-Kharaz is also documented at Pella, where two or perhaps three architectural phases precede the earliest fortifications dated to an “EB IB/II transition”.78 The latter phase is characterized by “substantially a late EB I assemblage with a few EB II forms just appearing for the first time”,79 i.e., apparently the same assemblage present at Tell el-Fâr‘ah IVA (de Vaux’s Périodes 1–2). The subsequent occupational sub-phases extend throughout the EB II period and end with a destruction taking place within the EB II/III transitional period, possibly more or less at the same time as at Tell el-Fâr‘ah Stratum IV6. The same sequence may be duplicated at Tell es-Sa‘idiyeh, where the EBA fortifications are ascribed to the “EB I” (presumably a Late EB IB/early EB II equivalent to the ESL 3 phase), with the subsequent occupation (Strata L3 and L2) dating from the EB II and ending in a violent destruction; it is succeeded by a brief squatter occupation at the beginning of the EB III.80 Hence, the abandonment of EB-II Tell elFâr‘ah, Tell es-Sa‘idiyeh, Tell Abu al-Kharaz, and Pella could well have been synchronous. The few published data of a sounding and a section clearing at Tell el-Handaquq North suggest a similar occupation sequence and the existence of a boulder-constructed 3-m-wide defensive wall associated with pottery sherds possibly contemporary with Tell el-Fâr‘ah IVA and Tell Abu al-Kharaz Phase I.81 The dearth of detailed publications prevents precise comparisons with other early EBA sites of the Jordan Valley with an occupation encompassing the EB I–II periods, such as Tell esh Shuna82 or Tell Um Hammad esh-Sherqi.83 3.3.3. Tel Shalem The site lies on the western side of the Jordan valley, opposite Tell Abu al-Kharaz. It has one of the oldest fortifications known to date. The associated pottery assemblage has been published under the label “EB IB”.84 It presents similarities with that of Tell Abu al-Kharaz Phase I and Tel Beth Yerah Late Period B

75

Fischer, 2002; 2008: 295; 2015: 24. See Fischer, 2008: 251–289; 2015: Figs. 12–18. 77 Fischer, 2008: 290–293; 2015: Fig. 12: 6. 78 Bourke, 2015: 5–6. On these early fortifications, see Gibbins, 2008, and also de Miroschedji, 2018b: 157*–158*. 79 S. Bourke, personal communication, 28 December 2019. 80 Remains of the city-wall were uncovered in Area JJ and dated to the EB II (Tubb / Dorrell / Cobbing, 1996: 23–24), and later in Area NN and re-dated to the “EB I” (Tubb / Dorrell / Cobbings, 1997: 65–66; Tubb, 1998: 41); the precise nature and dating of this fortification need confirmation. For the EB II strata in Area BB and DD, see Tubb / Dorrell / Cobbings, 1996: 18–21; 1997: 55–65; Tubb, 1998: 41–48. The early EB III dating of the squatter occupation of Stratum L1 is based on my identification of several sherds in Khirbet Kerak Ware among the pottery from this stratum stored in the British Museum; I express my gratitude to J. N. Tubb and R. L. Chapman III for their kindness in allowing me to examine this as yet unpublished material. 81 Mabry, 1996: 127, Fig. 8 (bulldozer cut, Stratum IV), 130–138, Fig. 12 (sounding, Strata V–IV). 82 See Baird / Philip, 1994. The excavations have clearly enabled distinguishing between an early and a late EB I, but there is little evidence of an EB II occupation, for which only small amounts of sherds were found vs. considerable quantities of EB III sherds. Paz’s (2002: 243) supposition of “a defensive structure that might be dated to the EB IB” is not confirmed by the excavators who ascribe its remains to a large building (Building I) dated to “sometime in the EBA, or to the first millennium” (see Baird / Philip, 1994: 132). 83 A phase similar to Tell el-Fâr‘ah IVA probably exists at this site, see Betts, 1992: Fig. 267. However, the nature of the publication unfortunately prevents detailed comparisons with pottery assemblages originating from clear and verifiable stratigraphic contexts. 84 Eisenberg, 1996. 76

236

P. de Miroschedji

(Stratum 10 in Area EY and Stratum 5 in Area UN: see below, § 3.3.6), whose assemblages also include early Metallic Ware. The main difference consists in the persistence of a few earlier pottery types,85 possibly because of its earlier chronological position within the period. As predictable, the site lacks the socalled carinated “Aphek bowls”. 3.3.4. Beth Shean At Beth Shean, Strata XIV–XIII of the University Museum of Pennsylvania excavations86 are equivalent to Strata M-3 and M-2 of the renewed Hebrew University of Jerusalem excavations.87 In her detailed analysis of the pottery, Rotem noted the main characteristics of the assemblages of these two strata: the absence of in situ Grey Burnished Ware, the initial appearance of bowls with inturned rim (that can be regarded as prototypes of the EB II platters), the presence of jugs with a tall neck and a handle from rim to shoulder and that of necked storage jars with a simple outturned rim, and the appearance in small quantities of Metallic Ware vessels.88 She ascribes this assemblage “to the transition between EB IB and EB II”, “equivalent to Kenyon (1965) and de Vaux (1966) EB I”, that is to a phase corresponding with ESL 3.89 Consequently, she compares this assemblage with that of Megiddo J-4, Tel Shalem III–II, Tel Yaqush EB IB, Tel Abu alKharaz I, and Tell el-Fâr‘ah “Ancien Bronze I”, assemblages which are indeed closely related and typical of the ESL 3 phase. However, at the same time, she also ascribes this assemblage to the “En Shadud Horizon”90 and, accordingly, compares it with Qiryat ‘Ata III–II,91 Tel Qashish XV–XIII,92 Tel Beth Yerah B,93 and ‘En Esur II,94 that is to assemblages that are significantly different since they actually date to the preceding phase, characterized by the presence of late types of Grey Burnished Ware, of bow-rim jars, spouted teapots, high-looped cups, bowls with omphalos base, and by the absence of the typical elements which Rotem correctly ascribes to a transitional EB IB–EB II, or ESL 3, phase (see Table 6). This is due to the fact that Beth Shean M-3 and M-2 are ascribed by Mazar and Rotem to an extended “EB IB”, a long and single-phase intermediate between the EB IA and the EB II, dated between the 33rd and the beginning of the 30th century,95 thereby lumping together two successive phases—the “En Shadud Horizon” / EB IB / ESL 2 phase and the Beth Shean M-3–M-2 / ESL 3 phase—and ignoring the singularity of the second phase that Rotem’s careful pottery analysis had so well brought in evidence. It is usually agreed that a gap followed the Strata XIV–XIII / M-3–M-2 occupation.96 Nonetheless, and although no clear EB II locus was excavated at the site, the discovery of indubitable EB II sherds strongly suggests that Tel Beth Shean remained inhabited until at least an early part of that period.97 3.3.5. Tel Yaqush As published recently,98 the pottery of Tel Yaqush ascribed to the “Late EB IB” period is closely reminiscent to that of Tell el-Fâr‘ah IVA and Tell Abu al-Kharaz Phase I;99 it even includes jugs and small 85

E.g., Eisenberg, 1996: Figs. 13: 10, 17, 14: 1, 3–4, 17: 1, 15. Fitzgerald, 1935; Braun, 2004b. 87 Mazar, 2012; Rotem, 2012. 88 Rotem, 2012: 169. 89 Rotem, 2012: 169; Mazar, 2012: 17–18. 90 On its definition, see Braun, 1985: 29–66; 1996a: 82–87. 91 Golani, 2003; 2013. 92 Zuckerman, 2003a; 2003b. 93 Greenberg / Iserlis, 2014; Greenberg / Rotem / Paz, 2013. 94 Yannai / Lazar-Shorer / Grosinger, 2006; see also Dothan, 1970. 95 See Mazar, 2012: 14, Table 1.2. 96 Mazar, 2012: 23–24; Greenberg, 2007. 97 For an EB II painted “Abydos” jug, see Rotem, 2012: 171. For the so-called carinated “Aphek bowls”, see Fitzgerald, 1935: Pl. V: 15, 18; Braun, 2004b: 53 and Fig. 3.20: 6 (ascribed to Stratum XIII and illustrated with bowls with inturned rims). See also some pottery from Stratum M-2b: Rotem, 2012: Pls. 18: 9–11, 21: 11, 15, 21. 98 Rotem et al., 2019. 99 Similarities are many. For carinated bowls and platters, compare Rotem et al., 2019: Fig. 9: 21–23 with our Fig. 6: 12, 21–22. 86

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

237

bottles which at Tell el-Fâr‘ah are typical of the EB II.100 Significantly, the so-called carinated “Aphek bowls” are also lacking from the ‘Late EB IB’ assemblages. 3.3.6. Tel Beth Yerah At Tel Beth Yerah, the EB IB–EB II sequence is represented by Periods B and C, respectively, each grouping several strata from different excavation areas.101 Although not formally isolated, the ESL 3 phase is apparently represented at Tel Beth Yerah among the loci ascribed to Stratum V in Getzov’s excavations,102 to Stratum 10 in Area EY,103 and especially to Stratum 5 in Area UN, whose assemblage includes early/ proto-Metallic Ware.104 The “EB IB” dating of the earliest fortifications uncovered in Bar-Adon’s and Getzov’s excavations is uncertain,105 and further observations suggest dating them rather to the early Period C (EB II),106 characterized by a typical EB II pottery assemblage. It is only in this phase that the so-called carinated “Aphek bowls” are found, in limited numbers,107 made of metallic ware distinct from the local ‘North Canaanite Metallic Ware’ and most probably imported from the South (see above, § 2.3.2).108 3.4. Galilee In his initial publication of the rescue excavations at Tel Me‘ona in upper Galilee, Braun ascribed Stratum I, characterized by fortifications, to the EB II,109 and the Pre-Stratum I pottery, mostly found in fills, to the EB I, noting however that some sherds could be dated to the Late EB I.110 In a later publication, Braun noted that ”it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between Late EB I and EB II ceramic types” at the site;111 indeed, the pottery classified as “Late EB I”— comprising carinated bowls of an early type, holemouth jars with a ridged rim and necked pithoi—exhibits the usual features of the ESL 3 assemblages documented, for example, at Tell el-Fâr‘ah Period IVA.112 These observations suggest that the EBA sequence at the site consists of a pre-fortification occupation in the ESL 3 phase and a fortification phase in the EB II horizon. 3.5. Jezreel Plain The Tel-Aviv University renewed excavations at Megiddo yielded few meaningful assemblages of vessels, besides sherds, to illustrate the EB I sequence. The pottery assemblages of Levels J-2 and J-3, originating mostly from secondary contexts, are considered equivalent to those of Phases VII-VI and Stratum XIX of the Oriental Institute excavations.113 These assemblages are dated to the EB IB114 or the Late EB IB,115 and, more specifically, to the ‘En Shadud phase.116 The following Level J-4, characterized by the monumental Great Temple, has yielded a limited amount of pottery that is also dated to the same period (EB IB/Late EB 100

Compare Rotem et al., 2019: Figs. 11: 11–12 and 8 with our Figs. 12: 3–5 and 13: 8–9. Greenberg / Iserlis, 2014: 55–76. 102 Getzov, 2006: Fig. 2: 12. See Getzov’s remark on the stratigraphy on p. 14. 103 Eisenberg / Greenberg, 2006: Figs. 8.47–8.51, and especially Fig. 8.52. Compare, a.o., Figs. 8.47: 7–9, 8.52: 5–6 with our Fig. 8: 16–20. 104 Y. Paz, 2006: 283, Figs. 7.19–7.29; 2010: 903. 105 Paz, 2002: 239; Getzov, 2006: 8–11. 106 Greenberg / Paz, 2005: 89–92; Paz / Greenberg, 2006: 247; Greenberg / Paz, 2014: 22–23, 31. 107 Y. Paz, 2006: Figs. 7.21: 5, 7.33: 3, 7.36: 2 (Area UN, Local Stratum 5 and 4); S. Paz, 2006: Fig. 3.41: 1 (Area SA, Deep Cut, Phase 5); Esse, 1991: 45–46 and Pl. 1: C–D. 108 Greenberg / Iserlis, 2014: 65. 109 Braun, 1996b: 24; contra Paz, 2002: 243. 110 Braun, 1996b: 18 and Fig. 11: 1–2. These few sherds could well belong, in fact, to the ESL 3 horizon. 111 Braun, 2010: 10. 112 See Braun, 1996b: Fig. 11: 1–4; 2010: Fig. 7: 2–3, 11; compare with our Figs. 6: 16, 7:1 and 7: 12–13. 113 Engberg / Shipton, 1934: end of volume chart; Shipton, 1939: chart; Loud, 1948: Pls. 3, 96–99; Esse, 1991: 68–70; and see Braun, 2013. 114 Adams, 2013a: 47, Table 2.4. 115 Joffe, 2000: 162–166 and Table 8.1. 116 Adams, 2013b: 296–297. 101

238

P. de Miroschedji

IB).117 In the Level J-4 temple, the excavators identified an occupational accumulation after it went out of primary use; the pottery from this J-4a phase is also ascribed to the EB IB/Late EB IB by Finkelstein and Ussishkin, although Adams termed it “EB IB–II” or “EB II”.118 Thus, Levels J-2, J-3, and J-4 are lumped together by the excavators within the same archaeological period, designated EB IB, and the only hesitation concerns the archaeological ascription of phase J-4a to either the EB IB or the early EB II. A critical examination of the pottery assemblages of the levels in question suggests a more complex situation. While the pottery of the earlier levels (J-2 and J-3) exhibits indeed the characteristics of the EB IB “En Shadud Horizon”, for which Megiddo is one of the type sites,119 this conclusion is much less obvious for the pottery of Level J-4, let alone phase J-4a. Although defined as containing “typical EB Ib types”,120 the meager Level J-4 assemblages published to date lack the main fossiles directeurs of the “En Shadud Horizon”, except for guttered and everted rim bowls;121 conversely, it includes inverted rim bowls122 and the so-called “rail-rim” pithoi,123 which suggest that it is close in time to the following Phase J-4a. The latter phase comprises bowls with inturned rims, a carinated bowl, and a Metallic Ware jar,124 i.e., the usual components of the ESL 3 phase assemblage. It is noteworthy that the same horizon may have been already attested in the latest phase of Stage IV of the Oriental Institute’s excavations,125 in which Dynasty 0/early Dynasty 1 Egyptian jars have also been uncovered.126 Significantly, phase J-4a has also yielded a fragment of a coarse chaff-tempered Egyptian vat,127 a type of vessel well attested in the sites of the Coastal Plain related to the ESL 3 horizon in which an Egyptian presence of the time of Dynasty 0/early Dynasty 1 has been recorded.128 These observations confirm that the cache of Egyptian vessels should be assigned to this phase, just prior to the cessation of Egyptian presence in the southern Coastal Plain at the beginning of Dynasty 1.129 The occupation of Stratum J-4 is associated with that of the adjacent settlement of Tel Megiddo East, whose assemblage also includes Metallic Ware.130 All this suggests a broad chronological equivalence between Megiddo Level J-4, Beth Shean Strata M3 and M-2, Tel Yaqush “EB IB”, and Tell Abu al-Kharaz Phase I, where early Metallic Ware and Dynasty 0 Egyptian pottery have also been found (see above, 117

Joffe, 2000: 166–169 and Table 8.1; Adams, 2013b: 297–301; Greenberg, 2006: 149–151, 2019: 48–49; Adams et al., 2014: 35; Adams / Finkelstein / Ussishkin, 2014: 287, Table 1. 118 Finkelstein / Ussishkin, 2006: 19. Adams, 2013a: 47, Table 2.4; 2013b: 301; 2017a: Table 16.1; 2017b: Table 2. Regev et al., 2014: 258 (3090–2920 BC). Ussishkin, 2018: 223. 119 In addition to the earlier University of Chicago’s publications cited above, see Joffe, 2000: Figs. 8.1–8.2, and Braun, 2013: 79–89, Pls. 45–59. 120 Greenberg, 2006: 149. 121 Joffe, 2000: Fig. 3: 7–8. On this type of bowl, see Braun, 2013: 8. 122 Joffe, 2000: Fig. 8.3: 11–16. 123 Joffe, 2000: Fig. 8.4: 21–22. 124 Adams, 2013b: 300 and Fig. 8.3: 1, 6–10. 125 Although this phase was not detected during the Oriental Institute’s excavations, it seems that some of the corresponding material was then uncovered: see Braun, 2013: 89–92, 93, 143, Pls. 52, 60–61. 126 Engberg / Shipton, 1934: Fig. 6; Ilan / Goren, 2003: 45–49; Braun, 2013: 92–93 and Pl. 64. 127 See Adams, 2013b: 300 and Fig. 8.3: 4. 128 See, e.g., Lod IV (Braun / van den Brink, 2008: Fig. 17); Tel Erani (Brandl, 1989: Fig. 13: 3–4); Tel Halif Terrace (Kansa / Levy, 2002: Fig. 12.10: 1); En Besor IV–III (Gophna, 1995: 27, Fig. 5:10; 80, Fig. 6: 5-6, 10); Tell es-Sakan 7–6 (de Miroschedji et al., 2001: Fig. 11: 6, and many unpublished sherds of the same type). This observation contradicts the conclusion of Regev et al. (2014: 258) that “the Egyptian ‘colonies’ on the southern coast came and went immediately preceding” the construction of the Great Temple of Stratum J-4. The authors share the misconception that the Egyptian colonial presence in the southern coastal plain was a brief and ephemeral episode limited to the reign of Narmer, while it was actually the culmination of a multi-secular Egyptian involvement, which rapidly declined after Narmer’s reign: see de Miroschedji, 2015: 1004–1025. 129 For the cache of Egyptian vessels, see Joffe, 2000: 170–174; Ilan / Goren, 2003; Finkelstein / Ussishkin, 2003, 2018; Adams, 2017a, 2017b (who argues for a dating of the cache to the Intermediate Bronze Age); and Ussishkin 2018. For the end of the Egyptian presence in the southern Coastal Plain at the beginning of Dynasty 1, see de Miroschedji, 2015: 1025–1028. 130 Adams et al., 2014; Regev et al., 2014: 259.

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

239

§ 3.3.1). Thus, the available data converge to show that the monumental Great Temple of Level J-4 should be ascribed to this post-EB IB horizon, i.e., to the ESL 3 phase,131 which is precisely the period when the first monumental constructions appear elsewhere in the southern Levant.132 Like Beth Shean, the site of Megiddo is reputed to have been laid deserted during the EB II.133 However, characteristic EB II pottery, such as the Light-faced painted ware, the North Canaanite Metallic ware, typical bowls, platters, and jugs,134 does appear in Megiddo in fair quantities and types, suggesting that the site was not suddenly and completely deserted at the end of the J-4a phase but remained occupied during at least part of the EB II, albeit admittedly on a reduced scale.135 3.6. Northern Coastal Plain Labeled “Late EB IB” by their excavators, the assemblages of ‘En Esur (Asawir) Stratum II136 and the contemporary tombs137 are coexistent with the “En Shadud Horizon” of the EB IB, and thus earlier than the ESL 3 assemblages of the Coastal Plain (also coined ‘Late EB IB’) at, e.g., Tel Aphek B-VIII and Tel Lod IVa–IVb (see below). Some EB IB tombs have yielded evidence of contacts with Anatolia and with the Egyptian colonies of the southern Coastal Plain at the time of Dynasty 0 and the very beginning of Dynasty 1.138 However, vessels probably to be dated to the ESL 3 phase are present in some nearby tombs.139 3.7. Central Coastal Plain 3.7.1. Tel Aphek A seminal paper published by the late Pirhiya Beck in 1985 contributed much to the definition of a “Late EB IB” period based on the analysis of a “family” of bowls from Tel Aphek. The carinated bowls in a variant of metallic ware, later nicknamed “Aphek bowls”, figure prominently in this group. The final report on the excavations in Area B of Tel Aphek contributed to refining Beck’s initial observations.140 The relevant strata are B-VIII and B-VII. Stratum B-VIII marks the foundation of the site and is noteworthy for its city-wall, erected on virgin soil. As in Tell el-Fâr‘ah, it consists of a stone foundation and a brick superstructure, with a width of 2.8 m. In dating the pottery assemblage of this stratum, Beck noted that it “finds its closest parallels at Tell elFar‘ah (N) on the levels termed Énéolithique Supérieur and Ancien Bronze I”.141 Accordingly, she ascribed Stratum B-VIII to “a final stage of the EB I” and pointed out that “in comparison with other contemporary sites, the EB I repertoire of Stratum B-VIII is rather limited and lacks several characteristic types, such as high loop-handled juglets and amphoriskoi.”142 This last remark implies that Beck had in mind the typical EB IB repertoire—illustrated, a.o., by the necropolis of Jericho, Tell el-Fâr‘ah and ‘En Esur—whose absence at Aphek B-VIII and Tell el-Fâr‘ah Ancien Bronze I is understandable since it actually belongs to the preceding phase. Beck may have been comforted in this approach by her comparison with Tell el-Fâr‘ah Énéolithique supérieur, which—as indicated above (§ 2.2) mixes EB IB and later pottery types—and by de 131

See my earlier remarks in de Miroschedji, 2018c: 14; 2020: 173 – where I failed to mention that Nigro (2010: 335– 337) was actually the first to challenge the attribution of Stratum J-4 and its monumental temple to the EB IB, and ascribed it to the following phase, defined as a “full EB II horizon”. Nigro has subsequently defended his dating with an argumentation congruent with ours, but more radical since he believes that Megiddo was occupied during the entire EB II: see Nigro, 2019: 16–17 and Table 4. 132 See de Miroschedji, 2020: 185 and Table 9.1. 133 Greenberg, 2007. 134 Braun, 2013: 94–96, 143 and Pls. 65–66. 135 See Adams, 2013b: 301. 136 Yannai / Lazar-Shorer / Grosinger, 2006. 137 Dothan, 1970; Yannai, 1996; Gorzalczany / Sharvit, 2010. 138 Tombs 3 (lower layer) and 20; see Yannai / Braun, 2001; Yannai, 2002; Avrutis / Yannai 2020. 139 Tomb 3, upper layer (Yannai, 2002: Fig. 22.1: 2–3, 7), and Tomb 40, lower layer, with an Egyptian palette (Yannai 2002: Fig. 22.1: 9, 11, 22). 140 Beck, 2000. 141 Beck, 1985: 24; see also Beck, 2000: 97. 142 Beck, 1985: 24; see also Beck, 2000: 97.

240

P. de Miroschedji

Vaux’s terminology. The confusion with de Vaux’s Ancien Bronze I and Wright’s (1937) Early Bronze Ib had lasting consequences as it was often repeated afterward; as a result, Aphek B-VIII is frequently viewed as a type-site of a late EB IB, while it actually exhibits features typical of the ESL 3 phase. Stratum B-VII was dated to the EB II and compared to the contemporary strata of Tell el-Fâr‘ah, Jericho, and ‘Ai.143 Concerning the carinated “Aphek bowls”, Beck contrasted their profusion in Stratum BVII with the “only three small sherds” found in Stratum B-VIII.144 She concluded, nonetheless, that this type of bowl appears already in the EB IB strata at Aphek,145 a statement often repeated since then.146 Thus, the Aphek EBA sequence is essentially comparable to that of Tell el-Fâr‘ah: Stratum B-VIII is grosso modo equivalent to Tell el-Fârah Period IVA, while the scanty assemblage of Stratum B-VII can be ascribed to an EB II horizon close in time to Tell el-Fâr‘ah IVB. At Aphek as elsewhere, the so-called “Aphek bowls” in Metallic ware belong essentially to the EB II horizon. 3.7.2. Tel Lod Also labeled “Late EB IB” by its excavators, Stratum IV at Tel Lod seems to be contemporary or slightly antecedent to Tel Aphek B-VIII and other contemporary sites (such as Tel Megiddo J-4, Tel Shalem, and Tel Beth Shean M-3–M-2).147 It has yielded plenty of evidence of a protracted Egyptian presence, in particular, several fragments of wine jars with serekhs comparable to those found at Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit III– IV and Palmahim Quarry 2–1.148 These discoveries testify that the site was still occupied at the time of Narmer, i.e., at the same time as Tel Arad IV and Tell es-Sakan A-6 (see below, § 3.9), during the ESL 3 phase. 3.7.2. Tel Dalit At neighboring Tel Dalit, Stratum V is compared by the excavators to Tell el-Fâr‘ah Période 1, Aphek BVIII, Arad IV and ‘Ai Phase II, and consequently ascribed to the “EB Ib”,149 later corrected to “Late EB IB”, i.e., a “Post-Erani C” phase of the EB IB.150 True “Aphek bowls” characterize Strata IV–II (mainly Stratum II), dated to the EB II, where they are especially abundant, but have slightly different antecedents in the preceding Stratum V.151 Hence, the sequence is basically the same as in Tel Aphek B-VIII–B-VII and the other contemporary sites. 3.7.3. Other Sites in the Central Coastal Plain The same pottery assemblage as that of Tel Dalit V, also ascribed to the “Late EB IB” by the excavators, was found at Shoham North.152 A comparable assemblage, also labeled “Late EB IB” by the excavators, was discovered at Rishpon 4 and also included “proto-Metallic Ware”, with parallels at Tell Abu al-Kharaz I.153 Gophna and Paz have listed several burial caves, cave dwellings, and open villages which they ascribe to the “Late EB IB” and/or the EB II in the central Coastal Plain;154 Among them, several burial caves at Nesher-Ramla Quarry (el-Khirbe), in use mostly during the EB IB on the horizon of the contemporary

143

Beck, 1985: 24–25; 2000: 106. Beck, 2000: 94, 106. 145 Beck, 1985: 24. 146 References above, note 35. 147 See van den Brink, 2002: Figs. 19.8–19.10; van den Brink et al., 2015: 159–173, Figss 22–28; Paz / Rosenberg / Nativ, 2005: Figs. 23–27 (Strata VI–IV). 148 See van den Brink, 2002; van den Brink / Braun, 2002; van den Brink et al., 2015. 149 Gophna / Iron-Lubin, 1996: 86. 150 Gophna / Paz, 2014: 30. On the Erani C-related assemblages of the EB IB, see above, note 31. 151 See Gophna / Iron-Lubin, 1996: 82, 122, and Figs. 39: 5, 43: 1–3 (Str. V); Fig. 46: 1–2 (Str. IV); Figs. 48: 2, 4, 49: 1, 52: 1–2 (Str. II). 152 Gophna / van den Brink, 2005: 99–105; Paz / Shoval / Zlatkin, 2009: 168; Paz / Segal / Nadelman, 2018. 153 Paz / Shoval / Zlatkin, 2009: 165–167; Gophna / Paz, 2017. 154 Gophna / Paz, 2014: 30–31, Table 1. 144

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

241

cemeteries of Azor, En Esur and Tell el-Fâr‘ah, appear to have received additional burials during the following ESL 3 phase.155 3.8. Shephelah 3.8.1. Tel Yarmuth Tel Yarmuth is also relevant to this discussion, although the EB IB–II strata were excavated only on a small scale. The main sequences from bedrock through the EB II–III strata were obtained in Sounding Bs156 and Area C. The EB strata concerned are ascribed to Period B (ESL 3) and Period C (EB II). Period B (Strata Bs-5 and C-8) predates the erection of the fortifications (Wall A) and corresponds, grosso modo, with Aphek B-VIII and Tell el-Fâr‘ah IVA (see Fig. 15 and cf. Fig. 6: 10,12,19,27).157 It is uncertain whether the few Egyptian pottery sherds found scattered in later contexts—including bread molds, basins, and an Egyptian imported cylindrical vase—should be connected with Period B on the ESL 3 horizon (as in Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit III–IV: see below) or with Period A on the “Erani C Horizon” (as in neighboring Hartuv158), although the first possibility seems the most likely. Period C (Strata Bs-4 and C-7+C-6) is represented by a c. 1.5 m deep deposit containing abundant EB II material (see Fig. 16). The erection of the fortifications (Wall A) in Stratum C-7B159 marks the start of Period C, when the first real platters appear (Fig. 16: 14–15, and 20; cf. Fig. 11: 18–19) together with the first carinated so-called “Aphek bowls” in Metallic Ware (Fig. 16: 11–12 cf. Figs. 11: 6–8, 14: 4,8); the latter continue in large numbers in the following Stratum C-6 (Fig. 16: 17), before they disappear in Period D (EB IIIA). 3.8.2. Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit The published pottery of Strata III–IV at Horvat ‘Illin Taḥtit 160 is reminiscent of that of Yarmuth Period B, Tel Dalit V and Tell el-Fâr‘ah IVA, including carinated bowls, jugs with a narrow neck and a wide flat base, and pithoi with applied bands with digit impressions. A remarkable aspect of these strata is the relative abundance of Egyptian pottery, including wine jars with serekhs.

155

Avrutis, 2012: Pls. 4.1: 22, 4.8: 10–13, 4.10: 17, 21–22, 4.11: 1–2, 4.20: 7, 13, 4.21: 15–18, 4.22: 1–3, 7; see also Avrutis / Yannai 2020. 156 See, for now, de Miroschedji, 1988: 33 and Pls. 20–22. 157 Note, however, that some tenuous observations suggest the possibility that the site possessed already some kind of outer defense in Period B: see de Miroschedji, 2018b: 160*, n. 2. 158 See Mazar / de Miroschedji, 1996; Porat, 1996. 159 De Miroschedji, 2018b. 160 Braun, 1996a: 98–101 and Fig. V.C.11; 2008: 1790, photo top row; Braun et al., 2001.

242

P. de Miroschedji

Figure 15. Tel Yarmuth, selected bowls and platters from Period B (Strata Bs-5 and C-8).

No.

Inv. No.

Area Bs

LocusLayer 68-10b

Local Str. 5

Gen. Str. B

1

5353-6

2

5343-12

Bs

68-10a

5

B

3

5343-3

Bs

68-10a

5

B

4

5338-1

Bs

68-10b

5

B

5

5333-5

Bs

68-10a

5

B

6

9386-5

C

922-2

8

B

7

9368-2

C

919-1

8

B

8

9409-1

C

908-2

8

B

9

9364-1

C

922-1

8

B

10

9283-2

C

906-1

8

B

Period

Description and Reference

ESL 3 (EB I–EB II) ESL 3 (EB I–EB II) ESL 3 (EB I–EB II) ESL 3 (EB I–EB II)

Pale brown clay, fine. Red slip. de Miroschedji, 1988: Pl. 20: 1.

ESL 3 (EB I–EB II) ESL 3 (EB I–EB II) ESL 3 (EB I–EB II) ESL 3 (EB I–EB II) ESL 3 (EB I–EB II) ESL 3 (EB I–EB II)

Pale brown clay. Dark brownred slip. de Miroschedji, 1988: Pl. 20: 2. Light brown clay, rather coarse. Light brown slip. de Miroschedji, 1988: Pl. 20: 3. Pale brown clay. Traces of dark brown-gray slip. Soot on rim. de Miroschedji, 1988: Pl. 20: 4. Pale brown clay, rather fine. Red burnished slip. de Miroschedji, 1988: Pl. 20: 5. Pinkish gray clay. Surface pinkish brown. Pink clay, light gray core. Surface pale brown. Lime coating on outside. Pale brown-red clay. Traces of red slip inside and outside. Soot on rim. Pale brown clay. Burnished red slip inside. Pale brown clay, gray core. Red slip inside and outside.

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

Figure 15. Tel Yarmuth, selected bowls and platters from Period B (Strata Bs-5 and C-8).

243

244

P. de Miroschedji

Figure 16. Tel Yarmuth, selected bowls and platters from Period C (Strata Bs-4, C-7 and C-6).

No.

Inv. No.

Area

LocusLayer 64-8 + 9a

Local Str. 4

Gen. Str. C

Period

Description and Reference

1

5329-5

Bs

EB II

4

C

EB II

Bs

67-8 + 9a 67-8

4

C

EB II

5313-1

Bs

67-8

4

C

EB II

5

5326-3

Bs

67-8

4

C

EB II

6

5327-11

Bs

67-8 + 9a

4

C

EB II

7

5340-8

Bs

67-9a

4

C

EB II

8

9343-3

C

917-1

7B

C

Early EB II

9

9323-3

C

7B

C

Early EB II

10

9295-6

C

7B

C

Early EB II

11

9262-1

C

917floor a 657floor c 657floor b

7B

C

Early EB II

12

9278-1

C

914-1

7B

C

Early EB II

13

9232-2

C

7B

C

Early EB II

14

9319-2

C

657floor b 917-1

Pale brown clay. Brown-red burnished slip inside and outside. de Miroschedji, 1988: Pl. 21: 1. Dark gray clay, very coarse. de Miroschedji, 1988: Pl. 21.3. Light brown clay. Brow-red slip inside and outside. Soot on rim. de Miroschedji, 1988: Pl. 21: 4. Pale brown clay, fine. Red slip. Soot on rim. de Miroschedji, 1988: Pl. 21: 5. Brown-red to brown-gray clay, rather coarse. de Miroschedji, 1988: Pl. 21: 6. Brown clay very well fired (“metallic”). de Miroschedji, 1988: Pl. 21: 8. Yellowish brown clay. de Miroschedji, 1988: Pl. 21.7. Fine red-brown clay. Burnished inside and outside. Fine pinkish brown clay. Red burnished slip inside and outside. Brown-red clay. Light red burnished slip inside and outside. Fine brown clay, very well fire (“metallic”). Brown slip with crisscross burnishing. Surface matt. Fine brown clay, very well fired (“metallic”). Burnished. Light brown clay, gray core.

2

5327-12

Bs

3

5313-22

4

7B

C

Early EB II

15

9255-2

C

7B

C

Early EB II

16 17

7209-52 7139-2

C C

657floor b 371 607-1

6B 6B

C C

Late EB II Late EB II

18

7149-12

C

607-2

6B

C

Late EB II

19

7127-1

C

607-1

6B

C

Late EB II

20

7127-16

C

607-1

6B

C

Late EB II

Light brown rather coarse clay, thick dark gray core. Red burnished slip inside and outside. Clay pinkish brown. Red burnished slip inside and outside. Light brown clay. Soot on rim. Fine clay, pale brown. Self-slip burnished inside and on rim Clay pale brown, light gray core. Burnished inside. Clay pale brown. Burnished inside and on rim inside. Light brown clay. Red burnished slip inside and outside.

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

Figure 16. Tel Yarmuth, selected bowls and platters from Period C (Strata Bs-4, C-7 and C-6).

245

246

P. de Miroschedji

3.9. Southern Coastal Plain and Northern Negev Assemblages comparable to or closely reminiscent of that of Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit III–IV and Tel Lod IV are reported at various sites of the southern Coastal Plain and the northern Negev, e.g., at Palmahim Quarry 2– 1,161 al-Maghar,162 Tel Halif Terrace (Nahal Tillah) Stratum IIA–B,163 Tel Erani V–IV,164 Tel Ma’ahaz I,165 ‘En Besor IV–III,166 Tell es-Sakan 7–6.167 and Tel Arad IV.168 These sites have yielded quite a great abundance of Egyptian pottery of the Dynasty 0–early Dynasty 1 periods. In particular, similar Egyptian jars with late Dynasty 0/early Dynasty 1 serekhs169 and contemporary Egyptian jar sealings with cylinderseal impressions were found in several of these sites.170 At Tell es-Sakan, mostly Egyptian pottery was found, together with few local Canaanite pottery vessels (c. 10% of the entire assemblage), overwhelmingly represented by holemouth jars. The Egyptian pottery assemblages from Sakan 7–6 are basically interchangeable with those of En Besor III and Tel Erani V–IV, and the parallels suggest that they cover the span of Dynasty 0–the beginning of Dynasty 1.171 The Canaanite pottery types from Strata 7 and (especially) 6 suggest an ESL 3 horizon date, thus contemporary with Tel Arad IV and possibly extending into the early EB II,172–i.e., close to the time when the Egyptians abandoned their colonies in the southern Coastal Plain.173 Stratum IV at Tel Arad, which provides a wellknown synchronism with Narmer,174 is usually ascribed to the “late EB IB” and paralleled to Dalit V and Aphek B-VIII, among others,175 while Strata III–I represent the “classic” southern EB II, which includes a few carinated bowls of the “Aphek” type.176 To sum up, this pottery horizon in the Coastal Plain, frequently referred to as EB IB2 or “Final EB IB” (see Table 1), may correspond to the ESL 3 phase and appears, thus, to be more or less synchronous with Tell Abu al-Kharaz I and Jericho IIIb1, two sites where Dynasty 0–early Dynasty 1 Egyptian pottery or imported items were also found (see above, §§ 3.1.1 and 3.3.1). It follows an earlier EB IB horizon, corresponding to the “En Shadud Horizon” in the northern Coastal plain (‘En Esur II), the “Erani C Horizon” in the Shephelah (Hartuv II) and in the central and southern Coastal Plain (Tel Erani [X]–VI), and to the Naqada IIIA period in Egypt.177 It precedes immediately the EB II period stricto sensu—a period hardly attested in the southern Coastal Plain, and whose beginning is marked by the disappearance of all the Egyptian colonies in southwestern Canaan.178 161

Braun, 2000: 26–27, with comparisons to Tel Arad IV and Jericho Period IIIb1. Gophna / Paz / Taxel, 2010: Figs. 8–9. 163 Kansa, 2001: 38–39, Figs. 14–15; Kansa / Levy, 2002. 164 For the results of the recent Polish-Israeli excavations, see Braun, 2016b (on the Canaanite pottery); Czarnowicz, 2016 (on the Egyptian pottery); Milevski et al., 2019. For a summary of earlier excavations and studies, see Yekutieli, 2016. 165 Amiran / van den Brink, 2002. 166 Gophna, 1995, passim. 167 De Miroschedji et al., 2001; de Miroschedji, 2015: 1012–1018. 168 Amiran et al., 1978: Pls. 8: 1–10, 13–24, 27–30, 9: 10, 10: 3–4, 12: 1–3,19. 169 Braun et al., 2001; van den Brink / Braun, 2002; de Miroschedji, 2015: Fig. 12: 3–8; Levy et al., 1997: Figs. 6 and 17: 3a–b; Kansa, 2001: 73–80. 170 Gophna, 1995: 71 (with references); van den Brink, 1995; Miroschedji, 2015: Fig. 12: 1–2; Levy et al., 1997: Fig. 15; Kansa, 2001: 80–82. 171 See de Miroschedji 2015: 1005, Fig. 1. 172 See de Miroschedji et al., 2001: Fig. 12: 9–10, and compare with Kansa, 2001: 39, Fig. 15: B–C (Nahal Tillah Silo Site IIA–B) and Amiran et al., 1978: Pls. 14: 23, 27, 15: 16 (Arad III). 173 de Miroschedji, 2015: 1025–1026. 174 References and discussion in Braun, 2009: 32–36. 175 See Amiran et al., 1978: Pls. 7: 21, 8: 1–5, 13–19, 9: 10, 12: 1, 19. 176 See Amiran et al., 1978: Pl. 13: 31–32. 177 For the relative chronology of the Erani C phase and the Naqada IIIA period, illustrated, a.o., by Tomb U-j at Umm el-Qaab, see Braun / van den Brink, 1998: 80–83; Czarnowicz, 2014; Miroschedji, 2015: 1005–1007. 178 The published pottery from ‘En Besor II dates apparently to the EB III; see Gophna, 1995: 28, Fig. 6: 15–17. The dating of Erani III is uncertain (see Yeivin, 1961: Pl. VI top, and the remark by Czarnowicz et al., 2016: 42). Although usually mentioned as “EB II–III”, Erani II dates clearly to the EB III, see Yeivin, 1961: Pl. V; Brandl, 1989: Fig. 6. 162

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

247

Table 6. EB II comparative stratigraphy of the sites mentioned in the text.

Site Tell el-Fâr‘ah (N) (see Table 2) Jericho: Garstang Jericho: Kenyon (EIII–IV) Jericho: Nigro et al. Bâb edh-Dhra‘ ‘Ai Tell Abu al-Kharaz Pella (T. el-Husn) Tell es-Sa‘idiyeh Tell Handaquq (N) Tell Umm Hamad eshSherqi Tell esh-Shuna (N) Tel Shalem Tel Beth Shean

EB IA

EB IB

EB II

III

ESL 3 or EB I/EB II IVA

VI–VI Q–M

V L–G

IV F–D

Sultan IIIa1–2 V–IV I – II? ? + L5

Sultan IIIb1 ? III IA–IB + L4? + +

Sultan IIIb2 III IV II–III + L3–L2 + +

+? III–II XIV–XIII M-3 + M-2 Summit: Str. II–I E. slope: Str. IV Late Period B Pre-Stratum I J-4– ?

+

B-VIII IV V + + B

B-VII

+

+

+

+

Tel Yaqush Tel Beth Yerah Tel Me‘ona Tel Megiddo Tel Qashish ‘En Shadud Qiryat ‘Ata ‘En ‘Esur: Settlement Tel Aphek Tel Lod Tel Dalit Shoham Rishpon 4 Tel Yarmuth Hartuv Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit Palmahim Quarry Al-Maghar Nahal Tillah / Halif Silo Tel Erani Tel Ma‘ahaz ‘En Besor Tell es-Sakan Tel Arad

A

B J-2–J-3 XV–XIII II–I III–II II

A II

X–VI 9–8?

IV–III 2–1 + IIA–B I–IV I IV–III 7–6 IV

IVB

+ III C I J-4a XII

IV–II C

III–I

The abandonment of many Late EB IB2/ESL 3 sites in the southern Coastal Plain with the advent of the EB II has been pointed out by Getzov / Paz / Gophna 2001: 26–27 and Fig. 12; see also de Miroschedji 2006: 71 and 2015: 1025– 1026, who insists it was a consequence of the Egyptian withdrawal.

248

P. de Miroschedji

3.10. Summary The data reviewed above are summarized in Table 6. The proposed synchronisms are necessarily approximate, being established on typological similarities which justify the ascription of a stratum to a phase but which do not imply a strict contemporaneity. Also, due to the relative abundance of excavations, some transitional or mixed situations may cause some assemblages to not fit precisely into one of these chronological ‘boxes’. Nevertheless, it is believed that the table illustrates a coherent global sequence.

4. The EB I–II Archaeological Sequence in Broader Perspective 4.1. The EB IB–EB II Transitional Phase: Archeological Definition Table 1 suggests that a reasonably wide agreement exists among scholars on the archaeological sequence since a majority of them distinguish three successive phases between the EB IA and the EB III, each represented by one or several strata on many sites (See Table 6). While the archaeological definition of the EB IB and the EB II stricto sensu is not debated, that of the phase in-between remains unclear. Most of the periodizations presented in Table 1 are based exclusively on pottery changes observed within assemblages showing regional and chronological variations, in disregard of other aspects of cultural and socio-political developments. An evaluation of the character of the ESL 3 phase in relationship with the preceding (EB IB) and the following (EB II) phases is best presented in a tabular form under a few significant headings (Table 7). Table 7. Main changes and transformations within the EB I – EB II interval.

Categories of reference Pottery

EB IB

ESL 3 or “Transitional EB I–EB II” Disappearance of most earlier pottery types; appearance of new pottery types with a long posterity in the EB II–III Many new sites; regional centres

Traditional

Pattern of settlement

Scatter of villages; few large sites

Settlement layout Fortifications

Village-like open settlement No fortifications

Urban-like

Political and social organization Craft production Foreign contacts

Traditional

First city-state

Household production Egyptian colonial contacts

Beginning of specialized production Egyptian colonies

First fortifications

EB II Continuation and development of the pottery types which had appeared in the preceding phase

Abandonment of several large sites at the end of the ESL 3 phase or at the beginning of the EB II. Otherwise, continuation of most sites founded in the preceding period Urban-like, continuation Fortifications (continuation and development) Continuation and development

Specialized production Egyptian retreat. Establishment of new types of direct contact between Egypt and Canaan.

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

249

4.1.1. Pottery typology From the very beginning of the EBA studies in the southern Levant, a sharp difference between what is nowadays called the EB IB (ESL 2) and the following phase was observed. Referring to Strata VII–VI and V–III of Jericho, Fitzgerald noted in 1936: “One of the principal distinctions between the two groups is due to the appearance at Layer V of a great number of dishes and bowls with upturned or inturned rims”.179 de Vaux in Tell el-Fâr‘ah, Kenyon, Hennessy, and later Nigro in Jericho, Callaway at ‘Ai, among others, all made a similar observation.180 On the other hand, neither Fitzgerald nor the other archaeologists mentioned above established a clear-cut distinction between the phase corresponding to ESL 3 and the following EB II. On the contrary, they all insisted on a smooth transition between these two phases, to the point that some considered them as a unit.181 It is therefore somewhat disconcerting that the labels “Late/Final/Terminal EB IB” were introduced to designate this phase since they imply a smooth transition between the EB IB and ESL 3 and a drastic change between the ESL 3 and the EB II. In other words, the implications of these labels are just the opposite of what is observed and generally acknowledged. Indeed, despite some evidence of continuity between the EB IB and the ESL 3 phase, the pottery of the latter represents a significant break in pottery tradition. This break is first expressed by the disappearance of EB IB wares (Grey Burnished Ware, Line-Group painted wares, Crackled wares in the North; Erani C wares in the South) and shapes (such as fenestrated forms, high-handled cups, distinctive teapots and bowls with omphalos base, typical Erani C pottery types), and is confirmed by the appearance of new wares and shapes that characterize the EB II–III periods at large. This change expresses a sharp decrease in cultural regionalism between the EB IB and the ESL 3 phase. Among the new wares, the timid appearance of the Metallic Ware has been noted in the ESL 3 phase in the North, heralding its full development in the EB II.182 Among the new pottery shapes, the bowls with an inturned rim, the first carinated platters, the jugs with a high neck, a globular body and a wide flat base, the pithoi with an elongated body and a cylindrical neck are noteworthy. These new wares and shapes underwent smooth further developments in the EB II–III period: the variety of bowls with inturned rim, the larger carinated platters with a slight concavity below the carination, the larger and slenderer jugs (so-called “Abydos type”) and the tall pithoi with a flaring neck are just typological developments of previous shapes and do not represent an irruption of a new pottery tradition. Overall, the essential observation is that the new wares and pottery shapes appearing in the ESL 3 phase have no antecedents in the EB IB; conversely, they have a long posterity in the EB II–III. In other words, they mark the beginning of a new pottery tradition. 4.1.2. Settlement Pattern Important changes in the settlement pattern are also noted both at the beginning and the end of the ESL 3 phase. The EB IB–ESL 3 transition is marked by the abandonment of scores of EB IB settlements183 and by the correlative foundation of major sites (such as Tell Abu al-Kharaz, Tel Aphek) or sudden development of earlier settlements (e.g., Tell el-Fâr‘ah, Jericho, Tel Beth Shean, Tel Shalem, Tel Beth Yerah, Tel

179

Fitzgerald, 1936: 91. See also Wright’s (1958: 45*, n. 29) remark regarding the EBA sequence of Tell el-Fâr‘ah: “There are too many new things appearing [in the Ancien Bronze I] (…) to allow one to be guided exclusively by the earlier survivals.” 181 See de Vaux, 1955: 570 (“L’impression d’ensemble est celle d’une grande unité”); 1971b: 211 (“there is no abrupt transition from one [phase] to another and the boundaries separating them must be kept fluid.”); Fischer, 2008: 54 (“The pottery [of Phase IIA] does not differ much from that of the previous phase”); Braun 2010: 10. Both Lapp (1970) and Wright (1958) treated the entire EB IC–EB III sequence as a cultural unit, the EB III being singled out only by the appearance of the Khirbet Kerak Ware. 182 See Fischer’s “Early Metallic Ware” at Tell Abu al-Kharaz I (Fischer / Toivonen-Skage, 1995; Fischer, 2008: 289); Paz’s “Proto-Metallic Ware” attested at several “Late EB IB” sites (Paz / Shoval / Zlatkin 2009; Paz, 2010). Also, the evidence from Beth-Shean M-3 and M-2 (Rotem, 2012: 162–164) and T. Yaqush (Rotem et al., 2019: 119–122). 183 See Esse, 1991: 146–152, 173–176; Gophna / Portugali, 1993; Faust / Ashkenazy, 2009. Well attested all over the Southern Levant, the phenomenon is particularly marked in the central Jordan Valley, where many sites with Um Hammad Ware (PU D) were abandoned: see Bar, 2013a, 2013b. 180

250

P. de Miroschedji

Megiddo, Palmahim Quarry, Tel Arad). Thus, the EB IB–ESL 3 transition does represent a turning point in the history of settlement patterns towards the end of the fourth millennium in the southern Levant. Although most of the new settlements remained occupied for several centuries until the end of the EB II or the EB III, a few had an ephemeral existence, mainly in the central Jordan Valley and the plain of Jezreel; they were abandoned at the end of the ESL 3 phase or during the early EB II.184 Their fate suggests that the ESL 3 phase represents a period of transition between the old age of village society and the beginning of a new age marked by the emergence of territorial organizations—a transition accompanied by territorial adjustments between competing polities resulting in the elimination of some and the growth of others. 4.1.3. Fortifications Perhaps the most spectacular innovation of the ESL 3 phase is the first appearance of fortifications, attested at several sites, mainly in the Jordan Valley and its vicinity (Fig. 1).185 Although these fortifications did probably not appear simultaneously on all these ESL 3 settlements, their erection may have taken place in a relatively short lapse of time, possibly less than a century, as a consequence of a new socio-political situation. These defenses present striking similarities, being built in mudbrick on a rather shallow stone base, with a moderate thickness (c. 3 m) and the addition of rectangular bastions (e.g., Fig. 3); only at Tell el-Fâr‘ah was a city-gate identified, flanked by square towers.186 At this site, like some others (Jericho, Tell Abu al-Kharaz, Tell es-Sa‘idiyeh), these early fortifications witnessed important structural changes at the beginning of the EB II, when fortifications proliferated all over the southern Levant (Fig. 1). 4.1.4. Urban Layout Since the fortifications restricted the urban space, the settlement layout acquired an urban-like layout, with houses agglutinated into insulae separated by well-delineated streets (cf. Fig. 3).187 This layout differs from that of EB IB sites, such as ‘En Esur, where the streets are actually residual spaces between individual domestic compounds.188 4.1.5. Socio-political Change The first appearance of monumentality, both as large fortifications and in cultic architecture (viz. the Great Temple of Megiddo J-4), reflects the intervention of a new elite and symbolizes the emergence of autonomous socio-political entities, in sharp contrast with the EB IB period.189 4.1.6. Craft Production The changes described above also receive a tangible expression in the modalities of craft production. The shift from household or village pottery production, which characterizes the EB I period and was responsible for a strong pottery regionalism,190 to the more specialized craft industry of the EB II (e.g., Metallic Ware, “Aphek bowls”) seems to have taken place with the transition from the EB I to the EB II, during the ESL 3 phase (viz. the timid emergence of the “Proto-Metallic Ware”), as a corollary of the “urbanization” process aforementioned.191

184

Tel Shalem, Tel Megiddo, Tel Beth Shean: see references above and comments in Mazar, 2012: 2, 23–24. See references above, in note 7. Although ascribed to the ESL 3 phase, the fortifications of Tell es-Sakan 8–6 (Miroschedji, 2015: 1012–1014) are not considered in the framework of this discussion since they are not Canaanite, but Egyptian. The nature of the pre-ESL 3 fortifications at Tel Erani (Milevski et al., 2016; 2019) is still unclear in this writer’s opinion. 186 See above, note 23. 187 See Nigro et al., 2018: Fig. 3; Paz / Greenberg, 2016. 188 See Elad / Paz, 2018. In the EB II, a peripheral site like Tel Arad III–II presents another case of such a protourbanism: see de Miroschedji, 2018a: 116 and Fig. 9.3. 189 De Miroschedji, 2018a; 2020: 185–188. 190 Braun, 2012. 191 Rotem, 2012: 160–167. 185

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

251

4.1.7. Foreign Contacts Finally, another change of historical significance should be mentioned. Present data indicate that the period of Egyptian colonization, i.e., of direct Egyptian involvement in the Southern Levant, came to a close with the end of the ESL 3 phase, that is with the beginning of the EB II, when the “urbanized” Canaanite polities expanded and large fortified city-states developed, such as Tel Yarmuth in the Shephelah. This chronological concomitance offers an explanation for the Egyptian retreat: Once local Canaanite polities could organize themselves the procurement and export of goods to Egypt, the presence of Egyptian colonies was no longer necessary.192 It further suggests that the process of urbanization did not develop as merely some kind of emulation under direct Egyptian stimulus—since there is no Egyptian influence whatsoever in the material culture of the EB II—but rather as a socio-political consequence and reaction to a multi-secular Egyptian presence.193 4.2. Terminology The changes listed above draw a picture of a radical change between the EB IB period and the ESL 3 phase. This transition represents a major divide. The ESL 3 phase clearly marks the beginning of a new era. Conversely, the passage from ESL 3 to EB II emerges as a smooth transition, accompanied merely by the accentuation of the main new aspects introduced during the ESL 3 phase. It is based on these observations that the question of terminology should now be addressed, presupposing that a periodization should express the major changes and ruptures in the sequence of cultures for it to be meaningful. In listing the various terminologies used for the designation of this phase, Table 1 also illustrates the disagreements in the archaeological interpretation of this phase. A critical review of these terminologies is now in order. 4.2.1. ESL 3 Let us put aside the designation ESL 3 used until now in this paper, for reasons stated in the introduction. This use was by convenience, as this designation simply indicates the position of this phase within a sequence (after the EB IB and before the EB II) and does not prejudge its archaeological interpretation. Nonetheless, the use of this terminology has the great merit of clarity. 4.2.2. EB IB We may eliminate straightaway the designation “EB IB” since one cannot use the same denomination for two distinct and successive assemblages, one being “EB IB” stricto sensu (i.e., related to the “‘En Shadud Horizon”/“Erani C Horizon”), and the other a later and distinctly different one; hence, for example, the monumental temple of Stratum J-4 at Megiddo can hardly be considered as dating from the EB IB, since the associated assemblage is different from that of the two previous strata, which are also ascribed to the EB IB,194 and since it marks a new stage in the cultural development of the southern Levant.195 4.2.3. Late/Final/Terminal EB IB A ‘Late’, ‘Final’, or ‘Terminal EB IB’ designation for this phase is a priori more coherent, for it underlines the distinctiveness of this phase, contrasting with what precedes and follows. However, it is actually inadequate for at least two reasons. First, because it registers a major cultural change as supposedly taking place within an archaeological period (EB IB vs. ‘Late EB IB’) and, at the same time, underscores a change in the subsequent archaeological period (‘Late EB IB’ vs. EB II), although the archaeological data only indicate a smooth development. Second, because it views the ‘Late EB IB’ phase as the end of a period— the culmination of several centuries of developments since the start of the EB IA at c. 3700—while it 192

De Miroschedji, 2015: 1025–1028. An historical analogy to this situation is provided by the development of the Proto-Elamite civilization in southwestern Iran following a long term Urukian involvement: see de Miroschedji, 2002: 48–50; 2003: 24. 194 See Adams et al., 2014: 35; Adams / Finkelstein / Ussishkin, 2014: 287, Table 1; Ussishkin, 2013: 1320–1322; 2015; 2018: 223; Greenberg 2019: 48–49. 195 See Miroschedji, 2018a; 2020: 185–197 and Table 9.1. 193

252

P. de Miroschedji

actually represents the beginning of a new one, as demonstrated by the many significant changes listed above.196 To justify her “Final”/“Terminal EB IB” terminology and the implicit lumping together of this phase with the preceding EB IB, Rotem developed a detailed and subtle analysis of the data from Tel Kitan VII, Beth-Shean M3 and M-2, Yaqush 1 and Tel Beth Yerah B–C.197 Her argument implies that, in the central Jordan Valley, towns and villages may have developed at a different pace, the latter being more conservative and the former more advanced, thus exhibiting contrasting pottery assemblages at the same time, e.g., “the latest EB I phase at Tel Yaqush (being) parallel to the early EB II at the nearby site of Beth Yerah, where initial urbanism was materializing.” Notwithstanding the fact that this suggestion is difficult to demonstrate, an overall regional periodization cannot be based solely on detailed typological developments of pottery in disregard of the other far-reaching changes (such as settlement patterns, fortifications, monumental architecture, and socio-political organization) that transformed the very nature of the culture. To choose a trivial metaphor, the discussion here is not whether the glass is half empty or half full, but rather on the nature of its content, which changed with the EB IB–ESL 3 transition. 4.2.4. EB IC Rotem also reflected on whether Wright’s (1958) “EB IC” should not be restored to designate the transitional phase between the EB IB and the EB II.198 Lapp named EB IC the initial phase of the next period since he considered the EB IC–III as a single unit.199 Actually, the reintroduction of this obsolete terminology would only add to the present confusion. Esse had conclusively shown that Wright’s EB IC had no solid stratigraphic basis, for it “wove elements of mixed strata at various sites and several tomb groups into a whole cloth that was not truly representative of one distinct chronological phase”.200 Esse’s analysis led to the reassignment of the strata ascribed by Wright and Lapp to the EB IC to either the EB IB or the EB II. The paradox is that the most comprehensive assemblages dated by Esse to the EB II (e.g., Fâr‘ah IVA, Jericho Sultan IIIb1, and ‘Ai III) are precisely those ascribed by many scholars nowadays to the ‘Late’/ ‘Final’/‘Terminal EB IB’, raising the same initial question that had motivated his investigation: Are these assemblages, and all the other comparable or demonstrably contemporary assemblages, representative of a specific phase, and if so, should it be defined as a transitional EB I/EB II phase, or should it be connected to the EB II? 4.2.5. Transitional EB I–EB II The designation ‘Transitional EB I–EB II’ phase corresponds well with what this phase represents from the perspective of elements such as pottery typology, pattern of settlement, early fortifications, monumental architecture, urbanization, and others. The transitional character of this phase is particularly well marked in the central and southern Coastal Plain (Lod IV, Palmahim 1–2, Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit IV–III, Nahal Tillah/ Halif Terrace) and the Shephelah (Tel Yarmuth), where fortifications and other typical EB II elements make a more tardy appearance than in the northern regions of the southern Levant. 4.2.6. EB IIA Another option is to connect this phase with the next period, and to call it ‘early EB II’, or ‘EB IIA’.201 Such a terminology acknowledges the existence of a major divide between the EB IB (ESL 2) and the “Transitional EB IB–EB II” (ESL 3) and stresses that the transition from one period to the next is a drastic one, actually a change in the evolution level of civilization. A change of such magnitude should be reflected 196

See also de Vaux’s (1961: 591) remark: “si notre nomenclature veut signifier autre chose que la matérialité d’une succession chronologique, il est légitime de garder des noms différents pour deux cultures dont l’une va disparaître et dont l’autre va se développer (…)”. 197 See Rotem, 2012: 168–169; 2015: 361–362; Eisenberg / Rotem, 2016: 27–29; Rotem et al., 2019: 115–121, 139. 198 Rotem, 2012: 169. 199 Lapp, 1970. 200 Esse, 1984: 326. 201 Nigro, 2019.

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

253

by the terminology. At the same time, this terminology makes clear that the transition with the following period took place without any rupture; indeed, at Jericho, Tell el-Fâr‘ah, Tell Abu al-Kharaz, Tel Beth Yerah, Tel Aphek, for example, this ESL 3 phase is actually, from all perspectives (pottery, fortifications, urban layout, and others), simply an early phase of the EB II. Thus, this terminology would bring to the fore the historical significance of this phase (establishment of the first city-states; floruit, and end of the multisecular Egyptian involvement in southwestern Canaan) and emphasize the new evolutionary step that brought on the emergence of the Canaanite civilization of the Early Bronze Age. 4.3. Chronology In light of recent developments in radiocarbon analyses, the question of absolute chronology of the EB IB– EB II interval would require a separate study, which lies beyond the purpose of this paper. In the meantime, I shall limit myself to a few remarks. The lack of clear distinctions between ESL 2, 3, and 4 phases may have created some confusion. The recent tendency to reduce the duration of the EB II period to a century or a century and a half at most202 remains hypothetical given the provenience of the samples and the nature of the sequences studied. In any case, it is admissible only if one omits the ESL 3 phase and considers solely the EB II stricto sensu. However, if ‘EB II’ means both the ESL 3 and the ESL 4 (= EB II) phases, it is hardly conceivable to squeeze into a lapse of time of only 100–150 years the entire EBA sequence of occupation at Tell Abu al-Kharaz (at least six strata), Tell el-Fâr‘ah (six strata), ‘Ai, and Jericho, and, in particular, the long sequence of fortification building and rebuilding at, e.g., Tell el-Fâr‘ah, ‘Ai, or Tel Yarmuth.203 For the ESL 3 phase proper, a few radiocarbon dates are available. At Tell es-Sakan, several large clusters of seeds found in well isolated stratigraphic contexts were recovered in both Strata 7 and 6, which I ascribe to the ESL 3 phase. Fourteen radiocarbon dates were obtained on ten samples, with consistent results (no outliers).204 The calibrated age range is between 3300 and 3100 BC, coinciding with a plateau in the calibration curve, which has, in M. Dee’s estimate, “probably elongated the ranges to slightly higherthan-expected ages, and the actual years in which the seeds grew are probably in the 3200–3100 range”. 205 This suggests a possible dating of Narmer’s reign close to the middle or the third quarter of the 32nd century, congruent with the proposed dating of the accession of King Aha (the first king of the 1st Dynasty) to c. 3111–3045 BC (68,2%) or 3218–3035 (94,5%).206 Thus, the Tell es-Sakan radiocarbon dates suggest that the ESL 3 phase could span most of the 3200–3000 BC interval. This suggestion is consistent with other available radiocarbon dates for the ESL 3 phase, notably at Tell Abu al-Kharaz IB (c. 3150–3050),207 Tel Yaqush (end of Late EB IB at “just around 3000 BC”),208 Tel Arad (Strata IV/III transition estimated “after 3100–3050 BC”),209 and it does not conflict with the modeled radiocarbon dates of Megiddo J-4 (3090–2920).210 However, it is in disagreement with the significantly lower dates (3050/3000–2850 BC) proposed by Nigro for the Sultan IIIb1 phase based on a new set of radiocarbon dates for Jericho.211 202

Regev / de Miroschedji / Boaretto, 2012; Regev et al., 2012; 2014: 259; 2017; Rotem et al., 2019: 136–138; Greenberg / Iserlis 2020. 203 De Vaux, 1962: 212–221 and Pl. XVI; Callaway, 1980: 63–146; de Miroschedji, 2018b (Phases 1 and 2). 204 The datings were carried out by M. Dee at the Research Laboratory for Archaeology and History of Art at Oxford University, samples nos. OxA-25517 to 20527. For the dates of Sakan Stratum 7, see Dee et al., 2013, Data Supplement, Table S1. 205 Message from January 24, 2012. 206 Dee et al., 2013. 207 Stadler / Fischer, 2008. 208 Rotem et al., 2019: 138. 209 Regev et al., 2017: 173. 210 Boaretto, 2006: 550–551; Regev et al., 2014: 258. 211 Nigro, 2019; Nigro et al., 2019. Note that Nigro equates Sultan IIIa2 phase (= EB IB or ESL 2) with Dynasty 0 (while the latter is post-EB IB), Sultan IIIb1 phase (= ESL 3) with Dynasty 1 (while the latter is usually considered in its greater part as contemporary with the EB II) and Sultan IIIb2 phase (= EB II) with Dynasty 2 (for which the comparative Egyptian data are meager).

254

P. de Miroschedji

Thus, the time span represented by the combined ESL 3 (transitional EB IB–EB II) and ESL 4 (EB II) phases amounts to more than three centuries, a duration consistent with the stratigraphic observations made on the major EB II sites.

5. Conclusions The EB I–EB II transition is marked in the southern Levant by an intermediate phase (ESL 3 in the ARCANE terminology, or ‘Transitional EB I–EB II’) whose distinctive characteristics have been too often neglected or underestimated. This phase has a specific duration, suggested by both radiocarbon datings and stratigraphic observations (e.g., two strata at Tell Abu al-Kharaz, Jericho, Tell el-Fâr‘ah, Pella, Horvat ‘Illin Taḥtit, Palmahim Quarry). A most significant innovation, heralding the beginning of a new age due to its wide-ranging sociopolitical implications, is the appearance of fortifications and monumental architecture on a few sites, mostly located in the Jordan Valley and the northern area. Some of these fortified sites were soon abandoned at the end of this phase (Tel Shalem, Tel Megiddo), but most continued into the following periods (EB II–III). At the same time, new open settlements were founded, some ephemeral (Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit, Palmahim Quarry), and others to become fortified during the next phase (Tel Yarmuth). This reorganization of the settlement pattern is indicative of a period of transition, marked by profound changes which imply a reshaping of South Levantine society. Concurrently, notable changes affect the ceramic production, with the quick disappearance of wares and pottery types of the preceding EB IB and the development of new features that will become the hallmarks of the EB II–III ceramic production. In the southern Coastal Plain, where the Egyptian involvement was a protracted phenomenon—starting in the Late Chalcolithic, continuing in the EB IA and developing in the EB IB—the ESL 3 phase corresponds to the time when the Egyptian colonial presence reached its zenith, before experiencing a rapid end. All these elements of change testify that this transitional period represents an in-depth transformation of South Levantine society and a prologue to the EB II proper.

References Adams, M. J., 2013a: “The Early Bronze Age Pottery from Area J”. In I. Finkelstein / D. Ussishkin / E. Cline (eds.): Megiddo V: The 2004–2008 Seasons, Volume I. Tel Aviv University Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series No. 31. Tel Aviv. Pp. 47–118. — 2013b: “The Early Bronze Age Pottery from Area J”. In I. Finkelstein / D. Ussishkin / E. Cline (eds.): Megiddo V: The 2004–2008 Seasons, Volume II. Tel Aviv University Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series No. 31. Tel Aviv. Pp. 295–334. — 2017a: “Egypt and the Levant in the Early/Middle Bronze Age Transition”. In F. Höflmayer (ed.): The Late Third Millennium in the Ancient Near East, Chronology, C14 and Climate Change. Oriental Institute Seminars No. 11. Chicago. Pp. 493–515. –– 2017b: The Egyptianized Pottery Cache from Megiddo’s Area J: A Foundation Deposit for Temple 4040. Tel Aviv 44, 141–164. Adams, M. J. / David, J. / Homsher, R. S. / Cohen, M. E., 2014: “The Rise of a Complex Society: New evidence of Tel Megiddo East in the Late Fourth Millennium”. Near Eastern Archaeology 77, 32–43. Adams, M. J. / Finkelstein, I. / Ussishkin, D., 2014: “The Great Temple of Early Bronze I Megiddo”. American Journal of Archaeology 118, 285–305. Albright, W. F., 1965: “Some Remarks on the Archaeological Chronology of Palestine before about 1500 B.C.” In R. W. Ehrich (ed.): Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Chicago. Pp. 47–60. Alon, D. / Yekutieli, Y., 1995: “The Tel Halif Terrace ‘Silo Site’ and its Implications for the Early Bronze Age I”. ‘Atiqot 27, 149–189. Amiran, R., 1969: Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, from Its Beginnings in the Neolithic Period to the End of the Iron Age. Jerusalem-Ramat Gan. Amiran, R. / van den Brink, E. C. M., 2002: “The Ceramic Assemblage from Tel Ma’ahaz, Stratum I (Seasons 1975–1976)”. In E. C. M. van den Brink / T. E. Levy (eds.): Egypt and the Levant. Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium B.C.E. New York. Pp. 273–279.

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

255

Amiran, R. / Gophna, R., 1992: “The Correlation between Lower Egypt and Southern Canaan during the EB I Period”. In E. C. M. van den Brink (ed.): The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th–3rd Millennium B.C. Jerusalem. Pp. 357–360. Amiran, R. / Shiloh, S. / Brown, R. / Tsafrir, Y. / Ben-Tor, A., 1978: Early Arad: The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze City, I: First–Fifth Seasons of Excavations, 1962–1966. Jerusalem. Avrutis, V. W., 2012: Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I Remains at Nesher-Ramla Quarry. Haifa. Avrutis, V. W. / Yannai, E., 2020: “Two Imported Vessels from the Middle Euphrates to the Southern Levant and Their Contribution to the Chronology of the End of the Early Bronze I and the Beginning of Early Bronze II”. In A. Gilboa / A. Yasur-Landau (eds.): Nomads of the Mediterranean: Trade and Contact in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Studies in Honor of Michal Artzy. Leiden / Boston. Pp. 31–53. Baird, D. / Philip, G., 1994: “Preliminary Report on the Third (1993) Season of Excavations at Tell eshShuna North.” Levant 26, 111–133. Bar, S., 2013a: “Shifting Settlement Patterns in the Southern Jordan Valley and Desert Fringes of Samaria during the Early Bronze Age I Period”. PEQ 145, 90–107. — 2013b: The Dawn of the Bronze Age. The Pattern of Settlement in the Lower Jordan Valley and the Desert Fringes of Samaria during the Chalcolithic Period and the Early Bronze Age I. Leiden / Boston. Beck, P., 1985: “An Early Bronze Age ‘Family’ of Bowls from Tel Aphek”. Israel Exploration Journal 12, 17–28. — 2000: “Area B: Pottery”. In M. Kochavi (ed.): Aphek-Antipatris I, Excavation of Areas A and B, the 1972–1976 Seasons. Tel Aviv University Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series No. 19. Tel Aviv. Pp. 93–133. Ben-Shlomo, D., 2012: The Azor Cemetery, Moshe Dothan’s Excavations, 1958 and 1960. IAA Reports 50. Jerusalem. Ben-Tor, A., 1975: Two Burial Caves of the Proto-Urban Period at Azor, 1971: The First Seasons of Excavations at Tell-Yarmuth, 1970. Qedem 1. Jerusalem. Pp. 1–54. — 1992: “The Early Bronze Age”. In A. Ben-Tor (ed.): The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. New Haven / London. Pp. 81–125. Betts, A. V. G. (ed.), 1992: Excavations at Tell Um Hammad. The Early Assemblages (EB I–II). Edinburgh. Boaretto, E., 2006: “Radiocarbon Dates”. In I. Finkelstein / D. Ussishkin / B. Halpern (eds.): Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Seasons, Volume I. Tel Aviv University Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series No. 24. Tel Aviv. Pp. 550–557. Bourke, S. J., 2015: “Urban Origins in the Early Bronze Age Jordan Valley: Recent Discoveries from Pella in Jordan”. Orient-Archäologie 31, 3–18. Brandl, B., 1989: “Observations on the Early Bronze Age Strata of Tel Erani”. In P. de Miroschedji (ed.): L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze Ancien : Bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles. Actes du Colloque d’Emmaüs (20–24 octobre 1986). B.A.R. International Series 527 (ii). Oxford. Pp. 357–387. Braun, E., 1985: En Shadud. Salvage Excavations at a Farming community in the Jezreel Valley, Israel. BAR International Series 249. Oxford. — 1996a: Cultural Diversity and Change in the Early Bronze Age I of Israel and Jordan: Towards an Understanding of Patterns of Regionalism and the Chronological Progression of Early Bronze Age I Society. PhD dissertation. Tel Aviv University. — 1996b: “Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Me‘ona: Final Report”. ‘Atiqot 28, 1–31. — 1997: Yiftah’el: Salvage and Rescue Excavations at a Prehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel. IAA Reports 2. Jerusalem. — 2000: “Post-Mortem: A Late Prehistoric Site at Palmahim Quarry”. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 18, 17–30. — 2004a: “More Evidence for Early Bronze Age Glyptics from the Southern Levant”. Levant 36, 13–30. — 2004b: Early Beth Shan (Strata xix–xiii): G. M. Fitzgerald’s Deep Cut on the Tell. Philadelphia. — 2008: “‘Illin Taḥtit, Ḥorvat”. In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Volume 5 (Supplementary Volume). Jerusalem / Washington. Pp. 1789–1790.

256

P. de Miroschedji

— 2009: “South Levantine Early Bronze Age Chronological Correlations with Egypt in Light of the Narmer Serekhs from Tel Erani: New interpretations”. British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 13, 26–48. — 2010: “The Early Bronze Age Site of Me‘ona in the Western Galilee”. ‘Atiqot 62, 2–15. — 2012: “On Some South Levantine Early Bronze Age Ceramic ‘Wares’ and Styles”. PEQ 144, 5–32. — 2013: Early Megiddo on the East Slope (The “Megiddo Stages”). A Report on the Early Occupation of the East Slope of Megiddo, Results of the Oriental Institute’s Excavations, 1925–1933. Oriental Institute Publications 139. Chicago. — 2016a: “Observations on the South Levantine EB1 and the Erani C Horizon: A Rejoinder to Gophna and Paz”. Strata: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 34, 191–211. — 2016b: “Preliminary Comments on the Ceramic Assemblage of Area D-3 (Sub-Areas D-3H and 3DL)”. In K. M. Ciałowicz / Y. Yekutieli / M. Czarnowicz (eds.): Tel Erani I, Preliminary Report of the 2013–2015 Excavations. Kraków. Pp. 65–74. Braun, E. / van den Brink, E. C. M., 1998: “Some Comments on the Late EB I Sequence of Canaan and the Relative Dating of Tomb Uj at Umm el Ga‘ab and Graves 313 and 787 from Minshat Abu Omar with Imported Ware: Views from Egypt and Canaan”. Ägypten und Levante 7, 71–94. — 2008: “Appraising South Levantine-Egyptian Interaction: Recent Discoveries from Israel and Egypt”. In B. Midant-Reynes / Y Tristant (eds.): Egypt at its Origins 2. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 172. Leuven / Paris / Walpole, MA. Pp. 643–675. Braun, E. / van den Brink, E. C. M. / Gophna, R. / Goren, Y., 2001: “New Evidence for Egyptian Connections during a Late Phase of Early Bronze I from the Soreq Basin in South-Central Israel”. In S. R. Wolff (ed.): Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization No. 59 and American Schools of Oriental Research Book No. 5. Chicago. Pp. 58–92. van den Brink, E. C. M., 1995: “The ‘En Besor Cylinder Seal Impressions in Retrospect”. In R. Gophna, Excavations at ‘En Besor. Tel Aviv. Pp. 201–214. — 2002: “An Egyptian Presence at the End of the Late Early Bronze Age I at Tel Lod, Central Coastal Plain, Israel”. In E. C. M. van den Brink / T. E. Levy (eds.): Egypt and the Levant – Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium BCE. London / New York. Pp. 286–305. van den Brink, E. C. M. / Braun, E., 2002: “Wine Jars with serekhs from Early Bronze Lod: Appellation Vallée du Nil Contrôlée, but from Whom?” In E. C. M. van den Brink / E. Yannai (eds.): In Quest of Ancient Settlements and Landscapes, Archaeological Studies in Honour of Ram Gophna. Tel Aviv. Pp. 167–192. van den Brink, E. C. M. / Horwitz, L. K. / Kool, R. / Liphschitz, N. / Mienis, H. K. / Zbenovitch, V., 2015: “Excavations at Lod: Remains from the Pottery Neolithic A, Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age I, Middle Bronze Age I and Byzantine Periods”. ‘Atiqot 82, 141–218. Callaway, J. A., 1964: Pottery from the Tombs at ‘Ai (Et-Tell). Colt Archæological Institute Monograph Series 2. London. — 1972: The Early Bronze Age Sanctuary at ‘Ai (et-Tell). No.1. A Report of the Joint Archæological Expedition to ‘Ai (et-Tell). London. — 1980: The Early Bronze Age Citadel and Lower City at ‘Ai (et-Tell). No. 2. A Report of the Joint Archaeological Expedition to ‘Ai (et-Tell). AASOR Excavations Reports. Cambridge, Mass. Ciałowicz, K. M. / Yekutieli, Y. / Dȩbowska-Ludwin, J. / Rosińska-Balik, K. / Czarnowicz, M., 2014: “Erani C Pottery in Egypt”. In A. Maczinska (ed.): The Nile Delta as a Centre of Cultural Interactions between Upper Egypt and the Southern Levant in the 4th millennium BC. Studies in African Archaeology 13. Poznań. Pp. 95–104. Czarnowicz, M., 2016: “Egyptian Pottery of Erani Area D-3”. In K. M. Ciałowicz / Y. Yekutieli / M. Czarnowicz (eds.): Tel Erani I, Preliminary Report of the 2013–2015 Excavations. Kraków. Pp. 74–84. Czarnowicz, M. / Yekutieli, Y. / Ochał-Czarnowicz, A. / Pasternak, M. D., 2016: “The Excavations of Area D-3”. In K. M. Ciałowicz / Y. Yekutieli / M. Czarnowicz (eds.): Tel Erani I, Preliminary Report of the 2013–2015 Excavations. Kraków. Pp. 27–43.

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

257

Dee, M. / Wengrow, D. / Shortland, A. / Stevenson, A. / Brock, F. / Flink, L. G. / Bronk Ramsey, C., 2013: An Absolute Chronology for Early Egypt Using Radiocarbon Dating and Bayesian Modeling”. Proceedings of Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 469, 1–10. Dothan, M., 1970: “A Burial Cave near Tel Esur”. In Y. Na‘aman (ed.): The Menashe Region II. Hadera. Pp. 1–16. (Hebrew) Eisenberg, E., 1996: “Tel Shalem – Soundings in a Fortified Site of the Early Bronze Age Ib”. ‘Atiqot 30, 1–24. Eisenberg, E. / Greenberg, R., 2006: “Area EY: The Eisenberg-Yogev Excavations, 1981–1982, 1985– 1986”. In R. Greenberg / E. Eisenberg / S. Paz / Y. Paz (eds.): Beth Yerah, The Early Bronze Age Mound, Volume I, Excavation Reports, 1933–1986. IAA Reports 30. Jerusalem. Pp. 339–468. Eisenberg, E. / Rotem, Y., 2016: “The Early Bronze Age IB Pottery Assemblage from Tel Kitan, Central Jordan Valley”. IEJ 66, 1–33. Elad, I. / Paz, Y., 2018: “‘En Esur (Asawir)”. HA-ESI 130. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_ eng.aspx?id=25453&mag_id=126 Engberg, R. M. / Shipton, G. M., 1934: Notes on the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Pottery of Megiddo. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 10. Chicago. Esse, D. L., 1984: “A Chronological Mirage: Reflections on Early Bronze IC in Palestine”. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 43, 317–330. — 1991: Subsistence, Trade, and Social Change in Early Bronze Age Palestine. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 50. Chicago. Faust, A. / Ashkenazy, Y., 2009: “Settlement Fluctuations and Environmental Changes in Israel’s Coastal Plain During the Early Bronze Age”. Levant 41, 19–39. Finkelstein, I. / Ussishkin, D., 2003: “The Cache of Egyptianized Pottery Vessels from Early Bronze Age Megiddo”. Tel Aviv 30, 27–41. — 2006: “Two Notes on Early Bronze Age Megiddo”. In A. M. Maeir / P. de Miroschedji (eds.):“I Will Speak the Riddle of Ancient Times”. Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Winona Lake, Indiana. Pp. 7–23. Fischer, P. M., 2002: “Egyptian–Transjordanian Interaction during Predynastic and Protodynastic Times: The Evidence from Tell Abu al-Kharaz, Jordan Valley”. In E. C. M. van den Brink / T. E. Levy (eds.): Egypt and the Levant – Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium BC. London / New York. Pp. 323–333. — 2008: Tell Abu al-Kharaz in the Jordan Valley. Volume I: The Early Bronze Age. Österreichische Akademie des Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie, Band XLVIII. Wien. — 2015: “Primary Early Bronze Age Contexts from Tell Abu al-Kharaz, Jordan Valley”. OrientArchäologie 31, 19–56. Fischer, P. M. / Toivonen-Skage, E., 1995: “Metallic Burnished Early Bronze Age Ware from Tell Abū alKharaz”. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 5, 587–596. Fitzgerald, G. M., 1935 : “The Earliest Pottery of Beth-Shan”. The Museum Journal (University of Pennsylvania) 24, 5–22. — 1936: “Pottery of the Early Bronze Age”. In J. Garstang: “Jericho: City and Necropolis. Sixth Report”. Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 23, 91–100. Garstang, J., 1935: “Jericho: City and Necropolis. Fifth Report”. Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 22, 143–184. — 1936: “Jericho: City and Necropolis. Sixth Report”. Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 23, 67– 100. Genz, H., 2002: Die frühbronzezeitliche Keramik von Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn. Mit Studien zur Chronologie und funktionalen Deutung frühbronzezeitlicher Keramik in der südlichen Levante. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins Band 27(2). Wiesbaden. Getzov, N., 2006: The Tel Beth Yerah Excavations 1994–1995. IAA Reports No. 28. Jerusalem. Getzov, N. / Paz, Y. / Gophna, R., 2001: Shifting Urban Landscapes during the Early Bronze Age in the Land of Israel. Tel Aviv.

258

P. de Miroschedji

Gibbins, S., 2008: “The Role of Monumental Architecture in Social Transformation: Pella and the EB I/II Transition”. In H. Kühne / R. M. Czichon / F. J. Kreppner (eds.): Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Volume 1. Wiesbaden. Pp. 377–390. Golani, A., 2003: Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat Ata. IAA Reports 18. Jerusalem. — 2013. “Rescue Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat Ata – Area O”. ‘Atiqot 75, 27–60. Gophna, R., 1995: Excavations at ‘En Besor. Tel Aviv. Gophna, R. / van den Brink, E. C. M., 2005: “The Early Bronze Age I Pottery”. In E. C. M. van den Brink / R. Gophna: Shoham (North), Late Chalcolithic Burial Caves in the Lod Valley, Israel. IAA Reports 27. Jerusalem. Pp. 99–105. Gophna, R. / Iron-Lubin, M., 1996: “The Pottery Assemblages”. In R. Gophna (ed.): Excavations at Tel Dalit: An Early Bronze Age Walled Town in Central Israel. Tel Aviv. Pp. 81–134. Gophna, R. / Paz, Y., 2011: “Tell Qudadi and Tel Gerisah: Two Early Bronze Age III Sites on the Yarkon River”. Tel Aviv 38, 42–51. — 2014: “From Village to Town to Village Again: Settlement Dynamics in the Central Coastal Plain and Adjacent Shephelah from the Late Early Bronze Age I to Early Bronze Age III”. Strata: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 32, 13–35. — 2017: “Excavations at Rishpon 4, Tel Aviv (1978–1990)”. In A. Gopher / R. Gophna / R. Eyal / Y. Paz (eds.): Jacob Kaplan’s Excavations of Protohistoric Sites, 1950s–1980s, Volume II. Tel Aviv University Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 36. Tel Aviv. Pp. 627–642. Gophna, R. / Paz, Y. / Taxel, I., 2010: “Al-Maghar – An Early Bronze Age Walled Town in the Lower Soreq Valley and the EB I–II Sequence in the Central Coastal Plain of Israel”. Strata, Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 28, 9–37. Gophna, R. / Portugali, Y., 1988: “Settlement and Demographic Processes in Israel’s Coastal Plain from the Chalcolithic to the Middle Bronze Age”. BASOR 269, 11–28. Gorzalczany, A. / Sharvit, J., 2010: “An Early Bronze Age Tomb of the ‘Common People’ (?) in the ‘En Esur (‘Ein Asawir) Cemetery”. ‘Atiqot 64, 85–112. Greenberg, R., 1996: “The Early Bronze Age Levels”. In A. Biran / D. Ilan / R. Greenberg (eds.): Dan I: A Chronicle of the Excavations, the Pottery Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age, and the Middle Bronze Age Tombs. Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion. Jerusalem. Pp. 83–160. — 2001: “Pottery of Stratum III, the Early Bronze Age II”. In E. Eisenberg / A. Gopher / R. Greenberg (eds.): Tel Te’o, A Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley. IAA Reports 13. Jerusalem. Pp. 133–138. — 2006: “Notes on the Early Bronze Age Pottery (the 1998–2000 Seasons)”. In I. Finkelstein / D. Ussishkin / B. Halpern (eds.): Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Seasons, Volume I. Tel Aviv University Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series No. 24. Tel Aviv. Pp. 149–165. — 2007: “Early Bronze Age Megiddo and Bet Shean: Discontinuous Settlement in Sociopolitical Context”. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16, 17–32. — 2019: The Archaeology of the Bronze Age Levant, From Urban Origins to the Demise of City-States, 3700–1000 BCE. Cambridge. Greenberg, R. / Eisenberg, E. / Paz, S. / Paz, Y., 2006: Beth Yerah, The Early Bronze Age Mound, Volume I, Excavation Reports, 1933–1986. IAA Reports 30. Jerusalem. Greenberg, R. / Iserlis, M., 2014: “The Early Bronze Age Pottery Industries”. In R. Greenberg (ed.): Beth Yerah, The Early Bronze Age Mound, Volume II, Urban Structure and Material Culture, 1933–1986 Excavations. IAA Reports 54. Jerusalem. Pp. 53–149. — 2020: “A Note on First Dynasty Egypt, Tel Bet Yerah, and the Origins of Commodity Exchange on the Levantine Seaboard”. Journal of Mediterranean Interconnections 27: 38–50. Greenberg, R. / Paz, S., 2014: “Early Bronze Age Architecture, Function and Planning”. In R. Greenberg (ed.): Beth Yerah, The Early Bronze Age Mound, Volume II, Urban Structure and Material Culture, 1933–1986 Excavations. IAA Reports 54. Jerusalem. Pp. 15–52.

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

259

Greenberg, R. / Paz, Y., 2005: “The Early Bronze Age Fortifications at Tel Beth Yerah”. Levant 37, 81– 103. Greenberg, R. / Porat, N., 1996: “A Third Millennium Levantine Pottery Production Center: Typology, Petrography and Provenience of the Metallic Ware of Northern Israel and Adjacent Region”. BASOR 301, 5–24. Greenberg, R. / Rotem, Y. / Paz, S., 2013: “The Earliest Occupation at Tel Beth Yerah”. Tel Aviv 40, 197– 225. Hennessy, J. B., 1967: The Foreign Relations of Palestine during the Early Bronze Age. London. Herzog, Z., 1986. Das Stadttor in Israel und in den Nachbarländern. Mainz-am-Rhein. Huot, J.-L., 1967. “Typologie et chronologie relative de la céramique du Bronze ancien de Tell el-Fâr‘ah”. Revue Biblique 74, 517–554. Ilan, O., / Goren, Y., 2003: “The Egyptianized Pottery Vessels of Early Bronze Age Megiddo”. Tel Aviv 30, 42–53. Joffe, A., 1993. Settlement and Society in the Early Bronze Age I and II, Southern Levant. Complementarity and Contradiction in a Small-scale Complex Society, Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 4. Sheffield. — 2000: “The Early Bronze Age Pottery from Area J”. In I. Finkelstein / D. Ussishkin / B. Halpern (eds.): Megiddo III, The 1992–1996 Seasons, Volume I. Tel Aviv. Pp. 161–185. Kansa, E. C., 2001: Smitten by Narmer: Ethnicity, Economy and Trade in the 4th Millennium BCE Egyptian Presence in the Southern Levant. PhD dissertation. Harvard University. Kansa, E. C. / Levy, T. E., 2002: “Ceramics, Identity, and the Role of the State: The View from Nahal Tillah”. In E. C. M. van den Brink / T. E. Levy (eds.): Egypt and the Levant – Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium BCE. London / New York. Pp. 190–212. Kempinski, A., 1978: The Rise of an Urban Culture, The Urbanization of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age (3000–2150 B.C.). Israel Ethnographic Society Studies 4. Jerusalem. — 1992: “Fortifications, Public Buildings, and Town Planning in the Early Bronze Age”. In A. Kempinski / R. Reich (eds.): The Architecture of Ancient Israel, from the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods. Jerusalem. Pp. 68–80. Kenyon, K. M., 1960a: Archaeology in the Holy Land. London. — 1960b: Excavations at Jericho. Volume One: The Tombs Excavated in 1952–4. London. Kenyon, K. M., / Holland, T. A., 1982: Excavations at Jericho. Volume IV. The Pottery Type Series and Others Finds. London. Lapp, P. W., 1970: “Palestine in the Early Bronze Age”. In J. A. Sanders (ed.): Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century, Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck. New York. Pp. 101–131. Lebeau, M., with a contribution by A. Pruß, 2011: “Introduction”. In M. Lebeau (ed.): ARCANE (Associated Regional Chronologies of the Ancient Near East), Vol. I, Jezirah. Turnhout. Pp. 1–17. Levy, T. E. / Alon, D. / Smith, P. / Yekutieli, Y. / Rowan, Y. / Goldberg, P. / Porat, N. / van den Brink, E. C. M. / Witten, A. J. / Golden, J. / Grigson, C. / Kansa, E. / Dawson, L. / Holl, A. / Moreno, J. / Kersel, M., 1997: “Egyptian-Canaanite Interaction at Nahal Tillah, Israel (ca. 4500–3000 B.C.E.): An Interim Report on the 1994–1995 Excavations”. BASOR 307, 1–51. Loud, G., 1948: Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–1939, 2 vols. Oriental Institute Publications 62. Chicago. Mabry, J. B., 1996: “Early Town Development and Water Management in the Jordan Valley: Investigations at Tell el-Handaquq North”. AASOR 53, 115–154. Marchetti, N. / Nigro, L., 2000: Excavations at Jericho, 1998. Preliminary Report on the Second Season of Archaeological Excavations and Surveys at Tell es-Sultan, Palestine. Quaderni di Gerico 2. Roma. Mazar, A., 2012: “Introduction and Synthesis”. In A. Mazar (ed.): Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989– 1996. Volume IV. The 4th and 3rd millennium BCE. Jerusalem. Pp. 1–33. Mazar, A. / Miroschedji, P. de, 1996: “Hartuv, an Aspect of the Early Bronze Age Culture of Southern Israel”. BASOR 302, 1–40. Milevski, I., 2011: Early Bronze Age Goods Exchange in the Southern Levant, A Marxist Perspective. London / Oakville.

260

P. de Miroschedji

Milevski, I. / Campagno, M. / Gandulla, B. / Jaruf, P. / Belén Daizo, M. / Czarnowicz, M. / OchalCzarnowicz, A. / Karmowski, J. / Yegorov, D. / Cohen-Sasson, E. / Yekutieli, Y., 2019: “Tel Erani, Israel: Reporte de la campaña arqueológica de 2018 y sus antecedents”. Rihao 20, 5–22. Milevski, I. / Yegorov, D. / Aladjem, E. / Pasternak, M. D., 2016: “Salvage Excavations at Tel Erani, Areas P to U, Preliminary Report”. In K. M. Ciałowicz / Y. Yekutieli / M. Czarnowicz (eds.): Tel Erani I, Preliminary Report of the 2013–2015 Excavations. Kraków. Pp. 45–57. Miroschedji, P. de, 1971: L’époque pré-urbaine en Palestine. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 13. Paris. — 1976: Contribution à l’étude de l’urbanisation en Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien, 2 volumes. Doctoral thesis. Université de Paris I. — 1988: Rapport sur les trois premières campagnes de fouilles à Tel Yarmouth (Israël) 1980–1982. Paris. — 1989: “Le processus d’urbanisation en Palestine au Bronze ancien: chronologie et rythmes”. In P. de Miroschedji (ed.): L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien, bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles. Actes du Colloque d’Emmaüs (20–24 octobre 1986). Part I. BAR International Series 527(i). Oxford. Pp. 62–79. — 1993: “Tell el-Fâr‘ah (Neolithic-Middle Bronze)”. In E. Stern (ed.): The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Volume 2. Jerusalem. Pp. 433–438. — 2002: “The Socio-Political Dynamics of Egyptian-Canaanite Interaction in the Early Bronze Age”. In E. C. M. van den Brink / T. E. Levy (eds.): Egypt and the Levant – Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium BCE. London / New York. Pp. 39–57. — 2003: “Susa and the Highlands: Major Trends in the History of Elamite Civilization”. In N. F. Miller / K. Abdi (eds), Yeki bud, yeki nabud, Essays on the Archaeology of Iran in Honor of William Sumner. Los Angeles. Pp. 16–38. –– 2006: “At the Dawn of History: Sociopolitical Developments in Southwestern Canaan in Early Bronze Age III”. In A. Maeir / P. de Miroschedji (eds.), “I Will Speak the Riddle of Ancient Times”, Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, Volume One. Winona Lake, Indiana. Pp. 55–78. — 2014: “The Southern Levant (Cisjordan) during the Early Bronze Age”. In A. Killebrew / M. Steiner (eds): The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant, c. 8000–332 BCE. Oxford. Pp. 307–329. — 2015: “Les relations entre l’Égypte et le Levant aux IVe et IIIe millénaires à la lumière des fouilles de Tell es-Sakan”. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres avril–juin 2015, 1003– 1038. — 2018a: “The Urbanization of the Southern Levant in Its Near Eastern Setting”. Origini 42, 109–148. — 2018b: “The Early Bronze Age Fortifications at Tel Yarmut – an Update”. Eretz-Israel 33, 142*–162*. — 2018c: “Metrology and Early Bronze Age Urbanization in the Southern Levant: Some Additional Notes”. In I. Shai / J. R. Chadwick / L. Hitchcock / A. Dagan / C. McKinny / J. Uziel (eds.): Tell it in Gath, Studies in the History and Archaeology of Israel, Essays in Honor of Aren M. Maeir in the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. Ägypten und Altes Testament 90. Münster. Pp. 2–19. — 2020: “Monumental Architecture and Sociopolitical Developments in the Southern Levant of the Early Bronze Age”. In S. Richard (ed.): New Horizons in the Study of the Early Bronze III and Early Bronze IV in the Levant. Winona Lake, Indiana. Pp. 169–194. Miroschedji, P. de / Sadeq, M. / Faltings, D. / Boulez, V. / Naggiar-Moliner, L. / Sykes, N. / Tengberg, M., 2001: “Les fouilles de Tell es-Sakan (Gaza): nouvelles données sur les contacts égypto-cananéens aux IVe et IIIe millénaires”. Paléorient 27, 75–104. Nigro, L. (with contributions by M. Sala), 2010: Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Early Bronze II (3000–2700 BC): The Rise of an Early Palestinian City. A synthesis of the Results of Four Archaeological Expeditions. ROSAPAT (Rome «La Sapienza» Studies in the Archaeology of Palestine and Transjordan) 5. Rome. — 2019: “Archaeological Periodization vs Absolute Chronology: What Does Not Work With High and Low Early Bronze Age in Southern Levant”. In E. Gallo (ed.): Conceptualizing Urban Experiences, Tell es-Sultan and Tall al-Ḥammām Early Bronze Age Cities across the Jordan. ROSAPAT (Rome «La Sapienza» Studies in the Archaeology of Palestine and Transjordan) 13. Rome. Pp. 1–46.

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

261

Nigro, L. / Calcagnile, L. / Yasin, J. / Gallo, E. / Quarta, G., 2019: “Jericho and the Chronology of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age: A Radiometric Re-Assessment”. Radiocarbon 61, 211–241. Nigro, L. / Montanari, D. / Mura, F. / Yasine, J. / Rinaldi, T., 2018: “A hoard of Nilotic nacreous shells from Egypt to Jericho (Early Bronze II, 3000–2800 BCE). Their Finding, Content and Historical Archaeological Implications”. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 150, 110–125. Paz, S., 2006: “Area SA: The Stekelis–Avi-Yonah Excavations (Circles Building), 1945–1946”. In Greenberg, R. / Eisenberg, E. / Paz, S. / Paz, Y., 2006: Beth Yerah, The Early Bronze Age Mound, Volume I, Excavation Reports, 1933–1986. IAA Reports 30. Jerusalem. Pp. 53–103. Paz, S. / Greenberg, R., 2016: “Conceiving the City: Streets and Incipient Urbanism at Early Bronze Age Bet Yerah”. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 29, 197–223. Paz, Y., 2002: “Fortified Settlements of the EB IB and the Emergence of the First Urban System”. Tel Aviv 29, 238–261. — 2006: “Area UN: The Ussishkin-Netzer Excavations, 1967”. In Greenberg, R. / Eisenberg, E. / Paz, S. / Paz, Y., 2006: Beth Yerah, The Early Bronze Age Mound, Volume I, Excavation Reports, 1933–1986. IAA Reports 30. Jerusalem. Pp. 277–338. — 2010: “‘Last but not Lost’, New Vistas on Ceramics of the Proto-Urban Horizon (Latest EB IB) – Evidence from a Small Site at the Central Coast of the Land of Israel”. In P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, L. Nigro and N. Marchetti (eds.): Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Vol. I. Wiesbaden. Pp. 899–912. Paz, Y. / Greenberg, R., 2006: “Area BF: The Bar-Adon Excavations on the Fortifications, 1952–1955”. In Greenberg, R. / Eisenberg, E. / Paz, S. / Paz, Y., 2006: Beth Yerah, The Early Bronze Age Mound, Volume I, Excavation Reports, 1933–1986. IAA Reports 30. Jerusalem. Pp. 235–275. Paz, Y. / Rosenberg, D. / Nativ, A., 2005: “Excavations at Lod: Neolithic and Chalcolithic Remains and an Egyptian Presence in the Early Bronze Age”. Salvage Excavation Reports 2, 114–158. Paz, Y. / Segal, O. / Nadelman, Y., 2018: “Khirbat Abu Ḥamid (Shoham North): An Early Bronze Age IB Village on the Eve of Urbanization in the Lod Valley”. ‘Atiqot 91, 105–157. Paz, Y. / Shoval, S. / Zlatkin, O., 2009: “Canaanite EB IB ‘Proto-Metallic Ware’; the Earliest Production of Ceramic ‘Metallic Ware’ in the Land of Israel”. Leiden Journal of Pottery Studies 25, 163–188. Paz, Y. / Uziel, J., 2016: “The Early Bronze Age at Tel Nagila”. PEQ 148, 161–187. Porat, N., 1996: “Appendix B: “Egyptian” Pottery from Hartuv: A Petrographic Description”. BASOR 302, 34–35. Rast, W. E. / Schaub, R. T., 2003: Bâb edh-Dhra‘, Excavations at the Town Site (1975–1981). Part 1: Text. Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan, Vol. 2. Winona Lake, Indiana. Regev, J. / Finkelstein, I. / Adams, M. J. / Boaretto, E., 2014: “Wiggle-Matched 14C Chronology of Early Bronze Age Megiddo and the Synchronization of Egyptian and Levantine Chronologies”. Ägypten und Levante 24, 243–266. Regev, J. / Miroschedji, P. de / Boaretto, E., 2012: “Early Bronze Age Chronology: Radiocarbon Dates and Chronological Models from Tel Yarmuth (Israel)”. Radiocarbon 54, 505–524. Regev, J. / Miroschedji, P. de / Greenberg, R. / Braun, E. / Greenhut, Z. / Boaretto, E., 2012: “Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: New Analysis for a High Chronology”. Radiocarbon 54, 525–566. Regev, J. / Regev, L. / Mintz, E. / Boaretto, E., 2017: “Radiocarbon Assessment of Early Bronze Age Arad: The 20 Year Lifespan of Stratum II”. Tel Aviv 44, 165–177. Rotem, Y., 2012: “The Early Bronze Age IB Pottery from Strata M-3 and M-2”. In A. Mazar (ed.): Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996. Volume IV. The 4th and 3rd millennium BCE. Jerusalem. Pp. 123–235. — 2015: The Central Jordan Valley in the Early Bronze Age I and the Transition to Early Bronze Age II: Patterns and Processes in a Complex Village Society. PhD Dissertation. Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew) Rotem, Y. / Iserlis, M. / Höflmayer, F. / Rowan, Y. M., 2019: “Tel Yaqush–An Early Bronze Age Village in the Central Jordan Valley, Israel”. BASOR 381, 107–144.

262

P. de Miroschedji

Sala, M., 2010a: “EB II pottery materials from the Spring Hill”. In L. Nigro (with contributions by M. Sala): Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Early Bronze II (3000–2700 BC): The Rise of an Early Palestinian City. A synthesis of the Results of Four Archaeological Expeditions. ROSAPAT (Rome «La Sapienza» Studies in the Archaeology of Palestine and Transjordan) 5. Rome. Pp. 62–73. — 2010b: “EB II pottery materials from the southern dwelling quarters”. In L. Nigro (with contributions by M. Sala): Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Early Bronze II (3000–2700 BC): The Rise of an Early Palestinian City. A synthesis of the Results of Four Archaeological Expeditions. ROSAPAT (Rome «La Sapienza» Studies in the Archaeology of Palestine and Transjordan) 5. Rome. Pp. 110–207. — 2010c: “Early Bronze II pottery productions at Tell es-Sultan”. In L. Nigro (with contributions by M. Sala): Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Early Bronze II (3000–2700 BC): The Rise of an Early Palestinian City. A synthesis of the Results of Four Archaeological Expeditions. ROSAPAT (Rome «La Sapienza» Studies in the Archaeology of Palestine and Transjordan) 5. Rome. Pp. 253–323. Schaub, R. T. / Rast, W. E., 1989: Bâb edh-Dhrâ', Excavations in the Cemetery Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965-67). Reports of the Expedition of the Dead Sea Plain, Vol. I. Winona Lake, Indiana. Shipton, G. M., 1939: The Pottery of Megiddo Strata VI to XX. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilisation 17. Chicago. Stadler, P. / Fischer, P. M., 2008: “Radiocarbon Datings”. In Fischer, P. M., Tell Abu al-Kharaz in the Jordan Valley. Volume I: The Early Bronze Age, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie, Band XLVIII. Wien. Pp. 323–327. Stager, L. E., 1992: “The Periodization of Palestine from Neolithic Through Early Bronze Times”. In R. W. Ehrich (ed.): Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Third Edition, Chicago. Pp. 22–41. Tubb, J. N., 1998: The Canaanites, London. Tubb, J. N. / Dorrell, P. G. / Cobbings, F. J., 1996: “Interim Report on the Eighth (1995) Season of Excavations at Tell es-Saʿidiyeh, Jordan”. PEQ 128, 16–40. — 1997: “Interim Report on the Ninth (1996) Season of Excavations at Tell es-Saʿidiyeh, Jordan”. PEQ 129, 54–77. Tufnell, O., 1958: Lachish IV (Tell ed-Duweir), The Bronze Age. London / New York / Toronto. Ussishkin, D., 2013: “Comments on the Early Bronze Age Cultic Compound, 1992–2010”. In I. Finkelstein / D. Ussishkin / E. Cline (eds.): Megiddo V: The 2004–2008 Seasons, Volume III. Tel Aviv University Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series No. 31. Tel Aviv. Pp. 1317–1328. — 2015: “The Sacred Area of Early Bronze Megiddo: History and Interpretation”. BASOR 373, 69–104. –– 2018: Was the Egyptianized Pottery Cache from Megiddo a Foundation Deposit of Megaron Temple 4040? Response to Matthew J. Adams. Tel Aviv 45, 216–223. Vaux, R. de, 1951 : “La troisième campagne de fouilles à Tell el-Fâr‘ah, près Naplouse”. Revue Biblique 58, 393–430, 566–590. — 1952: “La quatrième campagne de fouilles à Tell el-Fâr‘ah, près Naplouse”. Revue Biblique 59, 551– 583 — 1955: “Les fouilles de Tell el-Fâr‘ah, près Naplouse. Cinquième campagne, rapport préliminaire”. Revue biblique 62, 541–589. — 1957: “Les fouilles de Tell el-Fâr‘ah, près Naplouse. Sixième campagne, rapport préliminaire”. Revue Biblique 64, 552–580. — 1961: “Les fouilles de Tell el-Fâr‘ah. Rapport préliminaire sur les 7e, 8e, 9e campagnes, 1958–1960”. Revue Biblique 68, 557–592. — 1962: “Les fouilles de Tell el-Fâr‘ah. Rapport préliminaire sur les 7e, 8e, 9e campagnes, 1958–1960 (suite)”. Revue Biblique 68, 212–253. — 1971a: “Palestine during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods”. In I. E. S. Edwards / C. J. Gadd / N. G. L. Hammond (eds.): Cambridge Ancient History, Revised Edition, Vol. I, Part 1: Chapter IXb (originally published in 1966). Cambridge. Pp. 499–538. — 1971b: “Palestine in the Early Bronze Age”. In Cambridge Ancient History, Revised Edition, Vol. I, Part 2: Chapter XV (originally published in 1966). Cambridge. Pp. 208–237.

The EB I–II Transition in the Southern Levant

263

Vaux, R. de / Stève, A. M., 1947: “La première campagne de fouilles à Tell el-Fâr‘ah, près Naplouse”. Revue Biblique 54, 394–433. — 1948: “La seconde campagne de fouilles à Tell el-Fâr‘ah, près Naplouse”. Revue Biblique 55, 544–580. — 1949: “La seconde campagne de fouilles à Tell el-Fâr‘ah, près Naplouse (suite)”. Revue Biblique 56, 544–580. Wright, G. E., 1937: The Pottery of Palestine from the Earliest Times to the End of the Early Bronze Age. New Haven, Connecticut. — 1958: “The Problem of the Transition Between the Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age”. Eretz-Israel 5, 37–45. — 1961: “The Archaeology of Palestine”. In G. E. Wright (ed.): The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. New York. Pp. 73–112. — 1971: “The Archaeology of Palestine from the Neolithic through the Middle Bronze Age”. Journal of the American Oriental Society 91, 276–293. Yadin, Y. / Aharoni, Y. / Amiran, R. / Dothan, T. / Dothan, M. / Dunayevsky, I. / Perrot, J., 1961: Hazor III-IV, An Account of the Third and Fourth Season of Excavations 1957–1958. Jerusalem. Yannai, E., 1996: “A Tomb of the Early Bronze Age I and Intermediate Bronze Age near Tel Esur (Assawir)”. ‘Atiqot 30, 1*–16*, 125. — 2002: Imported Finds from the ‘Ein Assawir Tombs (Israel) and Their Significance in Understanding the Chronological Synchronization between Israel, Egypt and Eastern Anatolia”. In E. C. M. van den Brink / T. E. Levy (eds.): Egypt and the Levant – Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium BCE. London / New York. Pp. 334–345. Yannai, E. / Braun, E., 2001: “Anatolian and Egyptian Imports from Late EB I at Ain Asawir, Israel”. BASOR 321, 41–56. Yannai, E. / Lazar-Shorer, D. / Grosinger, Z., 2006: “The Pottery Assemblages”. In E. Yannai: ‘En Esur (‘Ein Asawir), Excavations at a Protohistoric Site in the Coastal Plain of Israel. IAA Reports 31. Jerusalem. Pp. 63–178. Yeivin, S., 1961: First Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tel “Gat” (Tell Sheykh ‘Ahmed el‘Areyny), Seasons 1956–1958. Jerusalem. Yekutieli, Y., 2000: “Early Bronze Age I Pottery in Southwestern Canaan”. In G. Philip / D. Baird (eds): Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Sheffield. Pp. 129–152. — 2004: “The Desert, the Sown and the Egyptian Colony”. Ägypten und Levante 14: 163–171. — 2006: “The Ceramics of Tel ‘Erani, Layer C”. Journal of the Serbian Archaeological Society 22, 225– 242. — 2016: “Analysis of Previous Excavations at Area D”. In K. M. Ciałowicz / Y. Yekutieli / M. Czarnowicz (eds.): Tel Erani I, Preliminary Report of the 2013–2015 Excavations. Kraków. Pp. 16–25. Zuckerman, S., 2003a: “The Early Bronze Age I Pottery”. In A. Ben-Tor / R. Bonfil / S. Zuckerman: Tel Qashish, A Village in the Jezreel Valley: Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1978–1987). Qedem Reports 5. Jerusalem. Pp. 35–56. — 2003b: “Tel Qashish in the Early Bronze Age I”. In A. Ben-Tor / R. Bonfil / S. Zuckerman: Tel Qashish, A Village in the Jezreel Valley: Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1978–1987). Qedem Reports 5. Jerusalem. Pp. 57–60.

Dynamics of Early Bronze Age Faunal Exploitation in the Sinai Peninsula Modes of Production, Commodity Production and Trade Liora Kolska Horwitz1

Abstract This paper discusses changing modes of subsistence during the Early Bronze Age in Southern Sinai as shown by the archaeozoological record. Livestock herding, the mainstay of these subsistence economies, was geared towards meat production in the Early Bronze Age I as herding gradually replaced hunting. In the Early Bronze Age II, hunting decreased and the population became more dependent upon their herds. Changing age profiles of their herds reflect exploitation of secondary products typical of societies engaged in production of surplus for trade. This shift in modes of production mirrors that observed in Canaan and is associated with the development of complex economies to supply the urban societies that characterise the EB II. It is proposed that developments in Sinai may best be understood in the context of under-development theory, as an outcome of market-related economic pressures exerted on the region by external political powers.

Keywords: Canaan, Urbanisation, 3rd millennium BC, archaeozoology, livestock management, underdevelopment.

Introduction The Sinai Peninsula is a large landmass (ca. 61,000 km2 in area), encompassing regions that differ in their geomorphology, topography, climate, vegetation and fauna.2 The Peninsula forms a land bridge connecting Asia and the Levant with Egypt and Africa. Since prehistoric times, populations from the geo-political triumvirate, Egypt-Sinai-southern-Levant,3 have interacted with each other in different ways and with shifting intensity. Indeed, the significance of Sinai in this broader geographic, economic and socio-political canvas fluctuated greatly over time. Compared to the Mediterranean region or the Nile Valley, the challenging physical conditions of the Sinai Peninsula, even under periods of climatic amelioration,4 mean that it is, and was in the past, a harsh environment—one that was relatively poor in staple finance, defined as raw materials in the form of textiles, plants and livestock, as well as in wealth finance, which comprises high-value but low-bulk items which were exchanged or offered as tokens of power and status.5 The region offered only a few items that can be categorised as wealth finance: stone (granite), copper, turquoise, and, at certain times, Red Sea shells. Milevski6 has observed that the development of Early Bronze Age (EB; ca. 3600–2300 BC)7 society in the Levant meant that individual communities were no longer self-sufficient, resulting in the creation of local and inter-regional exchange networks for commodities as well as for prestige goods. Specifically, a key component that has been identified in the development of complex urban societies in the EB II, was craft specialization and the production of trade items, facilitated by production of surplus food that freed a sector

1

National Natural History Collections, The Hebrew University; email: [email protected]. Danin, 1983; Greenwood, 1997; Zahran / Willis, 1992. 3 The southern Levant is defined here as the region incorporating Syria south of the Damascus Basin, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and areas governed by the Palestine Authority in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. 4 E.g. Hamdan / Brook, 2015; Issar / Bruins, 1983; Vaks et al., 2010. 5 D’Altroy / Earle, 1985. 6 Milevski, 2009; 2011. 7 The time span for each phase of the Early Bronze Age used in this paper follows Milevski, 2009: EB Ia 3,600–3,300 BCE; EB Ib 3,300–2,950 BCE; EB II 2,950–2,600 BCE; EB III 2,600–2,300 BCE (see also Regev et al., 2012 who constrain the EB II to 3000–2900 BCE and extend the EB III to 2900–2500 BCE). 2

266

L. K. Horwitz

of communities from food production.8 The nature and scale of these regional, inter-regional and even international trade relations has been discussed at length by numerous researchers, and with regard to the desert margins, trade relations have usually been examined under the umbrella of core-periphery models.9 In contrast to communities inhabiting the Negev desert of Israel and to some extent the Black and Eastern deserts of Jordan,10 the Sinai Peninsula has been peripheral to such discussions. This may be due to its distance from the centres of power in Canaan and in Egypt, as well as the relative paucity of its natural assets, extremely low carrying capacity, arduous climate and dispersed water resources. Indeed, one does not think of EB Sinai as a major primary producer of staple finance, aside perhaps from the turquoise mines of Wadi Maghara and Serabit el-Khadim, whose importance to Egypt during the Old Kingdom is well known.11 During the EB, there is however some evidence for trade between sites in Sinai and areas to the north, as well as with Egypt, as exemplified by the presence of Arad ware in EB II Sinaitic sites,12 Egyptian objects (faience beads, ivory ornaments etc.) and Mediterranean seashells in the Chalcolithic/EBI Nawamis tombs.13 In turn, Red Sea shells and fish remains are found in EB I and EB II sites in the Mediterranean phytogeographic zone and could originate from the Sinai (but also from Negev communities14), as could the Lambis shell bracelets that occur at EB I sites in Egypt, Southern Sinai and Canaan.15 Copper artefacts found at Arad were initially thought to have originated in Sinai,16 but recent analyses offer some alternative sources for the copper, as well as for the ‘Arad ware’ found in Sinai.17 Gophna and Finkelstein18 even proposed that there were trading stations set up during the EB in southern Canaan to deal with the Egyptian demand for Canaanite goods, foremost wine and possibly olive oil. However, there is some ambivalence in the datasets supporting the export of items of staple finance from Sinai, and similarly for the status of imported items from the Mediterranean zone. This is hampered by the fact that most data derive from sites in the Negev, but is assumed to be relevant to all marginal zones based on archaeological precedents and on historic accounts of production relationships between the ‘desert and the sown’.19 Crops (wheat, legumes) and fruit (olives, pistachio, oak, hawthorn, bear's plum) that cannot grow in these arid regions are presumed to have constituted the lion’s-share of this trade.20 However, since no botanical remains of Mediterranean origin have been identified in any of the Southern Sinai sites, the role of this market system in the region remains conjecture. It is well established that EB desert-dwelling communities were engaged in nomadic or semi-nomadic specialised livestock herding.21 However, to date, little attention has been given to trade in animal products to or from these regions, as primary or secondary products derived from hunted or herded livestock (meat, horn, skins, hair, wool, milk products). Notably, Sinaitic EB societies have been left out of such discussions undoubtedly due to the remoteness and problematics of preserving many of these products. Another possibility is that the Peninsula (especially Northern Sinai), chiefly served as a conduit for the movement of materials and people to/from Egypt on the one hand and the Mediterranean Levant on the other, and so was part of a secondary area of distribution and not a primary producer.22 In this paper, I use 8

See discussions on this issue in Brumfiel / Earle, 1987; deFrance, 2009; Fargher / Heredia Espinoza, 2016; MacAdams, 1974; Stein, 1998; among many other references. 9 E.g. Esse, 1989; Finkelstein and Gophna, 1993; Gophna, 1987; Greenberg, 2019; Kempinski, 1992; Levy and van den Brink, 2002; Milevski, 2011; de Miroschedji, 2002; 2015; among many other references. 10 E.g. Joffe, 1993; Milevski, 2011; Abu-Azizeh, 2013; articles in Müller-Neuhof, 2014. 11 Beit-Arieh, 2003; Schorsch, 2000. 12 Porat, 1989a;1989b. 13 Bar-Yosef et al., 1983; 1986; Bar-Yosef Mayer, 2002a. 14 Bar-Yosef Mayer, 2003; Milevski, 2011. 15 Bar-Yosef Mayer, 2002a; 2002b. 16 Amiran et al., 1973; Beit-Arieh, 1983. 17 Milevski, 2011. 18 Gophna, 1987; Finkelstein and Gophna, 1993. 19 E.g. Abu-Rabia, 1994; Cribb, 2004; Joffe, 1993; Rosen, 2016. 20 Milevski, 2011. 21 E.g. Abu-Azizeh, 2013; Avner, 2002; 2006; Rosen, 2016. 22 See papers in Höflmayer and Eichmann, 2014.

Dynamics of Early Bronze Age Faunal Exploitation in the Sinai Peninsula

267

the archaeozoological record from EB sites in Southern Sinai to explore the possible role played by primary or secondary products from hunting and/or livestock herding in inter-regional trade with Canaanite communities to the north. I also attempt to understand the possible catalyst for changes in animal-based modes of production.

Figure 1. Map showing EBI and EBII sites in Southern Sinai and Northern Negev mentioned in the text. Insert shows location in Southern Sinai of Nawamis tombs and Masseboth and shrine localities.

268

L. K. Horwitz

Materials The archaeozoological datasets which form the basis of this paper derive from excavations undertaken by Israeli archaeologists in the southern Sinai Peninsula during the 1970’s–early 1980’s (Fig. 1).23 Investigations of Late Chalcolithic–Early Bronze Age I24 nawamis tumuli fields and their associated habitation sites (Moyat Daba’iyeh, Gunna 25, Gunna 50) along with the EB II sites of Gunna 32 and 100 were undertaken by the late Ofer Bar-Yosef and Avner Goren.25 Concomitantly, as part of the Ophir Expedition directed by the late Itzhaq Beit-Arieh (Tel Aviv University), six EB II26 sites were excavated: Wattiya North, Site 1014, Sheikh ‘Awad, Sheikh Muhsen, Nabi Salah and Feiran I.27 Additionally, several small cultic and mortuary sites that span a broad range of time (6th–3rd millennia BCE) were investigated by Uzi Avner.28 The animal remains from these excavations were studied by the author, prior to their being returned to the Egyptian authorities.29

Methods Several objective factors limited the analyses of the Sinai faunal assemblages, the two most salient ones being: (1) the small size of many of the collections, often related to the ephemeral nature of many of the sites (e.g. seasonal encampments) or to the fact that most of the larger sites were occupied for short periods of time; (2) poor bone preservation due to abiotic and biotic diagenesis, resulting in highly fragmented remains, relatively low frequencies of diagnostic remains and few complete bones/teeth that could be measured. Moreover, it is evident that the composition of the assemblages has been biased by differential preservation of elements due to bone mineral density mediated attrition.30 Since the majority of assemblages were too small to examine with robust statistical methods, I have relied on consistency in patterning between assemblages constrained both temporally and spatially in order to assess the veracity of results, but where possible, non-parametric statistical tests were run using PAST.31 All bones were identified to element and species with reference to the comparative zoological collection of The National Natural History Collections of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Distinguishing domestic sheep from goat in highly fragmented collections is a major problem. Morphological and metric criteria outlined in Boessneck32 were used but no sheep were identified in any of the assemblages. There was less success in separating domestic goat from wild ibex. Skeletal robusticity and large size using metric criteria were applied, but clearly these only separate out the larger individuals. As such, where the identification was only certain to the level of goat senso lato (Capra), the element was placed in a joint goat/ibex category. Where gazelle remains were also suspected of being present but could not be identified due to fragmentation, the element was placed in a generalised body-size category for medium-sized mammals. Similar categories were used for remains of large- and small-sized mammals that could not be identified to species. In many instances, material could only be identified to Family but not to Genus or Species. As such general terms such as Carnivore sp., Bird sp., Reptile sp., etc. were used. Counts for all species are given as the total number of identified bones per species (NISP) and, where necessary, these were converted to frequencies. For ageing of caprines, the rate of bone fusion, state of tooth eruption and dental attrition were used where relevant.33 Sexing of caprines was based on horncores and pelvic dimensions, but very few suitable elements were preserved. Remains of species other than Capra were too few from which to calculate age profiles, and none could be sexed. To examine patterns of skeletal element representation which may reflect butchery and 23

All archaeological material excavated by Israelis was returned to the Egyptian authorities in 1994 under the peace treaty signed between them in 1979. 24 Equivalent to Rosen's (2016) Middle Timnian. 25 Bar-Yosef et al., 1977; 1983; 1986; Goren, 1980; 1998. 26 Equivalent to Rosen's (2016) Late Timnian. 27 Beit-Arieh, 1981; 1982; 1983; 1986; 1993; 2003. 28 Avner, 2002. 29 Avner / Horwitz, 2017; Horwitz, 2003a; 2019. 30 Lyman, 1984. 31 Hammer et al., 2001. 32 Boessneck, 1969. 33 Habermehl, 1961; Silver, 1969; Payne, 1973.

Dynamics of Early Bronze Age Faunal Exploitation in the Sinai Peninsula

269

carcass processing, elements were grouped into five body part categories: cranial, forelimb, hindlimb, trunk and feet. Raw data upon which the figures appearing in this paper are based have been published previously.34

Results Early Bronze Age I The EB I assemblages from Southern Sinai reflect the full range of activities undertaken by communities in the Sinai Peninsula at this time: burials (tumuli, nawamis; En Um Ahmed, Ein Huderah, Wadi Nasb [Hzeimeh], Wadi el-Abar, Wadi Sawawin, Abu Halil, Nakb Hibran); ritual localities (shrines and masseboth; Bir Sawaneh 6, Wadi Sa’al, Wadi Daba’iyeh); and habitation sites (Moyat Daba’iyeh, Gunna 25 and 50). Despite the variation in function, the sites have a broad range of common features in terms of the species exploited, age profiles, season of exploitation, etc., which corroborates that they were part of the same socioeconomic system. Notably, the herbivore remains from the cultic contexts echo the main taxa found in the associated nawamis habitation sites (Fig. 2). In all sites, remains of Capra, comprised the major portion of animals exploited. A Mann Whitney test carried out on the groups goat/ibex, medium-sized mammal and gazelle remains between the two largest assemblages (Gunna 25 and 50) showed no significant difference in species representation (p=0.9), indicating a common subsistence base. Likewise, despite marked differences in the size of the faunal collections, no significant differences were found in species diversity between the Nawamis burial assemblage, Masseboth and shrine sites and the two habitation sites.

Figure 2. Histogram showing relative frequencies of species represented in Southern Sinai EBI sites. NISP indicates the number of identified bones per assemblage.

No bones of sheep (Ovis) have been identified in any of the faunal assemblages analyzed, indicating that this species was probably not present in Southern Sinai at this time. Ibex were positively identified in all three assemblage types, and undoubtedly their bones are represented in the general Capra category. However, with few exceptions, the few caprine bones that could be measured from all these sites point to small-sized animals (i.e. domestic goats, Capra hircus). This factor, combined with the enormous quantities of goat dung reported

34

Avner / Horwitz, 2017; Horwitz, 2003a; 2019.

270

L. K. Horwitz

by Goren at the habitation sites,35 offers compelling evidence that the vast majority of Capra remains at these sites represent domestic goats rather than ibex. Since the precise numeric between them is unclear, they have been presented as a pooled category. Unfortunately, no complete jaws of caprines were available for study from the EB I assemblages, while few of the isolated teeth were complete. Therefore, only limited data on dental wear was available for ageing adult animals from the habitation sites of Gunna 25 and 50. The few teeth that could be examined were all from immature animals under 3 years of age (mainly 2–3 years). Likewise, ageing based on long bone epiphyseal fusion is based on a small group of samples from these two sites. These also indicated that the majority of animals were culled while young (under 3 years), with few surviving into adulthood (Fig. 3). Ostensibly, since sample sizes are very small these results should be viewed with some caution. However, since they are highly consistent between the two sites studied and are also confirmed by the dental data, I feel confident that they provide a reliable picture of survivorship trends in these sites. Following the criteria outlined in Payne for the identification of herd management strategies,36 when animals are raised for meat it is most economical to slaughter them when they are sub-adult, in the 18–30-month age range, and that those slaughtered are primarily surplus young males. Thus, the survivorship curve drops sharply for males in the first 2–3 years while in females the age curve falls gradually through adulthood. Only two bones could be sexed so it was not possible to construct separate survivorship curves for males and females. The mortality profiles for both of the largest EB I bone assemblages clearly indicate that only some 40% of the herd survived into adulthood implying that the primary goal of herd management in Southern Sinai at this time was indeed meat production, with animal skins as an additional product.

Figure 3. Survivorship curves for caprines from Southern Sinai sites based on bone fusion. EB I: Gunna 25 & 50; EB II: Sheikh Muhsen & Nabi Salah.

Skeletal element representation (Fig. 4) indicates a slight predominance of cranial remains, which is due to the biased preservation of teeth, while the rarity of foot bones probably relates to the fact that limited fine sifting of the sediments was carried out, such that these smaller bones were not collected. When the limb and trunk proportions are examined, they reflect a relatively high representation of all body parts (samples were too small to be tested statistically), suggesting that complete animal carcasses were probably exploited.

35 36

Goren, 1998. Payne, 1973.

Dynamics of Early Bronze Age Faunal Exploitation in the Sinai Peninsula

271

Figure 4. Body part representation for Southern Sinai sites where: cranial: antler, horn, skull, maxilla, mandible and loose teeth; forelimb: scapula, humerus, radius, ulna, carpals, metacarpal; hindlimb: pelvis, femur, tibia, patella, calcaneum, astragalus, tarsals, metatarsal; trunk: axis, atlas, cervical, thoracic, lumbar and caudal vertebrae, sternum and ribs; feet: 1st, 2nd and 3rd phalanges.

In terms of livestock representation, the Southern Sinai EB I sites differ from those in the Northern Negev due to the absence of pig and cattle. These taxa occur in sites such as Qatif Y237 and Ashqelon Afridar on the Mediterranean coast of the Negev, the inland site of Halif Terrace38 and the site of Taur Ikhbeineh, located some 3km from the coast in Nahal Besor.39 Interestingly, pigs are absent (but cattle are present) in the Chalcolithic sites located along Nahal Beersheva such as Shiqmim, Horvat Beter, Bir es-Safadi and Abu Matar,40 but both pigs and cattle occur in sites such as Wadi Gazze D, Grar, Gilat,41 located in the hinterland along Nahal Besor, and Nahal Grar, in the western Negev. It seems then that in terms of pig and cattle keeping, there is a clear environmental gradient, with both species present in sites along the coast, reflecting the wetter and relatively lusher environment of this region compared to Southern Sinai. Cattle, but not pigs, occur in Chalcolithic sites along the Beersheva Basin below the 200mm isohyet. In their study of fauna from the Mediterranean zone of the Southern Levant, Gaastra et al.42 illustrate the lack of patterning in EB Ia and EB Ib age profiles between sites, irrespective of whether they were urban or rural. As illustrated in Figure 2, remains of wild taxa were also identified. Only two equid remains, a tooth and a small jaw fragment were found in the EB I sites, both were identified as Equus sp. as it was not possible to determine whether they represented domestic or wild animals. Remains of a wild ass were recovered from a 4th millennium BC desert ‘kite’, and so the hunting of wild equids appears to have been practiced at this time.43 The remains of game animals such as gazelle, ibex, hare, birds and reptiles, as well as the presence of 37

Grigson, 1984; 1995. Whitcher, 1999. 39 Horwitz et al., 2002. 40 Grigson, 1987; Whitcher, 1999. 41 Ducos, 1968; Grigson, 1995. 42 Gaastra et al., 2020: Fig. 5. 43 Nadel et al., in press. 38

272

L. K. Horwitz

ostrich eggshell, point to the continuing importance of hunting in these economies, corroborated by the high frequencies of arrowheads reported by both Bar-Yosef et al. and Hovers.44 Despite the presence of marine shells in all sites (Red Sea as well as Mediterranean Sea),45 no fish remains were found. This may of course be a function of bone collection techniques and the lack of fine sieving. However, the small sized, fragile bones of rodents, reptiles and birds are represented in the sites suggesting that fishing, if carried out, was not a common activity. Early Bronze Age II Domestic goat (Capra hircus) was the most common species in all EB II sites (Fig. 5). A Mann Whitney test showed no significant differences in species representation between the two largest EB II assemblages (Sheikh Muhsen and Nabi Salah) for the goat/ibex, medium mammal and gazelle groups (p=0.6). Horncore shape as well as biometry of a small sample of caprine bones indicates the presence of ibex in the assemblages (Fig. 6). However, the majority of remains belong to a small-sized breed, similar to the modern Hejazi goat breed that inhabits Sinai. They were also smaller than Chalcolithic and EB goats from sites in the Mediterranean zone.46 Grouped skeletal elements indicate a clear paucity of foot bones, but an overrepresentation of cranial remains as reported for the EB I assemblages (Fig. 4). However, the cranial frequencies are disproportionately higher than the limb-trunk element frequencies, especially when compared to the EB I sites which were exposed to similar diagenetic factors. It is tentatively suggested that this patterning may reflect selection of limb and trunk elements that were taken off-site, i.e. traded. This explanation is corroborated by the fact that these are the meat-rich body parts.

Figure 5. Histogram showing relative frequencies of species represented in Southern Sinai EBII sites.

44

Bar-Yosef et al., 1977; Hovers, 1981. Bar-Yosef Mayer, 2002a; 2002b. 46 Horwitz, 2003. 45

Dynamics of Early Bronze Age Faunal Exploitation in the Sinai Peninsula

273

Compared to the EB I assemblages characterised by harvesting of sub-adult animals, in the EB II sites of Sheikh Muhsen and Nabi Salah (Fig. 3), few animals were culled when immature and some 50% of animals survived beyond 36 months, i.e. at least half the herd survived into adulthood. Despite the limitations of sample size, dental attrition data for both sites corroborate the overall pattern established using bone fusion and indicate mortality of few immature animals under 12 months of age and an emphasis on survivorship of older, mature animals. In Payne’s47 herd management model geared towards wool production, culling is delayed for both rams (often castrated) and ewes well into adulthood, such that both sexes survive into maturity. However, in the third model of a herding strategy that is aimed at milk production, excess males are slaughtered for meat production, but at a much younger age, with continued survivorship of ewes into adulthood since they are required for a milk-based economy (and reproduction). Researchers, such as Halstead,48 have critiqued the milk harvest profile as unrealistic for pre-capitalist subsistence systems and indicated that such a high immature cull is evident only in systems Figure 6. Photograph of Capra foot bones (1st phalanges top geared towards intensive milk production for largeof photo and 2nd phalanges on bottom of photo) from the scale marketing. Furthermore, it has been questioned EBII site of Sheikh Muhsen showing two size classes— whether early domesticates could let-down milk small domestic goat (on left) and larger ibex (on right). without the proximity of their young, since this is a (Photo L.K. Horwitz). biological reflex. Finally, Halstead pointed out that other factors could just as easily result in a such a high immature mortality profile, such as taphonomic factors biasing the preservation of small and less-well mineralised bones of immature animals, as well as an economy that targets very immature animals for their tender meat. Such a management strategy will result in culls of immature males when they are 6–12 months of age, rather than 18–30 months in the previous meat model, followed by slaughter of the surviving ewes as sub-adults/adults aged 2–4 years, which also facilitates their exploitation for milk. Based on these considerations, the EB II pattern most closely fits that of a herd being exploited for their renewable resources, notably milk, and for reproduction to ensure herd growth. The 30–40% of animals slaughtered by 2 years of age, probably represent surplus males culled for meat. Although domestic goat served as the mainstay of both the EB I and EB II economies, there is an apparent increase in the quantity of Capra remains in the EB II relative to the earlier EB I (Figs. 2 and 5), while the herding strategies employed by these communities differed markedly, with meat production being the primary goal in the EB I and milk production the focus of EB II herders (Figs. 3 and 4). The diachronic shift in herd management that is recorded here for Early Bronze Age Sinai, echoes a similar coeval trend observed in sites in the Irano-Turanian and Mediterranean zones. This is clearly seen at sites with both EB I and EB II phases such as Tel Halif, Tel Yaqush, Bet Yerah and Qiryat Ata.49 Although several EB II sites exhibit a shift in husbandry strategy to one based on secondary products, some inter-site diversity is visible in patterns of herd exploitation at this time, depending on site function, size and geographic location.

47

Payne, 1973. Halstead, 1998. 49 Horwitz, 1997; 2003b; Seger et al., 1990; Gaastra et al., 2020. 48

274

L. K. Horwitz

Consequently, at some sites with both EB I and EB II occupations, for example Tel Dalit,50 this trend is not clearly evident. Notably, it is manifest in the EB II caprine mortality profile at Arad where Lernau documented that fewer than 30% animals were culled by 2 years and most survived into adulthood, 3 years and older.51 A further analysis of the Arad Bronze Age fauna by Davis also concluded that there, the sex ratio of caprines was biased towards females, which, coupled with the mortality profile, indicated management aimed at secondary product and breeding.52 This finding is especially interesting considering the alleged material evidence for ties between Arad and sites in Southern Sinai,53 as well as the hypothesis put forward by Finkelstein54 that Arad was a town established by nomads. Both factors may tie this site closely to the economies of the arid margins. No clear inter-settlement age patterning was evident in age profiles for the EB II sites studied by Gaastra et al.55 Although the archaeological record of the Sinai Peninsula contains a significant corpus of information dealing with human interactions with wild animals, such as “leopard-traps”, “desert kites” and hunting scenes on rock engravings,56 the faunal remains indicate that, at least in the EB II, wild taxa did not constitute an important component of the exploited fauna. Wild taxa such as ibex and gazelle were still hunted in the EB II but in reduced quantities. Other game species have also been identified (leopard, sand partridge, hyrax, hare, ostrich, by eggshell only), but these are mainly isolated remains suggesting that hunting was sporadic. This is corroborated by the dearth of projectile points in EB II lithic assemblages from this region,57 which contrasts to the Chalcolithic/EB I habitation sites from Southern Sinai which have abundant arrowheads.58 It should be noted, that despite the apparent diachronic trends (increased frequency of goats, reduction in hunted taxa in EB II), a Wilcoxon sign test of the average values for EB I site species representation (goat / ibex / gazelle / medium mammal categories / pooled wild taxa) versus EB II sites, showed no significant differences between them (p=0.4).

Discussion Rosen59 outlined a four-phase diachronic sequence to account for the rise of pastoralism in the Southern Levantine periphery, beginning with the PPNB hunter-gatherers up through to the adoption of the camel in the 2nd millennium BCE or later. He characterized the earliest herder-hunter phase, which he places as contemporaneous with the Late Neolithic–Chalcolithic by saying: “Domesticated animals in this phase substitute for hunted animals in a subsistence economy which at its start is little different from huntinggathering.”60 Ingold has offered some illuminating insights on this topic in the distinction he draws between carnivorous pastoralism and milch pastoralism.61 He defines carnivorous pastoralism as a continuation of hunting, in that the domestic herds are a substitute for their wild counterparts. The herded animals are exploited primarily for meat, although they may be milked occasionally. Protection and harvesting of herds “are directly conditioned by the ecological requirements of herding and husbandry and are clearly derived from the antecedent repertoire of hunting skills.”62 In the long term, carnivorous pastoralism may be no more efficient than hunting since, to supply the family with food and items for trade, the herder paradoxically has to destroy a part of his wealth, thereby terminating his labour and care of the herd. There is, then, the constant threat of impoverishment and little subsistence security. Consequently, Ingold remarks, that group size under

50

Horwitz et al., 1996. Lernau, 1978. 52 Davis, 1976. 53 Amiran et al., 1973; Beir-Arieh, 1983, 1993, 2003. 54 Finkelstein, 1995. 55 Gaastra et al., 2020: Fig. 5. 56 E.g. Anati, 1979; Nadel et al., in press; Perevolotsky and Baharav, 1991; Porat et al., 2013. 57 Gunna 100 in Bar-Yosef et al., 1986; other sites in Beit-Arieh, 2003. 58 Goren, 1980: 257. 59 Rosen, 1998. 60 Rosen, 1998. 61 Ingold, 1980. 62 Ingold, 1980: 116. 51

Dynamics of Early Bronze Age Faunal Exploitation in the Sinai Peninsula

275

carnivorous herding will be small, as the more people there are, the more they drain the herders’ assets. In addition, given the fact that the herder is no longer intercepting animal herds as in hunting, but rather following them, these communities may be more mobile than hunter-gatherers since they need to exploit available grazing and water resources when and where these occur and adjust the schedule and route of their movement accordingly. This will result in a diminished reliance on stored foods and shorter periods of site occupation. Thus, according to Ingold, the full development of carnivorous pastoralism can take place only under arid ecological conditions. Indeed, among Bedouin communities in Southern Sinai, the creation and maintenance of a loose social and political structure, as well as the unusual practice of ‘open grazing territories’, have been attributed by Perevolotsky to the unpredictable nature of rain in both space and time, which results in the patchy distribution of spring pasture upon which livestock production in the region is based.63 It is evident that in many ways the characteristics of carnivorous pastoralism fits the archaeozoological and archaeological record of EB I Southern Sinai as documented here. The faunal assemblages from this period are a mixture of domestic and hunted taxa. In terms of domesticates, only goats are found, but this probably relates to the local ecology, as does the absence of cattle and pigs. Most importantly, EB I caprine herd management in this period was geared toward the production of meat, with a high cull of animals in the 2–3 years age range, primarily representing surplus males, with few animals surviving into adulthood. However, a wide range of animal taxa were exploited as shown by the importance of hunting. This is also demonstrated by the high numbers of arrowheads in EB I sites and the low density of settlements—attesting to the small size of the populations and/or short-term nature of occupation. Finally, there is evidence for seasonal use of ritual sites (springs)64 a feature attesting to the itinerant nature of these communities. The possible presence of donkeys (albeit in low numbers) may attest to their use as a beast of burden. Indeed, it has been suggested that, during the EB Ib, donkey caravans between Sinai and Egypt intensified contact between the regions.65 More recently, the critical role played by donkeys in inter-regional trade during the Early Bronze Age has been discussed at length by Milevski.66 In contrast to carnivorous pastoralism, milch pastoralism, which entails exploitation of secondary products, exists where tending the animal is a precondition for using it.67 The animal is an integral part of the owners’ household. The extraction of a resource from the herd constitutes an essential part of its everyday care and this, in turn, confers direct control to the person over the distribution of the produce. This produce may be converted, such as milk into cheese or yoghurt. In fact, milch pastoralism promotes diversification in stock since animals cannot be milked all year round, with different taxa providing milk for varying lengths of time. This offers greater security to the herder in terms of food supply. From this, one may extrapolate that sites of milch herders will contain a broader spectrum of domestic species and that they may be more sedentary than their carnivorous counterparts. Although Ingold perceives diversification, aimed at improving subsistence security, in terms of adding large animals (cows) to herds of sheep and goats, in the ecological context of Sinai, which may have limited the raising of pigs and cattle, this may have entailed the development of alternative economic activities such as raiding, the expansion of trade links (through the export of new or under-exploited materials), or the development of craft specialisation, of which the production of animal products are but one example. Secondary products from animals (cheese, yoghurt, cloth, wool), would have been sold at markets. In return the milch herder would receive produce unavailable in the desert region which would alleviate subsistence insecurity—for example olives, wine, cereals, all foodstuffs that could be stored. It is evident that such an economy bears much in common with the EB II occupations in Southern Sinai, with their extensive ties to sites in or on the edge of the Mediterranean region of the Southern Levant, such as Arad,68 or to Egypt,69 although the extent of ties with the Nile appears to have declined relative to the 63

Perevolotsky, 1987. See Avner / Horwitz 2017; Horwitz, 2019. 65 Stager, 1992. 66 Milevski, 2011; Milevski / Horwitz 2019. 67 Ingold, 1980. 68 Beit-Arieh, 1983; 1986. 69 Ben-Tor, 1991. 64

276

L. K. Horwitz

preceding period as reflected in the paucity of Egyptian materials in Canaan, perhaps indicating one-way trade.70 The EB II subsistence in Southern Sinai continued to be based on goat herds, but the hunted component decreased as evidenced by the reduced number of arrowheads. This may also serve as an indication of greater sedentism on the part of EB II herders since hunting is associated with mobility. Of special note is the unequivocal evidence for secondary products exploitation as the primary subsistence goal. This increased production of animal commodities (hair, dairy products; but probably not wool since no sheep remains have been identified in these sites) would have necessitated and opened markets for their distribution, facilitating greater contact with areas of the ‘sown’. Based primarily on data for the Negev, Rosen has argued that essential links existed between Bronze Age pastoral nomadic groups of the arid regions and the Mediterranean zone.71 He cites several archaeological features to substantiate this claim such as the presence of large numbers of grinding stones in desert sites but the absence of sickle blades indicating that cultivation was not intensively practiced and that cereals were imported; the presence of northern ceramic jars, including storage vessels, in southern sites (and vice versa); evidence for on-site manufacture of exotic objects in desert sites and the presence of these objects in northern assemblages including turquoise, copper, specialised lithic implements (e.g. tabular scrapers), shell ornaments and ostrich eggshell beads. In many of these features as well as in architecture72 the EB II sites differ from those of the EB I and there are indications that population size increased in the desert regions during this period.73 However, these data may also be interpreted as reflecting a shift to increased sedentism with greater aggregations of people necessitated by craft specialisation, dependency on markets, and access to reduced resources, while in preceding periods the settlement pattern was more dispersed, i.e. more nomadic. The desert periphery as a supplier of animal foodstuffs to the ‘sown’ probably has a long tradition. As Jabbur notes, even today, the sedentary population of Syria consumes large quantities of meat raised by the Bedouins, especially mutton and goat, followed by camel.74 He further states: “It would be difficult to provide here specific figures for the amount of livestock the desert supplies to the settled areas in every Arab country, but up until recent years it undoubtedly provided a large part of what was consumed in settled areas.”75 Sheep are favored for meat, wool and milk, most of which is made into clarified butter (samn) and this is sold to villagers for their cooked dishes (Fig. 7).76 Jabbur further notes that “Indeed many people in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, until recently relied on Bedouin samn for their cooked dishes.”77 Once solidified, clarified butter can be stored in an airtight jar for several months. An alternative food source that could have been traded is preserved meat, known today as al-hamis or al-magli which is prepared from chopped up meat, fat, internal organs and bones (for their marrow). This dish is documented in Oman78 where it is considered a response by traditional Bedouin communities to the rarity of slaughter of animals (only twice a year) and is an easily transportable means of addressing food insecurity. If stored correctly (in a jar with a lid or covered with a cloth), the cooked meat can be kept for a period of nine months. Preparation of al-hamis, or alternately salted/smoked/dried meat, may account for the “missing” bodyparts from EB II sites. Given that these products can last for several months, they could have been traded to communities outside of Sinai, in addition to live animals. The observed changes in faunal composition of EB I through EB II sites documented here, offer a unique picture of the diachronic development of pastoral-nomadism in the desert margins of the Southern Levant; from carnivorous pastoralism focused on the exploitation of meat, to milch pastoralism based on the exploitation of secondary products and their marketing. These changes in subsistence base were 70

As suggested in Mazar, 1990. Rosen, 2002a; 2002b; 2016. 72 Beit-Arieh, 1986; 1993; 2003. 73 E.g. Avner / Carmi, 2001; Avner, 2006; Haiman, 1992; Rosen, 1987; 2016. 74 Jabbur, 1995: 35. 75 Jabbur, 1995: 35. 76 See also 2013 video of woman from the Tarrabeen tribe in Southern Sinai making samn at https://vimeo.com/67579430 77 Jabbur, 1995: 37. 78 ElMahi, 1998. 71

Dynamics of Early Bronze Age Faunal Exploitation in the Sinai Peninsula

277

accompanied by concomitant shifts in lifestyle and the socio-political structure of these communities. What these data do not address, is the impetus for this change. Why do people living in Southern Sinai stop culling herds for meat and shift to production of secondary products, and, in so doing, follow the same economic pathway as communities living in the region of the ‘sown’, despite marked differences between them in physical geography, resources and lifestyle?

Figure 7. Bedouin women of Mesopotamia churning butter by shaking milk in goatskin bag (taken in 1923). (https:// commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bedouin_women_of_Mesopotania_churning_butter_by_shaking_milk_in_goatskin _bags,_photo_from_The_Encyclopedia_of_Food_by_Artemas_Ward.jpg).

278

L. K. Horwitz

The EB II and Dependency Theory To answer the question posed above, I have turned to the theoretical model of Dependency Theory (also known as Under-Development Theory), a term better known from modern-day economics of Third World or developing countries. Dependency Theory was developed in the late 1950’s by the liberal economist Raul Prebisch, who was the Director of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America. In simplistic terms this theory proposes that: – The wealthy nations of the world need a peripheral group of poorer states in order to remain wealthy. – These poor nations provide natural resources, cheap labour, and consumer markets for the wealthy nations, without which these wealthy states could not have attained, and also maintained, the standard of living they enjoy. Dependency Theory was taken a step further by Marxist theoreticians, like Andre Gunder Frank79 who identified persistent poverty in Third World countries as a consequence of capitalist exploitation by the developed world. Frank also challenged the notion of a set path for economic evolution. He criticized the thesis that under-developed countries with their traditional societies would gradually become developed by engaging with developed capitalist economies. He viewed the linkage between capitalist countries and underdeveloped ones not as the solution, but as the source of the problem. This he attributed to: – the unequal distribution of resources and exploitation of the less developed and emerging countries in which resources flow from a “periphery” of poor and underdeveloped states to a “core” of wealthy states, enriching them; while at the same time, a core-periphery division is created within under-developed countries. Thus, the underdeveloped countries subordinate their socioeconomic and political growth to the interest of the core. – the evolution of an international political economy with a fairly rigid division of labour which favours the rich and penalizes the poor. Frank argued that although Third World societies may originally have been undeveloped, they were never under-developed. This shift was a direct consequence of their external relations with the developed world and the domination of their economies by the core. Although Dependency Theory was developed to address the problems of industrialised capitalist economies of the 20th century, it offers a useful construct with which to address Early Bronze Age economies in Southern Sinai. The burgeoning complex urban societies that characterise the EB II, embody many of the features of emergent capitalism, for example the division of labour, market systems, the rise of a merchant class, development of specialisation, the creation of surplus and so on.80 Core-periphery models, although not framed within the terminology of under-development, have been applied by several researchers to describe relations between Canaan and Egypt in the EBI–Early Dynastic periods.81 This was a period of peak Egyptian interest in Canaan which served as a conduit for commercial trade with centres to the north, and/or as a trading partner or colony (a source of tribute), although the economic, administrative, and even military capabilities of Egypt at this time are still debated.82 The economy of Canaan was clearly enmeshed in that of the developing Egyptian state, but the role of Sinai in this network is still unclear. In his innovative study of exchange systems in the Early Bronze Age, Milveski83 outlined systems of regional and inter-regional exchange in the Southern Levant and examined the possible sources, trade routes and scale of the networks for different commodities, including functional items (pottery, flint artifacts, minerals, foodstuffs) as well as rare/exotic commodities perhaps with prestige or ceremonial use-value. Unfortunately, his research did not encompass data for the Sinai Peninsula, though several issues were touched upon, such as the absence of Cananaean blades and several pottery types (including Khirbet Kerak ware) at Southern Sinai sites, and the possibility that the arkose-tempered group of holemouth jars, previously 79

Beginning with his seminal article published in 1966 entitled “The Development of Under-Development”. Greenberg, 2019; Mazar, 1990; Milevski, 2009; 2011. 81 E.g. papers in Levy / van den Brink, 2002. 82 Morris, 2018. 83 Milveski, 2011. 80

Dynamics of Early Bronze Age Faunal Exploitation in the Sinai Peninsula

279

thought to have been manufactured in Sinai,84 may have originated in Transjordan. The archaeozoological data reviewed here for the EB I, attests to meat production on a local scale and also does not offer any evidence for trade in live animals (e.g., missing age cohorts). Neither is there evidence for the production of surpluses or exotic items that could have been traded, aside perhaps from animal skins or preserved meat and the possible production of shell ornaments (such as Lambis shell bracelets).85 Thus, if commodities of wealth finance were exported from Sinai in the EB I, they would have been raw materials such as copper ore and turquoise, rather than manufactured items, but the evidence is scanty even for these. Such raw materials could have been exchanged/traded with Egypt and/or Canaan for produce, such as foodstuffs which do not grow in Sinai, as well as manufactured functional and prestige items such as copper artefacts, obsidian or ivory. The fact that few, if any, manufactured items were exported from Southern Sinai in the EB I sets it apart from other partners in the Early Bronze Age exchange systems in Canaan as outlined by Milveski. No other region exhibits such an imbalance of trade implying that it was perhaps an ignored periphery as opposed to Northern Sinai which experienced extensive overland trade. The lack of tangible investment in Southern Sinai by either Canaan or Egypt in the EB I (or EB II) would support this contention. No cities or other public infrastructures, so common in these regions, were built in the Peninsula at this time (aside perhaps from the later, Middle Kingdom Hathor Temple at Serabit el-Khadim86). It appears that the region was left to its own devices, serving perhaps only as an intermittent source of raw materials (and perhaps labourers?) needed to develop and maintain the Early Bronze Age settlements of Canaan and Egypt. If, however, it is correct that basic foodstuffs were a major import into Southern Sinai, this would have made the local population especially vulnerable to market factors such as price hikes, etc., creating a deep dependence on their trading partners. This has all the ingredients of dependency leading to under-development. By the EB II, the situation in Southern Sinai is markedly different. The archaeozoological record demonstrates a significant shift in the animal-based mode of subsistence to one geared toward the production of secondary products. Whatever the mechanism behind the rise of urbanism in Canaan and the associated waning of Egyptian interest in the region, the faunal record investigated here attests to the fact that market forces were at play. Perhaps, in an effort to maintain their “balance of payment”, local Southern Sinai communities had to produce a new raw material, such as clarified butter, preserved meat, milk products and hair (though not wool, as there is no evidence for sheep being raised), that was needed by the expanding urban complexes and markets of their EB II Canaanite trading partners. Alternately, they simply adjusted to the new markets and provided commodities that were more attractive and tradable. As previously described in this paper, the same shift to secondary products is evident in EB II economies in the Mediterranean zone, which gives this argument even greater weight. Production of secondary products would have enabled the creation of surplus products that could be stored or transported long distance. Moreover, by shifting to livestock management focused on secondary products, which does not entail slaughter, herd security would have been augmented through higher reproduction rates. Concomitantly, the scale of exports would thereby increase. In Southern Sinai, in contrast to the Negev,87 the EB III is only represented by Old Kingdom mining interests. With the collapse of the Old Kingdom, associated with regional desiccation and drought, this aspect of the economic system in Sinai also declined.

84

Amiran et al., 1973. Bar-Yosef Mayer, 2002a; 2002b. 86 Petrie, 1906. 87 D’Andrea, 2019; Avner, 2006; Beit-Arieh, 2003; Finkelstein et al., 2018; Horwitz et al. 2001. 85

280

L. K. Horwitz

References Abu-Azizeh, W., 2013: “The South-Eastern Jordan’s Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age Pastoral Nomadic Complex: Patterns of Mobility and Interaction”. Paléorient 39 (1), 149–176. Abu-Rabia, A., 1994: The Negev Bedouin and Livestock Rearing: Social, Economic, and Political Aspects. Oxford. Amiran, R. / Beit-Arieh, I. / Glass, J., 1973: “The Interrelationship between Arad and Sites in Southern Sinai in the Early Bronze Age II”. Israel Exploration Journal 23, 193–272. Anati, E., 1979: L’arte Rupestre del Negev e del Sinai. Milan. Avner, U., 2002: “Studies in the Material and Spiritual Culture of the Negev and Sinai Populations During the 6th–3rd millennia B.C.” PhD Thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. — 2006: “Settlement Pattern in the ‘Araba Valley and the Adjacent Desert Areas, a View from the Eilat Region”. In P. Bienkowski / K. Galor (eds.), Crossing the Rift. Oxford. Pp. 51–74. Avner, U. / Carmi, I., 2001: “Settlement Patterns in the Southern Levant Deserts during the 6th–3rd Millennia BC: A Revision Based on 14C Dating”. In H. J. Bruins / I. Carmi / E. Boaretto (eds.), Near East Chronology: Archaeology and Environment. Radiocarbon 43, 1203–1216. Avner, U. / Horwitz, L. K., 2017: “Sacrifices and Offerings from Cult and Mortuary Sites in the Negev and Sinai, 6th–3rd Millennia BC”. ARAM 29 (1-2), 35–70. Bar-Yosef, O. / Belfer-Cohen, A. / Goren, A. / Smith, P., 1977: “The Nawamis near ‘Ein Huderah (Eastern Sinai)”. Israel Exploration Journal 27 (2–3), 65–88. Bar-Yosef, O. / Hershkovitz, I. / Arbel, G. / Goren, A. 1983: “The Orientation of Nawamis Entrances in Southern Sinai: Expressions of Religious Belief and Seasonality?” Tel Aviv 10 (1), 52–60. Bar-Yosef, O. / Belfer-Cohen, A. / Goren, A. / Hershkovitz, I. / Ilan, O. / Mienis, H. / Sass, B., 1986: “Nawamis and Habitation Sites near Gebel Gunna, Southern Sinai”. Israel Exploration Journal 36 (3–4), 121–167. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E., 2002a: “The Shells of the Nawamis in Southern Sinai”. In H. Buitenhuis / A. M. Choyke / M. Mashkour / A.-H. Al-Shihab (eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East, Vol. V. Groningen. Pp. 166–180. — 2002b: “Egyptian-Canaanite Interaction: The Shell Connection”. In T.E. Levy and E.C.M. van den Brink (eds.), Egypt and the Levant. Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium BCE. London. Pp. 129–138. — 2003: “Mollusc Shells and Shell Beads”. In I. Beit-Arieh (ed.), Archaeology of Sinai. The Ophir Expedition. Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series No. 21. Tel Aviv. Pp. 229–241. Beit-Arieh, I., 1981: “An Early Bronze II Site Near Sheikh ‘Awad in Southern Sinai.” Tel Aviv 8, 95–127. — 1982: “An Early Bronze II Site Near the Feiran Oasis in Southern Sinai”. Tel Aviv 9, 146–156. — 1983: “Central Southern Sinai in the Early Bronze Age II and its Relations with Palestine”. Levant 16, 39–48. — 1986: “Two Cultures in Southern Sinai in the Third Millennium BC”. Bulletin of the Association for Oriental Studies 263, 27–54. — 1993: “Southern Sinai in the Early Bronze Age”. In E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem. Pp. 1397–1399. — 2003: Archaeology of Sinai. The Ophir Expedition. Tel Aviv. Ben-Tor, A., 1991: “New Light on the Relations between Egypt and Southern Palestine during the Early Bronze Age”. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 281, 3–10. Boessneck, J., 1969: “Osteological differences between sheep (Ovis aries L.) and goat (Capra hircus L.)”. In D.R. Brothwell / E.S. Higgs (eds.), Science in Archaeology. New York. Pp. 331–358. Brumfiel, E. M. / Earle, T. K. (eds.), 1987: Specialization and Exchange in Complex Societies. Cambridge. Cribb, R., 2004: Nomads in Archaeology. Cambridge. D’Altroy, T. N. / Earle, T. K., 1985: “Staple Finance, Wealth Finance and, Storage in the Inca Political Economy”. Current Anthropology 26 (2), 187–206.

Dynamics of Early Bronze Age Faunal Exploitation in the Sinai Peninsula

281

D’Andrea, M.. 2019: “The periodization of Early Bronze IV in the Southern Levant: bridging the gap between stratigraphy and absolute chronology”. In E. Gallo (ed.), Conceptualizing Urban Experiences. Rome “La Sapienza” Studies on The Archaeology of Palestine and Transjordan 13. Rome. Pp. 61–78. Danin, A., 1983: “Desert Vegetation of Israel and Sinai, Jerusalem”. Cana. Davis, S. J., 1976: “Mammal Bones from the Early Bronze Age City of Arad, N. Negev, Israel. Some Implications Concerning Human Exploitation”. Journal of Archaeological Science 3, 153–164. Ducos, P., 1968: L’Origine des Animaux Domestiques en Palestine. Publications de l’Institute de Prehistoire de l’Universite de Bordeux, Memoire 6. Bordeux. Dunseth, Z. C., 2019: “The Intermediate Bronze Age (c. 2500–1950 BCE) in the Negev Highlands: The Geoarchaeological Perspective”. PhD Thesis, Tel-Aviv University. ElMahi, A. T., 1998: “Traditional methods of food preservation in Oman: a view to the past”. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 28, 45–47. Esse, D. L., 1989: “Secondary State Formation and Collapse in Early Bronze Age Palestine”. In P. de Miroschedji (ed.), L'urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze Ancien. Bilan et Perspectives des Recherches Actuelles. BAR International Series 527[i]. Oxford. Pp. 81–96. Fargher, L. F. / Heredia Espinoza, V.W. (eds.), 2016: Alternative Pathways to Complexity. A Collection of Essays on Architecture, Economics, Power, and Cross-Cultural Analysis. Boulder. Finkelstein, I., 1995: Living on the Fringe. The Archaeology and History of the Negev, Sinai and Neighbouring Regions in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 6. Sheffield. Finkelstein I. / Adams, M. J. / Dunseth, Z. C. / Shahack-Gross R., 2018: “The Archaeology and History of the Negev and Neighbouring Areas in the Third Millennium BCE: A New Paradigm”. Tel Aviv 45 (1), 63–88. Finkelstein, I. / Gophna, R., 1993: “Settlement, Demographic, and Economic Patterns in the Highlands of Palestine in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Periods and the Beginning of Urbanism”. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 289: 1–22. deFrance, S. D., 2009: “Zooarchaeology in Complex Societies: Political Economy, Status, and Ideology”. Journal of Archaeological Research 17 (2), 105–168. Frank, A. G., 1966: “The Development of Underdevelopment”. Monthly Review 18 (4), 17–31. Gaastra, J. S. / Greenfield, T. L. / Greenfield, H.J., 2020: “There and Back Again: A Zooarchaeological Perspective on Early and Middle Bronze Age Urbanism in the Southern Levant”. PLoS ONE 15(3), e0227255. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. Gophna, R. 1987: “Egyptian Trading Posts in Southern Canaan at the Dawn of the Archaic Period”. In A.F. Rainey (ed.), Egypt, Israel, Sinai. Tel Aviv. Pp. 13–21. Goren, A., 1980: “The Nawamis in Southern Sinai”. In Z. Meshel / I. Finkelstein (eds.), Sinai in Antiquity. Hakkibutz Hameuchad. Pp. 243–263. (Hebrew). — 1998: The Nawamis in Southern Sinai, in: Shmuel Ahituv (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of Nomads in the Negev and Sinai, Beersheva. Beer Sheva. Pp. 59–85. (Hebrew). Greenberg, R., 2019: The Archaeology of the Bronze Age Levant. From Urban Origins to the Demise of CityStates, 3700–1000 BCE. Cambridge. Greenwood, N., 1997: The Sinai. A Physical Geography. Austin. Grigson, C., 1984: “Preliminary Report on the Mammal Bones from Chalcolithic Qatif, site Y2 (including Y2a), on the Sinai Coastal Plain (Excavations of 1979, 1980 and 1983)”. Unpublished manuscript. — 1987: “Shiqmim: Pastoralism and other aspects of animal management in the Chalcolithic of the northern Negev”. In T. E. Levy (ed.), Shiqmim. BAR International Series 356. Oxford. Pp. 219–241; 535–546. — 1995: “Plough and pasture in the early economy of the southern Levant”. In T. E. Levy (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London. Leicester. Pp. 245–268. Habermehl, K.-H., 1961: Die Altersbestimmung bei Haustieren, Pelztieren und beim jagdbaren Wild. Berlin. Haiman, M., 1992: “Sedentarism and Pastoralism in the Negev Highlands in the Early Bronze Age: Results of the Western Negev Highlands Emergency Survey”. In O. Bar-Yosef / A. Khazanov (eds.), Pastoralism

282

L. K. Horwitz

in the Levant; Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspectives. Monographs in World Archaeology 10. Madison. Pp. 93–104. Halstead, P., 1998: “Mortality Models and Milking: Problems of Uniformitarianism, Optimality and Equifinality Reconsidered”. Anthropozoologica 27, 3–20. Hamdan, M. A. / Brook, G. A., 2015: “Timing and Characteristics of Late Pleistocene and Holocene Wetter Periods in the Eastern Desert and Sinai of Egypt, Based on 14C Dating and Stable Isotope Analysis of Spring Tufa Deposits”. Quaternary Science Reviews 130, 168–188. Hammer, O. / Harper, D. A. T / Ryan, P. D., 2001: “PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis”. Palaeontologia Electronica 4(1), art 4. http://palaeo-electronica.org/ 2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm. Höflmayer, F. / Eichmann, R. (eds.), 2014: Egypt and the Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age. OrientArchäologie 31. Rahden/Westf. Horwitz, L. K., 1997: “Animal remains”. In: Eliot Braun (ed.), Yiftah'el. Salvage and Rescue Excavations at A Prehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 2. Jerusalem, Pp, 155– 172. — 2003a: “Early Bronze Age Archaeozoological Remains”. In I. Beit-Arieh (ed.), Archaeology of Sinai. The Ophir Expedition. Monograph Series No. 21. Tel Aviv. Pp. 242–256. — 2003b: “Early Bronze Age Animal Exploitation at Qiryat Ata”. In A. Golani (ed.), Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat Ata. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 18. Jerusalem. Pp. 225– 241. — 2019: “Animal Remains from the Nawamis Fields and Coeval Habitation Sites in Southern Sinai”. In H. Goldfus / M. I. Gruber / Sh. Yona / P. Fabian (eds.), “Isaac went out ... to the field” (Genesis 24:63): Studies in Archaeology and Ancient Cultures in Honor of Isaac Gilead. Oxford. Pp. 131–144. Horwitz, L. K. / Tchernov, E. / Hellwing, S., 1996: “Patterns of Animal Exploitation”. In R. Gophna (ed.), Excavations at Tel Dalit. Tel Aviv. Pp. 193–216. Horwitz, L. K. / Tchernov, E. / Mienis, H. K., 2001: “Archaeozoology and archaeomalacology of site 917 in the ‘Uvda Valley.” ‘Atiqot 42, 121–127. Horwitz, L. K. / Tchernov, E. / Mienis, H. K. / Hakker-Orion, D. / Bar-Yosef Mayer, D., 2002: “The Archaeozoology of Three Early Bronze Age Sites in Nahal Besor, North-Western Negev”. In E. C. M. van den Brink / E. Yanai (eds.), In Quest of Ancient Settlements and Landscapes. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Ram Gophna, Tel Aviv. Pp. 107–133. Hovers, E., 1981: The Assemblages from Nawamis and Habitation Sites of the Fourth Millennium in Sinai. (Lithics of Ein Huderah, Ein um Ahmed and Wadi Nasb). MA Seminar. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Ingold, T., 1980: Hunters, Pastoralists and Ranchers. Cambridge. Issar, A. / Bruins, H. J., 1983: “Special Climatological Conditions in the Deserts of Sinai and the Negev during the Latest Pleistocene”. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 43(1–2), 63–72. Jabbur, J. S., 1995: The Bedouins and The Desert. Aspects of Nomadic Life in the Arab East. Albany. Joffe, A. H., 1993: Settlement and Society in the Early Bronze Age I and II Southern Levant: Complementarity and Contradiction in a Small-Scale Complex Society. Sheffield. Kempinski, A., 1992: “Reflections on the Role of the Egyptians in the Shefelah of Palestine in the Light of the Recent Soundings at Tel Erani.” In E. van den Brink (ed.), The Nile Delta in Transition; 4th–3rd Millennium B.C. Tel Aviv. Pp. 419–421. Lernau, H., 1978: “Faunal remains”. In R. Amiran (ed.), Early Arad, the Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze Age City. I, First-Fifth Seasons of Excavations, 1962–1966. Jerusalem. Pp. 83–113. Levy, T. E. / van den Brink, E. C. M. (eds.), 2002: Egypt and the Levant. Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium BCE. London. Lyman, R. L., 1984: “Bone Density and Differential Survivorship of Fossil Classes”. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3, 259–299. Mazar, A., 1990: Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000–586 B.C.E. New York.

Dynamics of Early Bronze Age Faunal Exploitation in the Sinai Peninsula

283

MacAdams, R., 1974: “Anthropological Perspectives on Ancient Trade”. Current Anthropology 15(3): 239– 258. Milevski, I., 2009: “Local Exchange in the Southern Levant During the Early Bronze Age: A Political Economy Viewpoint”. Antiguo Oriente 7, 125–159. — 2011 Early Bronze Age Goods Exchange in the Southern Levant: A Marxist Perspective. Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology, London and Oakville, Equinox Publishing. Milevski, I. / Horwitz, L. K., 2019: “Domestication of the Donkey (Equus asinus) in the Southern Levant: Archaeozoology, Iconography and Economy”. In R. Kowner / G. Shelach / G. Bar-Oz / M. Shahar / M. Biran (eds.), Animals and Human Society in Asia: Historical, Cultural and Ethical Perspectives. London. Pp. 93–148. de Miroschedji, P., 2002: “The Socio-Political Dynamics of Egyptian-Canaanite Interaction in the Early Bronze Age”. In T. E. Levy and E. C. M. van den Brink (eds.), Egypt and the Levant. Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium BCE. London. Pp. 39–57. — 2015: “Les relations entre l’Égypte et le Levant aux IVe et IIIe millénaires à la lumière des fouilles de Tell es-Sakan”. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettre II (Avril–Juin), 1003–1038. Morris, E., 2018: Ancient Egyptian Imperialism. London. Müller-Neuhof, B. (ed.), 2014: The Later Prehistory of the Arid-Zone in Jordan, Special Issue of Levant 46 (2). Nadel, D. / Malkinson, D. / Bar-Oz, G. / Nachmias, A. / Avner, U. / Horwitz, L. K. / Porat, P., in press: “Small, Sparse and Effective: The Negev and Sinai Kites”. In A. Betts / P. van Pelt (eds.), The Gazelle’s Dream. Animal Drives, Hunting Traps and Desert Kites. Sydney. Payne, S., 1973: “Kill-off Patterns in Sheep and Goats: The Mandibles from Aşvan Kale”. Anatolian Studies 23, 281–303. Petrie, W. M. F., 1906: Researches in Sinai. London. Porat, N., 1989a: Composition of Pottery-Application to the Study of the Interrelations between Canaan and Egypt during the 3rd Millennium B.C. Ph.D. dissertation. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. — 1989b “Petrography of Pottery from Southern Israel and Sinai”. In P. de Miroschedji (ed.), L’Urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze Ancien. Bilan et Perspectives des Recherches Actuelles. BAR International Series 527 [I]. Oxford. Pp. 169–188. Porat, N. / Avner, U. / Holzer, A. / Shemtov, R. / Horwitz, L. K., 2013: “Fourth Millennium BC ‘Leopard Traps’ from the Negev Desert, Israel”. Antiquity 87, 714–727. Perevolotsky, A., 1987: “Territoriality and Resource Sharing among the Bedouin of Southern Sinai: A Socioecological Interpretation”. Journal of Arid Environments 13, 153–161. Perevolotsky, A. / Baharav, D., 1991: “The Distribution of Desert Kites in Eastern Sinai and Sub-regional Carrying Capacity: An Ecological Perspective”. Journal of Arid Environments 20, 239–249. Regev, J. / de Miroschedji, P. / Greenberg, R. / Braun, E. / Greenhut, Z. / Boaretto, E., 2012: “Chronology of The Early Bronze Age in The Southern Levant: New Analysis for a High Chronology”. Radiocarbon 54 (3–4), 525–566. Rosen, S. A., 1987: “Demographic trends in the Negev Highlands: Preliminary results from the Emergency Survey”. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 266, 45–58. — 1998: “The Development of Pastoral Nomadic Systems in the Southern Levantine Periphery. An Economic Model Based on Archaeological Evidence”. In M. Pearce / M. Tosi (eds.), Papers from the EAA Third Annual meeting at Ravenna 1997. Vol. I: Pre- and Protohistory. BAR International Series 717. Oxford. Pp. 92–96. — 2002a: “The Evolution of Pastoral Nomadic Systems in the Southern Levantine Periphery”. In E. C. M. van den Brink / E. Yannai (eds.), In Quest of Ancient Settlements and Landscapes. Tel Aviv. Pp. 23–44. — 2002b: “An Economic Model for Early Bronze Age Pastoral Nomadism”. In Sh. Ahituv / E. D. Oren (eds.), Beer-Sheva XV (Aharon Kempinski Memorial Volume). Pp. 344–359. — 2016: Revolutions in the Desert. The Rise of Mobile Pastoralism in the Negev and the Arid Zones of the Southern Levant. Routledge.

284

L. K. Horwitz

Seger, J. D. / Baum, B. / Borowski, O. / Cole, D. P. / Forshey, H. / Futato, E. / Jacobs, P. F. / Laustrup, M. / O’Connor Seger, P. / Zeder, M., 1990: “The Bronze Age settlements at Tell Halif: Phase II Excavations, 1983–1987”. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Supplement 26, 1–32. Schorsch, D., 2000: “Turquoise in Ancient Egypt”. In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/turqe/hd_turqe.htm Silver, I. A., 1969: “The Ageing of Domestic Animals”. In D. R. Brothwell / E. S. Higgs (eds.): Science in Archaeology. London. Pp. 283–302. Stein, G. J., 1998: “Heterogeneity, Power, and Political Economy: Some Current Research issues in the Archaeology of Old World Complex Societies”. Journal of Archaeological Research 6.1, 1–44. Tallet, P. / Castel G. / Fluzin, Ph., 2011: “Metallurgical sites of South Sinai (Egypt) in the Pharaonic Era: New Discoveries”. Paléorient 37(2), 79–89. Vaks, A. / Bar-Matthews, M. / Matthews, A. / Ayalon, A. / Frumkin, A., 2010: “Middle-Late Quaternary Paleoclimate of Northern Margins of the Saharan-Arabian Desert: Reconstruction from Speleothems of Negev Desert, Israel”. Quaternary Science Reviews 29, 2647–2662. Whitcher, S., 1999: Animals, Environment and Society: A Zooarchaeological Approach to the Late Chalcolithic – Early Bronze I Transition in the Southern Levant. PhD dissertation. University of Edinburgh. Zahran, M. A. / Willis, A. J., 1992: The Vegetation of Egypt. London.

The EBA–IBA Transition in the Judean Shephelah A View from the IBA Omer Shalev,1 Naama Walzer2, and Yitzhak Paz3

Abstract Two recent excavations at Ramat Bet Shemesh have allowed, for the first time, to define two sets of ceramic typological attributes that can be accredited an earlier or later subphase within the Intermediate Bronze Age (IBA) in the Judean Shephelah. By applying them to other IBA sites in this region, the relative chronology between them is revealed, and the settlement patterns can be traced throughout this period. Surprisingly, it has become clear that the vast majority of the IBA settlement sites in the Judean Shephelah belong to the latter subphase, while only a small part may be dated to the earlier one. With this new data, and against the background of the flourishing late EB III of the Judean Shephelah, reflected, for example, in the palace complex of Tel Yarmuth, it appears that during the early IBA this region experienced a dramatic depletion in population, to be revived only at a later phase. This phenomenon vastly differs from what has been documented in other regions, such as the Transjordan and the Negev Highlands. Thus, the EB–IBA transition in the Judean Shephelah, as currently understood, can no longer be discussed under the same lately suggested banner of fluidity and continuity but should be viewed as the result of to the ever-growing list of regional differences in the southern Levant during the last half of the 3rd millennium BC.

Keywords: Intermediate Bronze Age, Early Bronze Age, Southern Levant, Judean Shephelah, Cultural Change.

Introduction The shift from the EB III to the IBA (also known as EB IV or MB I) is perhaps one of the most contested transitions in Southern-Levant archaeology. Even after almost a century of research, very little has come to be of consensus concerning the end of the third millennium BC. Furthermore, our understanding of this transition has been greatly influenced by scholarly discourses and new archaeological theories.4 For many years, the changes witnessed during the EB–IBA transition were seen as a dramatic collapse of the EB urban system. In early research, this collapse was understood as the product of new peoples penetrating the Southern Levant. This was envisioned as either peaceful migrations5 or violent invasions of nomadic groups6 who brought a new form of social structure and new material culture. This historical scenario also provided an explanation for the distinct regionalism found in the IBA material culture.7 By the late 1970s, under the influence of processual archaeology, prior theories gave way to those seeking outside forces behind the internal process that led to the systemic collapse of the EB urban society.8 However, work conducted in Transjordan yielded evidence that did not fit the Southern Levant’s first urban wave dramatic collapse scenario. Excavations east of the Jordan River documented sites with IBA

1

Israel Antiquities Authority; email: [email protected]. The Jacob M. Alkow Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations, Tel Aviv University; email: [email protected]. 3 Israel Antiquities Authority; email: [email protected]. 4 E.g., Long 2003; Bunimovitz / Greenberg, 2006; Prag, 2014: 396–397; Höflmayer, 2017: 1–2. 5 E.g., Albright, 1938: 16 6 E.g., Kenyon, 1966. 7 E.g., Amiran, 1960, 1969; Dever, 1973. 8 E.g., Prag, 1974; Dever, 1980; Richard, 1980. 2

286

O. Shalev, N. Walzer, and Y. Paz

strata directly overlaying those from the EB III,9 some exhibiting multiple IBA phases,10 social complexity, and hints of fortification.11 Thus, a more fluid transition and a clearer continuity between the EB and the IBA have been suggested. More recently, publications of radiometric-based studies have even further altered prior assumptions on the EB–IBA transition. Radiocarbon dates retrieved from sites across the southern Levant indicate that this transition should be pushed back by c. 200 years. 12 As a result, the end of the EB urban system, the end of the Old Kingdom in Egypt,13 and the 4.2 ka BP climatic events14 are no longer contemporaneous. Consequently, none of these factors can be regarded as this transition’s valid culprits. Based on this data, along with sequenced 14C dates from many EB III sites, Greenberg15 argued that the end of the Early Bronze Age should not be understood as a total and abrupt collapse of the urban system. Instead, the entire EB III should be viewed as a time of gradual transmutation and adoption of a better, or more suitable, yet not unfamiliar way of life. Up to present, and although Greenberg contributed to the understanding of processes and phases that led to the IBA, very little is understood regarding the developmental phases of the IBA itself within Israel/Palestine. The lack of stratified sites between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, such as those found in Transjordan, has resulted in the IBA being still a single 500-year-long period, with little indications for subphases. The IBA in the Judean Shephelah,16 and other regions west of the Jordan River, is usually characterized by single stratum sites, shallow accumulation, temporary nature of many settlements, and regionally typical assemblages. As a result, archaeologists have had difficulties establishing a firm typological sequence of this region based upon the ability to separate earlier ceramic types from later ones. Thus, all the sites have been dated to the general IBA, with no relative chronology among them, and their material culture ascribed to the “Southern Family”.17 However, two newly excavated sites in Ramat Bet Shemesh (henceforth, RBS),18 Khirbet el-cAlya Northeast (henceforth KANE), and Naḥal Ha-’Ela Site (henceforth NES; Fig. 1) have yielded two ceramic assemblages, each with distinct and different typological features. Due to the high proximity of the two sites, the similar activity recorded in them, and the identical excavation techniques utilized in both, the most probable explanation for the differences between these two assemblages is chronological. Thus, for the first time, two sets of ceramic typological attributes can be created, which can be accredited to earlier and later subphases of the IBA in the Judean Shephelah. It is not the aim of this paper to delve in a typological description of the two assemblages,19 but rather to review these early and late typological sets and mainly apply them to other IBA sites in the Judean Shephelah, 9

E.g., Bab edh-Dhra, Rast / Schaub, 2003: 398; Khirbat Iskandar, Richard / Long, 2007: 73. E.g., Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, Falconer / Fall, 2016; Khirbat Iskandar, Richard et al., 2010. 11 Richard / Long, 2007: 72. 12 Regev et al., 2012; Falconer / Fall, 2016; Höflmayer, 2017: 3–12; Dunseth et al., 2017; Lev et al. 2020; cf. Nigro et al., 2018. 13 E.g., Prag, 1974: 103; Richard, 1987: 34. 14 E.g., Rosen, 1995; Weiss, 1993. 15 Greenbreg, 2017. 16 The Judean Shephelah is a well-defined geographical unit in Southern Levant, constituting an intermediate zone between the Judean Hills to the east and the Coastal Plain to the west. From a geographical point of view, the Judean Shephelah stretches from the Yarkon Basin in the north through the Be’er Sheva Valley in the south (Stern, 1988: 12). Archaeologists, however, which are more interested in social, historical, and political perspectives rather than formal geographic definitions, have often defined the boundaries of the Judean Shephelah differently, to reflect the reality of their studied period (i.e., Dagan, 2011a: 3; cf. Zisso, 2001: 10). Here, a more comprehensive approach was chosen to include the few sites that are not in the Judean Shephelah geographically but exhibit Shephelah IBA material culture, i.e., Bet Nehemya and Er-Rujum. 17 Amiran, 1960, 1969; Dever, 1973, 1980. 18 Ramat Bet Shemesh is a subunit within the northern Judean Shephelah, bounded by Naḥal Soreq on the north, Naḥal Zanoah on the east, Naḥal Ha-’Ela on the south, and the lower reaches oof Naḥal Yarmuth and Naḥal Yish‘i on the west. 19 Discussed in detail in Paz, Shalev and Walzer, forthcoming. 10

The EBA–IBA Transition in the Judean Shephelah

287

in order to map the settlement patterns of this region in each subphase of the IBA and examine these patterns against the nature of the late EB III. The analysis of the transition between these two periods can be thus implemented.

Figure 1. Location map, with the sites mentioned in the text from the Judean Shephelah dated to the final phase of the EB III and the IBA: 1) Bet Neḥemyah, 2) Er-Rujum, 3) Newe Shalom, 4) Kh. Ḥasan, 5) Tarum, 6) Eshta’ol, 7) KANE, 8) RBS 140.1, 9) RBS 248.1, 10) Kh. el-‘Alya, 11) Tel Yarmuth, 12) Tel Azekah, 13) NES, 14) Kh. el-Mas‘ud, 15) Tel eṣ-Ṣāfi / Gath, 16) Tel Lachish, 17) Jebel Qa‘aqir, 18) Tel Beit Mirsim.

Khirbet el-‘Alya Northeast and Naḥal Ha-’Ela Site: The Foundations of the Early and Late Ceramic Sets Salvage excavations were conducted by the authors at the two sites at the center of the present discussion, KANE and NES, discovered in recent years. KANE is located in a small valley, close to one of Naḥal Yimla’s tributaries, which runs northeast of the mound of Khirbet el-‘Alya. Three strata were identified at the site. In Strata I–II, the unearthed remains were dated to later periods (i.e., Iron Age II and an unidentified period), and will not be included in the present discussion.20 In Stratum III, dated to the IBA, the remains of a small settlement were found. The preservation state of the architectural remains did not allow for a reconstruction of a full and accurate plan, but at least two and perhaps three structures may be reconstructed (Fig. 2). Alongside these structures, several household installations were identified, such as cupmarks, pits, and simple silos. NES is located on the eastern slope of a spur that descends towards a tributary of Naḥal Ha-’Ela, northwest of Kibbutz Netiv Ha-Lamed He. The salvage excavation revealed remains of two settlements, from the IBA and the MB IIB, c. 100 m apart. Adjacent to the MB settlement, a small shaft-tomb cemetery was found; the tombs were hewn during the IBA and reused in the MB IIB.21 The remains of the IBA settlement included a large structure with two construction phases (Fig. 3). However, no variation was recognized between the pottery from the two phases, perhaps indicating a relatively short occupation. Around the structure, several installations, such as stone surfaces and pits, some containing in situ ceramic vessels, were unearthed. 20 21

Shalev / Dallasheh, 2017. Paz, 2016.

288

O. Shalev, N. Walzer, and Y. Paz

Figure 2. Structure remains from KANE, looking northeast (photo: A. Peretz).

The ceramic assemblages of KANE and NES share many similarities. First, their general characteristics ascribe them both to the "Southern Family". Second, within the two assemblages, storage vessels, both jars, and holemouths jars are the most dominant category, followed by holemouth cooking pots, and, in much smaller quantities, by small vessels such as cups, bowls, and amphoriskoi. These similar proportions of vessel categories are possibly the result of the similar domestic and agriculturally-based activities documented at the two sites. However, the possibility of the relatively low frequency of smaller vessels being the consequence of site-abandonment processes has also been contemplated. However, upon a second study of the assemblages, discrepancies in vessel forms, types, and quantities became evident. It is within these differences that evidence for the characteristics of the earlier and later phases of the IBA has been identified. As previously stated, the IBA sites of the Judean Shephelah have not provided any stratigraphic evidence. Therefore, the sets of features assigned to the earlier or later phases are based on three main sources: 1. Suggestions made by previous scholars regarding the typo-chronological division of the IBA, including degeneracy levels of the EB tradition versus the appearance of MB prototypes. 2. Comparison with multi-strata sites located in other regions of the Southern Levant, mainly Transjordan. 3. Typo-technological changes in the manufacturing process of vessels, also suggested as chronological markers.

The EBA–IBA Transition in the Judean Shephelah

289

Figure 3. Structure remains from NES, looking south (photo: Y. Paz).

Taking into consideration the three mentioned external sources, the comparison between the KANE and NES assemblages allowed compiling a list of features that point to the chronological differentiation between them. Cups At KANE, only three undecorated cup sherds were collected (Fig. 4:1), as opposed to the twenty-four found at NES, some decorated with wavy incised lines (Fig. 4:2). Cups, or ‘Caliciform’, one of the prominent and ‘classic’ IBA ceramic features, have long been discussed as representing the new cultural elements introduced in this period.22 From the chronological aspect, at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj in Transjordan, there is a constant rise in the number of cups through the site’s seven IBA layers.23 Walzer (this volume) argues that this is related to changes in Syria. Thus, cups will be expected to be found in smaller quantities in the earlier phase and larger quantities in the latter. Bowls At KANE, three types of bowls were found, all handmade: hemispherical (Fig. 4:3), flat inturned rim bowls, sometimes with rope-like decoration (Fig. 4:4), and large bowls with a flat cut rim (not illustrated). The two types of bowls found in NES, carinated (Fig. 4:5), and rilled rim (Fig. 4:6), also share a common denominator—both types were processed on a wheel or tournette. According to D’Andrea,24 the IBA is to be divided into three chronological subphases based on technological changes in the manufacturing process of vessels:

22

E.g., Bunimovitz / Greenberg, 2004. Czarzasty, 2005: 105–107. 24 D’Andrea, 2012; cf. Roux, 2015. 23

290

O. Shalev, N. Walzer, and Y. Paz

1. An earlier horizon, characterized by handmade pottery types sharing many traits with the former EB III traditions. 2. The middle horizon, characterized by wheel-finished vessels. 3. The later horizon, defined by a mixed technique with wheel-finished and wheel-fashioned vessels, as well as the appearance of new pottery types and new decoration techniques, such as incised wavy lines. Furthermore, at Kh. Iskandar, both bowl types are considered diagnostic types of the later phase25, although it must be stressed that these bowl types appear, at first, alongside the handmade ones. Thus, even if simple bowls may appear in later assemblages, the earlier repertoire will lack wheel-finished bowls. Holemouths The common holemouth, both in KANE and NES, has a geometric rim, with a triangular, square, or hammerlike profile. However, while many of the KANE rims were decorated with a simple or fishbone-like incised decoration (Fig. 4:7), the NES assemblage includes only plain rims of this type (Fig. 4:8). Another variation identified between the two sites is that the KANE assemblage included spouted holemouth jars (Fig. 4:9), absent at NES. In contrast, the large cooking holemouth with a thick ridge just below its rim can be found at NES but is absent at KANE (Fig. 4:10). At KANE, the spouted holemouth is a strong feature advocating for the earlier nature of the assemblage. This type is a clear continuation of the late EB III spouted vats and holemouth jars,26 and according to Richard,27 this form does not outlive her EB IVb–c transition, as it was found in the middle phase in Kh. Iskandar.28 On the other hand, the ridged rim holemouth cooking pot found in NES indicates a later phase within the IBA, if we accept Richard’s typological development.29 Storage Jars differences between rim types were noticed between the two sites. While simple rims, rounded and flaring outwards (Fig. 4:11) were found at both sites, complex or more processed rims, with a triangular profile (Fig. 4:12) was found only at NES, where they are the most popular form. Variation in jar rim types was found between the two strata at Tell Iktanu, the jar rims of the earlier phase being simple or plain, and those of the later complex or worked.30 A similar phenomenon was found at Kh. Iskandar, where the early phase necked jars were described with slightly flared rounded rims, the middlephase jars with simple direct rims, and the latter phase ones with curved-out, flared rims.31 In other words, the processed rims, a “classical” characteristic of IBA storage jars, are a later feature. However, these jars did not totally replace the simple-rim jars but appeared alongside them. Thus, the indication of an early phase assemblage is the lack of complex-rimmed jars, while simple rimmed jars may continue into the later phase. Ledge Handles In KANE, the ledge-handles, found in relatively large numbers, are large and show folded flaps (Fig. 4:13), contrasting with the bit more than a handful ledge-handles from NES, which are small and vestigial (Fig. 4:14). Already in the 1930s, ledge-handles were proposed as a chronological marker, as they appeared in Tel Beit Mirsim only in Stratum I but not Stratum H.32 Similarly, the two phases of Tell Iktanu, in Transjordan, produced two forms of ledge-handle variants. While the earliest-phase ledge-handles were larger and with smaller folded flaps, the latter-phase ledge-handles were smaller and with further flaps overlapping each 25

Richard, 2010: 99, Fig. 4.7. De Miroschedji, 2000: 330–334. 27 Richard, 1978: 79–81. 28 Richard, 2010: 97, Fig. 4.6: 6. 29 Richard, 1978: 88, Type 35d. 30 Prag, 1974: 78. 31 Richard, 2010: 96. 32 Albright, 1933: 62; Wright, 1938: 32; cf. Amiran, 1960: 208. 26

The EBA–IBA Transition in the Judean Shephelah

291

other.33 Richard suggested dividing the ledge-handles typology into three phases: the pinched-lapped/semifolded type, corresponding to the early phase; the envelope type, belonging to the middle phase; and the vestigial, corresponding to the late phase.34 The ledge-handles of KANE and NES may be attributed to Richard’s early and late phases, respectively. Early and Late IBA Ceramic Features To conclude this part, four KANE ceramic features constitute the early set, and four features from NES can be attributed to the late sets (Table 1). A few more features can be added to this list. Absent from both KANE and NES assemblages, their position within the sets remain nevertheless valid and important. To the early set can be added the bulbous-rim holemouth. This type characterizes Kh. Iskander’s earliest phase35 and is considered to reflect EB III styles.36 To the late set, straight-sided cooking pots may be added. This vessel was one of Albright’s main motivations to assign the pottery of what we now call the IBA to the Middle Bronze Age.37 Previously, its identification with the IBA was considered problematic, as it was found in multi-strata sites with extensive MB occupations. Nevertheless, this vessel has been found in Transjordan in clear late-IBA strata38 and, recently, in the single-strata IBA site of Bet Neḥemya, north of Tel Ḥadid.39 Therefore, it is now understood as a predecessor of the typical MB II form, which starts appearing in the later stages of the IBA.40 On a final note, it must be stressed that none of these features, either of the early or late set, should be considered as a fossil directeur. The present state of research does not allow distinguishing any clear-cuts within the IBA subphases. Thus, the transition between the early and late phases, and therefore the ceramic attribution of each, must be seen as a gradual process in which early phase features might still appear in the latter phase, while late phase features may appear already in the earlier phase. It should be emphasized that although this discussion is based upon typological observations, there are radiometric dates from both sites that date KANE to an early phase of the IBA and NES to a later phase.41

Table 1. Comparison between early and late IBA ceramic features.

Vessel / Type Cups Bowls

Early Features Small numbers Handmade

Holemouth and Cooking pots Storage jars

Spouted holemouth Bulbous rim Simple rims

Ledge handles

Large, with folded flaps

33

Prag 1974, 78. Richard, 1980: 13–14, Fig. 1. 35 Richard, 2010: 96. 36 Richard, 1978: 88; D’Andrea, 2012: 26. 37 Albright, 1932: 15–16. 38 Richard, 2010: 96, D’Andrea, 2012: 26. 39 Yekutieli / Paran / Ben-Yishai, 2015: Fig. 5: 10. 40 Paz, forthcoming. 41 Lev et al., 2020. 34

Late Features Large numbers Wheel-finish and wheel-fashioned (majority) alongside handmade Ridged-rim holemouth Straight-sided cooking pot Complex rims with a triangular profile alongside simple rims Vestigial

292

O. Shalev, N. Walzer, and Y. Paz

Figure 4. Typo-chronological differences in pottery vessels between KANE (left) and NES (right).

The EBA–IBA Transition in the Judean Shephelah

293

Settlement Patterns in the Judean Shephelah: Establishing the IBA’s Early and Late-Phases Maps Ceramic assemblages of other Judean Shephelah sites were also reviewed, from Bet Neḥemya in the north through Tel Beit Mirsim in the south, to identify the settlement patterns of the early and late IBA subphases. To avoid any biases, this study included no assemblages from mortuary contexts42 or from sites that were only surveyed and not excavated. Altogether, the pottery assemblages of 13 settlements were studied (Fig. 1; Table 2).43 Two points should be emphasized. First, there is difficulty in examining all the features from the early and late sets. For example, some publications lack a quantitative analysis of the ceramic finds, making it hard to know how many cups were found in the excavations and what is the percentage of cups within the site’s assemblage. Second, there is no clear cut between the early and late phases of the IBA, and the ceramic assemblage probably had a natural development. The two-phase division is, in some senses, arbitrary, and it is the outcome of the present discussion which focuses on the transition from the EB III and the need to refine the early phase of the IBA. Thus, when both early and late features were found at the same site, the attribution of the site to the early or late phase was based on an internal hierarchy of the features. In Lachish, for instance, the straight-sided cooking pot, a prototype of a vessel more common in the MB IIb, was thought to be more significant than the pinched-lapped/semi-folded ledge-handle, so the site was attributed to the late phase. Wheel-finished and wheel fashioned bowls found at this site, as well as storage jars with a complex rim, supported this decision. At Tarum, on the other hand, storage jars with a complex rim, and vestigial ledgehandles were found, yet the site was ascribed to the earlier phase based on the bulbous-rim holemouth, a relic of the EB III tradition. The total absence of cups within this assemblage reinforced this conclusion. It cannot be ruled out that both Tarum and Lachish, and other sites, may be attributed to a middle phase within the IBA, yet only feature research might perfect our understanding regarding the development of the Judean Shephelah IBA ceramic assemblage. The results were quite surprising. It has become apparent that KANE is a unique site, in all things related to the ceramic repertoire. For example, spouted holemouths were not found in any other sites in the Judean Shephelah. Parallels of such vessels were found only in the Negebite sites of ‘Ein Ziq and Be’er Resisim.44 However, this is not to say that KANE is the only site that can be considered as an early IBA site in the Judean Shephelah. Tarum, as already noted, also seems to belong to the early phase. The NES repertoire, on the other hand, is easily comparable to many other IBA sites in the Judean Shephelah, such as Jebel Qacaqir,45 er-Rujum,46 Eshta’ol47 and RBS 248.1.48 The resemblance of the NES assemblage to that of er-Rujum is of high importance, as the latter has been radiometrically dated to the late phase of the IBA.49 42

In sites with both dwelling and burials, i.e., Lachish and Jebel Qacaqir, only finds from dwelling contexts were counted. Bet Neḥemya: Yekutieli / Paran / Ben-Yishai, 2015; er-Rujum: Milevski et al., 2012; Newe Shalom: Storchan, 2013; Kh. Hasan: Paz, 2012a; Tarum: Storchan, 2012; Eshta’ol: Golani / Stochan, 2009; Shai / Uziel. in press; Ramat Bet Shemesh 140.1: Paz, 2012b; Shalev / Dallasheh 2017; Ramat Bet Shemesh 248.1: Dagan, 2010: 202–203; Lev et al., 2020; Tell es-Safi / Gath: Gur-Arie, 2008: 21–22, Pl. 1; Kh. el-Mas‘ud: Nagorsky 2007; Lachish: Tufnel, 1958, Pl. 66; Jebel Qa‘aqir: Gitin, 1975; Dever, 1981; Tel Bet Mirsim: Albright, 1932; 1933; 1938. It is important to point out that, at this point in time, not all excavations have been fully published. We wish to thank A. Golani, B. Storchan, I. Shai, and J. Uziel for their permission to review the finds from their excavations. See Walzer, 2019 for material from Ramat Bet Shemesh Site 248.1. Ramat Bet Shemesh Site 140.1 was excavated separately by Y. Paz and O. Shalev. Kh. Hasan was excavated by Y. Paz. 44 Cohen, 1999: 254, Fig. 153: 1–2. Sites for which 14C dates have been published and may provide further corroboration for the early date of this vessel type within the IBA, Dunseth el al., 2017. 45 Gitin, 1975. 46 Milevskin et al., 2012. 47 Shai / Uziel, in press. 48 Dagan, 2010: 202–203. 49 The radiometric date of er-Rujum was based on a few long-leaved samples of an average date ranging between 2300 and 2100 calBC; Milevski et al., 2012: 126–129. 43

294

O. Shalev, N. Walzer, and Y. Paz

Table 2. Early- and late-ceramic features in the IBA Judean Shephelah sites.

Tel Beit Mirsim

Jebel Qacaqir

Lachish

Kh. el-Masu'd

Tel eṣ-Ṣāfi / Gath

RBS 248.1

RBS 140.1

Eshta'ol

Tarum

Kh. Hasan

Newe Shalom

Er-Rujum

Bet Nehemyah Early Features Spouted holemouth Bulbous-rim holemouth Pinched– lapped/semifolded ledgehandle Late Features Ridged-rim holemouth Straight-side pinched cooking pot Wheel-finish and wheelfashioned bowls Complex-rim jars with triangular profile Vestigial ledge-handles

Furthermore, in 11 sites, there was a strong presence of late attributes, either straight-sided cooking pots, holemouth cooking-pots with a ridge below the rim, or wheel-finished/wheel-fashioned bowls (or both). The ceramic repertoire of Newe Shalom50 and Tel eṣ-Ṣāfi / Gath 51show a significantly smaller assemblage, which includes a low variety of ceramic types, although it is not clear whether this is a reflection of what was found in the field or the outcome of publication related decisions. Thus, it is difficult to determine, in this case, if the absence of evidence is truly the evidence for absence. However, the presence of vestigial ledge-handles and complex rim jars at Tell es-Safi / Gath, and the presence of vestigial ledge-handles at Newe Shalom, hint to the two assemblages belonging to the late phase. In short, it seems that, except for KANE and Tarum, all other IBA sites in the Judean Shephelah are to be placed in the later subphase of this period (Fig. 1).

50 51

Storchan, 2013. Gur-Arie, 2008: 21–22, Pl. 1.

The EBA–IBA Transition in the Judean Shephelah

295

The EBA–IBA Transition in the Judean Shephelah: A Dramatic Collapse/Event After All As elaborated above, during the early phase of the IBA, the Judean Shephelah is very sparsely populated, with only two small settlements associated with this phase. Bearing in mind that the ceramic assemblages of KANE and Tarum are not identical, an inner relative chronology may exist between them. If so, then during the very early stage of the IBA, this region was barely inhabited, a situation even more emphasized when examined against the settlement patterns of the late EB III. The Judean Shephelah is a flourishing region during the EB III, housing several of the largest cities of the Southern Levant, such as Tel eṣ-Ṣāfi / Gath, Tel Erani, Tel Lachish and Tel Ḥalif, as well as smaller towns such as Kh. Shovav, Tel Hesi, and Tel Beit Mirsim.52 More than 50 EB-III settlements were identified in surveys and excavations.53 However, not all sites lasted until the very end of the EB III.54 A key site for understanding the late EB III in the Judean Shephelah is Tel Yarmuth. The entire site, measuring c. 16 ha, was not only apparently occupied in the final phase of the EB III,55 but it is also in this phase that the site reached its zenith, with its so well-known Palace B1 complex (Fig. 5), unparalleled in the Southern Levant.56 The discovery of this palace, constructed in the final phase of the EB III, allowed distinguishing and defining the final episode of the EB in Shephelah as the EB IIIC.57 At the end of the EB IIIC (ca. 2500 BC),58 both the palace complex and contemporary residential quarters at Tel Yarmuth were completely and simultaneously abandoned.59 Based on the sequenced pottery assemblages unearthed at Tel Yarmuth, it has been possible to identify the EB IIIC horizon in the Judean Shephelah. Another large urban center where an EB IIIC stratum was excavated is Tel eṣ-Ṣāfi / Gath. This latest EB III phase at the site has also been radiometrically dated to 2680–2580 BC.60 Thus, the ceramic assemblages and absolute dates make the abandonment at Tel eṣ-Ṣāfi / Gath chronologically parallel to that of Tel Yarmuth. Similar pottery was also found at Tel Lachish,61 and it would seem that this site was also abandoned at the very end of the EB III. At Tel Azekah, an EB III settlement with two occupational phases was unearthed. In the earlier phase, a ceremonial donkey burial was found sealed below a floor. The pottery related to this phase was similar to that of Tel Yarmuth, yet not up to its latest phase.62 Thus, it is most probable, though not certain, that the second EB III phase at Tel Azekah belongs to the EB IIIC. P. de Miroschedji63 has argued that late EB–III pottery was also found at Tel Goded and Tel Maresha, contrary to Getzov, Paz and Gophna,64 who were less conclusive about the existence of a late EB III phase in these two sites. However, they agreed that “in the southern regions of the country, as opposed to the situation in the north, urban sites existed right to the end of the Early Bronze Age, when a final collapse overtook the entire settlement system”.65 Even if we choose a conservative approach, taking into account only recently excavated and absolutely confirmable EB IIIC strata, we are still left with an image of a flourishing period, during which three large cities coexisted side-by-side: Tel Yarmuth, Tel eṣ-Ṣāfi / Gath and Tel Lachish (Fig. 1). This image stands in stark contrast to what we now know about the early phase of the IBA, as it seems that the thousands of people

52

Milevski, 2011: 320, Table 2. Dagan, 2011: 203–205. 54 Greenberg, 2017. 55 De Miroschedji, 2013: 792, Fig. 21. 56 De Miroschedji, 2003; 2006. 57 De Miroschedji, 2000. 58 Regev, de Miroschedji and Boaretto, 2012. 59 De Miroschedji, 1999: 14–15. 60 Shai et al., 2014; see also Shai et al., 2016. 61 Gophna / Blockman, 2004. 62 Sapir-Hen / Gadot / Lipschitz, 2017. 63 De Miroschedji, 2000: 336–338. 64 Getzov / Paz / Gophna, 2001: 37. 65 Getzov / Paz / Gophna, 2001: 37. 53

296

O. Shalev, N. Walzer, and Y. Paz

who lived in these EB cities66 had not only abandoned their urban homes but relocated outside the borders of the Judean Shephelah.

Figure 1. Palace B1 at Tel Yarmuth, looking northeast (photo: Griffin LTD; Shalev and Golani, 2018: Fig. 5).

Conclusions In this paper, we sought to shed light on one piece of the IBA puzzle, the Judean Shephelah. Based on the pottery from two case-study sites, KANE and NES, the settlement patterns in the Judean Shephelah were analyzed. Only two sites were attributed to the early phase of the IBA, while 13 sites were ascribed to the later phase. Considering this settlement pattern, and against the flourishing nature of the late EB III, when at least three large cities existed side-by-side, a major and dramatic event seems to have occurred during the EBA–IBA transition, leaving its impact on the Judean Shephelah for centuries to come; the area was only reinhabited during the later IBA phase.67 The hypothesis proposed here, which views the EBA–IBA transition as a major crisis, is, in a way, the ‘classic’ interpretation of this transition. This view contradicts the publications of recent years that argue for a much more gradual transitional process between these two periods and a much lesser dichotomy between the societies of both periods.68 We do not suggest that this phenomenon was homogenous for the entire Southern Levant. The nature of the EBA–IBA transition in Transjordan, and perhaps in other regions as well,69 was not as described above. The IBA is already known for its complexity and diversity, and it seems that the EBA–IBA transition is just

66

The estimated population size of the EB cities ranges between 150 and 300 people per hectare, meaning that 7800– 15600 people lived in Tel Yarmuth, Tel eṣ-Ṣāfi / Gath, or Tel Lachish. See Shalev, 2017: 55–56; Shalev, 2018: 207– 208, and reference therein. 67 Walzer / Shalev / Paz, 2018. 68 E.g., Greenberg, 2017. 69 Finkelstein et al., 2018.

The EBA–IBA Transition in the Judean Shephelah

297

another component that needs to be attributed to the ever-growing list of regional differences during this period in the Southern Levant.

Acknowledgments The excavations of both KANE and NES were undertaken on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority and financed by the Ministry of Construction and Housing. We wish to accredit and thank all the Israel Antiquities Authority staff members who assisted the excavations, both in the field and the laboratory: S. Dallasheh (area supervision), N. Nehama (administration), M. Kahan, A. Hajian and M. Kunin (surveying and drafting), A. Peretz and Y. Yolowitz (field photography), A. Gyrman-Levanon (digital pottery documentation), and J. Uziel, A. Shadman, S. Gendler, P. Betzer, and D. Ben-Ami. We also thank A. Melman, S. Levavi, Z. Turgeman, N. Ben-Ari, N. Shami, and Y. Zur, who carried out preliminary inspections at the sites.

References Albright, W. F., 1932: “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. Vol. I: The Pottery of the First Three Campaigns (1930–1931)”. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 12, 1–165. — 1933: “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. IA: The Bronze Age Pottery of the Fourth Campaign”. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 13, 55–127. — 1938: “The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim. Vol. II: The Bronze Age”. Annual of the American School of Oriental Research 17, 1–141. Amiran, R., 1960: “The Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age I in Palestine”. IES 10, 204–225. —1969: “The Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age I”. Qadmoniot 2, 45–49. (Hebrew) Bunimovitz, S. / Greenberg, R., 2004: “Revealed in Their Cups: Syrian Drinking Customs in Intermediate Bronze Age Canaan”. BASOR 334, 19–31. — 2006: “Of pot Paradigms: Interpreting the Intermediate Bronze Age in Israel\Palestine”. In S. Gitin / J. E. Write / J. P. Dessel (eds.): Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of Willian G. Dever. Winona Lake. Pp. 23–32. Cohen, R., 1999: Ancient Settlement of the Central Negev, Vol. 1: The Chalcolithic Period, The Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age I. IAA Reports 6. Jerusalem. Czarzasty, J. L., 2005: Community Dynamics at the Early Bronze IV Period Village of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj. PhD Dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe. Dagan, Y., 2010: The Ramat Bet Shemesh Reginal Project: The Gazetteer. IAA Reports 46, Jerusalem. — 2011a: “Chapter 1: Ramat Bet Shemesh within its Geographical Setting”. In Y. Dagan (ed.): The Ramat Bet Shemesh Regional Project. Landscape of Settlement: From the Paleolithic to the Ottoman Periods. IAA Reports 47. Jerusalem. Pp. 3–12. — 2011b: “The Judean Shephelah in the Early Bronze Age: Analysis of the Settlement patterns in the Different Phases”. Eretz-Israel 30, 199–214. (Hebrew) D’Andrea, M., 2012: “The Early Bronze IV Period in South-Central Transjordan: Reconsidering Chronology through Ceramic Technology”. Levant 44, 17–50. Dever, W. G., 1973: “The EB IV-MB I Horizon in Transjordan and Southern Palestine”. BASOR 210, 37– 63. — 1980: “New Vistas on the EB VI (“MB I” Horizon in Syria-Palestine”. BASOR 210, 35–64. — 1981: “Cave G26 at jebel Qa‘aqir: A Domestic Assemblage of Middle Bronze I”. Eretz-Israel 15, 22*– 32*. Dunseth, Z. C. / Junge, A. / Lomax, J. / Boaretto, E., / Finkelstein, I. / Fuchs, M. / Shahack-Gross, R., 2017: “Dating Archaeological Sites in an Arid Environment: A Multi-method Case Study in the Negev Highlands, Israel”. Journal of Arid Environments 144, 156–169. Falconer, S. E. / Fall, P. L., 2016: “A Radiocarbon Sequence from Tell Abu En-Ni‘aj, Jordan and its Implications for Early Bronze IV Chronology in the Southern Levant”. Radiocarbon 58, 615–647.

298

O. Shalev, N. Walzer, and Y. Paz

Finkelstein, I. / Adams, M. J. / Dunseth, Z. C. / Shahack-Gross, R., 2018: “The Archaeology and History of the Negev and Neighbouring Areas in the Third Millennium BCE: A New Paradigm”. Tel Aviv 45, 63– 88. Getzov, N. / Paz, Y. / Gohpna, R., 2001: Shifting Urban Landscapes during the Early Bronze Age in the Land of Israel. Tel Aviv. Gitin, S., 1975: “Middle Bronze I “Domestic” Pottery at Jebel Qa‘aqir”. Eretz-Israel 12, 46–62. Golani, A. / Storchan, B. D., 2009: “Esht’aol. Preliminary report”. HA-ESI 121. http://www.hadashotesi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=993&mag_id=115 Gophna, R. / Blochman, N., 2004: “The Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Early Bronze and Intermediate Bronze Age Pottery”. In D. Ussishkin (ed.): The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), Vol. 3. Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22. Tel Aviv. Pp. 873–900. Greenberg, R., 2017: “No Collapse: Transmutations of Early Bronze Age Urbanism in the Southern Levant”. In F. Höflmayer (ed.): The Late Third Millennium in the Ancient Near East: Chronology, C14, and Climate Change. Oriental Institute Seminars 11. Chicago. Pp. 33–60. Gur-Arie, S., 2008: Siege Systems in The Ancient Near East: A Case Study from Tell es-Safi/ Gath. MA Thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan. (Hebrew) Höflmayer, F., 2017: “The Late Third Millennium B.C. in the Ancient Near East and Eastern Mediterranean: A Time of Collapse and Transformation”. In F. Höflmayer (ed.): The Late Third Millennium in the Ancient Near East: Chronology, C14 and Climate Change. University of Chicago Oriental Institute Seminars 11. Chicago. Pp. 1–28. Lev, R. / Shalev, O. / Regev, J. / Paz, Y. / Boaretto, E., 2020: “Bridging the Gap EBIII–IBA: Early Intermediate Bronze Age Radiocarbon Dates from Khirbat el-‘Alya Northeast, Israel”. Radiocarbon, 1– 13. doi:10.1017/RDC.2020.83 Long, J. C. Jr., 2003: “Theory in Archaeology: A Cultural Change at the end of Early Bronze Age”. In S. Richard (ed.): Near Eastern Archaeology: A Reader. Winona Lake. Pp. 308–318. Kenyon, K. M., 1966: Amorites and Canaanites. London. Milevski, I., 2011: “Urbanization Centers, Periphery and Local Exchange in the Southern Levant during the Early Bronze Age”. Eretz-Israel 30, 317–327. (Hebrew) Milevski, I. / Boaretto, E. / Cohen-Weinberger, A. / Kamaisky, E. / Khalaily, H. / Liphschitz, N. / Sade, M. / Shalev, S., 2012: “Er-Rujum (Sha‘alabim East): An Intermediate Bronze Age (EB IV) Site in the Ayyalon Valley”. ‘Atiqot 69, 75–140. de Miroschedji, P., 1999: “Yarmuth: The Dawn of the City-state in Southern Canaan”. Near Eastern Archaeology 62, 2–19. — 2000: “An Early Bronze Age Pottery Sequence for Southern Israel”. In G. Philip / D. Baird (eds.): Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Levantine Archaeology 2. Sheffield. Pp. 315–345. — 2003: “The Late EB III Palace at Tel Yarmuth: A Descriptive Summary”. Eretz-Israel 27, 153*–70*. — 2006: “At the Dawn of History: Sociopolitical Developments in Southwestern Canaan in Early Bronze Age III”. In A. M Maeir / P. de Miroschedji (eds.): “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar, Vol. 1. Winona Lake. Pp. 55–78. — 2013: Fouilles de Tel Yarmouth: résultats des travaux de 2003 à 2009 (14e–18e campagnes). Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 157e année, N. 2, 759–796. Nagorsky, A., 2007: “Khirbat el-Mas‘ud”. HA-ESI 119. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng. aspx?id=482&mag_id=112 Nigro, L. / Calcagnile, L. / Yasin, J. / Gallo, E. / and Quarta, G., 2018: “Jericho and the Chronology of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age: A Radiometric Re-Assessment”. Radiocarbon 2018, 1–31. Paz, Y., 2012a: “Khirbat Hasan. Preliminary report”. HA-ESI 124. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_ Detail_Eng.aspx?id=2063&mag_id=119 — 2012b: “A Settlement and a Cemetery from the Intermediate Bronze Age in Ramat Bet Shemesh”. In D. Amit / G. D. Steibel / O. Peleg-Barkat / D. Ben-Ami (eds.): New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region: Collected Papers VI. Jerusalem. Pp. 35–49. (Hebrew)

The EBA–IBA Transition in the Judean Shephelah

299

— 2016: “Naḥal Ha-’Ela. Preliminary report. HA-ESI 128. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_ Eng.aspx?id=25011&mag_id=124 — forthcoming: The Earliest Appearance of the Straight Sided Hand-Made Cooking Pot. Paz, Y. / Shalev, O. / Walzer, N., forthcoming: A Horizontal Stratigraphy for the Judean Shephelah in the Intermediate Bronze Age: New Evidences from Ramat Bet Shemesh. Prag, K., 1974: “The Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age: An Interpretation of the Evidence from Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon”. Levant 6, 69–116. — 2014: “The Southern Levant during the Intermediate Bronze Age”. In M. L. Steiner / A. E. Killebrew (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant, c. 8000–332 BCE. Oxford. Pp. 388–400. Rast, W. E. / Schaub, R. T., 2003: Bab edh-Dhra‘. Excavations at the Town Site (1975–1981). Part 1: Text. Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan, 2. Winona Lake. Regev, J. / de Miroschedji, P. / Boaretto, E., 2012: “Early Bronze Age Chronology: Radiocarbon Dates and Chronological Models from Tel Yarmuth (Israel)”. Radiocarbon 54, 505–524. Richard, S., 1980: “Toward a Consensus of Opinion on the End of the Early Bronze Age in PalestineTransjordan”. BASOR 210, 3–34. — 1987: “The Early Bronze Age: The Rise and Collapse of urbanism”. The Biblical Archaeologist 50, 22– 43. — 2010: “The Area C Early Bronze IV Ceramic Assemblage”. In S. Richard / Long, J. C. Jr. / Holdorf, P.S. / Peterman, G. (eds): Khirbat Iskandar: Final Report on the Early Bronze IV Area C ‘Gateway’ and Cemeteries. ASOR Archaeological Reports 14. Archaeological Expedition to Khirbat Iskandar and its Environs, Jordan Vol. 1. Boston. Pp. 69–112. Richard, S. / Long, J. C. Jr., 2007: “Khirbat Iskandar: An Argument for an Elite in the Early Bronze IV Period”. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 9, 71–81. Richard, S. / Long, J. C. Jr. / Holdorf, P. S. / Peterman, G, (eds), 2010: Khirbat Iskandar: Final Report on the Early Bronze IV Area C ‘Gateway’ and Cemeterie. ASOR Archaeological Reports 14. Archaeological Expedition to Khirbat Iskandar and its Environs, Jordan Vol. 1. Boston. Rosen, A. M., 1995: “The Social Response to Environmental Change in Early Bronze Age Canaan”. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14 (1), 26–44. Roux, V., 2015: “Cultural Transmission, Migration and Plain Wheelmade Pottery in the Middle Bronze Age II Southern Levant”. In C. Glatz (ed.): Plain Pottery Traditions of the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East: Production, Use and Social Significance. UCL Institute of Archaeology Publications 67. Walnut Creek. Pp. 69–90. Sapir–Hen, L. / Gadot, Y. / Lipschitz, O., 2017: “Ceremonial Donkey Burial, Social Status, and Settlement Hierarchy in the Early Bronze III: The Case of Tel Azekah”. In J. Lev-Tov / P. Hesse / A. Gilbert (eds.): The Wide Lens in Archaeology: Honoring Brian Hesse’s Contributions to Anthropological Archaeology. Archaeobiology 2. Atlanta. Pp. 259–270. Shai, I. / Chadwick, J. R. / Welch, E. / Katz, J. / Greenfield, H. / Maeir, A. M., 2016: “The Early Bronze Age Fortifications at Tell eṣ-Ṣāfi / Gath, Israel”. PEQ 148, 42–58. Shai, I. / Greenfield, H. J. / Regev, J. / Boaretto, E. / Eliyahu–Behar A. / Maeir, M. A., 2014: “The Early Bronze Age Remains at Tell eṣ-Ṣāfi / Gath: An Interim Report”. Tel Aviv 41, 20–49. Shai, I. / Uziel, J., in press: “Salvage excavation at Eshta’ol”. Qamma: Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, Bar-Ilan University 2: 5*–24*. Shalev, O., 2017: “The Urbanization Process in Early Bronze Age Canaan: A View from Tel Erani, Israel”. In L. Miszk / M. Waclawik (eds.): The Land of Fertility II: The Southeast Mediterranean from the Bronze Age to the Muslim Conquest. Newcastle upon Tyne. Pp. 37–68. — 2018: “The Fortification Wall of Tel Erani: A Labour Perspective”. Tel Aviv, 193–215. Shalev, O. / Dallasheh, S., 2017: “Khirbat el-‘Alya. Preliminary report. HA-ESI 129. http://www.hadashotesi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=25262&mag_id=125 Shalev, O. / Golani, A., 2018: “Tel Yarmuth. Preliminary report”. HA-ESI 130. http://www.hadashotesi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=25508&mag_id=126

300

O. Shalev, N. Walzer, and Y. Paz

Stern, E., 1988: “The Southern Shephelah: Boundaries and Geographical Definition)”. In E. Stern / D. Urman (eds.): Man and Environment in the Southern Shephelah: Studies in Regional Geography and History. Israel. Pp. 12–20. (Hebrew) Storchan, B., 2012: “Tarum. Preliminary report”. HA-ESI 124. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_ eng.aspx?id=2082&mag_id=119 — 2013: “Newe Shalom. Preliminary report”. HA-ESI 125. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_ eng.aspx?id=2229&mag_id=120 Tufnell, O., 1958: Lachish IV (Tell ed-Duweir): The Bronze Age. London. Walzer, N. 2019: “The IBA in the Shephelah in Light of Site 248.1”. MA Thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv. Walzer, N. / Shalev, O. / Paz, Y., 2018: “From City to Village: The Transition from the Early Bronze Age III to the Intermediate Bronze Age in the Judean Shephelah, a View from Ramat Beth Shemesh)”. In J. Uziel / Y. Gadot / Y. Zelinger / O. Peleg-Barkat / O. Gutfeld (eds.): New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region: Collected Papers, Vol. XII. Jerusalem. Pp. 171–190. (Hebrew) Wright, G. E., 1938: “The Chronology of Palestine in the Middle Bronze I”. BASOR 71, 27–34. Yekutieli, Y. / Paran, N. S. / Ben-Yishai, Y., 2015: “Bet Nehemya”. HA-ESI 127. http://www.hadashotesi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=24855&mag_id=122 (last accessed 12 November 2018). Zissu, B., 2001: Rural Settlement in the Judaean Hills and Foothills from the Late Second Temple Period to the Bar Kokhba Revolt. PhD Dissertation, The Hebrew University. Jerusalem.

Transitions, Truncations, Correlations, and Disassociations in Early Bronze Age Lithic Systems of the Southern Levant Issues of Process Francesca Manclossi 1 and Steven A. Rosen 2 0F

1F

Abstract The lithic systems of the 4th and 3rd millennia BC of the Southern Levant follow chronological trajectories independent of standard periodization schemes. Although coinciding in some particulars—as in the association of the introduction of Canaanean blade technology with the transition from the Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age—in other particulars, there is little correspondence between the lithic systems and other realms of the period’s material culture or socio–political change. Furthermore, given the geographic variability in lithic systems, chronological transitions, as seen from a lithic perspective, may not even coincide from region to region, particularly the desert systems and those of the settled zones. The Egyptian incursion of the late 4th millennium BC offers another anomaly in terms of lithic trajectories. Explanation of lithic variability, and that of material culture in general, requires reconstruction of full systems of production, distribution, and use, well beyond the mere explication of typological or technological chronologies.

Keywords: Transition; Chalcolithic; Early Bronze Age; Lithics; Southern Levant; Variability

1.

Introduction

We are all aware that archaeological systematics, most especially periodization systems, are etic structures that serve as shorthand systems for ready chronological reference. Any intelligent archaeologist understands the essential shortcomings of periodization schemes; nevertheless, we tend to suffer from selective memory loss when applying such chronologies to understanding chronological change. This is bad enough when we, as archaeologists, make claims like 1117, The Year Civilization Collapsed, 3 but researchers in sister disciplines, for example, history, climatology, geomorphology, and geography, take our rhetoric and periodization schemes at face value, assigning hard and fast values to distinctions between periods. We see two issues. One basic problem, usually not addressed, is our primary reliance on a limited number of variables (read ‘one’, pottery) for actually producing periodization frameworks; in post–Pre–Pottery Neolithic systematics, ceramics are the nearly exclusive means of defining cultural horizons. In the Early Bronze Age, periodization has been based exclusively on ceramic variability, with stratigraphic integrity defining the closed sets of the assemblages. 4 That is, if two discrete strata show similar ceramic assemblages (e.g., Strata II and III at Arad), no period distinction is drawn. 5 When attempts are made to integrate other realms of material culture into the periodization scheme, they are integrated into a framework already constructed using ceramics. That framework does not change, regardless of the changes evident in other realms of material culture, whether architecture, metallurgy, or other realms of material culture, or cultural phenomena. A second issue concerns the problem of process. We perhaps oversimplify, but for the most part, periodization schemes are constructed based on essentially mechanical principles of material culture analysis. 6 Issues of variability in diffusion, adoption, production, distribution, frequency, replacement, function, geography, among others, undermine any simple equation of material culture and chronology. 2F

3F

4F

5F

1

Tel Aviv University; email: [email protected]. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev; email: [email protected]. 3 Cline, 2014. 4 Philip / Baird, 2000. 5 Amiran, 1996; Amiran et al., 1978. 6 Cf. Clarke, 1978. 2

302

F. Manclossi and S. A. Rosen

Synchronicities are assumed based on mutually shared components of material culture, but, as we are all aware, the adoption of a new cultural attribute never occurs, in fact, overnight, and different cultural attributes may be adopted, adapted, or innovated, at different times, in different places, and at different rates. 7 We are not saying anything new here—we are all aware of these pitfalls. However, we would like to offer a case study of how these problems really affect our perceptions of chronology by looking at lithic assemblages in the Early Bronze Age and comparing how they parallel and contrast with ceramic chronologies. 6F

2.

Basic Lithic Chronologies

At the most simplistic level, the lithic types and subtypes of the 4th and 3rd millennia BC correspond only partially, and not especially consistently, to accepted chronological periodization schemes. 8 Figures 1 and 2 summarize the basic techno-typological classes of the northern settled zone and the desert in this long span. 7F

Figure 1. Techno-typological classes from the northern settled zone. 1: Tabular scraper (redrawing from Rosen 1997: Fig. 3.34: 1); 2: Disc-shaped tool (redrawing from Rosen 1997: Fig. 3.41: 1); 3–6: Ad hoc tools (redrawing from Manclossi 2016: Fig. 268; redrawing from Rosen 1997: Figs. 3.26: 14, 3.44: 2, 3.45); 7: Ax/adze (redrawing from Rosen 1997: Fig. 3.48: 1); 8–10: Sickle blades (redrawing from Manclossi 2016: Fig. 110.1; redrawing from Rosen 1997: Figs. 3.10:12, 3.11: 1); 11–12: Microlithic tools (redrawing from Manclossi 2016: Fig. 139.3; redrawing from Rosen 1997: Fig. 3.25: 4).

Beginning with the northern zone, defined for our purposes here as the Beersheva Basin and areas farther north (the edge of Early Bronze Age urbanism and dry-farming practicability), lithic assemblages from the early 4th (still Ghassulian Chalcolithic) through the 3rd millennium BC (Early Bronze Age I, II, III and IV=Intermediate Bronze Age) are composed of a limited number of typo-technological classes. 9 These include axes/adzes, ad hoc tools, tabular scrapers, discs/star-shaped tools (grouped together here), microlithic tools (micro-endscrapers, and microlithic drills), and several techno-types of sickle segments. In addition to these ‘indigenous’ classes, Egyptian types can be associated with either exchange, varying throughout this 8F

7

E.g., Perlès, 2013. Rosen, 1997a: 13–14. 9 Rosen, 1997a: 39–102. 8

Transitions, Truncations, Correlations, and Disassociations

303

long period, or most especially an Egyptian presence, including Egyptian flint knappers toward the end of the 4th millennium BC. 10 9F

Figure 2. Techno-typological classes from the southern desert zone. 1–3: Arrowheads (redrawing from Rosen 1997: Figs. 3.2: 26, 3.3: 3, 11); 4–5: Micro-drills (redrawing from Rosen 1997: Fig. 3.27: 5, 13); 6: Tabular scraper (redrawing from Rosen 1997: Fig. 3.30: 2); 7–11: Ad hoc tools (redrawing from Rosen 1997: Fig. 3.45: 5; redrawing from Manclossi et al., 2018: Fig. 29: h, k; redrawing from Rosen 1997: Fig. 3.21: 5, 8).

Figure 3. Functional sequence of the northern lithic assemblages.

10

Rosen, 1988.

304

F. Manclossi and S. A. Rosen

We divide our typologies into three classes: functional, technological, and morphological. Each behaves somewhat differently, reflecting different types of continuity and discontinuity. Examining first the functional sequences (Fig. 3), only two functional classes, sickle segments and ad hoc tools (reflecting general domestic functions and no single type of utilization), show continuity throughout these two millennia. Other classes disappear, in some cases (axes/adzes, drills, perhaps micro-endscrapers which probably functioned as small cutting tools) replaced by copper equivalents, 11 and in others, the function itself seemingly dropping out (tabular scrapers). The use of conventional periodization schemes, such as EBI, II, III, need not indicate that the cessation of use coincided precisely with the beginning or end of a particular subperiod. Data are insufficient to make these determinations. 10F

Figure 4. Technological sequence of the northern lithic assemblages.

Technologically (Fig. 4), there is even less continuity through this long period than functionally. Only ad hoc tools, a simple base-line of lithic reduction, continue throughout the two millennia. Notably, Canaanean blade technology is evident throughout the Early Bronze Age, including the Intermediate Bronze Age. 12 There is no reliable evidence that it appears in classic Ghassulian contexts, despite claims to the contrary. 13 Unlike Canaanean technology, the large-flake technology of tabular scrapers shows continuity across the Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age transition, 14 continuing through the end of the Early Bronze Age III. Again, in contrast to the Canaanean blade trajectory, it does not continue into the Intermediate Bronze Age. 15 On the 1F

12F

13F

14F

11

Rosen, 1996, 1997a: 159–162; Manclossi et al., 2018. E.g., Rosen, 2012. 13 Milevski et al., 2011 contra Bar / Winter, 2010. 14 E.g., Rosen, 1997a: 75; Abe, 2008. 15 E.g., McCartney, 1996; Rosen, 2012. 12

Transitions, Truncations, Correlations, and Disassociations

305

other hand, the appearance of patterned incisions in the cortices of many tabular scrapers only in the Early Bronze Age I (not present in the Chalcolithic) reflects the addition of a modifying technology in the production of these tools with the end of the Ghassulian. 16 Morphologically, the sequence is almost identical to that of the technological sequence. A possible increase in reaping knives (using Canaanean blade technology) in the Intermediate Bronze Age may be evident. Of course, the Egyptian incursion toward the end of the 4th millennium also adds short-term types and technologies,17 including Egyptian blade technologies and blade tools, Egyptian-style bladelet tools, and various bifacial knives (Fig. 5).18 Although these should be seen very much as a cultural intrusion, it is telling that none of these types were adopted by indigenous Figure 5. Egyptian lithics. 1: Bifacial knives (redrawing from Rosen 1997: Fig. 3.39: 1); 2–3: Blade/bladelets knappers or consumers, and they appear and (redrawing from Rosen 1997: Fig. 3.22: 1, 3). disappear without apparent direct connection to other lithic trajectories.19 In terms of the lithic sequences in the north, the transition to the 2nd millennium BC is most notable in the near absence of transition. Although basic functional continuities can be traced in the need for reaping implements and the use of lithics in general domestic activities, in virtually all other particulars, the 2ndmillennium Middle Bronze Age constitutes a break with earlier lithic systems. This is most evident in the Canaanean sickles, replaced by the profoundly different Large Geometric sickles. 20 Other formal lithic types disappeared before this period. The southern zone, including the Negev south of the Beersheva Basin, much of the Sinai Peninsula, and areas of southern and eastern Jordan beyond the settled zone, presents a fundamentally different periodization dynamic, reflected in the Timnian Culture Complex. 21 Furthermore, the basic lithic systems, technologies, and typologies contrast with those of the North. Unlike the northern zone, where the lithic industries seem to form relatively discrete techno-typological classes, in the southern zone, only two distinct technological classes can be defined for the period under discussion, an ad hoc reduction system from which many different functional and morphological types were produced (arrowheads, microlithic drills, and a range of other tool types), and tabular scrapers. Adopting the same functional/technological/morphological framework used for the northern region, functional continuities across the entire period can be traced in the use of chipped stone sickle segments (in microenvironments allowing for agriculture), microlithic drills for bead production,22 and in the general set of domestic ad hoc tools. Arrowheads (notably absent in the northern industries) and tabular scrapers do not appear in Intermediate Bronze Age assemblages. 23 The presence of a Negev horizon equivalent to the Early Bronze Age III in the North is unclear, so the precise delineation of the type sequences is still to be determined (Fig. 6). Technologically, the southern industries present an even simpler picture. The generalized small-flake ad hoc chaîne opératoire can be traced throughout the entire Timnian sequence, back to the 6th millennium BC, 15F

16F

17F

18F

16

Rosen, 1997a: 75. Rosen, 1988. 18 Schmidt, 1992. 19 Also Rosen, 2014. 20 Rosen, 1997a: 60; Manclossi et al., 2018 21 Rothenberg / Glass, 1922; Kozloff, 1972. 22 Rosen 1994/1995. 23 E.g., Vardi et al., 2007; Rosen / Vardi, 2014. 17

306

F. Manclossi and S. A. Rosen

continuing through the end of the 3rd millennium BC. 24 Again, the nature of the apparent gap in the mid-3rd millennium (Early Bronze Age III) is not clear. 25 19F

20F

Figure 6. Functional sequence of the southern lithic assemblages.

Figure 7. Arrowhead morphological sequence in the southern desert region.

24 25

See Rosen, 2011. Avner / Carmi, 2001; Sebbane et al., 1993.

Transitions, Truncations, Correlations, and Disassociations

307

Unlike the functional and technological sequences, morphologically, the lithic assemblages show significant differentiation over the 5th through 3rd millennia BC. 26 For the arrowheads, clear typological change can be discerned in the transverse arrowhead class, from triangular transverse points in the 5th and early 4th millennium BC to rectangular in the mid-4th and lunate-shaped in the late 4th and early 3rd millennium BC. 27 Small points are present in low numbers throughout the sequence, but numbers are too small for subtype analysis. Notably, no chipped stone arrowheads have been recovered from Terminal Timnian (Intermediate Bronze Age) sites 28 (Fig. 7). Microlithic drills seem to vary chronologically as well, 29 from triangular pieces in the early part of the sequence to double shouldered pieces in the Late Timnian (Early Bronze Age II), and back to simple triangles and rods in the Terminal Timnian period (Intermediate Bronze Age). Sickle segments seem to show a similar sequence, with a general background of simple-blade and simple backed-blade sickle segments throughout the sequence in those sites where sickle segments are present, but with a marked increase in arched-backedblade sickle segments in the Late Timnian sites of the Uvda Valley. 30 Chronological variability is also evident in tabular scrapers. Beyond the distinction between incised and non-incised pieces, evident in the northern industries as well, metric analysis of South Sinai tabular scrapers shows a decrease in size from the 5th to the 4th millennium BC. 31 In fact, the presence of incised tabular scrapers is not clear, since at least some of them derive from ‘Aradian’ style settlements, 32 that is, they may be northern ‘intrusions’. For example, the tabular scrapers from the Aqaba sites 33 do not seem to show the incised designs evident in northern sites (excluding, for example, Mitzpe Shalem, 34 whose attribution to the desert cultures is not clear). If the northern-region lithic systems show a break from the 3rd to the 2nd millennium BC, the contrasts are even greater in the South, in the total absence of assemblages to analyze. By the late 2nd millennium BC, the beginning of the Iron Age, little is left of the large assemblages of earlier periods excepting a few sickle segments, little analyzed. 35 Summarizing the general lithic class/typological trajectories, several points may be emphasized. First, the lithic record demonstrates that the desert and the sown do not correspond in terms of material culture sequences. The adoption of northern terminologies based on northern ceramic sequences, and presumably social trends and events is misleading when applied to southern cultures. If those southern cultures are never totally independent of their northern cousins, the assumption that periodization schemes designed to reflect northern society are appropriate for the South is misguided. Furthermore, the lithic record in general, even in the north, reflects cultural trends which need not mesh with those of other elements of material culture, but which may have real meaning in terms of understanding 4th and 3rd millennia societies. 21F

2F

23F

24F

25F

26F

27F

28F

29F

30F

3.

Lithic Process

The typological sequences described above offer little for explaining change. In fact, analysis of lithic assemblages, especially the waste assemblages, and our consequent ability to reconstruct lithic production systems, offer almost unique insights into changing the dynamics of social and economic organization over these periods. Lithic systems reflect a range of economic-organization types tied to different functions.36 As such, the lithic types represent changing systems of specialization, distribution, and use, in addition to their 31F

26

Rosen, 2010. Rosen, 1983a; 2011. 28 E.g., Vardi et al., 2007; Rosen / Vardi, 2014. 29 Rosen, 1994–1995, 1997b. 30 Rosen, 2001. 31 Rosen and Gopher, 2003. 32 E.g., Gersht, 2003. 33 Herling, 2002a, b. 34 Greenhut, 1989. 35 Vardi et al., 2007. 36 Rosen, 1997a. 27

308

F. Manclossi and S. A. Rosen

status as index fossils. Following the chronological sequences reviewed above, economic structures can be traced as they rise, achieve peaks, and transform or disappear. As with the chronological sequences outlined above, three sets of processes can be examined over the long term in the contexts of this study: changes in the functions of lithic implements; changes in production systems, read economics; and changes in meaning and messaging as reflected in specific types and morphologies. Thus, the sequences outlined above reflect more than random changes in type fossils; they reflect changes in social and cultural behaviors that can be placed in historical contexts to explain historical change. 3.1 Function Lithic functions decline in the periods under discussion, and these declines can be assigned to two factors, either the replacement of flint tools with copper (ca. 4000 calBC) or bronze (at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC), or the eclipse in their general function. Beginning with the northern cultures, in the transition from the Ghassulian to the earliest stages of the Early Bronze Age, flint axes disappear, seemingly replaced by copper axes after an overlap of several hundred years. This most likely has to do with the systematic development of access to copper sources, especially at Feinan, in the mid-4th millennium BC (and perhaps somewhat earlier), the greater efficiency in the production of copper axes, and specific properties of copperax morphology as opposed to flint-ax morphology making copper tools more effective for some tasks. 37 Flint microdrills likely disappear for a similar reason, replaced either by ad hoc substitutes or by copper drill bits or awls, although the process of drilling with soft copper would require an added abrasive to make it effective. Micro-endscrapers disappeared sometime in the early phases of the Early Bronze Age I, but it is difficult to assess why they disappeared since their function is not clear. The disappearance of star/disc tools 38 with the end of the Chalcolithic is probably an example of the eclipse in general function, most likely a major shift in religious practice, as the symbols of Ghassulian cult practices 39 are eclipsed in the early 4th millennium BC. 40 Similarly, the end of tabular scrapers with the transition to the Intermediate Bronze Age should best be attributed to a decline in the need for the type, rather than some functional replacement. 41 It can also be noted that there is no absence of access to lithic sources as Terminal Timnian sites are present in areas previously exploited for tabular scraper production. In the South, the continued use of chipped stone arrowheads through the Late Timnian (mid-3rd millennium BC) suggests significant functional differences with the North, either in the continued role of hunting in these societies (also evident in the use of desert kites) or the continued use of chipped-stone arrowheads in warfare and raiding. 42 Notably, although stone arrowheads are present in virtually all wellcollected assemblages through the Late Timnian 43 by the mid-3rd millennium BC, they disappeared from the material culture repertoires of the desert and are absent from Terminal Timnian (Intermediate Bronze Age) assemblages. 44 Placing Timnian culture into a larger context as a pastoral society, as reflected in the bone assemblages, the rock shelters used for stabling, and the enclosure-based architecture of the society, the continued role of hunting should be seen as essential a social function rather than a necessary element of subsistence. The decline in arrowheads should thus be seen as reflecting changes in social functions. The decline of tabular scrapers in the South, in the transition to the Terminal Timnian culture (Intermediate Bronze Age), parallels that in the North. However, given the commonly domestic contexts of tabular scrapers 32F

3F

34F

35F

36F

37F

38F

39F

37

Manclossi et al., 2019.; Rosen, 1996. Epstein / Noy, 1988. 39 Elliott, 1977. 40 Vardi / Gilead, 2013. 41 Rosen / Vardi, 2014. 42 See Rosen, 2011. 43 E.g., Hermon et al., 2001; Rosen, 1983a. 44 E.g., Rosen / Vardi, 2014; Vardi et al., 2007. 38

Transitions, Truncations, Correlations, and Disassociations

309

in the Timnian culture, 45 if the ritual functions associated with tabular scrapers probably ceased, their domestic functions were probably taken up by other tools. The use of sickle blades in the South reflects, for the most part, micro-environments where farming was possible; 46 that is, discontinuities in the presence of chipped-stone sickle segments reflect geography rather than chronology. The essential continuity in microlithic drills reflects the continued use and production of beads in the South, 47 presumably traded into the North. The contrast with northern industries is notable, especially since there is a clear continued use of beads throughout the region. 48 Finally, the fundamental continuity in the ad hoc system, reflecting basic domestic functions, continued throughout the entire period. 40F

41F

42F

43F

3.2 Production Systems Lithic production and distribution systems during the periods under discussion vary considerably. Different tool types were produced by different groups under different production structures, and these groups and structures varied chronologically and between the northern and southern societies. The production structures can be organized around three basic axes: function (functional type), time, and region. Four sickle production systems can be outlined in the settled zone: The Chalcolithic system, the Canaanean system, the Large Geometric system, and an opportunistic ad hoc system that operated adjunct to the Canaanean system. 49 The production of sickle blades during the Chalcolithic reflects an “intracommunity” form of specialization (Fig. 8.1). As indicated by Beit Eshel and Gaza A, 50 a few knappers produced the majority of the sickle blades in small workshops near flint sources, and integrated this intensive production with smaller-scale episodes in the habitation sites, such as those documented at Bir es-Safadi 51. The range of material found at Beit Eshel, showing all the steps of the blade reduction strategy and sickleelement manufacture, 52 suggests that the specialists not only over-produced blade-blanks but especially finished sickle elements exceeding their needs. In this regard, different scenarios can be suggested. On the one hand, the specialists manufactured finished sickle elements that were exchanged with the other members of the community. Flint pieces were then used by the farmers to manufacture and repair their own sickles. Lithic segment standardization seems to facilitate their replacement, which might occur several times during the harvesting season. On the other hand, the discovery of glossy pieces at Beit Eshel indicates that complete sickles were also manufactured at the workshop, and suggests that the artisans produced composite tools that were then exchanged. As for the sickle blade production mode, which integrated intensive with smaller-scale episodes, both sickle manufacture systems possibly coexisted, and the artisans exchanged both flint segment and complete composite sickles. The knappers were members of the same community, and they were easily available to answer the demands of all the farmers. This is also suggested by the relatively high number of discarded unworked blades found in the workshops and habitation sites, which might indicate a low value of individual blades and blade segments, usually little resharpened. 53 Edge retouch was probably limited by the relatively narrow width of the blades produced, and the segments were frequently changed. Raw materials were readily available, deriving either from in situ flint veins or, more often, adjacent wadi cobbles. Blades were abundant, and one can conclude that there were specialists in most, if not all, settlements. The Canaanean production system has little overlap, chronologically, with the Chalcolithic system; there are virtually no reliably dated assemblages which show the concomitant presence of both Canaanean and Chalcolithic blades. This lack of overlap indicates a rapid economic change, a major change in sickleproduction structure, coinciding with a significant technological transition. Canaanean blades were produced 4F

45F

46F

47F

48F

45

E.g., Henry, 1995: 362. E.g., Avner, 1996. 47 E.g., Rosen, 1994–95; Rosen / Vardi, 2014. 48 See Milevski, 2011: 169–174. 49 Rosen, 1997; Manclossi / Rosen, 2019. 50 Gilead et al., 2004; Roshwalb, 1981: 21–73. 51 Hermon, 2008. 52 Vardi / Gilead, 2009, 2010. 53 Rosen et al., 2014. 46

310

F. Manclossi and S. A. Rosen

almost exclusively at centralized production sites. At Yarmouth, there is possible evidence for some ondemand production, 54 and a few sites show single-core finds, 55 but, in fact, cores, the direct evidence for production, are absent from most sites. Small caches of complete (unworked) Canaanean blades, interpreted as trade packets, have been found in some locations, apparently reflecting units of trade, each of 8–15 blades. 56 This indicates that the specialists, few in absolute numbers, produced blades, not complete sickles, which were apparently assembled by the farmers or perhaps some kind of secondary intermediaries. The Canaanean “inter-specialized” system, i.e., inter-community (Fig. 8.2), contrasts with that of the Chalcolithic in additional ways: 49F

50F

51F

1. The number of unused Canaanean blades in lithic assemblages is always limited. The only Canaanean blade workshop for which data is available, at Titris Hoyuk in eastern Turkey, 57 contained some 2000 cores in various states of use, and fewer than 50 Canaanean blades, the rest presumably having been exported, again in contrast to the Chalcolithic system. 2. The use of lever-pressure flaking requires a considerably higher skill than the direct percussion system used for Chalcolithic blades, indicating greater investment in apprenticeship and presumably only a limited number of specialists, on the order of 10–20 throughout western Palestine. 58 3. Canaanean sickle segments show a considerably higher value than do Chalcolithic blade segments, as evident in the high degrees of edge retouch (apparently carried out while the sickles were in the haft) and the common reversal of blade segments in the haft. Blades were discarded only after edges were resharpened multiple times and then reversed in the haft. This is undoubtedly partially a function of the greater specialization in production, that is, fewer knappers. 52F

53F

The Canaanean system continues into the Intermediate Bronze Age but seems to show a decline in sickle segment value in this period, at least as reflected in the lesser degrees of retouch/resharpening in the Sha’ar HaGolan assemblage. 59 This is also possibly reflected in the greater width of the blades from contemporary assemblages at Lachish 60 and Umm Hamad, 61 although no data from these sites are available. 62 Similarly, McCartney indicates intensive retouch of Canaanean blades at Tell Iktanu, 63 but again, in the absence of data, evaluation is difficult. The decline of value, at least at Sha’ar HaGolan, indicates a change in economic structure and perhaps greater variability in structure, but the blades are still a product of specialized manufacture. Beyond this, we cannot, as yet, reconstruct the system. Chronologically and functionally parallel to the Canaanean system, sickle segments were occasionally replaced with simple blades, 64 probably produced opportunistically on-site as part of the general ad hoc production system. Thus, sickle segments were sometimes produced by the farmers who articulated the actual sickles, presumably when an appropriate Canaanean segment was unavailable. 54F

5F

56F

57F

58F

59F

54

Manclossi et al., 2016. E.g., Futato, 1996. 56 E.g., Marder et al., 1995; Shimelmitz / Rosen, 2014. 57 Hartenberger et al., 2000. 58 Manlcossi / Rosen, 2019. 59 Rosen, 2012; Rosen et al., 2014. 60 Waechter, 1958. 61 Betts, 1992. 62 For a discussion of the width of Canaanean blades, see Shimelmitz / Rosen, 2014. 63 McCartney, 1996. 64 Rosen 1997a: 44. 55

Transitions, Truncations, Correlations, and Disassociations

Figure 8. The specialized production system of sickle blades (Modified after Manclossi et al. 2019: Fig. 10).

311

312

F. Manclossi and S. A. Rosen

Similarly to the transition from Chalcolithic to Canaanean sickles, virtually no overlap is seen in the shift from Canaanean to Large Geometric sickles, revealing a seemingly rapid change corresponding to the transition to the Middle Bronze Age. The two technologies for the production of sickles contrast greatly, the Canaanean lever knapping technique being replaced by direct hard hammer percussion, perhaps using metal hammers. 65 Both systems clearly reflect specialized production, and cores for the production of Large Geometric sickles are even rarer than Canaanean blade ones (perhaps being more difficult to recognize). The production structures contrast greatly, and the transition to the Large Geometric system reverts to a sickle artisan-production structure. The flint knappers, now employing a simpler lithic technology, also produced the composite sickles, distinct from the Canaanean system (Fig. 8.3). This difference is indicated by the fact that each sickle segment was truncated to specifically match its position in the haft, and by the use of a complex hafting system based on the use of a plastic material such as plaster or gypsum. Thus, there is a realignment of labor-skills distribution for sickle production in the transition to the Middle Bronze Age. Two other production systems extend from the Chalcolithic period into the Early Bronze Age, the tabular scraper production and trade system, and the ad hoc system. Other production systems either show insufficient material enabling us to reconstruct the production structures (the bladelet systems of the Early Bronze Age I) or do not continue into the Early Bronze Age (the ax/adze production system). The tabular scraper system, in the North, is not actually a production system but just a trade system. There is scholarly consensus that it originates in the pastoral desert periphery, based on the exclusive presence of quarry sites in these regions. 66 These tools continue to be traded to the settled zone from the Late Neolithic through the end of the Early Bronze Age III. As indicated above, their absence in the Intermediate Bronze Age points to a cessation in the function, a decline in demand, and the consequent decline of the trading system. 67 Within the Early Bronze Age, the geometric patterns on the tools’ cortices that appear in the transition from Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age seem to have been incised onto the tools by the settled region consumers, and not by the producers. This is reflected in the scarcity of incised tabular scrapers in Late Timnian sites (as opposed to Aradian sites) in the Negev. 68 This may also reflect contrasting functions between North and South, with more significant stress on centralized ritual function in the settled zone. Shimelmitz and Adams have also noted retouching debris from tabular scrapers in the Megiddo temple precinct, 69 suggesting either that trade was in blanks or that the scrapers (almost undoubtedly knives) were retouched/resharpened by the consumers. The ad hoc tools show general continuity in the production structures throughout the periods under review. 70 In particular, the continuity in the basic tools of domestic activities and their production structures offers a strong indication of basic underlying domestic economic continuities in these periods. The ad hoc tools were produced expediently by their users, using immediate available raw materials. Little knowledge was required for their production, they carried little symbolic loading, were not standardized in morphology, and reflected only the immediate need at hand and the low-level skills of the knapper. They were used and discarded quickly after use. If occasionally reused, this was more a function of patterns of discard and availability than deliberate curation. In the South, the Timnian industries comprise two basic systems, a flexible system that could be modified to produce flake variants (including occasional blades) appropriate for a range of tools, and the tabular scraper system. 71 Concerning the flake industry, there is no evidence for specialized chipped stone production, although it is likely that hunters produced their own arrowheads, bead makers their own drills, farmers the sickle segments (in those environments where farming took place), while the ad hoc tools were produced on demand. Raw materials are always local. There is no evidence for change in this system’s production 60F

61F

62F

63F

64F

65F

6F

65

Manclossi et al., 2018. E.g., Rosen ,1983b; see also Abe, 2008; Fujii ,2011; Müller-Neuhof, 2006; Quintero et al., 2002. 67 Rosen / Vardi, 2014. 68 E.g., Gersht, 2003; Herling, 2002a, b. 69 Shimelmitz / Adams, 2014. 70 Manclossi and Rosen, 2019. 71 Rosen, 2010, 2011. 66

Transitions, Truncations, Correlations, and Disassociations

313

structures throughout the long period under review, from Middle through Late and Terminal Timnian (5th through late 3rd millennia BC). If the tabular scraper production and distribution systems show general continuity throughout the periods under review, several issues should be considered. First, the tabular scraper system is essentially a pastoral production system supplying goods from the desert to the settled zone. 72 There are undoubtedly other such systems, such as trade in shells, greenstones, milling stones, copper in the early stages of production, and perhaps also pastoral products. Such systems are sensitive to the vagaries of settled-system demand and markets; there must have been fluctuations in demand that affected production intensity at different times. 73 Unfortunately, there is as yet no means for reliably dating tabular scrapers or tabular scraper quarry sites. Abe has made a case for increasing production intensity with the rise of urban societies in the Levant, most notably in Jordan, 74 but in the Negev and Sinai, production seems extensive rather than intensive. 75 Furthermore, the discovery of mortuary cache sites, with dozens of tabular scrapers, 76 suggests internal as well as external demand. The cessation of tabular scraper trade with the end of the Early Bronze Age III and the transition to the Intermediate Bronze Age supports the idea of a demand-driven production system. Despite the presence of pastoralists in the desert in areas with raw materials appropriate to the production of tabular scrapers in the Terminal Timnian (IB) tabular scrapers were no longer manufactured. 67F

68F

69F

70F

71F

3.3 Meaning and Messaging Systems Stylistic and symbolic loading in material culture is integral to the way it functions in any society. Nonfunctional decorative elements, technological choices from a range of equivalent technologies and features, and varying morphologies equivalent in their function all serve as etic tools for defining or identifying cultures archaeologically. Within cultures, this variability may also be active in its messaging, defining identities at different levels of society, from the idiosyncratic through various layers of cultural affinity. To date, there has been no detailed study of the incised patterns that appear on tabular scrapers with the onset of the Early Bronze Age. Clearly, in the transition from Ghassulian to the earliest cultures of the Early Bronze Age, the incorporation of abstract incised symbols on tabular scrapers has cultural meaning and context attached to it. Those symbols include such signs as pound signs (#) and variants, a proto-aleph and variants, and others. In one case, a Dumuzi (orant) figure is present. 77 These symbols appear in the earliest stages of the Early Bronze Age, prior to urbanization and, as with Mitzpe Shalem, 78 need not be associated with urban contexts. They mark a change in symbol systems, or at least the display of symbol systems, a processual change. The disappearance of tabular scrapers and the symbols incised on them occurs at the transition to the Intermediate Bronze Age; again, a processual change. Beyond specific symbols, stylistic change—either implicit in technological choices 79 or morphological variability 80—also reflects tensions in modes of identity. In the northern lithic industries, sickle systems and technologies changed with social alignments, from Ghassulian to the EB cultures, and from the cultures of the 3rd millennium to those of the 2nd millennium BC. However, the limited number of specialists involved in sickle production and the hidden nature of most of the technological attributes of the blade segments (buried in hafts) suggests that the social messaging and impact of these changes were limited to the producers themselves. In this context, it is of note that the presence of Egyptian flint knappers in southwestern Palestine in the late 4th millennium BC 81 did not result in any change in technology amongst the local knappers. The Canaanean lithic knowledge transmission system remained distinct, not affected by alternative technologies. 72F

73F

74F

75F

76F

72

See Abe, 2007; Fujii, 2011; Quintero et al., 2002; Rosen, 1983b. See Rosen, 2016. 74 Abe, 2008. 75 See also Fujii, 2011; Müller-Neuhof, 2006. 76 E.g., Rosen et al., 2019; Rosen, 1997: 74–75. 77 Rosen / Gopher, 2003, Fig. 5.46: 5. 78 Greenhut, 1989. 79 E.g., Sackett, 1982, 1990. 80 E.g., Wiessner, 1983, 1984. 81 E.g., Rosen, 1982. 73

314

F. Manclossi and S. A. Rosen

In the desert regions, variability in arrowhead morphology seems to represent a case of stylistic, morphological change. In contrast to the sickle systems, chipped-stone arrowheads were probably produced by a large part of the population, perhaps most males. The transverse arrowhead sequence associated with the different phases of the Timnian culture complex shows early dominance of triangular points, followed by trapezes, and, in the Late Timnian (ca. 3000 calBC), microlithic lunates. 82 Small points are also present during this period, but these are both rare and do not seem to reflect any chronological sequence. There seems to be also some geographic variability at play here. To date, the trapezes which characterize the 4th millennium BC nawamis tombs in Sinai 83 have not been found in the Negev, and the narrow trapezes found in North-Sinai Early Bronze Age I sites differ in dimensions from those of South Sinai. 84 This difference may be chronological (the northern materials are perhaps later), but also geographic. Lunates are, of course, also found in Early Dynastic contexts, 85 but triangles and trapezes are rare in Egypt. Currently, it is not possible to offer any interpretation of this variability, although, in general, one may assume it reflects shifting badges of identity. 7F

78F

79F

80F

4.

Conclusions

In the classical models of archaeological systematics, based on cultural, historical frameworks, archaeological periods were real and discrete episodes that could be defined based on the rigorous analysis of material culture and stratigraphy. The underlying premise of culture-historical systematics was that of chronologically and geographically shifting ethnic groups, each identifiable by reference to a specific material culture assemblage. Although these assemblages varied over time, they could be traced as integrated (if varying) units over time and space, offering a history of an ethnic group or people. Although few researchers uncritically accept these premises today, we are still left with the frameworks constructed on their basis. The lithic sequences from the long Early Bronze Age correlate only partially with those from other realms of material culture. If we were to construct a periodization scheme based on lithics alone, it would resemble our current frameworks only at certain junctures, most notably the transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age and from the Intermediate Bronze Age (Early Bronze Age IV) to the Middle Bronze Age proper, and this, based almost exclusively on sickle segments. Furthermore, the southern sequence simply does not fit, and this is, of course, a function of the Timnian culture complex and its essential autonomy visà-vis northern cultures. However, beyond the issue of establishing cultural sequences, the lithic industries offer additional insights. Stone tools in these periods were produced in different systems, reflecting different economic structures, different groups of producers, and different consumers and functions. The sequence of these stone tool systems thus immediately provides information on changing structures within society, including economic structures, activities performed, and even levels of social identity. By analyzing the stone tools, we can trace continuities through periods of discontinuity and breaks where other elements of material culture indicate continuity. Beyond chronology, the reconstruction of the processes behind the variability offers reflections on the changes that were actually taking place over this long Early Bronze Age, and thus grants insight into historical changes beyond assumptions of ethnic variations.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank Matthew J. Adams, Valentine Roux, and Felix Höflmayer for inviting us to the workshop “Transition during the Early Bronze Age in the Levant: Methodological Problems and Interpretative Perspectives”.

82

Rosen, 1983a, 2011. Bar-Yosef et al., 1977; 1986. 84 S.A. Rosen, pers. obs. 85 E.g., Schmidt, 1992. 83

Transitions, Truncations, Correlations, and Disassociations

315

References Abe, M., 2008: The Development of Urbanism and Pastoral Nomads in the Southern Levant: Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Stone Tool Production Industries and Flint Mines in the Jafr Basin, Southern Jordan. PhD Dissertation, University of Liverpool. Amiran, R. (ed.), 1996: Early Arad II, the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age IB Settlements and the Early Bronze Age II City: Architecture and Town Planning: Sixth to Eighteen Seasons of Excavations, 1971– 1978, 1980–1984. Jerusalem. Amiran, R. / Paran, U. / Shiloh, Y., /Brown, R. / Tsafir, Y. /Ben-Tor, A. (eds.), 1978: Chalcolithic Settlement and the Early Bronze Age City I. First–fifth Seasons of Excavation 1962–1966, Jerusalem. Avner, U., 1996: “Settlement, Agriculture and Paleoclimate in the ‘Uvda Valley, Southern Negev Desert, 6th–3rd millennia BC”. In A. Issar / N. Brown (eds.): Water, Environment and Society in Times of Climatic Change. Dordrecht. Pp. 147–202. Avner, U. / Carmi, S., 2001: “Settlement patterns in the Southern Levant desert during the 6th–3rd millennia BC: A Revision based on 14C Dating”. Radiocarbon 43(3), 1203–1216. Bar-Yosef, O. / Belfer-Cohen, A. / Goren, A. / Herskovitz, I. / Mienis, H. / Sass, B. / Ilan, O., 1986: “Nawamis and Habitation Sites near Gebel Gunna, Southern Sinai”. Israel Exploration Journal 36, 121–167. Bar-Yosef, O. / Belfer-Cohen, A. / Goren, A. / Smith, P., 1977: “The Nawamis near Ein Huderah (eastern Sinai)”. Israel Exploration Journal 27, 65–88. Bar, S. / Winter, H., 2010: “Canaanean Flint Blades in Chalcolithic Contexts and the Possible Onset of the Transition to the Early Bronze Age: A Case Study from Fazael 2”. Tel Aviv 37, 33–47. Betts, A. V. G., 1992: “The Chipped Stone Assemblage”. In A.V.G. Betts (ed.): Excavations at Tell Um Hammad 1982–198., Edinburgh. Pp. 122–131. Clarke, D.L., 1978: Analytical Archaeology. New York. Cline, E., 2014: 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed. Princeton, NJ. Connan, J. / Nissenbaum, A. / Dessort, D., 1992: “Molecular Archaeology. Export of Dead Sea Asphalt to Canaan and Egypt in the Chalcolithic–Early Bronze Age (4th–3rd millennium BC)”. Geochimica and Cosmochimica Acta 56, 2743–2759. Elliott, C., 1977: “The Religious Beliefs of the Ghassulians c. 4000–3100 BC”. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 109, 3–25. Epstein, C. / Noy, T., 1988. “Observation Concerning Perforated Tools from Chalcolithic Palestine”. Paléorient 14, 133–144. Fujii, S., 2011: ““Lost Property” at Wadi Qusayr 173: Evidence for the Transportation of Tabular Scrapers in the Jafr Basin, Southern Jordan”. Levant 43, 1–14. Futato, E. M., 1996: “Early Bronze Age III Canaanean Blade/Scraper Cores from Tell Halif, Israel”. In J.D. Seger (ed.): Retrieving the Past. Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in Honor of Gus W. Beek. Winona Lake. Pp. 61–74. Gersht, D., 2003: “Flint Assemblages from the Excavated Sites”. In I. Beit-Arieh (ed.): Archaeology of Sinai. Yass Publications in Archaeology 21. Tel Aviv. Pp. 129–183. Gilead, I. / Marder, O. / Khalaily, H. / Fabian, P. / Abadi, Y. / Yisrael. Y., 2004: “The Beit Eshel Chalcolitic Flint Workshop in Beer Sheva: A Preliminary Report”. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 34, 245 ̶ 263. Greenhut, Z., 1989: “Flint Tools”. ‘Atiqot 9, 60–77. Henry, D. O., 1995: Prehistoric Cultural Ecology and Evolution, New York. Herling, L., 2002a: “The Lithic Artefacts from Tall Ḥujayrât al-Ghuzan”. Orient-Archäologie 5, 257–269. — 2002b: “The Lithic Artefacts from Tall al-Magaṣṣ”. Orient-Archäologie 5, 217– 331. Hermon, S., 2008: Socio-Economic Aspects of Chalcolithic (4500–3500 BC) Societies in Southern Levant: A Lithic Perspective. BAR International Series 1744. Oxford. Hermon, S., Vardi, J. / Rosen, S. A., 2011: “The Lithic Assemblage from the Camel Site”. In S. A. Rosen (ed.): An Investigation into Early Desert Pastoralism: Excavations at the Camel Site, Negev. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA Monograph 69. Los Angeles. Pp. 81–109.

316

F. Manclossi and S. A. Rosen

Kozloff, B., 1972/3. “A Brief Note on the Lithic Industries from Sinai”. Museum Ha’aretz Yearbook 15–16, 35–49. Manclossi, F. / Rosen, S. A., 2019: “The Importance of Being Ad Hoc: Patterns and Implications of Expedient Production in the Bronze Age in Israel”. In R. Horowitz / G.S. McCall (eds.): Lithic Technology in Sedentary Societies. Louisville. Pp. 59–88. — 2019: “Dynamics of Change in Flint Sickles of the Age of Metals: New Insights from a Technological Approach”. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 7(1), 6–22. Manclossi, F. / Rosen, S. A. / Boëda, E., 2019: “From Stone to Metal: The Dynamics of Technological Change in the Decline of Chipped Stone Tool Production. A Case Study from the Southern Levant (5th– 1st millennia BCE)”. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 26(4), 1276–1326. Manclossi, F. / Rosen, S. A. / de Miroschedji, P., 2016: “The Canaanean Blades from Tel Yarmuth: A Technological Analysis”. Paléorient 42.1, 49–74. Manclossi, F. / Rosen, S. A. / Lehmann, G., 2018: “The Decline and Disappearance of Chipped-stone Tools: New Insights from Qubur al-Walaydah, a Late Bronze/Iron Age Site in Israel”. Lithic Technology 43, 93–124. McCartney, C., 1996. “A Report on the Chipped Stone Assemblage from Tell Iktanu, Jordan”. Levant 28, 131–155. Milevski, I., 2011: Early Bronze Age Goods Exchange in the Southern Levant: A Marxist Perspective. Sheffield. Milevski, I. / Fabian, P. / Marder, O., 2011: “Canaanean Blades in Chalcolithic Contexts of the Southern Levant?” In J. Lovell / Y. M. Rowan (eds.): Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition. Oxford. Pp. 151–159. Müller-Neuhof, B., 2006: “Tabular Scraper Quarry Site in the Wadi Ruwayshid Region (N/E Jordan)”. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 50, 373–383. Perlès, C., 2013. “Tempi of Change: When Soloists don’t Play Together. Arrhythmia in “Continuous” Change”. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20, 281–299. Philip, G. / Baird, D. (eds.), 2000: Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Sheffield. Quintero, L. A. / Wilke, P. J. / Rollefson, G., 2002: “From Flint Mine to Fan Scrapers: The Late Prehistoric Jafr Industrial Complex”. Bulletin of the American Schools for Oriental Research 327, 17–48. Rosen, S. A., 1982: “Flint Sickle Blades of the Late Proto-historical and Early Historical Periods in Israel”. Tel Aviv 9, 139–145. — 1983a: “The Microlithic Lunate: An Old-new Tool Type from the Negev”. Paléorient 9, 81–83. — 1983b: “The Tabular Scraper Trade: A Model for Material Culture Dispersion”. Bulletin of the American Schools for Oriental Research 249, 79–86. — 1988: “A Preliminary Note on the Egyptian Component of the Chipped Stone Assemblage from Tel ‘Erani”. Israel Exploration Journal 38, 105–116. — 1994/5: “Microlithic Drills from the Carmel Site, Mitzpe Ramon”. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 26, 148–158. — 1996: “The Decline and Fall of Flint”. In G. Odell (ed.): Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory. New York. Pp. 129–158. — 1997a: Lithic after Stone Age. Walnut Creek. — 1997b: “Beyond Milk and Meat: Lithic Evidence for Economic Specialization in the Early Bronze Age Pastoral Periphery in the Levant”. Lithic Technology 22, 99–109. — 2001: “The Lithic Assemblage from ‘Uvda Valley Site 917 and its Spatial Implications”. ‘Atiqot 62, 109– 119. — 2010: “The Desert and the Sown: A Lithic Perspective”. In B. V. Eriksen (ed.): Lithic Technology in Metal Using Societies. Aarhus. Pp. 203–219. — 2011: “Desert Chronologies and Periodization Systems”. In J. L. Lovell / Y. M. Rowan (eds): Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition. Oxford. Pp. 71–83.

Transitions, Truncations, Correlations, and Disassociations

317

— 2012: “Chipped Stone Assemblage”. In E. Eisenberg: The Early Bronze Age IV Site at Sha‘ar Ha-Golan. ‘Atiqot 69, 53–59. — 2013: “Evolution in the Desert: Scale and Discontinuity in the Central Negev (Israel) in the Fourth Millennium BC”. Paléorient 39, 139–148. — 2014: “Lithic Systems of the 4th Millennium BC: A Brief Comparison between the Industries of Egypt and the Southern Levant”. In A. Mączyńska (ed.): The Nile Delta as a Centre of Cultural Interactions between Upper Egypt and the Southern Levant in the 4th millennium BC. Studies in African Archaeology 13. Poznań. Pp. 253–268. — 2017: Revolutions in the Desert. The Rise of Mobile Pastoralism in the Negev and the Arid Zones of the Southern Levant. New York. Rosen, S. A. / Gopher, A., 2013: “Flint Tools from the Survey”. In I. Beit-Arieh (ed.): Archaeology of Sinai, The Ophir Expedition. Yass Publications in Archaeology 21. Tel Aviv, 184–195. Rosen, S. A. / Hermon, S. / Marder, O., 2019: “The Tabular Scraper Caches at Ein Yarka and Eilat: Lithics in a Ritual Context”. In S. Nakamura / T. Adachi / M. Abe (eds.): Decades in Deserts: Essays on Western Asian Archaeology in Honor of Sumio Fujii. Tokyo. Pp. 157–172. Rosen, S. A. / Vardi, J., 2014: “Appendix IIH: The Chipped Stone Assemblage from Be’er Resisim: A Final Report”. In W. G. Dever (ed.): The Early Bronze IV Sites of Jebel Qa’aqir and Be’er Resisim. Winona Lake. Pp. 327–338. Rothenberg, B. / Glass, J., 1992: “The Beginnings and Development of Early Metallurgy and the Settlement and Chronology of the Western Arabah from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age IV”. Levant 24, 141–157. Sackett, J. R., 1982: “Approaches to Style in Lithic Archaeology”. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1, 59–112. — 1990: “Style and Ethnicity in Archaeology: The Case for Isochrestism”. In: M. Conkey / C. Hastorf (eds.): The Use of Style in Archaeology. Cambridge. Pp. 32–43. Sebbane, M. / Ilan, O. / Avner, U. / Ilan, O., 1993: “The Dating of the Early Bronze Age Settlements in the Negev and the Sinai”. Tel Aviv 20, 41–54. Shimelmitz, R. / Adams, M. J., 2014: “Flint Knapping and the Early Bronze Age I Temple of Megiddo, Israel: Some Aspects of the Organization of Late Prehistoric Cult”. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 27, 51–78. Shimelmitz, R. / Rosen, S. A., 2014: “The Flint Assemblage”. In R. Greenberg (ed.): Bet Yerah, the Early Bronze Age Mound. Urban Structure and Material Culture 1933–1986 Excavations. Vol. 2. Jerusalem. Pp. 151–188. Schmidt, K., 1992: “Tell el-Fara’in/ Buto and el-Tell el-Iswid (South): The Lithic Industries from the Chalcolithic to the Early Old Kingdom”. In E. C. M. van den Brink (ed.), The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th–3rd Millennium BC. Jerusalem. Pp. 31–41. Vardi, J. / Gilead, I., 2009: “On the Definition of Errors in Context of Craft Specialization: Krukowski Microburin from the Beit Eshel Chalcolithic Flint Workshop”. In S.A. Rosen / V. Roux (eds.): Techniques and People: Anthropological Perspectives on Technology in the Archaeology of the Proto-historic and Early Historic Periods in the Southern Levant. Mémoires et Travaux du CRFJ 9. Paris. Pp. 125 ̶ 134. Vardi, J. / Gilead, I., 2011: “Side-blow Blade-flakes from the Ghassulian Sickle Blade Workshop of Beit Eshel: A Chalcolithic Solution to a Neolithic Riddle”. In E. Healy / S. Campbell / O. Maeda (eds.): The State of the Stone Terminologies, Continuities and Contexts in the Near Eastern Lithics. SENEPSE 13. Berlin. Pp. 343 ̶ 356. Vardi, J. / Gilead, I., 2013: “Chalcolithic- Early Bronze Age I Transition in the Southern Levant: The Lithic Perspective”. Paléorient 39, 111–123. Vardi, J. / Rosen, S.A. / Hermon, S., 2007: “The Economy of the Early Bronze Age IV Period (ca. 2200– 2000): The Lithic Evidence”. In B. A. Saidel / E. J. Van der Steen (eds.): On the Fringe of Society: Archaeological and Ethnoarchaeological Perspectives on Pastoral and Agricultural Society. Bar International Series 1657. Oxford. Pp. 99–116. Waechter, J., 1958: “Flint Implements”. In O. Tufnell (ed.): Lachish IV. London. Pp. 325–327.

318

F. Manclossi and S. A. Rosen

Wiessner, P., 1983: “Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points”. American Antiquity 49, 253–276. — 1984: “Reconsidering the Behavioural Basis for Style: A Case Study among the Kalahari San”. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3, 190–234. Zutovski, K. / Yerkes, R. W. / Agam, A. / Wilson, L. / Getzov, N. / Milevsky, I / Gopher, A., 2016: “A Techno-typological Analysis of Fan (Tabular) Scrapers from Ein Zippori, Israel”. Journal of Lithic Studies 3, 207–238.